Loading document...
The application site represents an area of land within Field 312084, albeit with the whole of this field edged in red and notational indications of a proposed barn and dwelling located to the south east of the site adjacent to the junction of the Poortown Road and Ballakilmurray Farm Lane.
To the east of the site, lies the Poortown Quarry, a working quarry for which approval to extend was granted under PA 03/1843.
The site lies within an area zoned as High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance in the 1982 Development Plan Order and directly adjacent to an area zoned as Area for Surface Mineral working.
There have been a number of planning applications relating to the site and land adjacent to the application site, the following of which are considered relevant to this application:
PA 88/4621 – Approval in principle to erect a dwelling and garage, Field 2084 adj. to old Ballakillmurray Lodge Site, Poortown, German. Refused at Appeal 29th January 1990.
PA 03/01843 - Extension of existing quarry in an easterly direction for the extraction of mineral reserves. Poortown Quarry, Poortown, Peel. Approved at appeal 6th May 2005.
The application seeks approval in principle for the construction of a dwelling to accommodate an agricultural worker and the construction of an agricultural building.
German Parish Commissioners advised that they wished to defer submitting their comments until full approval is sought. The Department of Transport Highways Division advised of no objection subject to the imposition of a condition relating to works to be carried out to Department of Transport standards.
The SPMCE objects to the proposal.
The Department of Transport Quarries section have submitted comments advising that the application site is located within the current safety buffer zone for the Poortown Magazines, however, once the new explosives store is operational on the Ballakilmurray Farm Site, the application site would be outside the safety zone. It is anticipated that the new store would be licensed and fully operational before the end of December 2006.
The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Agricultural Services section, although consulted in regard to the application have not submitted comments up to the preparation of this report.
The application proposes, in principle, the construction of a detached dwelling to accommodate an agricultural worker and the construction of agricultural sheds on land currently in agricultural use, and therefore falls to be determined against the criteria contained in Planning Circular 3/88 New Agricultural Dwellings and Planning Circular 1/88 – Residential Development in the Countryside.
Planning Circular 3/88, states criteria to be address in the consideration of a planning application. In particular, Paragraph 2 raises three issues, these being:
a) what living accommodation has been built in the past on, or in association with the farm or holding, and how it is occupied; a plan clearly indicating the boundary of the holding and the location of any dwellings within it should be included;
b) who will occupy the proposed dwelling, and what role they will play in the operations of the farm; could the intended occupant conveniently live elsewhere rather than on the farm?; and
c) why the particular site has been chosen.
In addition, Paragraph 5 states:
"From time to time, farms are sold off without the farmhouse, or are divided into two or more separate holdings. The agricultural justification for the severance and the need for further accommodation will need to be explained before permission is given for another dwelling. In the case of new smallholdings for, say, market gardening or horticulture, evidence will be required to show the applicant's experience in these matters, and that the enterprise is likely to be permanent, i.e. that it would be economically viable as an agricultural or horticultural unit; there may be a requirement to establish such a business before a dwelling will be considered."
The applicant in making his application indicates that the Ballakilmurray Farm has been in the family for approximately 107 years, however, due to family circumstances, the farm was divided amongst family members with the farm house and barns, together with 20 acres, being sold. Part of this area of land now forming an extension to the workings of the adjacent quarry. At the time that the farmhouse became vacant livestock associated with the farm were sold, as without a permanent resident, it was not considered practical to farm livestock.
The remainder of the land, some 153 acres is now farmed with arable crops, although the applicant advises that should planning permission be granted, his long term intention would be to return to livestock. In answer to the three questions posed in Paragraph 2 of the Circular, therefore, the original farmhouse was sold, the applicant who currently farms (albeit part time) the holding will reside in the proposed dwelling, and the particular site has been chosen for security, given that the arable crop has been the subject of acts of vandalism.
It is considered that the circumstances that resulted in the loss of the farmhouse have been adequately explained by the applicant, and the issue to be assessed therefore relates to the need for a farm worker to live in this particular location. The applicant has advised that at the present time, he has no livestock, and that this is a result of the lack of on site security that a dwelling would provide. Paragraph 1 of the Circular states "A person who wishes to build a farm dwelling in a rural area must produce evidence to prove need sufficient to offset the general planning objections to such development. Unless real agricultural need can be established (which may include the need for a retirement home for a farmer), the normal planning considerations will prevail."
From the information submitted, it would appear, through circumstances outside the direct control of the applicant, the existing farmhouse has been removed from the farm. Whilst sympathetic to, and fully understanding the desire of the applicant to live on the farm, it is not considered that "need sufficient to offset the general planning objections to such development" has been demonstrated and as such it is not considered that the application complies with the guidance contained in Planning Circular 3/88.
In failing to comply with the provisions of Planning Circular 3/88, the application must therefore be considered against the guidance set out in Planning Circular 1/88 – Residential Development – Houses in the Countryside. This Circular gives general guidance as to the Department's policy with regard to residential development with particular emphasis on development in the countryside. In particular, Paragraph 6 states: "There is always a demand for houses in the countryside. Improved economic circumstances are likely to intensify this demand, but with the exception of housing to serve the needs of a viable agricultural holding it is the Department's policy to discourage residential development in the countryside."
As has been indicated, it is not considered that there exists sufficient justification in terms of agricultural need to overturn the well established policies of the Department and as such, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the provisions of Planning Circular 1/88.
With regard to the suggested location of the dwelling, at the present time, the proposed dwelling would be located within the safety buffer zone for the Poortown Magazine; however, the Quarry Manager has indicated that the explosives store will shortly be re-located to the (former) Ballakilmurray Farm Site. Given the imminent re-location of the store, it is not considered that this element should form a reason for refusal.
The application also seeks approval in principle for the erection of an agricultural storage building. Whilst the principle of an agricultural storage building may be acceptable, given the extent of land holding, an indication of the size, design and siting would be required together with details regarding the exact nature of the storage would be required.
It is considered that the proposed dwelling would be contrary to the provisions of Planning Circulara 1/88 and 3/88 and it is recommended that the application be refused
The local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5)(c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
It is considered that all parties with the exception of the SPMCE, who submitted comments accord with the requirements of Planning Circular 1/06 and are therefore afforded interested party status.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 25.10.2006
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1. Whilst the circumstances regarding the loss of the former farm-house and some of the farm-land are noted, the submitted application does not demonstrate that it is, at this time, essential for there to be a new agricultural dwelling on the land; in the absence of such justification, the proposal would be contrary to the provisions of Planning Circular 3/88 - New Agricultural Dwellings and Circular 1/88 – Residential Development – Houses in the Countryside.
Decision Made : Refund Committee Meeting Date : 9/11/06
Decision Made : Refund Committee Meeting Date : 9/11/06
9 November 2006
9 November 2006
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
