Loading document...
The application site comprises of a parcel of land that is located in the north western corner of field 320330, approximately 100 metres south of Ballalough Farm, in Marown. The site measures approximately 0.15 of a hectare (0.37 of an acre) in area.
The proposed development comprises the erection of an agricultural workers dwelling on the application site.
There have been two previous planning applications that I suggest could be possibly material to the assessment of the current planning application.
Planning application 87/00704/A sought approval in principle for the erection of farm a manager's dwelling on field no. 259, Ballalough Farm, Marown. This previous planning application was initially refused on the 3rd July 1987, approved at review on the 6th October 1987 and subsequently confirmed by appeal on the 13th April 1988.
Planning application 91/01956/A sought approval in principle for the erection of an agricultural dwelling on field 6400, Ballalough Farm, Marown. This previous planning application was initially refused on the 10th April 1992 and approved at review on the 11th December 1992.
Marown Parish Commissioners object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the application site is not zoned for residential development, that the design is inappropriate and that the proposed siting is distanced from the main farm buildings.
The Department of Transport Highways Division do not oppose the planning application subject to the provision of two car passing places being created along the private farm road and the adopted highway to West Baldwin.
The Isle of Man Water Authority make no comment on the merit of the development proposed by the planning application but request that an informative note be attached to any approval decision notice.
The Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service recommend that the planning application be refused on the grounds that the means of escape in the event of fire is inherently unsafe.
The Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern regarding the proposal in relation to the provisions of Planning Circular 3/88 and the specific design of the proposed dwelling.
The relevant plan document for consideration in relation to the application site is the 1982 Development Plan Order. Under the plan the application site is not zoned for any specific purpose and, as such, represents the open countryside. The application site is also within a wider area that is recognised as being of high landscape or coastal value and scenic significance.
In terms of assessing the development proposed by the planning application the Department's general guidance on relevant development is set out by Planning Circular 1/88 and 3/89. Specifically, Planning Circular 1/88 sets out the guidance on residential development in the countryside and Planning Circular 3/89 the guidance on new agricultural dwellings.
In terms of the examination of the planning application I would suggest that it is necessary to assess the proposed development against the general guidance set out by Planning Circulars 1/88 and 3/89.
Planning Circular 1/88 sets out the general presumption against new residential development in the countryside (i.e. in locations such as the one proposed by the planning application) unless there is sufficient reason to warrant setting aside that presumption. One reason that can possibly form sufficient reason to warrant setting aside the presumption against is agricultural need. The planning application proposes an agricultural workers dwelling. Planning Circular 3/89 sets out the Department's general guidance regarding new agricultural dwellings.
Looking at the submitted evidence, which has been provided by DAFF's Agricultural Services Division, it appears to me that there is sufficient agricultural justification for an additional dwelling to serve the agricultural operation of Ballalough Farm. As such I am satisfied that the planning application accords with paragraph 2 of Planning Circular 3/89.
However, turning to the siting and design of the proposed dwelling and paragraphs 3 and 4 of Planning Circular 3/89 I have concerns regarding the proposed development. Specifically, in terms of siting I am concerned that the proposed dwelling is not within or immediately adjoining the main group of farm buildings and is not accessed via the existing farm access. I can see no reason why the dwelling could not be located within the existing farm group. The proposed position is contrary to the provisions of Planning Circular 3/89 and compromises the natural control against new residential development in the countryside that is provided by building within existing farm groups. I also have concerns, albeit to a lesser degree, regarding the design of the proposed dwelling. This design does not accord with the provisions of Planning Circular 3/91, although I would have to accept that it appearance from public viewpoints would be limited and that it has been designed to meet the personal needs of the applicants.
With regards to the objection from the Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service I have to advise that means of escape and fire precaution measures within domestic development is not a material consideration in the assessment of a planning application and therefore cannot form reason for refusal. Such issues are dealt with under Building Control legislation.
In conclusion, I recommend that the planning application be refused on the grounds that the position of the proposed dwelling is contrary to Planning Circular 3/89 and therefore detrimental to the protection of the countryside from inappropriate development.
I consider that the following parties that made representations to the planning application meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
I consider that the following parties that made representations to the planning application do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded interested party status:
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 10.07.2006
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals
By reason of its siting, away from the existing farm group, the proposed dwelling would
The proposed development would therefore be detrimental to the appearance of the countryside and contrary to the Department’s general policy of protecting the countryside from inappropriate development.
The design of the building does not accord with the policies of Planning Circular 3/91 and, as such, the proposed development would be out of keeping with and detrimental to the appearance of an area of high landscape value and scenic significance.
Decision Made : _________________________ Committee Meeting Date : _________________________
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
