Loading document...
{{table:148729}} ### Considerations ### Written Representations ### Consultations {{table:148726}} {{table:148727}} {{table:148728}} Consultee: S.P.M.C. & E. Notes: There exists an unfortunate scatter of dwelling down this lane and attempts in the past to make it worse have been rejected. The applicant claims to run a "successful farming operation in England". We have had someone look at Grove Farm, Broad Lane, Stapeley which is the address given and find, that apart from the sale of eggs, there appears to be no farming activities whatsoever. Even the newer looking farm sheds are described as being "full of junk". There is an expensive looking Horse Box in the yard, plus a Manx registered Landrover but no sign of anyone working (or even on site to sell the eggs!) The house looked beautiful and very well maintained. Thus one has the impression that the applicant has already retired from farming across. The proposal is described as a future farm worker's dwelling pending the retirement of the applicant's mother who is to live in it. This cannot be a satisfactory case for a new house in the countryside, particularly as the farm to which it is related, Cooil Roi, would seem to have already had an additional dwelling permitted recently. The Society Strongly Objects. Consultee: Highways Division Notes: Do not oppose Consultee: Lonan Parish Commissioners Notes: Refuse
The site defined in red on plan reference 206.2 represents a roughly rectangular piece of land situated on the western side of the Barroose Road, to the north of the Liverpool Arms Public House, to the north of the A2 Onchan - Baldrine Road. The area defined in blue on the other two plans represent the land associated with Cooil Roi Farm including an existing farm house but excluding the mansion house. The blue area would appear to represent around 76 acres (according to the annotation on the plan).
The site lies within an area designated on the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan of 2005 as of an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. The remainder of the farm, the mansion house and farmyard are within an area of Open Space which is not identified as of any particular value or scenic significance.
The site has not been the subject of any previous applications. The Barroose Road area has however been the subject of a number of applications for new dwellings: PAs 91/0082, 01/0219 and 01/0547 all refused and at least two of these had an agricultural association. Planning permission was granted in 1985 for a new dwelling for this farm, next to the mansion house under PA 85/0909.
Proposed here is the principle of the erection of a dwelling in association with Cooil Roi Farm. The property would be located at the lower end of the Barroose Road, some distance from the farm and its buildings and opposite Briar Patch, Ballavitchal and Honey Fall - existing dwellings behind the public house. A new entrance would be created with appropriate visibility splays onto Barroose Road.
The comments of The Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment are interesting in that they appear to be aware of the applicant's existing enterprise in the UK and describe it as key with little activity appreciable other than the sale of eggs. They and the local authority and some of the neighbours are unconvinced of the need for the new dwelling as well as the visual impact which this new property would have in extending the existing ribbon of development along Barroose Road. Those in the neighbouring properties, Ballavitchal and Honey Fall are both concerned about the impact on their property. Those in Honey Fall also question the need for a dwelling at all and particularly in this location, some distance from the main farm complex and existing dwelling(s). There is also concern expressed about the ecology of the area where the dwelling is to be located, it being boggy and which will require draining before development could take place. The neighbour also expresses concern at the principle of re-locating an elderly person to this site with no footways, no lighting and with heavy vehicles (bin wagons) passing regularly up and down the lane).
The applicant has provided more information by way of a letter dated 19th January, 2006. In it, it is explained that a new property was built in connection with the farm 30 years ago (this could be that permitted in 1985), to the east of the mansion house, adjoining the existing farm buildings. This has been the focus of the farm since then. The bungalow is occupied by the applicant's mother who is now in her 80s. The applicant intends to move back to the Island when their property in the UK is sold and will be running the farm and require accommodation at Cooil Roi. The new bungalow will be occupied in the short term by the applicant's mother and on availability would be occupied by the applicant's son or sons who would run the farm and who will inherit it in 2010.
The applicant suggests that locating the new bungalow on the farm itself would create difficulties as the access to the new property would be in the ownership of Cooil Roi Mansion House. Problems were encountered when the original bungalow was constructed. The farm currently accommodates 5 tups 191 lambs and 160 ewes and this year 30 yearling ewes have been purchased. The farm presently employs a farm hand who assists Mrs. Gleave Senior.
Planning Circular 3/88 - New Agricultural Dwellings requires that applications for new agricultural dwellings must 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) Whilst this refers to a retirement home for a farmer, this provision is generally needed where the farmer is to remain active on the farm whilst their child or children take over the running of the operations and the main farmhouse is needed. This is a similar case although I cannot see how Mrs. Gleave senior can take an active part in the running of the farm from this isolated location and as such would query whether the new dwelling is needed in agricultural terms or whether a more suitable dwelling in a more sustainable location could be purchased (possibly with the proceeds of the sale of the UK property) for Mrs. Gleave thus making the existing bungalow available for occupation for the applicant.
I would also wonder how a holding which is presently operated by Mrs. Gleave and one farm hand justifies two farm dwellings and would wonder how one or both of the properties could be occupied in accordance with the agricultural occupancy condition which is attached to the existing bungalow and would be attached to the bungalow now proposed and how reasonable it would be to retain this condition in the future.
Planning Circular 3/88 requires that the siting of any new agricultural dwelling should be within or adjoining the main group of farm buildings, well set back from the public highway and approached via the existing farm access wherever possible. The proposed siting complies with none of these requirements.
The Director of Agricultural Services advises that the present business has a labour requirement of 0.68 standard labour units and is a unit which the DAFF would view as an agricultural business although not full time. The present farm worker (shepherd) is due to retire shortly and the farm is
managed by the applicant's mother who wishes to pass the farm to the applicants who express an interest in expanding the business which may lead to an increase in the need for supervision. The Director observes that the applicant's mother would remain on the farm for personal not agricultural reasons and she would comply with the standard agricultural occupancy condition, having retired from farming on the Island.
The farm is clearly not a full time venture at present and there is no agricultural need for the present occupant of the existing farm house to remain on the farm. As such I do not believe that there is sufficient agricultural justification for the new dwelling and its location would be removed from the main farm buildings and provide limited use in terms of the running of the farm.
The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
The occupants of Honey Fall and Ballavitchal are both directly opposite the site and should be afforded party status in this instance.
The Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment and the resident of Port Soderick are not directly affected and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
Isle of Man Water Authority's comments relate to supply and not material planning considerations and as such the Isle of Man Water Authority should not be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 22.03.2007
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1.
The farm is clearly not a full time venture at present and there is no agricultural need for the present occupant of the existing farm house to remain on the farm. As such there is insufficient agricultural justification for the new dwelling and its location would be removed from the main farm buildings and provide limited use in terms of the running of the farm.
I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular Nos 44/05 (Delegation of Functions to Director of Planning and Building Control) and 47/05 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer)
Decision Made : Refused Date : 2/14/07 Signed : M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control
Decision Made : Refused Date : 2/14/07 Signed : M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control
22 March 2007
22 March 2007
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown