Loading document...
{{table:137702}} ### Considerations {{table:137703}} ### Written Representations ### Consultations
THE APPLICATION SITE AND PLANNING APPLICATION The application site comprises of a parcel of land that is located off Rhowin Road in Maughold. The planning application seeks approval in principle for the erection of an agricultural workers dwelling on the application site.
Whilst the application site for the current planning application has not been the subject of any previous planning applications the farm buildings adjacent to the application site has. Planning application 05/01154/B sought approval for the demolition of an existing barn and its replacement with a steel framed barn. This previous planning application was initially considered and approved on the 15th August 2005, with the initial approval decision notice issued on the 18th August 2005. The applicant for this previous planning application and the current planning application are the same, which tallies with the indicated land ownership details that have been submitted with the current planning application.
Maughold Parish Commissioners have no objections to the planning application.
The Department of Transport Highways Division do not oppose the planning application subject to condition.
| Application No.: | 06/01045/A |
| Applicant: | Mr R E Quayle |
| Proposal: | Approval in principle for the erection of an agricultural workers dwelling |
| Site Address: | Field 624109 Ballagilley Farm Rhowin Road Maughold Isle of Man |
| Case Officer: | Mr A Holmes |
| Photo Taken: | |
| Site Visit: | 21.09.2006 |
| Expected Decision Level: | Delegation |
The Isle of Man Water Authority requests that an informative note be attached to any approval decision notice.
The Manx Electricity Authority requests that an informative note be attached to any approval decision notice.
The Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that there is justification for the proposed development put forward and that the need for an additional dwelling is questioned.
The owner and/or occupant of Seacliffe, which is located in Braddan, states that they do not oppose the proposed development but query the level of detail contained within the planning application.
The relevant plan document for the area is the 1982 Development Plan Order. Under this document the application site is not zoned for any specific purpose and constitutes open countryside. It is located within a wider area of land that is designated as being of high landscape or coastal value and scenic significance.
The Department's stance on residential development in the countryside is set out by Planning Circular 1/88. Under this circular there is a general presumption against development unless it is required to serve the needs of a viable agricultural holding. In turn the stance on assessing proposed agricultural dwellings is set out by Planning Circular 3/88. This circular requires a number of things to be demonstrated, including evidence to show that there is need sufficient to offset the general planning objections to such development. The existing accommodation within the farm group must be explained and reasoning why the intended occupant of the dwelling could not conveniently live elsewhere. If the need is accepted it is necessary to look at the siting of the dwelling.
Based on correspondence with the applicant it is understood that the overall farm holding is split into two separate sites, Ballakilley and Ballagilley, both of which are understood to be owned by the applicant. The Ballakilley holding comprises of approximately 170 acres and the Ballagilley holding, which contains the application site for the current planning application, comprises of approximately 130 acres. The overall farm holding is a mixed livestock farm. The distance from the Ballakilley holding to the application site, as measured along the shortest road route, is approximately 3.5 miles.
In terms of agricultural need the applicant has submitted evidence from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry that states that the farming activity justifies the employment of two full time workers. This evidence concludes that it "is essential for animal welfare and desirable for security that those individuals responsible for looking after the livestock are resident of the unit." And that "During calving and lambing, livestock may require regular supervision throughout the day and night. It is therefore both practical and convenient that those involved with these duties are resident on the unit itself."
With regards to the existing accommodation within the farm holding it is understood that the existing dwelling within the Ballagilley holding was sold to, and is now occupied by, someone not involved in the agricultural working of the farm holding. As such it is put forward that the overall farm holding only contains one dwelling. Based on the previous planning application it would appear that the farm holding utilises the existing buildings adjacent to the dwelling within the Ballagilley holding.
In terms of assessing the proposed development it is appropriate to examine the principle of an agricultural workers dwelling and then to examine the specifics of application site.
Firstly, after consideration it is felt that a second dwelling is not sufficiently justified to set aside the presumption against residential development in the countryside. Whilst the evidence from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry does identify a need for two full time employees to serve the overall farm holding this does not justify a second dwelling. There are already residents within the farm holding on the Ballakilley holding and the distance from this holding to the other is not prohibitively far enough away to adversely affect the operation of the farm holding. The calving and lambing of livestock is not a continual process.
Secondly, if it were accepted that there were sufficient agricultural need to justify setting aside the presumption against residential development in the countryside it is considered that the position of, and access to, the proposed dwelling does not accord with the provisions of Planning Circular 3/88. New agricultural dwellings
should be better related to the everyday operation of the farm holding, primarily by a) being immediately adjoined the main group farm buildings; b) being well set back from the public highway; and c) being approached via an existing farm access.
It is recommended that the planning application be refused.
It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
Maughold Parish Commissioners; The Department of Transport Highways Division; The Isle of Man Water Authority; and The Manx Electricity Authority.
It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded interested party status:
The Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment; and The owner and/or occupant of Seacliffe.
Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 16.10.2006
C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: Notes attached to refusals
R 1. As the application site is not designated for residential development, nor does the proposed dwelling replace an existing dwelling, the only way that the proposed development could be deemed acceptable is as a justified agricultural workers dwelling. Whilst evidence demonstrates that the operation of the overall farm holding requires two full time employees it is not accepted that it justifies the erection of a new dwelling in accordance with the provisions of Planning Circular 3/88. Specifically, it is not accepted that the Ballagilley holding has to be worked from a dwelling within the holding and that the operation could not be managed from the Ballakilley holding or from existing accommodation elsewhere within the area.
R 2. Notwithstanding the first reason for refusal the location of the application site and position of the proposed dwelling is contrary to the provisions of Planning Circular 3/88. Specifically, the application site is detached from any existing farm buildings, it is not set back from the public highway and it is not approached via an existing farm access.
I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular Nos 44/05 (Delegation of Functions to Director of Planning and Building Control) and 47/05 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer)
Decision Made: Refused Date: 23/10/06
Signed: _________________________ M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown