Loading document...
The site defined in red represents a roughly rectangular parcel of land situated on the northern side of the A7 highway which links Cross Four Ways with Ballabeg. Identified in blue is a larger parcel of land, to the west and east of the red land, which is also owned by the applicants (approximately 15 hectares). The site is accessed via an existing gateway onto the A7.
There are two stable buildings and a store within the red land. These do not appear to have planning permission. The larger building has certainly been in place since before 1993 (see aerial photograph where the stables do not appear to be there) and one of the stables appears on the aerial photography of 2003. The applicant’s agent has clarified that the largest of the buildings may be that referred to in the 1983 application (see below) and that the stables, or something in the position of
the stables is also shown. The buildings have clearly been there for some time and the buildings predate the ownership of the site by these applicants who were not responsible for their construction.
The site edged red is within an area of an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982. The northern edge of the Area stops round about the lane running across the northern boundary of the red lane. The "blue land" to the north is designated as "white land" on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982, that is, not designated for development.
Planning permission was sought and granted for the erection of two agricultural buildings at the southern end of the application area under PA 83/0772 (see attached). These are shown at right angles to the orientation of the shed which is on site at present. There was an amended plan submitted following the initial permission and after works commenced on site with the building at right angles to the permitted plans. This amended plan was accepted showing the two buildings with the length running north south as the existing building is on site.
The application proposes the principle of the erection of a dwelling on the area edged red. The applicant's agent indicates that not all of the red area would be residential and that this could be reduced if necessary.
The applicant's agent clarifies that the applicants' family own farmland in the area, associated with Ballawhetstone Farm whose main buildings are situated on the southern side of the road. These buildings include the main old farmhouse and a more modern bungalow approved in 1971 under IDO 30120.
The application also clarifies that neither of the applicants are engaged full-time in farming and that the area edged blue could not provide a full-time income from agriculture. Mr. Maddrell is engaged in agricultural contracting and plant hire.
The applicant involves the principle of the erection of a dwelling together with improvements to the existing access as are necessary. It is suggested that if necessary, a new access could be created to the south west.
I met with the applicants prior to the preparation of the application although this is not indicated on the application form which was prepared by an agent who was not present at our meeting and perhaps has not been advised by the applicants of the discussions which took place.
I explained that the site is not designated for development and in the absence of an agricultural need planning permission was unlikely to be forthcoming for a new dwelling as there would be little in the way of a need to live on the site. The applicants indicated that they wanted somewhere to store the equipment and plant related to their occupation and to live close to that. As the applicants' family own land on which this could all be physically possible, it seemed sensible and acceptable to use this. The applicants presently live at Bradda West in Port Erin.
As the site is not designated for development, there would appear to be no justifiable reason to set aside the prevailing land use policies and permit a dwelling here. Such a decision would establish an unfortunate precedent for further unwarranted and sporadic development elsewhere on land designated as open space.
The existing buildings are visible from the A7 although only from a limited area to the south west: from the south and south east the buildings are hidden by the rise in the natural topography. The
proposed dwelling, depending upon its size and particularly its height, is likely to be visible from the same points.
There is a suggestion from a resident of Port Soderick that this proposal would conform to "the policy of allowing families to build dwellings on land owned by the family". I am not aware of any such policy.
Malew Parish Commissioners do not agree with this and suggest that the proposal would be contrary to adopted circular 3/88 and would represent an unwarranted intrusion into the countryside.
There is limited, if any justification for the erection of this dwelling and indeed little if any reason is given in the information provided to support the application. Permission for this dwelling would be contrary to policy and could establish a precedent for further development in undesignated areas and outside the established settlements in this and other parts of the Island.
The Department of Transport has recommended that a new access would be required to provide visibility of 2m by 160m and the applicant should show how these visibility splays could be provided. The site's entrance however lies within a stretch of road, the speed of vehicles travelling is restricted to 30 miles per hour. As such, any access should not need to provide visibility as suggested above and would need to afford visibility of nearer 90m (PPG 13) which would appear to be possible in the form of a new access onto the A7.
Malew Parish Commissioners and Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division are or represent statutory authorities and as such should be afforded party status in this case.
The resident of Port Soderick is not directly affected by the proposal and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 16.10.2006
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1.
The site is not designated for development. In the absence of any demonstrable agricultural need, the erection of a new dwelling in this location would be contrary to established policy against development in the Island's countryside and could establish an undesirable precedent to support further unwarranted development in the countryside.
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: [Handwritten signature] M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown