Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
18/00577/B Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 18/00577/B Applicant : Mr George Moore Proposal : Erection of an agricultural building Site Address : Field 314831 Land Adjoining Cronk Dhoo Main Road Greeba Isle Of Man
Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken : 25.07.2018 Site Visit : 25.07.2018 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 11.12.2018 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. There is insufficient drainage detail provided as part of the application to demonstrate that surface water and groundwater would not cause any adverse flooding impacts, particularly on the amenity of neighbouring properties. The application fails Environment Policy 13 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 2. There is insufficient information provided as to how waste slurry material from the proposed use would be dealt with and the application fails to demonstrate that the development will not cause any long term deterioration in water quality or provided any details on pollution and alleviation measures to protect the surrounding environment or nearby stream watercourse. The application fails Environment Policy 8 and Environment Policy 22 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 3. There is insufficient detail provided to determine the impact of the development on nearby trees, cumulative loss of trees would have an adverse impact on the visual appearance of the development and the wider rural setting of the AHLV. The application fails Environment Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in
==== PAGE 2 ====
18/00577/B Page 2 of 7
Article 6(4) and as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018):
__
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is the extents of field 314831 located on the northern side of the main A1 road running through Greeba. The field is set half way between the Crosby public house and the Ballacraine Crossroads and is set back some 200m from the main road. The field here forms part of a larger holding covering 9 fields directly north of the site.
1.2 The application field is accessed by a steep private lane off the main road, this lane also serves three properties situated below the field these are Vale house, Cronk Dhoo Cottage and Stables Cottage.
1.3 At the top of the access lane is two separate gated access lanes running parallel to each other, the one furthest to the west is indicated to be under ownership of the applicant.
1.4 Access into the field is at the top of these short, steep fenced lanes. The topography of the land within the field is as such that nearest the southern boundary the land naturally plateau's before rising again northwards.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The current application proposes the erection of an agricultural building within the field and along the western boundary where the land gradually plateau's. The proposed building is approx. 32m long x 12.5m wide and around 6m to the central ridge. The steel framed building is to be steel clad and installed with four rooflights either side of the roof slope. Two access are proposed at each gable end of the building.
2.2 The proposed building is proposed to sit half way along the south-western boundary with field 314936 and approx. 6m from the existing tree line and wall running along this boundary.
2.3 Information submitted on 13/09/2018 sets out the internal arrangement of the agricultural building being utilised for the housing of cattle and sheep through winter, the use for lambing season and for the storage of general agricultural farm machinery and implements.
2.4 The proposal includes detail that rainwater goods will be provided and that these will connect with an existing stream below a wall running along the south-eastern boundary.
2.5 The current proposal follows from an original scheme which sited the proposed building in the western most corner of the site and 3m from the boundary with field 314936. This original proposal received a number of objections from neighbouring residents.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
==== PAGE 3 ====
18/00577/B Page 3 of 7
3.1 There are no previous planning applications for this specific site. There have however been a number of previous applications for stables and cattery buildings south-eat of the site and on the adjacent side of the shared access, although not considered to be materially relevant in the assessment of the current application.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY
4.1 The site is not designated for any particular purpose on the 1982 Development Plan and also within an area of high landscape or coastal value and scenic significance (AHLV).
4.2 Given the nature of the current proposal the following policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 are considered relevant:
4.3 General Policy 3 (GP3) states (in part):
"Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry;"
4.4 Environment Policy 2 (EP2):
"The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:
(a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential."
4.5 Environment Policy 8:
"Agricultural buildings will not be permitted on sites where their existence and associated discharges would result in a breach of the "Code of Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Water." (1)"
4.6 Environment Policy 13:
"Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted."
4.7 Environment Policy 15 (EP15) - Siting of agricultural buildings
"The extension or alteration of existing traditionally styled properties in the countryside will normally only be approved where these respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property. Only exceptionally will permission be granted for extensions which measure more than 50% of the existing building in terms of floor space (measured externally)."
4.8 Environment Policy 22:
"Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of: i) pollution of sea, surface water or groundwater;
==== PAGE 4 ====
18/00577/B Page 4 of 7
ii) emissions of airborne pollutants; and iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 German Parish Commissioners o No objection (03/07/2018)
The original application was detailed as being an implement store for occasional lambing and shelter of sheep. The revised drawings state that the proposal is now also for cattle shelter. There is little information as to how effluent will be dealt with and there is no adequate drainage or collection of foul water detailed and there is possibility that effluent will run onto the property below. No electricity is proposed and the use of a generator would cause annoyance to neighbours and there is little information provided within regards to the existing stream and the proximity of trees being within 15m of the building.
5.2 Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division
o NHI - No Highways Interest (dated 21/06/2018)
5.3 Neighbours' views
o The owners of Trentham, Main Road, The Eairy (dated 25/06/2018, 08/10/2018 and 21/10/2018)
Own land at Knock Dhoo Stables which is adjacent to the site, have raised concerns with regards to land ownership of the access and its boundary treatment and that the applicant has been utilising their access without consent. They've also raised concern to the rain water connection to the stream which has no outfall and the proximity of the building to their land and leakage of effluent.
o The owners of Vale House, Main Road, Greeba (dated 06/07/2018 and 12/10/2018)
The application indicates that there will be no water or electricity indicating a generator may be used which they object to on the grounds of noise and fumes. The land slopes down to their property and they are concerned about flooding and foul water seepage (mud, slurry, leachate) particularly given that the stream indicated for taking rainwater no longer exists. The size of the structure would have a significant visual impact on the rural area. The increase of farm vehicles movement may cause damage to the right of way the applicant has over their land. The application fails to address the trees within 15m of the proposed development and the new access track is not land owned by the applicant. They suggest moving the structure to the east may solve some of the issues but that the increase of traffic as a result of the development would still cause issue.
o The owners of Cronk Dhoo Cottage and Stables Cottage (dated 03/07/2018 and 12/10/2018)
The original proposal was within close proximity <50m of their property and could be affected by noise, smell and flooding. The increased surface area will have surface water run off downhill and onto their property. The use of a generator would impact through noise and fumes, and the proposal is within close proximity to existing trees running along the boundary although there are no details to address this. The amendments to the application now include
==== PAGE 5 ====
18/00577/B Page 5 of 7
shelter of 35-50 cattle and large machinery, although now 6m from the boundary the proposal is still within 15m of existing trees. The new track is not under ownership of the applicant and there are no details as to a concrete apron or slurry pit, or how surface water or slurry drainage will be dealt with except in a stream which may or may not exist.
o The owner of Ash Cottage, Main Road, Greeba
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The site is not designated for any particular use and as such, there is a presumption against any kind of development here in order to protect the countryside for its own site. However, the IOM Strategic Plan makes provision for certain levels of development that are considered to be essential for the conduct of agriculture. The key considerations in the case of this application is to assess whether an sufficient agricultural need is justified, if there would be any impact through development on the AHLV, whether there would be any impact on the surrounding environment (land, water courses and trees) and whether or not there would be any impacts on the amenity of the neighbours.
AGRICULTURAL NEED 6.2 The applicant indicates within the application that they have recently taken over the land which they were previously long term tenants of. The proposal is now for a building on land which is now in their full ownership and to help in the operation of the 220acres farm holding by having a building within close proximity to this 40 acre area and in helping to reduce travelling times and distances with regards to machinery and fodder coming and going from the site.
6.3 The agricultural statement supporting the application indicates that the farm holding is established with its main holding being situated on the Ballavitchel Road around 2 miles east along the main A1 road. The original submission sets out that the existing barns at Ballavitchel are operating at full capacity and so in times of inclement weather and during lambing season not all are able to be sheltered and during winter the cattle are housed which result in shed space being rented to allow storage of machinery.
6.4 It is considered that the principle of providing an agricultural building here would help to support the running of the established business and would cumulatively help to create a more sustainable and efficient farming operation. The principle is considered to be acceptable in line with GP3(f).
IMPACT ON AHLV 6.5 The building is typical in terms of its agricultural appearance and these types of modern farming buildings are commonly found across many rural parts of the Island. The site here is situated on the side of a hill and is set back a notable distance from the main road. Views from the A1 and public vantage points are limited due to the vegetation lining the road and the vegetation and existing buildings that sit between the road and the application site. Distant views are achievable from across the valley at Ballachurry, but given the proposed siting being within reasonable proximity to neighbouring dwellings and existing built development it is not considered that the development of a building here would result in an adverse spread of development across the hillside or such an objectionable visual impact on the landscape to warrant a refusal.
DRAINAGE AND IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT
==== PAGE 6 ====
18/00577/B Page 6 of 7
6.6 Concerns were been expressed by local residents as to the potential impact of surface water run off as a result on the development and causing flooding impacts to the lower grounds. Following a site visit and assessment of the application it was considered that the increase in hard surface area particularly at the corner nearest the residential dwellings could impact the natural water filtration of the land and increase the surface water concentration in this corner. Following discussion with the agent and applicant, and in explaining that agricultural buildings are exempt from Building Regulations, it was therefore necessary that any proposal for drainage be included as part of the current planning application.
6.7 Amended drawings received from the agent sought to relocate the building further east along the field boundary and detailed that rainwater goods would be connected via a 230mm pipe to a stream below the wall towards the east boundary and adjacent the field access. Representations were received questioning the existence of this stream. During a site visit during August it was noted that this stream wasn't in existence although it could be during winter months.
6.8 Theses amended drawings also included an internal layout plan for the building that detailed cattle stores, areas for sheep and implement storage within the building. These amended plans raised further concerns from representations with regards to the potential for cattle slurry running down and contaminating the lower grounds.
6.9 In reviewing the amended drawings for the application, the proposed use of the agricultural building and in assessing the provision of drainage, it is not considered that sufficient drainage detail has been provided as part of the application to assess whether or not there would be any adverse impacts on flooding or unreasonable levels of contamination across the surrounding lands, lower grounds and on the amenity of the neighbouring dwellings. For this reason the application fails to comply with Environment Policy 8, Environment Policy 13 and Environment Policy 22.
TREES 6.10 The amended drawings relocate the building 6m from the tree lined boundary. There is insufficient information provided for these trees as part of the application to assess impacts of the proposal on their longevity. While views from the main road and public vantage points are limited due to roadside boundary treatment, the trees lining the boundary here provide additional screening and any cumulative loss through development would have an adverse impact on the visual quality of the wider rural landscape.
AMENITY OF THE NEIGHBOURS 6.11 Aforementioned, it is not considered that there is sufficient drainage detailed as part of the application to ensure no adverse flooding or contamination impacts on the adjacent dwellings. The revised siting of the building helps to limit any overbearing or visual impact from neighbouring properties. Concern has been raised by a number of objectors with regards to land ownership of the access track; it must be advised that land ownership is a civil issue and a matter outside of the remit of the planning process.
7.0 CONCLUSION
7.1 There is sufficient information provided as to the agricultural need for a building here (GP3) and given the setback location the proposal will be difficult to see from the main road due to the roadside boundary hedging and views from across the valley will be negligibly impacted due to the building reasonably close proximity to the existing built development along here (EP2 and EP15). However the application has failed to demonstrate sufficient drainage details with regards to surface or ground water and also fails to address how waste matter from the proposed use will be dealt with to ensure no flooding impacts and no unreasonable contamination of the surrounding land (EP8, EP13 and EP22). The application also fails to demonstrate if there would be any impact on nearby trees within the AHLV (EP2).
==== PAGE 7 ====
18/00577/B Page 7 of 7
7.2 Given the negative findings as stated above the application is recommended for refusal.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Refused Date : 17.12.2018
Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal