Loading document...
The application is before the Planning Committee as it is directly contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan.
The site represents part of the curtilage of Bishopscourt Farm, Bishopscourt, Kirk Michael. The site is located directly adjacent to the main farm group to the north. The farm group is made up of the original farm house, stone outbuildings and modern farm buildings along with a recently constructed farm worker’s dwelling situated to the south of the main cluster. All are located on the eastern side of the A3 Road and approximately 200m north east of Bishopscourt
The proposal seeks approval for the erection of a two storey dwelling. The proposal would have a maximum width of 20 metres, a maximum depth of 10.2 metres and a ridge height of 5.9 metres.
The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of 'White Land', under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area; but is within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
Due to the zoning of the site, and the nature of the proposed development, the following planning policies are relevant in the consideration of the application:- "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Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein.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:
The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:
08/01650/A sought approval for the Approval in principle to erect a dwelling. This was refused at appeal for the following reason, with an informative note attached:-
Note
04/02598/B sought approval for the erection of a farm worker's dwelling. This was approved. 04/00644/A sought approval in principle for the erection of an agricultural worker's dwelling on one of two sites. This was approved. 03/00267/B sought approval for the installation of PVC sliding sash windows to replace the existing windows. This was approved. 00/00946/B sought approval for the erection of an agricultural building. This was approved. 85/00922/B sought approval for the erection of a farm building. This was approved. REPRESENTATIONS
Ballaugh Parish Commissioners:-
"No objection - Commissioners fully support the reason for the dwelling and also consider the resiting of the entrance of the existing farmhouse is much needed for safety reasons, which should also make it safer for motorists using the main road at this point."
The Department of Transport Highway Division subject to the following conditions:-
"Visibility splays of 2x25 from the site. Off street parking in accordance with Manx Roads 1. Turning facilities shall be provided to allow vehicles to emerge in a forward manor."
The owner/occupier of Glebe Cottage, Maughold, has objected to the application which can be summarised as; no location plan, no justification, and no information to previous application.
Perhaps the starting point is to highlight the relevant planning policy for new dwellings in the countryside. As indicated within General Policy 3 there are three reasons when residential development is permitted in the countryside. These are the replacement of an existing dwelling, the conversion of an existing rural building, and when there is a justified need for an agricultural workers dwelling.
Putting the reason for the dwelling to one side; fundamentally, in terms of planning policy there is a long established presumption against new build residential development in the countryside. As identified earlier, within the planning policy section of this report, this presumption against is set out in three different ways. Firstly, the application site is not zoned for residential development under the 1982 Development Plan Order. Secondly, General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, states that in such areas new dwellings will generally not be permitted. Thirdly, the proposal would not
serve neither a viable agricultural holding nor replacing an existing dwelling nor propose to convert an existing rural building and therefore there are no special circumstances to warrant the setting aside of the presumption against. The development proposed by this planning application is therefore clearly contrary to the current policies of the Department.
The purpose of the planning system is to control the use and development of land in the public interest. That requires a consideration of what is most appropriate for the population of the island as a whole. The protection of the Manx countryside from development and the presumption that new housing should be directed to locations consistent with the principles of sustainable development are two of the most important themes running through the Strategic Plan, the purpose of which is to establish a consistent framework within which the public interest can be served by the planning system. When making a planning decision that has permanent consequences (such as the erection of a dwelling as is proposed here) it is also essential to bear in mind that the development sought will endure long after the circumstances of the current applicant have ceased to exist.
Therefore, this application like the majority of applications the Planning Authority receives each year for new dwellings in the countryside, could be refused for being contrary to strict and established planning policy which seeks to protect the countryside from development.
However, it is perhaps important for this application, to explain the reasons in detail for the submissions which differs from the majority of applications which the Planning Authority receives for residential development in the countryside.
The dwelling would provide accommodation for the applicants, Mr and Mrs Tebay, their daughter Lola and their son Connell who suffers from a rare form of epilepsy known medically as "Status Epilepticus" (SE) (Dravet Syndrome).
The rare medical condition can lead to serve seizures which can only be stopped through instant medical treatment. It is a life threatening condition which requires constant supervision. Should a seizure start it must be treated within 5 minutes. If not administered promptly this could cause irreparable brain damage, potential coma and ultimately fatality. The longer seizures persist the more difficult they are to control and the higher the mortality, with an increase in neuronal damage and chronic epilepsy. The mortality rate of people with status epilepticus is very high (at least 20\%), especially if treatment is not initiated quickly.
The applicants indicated that Connell has continued to suffer with seizures since he was seven months and has to date had over 100 seizures, the majority of which have resulted in hospitalization. Over the past few years seizures have become more regular and severe in nature. Although his consultants have endeavoured to reduce these occurrences through several medication changes, his seizures appear to be drug resistant and uncontrollable.
Connell must therefore have a carer present at all times. If a seizure occurs then the liquid medication must be administered orally, if the seizure does not then subside within 1-2 minutes the rectal drug (diazepam) must be administered. As these drugs are muscle relaxants, Connells breathing and heart rate will slow requiring the administration of oxygen, with a suction machine ready in case of vomiting and inhalation.
Due to the increasing age and strength of Connell, it is becoming increasingly difficult for a single individual carer to cope.
Currently, the applicants live 2 miles form Bishopscourt Farm which can take a minimum of 10 minutes between by car, which due to the limited time frame for the drugs to be administrated, this is a time critical and life threatening period for Connell.
If safety issues can be addressed, and with good fortune, an individual with this illness has an chance of surviving into adulthood.
Consequently, this is why the position of the new dwelling has been proposed, 12 metres north of the Farmhouse where Mrs Tebay's parents live and brother and sister in law who live within the agricultural dwelling connected with Bishopscourt Farm. The close proximity of members of the immediate family, can allow for a number of people to alternate supervision and allow for Connell's parents to carry out day to day tasks. The applicants indicated that this immediate assistance, with the medication administration and if necessary contact with the emergency services, could prevent a seizure turning into a tragedy.
It is also vital to ensure, that during any seizures the applicants younger daughter remains safe. Therefore for the reasons indicated previous and actions required to be taken during a seizure that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for any one person to physically and mentally deal with alone with this matter.
The application is accompanied by letters of support from various organisations that have experience of Connell's condition.
The Family Services Manager of the Hospice Isle of Man has written in to support the scheme and states that "I cannot stress how beneficial it would be to Connell's welfare and safety to have the opportunity to build a dwelling that could be specific to Connell's needs." The letter goes on to state "I feel living nearer to relatives, the whole family will benefit in knowing that support is nearby."
The SEN Unity Manager, Auldyn School also writes a detailed letter to support the scheme. She highlights that Connell complex disorder results in global delays, behaviour problems, and delays in cognition, communication and motor skills. In school, Connell can also be very tired which is the result from sleep disturbance and seizures which are happening in the night.
She also stresses that working in special education for over twenty years that she has learnt as fundamental to helping a child to make progress and to be happy, is the commitment and devotion of the child's family and extended family. She indicated that the stresses and strains on families where there is a child with learning difficulty and also a medical condition are immense: physically, there are ongoing nights of broken sleep, the constant requirement to supervise night and day, to keep the child safe and well, over such a prolonged period of time: and emotionally, and mentally - having to be always assessing risks - are they safe? Are they well?, The frequent medical appointments, the number of professionals involved, the consideration of siblings, behavioural issues, the compromises everyone in the family need to make.
She indicates that at school Connell has 1-1 attention at all times due to the risk of seizures and behavioural concerns. He has adult supervision in every situation he is in, in the bathroom, at play, and of course when working. The adult must be able to see his face, as if he starts to salivate this is an indication of seizure, for which emergency medical needs to be administered within 3 minutes. At school Connell has a team of people to provide this support. At home, it is easy to envisage what a pressure this is on the family unit and how beneficial it must be when Mr and Mrs Tebay are able to access support from others.
A Consultant Paediatrician of Noble's Hospital also writes to support the scheme and also confirms that since the last application Connell has been diagnosed with a very specific genetic epilepsy condition.
Paediatric Occupational Therapist and the Paediatric Physiotherapist of Noble's Hospital also write in to support the scheme and state that a property on the land of Bishopscourt Farm would be ideal in meeting the immediate and long term needs of this family.
A Consultant Paediatric Neurologist from Alder Hey Children's Hospital also writes to support the scheme and confirms that since the last application they have found Connell has a mutation in the SCN1A gene, meaning he comes under the broad diagnostic category of Severe Myoclonic Epilepsy of
Infancy (SMEI). He indicates the need for fast treatment of medication and outlines the medical issues that Connells has. He also indicates since the last application Connell has the potential night time seizures and therefore a dwelling appropriate designed to increase easy of monitoring to be beneficial. Also Connells type of epilepsy seems to be temperature dependent enhanced by high temperatures thus air conditioning system in his bedroom would also be suitable.
The Chairperson/Trustee of the Idea League which is a national charity which funds medical research, supports families and raises awareness of Dravet Syndrome. She indicates that if permission is granted this would be emotional and practical support of their extended family that are aware of the condition and the need for emergency treatment.
The new house has been designed to allow for Connells bedroom and the Carer bedroom to be downstairs each with en-suite bathrooms. This is particular important has due to the ongoing affects of the illness, the conditions also impairs his general movement, balance and depth perception. Therefore, on a daily basis this can have many adverse effects and therefore requires him being escorted up and down stairs in the existing family home. The proposal would there provide a carefully designed giving all facilities necessary close at hand, which includes cameras, microphones monitoring equipment, interconnecting doors and the facility to control through air conditioning the temperature / humidity of Connells sleeping environment.
As indicated within the history section of this report, an informative note was attached which indicated that the applicants are encouraged to consider the extension of the existing farm house to provide additional living accommodation to be used by the applicants and their family or to consider the possibility of converting an existing building.
The applicants have considered the above options as well as the possibility of living closer to the farm, in an existing dwelling. However, there are no suitable dwellings available close enough to the family available for adaption to Connells and the family needs. Neither is it possible for the other family members to relocate as the working farm is their livelihood and long established family home for many generations.
The applicants have considered the conversion of one of the existing barns within the Farm complex. However, this has proven fruitless, each has been discounted either on the basis of their ongoing usage as part of the busy farm, under health and safety issues, or the in ability for adaption to a safe, special needs home environment.
It is perhaps important to expand on these reasons. All the existing barns are located directly adjacent the farm lane (private) which runs from the A3 road through the complex. The farm lane is not large and is quite narrow in places, especially where the largest of the potential barns could be converted.
Consequently, access from the barns is directly onto the farm lane which is not ideal for children or any person. Furthermore, as the farm is a working farm, there are animals within the site, which use the farm lane through the farm to get to the fields or into the modern farm buildings within the complex.
Again from a safety point of view, having a dwelling accessing directly onto the same farm lane is not ideal. Also effluent from the animals on the farm lane and farm buildings is not ideal for the health of the family.
From visiting the site on a number of occasions and walking round the farm complex, it was clear that the existing agricultural buildings on site are not suitable for conversion given their position within the centre of the working farm complex and for the reasons indicated above.
It should also be noted that none of the potential barns which could be converted would have any external amenity space given the farm lane proximity to the barns. Outlook from these barns would be poor, overlooking a working farm (cattle sheds \& machinery sheds).
It is considered whilst the idea to convert these barns is sound and potentially ideal from the perspective of planning policy; given the reasons indicated above, such converted dwelling would not provide the required standard of living or safety for the family.
Turning to the issue of creating a separate extension annex off the main farmhouse, there was concern by the applicants that the creation of a large extension would be detrimental to the appearance of the existing traditional property, but also this would not allow a facility that could create a secure, safe garden and home for the family without compromising the ongoing workings of the farm and main farmhouse.
For these reasons the applicant has submitted this scheme for a purpose built dwelling in the adjacent garden area, north of the existing farmhouse. The siting is away from the main farm complex of buildings, whilst very close to the existing farmhouse. The proposal would create a barn style vernacular, so as to mirror many of the characteristics of the existing working buildings and be clad in matching Manx stone work.
It should be noted if an extension of the farmhouse was undertaken, it is likely the application site would be likely be used for part of the footprint of the extension, parking area, and amenity space for the dwelling. Therefore from a visual impact of built development, the extension of the house would be similar to that of the proposed scheme.
As indicated at the start of this assessment, the proposal is contrary to planning policies. There have been similar planning applications for new dwellings, on the grounds that there was a personnel need for such dwelling. Only one application has been granted planning approval. This was for an approval in principle for the demolition of existing metal outbuildings and erection of a disabled person's dwelling (PA07/00375/B) on land adjacent to Allandale Farm Sulby. The appointed Inspector in making his recommendation to the Minister stated: "The parties are agreed that residential development on the site would be contrary to planning policy. There is no policy of allowing infill in Sulby. To allow development without good reason would harm the application of these policies elsewhere. However I do observe that had the land had been brought to its presently spoiled nature by some means other than agriculture, it may have been considered acceptable to develop it under General Policy 3. The resulting development would become part of the built up area, rather than an isolated development in the countryside. Furthermore, I do not consider that redevelopment of the forward part of the site would harm Environmental Policy 2, since a sensitively designed dwelling should have no greater impact upon the landscape than do the present buildings. These considerations temper the harm that development may do to the policies, but they do not remove the objection.
However, planning seeks to regulate the use of land in the public interest. Few would deny that the public interest encompasses special care for those members of society who are severely and unusually disadvantaged. In this case I examined carefully the efforts made by the Appellant to find acceptable sites for the family's particular needs, and in my view there is little more they could have done. Furthermore, the need which arises from Molly's illness is a relatively long term need, and a dwelling built to meet that need could serve the purpose for several decades. In my view, a dwelling on this site would become an integral part of Sulby, without significant harm to either the interests of sustainable development or the landscape.
Concern is expressed by local residents that allowing this development may set a precedent for further building under other special personal circumstances. I do not accept the Appellant's view that the circumstances are unique, since there are other disabilities which are equal in terms of the hardship caused, even if the symptoms are different. However, there must be a place in planning for
consideration of exceptional circumstances, and, provided such cases are rigorously examined, I do not consider that the Island would become a less attractive place in which to live."
A main reason the Allandale Farm application was successful, was given the site was not a greenfield site, but brownfield which had a number of substantial buildings in a poor state of repair, and it was felt a dwelling would improve the environmental appearance of the site, whilst providing a dwelling to meet the requirements of the applicants daughter, who again had rare medical condition.
In the Allandale Farm case the applicants argued that approval of their proposal would not set a precedent for other dwellings in the open countryside.
Other applicants have attempted unsuccessfully to cite the Allendale Farm decision in support of proposals to build new dwellings in the open countryside on the basis of personal circumstances, but have been unsuccessful, generally as the site have been greenfield sites in the open countryside.
It should be made clear that the Allandale Farm application did not set a precedent for similar schemes approved for personnel grounds. In fact, since this approval there have been no similar applications approved on personnel grounds. This new application should be judged on its own merits. However, it has proven that whilst contrary to planning policy on the right site, justified and exceptional circumstances there is the potential to approval such a scheme for personnel reasons.
The proposal in terms of visual impact upon the countryside will be limited. From the north of the site, especially when travelling along the A3 road from Ballaugh towards the site, the dwelling would be screened from public view given the mature landscaping along the roadside boundary of the A3 road, the topography of the land and the mature landscaping within the application site. The dwelling would be apparent when travelling from Kirk Michael along the A3 road, but only when passing adjacent to the site. There would be no distance views of the dwelling, given the substantial mature trees (Bishopscourt Glen) to the south of the farm complex, which would screen the dwelling.
From visiting the site and studying the aerial photograph, it is clear the dwelling would not project into the open countryside, but would be retained within the curtilage of the existing farm complex.
The previous Appeals Inspector, who recommended a refusal (08/01650/A), did indicate if the application was approved then of the two sites put forward as potential sites (northern most point of farm complex and the detached site opposite Bishopscourt), the northern site would be the preferred option. This site is a parcel of land to the northwest of the currently application site.
The new siting of the proposed dwelling is closer to the farmhouse and farm complex. It is therefore considered; given the topography of the land; the required position close to farmhouse; being away from farm working areas; positioned not to affect existing trees and with substantial landscaping and distance and position from road, the proposed site would be the ideal siting for a new dwelling, if the principle is acceptable.
In terms of design, the proposal would appear to be a converted barn, which would be in keeping with the buildings within the farm complex, and in the surrounding area. Therefore from a design aspect the proposal would be acceptable.
There are also beneficial reasons (other than the welfare of Connell) for the proposal; these include the demolition of the substantial old dis-used cattle shed, which is perhaps one of the most apparent structures when travelling along the A3 road, given its position directly adjacent to the highway.
The proposal would result in the demolition of this barn to create a new driveway which runs from the existing farm access to the existing farmhouse and proposed new dwelling.
This is very beneficial from a highway perspective, given there is an existing access further north of the existing farm access which serves the farmhouse. This access is extremely dangerous and the blocking up of this access will be beneficial.
As indicated earlier, the then Minister, in refusing the last application, recommended the investigation of not only the possibility of extending the main farm house to accommodate the applicant's family but also investigate the possibility of converting an existing outbuilding to provide accommodation.
These options have been explored by both the applicants and planning officers and it is clear that these would not provide the required needs for Connell or the other family members. It should be noted that whilst no detail plans or details have been indicated, it is considered that whilst the farm is in operation, permission to convert the barns would likely fail on planning policy reasons such as poor outlook and poor levels of amenity (garden).
Whilst contrary to established planning policy, there are benefits tot he proposal in this location such as the lask of any significant impact upon the visual amenities of the countryside and as there are no other practical options available.
Personal circumstances should rarely, if ever, override planning policy, primarily because those circumstances are likely to be temporary relative to the life of the development. Nevertheless, the proposal does provide some planning benefits, in terms of improved highway safety, remove of an unattractive and highly visible farm building, whilst providing for a development that does not appear isolated in the countryside. These are exceptional circumstances and cannot be cited as a precedent for other development contrary to the aims of Tynwald.
It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
Ballaugh Parish Commissioners It is considered that the following do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded interested party status:
The owners/occupiers of Glebe Cottage, Maughold 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.
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 08.12.2010 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
This approval relates to the erection of a dwelling as proposed in the submitted documents and drawings 459-01, 491-02 and 459/10 all received on 18th October 2010.
The roof(s) must be finished in dark natural slate.
The elvational finish of the dwelling is to be Manx stone walling. t radiomally laid?
No development shall take place until full details of soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. Details of the soft landscaping works include additional planting along the western elevation of the site. All planting shall be carried out in accordance the approved details in the first planting and seeding seasons following that first occupation. Any trees or shrub which within 5 years from the completion of the development dies, is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with another of similar size and species unless the planning authority gives written consent to any variation.
Prior to the occupation of the dwelling the hardstanding fronting the property is to be completed to provide the require parking and tuning provision.
This permission may be taken up, and the dwelling must be first occupied only by the applicants and their dependents.
The new dwelling shall form part of the agricultural farm as a single planning unit and may not be severed/ or sold off without a further planning approval having been granted.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development ) Order 2005, (or any order re-enacting or revoking that Order), no extensions, or outbuildings shall be erected without the prior consent of the Planning Authority.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Authority in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Authority Meeting Date : 15/12/10
Signed : Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Authority an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
