Loading document...
Application No.: 17/00988/B Applicant: Mr Ian Stevenson Proposal: Erection of detached farm workers dwelling and garage Site Address: Field 234710 Orrisdale Kirk Michael Isle Of Man Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 02.11.2017 Site Visit: 02.11.2017 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 19.02.2018 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. The site lies within an area not designated for development and of high landscape value and scenic significance where there is a presumption against new built development. It is not considered that there is sufficient agricultural need for the dwelling to outweigh this policy against development, given the limited amount of acreage owned by the applicant, the fact that the occupant would be a tenant farmer with limited term security of tenure and where the tenant farmer would not appear to be in need of a dwelling or indeed employed full time in agriculture. In addition, it would appear that there have been three dwellings previously associated with this land, two of which have been sold off in the past. The proposal fails to accord with Environment Policies 1, 2 and 15, General Policy 3 and Housing Policy 7. - R 2. In the absence of agricultural need sufficient to justify this, the proposed dwelling and garage and particularly the proposed access lane leading to them would introduce built development in an area not currently so characterised, in conflict with the draft Landscape Character Appraisal contained within draft Planning Policy Statement 2/09 - The Role of Landscape Character in Development - which refers to the need to protect the existing field pattern and pattern and scale of farmsteads in the area. In addition the development would be contrary to Environment Policies 1 and 2 which protect the countryside for its own sake and where the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration and Environment Policy 15 and Housing Policy 9 which require new development to be built within or next to existing development.
It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status as they are 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):
The owners of Lowfield, Ballamenaugh Farm and Kionedroghad Farm all of whom live close to the site and who would be affected by the development
It is recommended that the following persons 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):
The owners of 18, Maple Avenue, Onchan and Meadowcroft, Ballabooie Road neither of whom lives close enough to the site to be directly affected by the proposal. _____________________________________________________________________________
1.1 The site is part of a larger piece of land which sits to the north of the Orrisdale Road which runs south from just north of Bishopscourt to the northern side of Kirk Michael. The red line area is an elongated piece of land accessed from the Orrisdale Road, is around 154m long and contains a number of trees and what looks like the remains of a former building along with more modern, brick mono pitched roofed structures. The wider area, edged blue lies to the south east in the form of two fields and to the west and north which comprise at least another thirteen fields. The area in total amounts to around 69 acres. - 1.2 There are various dwellings scattered around the area but the general character of the area is rural. - 1.3 There is currently a field access into the field to the south of the site onto the Orrisdale Road. There is access across the field to the north of the site from alongside the existing farm bungalow which sits to the north of the site (around 65m away) and alongside this is an existing agricultural building which accommodates equipment associated with the running of the farm. Whilst this property, Ballamenaugh Farm House, is correctly not included with the land edged red or blue, it is understood that it is owned by the applicant's mother (see paragraph 2.4). There is nothing to suggest that the applicant is in any way entitled to use this property or that he would have sole access to it in the future. - 1.4 To the north of the site is a group of dwellings - Ballamenaugh Farm House, Lowfield immediately alongside to the east and Cregbane to the south east of that all sharing the same access. Opposite these dwellings are Pharlane Cottage, Orrisdale Farm house and Tanglewood. To the south of the site is another group of dwellings - Ballamenaugh House, Kiondroghad Cottage and the newly created dwelling formed from the conversion of the barn alongside Kiondroghad Cottage. Across the road from these is Hazeldene. Between the two groups of dwellings, on the other side of Orrisdale Road are Dale Cottage and Woodlands. THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Proposed is the erection of a three bedroomed dwelling at the northern end of the red line area together with a garage alongside to the south east. The dwelling has a footprint of 16.5m by 8.5m and the garage 8.2m by 8m with internal dimensions of 7.5m with one of the parking space lengths impaired by the introduction of a shower which reduces the available length to
substantial stone chimneys on each gable which will be rendered with some additional stonework. A small porch is proposed on the front. The garage has a ceiling hatch to provide access to the space above (around 30 sq m),
2.2 A new sod hedge, constructed under the guidelines of Planning Circular 1/92 is to be introduced along the eastern boundary of the driveway with various trees (ash, alder, aspen, birch, cherry, crab apple, eucalyptus, oak, holly, maple, rowan, poplar and willow). - 2.3 The property will be connected to a new bioDisc facility with the treated effluent discharged to a soakaway. The application provides a drawing which demonstrates that there is visibility from the bottom of the lane, of 2.4m by 80m to the east and 2.4m by 90m to the south. The lane will be finished in gravel over a proprietary honeycomb stabilisation system. - 2.4 The applicant explains that his grandparents purchased the land, known as Ballamenagh Farm in the late 1940s and that his parents farmed until illness prevented him from actively running the farm and it was leased and for the last 30 years has been leased to various tenants. The farmhouse was sold by his father in the 1970s as he needed support his family who moved next door to Kiondroghad Cottage. Ballamenaugh Farm House was built and has been occupied by the applicant's retired mother since 1976. They state that this property is not tied to the farm. The income derived from leasing the land has not been enough to cover the cost of repairing and maintaining the fences, waterways, hedges, gates and water troughs. The applicant explains that he has been seriously ill for the last 2 years after having lived his life overseas although prior to his illness he suggests that he had been active in maintaining the land. He hopes to retire and bring the farm back to its former glory. The addition of a farm dwelling will provide a further income to enable him to make the necessary improvements and provide accommodation for the tenant farmer. He refers to existing historic stones which he would like to expose. He is interested in supporting the local wildlife. - 2.5 The applicant explains that the dwelling will allow a full time worker to have more of a full time presence on the farm rather than having to travel. The present tenant farmer lives in Kirk Michael village which is the closest he could find to the site. The tenant has a family association with the land and his family also help out. The better management of the land, including removing encroaching gorse and bracken will prevent new born animals from being hidden and on a few occasions this had led to the animals dying. The land has previously been naturally fertilised with seaweed and other natural fertilisers. - 2.6 The applicant owns 69 acres which form the application site - all agricultural land. The current tenant owns 20 acres at somewhere called "Cooley" for which no map has been provided and this is understood to be the tenant's family farmland. The tenant currently leases a further 37 acres at Ramsey, 39 acres at the Claddagh in Sulby, 6 acres on the shore fields in Kirk Michael and almost 41 acres in Foxdale. The tenant has leased the application site land for 4 years and is looking to extend his lease in November: the tenancy is a 364 day lease renewable annually. Prior to him having the lease, it was with his mother for 5 years. The largest number of animals the tenant has are kept on the application site and home farm land (Cooley) and a dwelling on one of the other pieces of land he leases would mean him being further from the greatest number of his animals. If a dwelling is not allowed on this site, this would prevent equipment and vehicles being kept here securely and being near the animals would be useful at calving and lambing times as well as saving time and money for the tenant. They consider that agricultural need includes the repair and maintenance of fencing, hedges and the land. The animals live outside all year round. The present stock on all of the land (217 acres) is 70 beef cattle with 20 calves at calving, 550 sheep and lambs at lambing. They suggest that this amounts to 3890 man hours which justify a dwelling. - 2.7 They suggest that in the past there were at least 7 working farms in the area Ballarhenny, Camell, Glyonya, Kiondrghad, Ballamenaugh and Orrisdale Farm all of which are now private dwellings with some holiday accommodation. They cannot understand how 7 new
3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as not for any particular purpose and within an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. A site of archaeological interest/Ancient Monument is identified to the north west (Cronk Koir, referred to by the applicant). As such, there is a presumption against development as set out in General Policy 3 and Environment Policies 1 and 2. General Policy 3 includes provision for the development of buildings, including housing where this is essential for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work. Environment Policy 15 and Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10 go on to provide more advice on this topic:
Environment Policy 15: "Where the Department is satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building (including a dwelling), sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside, and that the impact of this development including buildings, accesses, servicing etc. is acceptable, such development must be sited as close as is practically possible to existing building groups and be appropriate in terms of scale, materials, colour, siting and form to ensure that all new developments are sympathetic to the landscape and built environment of which they will form a part.
Only in exceptional circumstances will buildings be permitted in exposed or isolated areas or close to public highways and in all such cases will be subject to appropriate landscaping. The nature and materials of construction must also be appropriate to the purposes for which it is intended.
Where new agricultural buildings are proposed next to or close to existing residential properties, care must be taken to ensure that there is no unacceptable adverse impact through any activity, although it must be borne in mind that many farming activities require buildings which are best sited, in landscape terms, close to existing building groups in the rural landscape."
3.2 The draft Landscape Character Appraisal Planning Policy Statement 2/09 - The Role of Landscape Character in Development defines the site as being within a wider area of Incised Slopes where the following advice is provided:
"4.5 Type D: Incised Slopes The overall strategy for the protection and enhancement of the Incised Slopes Landscape Character Type is to conserve and enhance: the remote and rural character; the relatively sparse settlement pattern of traditional hamlets and scattered farm buildings; the network of sunken and enclosed rural roads; and the substantial hedgerows and sod banks dividing irregularly-shaped pastoral fields.
Key landscape planning considerations in relation to the protection and enhancement of this Landscape Character Type are as follows:-
4.1 The application site has been the subject of two applications which were determined: 12/01324/B proposed the re-roofing of the existing agricultural shed and 01/00146/B proposed the erection of an agricultural shed on land to the north of the application site but within the blue line area. The 2012 application showed the application site and Ballamenagh Farmhouse within the same site.
4.2 There have been a number of relatively recent applications in the vicinity of the site: Hazeldene has been the subject of two applications, both approved, for replacement of the existing dwelling (12/00703/B and 16/01183/B) and the barn alongside Kiondroghad Cottage has been the subject of three applications, all approved, for its conversion to residential accommodation (16/00220/B, 15/00846/B and 10/01089/B). Since 2010 Kiondroghad Barn has been in separate ownership to Kiondroghad Cottage.
4.3 The applicant's family applied for approval in principle for two dwellings (now Ballamenaugh Farmhouse and Lowfield) under IDO 28892 and this was approved on appeal.
No reference in the application can be found to any justification on the basis of agricultural need other than Mr. Stevenson indicating that one of the properties would be for his parents and the site of the application was simply the site of the two dwellings with a section of field behind and not the whole farm. There would not seem to have been any agricultural occupancy condition attached to the approval or to the two further applications for the details of the bungalows (IDOs 32883 and 32885).
REPRESENTATIONS Local authority
Statutory authorities
The proposal is to erect a dwelling and garage. Adequate off-street car parking is provided and the proposed access is acceptable.
Highway Services does not oppose this application subject to the following condition:
Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety (29.09.17).
Local residents
vehicles. She also suggests that in the 15 years they have lived in Orrisdale they have never witnesses any of the applicant's family helping out with the lambing as is suggested in Mr. Kelly's letter (19.02.18).
Other parties
5.6 A party who walks regularly in the area, resident at 18, Maple Avenue, Onchan, objects to the application, stating that the character of the area should be maintained any a dwelling not approved here and is aware that traffic levels using the road have increased and that there are a number of local objections. He suggests that the continued tenancy with this particular tenant cannot be guaranteed (12.10.17). - 5.7 Parties who live at Meadowcroft, Ballabooie Road in German support the objection submitted by the owner of Lowfield and others. He considers the justification is fabricated as the land is tenanted and there is no viable business run by the applicant. T he farm business is spread among a number of sites by the tenant and what is owned by the applicant is not sufficient to justify a new dwelling. They consider that land owners by the applicant's mother is in different ownership and should not be considered to support this application. He too refers to the original farmhouse having been sold by the applicant's family and in total, if this application were approved there would have been four dwellings associated with the farmland over time. The photographs provided do not include the dwelling occupied by the applicant's mother and they are concerned that the size of the proposed dwelling is not commensurate with its proposed use and it is not of a traditional design. They consider the application to be in conflict with Strategic Policies 2 and 3, General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 2 (20.101.17). - 5.8 Following the submission of the additional information, the owners of Meadowcroft submit further representations, adding that they believe that the land ownership statement is incorrect in that Mr. Stevenson does not own the land and he appears from the Land Registry to own only fields 234034 and 234035 which amount to 6.26 acres, purchase in 2013 from his mother. They believe that the application should not proceed until this is clarified. They suggest that Ballamenagh Farm was clearly shown in 12/0324/B as being attached to the farm. They do not consider that the Kellys' business is relevant to the application as this involves another site, other land and buildings and other people. There is very little at the application site by comparison. The applicant is not employed in agriculture and the tenant works full time outside of agriculture. They suggest that the application fails almost all of the relevant Strategic Plan policies and if a dwelling really is needed by Michael Kelly, it should be sited at Cooley Lodge where the majority of the farm buildings are and where calving and lambing is likely to take place. They confirm that they fully support local agriculture where there are cases of genuine agricultural need but care needs to be taken to prevent the system from being abused (18.02.18). Applicant's response - 5.9 The applicant responds to the objections raised, acknowledging that he is not a farmer but that the land has been farmed by his family and that they wish to keep it in their ownership and he considers that the total area of almost 70 acres warrants two full time workers without other land being taken into consideration. Whilst there are other pieces of land rented by the tenant, this is the largest area and other applications have historically been granted on similar bases. He confirms that he owns 6.99 hectares (17.3 acres). If the current tenant does not continue, there are others who would want to. If one chooses to live in the countryside, mud on the road and farm vehicles going about their business is a small price to pay. He considers that the proposed dwelling is not excessive and that the design uses traditional materials and that the dwelling will blend into its surroundings. He believes that the former dwellings was a dwelling as it has a fireplace and numerous household items have been unearthed in the surrounding area and it appears on old area maps as a small holding and outbuildings. He believes that the applicant once owned the derelict farm building that Glion Yeiy now sits on and before selling that plot to a developer he should have applied for planning approval for himself. Whilst they have had two dwellings built for agriculture, many others in the area have been built and sold and converted. He suggests that the amount of traffic on the roads may be reduced if the tenant lives on site as he will not need to travel to and from the site 3 or 4 times a day when lambing, calving and farming. He points out that many properties built in association with farming are larger than what is proposed here. Whilst the tenant has
6.1 The issue here is whether there is sufficient agricultural need for the dwelling to override the general presumption against development in this area; whether the development would have any adverse impact on the character of the area, as one identified as of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance and having regard to the draft Landscape Character Appraisal guidance that "the remote and rural character; the relatively sparse settlement pattern of traditional hamlets and scattered farm buildings; the network of sunken and enclosed rural roads; and the substantial hedgerows and sod banks dividing irregularly-shaped pastoral fields" are important elements of this character. Finally it is relevant to consider whether the proposal would conform to the general principles of development as set out in Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10 and General Policy 2, particularly whether the proposal can be safely accessed, whether it would have any adverse impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent property, whether the proposal is appropriately designed.
Agricultural need
6.2 This can be assessed either in terms of the particulars of the application site, or the personalities involved, or both. The applicant's case is that it would be useful in terms of animal husbandry to have the tenant farmer living on the site to provide security for the animals and his equipment and vehicles. Whilst this may well be the case, this does not represent need. It is also confused by the fact that it would appear that none of the other parcels of land that the tenant farmer manages, has a dwelling on it and even if they did, he cannot live in more than one dwelling at any one time. Whilst the applicant's agent states categorically that "to ensure adequate monitoring, farmers need to live on site", in this case, as the farm business is spread over a number of areas, this is not physically possible and adherence to such a suggestion would result in a farm dwelling being on every parcel of land which is owned and managed for agricultural purposes. Security of farmland can be achieved by a variety of ways - the on-site presence of others (in this case it could be argued that the occupants of Ballamenaugh Farm House could provide this and indeed, it is suggested by the tenant that this is already the case), the installation of security cameras or other equipment and it must also be asked why now an on-site presence is needed when a dwelling in this location has not previously been here in recent times.
6.3 It must also be taken into account that leased land may change hands and given that the tenancy agreement appears to be less than a calendar year, there is very little security that the current situation will continue into the future. Indeed, the tenant has indicated that neither he nor the owner wishes to have a longer tenancy and in any case, there is a notice period which could reduce the tenancy to half - effectively 6 months. This is particularly worrying in terms of establishing agricultural need. What may happen then is that the current tenant farmer chooses not to renew the agreement, or that it is not available to him, and the next tenant does not need a dwelling because they have a dwelling elsewhere, or manage the land in a way which does not require an on-site presence. It would be difficult to argue that a holding of no more than 70 acres necessitates a dwelling on site sufficient to prevent any agricultural occupancy condition being removed in the future, particularly when two dwellings have been
associated with this land in the past and it would appear that neither is occupied by anyone with an active involvement with the running of the farm.
6.4 In terms of the agricultural need of the tenant farmer, he is clearly not employed full time in agriculture and as such, even if a dwelling were approved, it would be difficult to attach an agricultural worker's occupancy condition in the knowledge that it would be breached on first occupation. What would be produced is a new dwelling in the countryside, completely contrary to policy.
6.5 Whilst the applicant's agent has produced a labour calculation, this applies to the tenant's business as a whole and if this is to be relied upon, the whole amount of land needs to be considered, not just the application site. It is certainly the case that the majority of the farm buildings are elsewhere and that there is a farm dwelling elsewhere. Whilst it is not accepted that there is agricultural need for the tenant farmer to have a dwelling, if it were, it would appear that the optimal location is not here where there are limited buildings and where it is unlikely that the majority of the calving or lambing would take place due to the lack of buildings. Even if the labour calculation supports a full time post (even the estimated calculation for the application site was less than one), this does not mean that the worker needs to live on site if there are other means of providing supervision and the responsibilities required for the management of the land (see paragraph 6.2 above). There are no dwellings on the other parcels of land managed by the tenant and no applications being made for them. It is clearly not essential to have a dwelling on every piece of land that the applicant manages and even if it were, he could not live in all of them at once.
6.6 It is not considered that the justification for the proposed dwelling is sufficient to represent agricultural need which would satisfy General Policy 3, Environment Policy 15 or Housing Policy - 7. Landscape impact
6.7 The landscape is protected against all but warranted development as set out in General Policy 3 and Environment Policies 1 and 2 with the latter two emphasising the importance of the protection of the countryside for its own sake and safeguarding the visual character of the area, this supported further by the Landscape Character Appraisal. The property is single storey which will reduce its impact in the landscape. It will, nevertheless be a new development of two buildings 6.5m in height, located where there are currently no significant buildings. The impact of the buildings will be heightened by the introduction of a new access way straight to the buildings. Environment Policy 15 and Housing Policy 9 provide advice which is intended to reduce the landscape impact of new agricultural development. Both suggest that new buildings should be within or immediately adjoining the main group of farm buildings or a group of farm buildings associated with that farm, as close as is practically possible to existing building groups as well as being well set back from any public highway, and it is approached via the existing farm access. The proposed development only accords with the requirement to be well set back from any public highway but in landscape terms, the benefit of that is reduced by the proposed driveway which both creates a visual impact that isn't currently there as well as drawing more attention to the buildings. Whilst there may well have once been a dwelling in this location, the impact of that within the landscape has long since disappeared (the building that has resulted from the rescue of the remains of that building does not look like a dwelling) and this is not accepted as a reason for allowing a dwelling here now. - 6.8 The siting and resulting impact of the buildings and driveway would not comply with the provisions of Environment Policies 1, 2 and 15 and Housing Policy 9. - 6.9 Housing Policy 10 also requires that new agricultural dwellings are designed as traditional Manx cottage in accordance with Planning Circular 3.91. This mainly describes two storey dwellings but includes reference to "smaller volumes can also be accommodated by the use of single storey forms. The width should be similar to the two storey basic double cube whilst the
7.1 It is not considered that there is sufficient agricultural need for the proposed dwelling to overcome the presumption against development as set out in General Policy 3, Environment Policies 1 and 2 and 17 and Housing Policy 7. In addition, the siting and the introduction of the new access would have an adverse impact on the character of this part of the countryside, contrary to Environment Policies 1, 2 and 15 and Housing Policy 9. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:
8.2 The decision-maker must determine:
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : …Refused.. Committee Meeting Date:…12.03.2018
S CORLETT………………………….. Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required(included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
