Planning Committee Officer Report

Application No.: 06/00762/A Case Officer : Mr Ian Brooks ### Consultations {{table:135675}} {{table:135676}} {{table:135677}} {{table:135678}} {{table:135679}} issues and although we may feel very sorry for the applicant. Policy dictates that new houses in the countryside should not be permitted if existing farm dwelling/s have been, or are to be, sold off. The Society VERY STRONGLY OBJECTS in support of policy and to be fair to all the other who have been refused. NOTE: The alternative suggestion of mobile home/s would similarly need Planning Permission ### Private representations ### Planning Applicant: Mr L U B Hultgren Proposal: Approval in principle to erect an agricultural dwelling Site Address: Field 214292 East Sartfield Farm Sartfield Road Jurby Isle Of Man **

Officer's Report

Description Of Application Site

• The application site is part of Field no. 214292 situated to the east of Sartfield Road, Jurby.
• The application site is situated within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
• To the south of the application site is an agricultural building which is used by the applicant.
• To the west of the application is a track leading to the Sartfield Road.

Proposal

• The application is seeking an approval in principle for an agricultural dwelling.
• The indicative plans show a 9m x 14m single storey dwellinghouse would be constructed on the site.

Relevant Planning History

• 92/00416 - Approval in principle for construction of agricultural dwelling - Refused at appeal on 19th July 1993.
• 86/00825 - Alterations and renovation of 2 agricultural barns (A & B), including provision of living accommodation in barn B, East Sartfield Farm, Jurby - Permitted

Development Plan Policies

• Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982
• Planning Circular 1/8 - Residential Development Houses in the Countryside
• Planning Circular 3/88 - New Agricultural Dwellings.

Statutory Consultation Responses

• Jurby Parish Commissioners - no objection

PC Agenda 10.08.2006

Lower Sartfield Sartfield Road Jurby Isle Of Man	Objects to the proposal
PMCS Seacliffe Old Castletown Road Ballaveare	Supports the proposal

• Highways Division of the DoT does not oppose the application
• Drainage Division of the DoT - no objection

Public Responses

• Press notice were posted on 16/3/06
• Representations have been received from the owners of Lower Sartfield, SPMCE, IoMWA, MEA and a resident of Port Soderick
• The occupiers of Lower Sartfield have objected to the application on the following grounds:
• Visual impact on the surrounding area
• The farm does not employ any employees, so a dwelling is not needed. They have a room in the working barn to sleep in at Lambing time.
• The main property already consists of a farm house and a barn converted to living accommodation.
• This would set a precedent as this area is valuable farm land
• Housing is available to build by The Bretney, less than ¼ mile away.
• SPMCE have provided the following comments:
• Rather vague submission. Boundaries of farm (160 acres) not delineated and proposal involves selling some of it off - which is how much? SALE TO INCLUDE PRESENT FARMHOUSE! Personal circumstances, even financial ones, are not planning issues and although we may feel very sorry for the applicant, policy dictates that new houses in the countryside should not be permitted if existing farm dwelling/s have been, or are to be sold off.
• The Society VERY STRONGLY OBJECTS in support of Policy and to be fair to all the other who have been refused.
• NOTE: The alternative suggestion of mobile home/s would similarly need planning permission.
• The IoMWA have advised the applicant should contact them with regard to the connection of a water supply to the dwelling.
• The MEA have advised the applicant should contact them with regard to the supply of electricity.

Issues

• Paragraph 1 of Planning Circular 3/88 states that "A person who wishes to build a farm dwelling in a rural area must produce evidence to prove need sufficient to offset the general planning objections to such development. Unless real agricultural need can be established, the normal planning considerations will prevail".
• The applicant’s currently live at East Sartfield, which is situated approximately 190m away from the application site in a south westerly direction. The applicant’s present accommodation is conveniently located for the supervision of the farm especially during lambing times.
• The applicant has not submitted any evidence to show real agricultural need for a dwelling in this particular location.
• Since agricultural need has not been demonstrated, the proposal has to be considered in the context of Planning Circular 1/88.

• This Circular sets out the general presumption against residential development in the countryside.

• The introduction of a new property in this locality would amount to inappropriate development in the countryside contrary to the general presumption against residential development within the countryside as set out in Planning Circular 1/88.

• The applicant has provided information on the motivation for the submission of this application. The applicant has indicated due to their financial circumstances the current residence will be put up for sale along with some acreage to enable to overcome a potential shortfall of an endowment policy and then construct a new dwelling adjacent to an existing barn, which will remain in their ownership.

• The financial circumstances of the applicant can not be regarded as a material consideration when determining this application.

• The applicant already lives in close proximity to the agricultural unit I therefore do not consider there is any particular need for a further dwelling to be built in this location.

Conclusion

I therefore recommend that planning permission be refused for the above reasons.

Party Status

I consider that the following should be granted party status due to them being Statutory Consultees:

• Jurby Parish Commissioners
• Highways Division of the Department of Transport
• Drainage Division of Department of Transport
• MEA
• IoMWA and
• The owners of Lower Sartfield

I consider that the following do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded interested party status:

• The resident of Port Soderick

Recommendation

Decision Recommended by the Director of Planning and Building Control: Refused

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

R 1.

The Planning Committee is not persuaded that there is real agricultural need to justify the erection of a new dwelling on this site. The establishment of such agricultural need is a requirement as set out in Planning Circular 3/88, New Agricultural Dwellings. Under such circumstances the erection of a new dwelling would be contrary to established policy in this regard (Planning Circular 1/88 and 3/88).

Furthermore the development of this site would be contrary to the adopted land use designation of the site and the Department's general presumption against development in the Island's countryside - as set out in Planning Circular 1/88. Approval of development of this site would establish an unfortunate precedent for further unwarranted and uncontrolled development in the countryside.