Loading document...
Application No.: 06/01565/A Applicant: Mr & Mrs D Cleator Proposal: Approval in principle for the erection of an agricultural workers dwelling Site Address: Field 210313 Adjacent To Cornerways Jurby West Isle Of Man ### Considerations Case Officer: Mr Chris Balmer Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee ### Written Representations ### Consultations
The application site is part of Field 210313 adjacent to Cornerways at Jurby West. The site is located on the western side of the A10 road and the northern side of the Jurby Chapel Road.
The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of 'white land' not zoned for development, under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area, however the site is within an area zoned High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
There have been no previous Planning Applications on this site.
The application proposes the Approval in principle for the erection of an agricultural workers dwelling.
Jurby Parish Commissioners object to the application for the following reasons:-
The area is not zoned for residential development.
All previous applications to erect dwellings on the shore side of the Coast Road at Jurby West have been refused permission.
Commissioners are concerned that should such application be approved, it will be only a matter of time before the applicant will apply for permission to erect a farm building on part of the remainder of Field 210313, and the tranquillity of the people already living in the area will be severely interrupted with the noise of the movement of tractors and other farm implements etc, and likelihood that cattle could be housed in such building.
Commissioners consider that such proposed dwelling should be erected nearer to where the applicant intends to keep the cattle in the existing buildings at East Nappin Farm.
Highways Division oppose the application:-
The development cannot provide visibility splays of 2 metres by 215 metres onto the A10 Local Road. An access onto the Jurby Chapel Road will put additional traffic onto the A10/B5 cross roads which has poor visibility.
The Isle of Man Water Authority makes no comment on the merit of the proposed development but request that an informative note be attached to any approval decision notice.
The Manx Electricity Authority makes no comment on the merit of the proposed development but request that an informative note be attached to any approval decision notice.
The rather strange way in which this application is presented, dramatically shows that there is no shortage of suitable dwellings in the area and therefore definitely no need to build another! The price of other dwellings on the market is not a Planning consideration.
This seems to be an extensive holding but very scattered. If there is a case for a dwelling, is this the best place for it? And couldn't they live in the village - as they do now, and run it just as well? Or is the site proposed near enough to be considered part of the village? This was a consideration, we think, when the workshop conversion was allowed, just in from the crossroads. (95/0925)
The Society remains Alarmed at the number of new dwellings in the countryside which are being allowed under the guise of agricultural need. Has the Planning Committee ever compared the number being permitted each year with the number of agricultural workers listed in the Government's own statistics? The Society Objects to this application, being not convinced of a genuine agricultural need to build anew.
The owners and/or occupants of the Church View Cottage, Jurby West object to the planning application, which can be summarised as, loss of views, area is zoned within a High Landscape Scenic Beauty, the agricultural field could yield a good crop of produce, detrainment to the wildlife of the area, previous application has been declined thus setting a president and this development coupled with the new prison would increase adverse traffic movements in the area.
The owners and/or occupants of the Cornerways, Jurby West object to the planning application, which can be summarised as, proposed dwelling not shown, loss of privacy and peace and tranquillity and loss of views.
The owners and/or occupants of the West Nappin Smithy, Jurby West object to the planning application, which can be summarised as, Does the applicant qualify for a agricultural dwelling under DAFF rules at present, proposed dwelling not shown and will some of the land remain for agricultural use.
Mr Jessopp supports the planning application, which can be summarised as, suitable justification has been made and the site is within a built up' area so accords with planning policy to direct, if possible, new dwellings to established settlements'.
The following Planning Circulars and Polices need to be taken into consideration when considering this application.
Planning Circular 1/88 – Residential Development – Houses in the Countryside, the purpose of the Circular is to give general guidance as to the Department's policy with regard to residential development with particular emphasis on development in the countryside.
Paragraph 3 of this Circular states:-
Land has been allocated for residential development as extensions of existing towns and villages to take advantage of existing infrastructure and services. The remaining areas of the Island are intended to remain substantially free from development.
Paragraph 5 of this Circular states:-
It is recognised that the Manx countryside is extremely fragile and even a limited development can have an impact out of all proportion to its size. Account has been taken of public concern about encroachment of development into the countryside, along the coast and headlands and into the areas of scenic ecological importance, and appropriate safeguards are incorporated in the Development Plan.
Paragraph 6 of this Circular states:-
There is always a demand for houses in the countryside. Improved economic circumstances are likely to intensify this demand, but with the exception of housing to serve the needs of a viable agricultural holding it is the Department's policy to discourage residential development in the countryside.
Paragraph 7 of this Circular states:-
Where an agricultural need for a dwelling is demonstrated the Department would prefer that it were built in the nearest Village, hamlet or existing group of buildings. It remains however that the siting would have to be considered on its merits having regard to the individual circumstances.
Planning Circular 3/88 - New Agricultural Dwellings
Paragraph 1 of this Circular states:-
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 (which may include the need for a retirement home for a farmer), the normal planning considerations will prevail.
Paragraph 2 of this Circular states:-
Evidence in support of a planning application for such a dwelling should be addressed to the following points:-
a) what living accommodation has been built in the past on, or in association with the farm or holding, and how it is occupied; a plan clearly indicating the boundary of the holding and the location of any dwellings within it should be included; b) who will occupy the proposed dwelling, and what role they will play in the operations of the farm; could the intended occupant conveniently live elsewhere rather than on the farm?; c) why the particular site has been chosen.
The report from D.A.F.F state that the "the current business requires 0.53 full time people, based on standard man hours for the current enterprise. However this is expected to grow over the next three years".
The Applicants currently live in Andreas, and the land associated with the Applicant's comprises of 56 Acres of land of which 25 Acres are on a continuous tenancy agreement, 25 acres on a 5 year tenancy with an option to renew and 6 acres rented on a summer let basis. The plan for the business is to extend the acreage to 104 acres by the end of 2008. Of the 56 acres, 35 acres are situated at East and West Nappin and the rest at Sandygate.
The Applicants currently calve their cattle at Sandygate, which is about equidistant from both their current home and the site of the intended dwelling. The reason for the submission is due to the Applicants having concerns of their live stock whilst they are being out wintering at the Sandygate site and therefore wish to change their winter livestock accommodation arrangements. The site which they rent at East Nappin has the adequate barns/sheds to accommodate and calve their cattle.
They therefore wish to live nearer to the site to supervise cattle management during calving, hence the reason for the submission.
Regarding the objection to the Highway Division the proposed access for the dwelling would be to use the existing access which accesses onto the Jurby Chapel Road. I am of the opinion however the access onto Jurby Chapel Road would provide the adequate visibility on a road which only gives access for Jurby Chapel and four residential properties. I also consider that refusing an application on the grounds that the additional traffic onto a public crossroads outside the applicants control would be unsustainable and an argument which could be used too many roads junctions within the Island, particularly as the amount of traffic generated would be limited.
A concern I have with the application is that presently the agricultural holding does not provide enough total labour units to warrant an Agricultural dwelling at this site. Whilst I accept in theory in a few years to come the proposed agricultural holding will possibly provide the total labour units, presently there is not the significant justification to create a permanent dwelling in this location. I would also have a difficulty that allowing an agricultural dwelling inconnection with an agricultural holding which is in its infancy would be unwise, as we could be in the situation of a agricultural dwelling with no land/limited land being left if the business fails.
Additional to these concerns are that whilst the site is closer to East Nappin than the Applicants current dwelling in Andreas, it would still require the occupier to walk 5-10mins or travel by vehicle to the site from the proposed site to East Nappin, a concern which is also shared by D.A.F.F. Consequently I do not consider at present that an agricultural dwelling in this location which still requires the Applicant to travel by vehicle to get to the agricultural sites at East Nappin is justified; additionally, Andreas where the Applicant currently lives is not a significant distance away from East Nappin and therefore travelling to the site is a realistic option. D.A.F.F. also comment that "on the basis of this information, I would say there are agricultural attractions of this application, however the essential need to live on this specific site is not clear".
Therefore for the concerns stated, I do not consider that there is significant justification at this stage to offset the general planning objections to such development as stated in Planning Circular 1/88 and Planning Circular 3/91 and for these reasons the proposal would be inappropriate in this location and therefore my recommendation is for a refusal.
I consider that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
I consider that the following parties that made representations to the planning application do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded interested party status:-
Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 28.02.2007
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1.
The application does not demonstrate that there is at this time sufficient agricultural need to justify setting aside the Departments established policies in respect of new dwellings ion the countryside. In particular;
Decision Made : Refuse Committee Meeting Date : 08/03/07
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown