Loading document...
Application No.: 10/00820/A Applicant: Mr \& Mrs Les Beards Proposal: Approval in principle for the erection of an agricultural dwelling Site Address: Currach Ne Frey Clyeen Farm Douglas Road Kirk Michael Isle Of Man IM6 1AU ### Considerations Case Officer : Mr Steve Stanley Expected Decision Level: Senior Planning Officer ### Written Representations | Glebe Cottage Kirk Maughold Isle Of Man | Interest expressed | | :-- | :-- | ### Consultations Consultee : EPU \& Public Health - DEFA Notes: Comments received Consultee : Highways Division Notes: Defer Do Not Oppose - 20.08.2010 Consultee : Michael Commissioners Notes: objection
The application site as shown in red on the submitted plans is a parcel of land situated approximately 24 metres to the north east of an existing agricultural building located within field 234356, Currach Ne Frey, Clyeen farm, Douglas Road, Michael. The site is set within agricultural land shown on the submitted plans as being within the ownership or control of the applicant.
This application seeks approval in principle for the erection of an agricultural dwelling. The information contained within the application is limited however as set out above the red line which demarcates the site is positioned approximately 24 metres from an existing agricultural barn.
The justification submitted for the proposed dwelling sets out that Clyeen farm is situated 1 to 2 miles away from where the applicant currently resides in Kirk Michael. They purchased Clyeen Farm some time in 1993 or 1994 at which time there were no agricultural buildings on the property except for an old tholtan. Subsequently planning permission has been granted for two agricultural buildings. It is stated that the provision of a dwelling on the site would enable the farm to be managed much more efficiently and help to ensure that current livestock legislative requirements are met.
The farm is said to total 123.58 acres of which 120.73 acres are farmable. Currently there are 18 beef cows which calf in the spring with calves being sold as stores in the autumn. The lambs produced by the 115 ewe sheep are sold off. The applicant's agent states that in the 2009 Agricultural and Horticultural Census found that the farm has a labour unit requirement of 0.76 units. It is stated that whilst this is below the 1 standard unit requirement for agricultural dwellings, a dwelling on site is required for the following reasons:
Travel Time: The time taken to travel between the farm and Kirk Michael is stated as being a waste of time that could better be spent working on the farm, is expensive and harmful to the environment.
Stock Supervision: Living on site is said to be required in order that the applicant could ensure greater welfare for the livestock and therefore meet current legislation, particularly during calving and lambing periods.
Biosecurity: The reduction in travel between the site and the applicant's current farm is considered by the applicant to represent an improvement in terms of the transmission in disease.
Health and Safety: It is stated that being alone on the farm raises concerns for the applicant's safety particularly at night time.
Increasing the sustainability of the farm: By living at the farm it is set out that the number of livestock could be increased and as such the viability of the farm business would be increased.
The health of the applicant's wife: It is set out that the applicant's wife suffers from Multiple Sclerosis and that her doctor has recommended moving to a bungalow. It is argued that the dwelling could be designed to accommodate this and would allow the applicant to available to assist his wife.
The applicant's agent concludes that whilst the labour requirement of the farm is below that of the standard 1 unit for agricultural dwellings, this application has been submitted as there is currently no dwelling at all on the farm. It is considered by the applicant that for the reasons set out above, a dwelling on the farm is justified.
PLANNING STATUS 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. Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, the following policies are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:
Strategic Policy 2; General Policy 3; Environmental Policy 1; Environmental Policy 2; Housing Policy 4, and; Housing Policy 7.
The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:
94/00624/B sought approval to renovate and extend the dwelling and erect an agricultural building. This was refused at appeal 12th July 1995.
99/00086/B sought approval to renovate the derelict cottage to form a new dwelling and erect an agricultural building. This was refused 16th June 1999
01/01114/B sought approval for the erection of an agricultural building. This was refused 29th August 2002.
02/01329/B sought approval for the erection of an agricultural building. This was approved 11th December 2002.
03/01645/B sought approval for amendments to approved agricultural building (02/01329/B) to provide lower ground floor stables, store and workshop. This was permitted.
04/01962/B sought approval for the erection of an agricultural storage building. This was permitted 08/00243/A sought approval in principle to renovate existing redundant cottage. This was refused at appeal.
The Highways Division has deferred consideration of this application pending information being submitted on visibility splays and the width of the access to the site from the A3. More information has been submitted and the views of the Highways Division have now changed to "Do Not Oppose".
The owner/occupiers of Glebe Cottage, Kirk Maughold have commented on the background of the site and question how a land holding of 120 acres without a dwelling has been created. They also comment on the untidy nature of the site.
Michael Commissioners object to this application stating that without detailed plans they do feel able to comment fully. They are concerned that the application seeks to exploit a weakness of the planning system in that a farm holding seems to have been split and now a new dwelling is being applied for. The savings in journey time to and from the site are not accepted as being justification for a new dwelling.
The Agricultural Advisor from the Department of the Environment, Food and Agriculture has provided an assessment of the agricultural; business and its operations. This sets out that the applicant resides 10 minutes from the site and during spring months work load increases when additional observation of livestock is required to ensure that animal welfare is not adversely affected. It is noted that the applicant intends to reduce the number of sheep and increase the cattle herd to 40 cows to improve the sustainability of the farm holding. It is stated that these changes would not make much difference to the standard labour units which have been calculated by DEFA as being 0.49 standard labour units. The Agricultural Advisor concludes that the erection of an agricultural worker's dwelling would have some agricultural attractions.
Strategic Policy 2 sets out that new development will be located primarily within existing towns and villages and that only exceptionally will development be permitted in the countryside.
General Policy 3 sets out the possible exceptions to the strong presumption against development in the countryside and at part (a) makes provision for "essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work".
Housing Policy 4 sets out the three exceptions that can be made to the presumption against new dwellings in the countryside. Part (a) repeats the provision for "essential housing for agricultural workers" in accordance with the relevant Housing Policies.
Housing Policy 7 states that "New agricultural dwellings will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances where real agricultural need is demonstrated." The factors to take into account when establishing whether there is agricultural need for a proposed development sufficient to over-ride other policies are set out at Paragraph 8.9.3 as being:
The theme that is repeated throughout the relevant policies is the requirement for essential agricultural need to be established in order to justify a new dwelling in the countryside, a form of development that is otherwise strongly opposed by the Development Plan. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word essential as meaning "completely necessary; extremely important in a particular situation or for a particular activity".
Whilst the argument put forward by the applicant's agent raises some benefits that would arise from the provision of a dwelling on site, it is judged that the points raised do not demonstrate essential agricultural need but rather an increased level of convenience for the applicant. This is not sufficient to warrant the setting aside of the strategic aims set out by other policies in the Development Plan. The case for a dwelling is not strengthened by the comments and conclusions provided by the Agricultural Advisor who has calculated the labour requirement of the holding to be 0.49 standard units.
It is recognised that the applicant is attempting to increase the sustainability of the farm by enlarging his livestock quota. However as it stands the activities of the farm enterprise do not warrant an agricultural dwelling and as such there is insufficient justification to set aside Strategic Policy 5, Environmental Policy 1 and Environmental Policy 2 which seek to contain development within existing settlements in line with sustainability and to protect the countryside from development for its own sake.
With regards to the initial concerns raised by the Highways Division have been allayed by the submission of additional information relating to the access, visibility and trip generation and as such this matter has been addressed.
Refuse. PARTY STATUS
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:
Michael Commissioners Department of the Environment, Food and Agriculture
Accordingly the following parties are not granted Interested Party Status:
The owner/occupiers of Glebe Cottage, Kirk Maughold
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.
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 19.08.2010
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals
R 1.
There has not been demonstrated essential agricultural need for a dwelling on the site so as to warrant the setting aside of established policies which seek to protect the character of the countryside for its own sake. Accordingly the proposal fails to comply with General Policy 3, Housing Policy 4 and Housing Policy 7 and therefore contravenes Strategic Policy 2, Environmental Policy 1 and Environmental Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Senior Planning Officer. Decision Made : Refused Date : ............................... Signed : ............................... Senior Planning Officer
20 August 2010 10/00820/A Page 5 of 5
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown