Officer Planning Report

Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:130828}} {{table:130829}} {{table:130830}} {{table:130831}} ### Considerations {{table:130832}} ### Written Representations {{table:130833}} ### Consultations {{table:130834}}

Officer's Report

Description Of Application Site

• The application site is part of Field no. 220846 situated to the west of the Bollyn Road, Ballaugh.
• The application site is situated within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.

• To the east of the application site is an agricultural building which is used by the applicant.
• To the south of the application is a track leading to the Bollyn Road.

Proposal

• The application is seeking an approval in principle for an agricultural dwelling.

Relevant Planning History

• 04/00443 - Approval in Principle for the erection of an agricultural dwelling on one of two sites - Refused 13th July 2004.

Development Plan Policies

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

Statutory Consultation Responses

• Ballaugh Parish Commissioners object to the application because the area is not zoned for development and an area of scenic beauty and significance. Further development in the area has already been refused.
• Highways Division of the DoT - object to the application on the grounds that the visibility splays from the existing access onto the public highway do not provide stopping sight distance for vehicles travelling at up to 20mph.

Public Responses

• Press notice were posted on 16/3/06
• Representations have been received from the owners of Brough Jaig Farms, SPMCE, IoMWA.
• The owners of Broughjaig Farms have made objected to the application on the following grounds:
• When we sold the 75 plus acres to the applicant there was a verbal agreement that no building or buildings would be erected because one of the loveliest views to the sea and Scotland and Ireland must not be spoiled
• The small acreage surely can in no way justify a dwelling especially as a good proportion of the land is used for horse activities. There are stable blocks, boats, trailers, tarpaulin covered objects and various other paraphernalia already in situ despoiling a virgin panorama.
• We understood that the Planning Committee usually require 300 acres to justify a dwelling.
• A huge agricultural building has been erected, much to the surprise and disquiet of all who view it.
• We understand that the applicant has sold 10 acres thereby reducing the holding to less than 65 acres.
• We would like to register the fact that we are the neighbouring farm.

• SPMCE have provided the following comments:
• This society has, times without number, objected to the approval of isolated agricultural shed in the countryside on the grounds that they will surely lead to later applications for dwellings. This is exactly what has happened here. This is not, on its own, a viable farm unit as witnessed by the applicant's disclosure of other grazing land elsewhere. Furthermore, we are not persuaded that every grazing unit needs to have an associated dwelling. A human presence may well be necessary at lambing time but that does not warrant a permanent dwelling. As has been previously established there are many acres of detached grazing on the island which have operated for years (generations,

perhaps) with the farmer living at a distance. It must be added that 'at a distance' in the Isle of Man terms cannot mean more that about 20 miles maximum.

• The Society strongly objects. There is a vacant agricultural workers dwelling at the other end of the parish - see 06/415.

• The IoMWA have advised the applicant should contact them with regard to the connection of a water supply to the dwelling.

Issues

• Paragraph 1 of Planning Circular 3/88 states that "A person who wishes to build a farm dwelling in a rural area must produce evidence to prove need sufficient to offset the general planning objections to such development. Unless real agricultural need can be established, the normal planning considerations will prevail".

• The report from D.A.F.F state that the "farm carries a herd of 22 suckler cows, 140 other cattle, 150 breeding ewes and 800 other sheep. It is essential for animal welfare and desirable for security considerations that those individuals involved in looking after the breeding animals are resident on the unit".

• This application has to be considered in the context of a recent appeal decision at Ballacooley Farm at Rhencullen where the appellant indicated that he has over 200 acres of land with a flock of about 750 sheep (including lambs) and a herd of some 65 highland cattle (including calves).

• The Director of Agricultural Services considered that application to be justified on the basis of agricultural need. However, he did not indicate that it was essential for someone to live on the site.

• The independent inspector attached considerable weight to the written evidence of the Director of Agricultural Services and considers that the appellant's case is one of the strongest he had seen for the erection of an agricultural dwelling. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and approval in principle was granted subject to condition on 6th July 2006.

• In considering the evidence of the labour requirement report submitted with the application and the recent appeal decision at Rhencullen, I consider the agricultural case put forward in this application is considerably stronger compared to agricultural case for an agricultural dwelling at Rhencullen. I therefore consider the applicant has demonstrated agricultural need and that a refusal on the lack of need would in this case be unsustainable.

• The applicant's currently live at Handley's Corner. It is worth noting that the appellant's for the dwelling at Rhencullen lived within Kirk Michael. The inspector considered the appellants present accommodation was not conveniently located for the supervision of the farm during lambing and calving seasons.

• Therefore the same can be said for this application, in that the applicant is actually further away from his farmstead than the appellant for the dwelling at Rhencullen. I therefore regard the applicant's case as on a par with the recent appeal decision and it would be unreasonable to refuse the application on this particular issue.

• In terms of the highway objection, the DoT had not raised a highway objection on the previous application and suggested a number of conditions relating to sight lines and parking arrangements to be provided to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority.

• Land on either side of the access onto the Bollyn Road is within the ownership of the applicant. Therefore, any modification to the access could be resolved in a subsequent application. I therefore consider a refusal on highway safety grounds to be unreasonable.

Conclusion

I therefore recommend that planning permission be granted subject to conditions in the attached schedule.

Party Status

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

• Ballaugh Parish Commissioners
• Highways Division of the Department of Transport
• IoMWA and
• The owners of Broughjairg Farms

Supplementary Report

Planning Committee requested officers to investigate the possibility of a legal agreement could be entered into so as to tie the proposed dwelling with the agricultural land. In order to assess the appropriateness of such an obligation, I shall assess it in the terms of the six planning tests:

1) Is it necessary; 2) Is it relevant to planning; 3) Is it relevant to the development to be permitted; 4) Is it enforceable 5) Is it precise; and 6) Is it reasonable in all other respects?

Is it necessary?

In considering whether a particular obligation is necessary, the authority should ask themselves whether planning permission would have to be refused if that obligation were not to be entered into. If it would not, then the obligation needs special and precise justification. The argument that it will do no harm is no justification for its imposition. It should not be imposed unless there is a definite need for it.

Obligations should be tailored to tackle specific problems, rather than impose unjustified level of control.

Since there is no specific problem for legal agreement to tackle I consider such an agreement imposes an unjustified level of control and there is no definite need for an agreement to be secured.

I therefore consider such an agreement to be unnecessary and would fail this test.

Is it relevant to planning?

An obligation which has no relevance to planning would be ultra vires. It is considered that any conditions/obligation affecting land ownership (requiring, for example, that the land shall not be disposed of except as a whole) would be ultra vires. This is what the obligation would in effect be controlling. I therefore consider such obligation would not have any relevance to planning and would fail this test.

Is it relevant to the development to be permitted? The obligation would be relevant to the development since it directly ties the proposed dwelling to the rest of the land. Is it enforceable?

An obligation should not be considered if it cannot be enforced. In this case it may in practice be impossible to detect a contravention of the planning obligation. If it is undetectable then the obligation can not be enforced.

I therefore consider such an obligation would be unenforceable and would fail this test

Is it precise?

It is believed that a legal agreement could be worded in such a way that it is precise however legal advice would need to be sought on this matter.

Is it reasonable in all other respects?

An obligation can be ultra vires on the grounds of unreasonableness, even though it may be precisely worded and apparently within the powers available.

I consider the proposed obligation would be unreasonable because it is unduly restrictive. Although a condition may in principle impose a continuing restriction on the use of land (provided that there are good planning reasons for that restriction), such a condition should not be imposed if the restriction effectively nullifies the benefit of the permission.

The obligation would put a severe limitation on the freedom of owners to dispose of their property and should be avoided on these grounds. I therefore consider the obligation fails this test.

Conclusion of Supplementary report

In order for the obligation to be appropriate, it must pass all the six planning tests as mentioned above. Since an obligation would fail a number of the tests I have to conclude that a legal agreement would be inappropriate for the reasons outlined above.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Permitted

Date of Recommendation: 12.07.2006

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal

• : Notes attached to refusals

C 1.

This approval is in principle only and will remain valid for a period of two years within which time no development may take place until such time as details of the reserved matters (siting, design, external appearance, internal layout, means of access, landscaping) have been approved by the Planning Authority. Such reserved matters should form the subject of a single application.

C 2. This approval relates to the application site as defined by the line lin on drawing number 00419/1 and 00419/2 date stamped 10th March 2006.

C 3. This permission shall be for benefit of Mr Stewart Christian only.

C 4. The occupation of the proposed dwelling must be limited to persons whose employment or latest employment is or was employed in agriculture in the Island and including also the dependants of such persons as aforesaid.

C 5. Any subsequent reserved matters planning application must include a turning feature to permit a motor car to turn around within the site, so that the vehicle can emerge from the stie in a forward gear.

C 6. The design of the proposed dwellinghouse must be in accordance with Planning Circular 3/91 in terms of form, proportion and general appearance. The height of the dwelling must be single storey.

C 7. Any subsequent reserved matters planning application must include details of sight lines and visibility splays for any vehicular access into and from the application site.

Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date : 10/8/06