Loading document...
Owner/Occupier Lower Strenaby: 6.24 Abbeylands Road is a long and winding road with high banks, poor visibility, poor drainage, no streets lights from the Methodist Chapel and passing places are few, about 12 between Chapel to Lanjaghan Road. There are numerous places where the edges of the road have collapsed and ditches formed. The bus stop is over one and a half miles away and buses pass only occasionally meaning all the tourists will require cars as will all support staff. The tourists will have no experience of meeting horses on a narrow road like this. Without the agreement of exiting landowners how is the applicant to improve the road to an acceptable standard. 6.25 The proposed development, whilst giving the idea of increased income to the farmer by means of tourism is also a surprising proposal by someone whose family are connected with the 35 tourist apartments in Castletown Square whish appear to have been unsuccessful and it is understood that applications have been made to turn them into permanent apartments. Does the application show a need for tourism and be a viable proposition? What will happen if they are unsuccessful. 6.26 The proposal to replace the house and farm dwelling with a modern house is strange when no farm staff have used the home when it was in a good condition was it was bought so the farm labourers dwelling was not required then, why now? The farmer and his assistants have other farms and only visit as required, so there is no reason to build a dwelling, only during lambing is there a reason to be close. 6.27 The application should be refused on the basis that the road is unfit to cope with an increase. Any investment in farming should have been based on what was available at the time of purchase and not dependent on fresh building development in a very rural area with unsuitable access.
Owner/Occupier Lanjaghan View: 6.28 Object to development due to impact on Lanjaghan Road. Proposals to alter the road will impact on hedges and the filling in of ditches will result in flood water along people's driveways. Noted that proposed improvements are to be carried out after the development is complete if necessary. Thus very doubtful that it will happen. Lanjaghan Road has a throughput of 300 vehicles a day. The huge holiday complex, plus staff would increase traffic and there are few places where two cars can pass with safety. Seven accidents have been reported over the last five years but numerous minor accidents occur which are settled between parties. The heavy vehicles needed for construction will be horrendous and cause unnecessary stress to residents. Below Abbeylands Chapel is a dangerous bend where numerous accidents have happened. What happens when the holiday apartments are not filled with holiday makers. Will they be allowed to sell them, thus making a housing development in a beautiful rural countryside. 6.29 The BSE burial site shown on the plans is incorrect, but is actually in the field where the development is to take place. We know because we buried them ourselves and the risk of contamination is very high. 6.30 Query why the new farmhouse is so large, but should a large house be required, there is already the original farmhouse on this site.
Owner/Occupier Coan-ny-Glion: 6.31 Object to the application(s). Road is too narrow to cope with the number of heavy vehicles and also for vehicles to pass. People use the outside of our house as a passing point and as a result the grass verge opposite has disappeared and a bit of hedge gone. Cracks are
appearing in our boundary wall. Concern that the bridge is not strong enough to cope. There is no verge side just a drop into the ditch down into the stream. The DOI did put up warning posts but these have been knocked down because the road is too narrow. The water pump was originally built to supply one bungalow, is it to supply all the water for the development. The proximity of the last fire hydrant and its proximity to the proposed development should be considered.
Owner/occupier Lanjaghan Cottage: 6.32 Strongly object. Road to site is 11 / 2 miles long and extremely narrow. Understand that the verges are to be removed along with some hedges, however believe these are to be done only once the farm has been relocated and only if necessary following completion of the tourist accommodation, which begs the question of how genuine the intention it to do the work. The work will have an impact on wildlife. Highways Division no longer trim the hedges for conservation reasons. The amount of traffic using the road is colossal. 300 vehicles use the road on any one day. Road not just used by cars, but also by horses, pedestrians, dog walkers etc. Size of the proposed farm dwelling is ludicrous. Lanjaghan Cottage and Lanjaghan Lodge are purpose built farm workers cottages and they are half the size of the proposed building and were adequate for their purpose. 6.33 Question how such a large development can be considered especially as a dormer was refused on my property because it could be seen from the road.
Owner/occupant of Larkhill Farm: 6.34 Concerns regarding the increase traffic on a road that is too narrow and can only accommodate one car. If the applicant wants to change the road in places to accommodate the additional traffic, these changes will affect my land but I have not been contacted regarding these changes. 6.35 As a farmer I understand the need for a new farm layout and farm workers dwelling but feel the size of the farm workers dwelling is too big.
Glebe Cottage, Kirk Maughold: 6.36 Huge scheme, total approach to agricultural diversification is undoubtedly new, brave and adventurous. Replacement buildings sweeping away random farm building in a logically planned group, not on the same footprint. All the more historic and traditional farms buildings to be converted to leisure use. It is the landscape that raises the most concern. It is at the head of a terminal valley in almost the geographical centre of the island. The site is not hidden, but very much overlooked by the Mountain Road and one climbs up from Brandish Corner to Kate's Cottage. Do we want a busy hub in such a spot, other schemes have been thrown out but they were total new build whereas this is, at least in essence, a new-use, conversion and replacement. The Planning Committee will need to think very carefully about this proposal as being the biggest of such schemes, in an atmosphere where many smaller farm conversions have been smiled upon. It will set an imposing precedent. Have very mixed feelings about this proposal.
Ballaquark, Douglas: 6.37 The two applications need to be considered as an aggregate development. It is an attempt to establish a private estate. Within 5 years of starting the 'tourist' units they will prove unviable and be followed by a request to make them private dwellings or staff units to serve the primary mansion. The site is not zoned for development and very little of the
existing buildings are to be retained, and rebuilding is not even on the same footprint, size or position. It is visible from the Mountain Road and what is at present fairly discrete and blending into the countryside the proposal in buildings size, number and materials will be very intrusive visually. How can there be need for a larger farmhouse plus an additional farmhouse? There is no evidence that the applicant has the right to undertake the 'improvement' to the road verges. Whilst those 'improvements' will aid access they will degrade the local environment and possible damage the wildlife and ecology of hedges. Is it really ecological/environmental to have tourist travelling such a long narrow road into almost he very centre of the island at least twice a day, it cannot be sustainable. I cannot imagine anyone wanting to choose this place for a second stay, having experienced the tedium of the return drive.
7.1 The application comprises a number of components and this report considers the each of these separately.
Conversion of Farm Buildings to Tourist Units: 7.2 The key considerations in respect of this element are; the principle of conversion, design and layout and access, including impact on residential amenity. 7.3 Principle of conversion: There is policy support in the Local Plan and the Strategic Plan for tourist development where it would not result in adverse impact in terms of its visual impact, traffic and noise or demands on infrastructure. The is also policy support to re-use buildings, specifically Strategic Policy 8 states that tourist proposals will generally be permitted where they make use of existing built fabric of interest and quality and where they do not affect adversely environmental, agricultural or highway interests. Similarly Business Policy 12 allow for conversion provided the development meets the tests in Housing Policy 11 and Business Policy 14 actively encourages self catering units in barn conversions. In terms of the tests in Housing Policy 11, in turn these are: i) Redundancy of original use. The buildings are only partly used for agricultural purposes, and the design of the buildings has been acknowledged as being out of date for modern farming practices. The size of the barns, the condition that they are in, the openings and even the floor levels are not really appropriate for an efficient business. The agricultural advisor has confirmed that he feel the buildings no longer adequately serve the business. ii) The buildings are substantially intact. The application was accompanied by a structural survey that shows the buildings are capable of re-use and conversion for the development proposed. iii) The buildings are of architectural, historic or social interest: The buildings are certainly not of a standard suitable for Registration, but their layout and form do reflect historic agricultural practices on the island and have some charm. There is likely to be a reduction in the number of historical farm buildings on the island as their suitability for modern farming practices decreases. The opportunity to retain a set of farm buildings that are in good order such as these can help retain buildings of some historical and social interest. iv) The buildings are large enough to accommodate a satisfactory dwelling: The units are large enough to accommodate the proposed tourist units without needing extensions that might undermine their character. v) The residential use is not incompatible with the adjoining area: The site is within/adjacent to a farm and it is not considered that the use is incompatible with the area provided they are used for tourist purposes. vi) The building can be provided with satisfactory services without unreasonable public expenditure. The buildings are near to an existing dwelling and is, or can be, easily served by
the necessary facilities. The main issue regarding satisfactory services relates to access which is dealt with below. vii) Such conversion must re-establish the original appearance of the building and use the same materials. The proposals do attempt to re-establish the appearance of the farm group but without the incidental plant and machinery associated with a farm. Whilst the number of alterations may appear significant, in the overall scheme they primarily respect the design of the original forms and serve to enhance the appearance of the development. The materials used, the types of window openings proposed reflect the vernacular and clearly some thought has been put into the overall quality of the finished product. If anything it is more likely that the development will perhaps be noticeably more ordered and pristine that the character of a farm might suggest. 7.4 The policy sets out that permission will not be given for the rebuilding of ruins or the erection of replacement buildings of similar or even identical form. A note shall be attached to the approval to make this known. 7.5 There is then a presumption if favour of this element of the proposal, subject to other impacts below. The matter of need for tourist units is not a test in required by the Development Plan as there is the policy support for conversion. If the development was for new build then the presumption would be against development and need would need to be provided as a reason to go against policy. The applicant's architect has been in discussion with the Tourism Division of DeD with regard to the type of facility which is required. He has been guided on the size of units, the supporting facilities to be offered eg office, laundry, spa, level of hard and soft landscape and the ability to separate each unit from its neighbour. In discussing the proposed condition regarding length of stay however, it seems that during the winter months longer lets are encouraged. Reference was made to construction workers being housed in B&Bs around the island. The architect suggests that Tourism should 'police' the length of stay. No comments on the application have been received from DED. From a planning perspective, the length of stay of an occupant becomes very important in terms of its planning status. Someone who stays in a tourist unit, who is not on holiday but living a normal day to day life, going to work and so on, is using it as a dwelling house, even if they have permanent accommodation elsewhere. If there is no condition on the accommodation regarding length of stay then it is possible that the units would be for permanent use. This application has been considered on the basis that it is for tourist purposes, because that is what has been applied for. The suitability of the units for permanent use is questionable for a number of reasons, including the level of private amenity space, internal space standards, storage for clothes, refuse and inter-visibility between units. New permanent accommodation in this location would also not meet sustainability tests given their distance from a recognised settlement. A condition restricting the length of stay is recommended. 7.6 Design, Layout and impact on Visual Amenity: Comment on the design of the proposal has been made in looking at the principle of the development above. The site is visible from Creg Ny Baa and surrounding areas. In terms of the built form, the impact on the landscape will be minimal, if anything an improvement as the larger, more ugly, functional buildings will have been removed. There may be some impact from additional cars and the impression that the site is not agricultural. Conditions regarding landscaping and preventing any areas being laid out as a garden should reduce the potential for future impact. 7.7 Access: By far the greatest concern regarding this element of the proposal, as suggested by residents, is how the site is accessed. Lanjaghan Farm is approximately 1.5 miles from the crossroads with the Scollag Road, Ballanard Road and Lanjaghan Road (the name of which appears to also be Abbeylands Road). Lanjaghan Road joins with Lanjaghan Lane at its northern end. This is a public by-way that links to the A18 Mountain Road and Gobnageay a property with access from the Mountain Road.
7.8 As can be seen from the objections and the report of the Highway's Division the road is narrow, between 3 m and 5 m for most of its length. It is characterised by tight bends with substandard forward visibility and a lack of passing places. There is no speed limit and a survey demonstrates an 85th percentile speed of 24 mph requiring a forward visibility of 45 m . Within 300 metres of the junction with Scollag Road there is a narrow bridge ( 4 m wide) crossing the Sulby River on a tight bend. The traffic survey does not take into account traffic movements that begin and end within the road such as slow moving farm vehicles. 7.9 The road is subject to a volume of traffic at about 300 vehicles per day. In the evening peak period there is an average of 14 vehicles travelling northbound and 11 vehicles southbound. There have been 7 reported accidents in the last 5 years, one of which was serious, one slight and five with damage. The large number of accidents compared with the low traffic volume indicates that he road is too narrow and visibility poor. The road is classified as a local access road which is normally characterised by 4.8 m width reducing to 3.5 m for single track roads. There is no restriction on traffic volume. 7.10 Lanjaghan Road currently serves 28 properties ranging from dwelling houses to farm complexes, stables and holiday accommodation. 7.11 The Highways Division have considered the application carefully and indicate that in its current state the road is not suitable for further traffic. However, improvements have been agreed and these must be carried out prior to any works taking place. If these can be secured then the Highways Division consider the application to be acceptable on that basis.
Erection of Farm Buildings: 7.12 The key considerations in respect of this element of the proposal are; the principle of development (agricultural justification), siting and visual impact, impact on neighbouring amenity. 7.13 Principle: General Policy 3 seeks to restrict development in the countryside subject to some exceptions which include buildings which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry. 7.14 The agricultural advisor indicates that the existing buildings are past their intended lifetime and would require a lot of maintenance in the future to keep them up to a recognisable standard, and he feels that the creation of a new modern purpose built agricultural steading has many attractions and is agriculturally justified. His representation sets out in detail his overview of the proposal. On this basis the principle of development is acceptable. 7.15 Siting and Visual Impact: Environment Policy 15 states that where there is agricultural need for a new building, such development must be sited as close as is practically possible to existing buildings groups and be appropriate in terms of scale, materials, colour, siting and form to ensure that all new developments are sympathetic to the landscape. 7.16 A Design and Access Statement was submitted with the application. This shows that the proposal was designed taking into account the Landscape Character Assessment (LCA). The LCA characterised this part of the island as Type A, 'Uplands' where the overall strategy is to 'converse and enhance to the predominately open and exposed character of the Moorland hills and mountain summits; the generally uninterrupted skyline and panoramic views across the lower slopes and planes towards the sea, the strong sense of tranquillity and remoteness and the distinctive features of the cultural heritage and nature conservation interest'. The LCA offer guidance on development starting that 'housing and business development would be out of place within the predominately open, exposed and visually sensitive Upland landscapes; any new buildings which are deemed necessary should avoid exposed or visually prominent
locations and should reflect local building materials and type, care should be taken not to compromise the sparsely settled pattern of isolated small scale farmsteads and care should be taken to minimise the visual clutter of highways infrastructure and signage. 7.17 The farm buildings have been deliberately proposed further down the mountainside in order to reduce the impact of them, particularly from the mountain road. The siting is behind a line of trees and north of a small wood. This certainly does minimise its impact and it is not considered that the farm buildings would be entirely out of place. 7.18 Impact on Neighbouring Amenity: Environment Policy 15 (amongst other policies) continues to say that care must be taken to ensure that there is no unacceptable adverse impact of new agricultural activity on residential properties. 7.19 The new farmstead and dwelling are located significantly close to an existing dwelling, named Slieau Ree, which was likely itself to once be a farm workers dwelling. The farm access would run along its northern side within 8metres of its side elevation. Although this could result in a loss of amenity through the level and type of activity associated with a farm, there is already a farm lane that runs to the front of the property. Nevertheless, the activity associated with a farm lane, where sheep or cattle could pass on either a daily basis or an infrequent basis, could well be different from the noise and smells associated with a farm that lies within 22 m of a residential property. In commenting on the application it is notable that the residents have objected on the basis of access to the development along Lanjaghan Road, the size of the farmhouse and why it is needed given that there is an existing one, the need for tourist units and the reasoning behind locating the farm lower down the hill, which they believe would hinder good farming practice and question whether an upland farm can support such a large flock of sheep. They state that they are not objecting to the new proposed farm complex because it is right behind their bungalow but because they do not feel that it is the best site. The residents make no objection on grounds such as noise, smells and/or disturbance.
Erection of a Farm Dwelling: 7.20 The key considerations in respect of this element of the proposal are; agricultural justification, size of development, location of development, impact on countryside and visual amenity, impact on residential amenity. 7.21 Agricultural justification: Housing Policy 7 states that new agricultural dwellings will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances and where real agricultural need is demonstrated. In judging this, regard should be had to the previous or proposed severance of land and buildings and the long term viability of new or unproven agricultural enterprises such as small holdings and so on. Agricultural need should be established having regard to what living accommodation has been built on, or was used in association with the farm holding in the past, and how it is now occupied. In terms of the agricultural enterprise, it is clear from the agricultural advisor's comments, that the farm justifies a dwelling. However, there is a strong argument that the existing vacant dwelling, the subject of application 13/00546/A, should be reused as the farmhouse. Such an argument is compelling, it fits with the policy aim of not allowing new dwellings where there are existing ones that could fulfil the function. The existing dwelling does not have an agricultural occupancy condition attached to it, and could be sold off independently. Although this would be the decision of the applicants and is a reason to refuse a new dwelling, the reality is that it is the new farm enterprise would be less likely to go ahead. It is doubtful that the existing property would be used, particularly if the tourist units were to be implemented, as these would then sit in between the farmhouse and the farm buildings. There is of course the option that the existing farm is not converted to tourist units and are demolished with the site used for new farm buildings. It is felt however that the retention of the old vernacular farm buildings and their re-use is a positive aspect of the scheme.
7.22 The size of the new agricultural dwelling is not to be underestimated. It would be 3 storeys, with the potential of 6 bedrooms, a family room, living room, dining room and kitchen. The house would be 9.8 m deep and 12.8 m wide. Environment Policy 15 states that new agricultural dwellings must be appropriate in scale. Planning Committee Members will recall the issue of Tramman, in the north of the island, where the Planning Authority was criticised for approving an agricultural dwelling of such a size. In a justification of the proposal, the applicants have stated that the people who run the farm (the applicant's daughter and son-inlaw) have 4 children and at busy times during lambing, further family members stay and help provide labour. The applicant's architect has confirmed that the applicant's son-in-law and daughter are fully committed to farming and the investment proposed is to ensure the longterm viability of the farm and any condition restricting the occupation of the farm to agricultural workers is expected and does not cause any issue. The intention is for the applicant's son-on-law and daughter to run the farm and the tourist accommodation as a form of diversification. 7.23 The location of the development and its impact on the character of the landscape are similar issues. The dwelling would be well located near to the farm buildings so as to be viewed as a group. It would be set on lower ground level to the field to its north west being on a ground level of 155.145 compared with 160 but is still likely to be visible from the Mountain Road.
Other Matters: 7.24 The site has overhead power lines. The applicant has indicated that these will be relocated beneath ground. This is not seen as a requirement to make the development acceptable and consequently a condition has not been imposed. 7.25 It is not thought that the verge improvements to provide passing bays would have an undue negative impact on the character of the area. 7.26 Two ponds are to be provided with a watercourse between. The applicant's architect has stated that there is a significant amount of ground water which is currently collected into a piped system distributed below the field surface. Presently this collects at the head of the existing farmyard and it is proposed to harness this and use it to fill the ponds. The depth of the ponds appears to be 2 metres maximum. 7.27 The entrance gates to the holiday complex are perhaps a little too polite for a rural location, but do provide for a sense of destination and thus no objection has been raised to them by the case officer.
8.1 The different elements of the wider proposal each raise a number of issues, none of which are entirely straightforward. Many issues are finely balanced, including the suitability of the access, the visual impact of the new farm and its relationship with Slieau Ree, and the provision of a new farmhouse. It is considered overall that the application is for well designed modern and workable facilities that provides a long term future for the site.
9.1 For the reasons given above, the application is recommended for approval, subject to the applicant's entering into a legal agreement to secure use of the new farm-worker's property for agricultural workers on Lanjighan farm, and subject to conditions as suggested below. 10. Party status
10.1 Onchan District Commissioners 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. 10.2 DEFA, WASA, DSC and the MEA have all made material planning comments on the applications and are therefore recommended to have party status. 10.3 Slieau Ree sits alongside the site and should be afforded party status. All the properties along Lanjaghan Road are persons whose properties may be affected by traffic generated by the development and it is recommended that they too have party status. 10.4 The Highways Division forms part of the Department of Infrastructure and is not entitled to independent party status, but is entitled to attend the appeal at the request of the Planning Division or Inspector. 10.5 Mr P Karran MHK does not meet any of the criteria for awarding party status and neither do the residents of Glebe Cottage or Ballaquark and are consequently not recommended.
Recommended Decision: Approve subject to Legal Agreement
Recommendation:
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in full accordance with the following plans: 01; 20A; 50; SF/51; 51; 100; SF/100; SF/101; SF/102; 101; 200; SF/200; 201; 300; 301; SF300; 500; 1961-SK-131018-001.
C 3. No demolition or development shall be carried out on the site until the road improvement works to Lanjaghan Road have been carried out in accordance with the details submitted on drawing no.20A.
C 4.
The tourist development hereby approved shall not be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plans for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles. Such areas shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than the parking, turning and loading of vehicles associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use.
C 5. No development shall commence until details of the means of disposal of foul and surface water drainage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented prior to or concurrently with the development and the use may not commence until the drainage works relevant to that part of the development are completed.
C 6 . All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the plans specified in condition 2. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Any trees or plants indicated on the approved scheme which, within a period of five years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced during the next planting season with other trees or plants of a species and size to be first approved in writing by the Planning Authority. All hard landscape works shall be permanently retained in accordance with the approved details.
C 7 . No development shall commence until a schedule of materials and finishes to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, doors, windows and hardsurfacing have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out only in accordance with the details so approved.
C 8 . Details of the arrangements for the storage and disposal of all waste for each separate element of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the use of that element commences. The storage and disposal of waste shall thereafter be undertaken only in accordance with the approved details.
C 9 . There shall be no external storage of materials on the site unless specifically agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.
C 10 . Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension or enlargement (including additions or alterations to the roof) of the farmworkers' dwelling hereby approved shall be carried out without the prior written permission of the Planning Authority.
C 11 . Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no garages or other free standing buildings shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwelling hereby approved, other than those expressly authorised by this permission, without the prior written permission of the Planning Authority.
C 12 .
The tourist accommodation hereby approved shall not be occupied other than for purposes of holiday accommodation in the manner shown on the approved plans, and shall not be let to the same persons for more than 28 days in any calendar year, or such other period as may be first approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Written records of letting and occupiers shall be made available for inspection by the Planning Authority at any time.
C 13. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no fences or other means of enclosure may be erected without prior approval in writing of the Planning Authority.
C 14. No demolition or development shall take place until details of the means of mitigating impact on bats has been agreed in writing with the Planning Authority and implemented following the outcome of a survey to be undertaken.
C 15. The agricultural dwelling hereby approved may only be occupied by a person or persons whose sole employment is in agriculture and his or her spouse and any dependent relatives.
C 16. Prior to the commencement of the construction of the ponds, further details of the means of soil extraction, where material removed is to be taken, the method of lining the ponds and any pipework to be laid, shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
C 17. No work shall commence on the construction of the agricultural workers' dwelling until such time as the farm buildings are constructed and have been brought into use.
N 1. For the avoidance of doubt, this permission does not infer approval for the rebuilding of any element shown to be repaired or retained. Should any element of the tourist units shown to be retained, be removed, demolished or fall down then further approval for the re-building will be required and there will be no guarantee of further approval.
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 : \qquad Committee Meeting Date :
Signed : \qquad Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. YES
With the exception of Mr Kermode, the Committee overturned the recommendation of the case officer and the application was refused for the following reasons.
The proposed farm would be likely to cause a significant level of nuisance to the residents of Slieau Ree, potentially for 24 hours a day and seven days a week, from farming activities close to their home, thereby diminishing their existing level of residential amenity and changing the character of the area.
The design of the entrance gates to the holiday complex, given their position some distance from the accommodation to which they relate, and due to their design, would not be in keeping with the open and rural character of the area.
In refusing the application, the Committee made it know that they had no objection to the element of the proposal for the tourist units, the design of which they felt was good.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
