Officer Planning Report

Application No.:	11/01294/A
Applicant:	Mr Martin Wainberg
Proposal:	Approval in principle for the erection of an agricultural workers dwelling
Site Address:	Mount Karrin
Sulby Glen
Sulby
Isle Of Man
IM7 2BB

Officer's Report

The Site

1. The site, defined in red is a small area of 2.11 acres situated off a private farm lane on the western side of the A14 Sulby Glen Road, towards the northern end. The site accommodates an agricultural building (see Planning History below). To the west of the site is a prominent zig zag track leading from the site to higher agricultural land on Mount Karrin. The site is opposite the new water treatment works. The applicant has since submitted a further plan which illustrates that the holding extends to a much greater area, stretching from the application site alongside Sulby Glen Road, along this highway to the south and upward to Mount Karrin – a summit of 330m. A public footpath dissects the site, leading from the water treatment works in Sulby Glen to join the Ballaugh Glen – Druidale Road.

The Proposal

1. Proposed is the principle of the erection of a farm dwelling alongside the existing agricultural building. No details are provided of the footprint or size of the proposed dwelling but as this is an application in principle, this is not necessary.

1. Supporting information indicates that the holding is used for sheep and the holding extends to 400 acres. The applicant suggests that the dwelling would not be visible from a public perspective. He states that the suggestion in a previous appeal that the applicant should purchase a dwelling off site is "unreasonable, self serving and fails to be an objective" (paragraph 19). He suggests that it would also reduce the viability of the current enterprise in additional unnecessary costs and diminished general workability. He suggests that there is a need for a minimal provision for eating and toilet facilities and considers that it is reasonable that proper sleeping accommodation is provided for staff and family near at hand when staff are required to work after hours.

1. Despite the applicant providing significant financial and business information, no information is provided regarding labour requirements, who works the farm at the moment, where they live and why a dwelling is now required.

Planning Status And Policy

1. The site lies within an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance and Woodland on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982. There is therefore a presumption against development in this area as encapsulated in Environment Policies 1 and 2:

Case Officer :	Miss S E Corlett
Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level :	Officer Delegation

Environment Policy 1: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative."

Environment Policy 2: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape of Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce difference categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:

a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or b) the location for the development is essential."

1. Provision is made within General Policy 3 for "a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10)."

1. Environment Policy 15 states "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 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 is it 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."

1. Housing policy 7 states: "New agricultural dwellings will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances where real agricultural need is demonstrated."

1. Housing Policy 8 states: "Where permission is granted for an agricultural dwelling, a condition will be attached restricting the occupation to a person engaged or last engage solely in agriculture; or a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident dependants."

1. Housing Policy 9 states: "Where permission is granted for an agricultural dwelling, the dwelling must be sited such that:

a) it is within or immediately adjoining the main group of farm buildings or a group of farm buildings associated with that farm, b) it is well set back from any public highway, and c) it is approached via the existing farm access."

1. Housing Policy 10 states: "Where permission is granted for an agricultural dwelling, the dwelling should normally be designed in accordance with policies 1-7 of present Planning Circular 3/91 which will be revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement."

1. The site lies within an area of Narrow Upland Glens on the draft Landscape Character Assessment where the following advice is provided:

"Type B: Narrow Upland Glens

The overall strategy for the protection and enhancement of the Narrow Upland Glens Landscape Character Type is to conserve and enhance: the distinctive well-wooded character of the glens; the distinctive field patterns on lower valley sides, defined by Manx hedgerows with mature trees; the pattern of winding roads, enclosed by sod banks, with small fords and bridges across water courses; the remote, tranquil, and unsettled character; and the various visible cultural heritage features, such as scattered abandoned mines.

Key landscape planning considerations in relation to the protection and enhancement of this Landscape Character Type are as follows:-

Housing and business development would be out of place on the visually-sensitive upper slopes of the Narrow Upland Glens;

Care should be taken to ensure that any new development that is deemed necessary reflects local building materials and styles; is of an appropriate scale and relates well to existing buildings; and is well integrated with the surrounding landscape through sensitive siting and appropriate screen planting;

Linear development along road corridors which extends urban influences into the wider undeveloped countryside should be avoided;

New tourist or recreation development and related infrastructure, such as car parks and litter bins, should be sensitively designed and "low key" in nature;

Care should be taken to minimise visual clutter of highways infrastructure and signage on the steep, winding rural roads within Narrow Upland Glens;

New river crossings should respect the traditional scale and materials of existing historic bridges;

Vertical telecommunications masts or structures should be avoided on the upper slopes, since they would create visual clutter, affect open skylines, and/or detract from views from Narrow Upland Glens towards adjacent Landscape Character Types."

Planning History

1. Planning permission was sought under PA 95/1471 for the principle of a farm dwelling when the holding was used for cattle farming. The inspector "took particular note of the relationship of the relatively newly formed flat area of ground on which the dwelling would be built and which already accommodates the barn, to the working land of the farm and the access to it. Firstly, the flat area which appears to be the only lowland area available to the Appellant is narrow and of limited capacity. The barn and its extension, together with various shelters and pieces of equipment, occupy a substantial area such that the proposed farm house with some parking and manoeuvring space would absorb the remainder. There seems little scope for a traditional farm yard with substantial numbers of animals and equipment to be accommodated on the remaining area" (paragraphs 25 and 26).

1. He goes on, "The farming enterprise as currently operated, appears to be in two distinct parts. The high land on which the stock grazes is remote from the proposed dwelling and although a very rough and steep track has been cut into the hillside, the slope is such and the difference in height of about 900 ft so considerable that accessibility is very difficult. This it seems to me that this part of the enterprise is remote from the proposed location for the farm house and unrelated to it. Indeed the previous farmer worked the land from another remote location but access to low ground for wintering the stock. The Appellant has no such advantage. On this aspect of the operation therefore, I consider that a new on-site facility is

not needed and that any dwelling within reasonable travelling distance would suffice" (paragraphs 27 and 28). The application was refused initially and at appeal.

1. The agricultural building on site was approved under PA 94/0178 and extended under PA 95/1415.

Representations

1. Lezayre Parish Commissioners object to the application on the basis that the land is not designated for development and add that the bank is unstable, a septic tank would not be advisable and suggests that there is no confirmation that the occupier would be involved in the farm.

1. Manx National Heritage object to the application on the basis that there is no confirmation that the farmholding is all owned by the applicant, and suggest that other hill farmers do not live on site and sometimes live some distance away. They do not accept that there is agricultural justification for the dwelling and recommend refusal but add that if permission is granted, conditions should be applied to restrict the dwelling to a modest one designed in accordance with Planning Circular 3/91.

1. A resident of Douglas notes that the applicant lives in Coutts House in Onchan and suggests that the farm holding is being managed without a dwelling on site.

1. Highways and Traffic Division indicate that they do not oppose the application.

1. The Agricultural Adviser of Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture provides useful information. He states that the site is currently leased out to a farm business which operates the site in conjunction with a number of other sites and of the land defined in the site, 80 acres are classed as good cultivatable grazing land with the remainder (339 acres) classed as rough grazing. The Advisor indicates that he has been informed that the applicant intends to take the farming operations in hand. Stocking levels are approximately 320 breeding ewes and 12 rams with 80 ewe lambs retained as replacements in the flock but the remainder are sold off at weaning or transferred to better ground for further finishing. The total labour units on the farm are 1.02 labour units. If the land is improved as is suggested to him by the applicant, then the labour requirement would increase to 1.32 units. He suggests that the nature of the sheep farming using upland sheep is such that farm management is simple and intervention minimal. Assistance is required at lambing time where there would be increases in travelling to and from the site. He adds that the area of improved agricultural land is at the top of the track, some 815m from the existing building and the proposed dwelling. He comments that the financial information provided indicate that the systems do generate a small profit but this takes no account of any charge for labour.

1. He concludes by stating that "the enterprise demonstrates that there would be sufficient labour requirement and that the animal health and welfare could be improved should a dwelling be located on the site" and that there is "some merit for a dwelling being located on the site." He goes on, "However, due to this business intending to establish itself as a new business and that the livestock labour requirement, excluding land management labour, will only be achieved under the proposed changes to the business" he would have more confidence in the credibility of the application if the proposed changes and improvements had been in place for at least three years.

Assessment

1. There is no information on why the dwelling is required now if the farm is already being managed and where the current or intended farmer presently lives and why this is no longer acceptable. Furthermore, the advice from the Agricultural Adviser indicates that the proposed dwelling could reasonably only be fully justified if the business as improved was established. The uncertainty of the business case is exacerbated by the fact that so little of the farmland is

adjacent to the proposed building, although it is fully accepted that if agricultural need were established then the dwelling should certainly not be sited any further uphill than the existing location as this would render it much more visible and visually unacceptable. The location of the site renders it very easy to separate from the agricultural holding with which it is associated and which is accessed by a long, steep and winding track which does not make the operation of the holding particularly straightforward.

1. In conclusion, it is not accepted that at present there is sufficient established agricultural need to warrant approval being granted for a new agricultural dwelling on this site. As such, the proposal is contrary to the provisions of the Strategic Plan, particularly Environment Policies 1, 2 and 15, General Policy 3 and Housing Policy 7.

Party Status

1. The local authority. Lezayre Parish Commissioners are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.

1. Manx National Heritage and DEFA are statutory authorities and should be afforded party status

1. The resident of Douglas is not affected by the proposal and should not be afforded party status.

1. The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 28.03.2012

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals

R 1.

It is not accepted that there is currently sufficient agricultural justification for the proposed dwelling to satisfy the requirement in the Strategic Plan for such development to be "essential" and to demonstrate real agricultural need. As such, the proposed development would be contrary to Environment Policies 1, 2 and 15, General Policy 3 and Housing Policy 7.

I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager/ Senior Planning Officer.

Decision Made : Refused Date : 4/4/12

Determining officer (delete as appropriate)

Signed : ... Anthony Holmes Senior Planning Officer

Signed : ... Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control

Signed : ... Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager