Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
19/01280/B Page 1 of 8
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 19/01280/B Applicant : Mr Jacques Van Wyngaardt Proposal : Erection of an agricultural building for livestock, stabling and agricultural equipment Site Address : Kionehenin Dhoon Loop Road Dhoon Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 1HP
Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 08.10.2020 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The evidence provided fails to adequately demonstrate that a barn of this size and scale has essential agricultural need for the conduct of agriculture and therefore it is considered that the application is contrary to part (f) of General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 2. By virtue of its size, scale and location the visual impact of the development is detrimental to the rural landscape of the countryside in which it sits contrary to both Environment Policy 1 and 2 and Environment Policy 15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following persons should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
==== PAGE 2 ====
19/01280/B Page 2 of 8
the owners/occupiers of Thalloo Mitchell, Dhoon Loop Road, Dhoon (as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy; are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy); and
the owners/occupiers of (Kaz Ryzner Associates) (as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy). __
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is the curtilage of Kionehenin, Dhoon Loop Road, Dhoon which is a large single storey detached dwelling set within large grounds, which are surrounded by agricultural fields. Access to the site is via a long private road which runs from the property from the Dhoon Loop Road within the residential curtilage of the site there are a number of outbuildings.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of an agricultural barn. The barn would be 50m in width, 20m in depth, with a ridge height of 8.4m. It would be solid on all four of its elevations with larger access doors to the north elevation and west elevations. The walls and roof are finished with metal green sheeting. The barn is set into the hillside, accordingly some re-profiling of the land would be required and also retaining walls to the north of the new barn. The barn is proposed to be located to the north of the residential curtilage of the site.
2.3 The applicant advises that the farm has some 120 acres although of this 100 acres is coastal moorland with the steeper land only suitable for sheep grazing. The rest of the land (20 acres) is divided into small paddocks around the homestead. The applicant's agricultural advisor states that they currently have 21 breeding ewes on the farm which needs to be increased to ensure the fields do not become under grazed which would result in scrub encroachment and the loss of biodiversity. It is proposed that the farm will be able to support up to 150 breeding ewes plus 50 replacement ewe lambs.
2.4 They comment that the new barn would be divided into several distinct areas;
o Sheep pens and handling facilities (450sqm) to enable the safety of those working on the property as well as the livestock. Under the welfare code for sheep a pregnant ewes requires a space of 1.2m2. Therefore if all sheep had to be brought into the barn due to adverse weather at least 300m2 would be required to house and feed them, excluding the area already being used for storage of hay. This area will also be used for shearing and essential sheep work. o Stabling (200sqm) - the existing stable block which is to the south of proposed building would be demolished so parts of the new building will be used to replace the stables; o Farm implements (400sqm) - this area will be used to ensure all agricultural machinery can be stored under cover and thereby protected from harsh weather conditions. Such machinery includes, a tractor, ATV, mower, topper, hay tender and other agricultural
==== PAGE 3 ====
19/01280/B Page 3 of 8
equipment such as sheep feeding troughs, sheep hurdles for penning and other sheep handling equipment will be stored in the area when not used. o enclosed farm office/toilet/tea room/first aid (50sqm) - essential basic requirements for anyone working with livestock and machinery; & secure store for animal medicines.
2.5 The applicants also advise that the requirements of selling finished lambs on the Island is that the farms must be "Farm Assured" which requires appropriate facilities for the keeping of animals, medicines, dry bedding, clean conditions adequate lighting and appropriate factices to be able to segregate/isolate animals. There are also standards for DEFA's Welfare Code for Sheep which states:
"The Five Freedoms are -
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The site has been the subject of a number of planning application, however, only the following are considered of material relevance to the determination of the current application:
3.2 Erection of bottling plant shed and water storage tanks - 19/00695/B - pending consideration.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The application site is designated under the IOM Development Plan Order 1982 as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance and therefore no designated for development. The site is not within a Conservation Area.
4.2 The following policies are taken from the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 and are relevant for consideration:
4.3 General Policy 3 states: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10); (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11); (c) previously developed land(1) which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment; (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14); (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services; (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry; (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage."
==== PAGE 4 ====
19/01280/B Page 4 of 8
4.4 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 over-riding 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".
4.5 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: (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential."
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".
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS 5.1 Garff Commissioners have objected (07.12.2019) to the application:
"The Commission note the size and scope of this proposed barn. Members are concerned about the size and scope of the structure which will be highly prominent in this spectacular coastal location. The structure will have a particular intrusive visual impact from the A2 and the Ballaragh Road at Bulgham. Members are aware of the extensive range of planning policy and guidance which presume against such impact on the countryside, particularly in sensitive locations. The Commission discussed the report obtained by the applicant that had been submitted with the application which makes a case for the need of the barn. It is the view of the Commission that the barn is much too large for the agricultural need indicated. Members also note the refusal of a much smaller barn (18m x 9m x 5.75m) in the vicinity (18/00802/B) which was in a much less prominent location and for which the normal presumption against development in the countryside was not set aside."
5.2 Highway Services do not object (05.12.2019).
5.3 Manx Utilities raise no objection (05.12.2019 & 14.01.2020).
==== PAGE 5 ====
19/01280/B Page 5 of 8
5.4 The owners/occupiers of Glebe Cottage, Maughold (30.11.2019); make the following summarised comments; another attempt to make Kionehenin a paying farm I have witnessed quite a few in last 80 years; the proposed barn sited behind the Colt-Cedarwood bungalow on higher ground but seemingly dug-in, where original farmhouse stood; probably best site ; and colour and shade should be applied, ensuring the roof is darker than the sides.
5.5 The owners/occupiers of Thalloo Mitchell, Dhoon Loop Road, Dhoon (09.12.2019); make the following summarised comments objecting to the proposal; contrary to General Policy 3; appreciate the policy does not require a farm to be a fully-fledged in order to be granted permission for such building; however, we would question whether the standard report submitted, which in the main lists some Farm Assured standards/Sheep Welfare Code recommendations that sheep producers should adhere to, provides sufficient "application specific" evidence of the agricultural need for the building to justify setting aside of the policy; building is not essential for the conduct of the proposed agricultural activity; There are a farmers on the Island who are not Farm Assured as it is not viable, financial or otherwise, for them to adhere to these standards; there are also those who do not have the facilities of a barn but who are still able to meet the recommendations of the Welfare Code; There is significant farming activity which can be undertaken without the need for such a building; to the best of our knowledge there has been no commencement of active farming activity only the grazing of horses (can use existing stables); the report does not state how much of the 100 acres are actually suitable for sheep grazing, being predominately steep coastal moorland scrub, covered in gorse, bracken and heather and as such some of the acreage would not be suitable for grazing; it must be questioned whether the curtilage/type of land and the proposed activities are relative to the very large scale/excessive design of the proposed building being 1250sqm, which is more suitable for a large farmyard commercial agricultural building utilised in a fully-fledged mixed farming operation.; even then very few such farmyard buildings would have facilities of a shower, a coffee room, an office and 3 large vehicular access points, together with the requirement for 4 car parking spaces on top of the existing 16 parking facilities; The report indicates the barn would house the sheep during adverse weather conditions and lambing, however, due to the type of land and therefore the nature of the breed of sheep, this is highly unlikely; Regarding farm implements, farmers do not store all their machinery inside or indeed their feed and we would assume that any required heavy agricultural work/sheering would be undertaken by local contractors who service the majority of the farming community within the Parish; We questions the need of the machinery required to be housed; possible the building will be used for alternative uses; Contrary to Environment Polices 1, 2 & 15 and Transport Policy 3; due to location and overbearing size of the proposed building and its isolated setting, we question it can sensitively and unobtrusively integrate into the surrounding rural/coastal landscape and therefore adversely affecting the amenity of the area as a whole; concerns of increase of traffic.
5.6 On behalf of the owners/occupiers of , Kaz Ryzner Associates (09.12.2019); make the following summarised comments objecting to the proposal; submission fails to provide sufficient details to justify the agricultural need for the proposed development and contrary to General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 15; building would cause significant harm to the character and quality of the landscape in a visually sensitive area designated as Area if High Landscape and Scenic Significance, contrary to Environment Policies 1 and 2; recommend the application is refused.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The starting point for any development within the countryside (i.e. not zoned for development) is General Policy 3 paragraph F of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. This policy states that development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of those buildings which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry.
==== PAGE 6 ====
19/01280/B Page 6 of 8
6.2 Environment Policy 15 also needs consideration, as the first paragraph of this policy requires first the Department 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 Furthermore, the site is within an area of "countryside" and within Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance the development needs to comply with EP1 & 2 which essentially required the development not to adversely affect the countryside and would not harm the character and quality of the landscape or if it does the location for the development is essential.
6.4 Firstly, in terms of the principle of the development and whether the size of the barn is "essential for the conduct of agricultural". The applicants confirm in their statement that when the application was submitted they had a total of 21 breeding ewes within the holding. However, they seek this to be increased to 150 breeding ewes plus 50 replacement ewe lambs. The floor area of the barn which would accommodate the sheep and hay would be approximately 450sqm in floor area and therefore greater than the 300sqm what the applicants agricultural report indicates as being the area required if all the sheep are brought into the barn due to adverse weather. However, they do mention that hay storage would also be stored in the area and therefore the could be an argument in favour of this section of the barn being this size, once the 150 breeding ewes plus 50 replacement ewe lambs where part of the farm holding.
6.5 However, there are concerns of the floor areas of the remainder of the barn. In terms of the stabling (217sqm) area the agricultural report makes no mention to any horses on the site. The floor plans appear to indicate a total of 8 stables within this area. There is an existing stable on the site which is proposed to be removed (50sqm), but this is much smaller. No justification is given to why such a larger area for the stabling of horses is required and why the existing stables could not be utilised.
6.6 The Farm implements (400sqm) area is sizeable. The applicants indicate various equipment that could be stored in the area; however, researching the size of such equipment, there seems to be a significant over provision for space. It is considered the floor area of each piece of equipment (ATV (quad bike) 1.7sqm , tractor 10sqm, agricultural mower 2sqm, topper 4.8sqm, hay tender 6sqm, results in a total floor area requirement of approximately 24.5sqm. Even if this was doubled (50sqm) to allow better access to each piece of equipment, this is still well below the proposed floor area of 400sqm. The applicants mention other pieces of equipment that could be stored (sheep pens/fences); but again there is significant concern that the proposed floor area is a well over provision.
6.7 There is a section of the barn which is not annotated (135sqm) which appears to connect the three internal areas mention previously to a access door within the southern elevation of the building. However, the three aforementioned areas already have alternative accesses to the north (three separate doors) and to the west (single door). Accordingly, there does not appear to be a need for this area or an additional access.
6.8 Finally, the proposed enclosed farm office/toilet/tea room/first aid (50sqm) appear to be luxuries rather than "essential" or what you would expect on a farm holding, especially when near to the main dwelling house of the holding and the farm is not significant in size. Whilst provision for secure storage of medicines etc are appropriate (i.e. secure cupboard), again the level of accommodation seems to be excessive with no significant justification for the accommodation and certainly not to demonstrate an essential need.
6.9 Due to these concerns the Department made the following comments to the applicants: "I note we have received objections from the Commissioners, (and neighbours), which raise concern of the need for the size of the building and the visual impact it would have. I share some of their concerns. While I can understand the need of a building, I am not convenience
==== PAGE 7 ====
19/01280/B Page 7 of 8
the size is warranted. For example the internal stable section is 217sqm, while the existing stables are 50sqm. No mention is made of the applicants owning horses, but this amount of stabling would seem very large. Further in front of the annotated stable area is a large area left blank? I presume this is to given access to the three internal areas, but again they already have alternative access, so I am not sure this is a necessary. Mention is made in the agricultural statement that 300sqm is needed for the keeping of the sheep during adverse weather conditions; however, the area shown is 450sqm. I acknowledge food store is required, but again it seems large. Finally the farm implement store again seems very large the storage of a tractor, ATV, topper and a mower and fencing for the sheep penning. I would suggest the majority could be stores in far less space than proposed. Overall, while I understand an agricultural building is needed on the site, and the design, siting and finish of the building is appropriate, I have not been convinced by the information within the application that a building of this size is required to meet this need."
6.10 In response to these comments the applicants agent stated:
"Further to a meeting with the client and his agricultural advisor, it is felt the need for a barn of this size is required, and there is no need to reduce it. The applicant is therefore of the opinion that the application is to progress as it is."
6.11 Accordingly, the significant concerns of the essential need for a barn of this size still exists and therefore the Department is not satisfied that the size/scale of the barn as proposed is required and therefore contrary to EP15 and GP3.
6.12 Due to the size of the barn, the proposal will be noticeable from across the valley (Dhoon Glen), namely from the public vantage points from the A2 and Ballaragh Road both to the south of the site. The impact is reduced partially by essentially digging the building into the hillside which does reduce the potential impacts. The proposal for example will not break the skyline. The proposal is also immediately to the north of the existing dwelling and existing buildings within the site (albeit above them given the sloping nature of site on the hill side). Furthermore, there is mature tree planting within the site (fronting the proposed barn site). However, given the sheer size and scale of the barn, the proposal would adversely affect the countryside and adversely affect the character and the landscape in this location, which is one of the most scenic areas (especially form the public vantages points highlighted) of the IOM. It is key to ensure any development is warranted and does not impact the countryside/landscape in this area. Of course if the barn was considered to be of "essential" need, then this may have overcome the visual impact of the development. However, for the reasons stated earlier in this report, they do not. Accordingly, it is considered the proposal would be contrary to Environment Policy 1 and 2.
6.13 Putting the size/scale and visual impact to one side, in terms of its design/finishes it is accepted that the building is of a relatively uninspiring design but, in the context of agricultural buildings, it is very much "of its type". That the wall elevations being finished in a metal sheeting (condition it should be a dark green or olive colour) and the roof colour (conditioned) would be dark grey or dark green in colour and thus provide a level of camouflage from the open nature of the countryside. Accordingly, the proposal purely in terms of design/finish would comply with the requirements of EP 15.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The policies of the Strategic Plan are clear that development should not take place in the countryside unless there is a clear justification for that development. The proposed building for this size and scale is not considered to be agriculturally justified, and therefore a recommendation of refusal is made.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
==== PAGE 8 ====
19/01280/B Page 8 of 8
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 confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date: 19.10.2020
Signed : C BALMER Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
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