DEC Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Application No.: 22/00923/B Applicant: Mr Jonathan Quine Proposal: Erection of a replacement farmhouse Site Address: Ballakilley Farm Bride Isle Of Man IM7 4AT Planning Officer: Mr Toby Cowell Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 17.02.2023 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. The proposed development would result in the loss of a dwelling considered to be of sufficient historic and architectural significance which warrants protection. In the absence of sufficient evidence demonstrating that the building cannot be appropriately restored and renovated, the principle of replacing the dwelling is therefore unacceptable and contrary to Housing Policy 12 of the Strategic Plan (2016). - R 2. The built form and design of the replacement dwelling is not considered to be of a particularly high quality or conducive to a high standard of development in the context of the existing traditional, historic farmhouse, the immediate streescene and the wider landscape setting of the site. The development would therefore fail to protect or enhance the character and setting of the area, and is therefore unacceptable from a design and visual impact perspective, contrary to General Policy 2 (b) & (c), Planning Circular 3/91 Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside and Housing Policy 14 of the Strategic Plan (2016). _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status

Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following properties/interest groups should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):

Ballacondra Farmhouse, Cranstal, Bride Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and the Environment, 31 First Avenue, Douglas Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society, 95 Malew Street, Castletown

as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site comprises the entirety of Ballakilley Farm, Bride, a working farm located on the southern entry to the village and on the eastern side of the A10 (Bride Road) heading southward towards Ramsey. The farm comprises a group of agricultural buildings and the original historic two-storey farmhouse, which is the subject of this application. There are open fields in agricultural use to the south and east (rear). A single dwelling bounds the wider site to the south, with a housing estate located on the opposite side of the road to the west.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of a replacement farmhouse. The new dwelling would be marginally reoriented counter-clockwise and consist of a bungalow, including habitable accommodation in the roof facilitated by 3 no. front and rear rooflights. The property would incorporate a traditional pitched roof, extending to a ridge height of 6.12m and an eaves height of 2.2m, and include chimney breasts on either gable end with a centrally located gabled porch. The dwelling would be finished in painted sand cement render, a slate roof, UPVC windows and door frames with Manx stone for the front porch. - 2.2 The proposals include alterations to the hardstanding and parking layout, which would be enlarged as a result of the dwelling's reorientation. No further alterations are proposed to the remainder of the wider site, with the access onto the A10 remaining unchanged.

- 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 14/00176/B - Erection of an agricultural worker's dwelling. Withdrawn. - 3.2 13/91452/B - Erection of an agricultural machine store. Approved. - 3.3 11/01430/A - Approval in principle for the re-location of farm dwelling and building. Refused at appeal. - 3.4 11/01262/B - Extension to farm building to provide slaughter house. Approved. - 3.5 00/00941/B - Erection of farm building. Approved. - 3.6 There are various older approvals relating to agricultural buildings dating back to the 1990s and earlier. Application 85/00989/B was approved for the conversion of an existing guest house into an apart-hotel.

- 4.0 PLANNING POLICY

4.1 The application site is identified in the 1982 Development Plan as 'white land' within the countryside that is not zoned for development. The site is not within a Conservation Area but falls within an Area of High Landscape Value - 4.2 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application; Strategic Policy

• 1 Efficient use of land and resources
• 2 Priority for new development to identified towns and villages
• 3 To respect the character of our towns and villages 5 Design and visual impact

• 11 Housing needs

Spatial Policy 5 Development only in countryside in accordance with General Policy 3 General Policy 2 General Development Considerations 3 Exceptions to development in the countryside Environment Policy

• 1 Protection of the countryside
• 2 Protection of Areas of High Landscape Value

Housing Policy 4 Exceptions to allowing new housing in the countryside

• 12 Replacement dwellings in the countryside 14 Siting, size and design of replacement dwellings in the countryside

Transport Policy

• 4 Highways safety

7 Parking provision Infrastructure Policy

• 5 Water conservation and management

Community Policy 7 Designing out criminal and anti-social behaviour 11 Prevention for the outbreak and spread of fire

4.5 Residential Design Guide (2021) This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction. - 4.6 Planning Circular 3/91 Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside.

- 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Bride Parish Commissioners - The Commissioners agreed with the renewal of the property, the current property is unfit for living accommodation. The overall aesthetic of a bungalow rather than a house, would allow a smaller overall footprint, but if done sympathetically then will fit in with surrounding properties. The Commissioners would prefer a new build, sympathetically built, possibly using some of the original stonework, as opposed to the owner being forced into allowing the current property to become derelict (15.09.22). - 5.2 Highways Services do not object to the proposals (29.07.22). - 5.3 DEFA Biodiversity - Building has potential for roosting bats and nesting birds, and therefore recommend that a preliminary assessment is undertaken prior to its demolition. Should the advice of a qualified ecologist not be undertaken, thorough checks for bats and nesting birds must be made prior to demolition. If bats or evidence of bats are found, all work must stop and advice be sought from the Ecosystem Policy Team. In the event of the presence of nesting birds, all work must stop until the birds have finished and vacated the property. Recommendation that bat and bird boxes/bricks are provided as part of the development to ensure there is not net loss for biodiversity on site (10.08.22). - 5.4 Registered Buildings Officer - Recommend refusal. The proposals include the demolition of the existing farm house and replacement with a new dwelling. It is evident that the existing

farm house forms part of the group surviving vernacular farm houses of the Island this property contributes to the island local identity and cultural history. The building's form, massing, positioning and detailing are all vernacular in character and clearly make this building one of both historical and architectural interest as a historic farm house.

I do not consider that the summited structural report can be used to justify the demolition, as no clear case is made that the building cannot be refurbished. In addition to the fundamental objection to the loss of the building I also consider its proposed replacement to be of poor quality not in accordance with current planning policy. I therefore object to the application due to the loss of a vernacular farm house of both historic and architectural interest.

5.5 Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society - Consider it regrettable that the current owner does not have the resources to maintain the building as it is clearly one of the oldest remaining in the village and prominently situated at the entrance to the village. Reference is made to the Bride Village Study, which includes a recommendation for a suggested Conservation Area, The representation notes that the building falls within the suggested Conservation Area and is identified as a building worthy of Registration.

The house is noted as being extremely old and worthy of conservation, and includes original features. Photos of the building from the 1970s are provided together with historic maps dating from 1837 which show the building in situ. Consider that replacement of this ancient farmhouse would represent a major loss of the landscape of the village of Bride and contrary to Housing Policy 12 (b) of the Strategic Plan (19.11.22).

A further letter was received (26.10.22) noting an error in the planning application reference made in the initial letter to a previous application for relocating the farmhouse, but have also included an excerpt from the Inspector's report which noted the following:

'I have not been inside the existing farmhouse but superficially it is a reasonably sized, far from unattractive, period property exhibiting a number of traditional Manx features. I find it difficult to accept that the house could not be refurbished to provide a desirable rural home. The condition of the building provides little justification for building another, in the countryside, any justification must stand or fall with the need to keep the residence and farm buildings together."

Reference is also made to previous correspondence from Manx National Heritage with regard to PA 11/01430/A):

"Ballakilley Farm is a Quarterland farm and likely to be of some antiquity. The site of the farmstead may have been occupied since Medieval times, and as a consequence may have significant archaeological potential. The name of the farm means 'farm of the church' a reference to the medieval precursor of Bride Church just to the north, and has been associated with the landholding since at least the 1660s, when it was first recorded in Chancery Court records."

Objection from the Society is maintained, who consider that the proposals would not only would it result in the destruction of a very important vernacular architectural and historic building, but the construction of a modern house in its place would be to the detriment of this very prominent and attractive location as well as contrary to planning policy as referred to previously.

5.6 Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment - Object on the basis that the proposals would lead to the loss of an architecturally and historically important building, with the submitted structural report not providing sufficient evidence that the dwelling cannot be repaired or restored. The report makes reference to the cost of repairing versus the cost of constructing a replacement dwelling, without any evidence of cost comparison provided. - 5.7 One letter of representation has been received writing in support of the proposals, noting that the building is in such a state of disrepair that the owner is unable to live in the property and temporarily housed in one of the barns. The cost of renovation would be completely impractical

and way beyond the finances of the current owner. Request that the application be viewed sympathetically with the resulting new build to be a considerable asset to the village for the future sustainability of the farming community.

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are as follows:

• - Principle of development (SP5, GD3, HP12)
• - Design and visual impact (SP5, GP2, EP1, 2, HP14)
• - Residential amenity (GP2, g, h)
• - Highway safety and parking (TP4, 7)
• - Other matters (RDG, CP7, 11 and IP5)

- 6.2 PRINCIPLE

• 6.2.1 The site falls within the open countryside and an area not zoned for development within the 1982 Development Plan. There is a general presumption again development in the countryside with development to be focussed towards defined settlements in accordance with Spatial Policy 5. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with the exceptions outlined in General Policy 3, one of which includes 'the replacement of existing rural dwellings'.
• 6.2.2 Environment Policy 1 advises that the countryside will be protected for its own sake, and development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms. Environment Policy 2 adds that when considering development in Areas of High Landscape Value (AHLV's), the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration, unless it can be shown that the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape, or the location for the development is essential.
• 6.2.3 The proposals relate to the replacement of an existing dwelling in the countryside, the principle of which is generally supported in accordance with Housing Policy 12 of the Strategic Plan, aside from in the following cases:

• (a) the existing building has lost its residential use by abandonment; or
• (b) the existing dwelling is of architectural or historic interest and is capable of renovation.

• 6.2.4 The existing building has clearly not lost its residential use by abandonment and therefore this stipulation of HP12 does not apply. However, as noted by the Registered Buildings Officer and additional representations received, the existing dwelling is considered to be of significant architectural and historic interest. This position is further reinforced by an Inspector in their report relating to the 2011 application and subsequent appeal, as noted in a preceding section of this report. Indeed, the submitted Structural Report (May 2020) notes that the old Manx stone walls of the property are believed to originate from 1606, with the property having been further extended and altered since this time.
• 6.2.5 Likewise, the Bride Village Study (planning circular 14/91 - 1991) further notes the farmhouse to be a building of 'architectural interest' and considers that such building should be recommended for status by listing. Whilst this document carries only limited material weight and was produced to inform a future local plan which never progressed, it demonstrates that the building was considered at the time to be of sufficient architectural and historic interest to merit being considered for Registration.
• 6.2.6 Turning back to the Structural Report, this considers upon survey that the property likely consisted of an old Manx Tholtan (abandoned dwelling) which was modernised, with much of the original walls considered structurally robust enough to be retained. Whilst it is not clear when this may have occurred, archival photographs from the early 1970s evidence that the building has remained largely unchanged since this time to the present day.

• 6.2.7 The submitted Structural Report provides a reasonably comprehensive external and internal survey of the property, which notes a series of cracks around the property resulting from subsidence. In particular, the Report notes that rainwater from the roof is discharged directly to the external ground, and given the absence of a storm drainage system, this has likely combined with the geology and topography of the site leading to the weakening of the site subsoils over a prolonged period of time, therefore resulting in the subsidence and cracks within the property.
• 6.2.8 Furthermore, significant evidence of damp and mould growth are noted internally, with the weatherproofing of the property compromised by the absence of any damp proof course given that the substructure walls are of Manx stone construction built upon clay brickwork, which has a high absorption rate and therefore assisted the spread of damp.
• 6.2.9 The Report makes the following recommendations on the basis of the survey:

• o Underpinning of property onto undisturbed ground;
• o Installation of an appropriate storm drainage system to remove surface discharge;
• o Replacement of upper joisted timber floors;
• o Stitch repairs and localised rebuilding of the cracked masonry allied to replacement of decayed lintels;
• o Localised repairs to the roof verges and replacement or remedial repairs to the timber purlins;
• o Exposing of main roof frames to establish their condition with remedial works undertaken as required.

• 6.2.10 The conclusion of the Report is that the magnitude of repairs required are extensive and indeterminate given what other defects may come to light. The opinion of the author is that consideration should be given to a holistic approach to the property via a comparison to repair or replace.
• 6.2.11 The submitted Planning Statement considers that due to the ongoing problems with the structure and settlement of the existing farmhouse, as noted in the Structural Report, it was found financially not viable to make good the defects, and that a replacement farmhouse should be considered.
• 6.2.12 No information has been provided with the submission as to the potential or approximate financial costings of repairing and renovating the property in line with the recommendations of the Structural Report, nor have costings been provided with respect to the proposed new build. The claim that it would not be viable to repair and renovate the farmhouse versus a new build from a financial standpoint therefore cannot be verified.
• 6.2.13 Irrespective of this however, the Structural Report makes a number of recommendations to remedy the current issues facing the property which, whilst appearing significant, have not been presented as insurmountable. The Report does at no point state that a complete renovation of the property would not be possible, but instead notes that a more holistic approach should be considered; i.e. renovation versus rebuild.
• 6.2.14 Turning back to Housing Policy 12, the policy is clear that replacement dwellings in the countryside will generally be permitted unless 'the existing dwelling is of architectural or historic interest and capable of conversion'. In this instance, due to the age, historic significance and architectural vernacular of the property, which includes many original historic Manx features, the property is considered to be of sufficient architectural and historic interest to warrant protection. Likewise, the submitted Structural Report does at no point provide clear evidence that the building cannot be restored and renovated to a suitable standard, and therefore appears entirely capable of renovation.
• 6.2.15 Consequently, due to the building being considered of sufficient historic and architectural interest to warrant protection, and in the absence of robust information provided that the current

building is unable of being renovated; the proposals are deemed contrary to Housing Policy 12 and therefore unacceptable in principle.

- 6.3 DESIGN AND VISUAL IMPACT

• 6.3.1 The proposed dwelling, whilst of a reduced scale in relation to the existing, appears to comprise an attempt at constructing a traditional Manx cottage in line with Planning Circular 3/91. Concerns have however been raised by the Registered Buildings Officer, who considers the design to be of a poor quality and not amounting to a visual improvement relative to the traditional and historic farmhouse currently evident.
• 6.3.2 Indeed, the dwelling appears somewhat top heavy with an oversized roof relative to the single-storey element below the eaves, and includes modern features and finishes, such as rear sliding patio doors and UPVC window and door frames; neither of which are considered appropriate in the context of a traditionally styled Manx farmhouse. The resultant development therefore, rather than constituting a visual improvement relative to the existing dwelling, would in fact result in an adverse impact on the immediate setting of the site, which is noted for its prominence in the context of the immediate streetscene.
• 6.3.3 Whilst the resultant dwelling would clearly not amount to an uplift in floor area of 50% above the existing dwelling, the design and form of the development is not considered to be of a sufficiently high quality relative to the existing property, and certainly would not justify the replacement of the existing dwelling from a visual standpoint; both in isolation and in the context of the wider landscape and streetscape. The proposals are therefore considered contrary to General Policy 2 (b) & (c), and Housing Policy 14 of the Strategic Plan.
• 6.4 RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

• 6.4.1 The proposed dwelling would clearly afford future residents a high-standard of living, with a generous garden area commensurate with the size of the resultant dwelling. The relationship between the resultant dwelling and adjacent properties within the Ayre View estate to the west would be largely unchanged, and therefore the proposals would not result in any material impact over and above the present situation.

- 6.6 HIGHWAYS SAFETY AND PARKING

• 6.6.1 No objections have been raised by Highways Services over the current application, with no changes proposed to the existing site access. Sufficient space would also be evident within the site for in excess of 2 vehicles, in accordance with the adopted parking standards. The proposals are therefore compliant with Transport Policies 4 and 7. The proposals are therefore compliant with General Policy 2 (g) and (h).

6.7 OTHER MATTERS

• 6.7.1 No concerns are raised in relation to the design and layout from the perspective of criminal activity or the spread of fire. Whilst the development included the creation of a new dwelling at the site, it is not expected that the water usage associated with the development will be significant, and therefore there are no new issues in this respect. With respect to drainage, it has been indicated that surface water run-off would be managed via soakaways. Further detail would have been requested in this respect had planning permission be recommended for approval, or indeed controlled by condition. Likewise, foul sewerage is noted on the application form as being disposed of via the mains, which is considered acceptable.

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 The proposed development would result in the loss of a dwelling considered to be of sufficient historic and architectural significance which warrants protection. In the absence of sufficient evidence demonstrating that the building cannot be appropriately restored and renovated, the principle of replacing the dwelling is therefore unacceptable and contrary to Housing Policy 12 of the Strategic Plan (2016).

7.2 Furthermore, the built form and design of the replacement dwelling is not considered to be of a particularly high quality or conducive to a high standard of development in the context of the existing traditional, historic farmhouse, the immediate streescene and the wider landscape setting of the site. The development would therefore fail to protect or enhance the character and setting of the area, and is therefore unacceptable from a design and visual impact perspective, contrary to General Policy 2 (b) & (c) and Housing Policy 14 of the Strategic Plan (2016). - 7.3 The proposals are therefore recommended for refusal.

- 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
• (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
• (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
• (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

8.2 The decision maker must determine:

• o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department
• of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
• o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status. 8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination
• of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.

Decision Made : Refused Date: 17.02.2023 Determining officer

Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Principal Planner

Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.