Loading document...
in respect of a planning application for the Conversion of existing farm buildings to provide twelve tourist accommodation units with ancillary support and leisure facilities, and erection of a replacement farm complex comprising of agricultural buildings and a farm workers dwelling with detached garage Lanjaghan Farm
Lanjaghan Road Abbeylands Isle Of Man IM4 5EQ
Reference 13/00547/B
Statement prepared on behalf of DOI Planning and Building Control by Miss Jennifer Chance
1.1 This application forms one of two applications that sought approval for the separation of this dwelling from a farm complex and its replacement; the conversion/redevelopment of the farm complex to tourist accommodation and the relocation of the farm to slightly lower land a short way to the south and the erection of a farm workers dwelling. 1.2 The application for a replacement dwelling sought approval in principle and was refused by Planning Committee. This is the subject of a separate appeal, whereas this proposal, which is for tourist units, a new farmstead and new farmhouse was the subject of a full application. The application was refused by Planning Committee and is the subject of this appeal. The minutes of the meeting are attached.
1.3 This statement sets out the description of the site and the proposal, the history of the site and planning policies. The Planning Committee's case for refusing the application is set out in section 7. Conditions are suggested for discussion at the appeal hearing in the event that it is recommended to uphold the appeal.
2.1 The site forms part of a farm complex that has previously been vacated but within which farming has recently begun again. The site lies at the end of Abbeylands Road which is a long winding road, providing access for a number of individual dwellings. The complex contains approximately 6 large buildings and 5 smaller outbuildings. The application site runs approximately 400 m from north to south and 200 metres east to west. The site boundary is somewhat artificial as it sits within a larger area of farmland. The extent of the site has been drawn to encompass the existing farm buildings that are to the north of the site and the proposed siting of the new farm complex to the south of the site. A topographical survey shows that there is about a 30 m fall from , there being a ground level of approximately 183aod at the northern end of the site and 153aod at the southern. Unlike the site of the sister application, there are few trees on the site save for a line of trees on the eastern boundary and a copse to the south. The land is currently being used for grazing.
3.1 The application was accompanied by a Structural Survey, a Hydrology and Surface Water Drainage Review, a Design and Access Statement, a landscape proposal for the area of the tourist units, a plan showing the visual impact of the development in addition to the normal existing and proposed plans. 3.2 The development proposal comprises of a number of parts:
A Structural Inspection and Report was submitted with the application. The basis of the inspection was to identity if the stone buildings are structurally competent and are sufficiently robust to withstand the proposed conversion. The Report sets out that the assessment was not a detailed condition survey but related just to the structure of the building. The surveyors were supplied with a copy of the layouts and elevations for the proposed changes before making their assessment. It was noted that there is significant amounts of asbestos throughout the existing buildings that will need to be addressed. The buildings are in excess of 100 years old. The roof timbers in many cases are in poor condition, with rot and insect infestation and replacement would be preferable to repair. In terms of floors, around half of the units have concrete floors which are sound and competent, but perhaps should be replaced to improve insulation and damp proof membranes. In other units there are timber floors which are not in good condition. Any floor replacement will need to be done carefully so as not to undermine foundations. Some walls had significant cracking and were out of plumb, but in general terms the walls were reasonably true, plumb and corner quoin stones intact. Defects can be rectified by stainless steel stitching. New opening proposed are not considered to compromise the structural integrity of the buildings.
19 Twenty-one car parking spaces are to be provided, some of which will be formed by grasscrete, others in resin bound gravel and the remainder in set pavers. There would be 5 specifically designed disabled person's parking spaces, although more could be used as such if necessary.
Two ponds and a proposed watercourse to include weirs are to be shown within the landscape proposal with proposed coppice and woodland around the buildings.
porch, natural stone copings and a chimney at each end. It would be finished with roughcast sand/cement and painted with a slate roof. The windows would be vertically proportioned and 50 / 50 with a sliding sash mechanism. (The plans show casement, but the applicant has agreed that be sash windows instead). The new farmhouse would be 32 metres from the boundary of the Slieau Ree and 34 metres from the dwelling itself. No set curtilage was shown around the dwelling, but a plan has been received that clarifies the curtilage as being alongside the farm access and extending to the edge of the herringbone set pavers to the rear of the house and including the double garage which is to serve it.
4.1 Approval was sought for the erection of a pig swill shed in 1984.
5.1 The site lies within the Onchan Local Plan Order 2000. The land is designated as Open Space and is also, by virtue of O/RES/P/22 an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. 5.2 The Onchan Local Plan discusses Tourism in Chapter 3 stating that the role of Onchan in the island's tourist industry has generally declined over the past decade or so (the 90s) and making reference to the buildings and sites that were once used for Tourist purposes, but no longer are, e.g. the Howstrake Holiday Camp, the Majestic and Douglas Bay Hotels, and also sites designated for those purposes in the 1982 Order between Lakeside and Groudle Glen, but the designation for which changed in the 1989 Onchan Local Plan to Residential. It does set out that there is still tourist accommodation in the area and the attractions include the Groudle Glen railway, the rural countryside, Onchan Park Stadium, the Glens and Golf Course. 5.3 The plan concluded that the only sites to be designated for new tourist development would be the Majestic and Douglas Bay Hotels, but also provided for a policy that states: 'The provision of tourist accommodation may be permitted within the study area where this is either: i) in built up areas where this will not cause nuisance, or disturbance to adjacent residents; or ii) In rural areas where the development will not result in an adverse impact in terms of the visual impact, traffic, noise, or demands upon existing infrastructure.
Where tourist accommodation is to be provided in addition to an existing or proposed permanent residential use, adequate additional car parking will be required in proportion to the amount of tourist bedspaces to be provided."
5.4 It is perhaps also worth noting at this stage that the Onchan Plan considered footpaths in the area as an important attraction and supported the provision of further footpaths. 'The Department would support the Department of Transport in any proposal to designate more footpaths within the study area.' 5.5 The only other policy of relevance from the Onchan Local Plan seeks to protect bat roosts. 'Consultation must be undertaken with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on all proposals to alter buildings within the Local Plan area which bats are known to use as roost sites.' 5.6 The Strategic Plan sets out the strategic and spatial aims of Government and contains a number of relevant policies some of which are summarised, but the more relevant are set out in full.
Strategic Aim: To plan for the efficient and effective provision of services and infrastructure and to direct and control development and the use of land to meet the community's needs, having particular regard to the principles of sustainability whilst at the same time preserving, protecting, and improving the quality of the environment, having particular regard to our uniquely Manx natural, wildlife, cultural and built heritage.
Strategic Policy 1: seeks that Development make the best use of resources by using previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials; ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards; and being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services.
Strategic Policy 2: Directs new development to towns and villages, and allows development in the countryside only in specified exceptional circumstances.
Strategic Policy 4: requires that development must inter alia; protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations; and (c) not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance.
Strategic Policy 5: requires new development, including individual buildings, to be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island.
Strategic Policy 8: provides for tourist development stating that proposals will generally be permitted where they make use of existing built fabric of interest and quality, where they do not affect adversely environmental, agricultural, or highway interests and where they enable enjoyment of our natural and man- made attractions.
General Policy 2: Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development (amongst other criteria): (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape
features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (I) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption.
General Policy 3: Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of (amongst others): (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10); (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11); (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14); (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry. Environment Policy 2: seeks to protect the character of the landscape in areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's). Within such areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that: (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential.
Environment Policy 7: Seeks to protect watercourses, wetlands, ponds or dubs from harmful development and seeks mitigation where appropriate.
Environment Policy 8: Agricultural buildings will not be permitted on sites where their existence and associated discharges would result in a breach of the "Code of Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Water."
Environment Policy 15: Where the Department is satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building (including a dwelling), sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside, and that the impact of this development including buildings, accesses, servicing etc. is acceptable, such development must be sited as close as is practically possible to existing building groups and be appropriate in terms of scale, materials, colour, siting and form to ensure that all new developments are sympathetic to the landscape and built environment of which they will form a part. Only in exceptional circumstances will buildings be permitted in exposed or isolated areas or close to public highways and in all such cases will be subject to appropriate landscaping. The nature and materials of construction must also be appropriate to the purposes for which it is intended. Where new agricultural buildings are proposed next to or close to existing residential properties, care must be taken to ensure that there is no unacceptable adverse impact through any activity, although it must be borne in mind that many farming activities require buildings which are best sited, in landscape terms, close to existing building groups in the rural landscape.
Environment Policy 16: The use of existing rural buildings for new purposes such as tourist, or small-scale industrial/commercial use may be permitted where: a) it is demonstrated that the building is no longer required for its original purpose and where the building is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation; b) the reuse of the building will result in the preservation of fabric which is of historic, architectural, or social interest or is otherwise of visual attraction; c) it is demonstrated that the building could accommodate the new use without requiring extension or adverse change to appearance or character; d) there would not be unacceptable implications in terms of traffic generation; a) conversion does not lead to dispersal of activity on such a scale as to prejudice the vitality and viability of existing town and village services; and f) the use of existing buildings involves significant levels of redevelopment to accommodate the new use, the benefits secured by the proposal in terms of impact on the environment and the rural economy shall outweigh the continued impact of retaining the existing buildings on site. Proposals to convert rural buildings to residential accommodation will be considered along with the advice given at Section 8.10 of this document.
Environment Policy 22: states that development likely to unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of groundwater, airborne pollutants and/or vibrations, odour, noise or light pollution will not be permitted.
Environment Policy 43: supports proposals which seek to regenerate run-down urban and rural areas. Such proposals will normally be set in the context of regeneration strategies identified in the associated Area Plans. The Department will encourage the re-use of sound built fabric, rather than its demolition.
Housing Policy 7: New agricultural dwellings will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances where real agricultural need is demonstrated.
Housing Policy 8: Where permission is granted for an agricultural dwelling, a condition will be attached restricting the occupation to a person engaged or last engaged solely in agriculture; or a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident dependants.
Housing Policy 9: Where permission is granted for an agricultural dwelling, the dwelling must be sited such that; (a) it is within or immediately adjoining the main group of farm buildings or a group of farm buildings associated with that farm, (b) it is well set back from any public highway, and (c) it is approached via the existing farm access.
Housing Policy10: Where permission is granted for an agricultural dwelling, the dwelling should normally be designed in accordance with policies 1- 7 of present Planning Circular 3/91.
Housing Policy11: Conversion of existing rural buildings into dwellings may be permitted, but only where: (a) redundancy for the original use can be established; (b) the building is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation; (c) the building is of architectural, historic, or social interest; (d) the building is large enough to form a satisfactory dwelling, either as it stands or with modest, subordinate extension which does not affect adversely the character or interest of the building; (e) residential use would not be incompatible with adjoining established uses or, where appropriate, land-use zonings on the area plan; and (f) the building is or can be provided with satisfactory services without unreasonable public expenditure.
Such conversion must: (a) where practicable and desirable, re-establish the original appearance of the building; and (b) use the same materials as those in the existing building. Permission will not be given for the rebuilding of ruins or the erection of replacement buildings of similar, or even identical, form.
Further extension of converted rural buildings will not usually be permitted, since this would lead to loss or reduction of the original interest and character.
Business Policy 1: The growth of employment opportunities throughout the Island will be encouraged provided that development proposals accord with the policies of this Plan.
Business Policy 11: Tourism development must be in accordance with the sustainable development objectives of this plan; policies and designations which seek to protect the countryside from development will be applied to tourist development with as much weight as they are to other types of development. Within the rural areas there may be situations where existing rural buildings could be used for tourist use and Environment Policy 16 sets out the circumstances where this may be permitted.
Business Policy 12: Permission will generally be given for the conversion of redundant buildings in the countryside to tourist use providing that the development complies with the policies set out in paragraph 8.10. - Housing Policy 11.
Business Policy 14: Tourism development may be permitted in rural areas provided that it complies with the policies in the Plan. Farmhouse accommodation or quality self catering units in barn conversions and making use of rural activities will be encouraged but must comply with General Policy 3 and Business Policies 11 and 12. Other forms of quality accommodation in rural areas will be considered, including the provision of hostels and similar accommodation suitable for walkers but must comply with General Policy 3 and Business Policies 11 and 12.
Transport Policy 4: The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan.
Transport Policy 7: The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards.
6.1 The removal of the existing steel framed buildings and the creation of a new modern purpose built steading and farm workers dwelling has many agricultural attractions and is agriculturally justified.
The farm enterprise is centred on 267 graze-able acres and is stocked with 1500 ewes plus 35 rams and 600 replacements. The labour requirement for the sheep enterprise is 5.43 standard labour units with more when lambing occurs. Currently existing buildings at Lanjaghan Farm are utilised to house some ewes and their winter fodder. Over half are out-wintered due to limited suitable buildings.
6.2 The existing buildings were erected at a time when Lanjaghan Farm was focused on cattle production and not sheep. The existing buildings are past their intended lifetime and would require a lot of maintenance in the future to keep them up to a reasonable standard. The proposed steading is to include two purpose built sheep buildings, feed store, machinery store and a new farm worker's dwelling. The sheep buildings are to contain a slatted floor with effluent storage underneath meaning limited bedding material will be required. They are to be constructed so that they can easily be converted to be used for cattle should the need arise. The total requirement in space terms for the sheep is 3574sqm and the proposed building will
provide 3695 sqm . The 121 sqm of excess area will allow for further feed storage or a ewe handling area. Currently labour for the business travels to the site on a daily basis. Having staff on site will aid ewe health and welfare.
6.3 Recommend a bat survey
6.4 The application site is accessed via country lane of variable width and restricted forward visibility. During the discussions of the application an assessment of the lane was undertaken and a copy is attached. This concluded that 'Lanjaghan Lane has exceeded its environmental capacity as indicated by the level of accidents, existing traffic generation and comparison with available design guidance. It is recommended that this road is not suitable for additional traffic in its current state. Improvements to width, passing facilities and forward visibility may increase the environmental capacity however care must be taken due to the level of recreational use by non-motorised traffic'. 6.5 An improvement scheme has been agreed and these improvements should be carried out prior to any construction work commencing to ensure that the construction work itself does not cause traffic management and safety problems, this should be before the tourist AND farm developments.
6.6 No objection subject to clarification of drainage system supported by calculations for Land Drainage Consent. BB Consulting have produced a comprehensive survey of the drainage issues on the site and identified a number of areas that requires attention. However, although they have suggested some new drainage this has not been substantiated by calculations. Land Drainage Consent is required before commencement of any amendments to or construction of watercourses. At this time the catchment flows and drainage capacities will have to be verified.
6.7 There are overhead or underground cables in the area that may need to be relocated.
6.8 Whilst some affordable housing in this area would be attractive and beneficial in meeting housing need, if the accommodation is only being used for tourist accommodation then I do not believe the use for affordable housing to be appropriate.
6.9 Recommend that the application be REFUSED on the grounds that they do not contain sufficient evidence to support the need for tourist development on this magnitude in such a remote location. The development would overburden the road to the detriment of the existing residential and farm units. The new farm unit is unjustified, new barns can be built on the footprint of the old ones rather than developing a green field site. It is recognised that there will be a degree of cut and fill to try to camouflage the new complex but it would still be clearly visible from the A18 Mountain Road. There is no evidence to justify the new dwelling, which is described as a cottage but which is a large residential unit.
6.10 Wish to register my deep concern for any sort of large scale development in this area with the present problems that we have with the existing road access. This will only serve to exacerbate the problems we have with the area at the present time. Large parts of this road have little or no passing points and I can foresee there being severe problems with access of the Abbeyland's area below Lanjaghan Farm. This could affect emergency access if there was a large problem with congestion in this area.
Owner/occupier of Lanjaghan Lodge: 6.11 Road access very narrow, only allowing single traffic in very few places with sharp corners and problems of water and inadequately maintained ditches. Road was only designed for a few properties but this has increased over the years. The works to be carried out should be done by professional agencies. I would have expected the farmers with stock in fields who will be affected by lowering hedges would have already been approached but I understand this is not the case. Any road improvements should be carried out before any building work takes place. The proposed farm cottage is 5 bedrooms. Is such a big building really required? My husband worked on Lanjaghan farm for many years and was provided with a 3 bedroomed house which was adequate to bring up our family.
Owner/occupier of Abbeylands House: 6.12 The road is taking too much traffic and the proposal would make it dangerous.
Owner/Occupier of Lower Ballacashin: 6.13 Object on grounds of highway safety. Increase in traffic as a result of the development could be 35 vehicles a day. The load bearing over the narrow stone bridge is not known. Concern work being done to provide road improvements will not be by the Government Highway Department or a registered contractor and a private contractor may not be a sympathetic to utility supplies that run along the verge. The proposal for verge improvements will fill ditches in and tarmac them over. Already a problem of water pouring down road in winter, this will make matters severely worse. At present the flood water disperses evenly through the ditches.
Owner/occupier of Ballacashin: 6.14 Object as road between the Crossroads to Lanjaghan is too narrow for extra traffic. There is an estimated 300 cars per day which could double if the development goes ahead. The bridge could not stand continuous heavy traffic during the building of this site.
Owner/occupier of Slieau Ree: 6.15 Lanjaghan Road (AKA Abbeylands Road) is not constructed on good foundations and suffers in bad weather with the surface breaking up. Drainage is inadequate. Road has a variety of uses, cars, tractors, walkers, cyclists, motorcyclists, horse riders and so on. The road turns into a green lane and is therefore used by and off-road bikes as well. There are 300 vehicles movements a day. Overhanging trees are not looked after by the DOI. Improvements to the road will only be carried out 'if required'. No more than one HGV can use the road at any one time, yet the works are due to be completed before this winter which is not feasible. The development could lead to an increase up to 70 vehicles per day. 6.16 The five bedroomed 'cottage' is half the size of the 12 unit holiday complex is not needed when there is already a farmhouse on the farm. With some renovation it could be made habitable and very comfortable. We believe the new farmhouse does not comply with Housing Policy 7 due to the existence of a farmhouse on site. The application does not state why the existing house has been left to deteriorate and therefore do not believe that General Policy 3 (a) needs to be used in this application. 6.17 The Design and Access statement states that the 'reuse of these dilapidated buildings will bring tourism and additional business to the locality which will help rejuvenate their surroundings and benefit the local area.' There is no supporting evidence to show a need and demand for additional tourist accommodation in the countryside. Groudle Glen Cottages are fully booked for 5 nights in August and TT fortnight but that is all. Furthermore there is no information to show what the additional business mentioned actually is in the locality and how it would benefit Abbeylands.
6.18 The tourist use of the old stone buildings will be short term due to a lack of bookings and it will not be too long before an application is made for these to be permanent residential apartments and the extra traffic that comes with a change of use. The Policy supporting tourist development, Strategic Policy 8 allows for tourist use provided it does not affect environmental, agricultural or highway interests. We believe that it will have an adverse impact on the environment as the road improvement will remove and destroy wild flowers. The proposal will result in the loss of agricultural land and the highway will be overburdened in the short term by construction traffic and long term by new additional residents and tourist or business related traffic. 6.19 We understand that the new proposed farm complex is a facility that the modern day farmer desires and understand that this is progress. As the farm buildings and farmhouse are central to the enterprise we find it strange that they are proposed to be built further south and down hill and sunk into the ground which will hinder good farming practice by obscuring views to the surrounding fields. It would be much better to demolish what is there and to rebuild in the existing location of the farm. We have not seen a supporting statement or documents from DEFA to support the applicant wish such large footprint for sheep sheds etc and we wonder whether the size of this upland farm will support such a large flock of sheep. We are not objecting to the new proposed farm complex because it is right behind our bungalow but we do feel that it is not the best site and we would support re-development of the existing farmyard.
6.20 Objection received for both applications on the basis of increased traffic and on safety and environmental issues. Poor visibility from own driveway and increased volume of traffic would increase danger to anyone parking or on foot who come and go from our property. Abbeylands is a quiet and rural community of just two dozen or so properties on a quiet country lane which is a no-through country road. Lanjaghan is marshy heath land and the farm was left abandoned and ruined for many years because of the difficulties in trying to farm efficiently and profitably because of poor quality soil and drainage. Speculative groundworks have been carried out to try to rectify the drainage problems which given the areas notoriety for flooding from the mountainous surrounding area seems rather like putting a finger in a dyke. The surrounding fields are susceptible to flooding with the road becoming regularly waterlogged. 6.21 It is plausible that the main agenda is to use the land for speculative building, and using financial subsidies under the guise of providing tourist accommodation in the short term then turning it into permanent housing. The bleak environment will soon become apparent and this is likely to be unsuccessful as a tourist venture. There is proven practice of many developers to hoodwink official by using the ploy of Tourism to open up the opportunity for the more lucrative financial reward of permanent housing. 6.22 Abbeylands does not have the infrastructure for such developments, all housing here have septic tanks and soakaways. 6.23 Ancient hedgerows are home to a diverse amount of wildlife. The proposed development would be aesthetically wrong set in the isolated, often bleak landscape. The large development would be both detrimentally wrong, hazardous, completely out of character and utterly unnecessary for the peaceful scenic rural area.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 statement sets these out 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 in 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. 7.20 Prior to the application being considered by the Planning Committee, the Environmental Protection Officer was asked to comment on the proposal. He responded with reference to Scottish DEFRA Guidance 'Prevention of Environmental Pollution from Agricultural Activity Practice 1997' an extract of which stated:
Complaints about agricultural odours arise mainly from poultry litter, slurry and manure spreading operations, animal housing and the storage of slurry and manure. When designing new buildings, consider their sitting in relation to residential housing, and avoid sites within 400 m of such developments. Where possible downwind of residential areas should be chosen. To control odour it is essential to maintain a high standard of hygiene and cleanliness.' He concluded that 'There is considerable potential for odour and noise nuisance due to close proximity of proposed agricultural buildings and 24/7 nature of a farm, this would represent a significant change in character of the area in respect of Slieau Ree. '
Mr Renton further set out that 'if planning permission is obtained the character of the area will have changed such that the residents of Slieau Ree will be expected to put up with the reasonable noise and odour from farming activities associated with the barns constructed. This is likely to include noise from farming plant and machinery i.e. tractors, lorries, pumps, etc as well as potentially 100s of animals which although likely to vary considerably with the seasons could be 24 / 7 such as at lambing time. Presumably the farm could change from sheep to cows or pigs without a change of planning so could be significantly more odour from cows or pigs in the future. The most significant change is likely to be the odour from the slurry produced which is simply unavoidable, both from the barns ( 50 m ) and the slurry tank which is only 30 m from the residential premises, presumably there may also be a settling pit closer if tank is just for the liquid fraction. Even though the noise and odour may cause the residents a nuisance DEFA will not be able to take any action under the Public Health Act 1990 provided the farm is employing 'best practicable means' to keep this to a minimum, this would simply be the effect of granting planning permission.'
The reference to the slurry tank being 30 m from the residential property was taken from the layout plan which implied this was the case, although the architect has clarified that this is not the case and is further away. Nevertheless, the Planning Committee felt that the impact of the proposal on the residents of Slieau Ree were significantly adverse that approval should be refused.
Erection of a Farm Dwelling: 7.21 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.
7.22 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. 7.23 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 recalled 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. They have indicated that they are willing to enter into a legal agreement to tie the house to the land and to being used by a farm worker (and his or her dependent relatives) only. 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. 7.24 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.
7.25 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. 7.26 It is not thought that the verge improvements to provide passing bays would have an undue negative impact on the character of the area. 7.27 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 2metres maximum.
7.28 In the officer's report to Planning Committee it was suggested that the entrance gates to the holiday complex were perhaps a little too polite for a rural location, but provided for a sense of destination. The Planning Committee felt that the gates were inappropriate. They did not relate well to their destination, being some distance from it and would also not be in keeping with the open and rural character of the area.
The Committee feel that they made a balanced assessment of the proposal and found it to be detrimental in two respects, the adverse impact on the residential amenity and the overly grand entrance gates. In particular, the impact upon the neighbour was considered to be significant and not able to be overcome by conditions
It is normal practice to suggest a list of conditions for discussion at a hearing, should the Inspector recommend the appeal be upheld:
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety
Reason: In the interests of personal and highway safety and visual amenity.
Reason: In the interests of environmental amenity and to prevent flooding.
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.
Reason: In the interests of visual and environmental amenity.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity
Reason: In the interests of residential and environmental amenity.
Reason: In the interests of visual, residential and environmental amenity.
Reason: To ensure that there is adequate control over new development in the countryside.
Reason: To ensure that there is adequate control over new development in the countryside.
Authority at any time. Reason: The site is located in an area not defined as a settlement and without day to day facilities in close proximity. As such, this unsustainable location is not appropriate for permanent living accommodation. Furthermore the development lacks sufficient space and amenities for permanent living.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
Reason: To safeguard bats.
Reason: The development is acceptable only on the basis of agricultural need and would not otherwise have received planning approval.
Reason: In order to protect the environment and to prevent the risk of flooding.
Reason: Approval is granted only on the basis that the new use allows for the retention of existing vernacular buildings.
planning and building control bun-troggalys - plannal as gurneil troggal
Present: - Mr D Evans, Acting Chairman - Mr I Cottier, Member - Mr P Young, Member - Mr W Gilbey, Member - Mr A Kermode, Member
In Attendance:
*Part of the meeting only
The Development Control Manager welcomed the members of the public in attendance to view the proceedings.
Apologies for absence were received from Mr L D Skelly MHK, Chairman of the Planning Committee. Mr Evans was elected as Acting Chairman.
The minutes of the 11th November 2013 were agreed and signed by Mr Evans as a true record, to be signed by Mr Skelly at a later date.
None
The Members noted the decisions on those applications determined by the Director of Planning and Building Control, the Development Control Manager or a Senior Planner, under the appropriate legislation, for the period 5th to 18th November 2013.
The Committee noted that PA13/00761/B for the outbuilding at Ballakissack Farm, was the application the Committee had previously been minded to approve subject to the provision of a plan showing the excavation works and the construction of a retaining wall and that the plan had been received.
It was noted that the Committee, with the exception of Mr Gilbey, had visited the site. Mr Gilbey pointed out that he had not been able to attend the site visit because of a previous
commitment to attend an off Island meeting. Mr Gilbey made reference to a letter which had been submitted by the applicant’s agent in which the agent alleged that Mr Gilbey had said at the previous meeting that “I am not sure I can waste a morning on a visit”. Mr Gilbey strongly refuted that he made any such comment and advised that he considered site visits to be a valuable part of the Committee’s function. The Acting Chairman asked Mr Gilbey if he felt he was able to participate in the determination of the applications. Mr Gilbey advised that he would not take part in the determination of the applications but asked leave to listen to the presentation and debate. The Acting Chairman agreed to that request.
The case officer referred to correspondence which had been received from the applicant’s agent, in response to questions which had been raised following the site visit and from the Environmental Protection Unit of the Department of the Environment, Food and Agriculture (EPU). The Committee had been handed the correspondence shortly before the meeting and took reading time to review the content.
The Committee noted that this matter had been deferred on the 11th November to allow a site visit to be undertaken. The site had been visited on the 18th November in the presence of Messrs Evans (Acting Chairman), Cottier, Kermode and Young.
For the benefit of the members of the public present, the case officer reported on the matter and summarised the key issues as set out in the report, the information from EPU and in the additional information received from the applicant’s agent.
The Committee agreed that the site visit was very constructive and was conducted in a very professional manner and in accordance with the protocol laid down. It was agreed that the agent’s assistance at the meeting had been very beneficial.
The view was expressed that the existing house, whilst in a poor state, was structurally sound and capable of renovation. However, it was agreed that the replacement of the house with a house which complied with the Housing Policy would be acceptable and the proposed scheme was commended.
The proposed access lane and entrance gates were considered to be unnecessary and a gross intrusion into the countryside. The Committee noted that the applicant did not wish to share a drive with the tourist units, but the Committee did not consider this to be a sufficient reason to allow the access, which they felt was entirely contrary to Environment Policy 1 that seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake. They felt that it would change the character of the area which was open in nature and an Area of High Landscape Value and Scenie Significance. It was noted that the proposed dwelling would need to share the access with the tourist units and the farm to the point at which it was proposed that they should split in any event.
The Committee discussed whether it was possible to approve part of the application and refuse another part, but noted that it was not.
The Committee unanimously overturned the recommendation of the case officer and the application was refused for the following reasons.
| Item 6.1 Lanjaghan View Abbeylands Isle of Man IM4 5EQ PA13/00546/A | Approval in principle for the creation of a residential curtilage and erection of a replacement dwelling Applicant : Mr Roy Tilleard Case Officer : Miss Jennifer Chance Recommendation : Permitted |
R 1 The proposed drive and gateway would result in an unwarranted intrusion into the countryside, not in keeping with the open and rural character of the area which is an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance and therefore contrary to Environment Policy 1.
Interested party status was considered by the Committee and agreed as recommended.
Lanjaghan Farm Lanjaghan Road Abbeylands Isle of Man IM4 5EQ
Conversion of existing farm buildings to provide twelve tourist accommodation units with ancillary support and leisure facilities, and erection of a replacement farm complex comprising of agricultural buildings and a farm workers dwelling with detached garage
Applicant: Mr Roy Tilleard Case Officer : Miss Jennifer Chance Recommendation : Approve subject to Legal Agreement
The Committee noted that this matter had been deferred on the 11th November to allow a site visit to be undertaken. The site had been visited on the 18th November in the presence of Messrs Evans (Acting Chairman), Cottier, Kermode and Young.
Tourist Units. It was agreed that the existing buildings were in good condition and the proposal to convert them was excellent, the imaginative design was exciting and the removal of the old farm buildings would benefit the environment. It was noted that the question of viability was not a planning issue. It was noted that the design proposal was not one which would easily allow the units to be converted to residential use.
The Committee questioned whether consideration had been given to allowing longer lets during the winter periods and noted that a condition could be attached to an approval.
The Committee indicated that it had travelled the road and had stopped at each section which was proposed to be widened and the Network Planning Officer of the Highways Division had talked the Committee through each proposal. The Committee discussed the bridge and whether it was capable of taking the construction traffic and noted that a condition regarding weight restrictions for construction vehicles could be attached to an approval. Miss Chance advised the Committee at this stage that should they later be minded to approve the application, that she had inadvertently forgotten to suggest a condition that required the road works to be carried out prior to the commencement of development.
The case officer referred to the information recently received from the EPU regarding the potential for neighbour nuisance. The siting of the farm was discussed and it was noted that whilst the residents of Slieau Ree had not objected to the farm on the basis of neighbour nuisance (smell, noise etc) the Committee should be aware of the concerns of the EPU with regard to the potential nuisance on a 24 / 7 basis.
The view was expressed that the Committee should support the provision of modern farms which provide for modern farming practices, but that that would have to be balanced against the need to protect the amenities of the residents of Slieau Ree. The manner in which the
applicant had sought to separate the farm from Slieau Ree, was agreed to be imaginative, but concern was expressed that the measures did not go far enough to protect the amenities.
Concern was expressed at the lack of planting on the northern boundary. New Farm House. The Acting Chairman asked for clarification on the reference in the case officer's report to an appeal inspector criticizing the Committee for approving a large agricultural workers dwelling at Tramman and whether that house had been bigger or smaller than the house proposed in the current application. The case officer reported that she could not remember the size of the house at Tramman, but thought that it might be larger than the one proposed as part of this application. The Committee noted that the house design complied with the provisions of Planning Circular 3/91 Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside, except for the size of the dwelling as it was larger than the circular provided for.
Concern was expressed that a house of the size proposed would be difficult to market as an agricultural dwelling, should the need arise, and that the existing farm house was in close enough proximity to the proposed farm to be capable to be used. The alternative view was expressed that the house was well designed and of an appropriate size for a family of four children. It was noted that the Agricultural Advisor had not commented on the appropriateness of the size of the new dwelling or whether the use of the existing farmhouse would be a viable option.
Concern was expressed at the need for the entrance gates to each part of the scheme, which were considered to be over elaborate and an intrusion into the countryside. The view was expressed that the farm gate may be acceptable, but that the proposed gates to the tourist units was either overly elaborate and/or should be closer to the units.
With the exception of Mr Kermode, the Committee overturned the recommendation of the case officer and the application was refused for the following reasons.
R 1.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.
R 2. 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.
Mr Kermode indicated that he had sympathy with the residents of Slieau Ree, but he considered that as their property was within the land to be farmed, they should expect there to be some associated noise and smells and they had not objected to the proposal on those grounds.
Interested party status was considered by the Committee and agreed as recommended.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown