**Document:** Robin Hill Farm Planning Statement **Application:** 13/00452/A — Approval in principle for erection of a dwelling to replace existing redundant barn **Decision:** Permitted **Decision Date:** 2013-06-18 **Parish:** Rushen **Document Type:** report / planning_statement **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/4288-colby-farm-cronk-y-replacement-new-build/documents/1291144 --- # Robin Hill Farm Planning Statement Robin Hill Farm Ballakilpheric Colby Isle of Man IM9 4BS Planning and Building Control Division, Department of Infrastructure, Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas, Isle of Man IM1 2SF 12th April 2013 For the attention of the Secretary to the Planning Committee Re: Application for Approval in Principle to Replace Redundant Agricultural Shed with Detached Dwelling at Robin Hill Farm, Cronk-Y-Dhooney, Ballakilpheric, Colby Following discussions with Planning Officer Sarah Corlett, we are submitting this Planning Application for your consideration and we write in support of this. I should explain at the outset that our property, Robin Hill Farm, is owned jointly by myself and my husband. However, because my husband is suffering from dementia, I have been appointed by the Court to act on his behalf (I enclose a copy of the relevant Order). We are making the Application to replace a redundant farm shed (hereinafter referred to as 'the barn') with a detached, cottage-style house, very much in keeping with other surrounding properties. The existing barn is a concrete block structure with corrugated sheet roof. It has a large footprint, measuring approximately 21m x 21m x 6m high at the apex (photographs attached). There is also land available at the front of the building which would be suitable for parking and a garage. RECEIVED ON 12 APR 2013 DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE 2. We believe that the replacement of the barn with a detached single dwelling would make better use of the site and considerably enhance the general surroundings. In addition we propose to make available a narrow strip of land (which we believe the barn may have actually encroached upon when it was built in 1973) in order to improve vehicular access in the lane. As you will be aware, a similar application to this was submitted previously, was turned down and was also the subject of an Inspector’s Report. It seems that the original application had a number of merits, which we will detail later, and was also strongly supported by Rushen Commissioners. It was, however, decided that the Application might breach the aims of the Strategic Plan and this appeared to override all these considerations. This was because, although the Strategic Plan encourages the use of previously developed land and redundant buildings, it excludes land for this use that is or was occupied by agricultural buildings. Whilst we accept, and respect, this principle, we believe that we did not make known enough of the true facts regarding the building’s history and its ‘agricultural’ status. This was clearly our fault and our omission and we are grateful to the Planning Officer for agreeing to look at our Application again, in light of these additional facts. ### The Inspector’s Report Firstly, let me briefly reiterate the main points of the Inspector’s Report. There was certainly no doubt from any side of the argument, including the Planning Committee and the Inspector himself, that the existing building has little to recommend it. There was general agreement that the building is ugly and that ‘the appearance of the land would undoubtedly be improved’ by its removal. This is best summed up by the Inspector’s own words, in point 21 of his Report: “The proposal has the following merits: a. The proposed replacement of the ugly farm shed with a traditionally designed Manx cottage would enhance the appearance of the AHLVSS and repair the damage to the traditional character of Cronk-Y-Dhooney when the original cottage was removed and the shed was erected. b. As a compatible land use it would safeguard the residential amenity of the occupiers of the nearby dwellings who could be adversely affected by farming activities and by farm traffic if the agricultural use of the building were to be resumed. c. The proposed development is sited on a street frontage close to the centre of the small rural settlement and would not extend its footprint. d. It would remove the dominating gable wall of the shed that currently has an overbearing impact on the outlook of Rose Cottage. e. It would remove a constriction in the lane and would help to address the problem of poor access affecting Cronk-Y-Dhooney to which there is reference in the emerging area plan. These favourable factors accord with various strategic planning policies including Environmental Policy 2 and carry considerable weight." The Inspector concluded, however, that these favourable factors still did not 'justify a breach of the strategic planning policies for the location of housing on the Island'. There was also a concern that allowing the development might set a precedent for the development of other agricultural buildings around the island. ### Further Facts There are two areas in which we believe that, through our own omission, we did not place the full facts before the Planning Committee. The first regards the matter of a precedent being set for the future development of agricultural buildings around the Island. We believe that very few agricultural buildings would be on a site previously in residential use, as this one was. We probably failed to emphasise this enough in the previous application and we certainly only offered anecdotal evidence of a residential property being on the site. In fact, this residential use was clearly shown on the O/S Map of the Island dated 1957 (see Appendices 1 and 2) and the configuration of the site at that time shows a remarkable similarity to the development we have proposed. The second area is in relation to the barn's gradual redundancy as an agricultural building and we have endeavoured, through research and testimony from the previous owners, to show that this has been a natural, and in many ways inevitable, evolution. ### To sum up this history: a. The Quilliam family purchased Robin Hill Farm in 1953. It was at that time leased to another farmer and when his lease expired in 1955, the Quilliams moved into the farm. The farm was worked by Joseph Quilliam and later by his son Peter. b. Peter clearly remembers the old cottage which stood on the site now occupied by the barn. The cottage was demolished to make way for the barn. c. The Quilliams applied for Planning Permission to build the barn in 1973 (Planning Application No. 36160). In the Application, no mention was made of a previous dwelling and it was not shown on the plans that were submitted: it was replaced on these plans by a diagram of the footprint of the proposed barn. d. At the time of the Application, the Quilliams needed the barn for storing large quantities of hay for their milking cows, heifers and beef cattle. (Peter remembers 'having to build stools in the field' up to that point.) Later, they also used the barn for raising poultry: ducks, geese, turkeys and chickens. It is important to note that, in addition to the 20 acres of Robin Hill 4. Farm, the Quilliams were also at this time farming other land which they owned or rented, including fields at Lingague and the 18.5 acre field known as ‘The Bishop’s Belly’, adjacent to the Airport roundabout in Castletown. e. In 1989, the milking cows were sold and the remainder of the herd followed over the next few years. Peter was suffering serious problems with his back and hip and eventually in 1997, had to have a hip replacement. His parents were now elderly and his father was confined to a wheelchair. f. The poultry keeping had also been wound down and was ended completely by 2000. Peter switched to veg growing and a few sheep after that and no longer needed the big barn for agricultural purposes. g. In 2005, Robin Hill Farm was sold to Mr P. Cripps. It had never been Cripps’ intention to use the barn for its original agricultural purpose. Whilst he continued to keep a small flock of sheep, he had always intended to build a kennels, then later a cattery, at the farm. He used the barn as a place in which to build sheds and stables for a small business he ran from the farm. I know this because in 2006/7 I ordered a stable from him and visited him in the barn to see how the building was progressing. I noticed that he was also storing a classic car in there and I remembered this when my husband and I were looking to downsize and saw that Robin Hill Farm was on the market: it seemed an ideal property in which to house my husband’s car collection and related equipment, including a hydraulic lift for repairs and maintenance. This is what it has been used for as long as we have owned the property, although, my husband’s illness has meant that virtually all of his cars have now been sold. h. We still keep a small flock of sheep but we have diversified into horse liveries and we are just about to open our newly completed holiday cottages for business. Both these small enterprises allow me to remain at home to look after my husband whilst still having an income. We have adequate storage for hay and feed for our needs without the barn, and the farm runs perfectly well without it. i. We can therefore assert, with complete confidence, that the barn in question has been redundant as far as agricultural use is concerned since 2000. ### Continued Redundancy At this point I should also address the idea of whether the barn ‘could be capable of further use for agriculture’. As previously mentioned, Robin Hill Farm itself has only twenty acres of land. At the time the Quilliams applied for Planning Permission to build the barn, they owned and rented other land which meant that they were farming over twice that amount of acreage, hence the need for a large barn. A barn this size just for Robin Hill Farm is not really appropriate: even without the barn the farm has an adequate range of outbuildings for its acreage. ### Summary In summary, we repeat that we are not attempting to breach the aims of the Strategic Plan, rather, that we failed to show in our original Application that the development we proposed remained in keeping with the aims of the Plan. 5. We believe that the further facts we have provided show that our Application conforms to General Policy 3(c) which allows for the redevelopment of ‘previously developed land where the use is redundant and where redevelopment would improve the landscape or wider environment’. We appreciate that we failed in our previous Application to demonstrate strong enough evidence of the site’s former residential use. We believe that the fact that we would very clearly be returning the site to its original use, and condition, overrides any concerns about a precedent being set with regard to the redevelopment of other agricultural buildings on the island as very few would have this history. And finally, we believe that it is worth emphasising the point about which there is general agreement on all sides: that this building has not only outlived its original purpose, but is also an eyesore, spoiling a very beautiful area: to describe it as a blot on the landscape would be quite accurate. Its removal and the redevelopment of the site, taking it back to its original, residential use, could only improve the area, both in terms of outlook and also in terms of improving access and safeguarding the residential amenity of the occupiers of other properties nearby. We respectfully request that you consider our Application in light of this further evidence. Yours faithfully Julie MacQuillan --- *Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).* *Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/4288-colby-farm-cronk-y-replacement-new-build/documents/1291144*