17 December 2018 · Head of Development Management (Stephen Butler)
Field 314831, Main Road, Greeba, Isle Of Man, IM4 2dx
The site is field 314831 on the northern side of the A1 Main Road in Greeba, accessed via a steep private lane serving nearby properties, within an Area of High Landscape Value (AHLV). The proposed steel-clad building was relocated eastward along the western boundary to 6m from trees, following an initial scheme closer…
Click a button above to find applications similar to this one.
See how this application compares to similar ones — policies, conditions, and outcomes side by side.
The officer accepted the agricultural need for the building to support a 220-acre sheep/beef farm, as existing sheds were at capacity during lambing and winter, making the principle acceptable under G…
General Policy 3
Permits agricultural buildings essential for agriculture outside zoned areas. Officer found sufficient need justified by farm capacity issues during lambing/winter, supporting efficient operation on 220-acre holding.
Environment Policy 2
Protects AHLV landscape character unless no harm or essential location. Visual impact acceptable due to screening/setback, but tree impacts unassessed; cumulative tree loss would harm rural setting.
Environment Policy 8 (emerging Strategic Plan)
Prohibits agricultural buildings breaching water protection code via discharges. Insufficient slurry/waste details failed to show no water quality deterioration or pollution measures.
Environment Policy 13 - Development and flood risk
Prohibits development risking unacceptable flooding. Insufficient surface/groundwater drainage details could not demonstrate no adverse impacts, especially runoff to neighbours on sloping site.
Environment Policy 15
Concerns siting of agricultural buildings. Officer noted typical agricultural appearance and acceptable siting relative to existing development.
Environmental Policy 22
Prohibits development unacceptably harming environment/amenity via pollution. Lacked details on slurry pollution alleviation, risking water/amenity harm to neighbours and stream.
No Highways Interest
No objection
German Parish Commissioners initially had no objection but later objected to the amended application due to concerns over cattle housing without effluent management, water supply, electricity, and site details; Highways Division has no highways interest.
Key concern: no provision for the effluent to be dealt with, no adequate drainage to take the effluent or to store it with possibility of runoff to property below
German Parish Commissioners
No ObjectionMy Commissioners have no objection to this application
German Parish Commissioners
Objectionthe Commissioners would like to lodge an objection on the following grounds; there is no provision for the effluent to be dealt with, there is no adequate drainage to take the effluent or to store it and it would appear that there is a possibility that the effluent could be running onto the property below which would not be acceptable; There is no electricity on the site therefore the Commissioners wonder if the applicant proposes to use a generator which could cause annoyance to the neighbours; The Commissioners question the existence of the stream which is referred to on the application; There is a suspicion that the proposed siting of the building is within the 15 m proximity to trees
Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division
No ObjectionNo Highways Interest; NHI on 21-6-18
The original application for an agricultural building was refused by the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture for insufficient details on drainage and flooding (EP13), waste slurry management and pollution (EP8, EP22), and impact on nearby trees in an AHLV (EP2). The appellant argued agricultural need was accepted, provided engineering calculations for drainage, straw bedding for solid waste management with bunds and storage protocols, and tree protection measures including a root protection area. The inspector found drainage details unclear and unverified, waste management proposals acceptable via condition but unproven originally, and tree protection inadequate due to proximity and lack of survey, especially in the AHLV. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the refusal, though conditions were suggested if minded to allow.
Precedent Value
Submit comprehensive technical evidence (engineer/tree reports) with original applications, especially in AHLV; consider outline permission for siting flexibility; verify appeal calculations with attendance.
Inspector: Michael Hurley BA DipTP
