THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THERE WAS A PREVIOUS APPLICATION WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BY THE COMMITTEE AND ALSO THERE IS AN OBJECTION TO THE APPLICATION FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
The Site
The site defined in red is a roughly rectangular parcel of land which lies on the western side of the Narradale Road between Narradale West - a residential property to the north and Cronk Aalin Farm to the south. Narradale Road is very narrow, twisting and steep in places within limited passing places.
The area edged red represents 0.72ha (around a third of an acre). The remainder of the land represents 53 ha (135 acres) and takes the form of six parcels of land to the south of the site and more land to the north east although this land would not be accessible other than going back down the Narradale Road and up a farm track to this part of the holding. There is additional land which is used by the applicant in conjunction with this application and this is referred to later.
The site edged red contains two barns - one 15m by 32m and 6m high and the other a smaller building 9m by 18m. Access into the site is presently a simple field access with hard standing by the gate into the field where the agricultural buildings are.
The Proposal
Proposed is the creation of a large area of hard standing around the buildings and hard surfaced access from the field gate into the site. A dwelling is proposed between the gate and the first building, and also an extension to the larger of the two agricultural buildings.
The dwelling will have a floor area of 225 sq m over two floors although only the central core of the dwelling has an upper floor. The dwelling has a traditional cottage appearance with single storey annexes at one side and the rear. The dwelling contains four bedrooms, a large lounge and kitchen, bathroom and utility room downstairs with a farm office in the side annex. The roof is pitched at 30 degrees and is not of a height to accommodate any habitable space.
The extension to the agricultural building will add 7.5m by 18.5m of area (140 sq m) to the southern side of the building with a lean-to roof which comes up to the existing eaves level.
Application No.:
11/01355/B
Applicant:
Mr Carl Huxham
Proposal:
Erection of a farm worker's dwelling and extension to existing barn
Site Address:
Field 134898 Narradale Sulby Isle Of Man
Planning Policy
The site lies within an area which is not designated for development on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982 - just within the area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance which lies mainly to the north and close to but not within an area of ecological interest.
The Strategic Plan makes provision for development within areas which are not generally zoned for development, including in General Policy 3, "essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10)" and f) "building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry."
The Housing Policies go on to state:
Housing Policy 7: "New agricultural dwellings will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances where real agricultural need is demonstrated".
Housing Policy 8: "Where permission is granted for an agricultural dwelling, a condition will be attached restricting the occupation to a person engaged or last engaged solely in agriculture; or a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident dependants."
Housing Policy 9: "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: "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 History
A recent application - PA 08/0369 proposed the erection of a farm worker's dwelling with detached garage on this site by this applicant. The application was approved by the Planning Committee and an appeal was requested by the local authority and four local residents. The appeal was upheld and the application was refused for the reason that "Real agricultural need for a dwelling for a viable farm has not been substantiated at this time; there is thus insufficient agricultural justification for the proposed development and that a dwelling on the proposed site would be contrary to preserving the character and quality of this open hillside landscape; the proposed development would thus be contrary to Environment Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan."
The current application differs from its predecessor in that the siting of the dwelling has been amended from a location to the north of the agricultural building to one right alongside it, the dwelling is now a traditional two storey cottage rather than a steeply pitched dormer bungalow and the proposal includes an extension to the agricultural building. Further agricultural justification takes the form of an increased farm holding (see later), a more established business which is almost three years older than that which was the subject of PA 08/0369.
Representations
The Manx Electricity Authority seeks communication relating to the provision of electricity supplies. This is not a material planning concern and should be the subject of direct correspondence between the Authority and the application and not referred to in the planning decision notice.
Lezayre Parish Commissioners object to the application on the basis that they consider the proposed dwelling to be "in conducive with their estimation as to what they feel an agricultural dwelling should be".
A resident of Douglas states that the site is not designated for development and as such the proposal should be rejected. No reference is made to Strategic Plan policies relating to agriculture or the provisions of GP 3.
The occupants of Narradale Farm object to the application on the basis that the previous application was refused and this is little different to that. They consider that the proposed building is larger than is necessary and that tenanted land could be relinquished at any time. They are not convinced that agricultural need has been determined. They suggest that the existing complex can be seen from St. Jude's crossroads and the proposed new buildings will exacerbate this impact. They express concern regarding surface water discharge from the site which will be increased from additional buildings and areas of hard standing and the increased traffic using the road.
The Highways and Traffic Division indicate that they considered there to be no adverse traffic impact from the proposals.
The owner of East Narradale raises similar points to those cited by the occupants of Narradale Farm regarding the previous application. He additionally expresses concern about water supply and the precedent which an approval to this development could establish in the historically important hillside of Narradale looking to Slieau Manaugh. He refers to the process of the establishment of National Heritage Areas on the Island, which never proceeding beyond consultation, and which included a suggested area focusing on the Sulby Valley but did not extend as far as Narradale, although there were suggestions that it should.
A resident of 12, Croit Ny Kenzie in Andreas objects to the application on the basis that the proposed dwelling is too large, water supplies are already low in the area, approval may establish a precedent for other members of the applicant's family to try to seek permission for dwellings and Narradale Road is narrow and in poor repair. She also notes that a sizeable part of the land supporting the application is not owned outright and would this remain tenanted if planning permission is granted.
The Agricultural Adviser of Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture makes detailed comments about the farming enterprise which are expanded upon in the Assessment.
Assessment
The applicant has through a series of e-mails to and from the Agricultural Adviser at DEFA, clarified that the land which makes up the holding associated with this application is as follows:
26 acres rented at Primrose Hill, Sulby: this is an annual tenancy which is now in its fourth year. 40 acres at Ballacobb in Ballaugh. This tenancy agreement has just ended and the applicant is in discussion for alternative land closer to Narradale and has not renewed this tenancy at the time of writing. 135 acres owned compared with 85 acres previously owned.
The holding supports the following stock:
2 Old Spot sows and 1 boar which give rise to an average annual litter of 40 weaners per year. The pigs are kept in the paddocks adjoining the farmyard.
210 ewes - 40 Cambridge cross and 170 mainly Texel cross ewes which lamb in April. 40 ewe lambs are retained as replacements. In addition he has a blue faced Leicester and a NC Cheviot tup and 10 Texel tups. These sheep lamb in January under housing and at Easter in the fields adjoining the yard.
8 milking Holstein cows kept to rear dairy cross calves have Belgium Blue claves put to them for weaning then at 8 weeks are sold in batches at six months old. The cows have up to ten calves each.
28 suckler cows which support Limousin and Angus cattle and the applicant intends to develop his own Angus herd and to market the pedigree stock through embryo sales although this has not been successful as yet.
Cropping accounts for 201 acres, 13 acres of oats, 86 bales of half chopped straw for bedding and 20 t of oats fold for export in exchange for barley and beans for feed with the remainder used for sheep and dairy cows. Rape and kale has also previously been sown. There are 151 acres of good grass with 21 acres re-seeded this year and all silage and hay has been bought for the next 2 seasons. There are 37 acres of rough grazing on Primrose Hill and at the top of Kerrowmoar.
The applicant states that the core activities can take place without dependence on the tenanted land which results in an economically self sufficient unit at Narradale.
The Agricultural Adviser comments that the labour requirement for this holding is currently 1.51 compared with 0.83 in the previous application, and he states that the holding is split into four distinct blocks - Cronk Aalin (the main yard area), Kerrowmoar, Primrose Hill and Ballacobb. The land available to Cronk Aalin is 84 acres of good grazing land and whilst this is not in one continuous block, the land is "easily accessible" along the Narradale Road. Travel time to the other parcels is 20 minutes to Kerrowmoar, 10 minutes to Primrose Hill and 15 - 20 minutes to Ballacobb.
He goes on to advise that during the calving periods there will be an increase in travel to and from the site and time spent on the farm to ensure that appropriate levels of observation are provided and that welfare and health is not compromised. Similarly, at lambing times this will be the case and that the spring calving and spring lambing periods will overlap.
He concludes by stating that "the agricultural activity is on balance more intensive than neighbouring farms which is likely to be required to satisfy the financial demands on the business. Assuming Mr. Huxham can sustain this level of activity and I see no reason why it would not be possible, and that there is a large proportion of the land farmed owned which will provide reasonable long term security there is currently sufficient agricultural activity and consequentially justification for an agricultural dwelling to be erected at Cronk Aalin".
The application is different from the previous proposal in terms of the built fabric that is proposed - the proposed dwelling is now a traditional two storey dwelling rather than a tall dormer bungalow which was only 0.7m shorter than what is now proposed. More significantly, the owned land amounts to significantly more than was the case with the previous application and the stocking levels have been increased and established, with the applicant having now more experience both in farming and farming at this location. As such, it is considered that there is justification for a decision different from the most recent issued at appeal in respect of PA 08/0369.
Whilst there is concern expressed about the visual impact of the proposed development, what is proposed is lower than what already exists. Contrasted with the previous proposal for a dwelling which was to be positioned downhill from the shed on an exposed hillside with no immediately surrounding vegetation, what is proposed now is alognside the barn, with no additional excavation although there would be additional hardstanding. As such the proposal is unlikely to have the same impact as what was proposed previously and would have less of an impact on the character and quality of the open hillside, which was a principal concern of the Inspector with the earlier application. As viewed from St. Jude's the site is a significant distance away -
15km and from this distance it is not accepted that the proposed new buildings will have an impact such as to warrant refusal for this reason, bearing in mind that there are buildings on the site at present.
The advice of the Agricultural Adviser is important and he is satisfied that there is real agricultural need for the development and that there is no reason to assume that the enterprise will not continue on its present basis. As such, and taking into account the above, it is considered that the application now satisfies GP3 and HPs 7 -10 inclusive and as such should be approved.
Party Status
The local authority is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.
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.
The Agricultural Adviser represents a statutory authority which raises material planning issues and as such should be afforded party status
The owners of Narradale Farm are alongside the access road which serves this development, and were previously considered (PA 08/0369) to have interested party status and as such should be granted such status in respect of this application.
East Narradale is close to the site and shares the same access and as such this party should be afforded party status in this case.
The resident of Douglas and 12, Croit Ny Kenzie are some distance from the site and should not be afforded party status.
The Manx Electricity Authority do not raise material planning considerations and as such should not be afforded party status
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 26.01.2012
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
: Notes attached to refusals
C 1.
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2. This permission relates to the erection of an agricultural worker's dwelling, an extension to the existing agricultural building and hard surfacing all as shown in drawings 01, 02, 03, 10, 101, 102, 103 and 110 al received on 8th September, 2011.
C 3. The agricultural building extension may only be used for agricultural purposes.
C 4. 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.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
Signed : ... Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee 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
