Loading document...
Application No.: 08/01572/A Applicant: Mr J Taggart Proposal: Approval in principle to erect an agricultural worker's dwelling Site Address: - Field: 432609 - Douglas Road - Ballasalla - Isle Of Man ### Considerations Case Officer: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: - Site Visit: - Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee ### Written Representations - PCMS Seacliffe Old Castletown Road Ballaveare - Objects to the proposal - Main Road Ballasalla IM9 2RQ - Objects to the proposal ### Consultations Consultee: Highways Division Notes: Do not oppose Consultee: Malew Parish Commissioners Notes: Object Consultee:** Manx Electricity Authority
The site defined in blue represents the holding of Glashen Farm, a farm situated on the northern side of Ballasalla and on the western side of the A5 Douglas Road between Ballasalla and the Orrisdale Road.
The site accommodates a farm house and two large agricultural buildings all set below the main road and accessed via a farm lane. A further agricultural structure is presently under construction alongside the existing barn.
The site defined in red represents a field which lies alongside Douglas Road and the existing farm access.
The site lies within an area of an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982.
The following Strategic Plan policies are considered relevant to the consideration of this proposal: 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: a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10) b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historical, or social value and interest (Housing Policy 11) c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of buildings where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environmental and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14) e) location-dependant development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services; f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative and h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage".
Environment Policy 15 states "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 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 is it 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".
Housing policy 7 states: "New agricultural dwellings will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances where real agricultural need is demonstrated".
Housing Policy 8 states: "Where permission is granted for an agricultural dwelling, a condition will be attached restricting the occupation to a person engaged or last engage solely in agriculture; or a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident dependants".
Housing Policy 9 states: Where permission is granted for an agricultural dwelling, the dwelling must be sited such that:
a) it is within or immediately adjoining the main group of farm buildings or a group of farm buildings associated with that farm, b) it is well set back from any public highway, and c) it is approached via the existing farm access".
Housing Policy 10 states: "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."
Planning permission was sought for the creation of a farm yard and dwelling as a relocation of the existing farmyard which was alongside Glashen Close, under PA 97/1522 and 97/2104 and extensions permitted to the agricultural building under PA 97/2105 and 03/0648.
Planning permission was recently refused on appeal for the erection of a new farm worker's dwelling under PA 07/00498. The siting of the dwelling in this application was within field 2550, opposite "Balvenie" on the Castletown Road and this application was refused for reasons relating to the siting being too distant from the farm complex and also for reasons of need; whilst Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry indicated that the farm justifies 4 full-time workers, it was indicated in the application that the dwelling was intended as a retirement home for the applicant which would not justify the erection of a new dwelling. Permission was then sought for a dwelling in a different location, closer to the farm.
This application, PA 07/1782 was refused by the Planning Committee and then confirmed at appeal. Information had been sought and received from Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Agricultural Adviser but whilst this gave advice on the number of employees which this farm would justify, it did not comment on the need for the farm employees to live on site. The application was refused on appeal for the reason that there was insufficient justification for an additional dwelling. The Inspector comments that "This policy appears to allow for the possibility of a farmer becoming semi-retired, rather like Mr. Taggart. I also have considerable sympathy for Mr. Taggart, who has clearly put his heart and soul into Glashen Farm. He has evidently found it an increasing struggle to cope with looking after his livestock. He has had to go to hospital following accidents which appear to have resulted at least partly from his lack of mobility. It may therefore seem harsh to deny him the opportunity of moving to a bungalow on the farm. But the key test must be the need of the farm enterprise not the need or preference of the current occupier; and the evidence does not show that there is a clear requirement of two dwellings to meet the need of this farm, as opposed to the needs of the present farmer" (paragraph 20).
Now proposed is the principle of a new dwelling situated as shown in the previous application. Additional information has been provided in the form of a letter from the Milan Veterinary Practice, confirming that they have attended emergency situations at Glashen Farm and in many cases emergency treatment requires immediate attendance and that delay in the farmer or his employees getting to the site can result in the death of the cow or the calf. As Mr. Taggart's beasts are registered pedigrees, this can be costly. As such, if additional workers were resident on the farm, this would improve the farmer's and the animals' wellbeing and safety.
The advice from Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry refers to additional rented accommodation which is available at the Lime Kiln on rented land. Despite having asked for an update on the availability of this accommodation, none has been provided by the applicant. However, this is some distance away and even if it were still available and used, it would not help with assistance on the owned and main part of the farm, as is indicated above.
A resident of Port Soderick still objects to the application, suggesting that Ballasalla is very close and that the dwelling will be visually intrusive.
Malew Parish Commissioners object to the application on the basis that the dwelling is not within or immediately alongside the farm group.
Manx Electricity Authority recommend a note regarding the provision of electricity supplies - this is not a material planning consideration and should not be referred to in the planning decision notice
Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division indicate that they do not oppose the application.
Whilst Malew Parish Commissioners express concern over the location of the proposed dwelling, this was not a reason for the refusal of the previous application and is not referred to in the Inspector's report. The site is alongside the existing farmhouse - the applicant has previously indicated that part of the site is prone to being boggy and it would not be practicable to place the new dwelling any closer to the existing farmhouse. As such, it is not accepted that the siting of the proposed dwelling is unacceptable.
The comments of the resident of Port Soderick appear to disregard or at least not have regard to the comments of the veterinary practice or the comments of either the previous Inspector or the officer of daff in respect of the need for the dwelling on site.
DAFF clearly state that the proposed dwelling is agriculturally justified, aside from Mr. Taggart's desire to live in a bungalow. Mr. Taggart's intentions for the farm are illustrated by the on-going construction of further agricultural buildings. The total number of workers justified by the farm holding is over 3 and the nature of the farming - ie cattle - further confirms the need to have some of the additional help immediately to hand.
As such, on the basis of the information provided by daff and supplemented by that provided by the veterinary practice, it is considered that the proposal for an additional dwelling is justified and satisfies the relevant Strategic Plan policies as set out above.
The Department of Transport and 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.
The resident of Port Soderick is not directly affected by the proposal and the Manx Electricity Authority raises issues which are not material planning considerations and as such neither should be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 25.09.2008 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
This approval is in principle only and will remain valid for a period of two years within which time no development may take place until such time as details of the reserved matters (siting, design, external appearance, internal layout, means of access, landscaping) have been approved by the Planning Authority.
This permission relates to the principle of the erection of a farm dwelling in the position shown by the red shaded area within the area edged red on the plans received on 8th August, 2008. No permission is granted to the use of the field edged red for residential purposes.
The dwelling must be single storey and designed in accordance with the principles of Planning Circular 3/91 - Design to Residential Development in the Countryside.
The dwelling may be occupied only by a person or persons engaged or last engaged solely in agriculture; or a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident dependants.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
