Loading document...
Application No.: 06/00830/B Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett #### Consultations {{table:135584}} {{table:135585}} {{table:135586}} {{table:135591}} ### Private representations ### Planning Applicant: J R Creer Ltd Proposal: Erection of two agricultural workers dwellings Site Address: Field's 430435 & 434603 Middle Cordeman Farm Cordeman Road St Marks Ballasalla Isle Of Man **
The site represents the curtilage of Cordeman Farm, a holding of 250 acres of grassland located on the northern side of the Bayrauyr (B30) linking St. Mark's with the Ballamodha Straight (A3). The site accommodates relatively few buildings, no residential accommodation and two barns sitting some 300m apart.
Planning permission has been sought for a series of developments since this present owner took over the holding:
| Overhead Lines which may be required to be diverted before any work can be carried out on site. Contact the M.E.A. for Electrical Site Safety 5 documents, (Tel. 687766), before any work is carried out on site. All work to be carried out with reference to Health and Safety Executive Guidance Notes HS(G)47 & GS6. Contact the M.E.A. Planning Department (Tel. 687781), to discuss the electricity supply for this application |
| Disability Access Officer | Do not oppose subject to the imposition of standard condition/note The Applicant/Developer is recommended to consider the needs of Disabled people. New Build is regulated by the 1981 Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act and Part M Building Regulations in that the Building should be accessible and usable by disabled people. |
| S.P.M.C. & E. | Objects The Society suggest that the owners were aware that there was no dwelling when they bought the place (c.250 acres). They claim to have run the holding successfully for 4 years without a dwelling. Why should the countryside have to suffer the intrusion of two (or even one) new dwelling in these circumstances. It seems very much a parallel to the 'Carnigie' case 01/0924 et.seq. The 'agricultural justification' makes a possible case for one dwelling and maybe another in the future but we feel that the historical circumstances over the acceptance of the loss of all or any dwellings original to this holding, over-rides this and the Society therefore strongly objects. |
PA 01/2126 - creation of vehicular access - refused PA 02/0091 - creation of hardstanding - permitted PA 02/0176 - creation of lake - refused PA 02/0228 - creation of vehicular access - refused on review PA 02/1015 - erection of agricultural building - permitted PA 02/1999 - creation of three lakes - permitted PA 02/2413 - erection of implement store with wc - permitted PA 03/1568 - erection of an agricultural building - permitted PA 04/0756 - retrospective application for the re-roofing of building - permitted PA 04/0994 - erection of an agricultural building - permitted PA 04/1286 - retrospective approval for the connection of two existing lanes - permitted on review (to be retained temporarily) PA 04/02284 - installation of feed canopy - permitted PA 04/2285 - erection of farm shop permitted on appeal PA 06/0303 - erection of an agricultural building - permitted
The site falls within an area designated on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as white land, that is, not designated for development.
Proposed here is the erection of two farm dwellings. These are not to be sited in close proximity: one being proposed alongside the approved shop and the other alongside the agricultural building to the north of the main farm building group.
Whilst the applicant states in the form that pre-application discussions were held with me, this was on the basis of the two dwellings both being together alongside the proposed shop and not as proposed here.
The dwellings are to be dormer bungalows with vernacular details (slated roof, cottage-style windows) with two bedrooms, lounge, dining room and bathroom in each with an integral garage.
The application includes an agricultural labour assessment by Mr. McDonald who undertakes such work for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and is based at Knockaloe Farm, the premises of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.
This report advises that the farm has been invested in by this applicant, in terms of fencing, drainage, re-seeding, roads and improving the quality of the land. He notes that stock numbers have been increased gradually due to the previously poor quality of the land.
Mr. McDonald concludes that on the basis of the current stocking arrangements, the farm justifies one full-time post. On the basis of proposed stocking levels, the farm would justify two. The report advises that in the interests of animal welfare and desirability for security it is essential that the individuals involved in looking after the breeding animals are resident on the unit.
The northernmost dwelling is not served by the main access to the principal farm buildings and I am not sure why the agricultural building itself was permitted so far from the rest of the farm buildings. It could be easily severed from the remainder of the farm group and in my view is not justified in agricultural terms whether in accordance with the advice from Mr. McDonald on the basis of current farming practices, or in terms of its location and the guidance in Planning Circular 3/88.
The "historical circumstances over the acceptance of the loss of all or any dwellings original to the holding" referred to by the SPMCE whilst worth considering, there is clear evidence that there is a need for at least one of the dwellings in agricultural terms. The fact that there was no dwelling on the holding when the owner purchased the farm is a risk that the purchaser took. I am not aware that there have been farm dwellings associated with this holding which have been sold off in recent times and certainly not by this applicant.
Malew Parish Commissioners, the Isle of Man Water Authority, Disability Access Officer, the Manx Electricity Authority are or represent statutory authorities and as such should be afforded party status in this case.
The resident of Port Soderick and the Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment are not directly affected by the proposal and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
Decision Recommended by the Director of Planning and Building Control: Refused
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1. Whilst the Planning Committee is satisfied that there is a need in agricultural, animal welfare and farm security terms, for one dwelling in association with the operation of this holding, the Committee is not satisfied that there is an agricultural need for two dwellings on the basis of current agricultural operations. As such, the additional dwelling would represent a new dwelling in the countryside, contrary to the guidance and policies of Planning Circulars 1/88 - Residential Development - Houses in the Countryside and 3/88 - New Agricultural Dwellings.
R 2. Whilst the dwelling proposed in field 434603 would comply with the requirements of Planning Circular 3/88 in terms of it being close to the existing farm group, served by the existing farm access and would have only a limited visual impact, the location of the other proposed dwelling, alongside the existing barn, would be remote from the main group of farm buildings and could very easily be sold off separately from the main holding at some point in the future. This dwelling by virtue of its location is considered to be contrary to the guidance and requirements of Planning Circular 3/88.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown