Officer Recommendation to Decline Application

Department Of Local Government And The Environment ### Memorandum To: The Planning Committee From: Mr C Balmer - Planning Officer. Subject: Recommendation to decline to consider application - Approval in principle for erection of an agricultural worker's dwelling - Field 434152, Grenaby Road, Ballasalla - 11/00930/A Date: 27th July 2011 A planning application (06/01877/A) for approval in principle for erection of an agricultural worker's dwelling was refused by the Minister on the 19th July 2007 on the following ground:- > "Since the labour requirement for the farm is three, and there are already on the farm three dwellings, the erection of a further agricultural dwelling is unwarranted; there is thus insufficient agricultural need to off-set the Department's general policies in relation to new houses in the countryside." Further to this the applicants recently submitted a further application for a Approval in Principle for erection of an agricultural worker's dwelling (10/01339/A), which the Planning Committee recently declined to considered at the meeting held on the 23rd September 2010. A further application has now been submitted again for Approval in Principle for erection of an agricultural worker's dwelling (11/00930/A). As part of the original assessment for application 06/01877/A the Planning Inspector stated:- > "In view of the nature of his employment I would accept that he needs to live close to the farm, not least so that he is able to respond to emergencies among the stock when they arise. I would also accept that there are not properties sufficiently close to the farm that he could afford on an agricultural wage. However, it must be recognised that there are three dwellings associated with the farm, two of which were allowed as an exception to normal policy in the light of the recognised agricultural need. Whilst the Planning Officer indicates that, in view of the length of occupation, a Certificate of Lawful Use may well be forthcoming, it would appear than one of the dwellings is occupied by the appellant's sister and her family not strictly in accordance with the terms of the original permission. The other property is occupied by the appellant's mother, the legitimacy of his mother's occupation is not in doubt but whilst the second property is clearly not available for an agricultural worker that will not always be the case. The recognised requirement is for 3 full time workers on the farm and there are 3 dwellings. Whilst they may not currently be all occupied by operative farm workers that to an extent is the choice of the Duggan family. It must be recognised that a new dwelling would remain on the site long after the current circumstances of the family have ceased to be relevant. Whilst this is a finely balanced case, bearing in mind that Mr. Duggan junior currently lives with his parents on the farm and that this stage his aspirations to set up a home of his own may be regarded as desirable rather than essential the view may be taken that it would be inappropriate to accept a further agricultural workers dwelling on the farm". (Paragraphs 20, 21 and 22). As indicated previously when the Planning Committee declined to consider the most recent application, the applicant's agent has submitted information to suggest why the application should be considered within the 5 year period. The last application (10/01339/B) which was declined to be considered by the Planning Committee, the applicants indicated the following reasons why the application should be considered:- 1. The applicant's son is now in his twenties with a partner and is working full time on the farm; 2. The applicants believe that they did not give the full amount of information to the inspector in the case of the previous appeal; 3. The occupation of Elmbank, the house which is referred to as being occupied by the applicants sister is not tired to full time farm workers so is not being occupied in breach of that condition; and 4. Croit-e-Quiggin (the property occupied by the applicant's mother) should not be considered as one of the dwellings available to the farm as it was always intended as a retirement dwelling and there will always be a need for a retirement dwelling in the case of a farm worker by successive generations of the same family. Whilst it would seem the above is still relevant no further reasons are given. The only apparent difference between this new application and previous applications is that the siting of the dwelling has now changed. The new proposal would be positioned in the north-east corner of Field 434152 which is to the southeast of the Ballavell Farm and directly adjacent to the Grenaby Road. The site would gain access of the privately owned road which serves Ballavell Farm which is accessed via the Grenaby Road. The new site is east of the original application site. The application has been submitted approximately 4 years after the refusal of the earlier application (06/01877/A). The Planning Committee needs to be satisfied that the circumstances of the applicants and their operation have changed sufficiently to warrant re-consideration of this application. Again the applicants indicate that the operation of the dairy farm justifies three fulltime equivalent workers, two of which are required minimum but can frequently require three workers on the farm for the majority of farming activities (calving, silaging of grass, harvesting, hay making). Currently Mr Colin Duggan and Mr William Duggan, his son, fulfil the roles of working full time on the farm and one of these needs to be available at all times. Both live at Ballavell Farmhouse. The proposed dwelling would be occupied by Mr William Duggan and his partner, as proposed previously. The applicants indicate that for all their hard work and long hours the farm income is not enough to provide a full-time income for the third worker which currently is the applicant's nephew, Stephen Ennett. He currently works daily on the farm during late afternoons and weekends. He presently lives at Elmbank (agricultural dwelling permitted in the 1980's) with his parents, who also help with farm activities when required. This information has also been previously considered. The critical changes which appear to have occurred since the original approval in principle application (06/01877/A) are the person for whom the dwelling is intended is four years older and perhaps his need/aspiration for a home of his own is more justifiable, there appears to have been a change in the role which the applicants sister and her family, particularly their son play in the running of the farm and the siting of the dwelling is in another field. As such the Planning Committee must consider whether these changes justify accepting the application within the five year period under the provisions of The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, Article 4, Paragraph (4), which states: "The Committee may decline to consider an application in any case where it considered that the application is substantially the same as an application which has been refused at any time in the previous 5 years." Whilst the siting of the dwelling differs from that previously proposed, the justification for the dwelling remains the same as was the case when the application was originally and most recently proposed. As such, it is considered that the application does not differ significantly from that which was refused within the past 5 years and as such it is recommended that the Planning Committee decline to consider this application. Signed... Date... Chris Balmer Planning Officer