Loading document...
The application site represents two parcels of land at Bishopscourt Farm, Bishopscourt, Michael, the farm group of which is located on the south eastern side of the A3, approximately 200m north east of Bishopscourt. 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. The two parcels of land are identified within the application as Option 1 and Option 2. Option 1 is situated to the south west of the main farm group of buildings, close to the access from the A3 to the recent farm worker's dwelling and represents a rectangular piece of land approximately 60 m by 118 m . Option 2 is situated to the north west of the main farm dwelling, close to the access from the A3. This site is smaller than Option 1 measuring approximately 55 m by 55 m . From the roadside the frontage of the farm cluster is partly screened from view by mature boundary trees although it is visible from the highway. Of the two parcels of land, Option 1 is the least visible from the public thoroughfare.
The application site is located within an area identified as being of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance by the 1982 Development Order. The area between the main farm group of buildings and the approved farm worker's dwelling is identified as being a National Glen open to the public and owned by the Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry. Within the Isle of Man Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, the following policies are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:
General Policy 3, which states: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
Environmental Policy 1, which states: "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."
Environmental Policy 2, which states: "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:
85/00922/B sought approval for the erection of a farm building. This was approved. 00/00946/B sought approval for the erection of an agricultural building. This was approved. 03/00267/B sought approval for the installation of PVC sliding sash windows to replace the existing windows. 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.
04/02598/B sought approval for the erection of a farm worker's dwelling. This was approved.
The Department of Transport Highways Division does not object to this application subject to appropriate visibility splays and adequate parking and turning facilities being provided.
Michael Commissioners object to this application stating that the land, being an area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance is not zoned for development and as such the proposed development would represent unwarranted intrusion into the Manx countryside. They also consider that the approval of this application will set an unfortunate precedent for future applications.
The Manx Electricity Authority attaches a note to any subsequent approval of this application. Mr Bleasdale of Glebe Cottage, Kirk Maughold, Isle of Man objects to this application stating that the farm has already had approval for a farm worker's dwelling and this application is not related to agriculture. It is also stated that the needs of the applicant's child should be accommodated close to Nobles Hospital. Reference is made to a previously approved application in Sulby which was based on the personal medical condition of the applicant's child stating that the majority of such applications are refused. It is stated that a new dwelling would have an impact on the countryside far longer than the life of any occupier.
Mr Jessop of Seacliffe, Old Castletown Road, Ballaveare, Braddan objects to this application stating that the land is not zoned for development and whilst he has sympathy with the medical condition, this is insufficient justification to warrant setting aside the relevant policies. Comment is also made on the relevance of the approved application in Sulby given its proximity to a residential area.
Mr Cannan MHK supports this application stating that the application has been made in light of the exceptional circumstances of the applicant's child. It is stated that it is essential for the applicant's to live close to their family in order to provide constant care to the handicapped child.
This application seeks approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling on either of the sites identified as Option 1 and Option 2. 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". As the application is in principle only, the submitted information is not detailed, essentially consisting of 2 parcels of land being outlined as potential sites. The provision of a dwelling at Bishopscourt Farm is stated to be required so as to allow the applicant's extended family (Mrs Tebay's parents and brother and sister-in-law) to provide assistance in caring for Connell. Mr and Mrs Tebay currently live at 2 Broogh Wyllin, Kirk Michael, some 2 miles from Bishopscourt Farm.
It is stated that the medical condition is life threatening and demands constant supervision and care as treatment for a seizure must be forthcoming within approximately 2 minutes with potentially fatal consequences should treatment be delayed. Connell is now 5 years old and has had over 60 fits, most of which have required hospitalisation. Connell's condition is further complicated by neurological conditions including but not limited to Landau Kleffner Syndrome and ESES (Electrical Status Epilepticus in Sleep). It is stated that this makes his condition extremely rare and more difficult to treat.
The application is accompanied by letters of support from various organisations that have experience of Connell's condition. Professionals from the Department of Health and Social Security state that Connell had "significant health and development issues" based on their most recent assessment which took place 18th July 2008. They state that Connell's epilepsy, coupled with his movement and behavioural problems require a single storey dwelling. It is also stated that the additional assistance of those living at Bishopscourt Farm would be beneficial for Connell and his parents.
The Senior Educational Psychologist of the Department of Education has provided support information regarding Connell's condition stating that he has a "high level of special educational needs that require additional support within school".
The Family Services Manager of Hospice Isle of Man has also provided support for this planning application stating that the provision of a dwelling close to the applicant's family would provide physical and psychological support for Connell and his parents. It is also stated that having more care from the family would reduce the costs of care for the DHSS.
Dr Kurien, Consultant Paediatrician of the Department of Health and Social Security, sets out her support for the application stating that Connell has very difficult epilepsy requiring several medications, despite which seizures still occur. It is stated that a single storey dwelling would be more suitable for Connell and that the support of family would provide assistance in emergencies. There are no dwellings closer to Bishopscourt available for purchase.
Mr and Mrs Crowe of Bishopscourt Farm (Mrs Tebay's parents) have set out in a letter forming part of the application that they support the application. They state that Connell's condition requires their support and the support of their son and daughter-in-law (who reside in the approved farm worker's dwelling) in cases of emergencies and on a day to day basis.
The application must be assessed in light of the land designation and relevant planning policies. The main issue in assessing this application is whether the principle of residential development is acceptable.
It is a basic principle of the planning system and indeed a requirement of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 that each application is assessed on its merits, having regard to a range of material considerations including relevant provisions of the development plan. The concept of binding precedent in the strict legal sense does not apply to the consideration of planning applications. However it is important that decisions are taken on a consistent basis so as to ensure fairness and transparency in the planning system. It is for this reason that the development plan is so important. It is a document that sets out a consistent decision making framework against which to assess all proposals. That framework has been formally adopted following an extensive public consultation process which adds considerable weight to the policies set out therein.
There is a very strong presumption against the proposed development in the development plan. The site is not zoned for development and is within an area recognised as being of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance by the 1982 Development Order. This is accepted by the applicant, and those that have objected to the application do so largely on this basis. As such there is no policy support for the proposed development as it would be contrary to established planning policies aimed at protecting the Manx countryside from inappropriate development. There is no policy
in the development plan that advocates the attachment of any weight in the decision making process to personal circumstances.
The applicant argues that a decision taken on appeal in respect of application. PA07/00375/B sets a precedent for their proposal. This sought approval in principle for the demolition of existing metal outbuildings and erection of a disabled person's dwelling 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."
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. A similar argument is made by the current applicant while at the same time trying to rely on the decision made at Allendale Farm to support their proposal. 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.
There are two questions to consider: first, is the question of whether either individually or in combination, the decision at Allendale Farm and/or the personal circumstances of the current applicants are capable of being material considerations to which the Planning Committee should have regard. Secondly is the question of whether, if the Allendale Farm decision is material to the current application, the facts of the two cases are distinguishable.
On the first question, as already stated, the Planning Committee is not bound by the decision made at Allandale Farm. It was a decision that departed from the policies of the development plan because it was considered at that time that this was justified by the facts of that case. The Planning Committee must consider the current proposal on its merits. With regard to the applicant's personal circumstances, while it it is entirely understandable for members to have sympathy with the facts set out, this does not mean they must be taken into account when members conduct the quasi-judicial role that is required of the Planning Committee. 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.
With regard to the second question there are specific and important differences of fact between this application and PA07/00375/B. It is considered that these are sufficient, even if it were considered that the decision at Allendale Farm should be considered material to the current case, to justify a different decision on this occasion. These include the existence of unsightly buildings on the Allendale Farm application site to be demolished and replaced by the dwelling and the closeness of that site to the settlement of Sulby. There are no such relevant mitigating circumstances in this case.
It might be possible to provide a solution to the applicants needs by extending the existing farm house in the form of an annex. It is suggested that this would meet the applicant's needs without contravening planning policy.
It is recommended that the application be refused.
It is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, accord with the requirements of Planning Circular 1/06 and are therefore, afforded Interested Party Status:
The Department of Transport Highways Division Michael Commissioners Accordingly the following parties are not granted Interested Party Status: The Manx Electricity Authority Mr Jessop of Seacliffe, Old Castletown Road, Ballaveare, Braddan Mr Bleasdale of Glebe Cottage, Kirk Maughold Mr Cannan MHK
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 05.11.2008
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1. While the difficulties experienced by the applicants and their family are understood and sympathised with, it is judged that the erection of a detached dwelling on either of the proposed sites which are located within an area not designated for development would be contrary to established planning policies aimed at protecting the Manx countryside and directing new residential development to locations that accord with sustainable development principles, in particular General Policy 3 and Environmental Policies 1 and 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
N 1. Without prejudice to the formal consideration of any planning application the applicant is encouraged to consider the extension of the existing farm house to provide additional living accommodation to be used by the applicant and her family.
+ look at existing buildings on site
Decision Made : Committee Meeting Date :
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
