Loading document...
| Application No.: | 14/00850/B |
| Applicant: | Alan George Martin |
| Proposal: | Erection of an agricultural worker's dwelling and erection of an agricultural shed |
| Site Address: | Ballacowle Farm Lhen Road Bride Isle Of Man IM7 4BQ |
| Case Officer: | Mr Edmond Riley |
| Photo Taken: | 27.08.2014 |
| Site Visit: | 27.08.2014 |
| Expected Decision Level: | Planning Committee |
THE APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS PLANNING APPROVAL IS SOUGHT FOR AN AGRICULTURAL WORKER'S DWELLING
1.1 The application site comprises a quite tightly-knit farmyard surrounded by associated fields, with these stretching most significantly northwards. The site is accessed off the A10 Coast Road highway as it travels northwest from Bride, and the fields to the southeast of the site border the village of Bride that sits to the south. The site seems to represent the entirety of the farmholding, which is all owned by the applicant.
1.2 Two dwellings and several barns are on the site, which is more or less invisible from the highway as the land slopes away appreciably in a northeastern direction. The main farmhouse, which is nearest to the road, is a bungalow and cannot itself be readily seen from the highway. That house is occupied by the applicant, while the other house, which is further within the site, appears to have unoccupied for some time. Within the main farm are several farm buildings of various ages and fairly traditional form and construction for those ages - some are stonework, while those more contemporary in nature are of portal frame construction.
1.3 To the east and centrally within the site are a number of mature trees, which, were the site already not sunk below the surrounding landscape, would effectively screen the farm buildings from the east.
2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a new agricultural worker's dwelling and a new grain shed. An existing farmhouse would be demolished to make way for the new grain shed, while the new farmhouse is proposed to be located on a currently undeveloped area of land that includes an orchard and is shown on the submitted plans as being largely within the existing curtilage of the unoccupied house.
2.2 The dwelling itself would have four bedrooms and a bathroom to the first floor with a kitchen/family room and lounge to the ground floor. There would be a small front porch and a slightly larger rear extension providing a shower room and WC; these are shown as being either Manx stone-faced or painted render. The windows at ground floor level are wider than those above, and all would have uPVC frames. The slate (or imitation slate) roof would be bookended by two chimneys. The dwelling would be finished with a painted render. It would measure roughly 213sqm internally, compared to the 230sqm of the other farmhouse proposed for demolition.
2.3 The new residential curtilage for the new dwelling is shown, and this would extend roughly 9m into the adjacent Field 114145 along a stretch roughly 45m in length. The new boundary to the south would be formed of a Manx sod hedge.
2.4 The grain shed is proposed to be sited on roughly half of the footprint of the existing (unoccupied) house, and would measure 10.00m in width by 13.62m in length. The pitched roof would be, at its apex, 7.20m above ground level with the eaves sitting 5.60m above ground level. It would be open on two sides (northeast and northwest), with the other two sides enclosed via concrete blockwork 1.9m in height and with the remainder clad in tan-colour hit-and-miss weatherboarding. The roof would be finished in corrugated fibre cement or metal cladding.
2.5 The application as submitted made no reference to the proposed dwelling being an agricultural worker's dwelling. Discussion was had with the applicant's agent as to the appropriateness of this, with it being acknowledged that the proposal could be considered as a replacement dwelling and therefore independent of agricultural need. The agent was advised, however, that given the proposed dwelling's significantly different siting relative to the existing dwelling an argument on this basis would be unlikely to receive a favourable recommendation. It was agreed that, since there was clearly an agricultural motivation behind both elements of the application, a revised description of the application - this time to include reference to an agricultural worker's dwelling - should be provided. This was duly provided and, given that the instruction from the agent was received some time after the end of the consultation period during which no objections or private representations had been received, it was considered that this new description should be circulated rather than consulted upon. Any further comments were invited by 3rd October; as this report is being prepared just before that date, Committee will be provided with a verbal update as to any comments received (which, at the time of writing, is zero).
2.6 The application also includes a letter of support from Allan Bell MHK (Chief Minister) and Eddie Teare MHK (Treasury Minister).
3.1 The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications. Near the site of the proposed new house, approval was granted for the erection of an agricultural building under PA 91/01540/B. Another building was granted approval further into the site under PA 93/00288/B, and another under PA 05/02022/B. All of these buildings have been constructed.
3.2 Of the existing houses on the site, the occupied bungalow appears to have been constructed without planning approval. Although Approval in Principle was granted on 11th November 1967 under PA 23580, there is no evidence of a Reserved Matters application. However, owing to the time elapsed since the construction of this dwelling it is lawful. No agricultural tie was attached to the AiP but, in any case, as the dwelling was constructed unlawfully then it may well be that any conditions attached to any approval in its respect would not apply to the bungalow.
3.3 The now-vacant farmhouse appears to have been built prior to the existence of a planning system. No planning history exists for the building. Before reaching a decision as to the 1967 application, the Local Government Board requested clarification as to what use the existing farmhouse would be put. The applicant's advocates advised: "It is our client's intention to maintain the Old Farm House in reasonable condition and to use it for storage purposes in connection with the Farm". The day after this letter was received, planning approval was issued.
4.1 The site is located within an area of "woodland" as designated on the Isle of Man Development Plan 1982. It is also within a wider area of unzoned "white land" and an Area of High Landscape Value as defined on the same Plan.
4.2 Given the nature of the proposal and its zoning, a number of policies from the Strategic Plan are materially relevant to a greater or lesser degree.
4.3 General Policy 3: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
4.4 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."
4.5 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:
4.6 Environment Policy 14: "Development which would result in the permanent loss of important and versatile agricultural land (Classes 1-2) will not be permitted except where there is an overriding need for the development, and land of a lower quality is not available and other policies in this plan are complied with. This policy will be applied to (a) land annotated as Classes 1/2 on the Agricultural Land Use Capability Map; and (b) Class 2 soils falling within areas annotated as Class 2/3 and Class 3/2 on the Agricultural Land Use Capability Map."
4.7 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."
4.8 Housing Policy 4: "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances:
4.9 Housing Policy 7: "New agricultural dwellings will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances where real agricultural need is demonstrated."
4.10 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."
4.11 Housing Policy 9: "Where permission is granted for an agricultural dwelling, the dwelling must be sited such that:
4.12 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."
4.13 Policies 1-7 of Planning Circular 3/91 ('Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside') are set out below:
4.14 Housing Policy 12: "The replacement of an existing dwelling in the countryside will generally be permitted unless:
In assessing whether a property has lost its habitable status by abandonment, regard will be had to the following criteria:
4.15 Housing Policy 14: "Where a replacement dwelling is permitted, it must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, unless changes of siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement; the new building should therefore generally be sited on the "footprint" of the existing, and should have a floor area, which is not more than 50% greater than that of the original building (floor areas should be measured externally and should not include attic space or outbuildings). Generally, the design of the new building should be in accordance with Policies 2-7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91, (which will be revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement). Exceptionally, permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact; designs should incorporate the re-use of such stone and slate as are still in place on the site, and in general, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building.
Consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling where this involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact."
4.16 Housing Policy 18: "Applications which would involve the loss of existing housing which is fit for habitation or which could be made fit at reasonable cost will not usually be approved unless accompanied by firm proposals for replacement housing."
5.1 Highway Services offered no objection to the application in an email received 6th August 2014.
5.2 The Manx Utilities Authority offered no objection to the application in a letter received 27th August 2014, requesting that the applicant contact them to discuss electricity supply at the property.
5.3 The views of the Agricultural Advisor within the Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture were sought, and he commented at length on the proposal in a letter received via email on 9th September 2014. He noted that there has been an additional area of land leased by the applicant on which additional sheep would be grazed and grassland cultivated.
The proposed shed, which he noted would house the farm's grains dryer, he considered to be agriculturally justified: the grains dryer is currently kept outside and, during wet weather, it cannot be used; other buildings in the farm are currently utilised for the storage or grain and crops - which take up a large amount of area - while the range of stone buildings on the farm are not suited to modern agricultural purposes, being limited in size and access.
In respect of the agricultural enterprise, he advises that the applicant is 56 years old and looking to facilitate the next generation into the family farm as he seeks to reduce his physical efforts. The increased farming area and sheep numbers will assist in generating the additional income required, and additional labour would be required (beyond that of his labour unit calculation) as the replacement dwelling would allow the ewes to be lambed earlier in the year and target higher value markets. He advises that the land currently support 250 breeding ewes and 145 lambs and replacement ewes; 80 acres of cereal are grown annually along with 10 acres of grass seeds, with another 80 acres utilised for grass production. His Department views the enterprise as a full-time business, and suggests that the current labour requirement sits at 1.42 labour units, with this rising to 1.69 labour units taking account of the increased land and proposed ewes. He advises that there are animal welfare issues during March and April, which requires an increase in labour.
5.4 Bride Commissioners offer no objection to the application in an email received 8th September 2014.
6.1 There are two distinct elements to the proposal: the proposed agricultural shed and the proposed dwelling. The existing farmhouse would need to be demolished to make way for the proposed shed. This demolition could be done without planning approval. In the first instance, it is noted that the proposal has attracted no objections. The proposed shed is considered first; the dwelling thereafter.
The proposed storage shed
6.2 The proposed shed is taller than more standard agricultural buildings, and this reflects the fact that it has a specific purpose in mind; the storage of the grain dryer. This was seen on the application site being stored outside. It seems fairly evident that housing a piece of machinery that cannot be used during inclement weather, along with additional storage space for loads of grain that have been treated, would be beneficial to the agricultural enterprise. Support in this respect from the Agricultural Advisor is noted. As such, it is considered that the principle is acceptable.
6.3 In terms of the siting, while the loss of an existing house that, although unused, is of relatively good form and repair, is unfortunate, it is fair to acknowledge that this loss forms part of a wider proposal (that is, to include a new dwelling elsewhere) such that to object on this basis would be inappropriate. Were no new dwelling proposed, then the proposed loss of the dwelling might be more objectionable. It is therefore not appropriate to come to a firm conclusion on the acceptability of the proposed siting for the shed building until an assessment of the proposed new dwelling is made.
6.4 That being said, the siting is considered to be appropriate inasmuch as it is close to the main farm buildings, which are closely-knit and give a very clear impression of being a "traditional" farmyard in this sense. The buildings are not visible from the highway to the southwest and although further distance views are possible from the Point of Ayre Road, the new building's location within the existing other farm buildings - along with the fact of its replacing an existing building - is such as to reduce its visual impact to well within acceptable levels.
6.5 The proposed materials are also acceptable in that they comprise fairly traditional contemporary agricultural materials (Yorkshire boarding; pre-cast concrete wall panels, and corrugated metal or fibre cement) that are fairly "of their type". The fact that half the building will remain open will further reduce any visual impact of the building, which, given it would sit taller than those around, is welcome.
The proposed new dwelling
6.6 This is the more complex element of the proposal to assess. Generally speaking, one standard labour unit is sufficient to make the principle of a new agricultural worker's dwelling acceptable (subject of course to a number of other considerations). In this situation, it must be acknowledged that the current circumstances require only 1.42 standard labour units and even the predicted increase in land and ewe flock will require 1.69 units. With the existing dwelling on the farm (albeit not lawfully tied to it), this suggests there is, even in the best of circumstances, only 0.69 of additional labour units required beyond those which are already available on the site in the form of the existing bungalow.
6.7 However, part of the planning application also relates to the replacement of an existing dwelling. As noted in paragraph 2.5 of this report, the proposed dwelling's siting is some way removed from the existing, unoccupied dwelling, which at first glance would make it contrary to Housing Policy 14.
6.8 In considering whether or not the habitable status of the dwelling has been lost to abandonment, as required by Housing Policy 12, it is noted that the applicant's agent states that: "...it is evident that with some modernisation it could well be renovated to provide a habitable property". This advice conflicts with the letter of support from Mr Allan Bell MHK and Mr Eddie Teare MHK, who advise that: "The old farm house is not economic to repair as it is built of Ballacorey brick which is porous and was only manufactured for a short period until the problems manifested themselves".
6.9 A cursory look at the outside of the building during the site visit seemed to indicate it was in perhaps surprisingly good repair, although its construction of Ballacorey brick does suggest longer-term stability problems. This is one matter to have regard to in assessing abandonment, as outlined in Housing Policy 12. It has clearly been empty for in excess of the ten years used as the 'rule of thumb' in assessing abandonment and, again, as outlined in Housing Policy 12. Also to take account of is the letter submitted in 1967 in respect of the application for Approval in Principle for the bungalow, which gives something of an indication to abandon the residential use, and also lack of intervening use for residential purposes (the two remaining matters to be had regard to in assessing abandonment; again outlined in Housing Policy 12). It is therefore not unreasonable to conclude that the residential use of
the building has been abandoned and that any change of use of the building would require planning approval.
6.10 All of this therefore places the application in somewhat of a no man's land between its inability to explicitly demonstrate essential agricultural need (as required by Housing Policy 7) and also its failure to seek a replacement dwelling on the same footprint as the existing dwelling (as required by Housing Policy 14). That being said, it is not considered that the application's falling between these two stools should necessarily mean that it is fundamentally unacceptable. Further assessment is required.
6.11 The agent indicates that the location of the existing, vacant dwelling "within the yard and in such close proximity to the farm buildings is not compatible with safe management and operation of the farm". This is an important point. The Department is frequently contacted with respect to the potential of converting an existing agricultural barn into a private residential dwelling; these barns are often fairly close to existing farm buildings and the issue of "safe management and operation of the farm" is rarely identified by the applicant / landowner in these cases. While there is some logic to the agent's statement, it does have the perhaps unintended side effect of meaning that any future planning applications for barn conversions where those barns are near active farm buildings will need to demonstrate that the safety of barn's future occupants can be assured.
6.12 There is also an issue in respect of assessing essential agricultural need. While, as noted, this is usually done in the first instance with reference to the standard labour unit calculation, it is considered that an assessment of agricultural need for a new dwelling that relies solely on this assessment could overlook important issues - for example, animal welfare - that are not easily quantifiable or vary throughout the year. In this respect, it is noted that the majority of the labour requirements relate to husbandry as opposed to cropping (1,886 hours per year versus 842 hours per year in respect of the existing situation; with the potentially increased land and sheep numbers, these figures become 2,565 and 648 respectively). It is also noted that, during March and April's lambing season, labour demands are far higher. There is therefore an argument that, despite the relatively low labour unit requirement, the benefits that would result in respect of animal welfare - to the existing 395 sheep - would possibly outweigh this. The additional suggestion that the earlier lambing of ewes would enable a higher value market to be targeted is also a potential, albeit minor, side benefit to having an additional permanent presence on the farm. These points are used by the Agricultural Advisor as a reason to provide support for the proposal. None, though, are considered sufficient to warrant approval of the dwelling solely on grounds of essential agricultural need. However, they do also need to be balanced against the other potential benefits or drawbacks of the application.
6.13 The next issue to consider is that of the existing, vacant dwelling relative to the new one proposed elsewhere on the site - in essence, an assessment of the application against Housing Policy 14. Perhaps the key assessment point of HP14 is that a judgement of the existing dwelling must be balanced against what is proposed in its place.
6.14 In this, it can be seen that the existing dwelling's form is more or less traditional. Its two-storey height (complete with two-storey rear outrigger), chimneys, window and door proportions, small porch, lack of eaves overhang, and use of slate, Ballacorey brick and render all point to the design of a traditional Manx farmhouse. To the rear, the outrigger has itself been extended with a cat-slide roof (with a pitch the same as the two-storey extension), which is traditional in form but has been installed in an unusual place on the dwelling.
6.15 The dwelling is certainly not of poor form, although there is nothing in HP14 that specifically presumes against the loss of a dwelling of non-poor form. The only reference to dwellings of poor form in HP14 is made in respect of the exceptional circumstances in which a dwelling more than 50% larger in size than the existing might be approved. Another
exception is made in respect of "an overall environmental improvement" that would result where the siting of a replacement dwelling would be different from the existing. Since such a change is proposed here, it is perhaps worth exploring what might be meant by "environmental improvement".
6.16 There is no specific definition of the term in the Strategic Plan, but it seems fair to assume it refers primarily to matters of either reduced energy consumption and / or visual impact. No information has been provided in respect of either of these matters by the agent. It is reasonable to assume that a new dwelling would have better energy consumption than an older dwelling. However: (i) it is known that equivalent improvements can be obtained by retrofitting better insulation, windows and doors and / or heating equipment, and (ii) even if (i) could not be achieved, it seems a stretch to suggest that a new siting for the dwelling would be necessary to achieve improved energy consumption.
6.17 Turning to visual impact, the site is, as noted elsewhere, set in something of a recess within the wider landscape and views into the site are, consequently, long-distance. On this, it is not considered that the visual impact of the farmyard would be much altered by the loss of one dwelling within the main farm building cluster (which would be replaced by the proposed storage shed) and the construction of a new dwelling to the edge of that cluster. The new dwelling would be partly visible from the A10 Coast Road, but the majority of that which would be visible would be the slate (or imitation slate) roof set against the treed backdrop behind.
6.18 There is perhaps another matter to consider as "an environmental improvement", which is that of the safe management and operation of the farm as outlined above. This is judged to be a minor element in the context of HP14, and indeed carries with it other considerations as outlined earlier in this report. However, it remains worth noting the potential improvement to the working of the farm that would result were the application approved and implemented and therefore should be considered as a positive impact in respect of the application. Another minor improvement could be considered to arise from the smaller floorspace of the new dwelling relative to the existing dwelling.
6.19 Balancing all of the above, it is considered that the proposed replacement dwelling does not comply with Housing Policy 14. It is not considered that the changed siting would result in a material environmental improvement.
Conclusion on the principle of the proposal
6.20 However, it is also considered that the proposal as a whole is not in outright conflict with Housing Policy 14, and nor with the other policies that collectively seek to protect the countryside from development unless in specific circumstances (that is, Environment Policy 1, General Policy 3 and Housing Policy 7).
6.21 Were one of a number of circumstances different (for example: were the site even slightly more visible from its surroundings; were the new dwelling larger than the existing; were the new dwelling's design non-traditional; were the proposal to be just for the new dwelling and not include the storage shed; were the existing house not centrally located within the farmyard; were the new dwelling to not be for an agricultural worker; were the vacant dwelling capable of being converted to residential use without the submission of a planning application) it is considered that a different view in respect of Housing Policy 14 - and the application as a whole - would quite probably have been reached.
6.22 In view of all of the above assessments, it is considered that, taken as a whole, the principle of the proposal is acceptable on balance. The harm that would arise from the proposed development is fairly neutral in that the net alteration to the farmholding as a whole is one new farm building, for which there is clear justification. Material weight has been
attached to the safer management of the farmholding that would result from the proposal's implementation. On this point, it is concluded that the new dwelling's proposed location is the best one from both this point of view and also from the point of view of the visual impact. While this is perhaps a matter of detail, it is important in assessing the principle of the proposal to be clear that the siting proposed is the most appropriate; any other location would result in a more visually-imposing piece of built development or the creation of residential traffic through the farmyard, which is clearly something the applicant wishes to avoid and of which the Department is supportive.
6.23 It is also true that a condition would need to be attached to any approval that may be forthcoming limiting the dwelling's occupation to an agricultural worker. This could not be done in respect of the existing, vacant dwelling (it was built prior to the existence of the Planning System and therefore has no such condition or other tie) such that a greater degree of control of the farm's future development can be obtained via the granting of approval.
6.24 What remains for consideration, then, is the design and siting of the proposed new dwelling as required by Housing Policies 9 and 10.
The design of the proposed dwelling
6.25 In this respect, it can be seen that the dwelling proposed is of a broadly traditional form with front and rear porches added. The dwelling is not especially inspiring from an architectural point of view, but its use of traditional massing, materials, windows and cream-coloured render gives the very clear impression of its being a farmhouse. The chimneys are perhaps the weakest element and would benefit from being taller as viewed from the front and rear elevations. They are, however, proportionate to the gables. The porches are annotated as being either stone finish or painted render; it is considered that the former should be required by condition. The roof is annotated as being either slate or imitation slate; again the former is preferred and should be required by condition. Both stone and slate are important elements of traditional rural dwellings and should be used where possible. The provisions of Housing Policy 9 are therefore considered met.
6.26 The dwelling is proposed to sit on the edge of the existing group of farm buildings and would be approached via the existing farm access; along with its siting away from the highway, it is considered that the dwelling complies with Housing Policy 10.
6.27 Reflecting on Housing Policy 14, the proposed dwelling is of a similar footprint and actually would provide a smaller floorspace than the existing, vacant dwelling. It would also have a far smaller residential curtilage than the other, albeit that the curtilage for the original farmhouse is defined in legal terms only and not Planning terms. The new dwelling would extend slightly beyond that curtilage and into the countryside by between 4m and 12m in a sweeping arc to the south of the older dwelling's curtilage. This would not be visible for the reasons already outlined in this report, and although no intrusion into the countryside would be preferred, it is considered that this represents a minor part of the application as a whole and, in any case, would be bounded with sod hedging thereby reducing any visual impact that might be said to arise.
Other matters
6.28 It is considered appropriate to require by condition that the existing, vacant dwelling be demolished prior to work commencing on the proposed dwelling, otherwise a circumstance could accidentally arise whereby three dwellings were in place on the site simultaneously. Other conditions in respect of the finishing of the dwelling should also be attached.
6.29 There is, as noted, no condition requiring the occupants of the bungalow on the site to be employed in agriculture. It is not possible to attach via planning approval such a
condition, although a legal agreement under Section 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 could be sought to a similar end. However, it is not considered that this would be necessary or expedient to make the proposed development acceptable in Planning terms (as required by Section 13) and, therefore, such an option should not be pursued in this case.
7.1 Any conclusion made will, given the circumstances outlined in the Report above, be finely balanced. Although the proposal could not be said to satisfactorily meet (i) the policies outlining the strict and limited exceptions to development in the countryside, nor (ii) those policies relating to replacement dwellings, it is considered that it does, overall, satisfy the principle of what those policies are trying to achieve. It is not accepted that an inability to demonstrate conformity with either those two policy 'groupings' should automatically mean the proposal fails on both; in this case, it is considered that the acceptability of the proposal has turned on a careful balance between those two groupings.
7.2 Environment Policy 1, General Policy 3 and Housing Policy 7 are all geared towards protecting the countryside from development unless in specific circumstances. Given the nature of Ballacowle Farm, however, the provisions of these policies have here been balanced against Housing Policy 14, which allows for replacement dwellings in the countryside. Especially important is the fact that the existing, vacant house could be renovated and sold independently from the farmholding were the applicants so minded, thereby potentially leaving a need for a new agricultural worker's dwelling (and therefore a third dwelling on the site overall) in the future. It is also important is that the proposal's implementation would allow for greater Planning control over future development proposals on the site.
7.3 Of further importance is that the net change to the overall situation on Ballacowle Farm will be the addition of an agricultural shed, which is considered to meet the exception to development in the countryside as set out in General Policy 3(f), along with a small incursion into the countryside by the curtilage of the new dwelling. Any new agricultural dwelling will have such an effect, and it is welcome that this one does not result in a larger incursion than might usually be the case.
7.4 It is therefore recommended that the application be approved, subject to conditions.
8.1 In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application; Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits.
8.2 In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and Article 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application:
8.3 In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and Article 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are not considered to have
sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application:
The Manx Utilities Authority
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 02.10.2014
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
The agricultural building hereby approved shall be removed and the ground restored to its former condition in the event that it is no longer used or required for agricultural purposes.
Reason: The building has been exceptionally approved solely to meet agricultural need and its subsequent retention would result in an unwarranted intrusion in the countryside.
The occupation of the dwelling hereby approved shall be limited to a person engaged or last engaged solely in agriculture on the Isle of Man, or a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident dependants.
Reason: The site is in an area where new dwellings are not normally approved except where an agricultural need has been established and accepted by the Department.
No work shall commence on the construction of the dwelling hereby approved until the existing, vacant farmhouse (that is, not the existing, occupied bungalow) on the site has been demolished in its entirety.
Reason: to avoid a situation where there are three dwellings on the application site and to protect the character and amenity of the countryside.
At the meeting held on the 13th October 2014, the Planning Committee determined to approve the application subject to the inclusion of the following additional condition:
C 7. The agricultural shed hereby approved shall be erected and be available for use prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved.
Reason: The barn is seen as an essential part of the agricultural enterprise and forms part of the justification for the new dwelling.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 02.10.2014
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. The agricultural building hereby approved shall be removed and the ground restored to its former condition in the event that it is no longer used or required for agricultural purposes.
Reason: The building has been exceptionally approved solely to meet agricultural need and its subsequent retention would result in an unwarranted intrusion in the countryside.
C 3. The occupation of the dwelling hereby approved shall be limited to a person engaged or last engaged solely in agriculture on the Isle of Man, or a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident dependants.
Reason: The site is in an area where new dwellings are not normally approved except where an agricultural need has been established and accepted by the Department.
C 4. No work shall commence on the construction of the dwelling hereby approved until the existing, vacant farmhouse (that is, not the existing, occupied bungalow) on the site has been demolished in its entirety.
Reason: to avoid a situation where there are three dwellings on the application site and to protect the character and amenity of the countryside.
C 5. The roof of the dwelling hereby approved shall be of natural slate and shall be constructed as far as is possible using reclaimed slate from the application site.
Reason: in the interest of the character and amenity of the development and its surroundings. C 6. The porches of the dwelling hereby approved shall be faced in Manx stone unless otherwise agreed in advance with the Department. Reason: in the interest of the character and amenity of the development and its surroundings.
This approval relates to the following plans, date-stamped as having been received 17th July 2014: WL/14/1312/1, WL/14/1312/2, WL/14/1312/3, WL/14/1312/4, WL/14/1312/5 and WL/14/1312/6.
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 : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
Signed : ...
Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
YES/NO
C 5.
The roof of the dwelling hereby approved shall be of natural slate and shall be constructed as far as is possible using reclaimed slate from the application site.
Reason: in the interest of the character and amenity of the development and its surroundings.
C 6.
The porches of the dwelling hereby approved shall be faced in Manx stone unless otherwise agreed in advance with the Department.
Reason: in the interest of the character and amenity of the development and its surroundings.
This approval relates to the following plans, date-stamped as having been received 17th July 2014: WL/14/1312/1, WL/14/1312/2, WL/14/1312/3, WL/14/1312/4, WL/14/1312/5 and WL/14/1312/6.
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 : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
Signed : ...
Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
Additional conditions re completion of burn prior to occupation of new dwelling.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
