Officer Report

Application No.: 16/00664/B Applicant: Sandash Farms Ltd Proposal: Erection of an agricultural workers dwelling Site Address: Part Field 510408 Ballakissack Farm School Lane Santon Isle Of Man Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 18.07.2016 Site Visit: 18.07.2016 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT SEEKS APPROVAL FOR THE ERECTION OF AN AGRICULTURAL WORKER'S DWELLING.

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is an irregularly shaped parcel of land located within the wider landholding associated with Ballakissack Farm in Santon. The site itself has a prominent rectangular shape to its northwesternmost extent, and a thin sliver of land connects this to a farm track that then extends down to the adopted highway of School Lane. This highway connects to the A5 Castletown Road alongside an existing bus stop. Santon School is also accessed from here. - 1.2 The rectangular portion of the site, as well as the narrow element leading onto the farm lane, is an agricultural field. It is bounded on its eastern side by hedging and mature trees. The thin segment, running almost at right angles to this, is bounded by hedging to the north but is otherwise open. - 1.3 To the northeast of the rectangular part of the site is the residential curtilage of a dwelling known as 'Ballakissack', which is a farmhouse that it appears, from the submitted drawings, to fall outside the land in the control of the applicant (Sandash Farms Limited). It is, however, occupied by a retired farmer, Mr Radcliffe, who was previously involved in the running of Ballakissack Farm. - 1.4 There is another dwelling, 'Farmworkers Cottage' (a.k.a. 'Ballakissack Cottage') to the east of the farm lane and to the southeast of the rectangular portion of the application site. This, too, falls outside of the land in the control of the applicant, but, although the same Mr Radcliffe submitted applications seeking approval for alterations to the Cottage in 1997 and 2003, the agent has confirmed that they have "never met the person who resides in Ballakissack Cottage but [I] do know that they definitely are not associated with the running of Sandash Farms Ltd or Ballakissack Farm as I have been involved in the farm for many years in my capacity as agricultural adviser". (For ease of reference, as the applicant's agent refers to this dwelling as Ballakissack Cottage that is how it shall be referred to in this report.) - 1.5 A recent application (PA 15/01038/B included within the red line of the site the farm lane, Ballakissack Farmhouse, and also the buildings associated with Ballakissack Farm itself, and no blue line was shown at all. This red line does not appear to have reflected land ownership, as the 'blue line' shown on the current application includes the farm buildings but not (as noted) Ballakissack Farmhouse itself.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of an agricultural worker's dwelling on the rectangular portion of the application site.

• 2.2.1 The design of the dwelling takes the form of a bungalow. There is a main body to the bungalow along with a pair of additional elements that have the impression of being extensions, one to the side of the main body of the dwelling and another at right angles to the rear. The bungalow also has a porch, which would be finished in naturally laid stonework. The remainder of the dwelling is finished in render with a slate roof and concrete barges, while three chimneys and a single flue are also proposed.
• 2.2.2 The design was subject to amendment on the basis that officers indicated the original design (also a bungalow, but one with less coherence in its design) did not meet with Planning Circular 3/91 as is required by Housing Policy 7 in cases such as this.
• 2.2.3 The agent substantiated the amended design. He argues that the proportions (either 1:2 or 1:3 in terms of depth and width respectively) reflect those of the Circular. He argues that the Circular refers to two-storey buildings and therefore provides no guidance in respect of single storey extensions. He argues that the Circular does not provide for modern standards of building, living, ceiling heights or ventilation, and also it does not make reference to window proportions. He identifies that the Circular has not been revised as expected as per Housing Policy 14, and the Strategic Plan 2016 has not altered this, and that it is unrealistic to apply the Circular 'to the letter'. He also argues that the simple plan is similar to those granted at Glashen Farm under PAs

• 14/00030/B and 14/00031/B. He argues that the proposed design is for a single storey dwelling incorporating features of an extension from the outset, and identifies that more chimneys have been incorporated as have windows that reflect the longer length compared to depth.

2.3 There has been a statement submitted with the application by an agricultural advisor explaining the need for it. In addition to this, the applicant's agent was asked to clarify certain matters additional to those outlined in the statement. Taking all this information together, the following points in support / explanation of the application have been made on its behalf:

• o The proposed dwelling will be for Michael Kinvig, son of Ashley and Sandra Kinvig (née Radcliffe), the latter two of whom currently farm the site but live at Ballaglonney, Ronague;
• o Michael Kinvig currently lives in Foxdale with his partner, his partner's mother and sister in
• order to save money to build the house for which the application seeks approval;
• o Neil Kinvig also currently farms Ballakissack Farm and lives with his parents (Ashley and Sandra Kinvig) in Ronague;
• o Neil Kinvig may ultimately want to move out of the family home and be independent but his personal situation is different to Michael Kinvig's as Michael has a partner;
• o George Radcliffe, father of Sandra Kinvig, currently resides at Ballakissack Farmhouse;
• o It is not known who resides at Ballakissack Cottage
• o Neither Ballakissack Farmhouse nor Ballakissack Cottage has an agricultural worker's tie;
• o Albeit that George Radcliffe is a retired farmer, it is not appropriate that no one who is 'named' as being actively involved in Sandash Farms Limited is currently living on the site, which has 160 cows;
• o Michael Kinvig, who left home aged only 19, is now aged 26 and an experienced and reliable member of the family business and is taking over more of the day-to-day running of that business;
• o Every encouragement should be given to young farmers who are willing to take on the responsibility of continuing the Island's farming industry;
• o Ballakissack Farmhouse will be handed over to one of Mr Radcliffe's sons, who are not involved in farming. There is no known timescale for this;
• o Government, food processors and retailers place more demand on farmers than previously to ensure that milk and meat is produced in clean, hygienic conditions, and livestock welfare standards are higher than they have ever been such that additional work on farms is required to ensure livestock is kept disease-free;

• o The Sandash Ltd. farming business has grown due to demands of the government to increase local produce / reduce reliance on imported produce;
• o There are 10 cows in the dairy herd, 20 cows in the beef herd, 90 different aged cattle for the production of beef or replacement cows and 60 calves less than 6 months old;
• o There is also a sheep flock of 82 ewes and two sows;
• o There are also 30 hens;
• o The dairy herd is now one of the best on the Island to such an extent that UK dairy farmers are always looking to buy surplus breeding heifers from Sandash Farms Ltd.;
• o Managing a top dairy herd takes a huge amount of work, with working days typically lasting between 6:30am and 8:30pm, but these hours can be different where unforeseen problems (e.g. difficult calvings) occur;
• o The farm currently totals 336.63 farmable acres, with 172.36 of these at Ballakissack;
• o The remaining farmable acres are at Ballaglonney (63.35 acres), Santon (63.35 acres rented
• on a long-term basis), and Blackhill (17.01 acres rented from family [it is noted that these numbers total 316.07 acres rather than the 336.63 identified in the application];
• o The dairy herd and young calves are based at Ballakissack and the beef herd at Ballaglonney; replacement heifers and sheep are kept at all locations;
• o The majority of the fields [presumably across the full acreage, not just at Ballakissack, but this is not immediately clear] are in grass for silage and grazing, with 60 acres of barley and oats sown for feed and straw every year;
• o The garden associated with Ballakissack Farmhouse is an acceptably sized area and is surrounded by trees, and siting a house within it along with an associated access would affect those trees;
• o Moreover, any new dwelling located in that garden would have to be sited in front of Ballakissack Farmhouse and this would be detrimental to the amenities of the Farmhouse, considering the need for a parking / turning area and garden for the new dwelling as well;
• o Ballakissack Farmhouse lies outside of the red line of the application site;
• o Land to the north and northwest of the farmyard is "delineated off" under DEFA's Countryside Care Scheme for external storage, and so cannot be used to site a dwelling;
• o The designation of Areas of High Landscape Value has been made without reference to the use of land for agricultural and associated purposes. A sustainable agricultural industry will not be possible by only allowing development on land outside of such areas, and indeed there is a recent approval of an agricultural building on this land, which suggests that the designation "does not inhibit development associated with agricultural purposes".

- 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 The planning history of the site clearly establishes that Ballakissack Farm is a longestablished agricultural enterprise. In addition to older applications seeking approval for new agricultural buildings (PAs 96/00356/B and 97/01831/B), the erection of a slurry store (PA 05/09218/B) and the erection of an extension to an existing agricultural building (PA 08/00884/B), there was most recently an approval for another extension to an existing agricultural building (PA

15/01038/B).

- 4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as 'white land' and which is also defined as being of High Landscape Value in the 1982 Development Plan. In view of this and the nature of the proposal, there are a number of policies of the Strategic Plan that apply. Although these are extensive, it is worth noting them in full, below.

General Policy 3 [in part]: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:

• (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10)."

• 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 or 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 different 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."

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."

• Housing Policy 7: "New agricultural dwellings will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances where real agricultural need is demonstrated."
• Housing Policy 8: "Where permission is granted for an agricultural dwelling, a condition will be attached restricting the occupation to a person engaged or last engaged solely in agriculture; or a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident dependants."
• Housing Policy 9: "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."

• Housing Policy 10: "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." In this context, it is worth noting what those policies say:

• 1) The removal or replacement of traditional elements including materials, windows or external works will generally not be acceptable. Work to buildings which date before 1920 should as far as practicable retain the original materials and form of the building.
• 2) New buildings are to be integrated with the landscape and, where in groups, with each other. Single buildings in prominent locations can only be considered if they are satisfactory in all respects and include landscape proposals.
• 3) The shape of small and medium sized new dwellings should follow the size and pattern of traditional farmhouses. They should be rectangular in plan and simple in form. Extensions to existing buildings should maintain the character of the original form.
• 4) External finishes are expected to be selected from a limited range of traditional materials.
• 5) Doors and windows together with their size and relationship with each other and the wall face should follow traditional rural forms.
• 6) Chimneys are considered important features and their provision following past patterns is recommended.
• 7) Existing features are an essential part of the rural scene. New work should follow and respect successful past patterns.

- 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure commented on 15.07.2016 as follows:

"On inspection of the supporting information and plans, the proposed dwelling is for an existing farm worker who currently commutes to and from the farm. It would therefore be reasonable to conclude that the proposed development will not result in an intensification of use of the existing priority junction on the A5 which, in addition to Ballakissack Farm, also provides access to The Professional Development Centre and other residential properties.

"The proposed two bedroom property is set well back from the A5 and would appear to occupy an adequate plot of land to accommodate parking for two vehicles in accordance with the residential parking standards set out in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

"Recommendation: Having reviewed the information provided in support of this planning application, the development proposals are not considered to be contrary to the general and transport specific policies set out in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan nor do the proposals include any alterations to the external highway network.

"On that basis, the Department of Infrastructure does not oppose this planning application."

5.2 Santon Commissioners have not commented on the application. - 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 General Policy 3 and Housing Policy 7 (alongside Environment Policies 1 and 2) are together clear that a new agricultural worker's dwelling will only be approved outside of land zoned for such development where there is an essential agricultural need, and exceptional circumstances, are established. As such, it must be considered as to the extent to which such a need has been defined. Thereafter, consideration is also given to the siting and design of the dwelling proposed, as required by Environment Policy 15 and Housing Policies 9 and 10. The principle

6.2 General Policy 3 outlines the exceptions to the presumption against new development in the countryside. One of these allows for the erection of "essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work". The key test, reflecting as well on the wording of Housing Policy 7, is therefore the extent to which it is essential that Michael Kinvig lives close to Ballakissack Farm.

6.3 There is no dispute, on the basis of the evidence submitted, that there is sufficient labour for the farm to require a number of full-time agricultural works. This, however, is not the fundamental

• test, as there are many people (indeed, probably the majority) that are employed far from their place of residence: the main issue is whether or not it is essential that Michael Kinvig resides at Ballakissack Farm itself. In considering whether or not the application is able to meet this test, animal welfare and the availability of alternatives must be taken into account.
• 6.4 There are a large number of animals on the site, and each of these will need care and attention. This is not disputed. It is clearly beneficial for an employee of the farm to be located nearby in order to attend to increasingly onerous standards of welfare.
• 6.5 However, there is insufficient information within the application to determine that there is an essential need sufficient to outweigh the general principle against new development in the countryside. In short, there is insufficient evidence to indicate: (1) what has changed in agricultural practices in recent times to require a new dwelling in this location at this time; (2) why / how the intended occupant of the dwelling has been able to actively manage Ballakissack Farm remotely for roughly seven years but this situation is now no longer able to continue; (3) why an additional dwelling is required when there are already two nearby, one of which is known to be in the same family ownership as that for which the application seeks approval, and (4) why an additional dwelling is required on a permanent basis.
• 6.6 It is readily understood that the third point may very well be a sensitive issue. Ownership and residency and family matters such as this are areas into which the Planning System should not delve too deeply. However, in cases such as this, it is appropriate to look at the land situation in the round and to make an assessment as to whether or not additional development such as that proposed is necessary. The fourth point is also one for further consideration in this respect. The existing Farmhouse appears to be a large dwelling and one that would seem able to accommodate additional occupation on those temporary occasions where 24/7 access to cattle is essential. It is not known from the evidence submitted with the application how often such access is required, but there is no reason to conclude that it would be for such an extensive period as to warrant another standalone dwelling here.
• 6.7 In view of the above, it is concluded that there is insufficient need for another dwelling to be sited in this location, and the key test of part (a) of General Policy 3 has not been met. In addition to this, the proposal therefore fails to comply with Environment Policy 1, which requires that the countryside - in which the site sits - is to be protected for its own sake. Highway safety
• 6.8 The access is concluded to be acceptable by Highway Services and, though the Castletown Road is busy and visibility not particularly good to the east, there does not seem to be sufficient reason to take a different view on this point. Indeed, should the proposed dwelling be approved, it would presumably result in reduced vehicle movements on this junction (since an employee would be located on the farm already): accordingly, the proposal is likely to result in an improvement in highway safety terms. House design and siting
• 6.9 The design proposed has been altered during the course of the application. It is not understood why the amendment has still resulted in a design that fails to even closely reflect the expectations of Circular 3/91. While it is accepted that the wording of Housing Policy 10 only indicates that dwellings for agricultural workers should "generally" comply with such policies, it is considered that the word "generally" places a requirement on the applicant to explain why an alternative design approach should be judged acceptable. No such argument has been put forward: it is unclear as to why a bungalow is proposed, and accordingly it is not understood why Housing Policy 10 should be set aside.
• 6.10 The argument of the agent that dwellings resembling Manx vernacular do not reflect modern building standards / methods or room sizes is also difficult to understand as planning approval is still

• sought for such dwellings - a recent example the Committee may recall is at Vaaish Mooar on the Staarvey Road, which gained approval as recently as August 2016. Reference to other dwellings approved at Glashen Farm carrying a bungalow design is understood to a degree inasmuch as the form / massing of the dwellings there is similar to that proposed here. However, the two referenced dwellings were approved following a lengthy and complicated planning history, involving some applications being refused on grounds of visual impact. In any case, it is to be remembered that each application should be assessed having regard to its own individual circumstances, and in this case there has been no evidence submitted to justify a departure from Housing Policy 10. It is accordingly concluded that the application is contrary to Housing Policy 10 and should be refused on that basis.
• 6.11 Turning to the siting of the dwelling proposed, Environment Policy 15 and Housing Policy 9 set out how such buildings should be sited, with further guidance set out in Environment Policy 2. The latter policy does not reflect any sort of 'embargo' on development within Areas of High Landscape Value - as highlighted by the recent approval for an extension to an existing agricultural building under PA 15/01038/B. It does, however, set out that in such 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".
• 6.12 It is considered that the dwelling will not be especially visible from public viewpoints such that the key test set out in part (b) of Housing Policy 9 is met. However, it is difficult to conclude that its siting would comply with parts (a) or (c) of Housing Policy 9 or Environment Policy 15. Moreover, and as already outlined, insufficient definition of an essential need for the dwelling proposed has been provided within the application: this means that the application fails to comply with part (b) of Environment Policy 2.
• 6.13 The dwelling is sited apart from the established farmyard buildings: its separation is highlighted by the fact that a new access lane off the main farm lane is required, as presumed against by part (c) of Housing Policy 9. There is an existing and well-defined farmyard that the new dwelling would, if constructed, sit well apart from. While there has been some explanation as to why other locations are not feasible, the fact that the proposed siting might be considered 'the least worst' is not in itself reason to support the application. In any case, the lack of even a sketch plan defining how a new dwelling might be accommodated within the garden of Ballakissack Farmhouse makes it difficult to conclude that this location is unfeasible. That it lies outwith the red line of the application site is not, given that the occupier of that dwelling is a retired farmer at Ballkissack Farm, reason enough to dismiss it as an option.
• 6.14 There is, of course, the argument that because the dwelling cannot be readily seen the application complies with Environment Policy 15, part (a) of Environment Policy 2, and part (a) of Housing Policy 9. However, against this, it should also be remembered that the policies as a whole indicate that proposals such as this should be approved only in exceptional circumstances and, accordingly, specific and close regard should be had to those policies collectively as to what they are trying to achieve. In this case, and this is a conclusion reached by Planning Inspectors considering applications for development elsewhere on the Island, the fact that a building cannot be readily seen does not, in a wider sense, mean that harm will not arise. That some countryside would be lost under the proposal, without sufficient justification and contrary to the first paragraph of Environment Policy 1, means it must also be concluded that the siting for the dwelling is inappropriate to a degree that the application should also be refused on the grounds that it fails to comply with Environment Policies 1, 2 and 15 and part (a) of Housing Policy 9.

- 7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 In view of the above conclusions in respect of both the principle of the proposal and also its detail, the application is recommended for refusal on four separate grounds. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• o The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
• o Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material, which in this case includes Highways Services of the Department of Infrastructure, and
• o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 24.10.2016

• R 1. Housing Policy 7 and part (a) of General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 allow for the construction of new dwellings for agricultural workers where an essential need for such dwellings is established. It is concluded that such an essential need has not been demonstrated in this case such that the application is contrary to these two policies.
• R 2. In the absence of an essential need having been established, the application is also contrary to Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, which requires that the countryside be protected for its own sake.
• R 3. The design of the dwelling proposed does not reflect the wording of policies 1-7 of Planning Circular 3/91 ('Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside'), and therefore also fails to comply with the wording of Housing Policy 10 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, which requires agricultural dwellings to generally follow those seven policies of the Circular. Insufficient justification has been made in the application to explain why the policies of the Circular or Housing Policy 10 should be set aside.
• R 4. The dwelling proposed would be sited away from the main farmyard and would require a new access lane. While this would not be especially visible from public viewpoints, the key test as set out in Environment Policy 1 and part (a) of Environment Policy 2 has not been met in that an essential need for the dwelling has not been demonstrated. Accordingly, the application is contrary to Environment Policies 1, 2 and 15 and part (a) of Housing Policy 9 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

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: 31.10.2016

Signed : E RILEY 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.