Loading document...
Application No.: 18/00878/B Applicant: William Daniel Christian Proposal: Erection of an extension to an existing agricultural building and alterations to an existing vehicular access Site Address: Ballakeigh Farm West Kimmeragh Road Bride Isle Of Man IM7 4BA Senior Planning Officer: Mr Jason Singleton Site Visit: 04.10.2018 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 19.10.2018 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. The proposal fails to demonstrate access into the site can be achieved in a safe and appropriate manner in accordance with Transport Policy 4. - R 2. The application site is within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. The alterations to the existing vehicle access would result in, inappropriate development in the countryside contrary to Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, which seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake. _______________________________________________________________
None _____________________________________________________________________________
Officer’s Report THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site forms part of the agricultural holding of Ballakeigh Farm, Bride which is located on the northern side of the West Kimmeragh Road and set back approx. 200m from the Highway. - 1.2 Currently on site is the farmhouse, a collection of old stone barns/ brick built buildings and interconnecting agricultural buildings to the east and west of the access road. The current barns are fully utilised for cattle housing, hay and straw storage, machinery store and parking for farm type vehicles and implements.
1.3 Ballakeigh Farm is not visible from the public highway and is accessed from a farm road that serves a number of agricultural buildings and the farmhouse the access road connects to the A10 coast road and is some 550m long. PROPOSAL
2.1 Proposed is the erection of an agricultural building extension measuring a footprint of 13.7m long x 9.14m wide and 5.2m high to the ridge sheet. The building is to be located to the west of the existing farm building and used for the storage of feed, bedding, machinery and fertiliser. During the lambing time the building will double up to house ewes and lambs. - 2.2 The construction of the buildings would be metal framed with timber construction elements to support the roof and cladding. The roof would be grey corrugated fibre cement sheets with a vented ridge. The sides of the building would be a combination of concrete panels from ground level and above this, tanalised timber Yorkshire boarding with open ridge ventilation. - 2.3 The farm currently occupies 650 acres, of which 150 acres are cultivated for crops with 500 acres for grazing. The farm stock includes, 60 dairy cows, 100 suckler cows, 300 young stock and 550 ewes (lambed in February and March). - 2.4 Even with the previously approved 2018 application there remains a shortfall of 213m2. The proposed building would provide 125m2 still leaving a shortfall of 88m2. - 2.5 Also proposed is the modification to the visibility splay where the farm road meets the A10 coast road adjacent to the farm house. This would include the removal of 4 trees on the boundary, widening the farm entrance, reduce the height of the hedgerow from 2.0m to 1.05m for a length of 80m to the west and 43m to the east. This would see the removal of approx.
3.1 18/00514/B - Erection of an agricultural building. Approved. 03/00902/B - Erection of an agricultural building. Approved.
01/02415/B - Lean to extension to existing agricultural building. Approved. 94/00579/B - Extension to agricultural building. Approved. 88/04350/B - Erection of agricultural barn. Approved. 87/00827/B - Re-roofing of barn with double pitched roof. Approved. 85/01132/B - Extension to cow house. Approved.
4.1 In terms of land use designation the application site is located within a wider area of land that is designated as; "woodland" and within an Area designated as High Landscape or coastal Value and scenic significance on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982.
4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains a number of policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. As the land is not zoned for development General Policy 3 would be applicable; - 4.3 Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate area plan with the exception of;
4.4 Spatial Policy 5 states; New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3 - 4.5 Environment Policy 1 states: The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an overriding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative. - 4.6 Environment Policy 2 states: 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:
4.7 Environment Policy 3 states: Development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi-natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value.
4.6 Environment Policy 15 states: "Where the Department is satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building (including a dwelling), sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside, and that the impact of this development including buildings, accesses, servicing etc. is acceptable, such development must be sited as close as is practically possible to existing building groups and be appropriate in terms of scale, materials, colour, siting and form to ensure that all new developments are sympathetic to the landscape and built environment of which they will form a part.
Only in exceptional circumstances will buildings be permitted in exposed or isolated areas or close to public highways and in all such cases will be subject to appropriate landscaping. The nature and materials of construction must also be appropriate to the purposes for which it is intended.
Where new agricultural buildings are proposed next to or close to existing residential properties, care must be taken to ensure that there is no unacceptable adverse impact through any activity, although it must be borne in mind that many farming activities require buildings which are best sited, in landscape terms, close to existing building groups in the rural landscape."
4.7 Transport Policy 4 The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan.
REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Bride Commissioners have not commented.
5.2 Highways Services have commented (17/09/18) regarding the accuracy of the plans, concerning the visibility, do not consider the proposed alterations to meet the visibility standards, has had to assume dimension, but consider that if a condition was added that ensured the visibility splays are retained and unobstructed at all times with nothing above
5.3 The Arboricultural officer (DEFA) has commented (20/06/18) that for the extension to the agricultural building would see the removal of an Ash tree would be justified as it is in poor condition. The visibility splay would see the removal of 3 trees, 2 sycamores and 1 elm. They consider these trees to be good specimens and worthy of being a material constraint to development and form part of the character and amenities of the area. IF the trees are to be removed, (on balance with road safety) a planting scheme along the road side would be recommended. - 5.4 The Ecosystem policy officer (DEFA) has commented (06/09/18) indicating concerns whether there is a bat roost present on site or potential for this and requests a check for bat roosts or evidence of bats prior to determination of the application.
ASSESMENT
6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are; (i) the essential need for the agricultural building; (ii) the impact of the building, and (iii) the impact of the visibility splay on the countryside.
6.2 The starting point for any development within the countryside (i.e. not zoned for development) is spatial policy 5, which leads to General Policy 3, paragraph F which allows exemption for agricultural buildings and Environment Policy 15, as the first paragraph requires first the Planning Authority to be satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building, sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside.
6.3 The applicant has provided details to confirm they are the farmer/ owner of Ballakeigh Farm who lives on site, with a land holding totalling 650 acres associated to business. From the supporting information the applicant clearly owns a significant head of cattle and sheep, and to provide for their improved care via the proposed building is welcomed in principle. This aspect is deemed in accordance with Spatial Policy 5 and General Policy 3.
6.4 Having considered the justification, we turn to the siting of the building, Environment Policy 15 notes the proximity of the proposal should be sited as close the farmstead as possible and be appropriate in terms of scale, materials, colour, siting and form to ensure they are in keeping with their surroundings. - 6.5 With this in mind, the siting and location of the new farm building are two of the most important factors to consider in the context of this application. It is noted from the submission details the current farm buildings are all clustered together in close proximity to the farm house and are various shapes and sizes with construction ranging from traditional Manx stone with either slate or corrugated sheeting for roof coverings to large metal framed building, cladded with corrugated metal sheeting. The chosen location is immediately adjacent to an existing building and would not appear out of character in its setting. - 6.6 It is accepted the building would not easily be visible from the Highway, albeit this would be read in the landscape amongst existing farm buildings with a much larger agricultural buildings to the north-east as a backdrop. In considering the design and scale of the building, it is of a proportionate size and form in relation to the existing buildings within the landscape.
6.7 In terms of the scale, materials, colour, siting and form it is considered this application would be in accordance with Environment Policy 15 for the reasons stated above. - 6.8 Environment Policy 1 states "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake". The general location of the farm and its buildings is not readily visible from the highway or public vantage points given the topography of the area. The agricultural need and proposal is acceptable, however, given the comments received from the Arboricultural officer and the Ecosystems Officer, concerns regarding the loss of the trees, hedging and the possibility of bat roosts in the trees could be contrary to EP1. A condition for a bat survey can address the issue over the presence of any bat roosts in the trees prior to their felling.
6.9 With regard to this aspect of the application, the farm entrance would be widened from
2.5m to 5.5m with works to re profile the sod banks. There is difficult balance to strike, the improvements for highway safety at the expense of the countryside or to preserve the existing trees and countryside. The proposed scale of works would no doubt change the rural character and appearance of this part of the streetscene with the loss of the trees and reprofiling of the embankment. The proposal would see a planting scheme of 9 whips (3 oak; 3 beach and 3 sycamore) planted to offset the loss of the mature trees. However, the sheer scale of the engineering works and earth moving to profile the bank by removing some 4m (assumed to achieve visibility lines) and loss of trees would be considered detrimental to this part of the countryside and would far outweigh any highways benefit, all being contrary to Environmental Policies 1 & 2 for the protection of the countryside.
6.10 Whilst highways comments are noted at 5.2, their comments regarding the accuracy of the plans and assumptions are taken to offer constructive advice regarding visibility splays for safe egress from the site. It is noted Highways services say; "the proposed visibility is significantly below the visibility standards in both directions, but any improvement in sightlines is beneficial". With this in mind, it is considered the proposed access would not comply with Transport Policy 4 as it has not been demonstrated that modifications to the existing access would allow the access to be used in a safe and appropriate manner.
RECOMMENDATION
7.1 Overall, I find in favour of the proposed barn extension but consider the alterations to an existing vehicular access are not in accordance with aforementioned Policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and as the department cannot issue a split decision, the application is recommended for refusal as a whole. 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:
8.2 The decision-maker must determine:
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot 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 : 23.10.2018 Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown