Loading document...
Application No.: 19/00251/B Applicant: Homelea Farms Ltd Proposal: Erection of agricultural worker's dwelling Site Address: Shenvalley Farm Foxdale Road St Marks Ballasalla Isle Of Man IM9 3AL Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 26.03.2019 Site Visit: 26.03.2019 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 15.04.2019 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. It is not accepted that there is a need for a further dwelling either at the present time when the agricultural labour unit calculation suggests that there is a need for less than a single labour unit, nor in the future if and when stock and buildings are expanded. If there is a need for a second dwelling on this site, this accommodation could be provided through the conversion of an existing building rather than in a new building which will be clearly visible from the public highway. The proposal is therefore contrary to General Policy 3, Environment Policy 15 and Housing Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan.
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons None _____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report THE SITE
1.1 The site is the farmyard and immediate curtilage associated with Shenvalley Farm which is located on the eastern and southern sides of the B35 St. Mark's Road which continues to the east to meet the A24 at Garth crossroads. - 1.2 The site contains a range of modern and older farm buildings and up until recently accommodated an old, quarterland style farmhouse which has recently been demolished to make way for a newer dwelling to the rear, which is currently under construction (see Planning History).
1.3 The farm buildings are a combination of old and new. The older buildings are in various states of disrepair: that in best condition lies on the southern side of the farmyard: the others across the yard appear to have been built a different types and some have been adapted for other uses. The modern buildings sit at the southern end of the farmyard with the most recent building sitting to the north. - 1.4 The site defined in blue extends to 56 hectares (140 acres) all contained in one parcel of land surrounding the farm yard. - 1.5 The site plan shows the existing buildings, some of which are to be demolished, on the northern side of the farm yard along with the footprint of a proposed new agricultural building which is the subject of a concurrent application, 19/00252/B. - 1.6 Some of the buildings on site can be seen from the public highway: the stone building and adjacent silos can be seen on the approach to the site from St. Mark's and the existing modern building ont the northern side of the farmyard can be seen from the north of the site. THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Proposed is the erection of a farm dwelling. This will be located on the northern side of the location of the new dwelling which is under construction and behind an existing masonry outbuilding. This is part of a larger field: proposed is the excision of this part of the field to accommodate the farm dwelling and a new boundary formed by planting to the north and west. - 2.2 The dwelling is to be single storey with a footprint of 9m by 14.3m with two bedrooms, an office, bathroom, lounge/dining room/kitchen. The building will have a natural slate roof, rendered walls with square windows and a stone porch offset from the centre of the north facing elevation. - 2.3 The applicant has provided supporting information, explaining that the farm holding includes not only the land which is part of this application but also a further 56 acres owned and rented at other sites in the vicinity. The applicant purchased the site in May 2016 and has been investing in the site since then, improving drainage and allowing for the increase in stock numbers. The dwelling which is currently being built is "to allow the family to reside on site and manage the farm". The farm is currently stocked with 130 breeding ewes with the majority of the lambs being taken through to finish. 20 ewe lambs will be retained for replacements along with the 3 breeding rams. They calculate the current enterprise amounts to 0.69 labour units but the applicant intends to expand the enterprise t be fully stocked with 60 breeding suckler cows and 400 breeding ewes with all progeny being reared on the farm to finish. - 2.4 The expansion will necessitate the construction of two new steel framed buildings (each 30m by 15m) which is the subject of the concurrent application. The full stock levels necessitate livestock housing and feed storage area of 2,470 sq m. Currently there is a need for 422 sq m. When the proposed buildings are constructed there will be a shortfall of 310 sq m. Existing buildings are proposed to be demolished in order to make the available space unobstructed and workable. - 2.5 The applicant wishes to construct an additional dwelling in order to attract staff to assist with the management of the farm which, when fully stocked will amount to 2.51 labour units and represents a long term approach to the management of the farm. They suggest that extra observation and assistance will be required at calving and lambing periods to ensure that animal welfare is paramount. They have recently looked for alternative suitable accommodation but they have been unable to find anything suitable. The availability of a dwelling on the site would increase the potential of attracting and retaining quality staff and they consider it would be sensible to progress the two development phases concurrently whilst the relevant construction trades are on site. They would accept an agricultural worker's occupancy
condition. The supporting information prepared by Rural Business Consultancy reiterates the facts cited above and adds that he has not considered other housing alternatives in the vicinity but in his experience with other Island farm businesses, attracting and retaining good quality staff is becoming more and more of an issue and he supports the provision of a dwelling on the site to increase the applicant's ability to do this.
3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the APS as not for any particular purpose. As such, there is a presumption against development as set out in General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1. The site lies within a wider area of Incised Slopes on the Landscape Character Appraisal where the following advice is provided:
Ballamodha, Earystane and St Marks (D14) The overall strategy is to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the area, with its wooded valley bottoms, its strong geometric field pattern delineated by Manx hedges, its numerous traditional buildings and its network of small roads and lanes. The strategy should also include the restoration of landscapes disturbed by former mining activities.
Key Views Distant views prevented at times by dense woodland in river valleys and by the cumulative screening effect of hedgerow trees, which tend to create wooded horizons.
Open and panoramic views out to sea from the higher areas on the upper western parts of the area where there are few trees to interrupt views.
3.23 Implications of the Landscape Character Assessment Landscape Type: Uplands, Incised Slopes, Rugged Coast, Undulating Lowland Plain Landscape Area: A2 (Southern Uplands), D14 (Ballamodha, Earystane and St Mark's), E11 (Langness), F7 (Castletown and Ballasalla) and F8 (Poyll Vaaish and Scarlett Peninsula)
3.2 General Policy 3 sets out a presumption against development in the countryside but includes instances where provision of new housing may be acceptable, including "(f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry." Further advice on agricultural development is provided as follows:
agriculture justification based on full time employment in agriculture. See also Section 8.9 in Chapter 8 - Housing.
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.
8.9 New Agricultural Dwellings - 8.9.1 As is indicated in Chapter 7 (at Section 7.14), permission will not be granted for new agricultural dwellings in the countryside unless there is real agricultural need demonstrated sufficient to off-set the general planning objections to new dwellings in the countryside.
Housing Policy 9: Where permission is granted for an agricultural dwelling, the dwelling must be sited such that;
4.1 The site has been subject to a number of applications for development. Planning approval was granted for the replacement of the existing house with a new agricultural worker's dwelling under 10/01060/B. This was not submitted by the current applicant who did not own the property at that time. That approval was not implemented. A subsequent application was submitted for the erection of a replacement dwelling - 17/00251/B. The applicant at the time explained the proposal as follows:
"2.5 The applicant explains that the owners have recently acquired the farm, including its 140 acres and presently live elsewhere. The other farms, Upper and Lower Tosaby which were farmed with this site, are being marketed separately. The owner does not at this time have firm plans for the farm, as they are not farmers, and may lease it with the house, or lease the land and live in the house. They are also considering converting some of the range of outbuildings to other uses, possibly tourist accommodation, to diversify the income from the site. They suggest that whilst the house has lost its habitable status through lack of use for the last 20 years, it has no agricultural occupancy condition attached to it and so neither should the replacement house."
4.2 That replacement house was approved without any agricultural occupancy condition. REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Malew Parish Commissioners have no objection to the application (03.04.19).
5.2 DEFA Ecosystems Policy Office raise concerns not about the proposed dwelling but about the planned demolition of the buildings on site due to potential interest for wildlife and particularly protected species. Whilst these are normally material considerations, they do not relate to works which are covered by the proposed development (12.04.19). ASSESSMENT - 6.1 In order for a new dwelling to be considered acceptable here, it must be demonstrated that there is a real agricultural need for the property. This will take account of a number of things including who will occupy the proposed dwelling, and what role they will play in the operation of the farm and taking into account the long-term viability of new or unproven agricultural
enterprises. It is also relevant to consider, if there is a proven need for another dwelling on this site, whether there are alternatives to the construction of a new dwelling.
6.2 The approved dwelling on this site is not yet complete. As such, it is not yet clear that how this agricultural holding will be managed. It may be that the farm is capable of being managed with a single dwelling. The labour unit calculation only rises above one person if and when the stock level increases and the agricultural buildings are extended, neither of which has occurred. There is therefore, no present need for further living accommodation on the site.
6.3 Even if the stock levels had increased and the building floor area expanded accordingly, it is not known whether it would be possible to manage the farm without additional workers living on site. The critical time for supervision is lambing and calving which are not all year round activities. There is therefore demonstrated need for full time, permanent accommodation for a further worker once the developing house is complete and from there, it will be possible to provide the necessary supervision of the land and stock without the need for a further dwelling. Without knowing who the intended additional agricultural worker(s) is/are, it is impossible to state that they need to live on site. It may be that two agricultural workers live together in the approved dwelling as partners or that the additional agricultural worker already lives in the vicinity or manages additional land elsewhere. There is no evidence at the present time that the additional agricultural workers, if they are needed and do become involved in the management of this land, need to live on site here. - 6.4 If there is a need for a dwelling on this holding then the approved dwelling satisfies this need. Simply because the property has no agricultural occupancy condition attached to it does not mean either that it cannot or should not be occupied by an agricultural worker or workers, nor that this dwelling should not be taken into account in the assessment of need for agricultural accommodation suitable for this agricultural holding. Clearly the house that it replaced was the farmhouse associated with this holding and that had no agricultural occupancy condition attached to it. - 6.5 If there is an additional need for on-site accommodation, and it is not accepted that there is, there are options other than building a new dwelling. It was clearly one option at the time of purchase that some of the existing buildings on the site could be converted to additional uses, such as tourist accommodation to diversity the income to the holding. Whilst the applicant has obviously had a change of heart as many of the buildings are to be demolished, there is to the west of the new house an existing building which is particularly interesting which could be converted to accommodation to support the farmholding. No use is indicated in the submitted drawings for this building and it is not shown to be demolished. The Planning Committee members on their site visit in association with the most recent application, were particularly interested in the preservation of this building both in its own right and as part of the integrity of the farm group and its historical interest. - 6.6 In respect of the siting and appearance of the proposed dwelling, it would be accessed via the existing farm lane and sited adjacent to the existing buildings so would be in accordance with Housing Policy 9 in this respect. It is not in full accordance with Planning Circular 3/91 which gives minimal advice on single storey properties, but it contains many traditional features. The dwelling would, however be clearly visible from the public highway as there are no intervening trees or vegetation which would screen it therefrom.
7.1 It is not accepted that there is a need for a further dwelling either at the present time when the agricultural labour unit calculation suggests that there is a need for less than a single labour unit, nor in the future if and when stock and buildings are expanded. If there is a need for a second dwelling on this site, this accommodation could be provided through the conversion of an existing building rather than in a new building which will be clearly visible
from the public highway. The proposal is therefore contrary to General Policy 3, Environment Policy 15 and Housing Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan.
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:
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 the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Refused Date : 24.04.2019 Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
