124981

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      20/00832/B                                     Page  1  of  8

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 20/00832/B Applicant : Ballaseyr Limited Proposal : Erection of new agricultural shed and extension to existing agricultural shed Site Address : Loughan Farm Jurby East Isle Of Man IM7 3EZ

Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken : 23.09.2020 Site Visit : 23.09.2020 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 01.10.2020 __

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

C 2. The buildings must be used only for agricultural purposes.

Reason: the countryside is protected from development and an exception is being made on the basis of agricultural need. As such the building must be used for the purposes for which it is approved.

C 3. The agricultural buildings hereby approved shall be removed and the ground restored to its former condition in the event that it is no longer used or required for agricultural purposes.

Reason: The building has been exceptionally approved solely to meet agricultural need and its subsequent retention would result in an unwarranted intrusion in the countryside.

N 1. There is potential for nesting birds in the vegetation to be removed to facilitate the proposed shed extension.

All birds, their nests, eggs and young are protected by law (Wildlife Act 1990) and it is an offence to: o intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take any wild bird o intentionally or recklessly take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird whilst it is in use or being built o intentionally or recklessly take or destroy the egg of any wild bird

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      20/00832/B                                     Page  2  of  8

o intentionally or recklessly disturb any wild bird listed on Schedule 1 while it is nest building, or at a nest containing eggs or young, or disturb the dependent young of such a bird.

The maximum penalty that can be imposed - in respect of a single bird, nest or egg - is a fine up to 10,000 pounds.

The bird nesting season is usually between late February and late August or late September in the case of swifts, swallows or house martins. Thorough checks for birds, their active nests and eggs should be undertaken prior to clearance of vegetation. If a nest is discovered while work is being undertaken, all work must stop and advice sought from the Ecosystem Policy Team, DEFA.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. Overall, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of both agricultural need and visual impact and broadly accords with EP15 and GP3 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to drawing numbers 933.03A and 933.24B date stamped and received 29/07/2020. __

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

None __

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THERE IS AN OBJECTION FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

THE SITE 1.1 The application site sits to the south of Bretney Road, Jurby and is situated to the east of a farm lane which leads to the surrounding fields. The immediate area is characterised by a small cluster of farm buildings and traditional farm dwellings on both side of the road. The site contains a large agricultural building which is situated on the south east end of the site. This building is a wide span structure with corrugated sheeted roofing and walls that comprise Yorkshire Boarding on the upper section laid over block work which forms the lower sections of the external wall.

1.2 Situated to the northeast of the site is 'Goldies Loughan' which has a stretch of agricultural land between it and the application site. There is a smaller agricultural building with finishing similar to the agricultural building on the application site situated on the northeast boundary of the application site. Along with the land defined in red, are additional agricultural land which envelopes the entire southern and eastern boundaries of the site, and a similarly large area of land situated north of the site and east of Poly Road (B13) which connects to the A10 which is defined in blue, indicating that it is within the ownership or control of the applicant, extending the field acreage within the control of the applicants.

THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of new agricultural shed and extension to existing agricultural shed.

2.2 The first part of the proposed works would involve creating an extension to the existing agricultural building. This extension would project from the western elevation and would

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      20/00832/B                                     Page  3  of  8

measure 27.4m x 18.2m matching the length of the existing shed. This shed extension would have the same eave height as the existing shed at 3.96m and would have the same ridge height at 6.5m. The shed would have wall finishing comprising blockwork on the lower section and Yorkshire Boarding on the upper section to match the existing shed. Its roof which would have 12 GPR rooflights installed on the North West roof plane would be finished in natural grey profiled sheeting. There would be a 4m high and 4.5m wide entrance with stock gate installed equidistant from both side ends on north east elevation. This extension would cover a footprint of about 499sqm.

2.3 Also proposed is a pitch roofed shed which would be situated on the north-west boundary of the site and directly positioned on the edge of the existing shed o the boundary. The new shed would be 18.2m long and 9.1m wide and have a height of 4.8m at the eaves and 6.1m from the ground level to the ridge. The total floor area for the new shed would be about 166sqm. The external walls would be finished in Green Plastisol Sheeting while its roof would be finished in Natural Grey Profiled sheeting with 4 GPR rooflights installed on either roof panes respectively.

2.4 Additional works would include the installation of a precast silage effluent storage tank at the rear of the larger shed and extension. This Alpha System' Precast silage unit would be 32m long and 11.5m wide.

2.3 The applicant advises that the extension of the agricultural building and the erection of the new shed are part of a genera farm improvement discussed with the planning committee at the dwelling approval stage for PA 19/00749/B for the erection of a detached agricultural workers dwelling with detached garage and store on part field 214270, which is part of the farm. The applicant indicated that the improvements are part of the scheme to in prove farm efficiency and support the farm operations which is considerably substantial farm business during the site visits on 23 September 2020.

2.4 The Background for PA 20/00749/B is presented below:

i. Loughan farm is owned and operated by a larger agricultural operation involving a mix of sheep, equestrian use, arable and cattle farming over 1100 acres of land split across its holdings; ii. This section of land (Loughan Farm) amounts to 166 acres with an intention for further expansion - and has only been recently purchased.; iii. The farm is to be developed with a new site farm manager and their family, to establish and control the cattle rearing and husbandry, together with crop growth/management for food crops, under the Islands farm assured system; iv. Intention to provide further shed/storage buildings within the farm yard area; v. The Loughan farm venture is for the rearing and husbandry of new cattle rearing/suckling and finishing, running independent of the sheep rearing operation in Andreas which has its own shepherds, stockmen and infrastructure; vi. The number of initial labour units has been calculated at 1.75 based on 80 acres of cereal crops and pasture care, 100 head cattle/calves, 100 acres reseeding and general farm work; vii. It is envisaged that the 24/7 farm managers activities require 2 additional staff initially including a top grade cattle man with an additional farm labourer/machinery operator.

PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area of 'white land' - land not zoned for development, on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982. There is therefore a general presumption against development in this area. This presumption is further outlined and clarified in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan policies below.

3.2 Environment Policy 1:

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      20/00832/B                                     Page  4  of  8

"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."

3.3 General Policy 3 sets out a presumption against development in the countryside but includes instances where provision of new housing may be acceptable, including "(f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry." Further advice on agricultural development is provided as follows:

3.4 Environment Policy 15: "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."

3.5 Paragraph 7.13.3 is also relevant:

7.13.3 In recent years there has been increasing demand for new development and buildings in the countryside, particularly for new modern agricultural buildings. Such buildings can have, and in a number of areas already have had an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the landscape, particularly when sited in exposed locations away from building groups and on elevated land. It is important that new development should be compatible with the character of the surrounding area, and the need for new buildings in the countryside will be balanced against the harm that development may have on the particular environment within which it is proposed. In terms of new agricultural dwellings, permission will not be granted unless real agricultural need is demonstrated and will in every case be assessed in terms of need, sensitive siting, design, and size, and be subject to an agricultural occupancy condition.

PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 PA 87/00417/B for erection of agricultural building, Part of Field 417, Land at Loughan, Jurby - Approved.

4.2 PA 00/02037/B for erection of agricultural building, Part of Field 417, Land at Loughan, Jurby - Approved.

4.3 PA 19/00749/B for Erection of a detached agricultural workers dwelling with detached garage and store - Approved.

REPRESENTATIONS

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                      20/00832/B                                     Page  5  of  8

Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.

5.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that they do not oppose in the letter dated 13 August 2020.

5.2 DEFA's Ecosystem Policy Officer has made the following comments dated 25 August 2020:

There is potential for nesting birds in the vegetation to be removed to facilitate the proposed shed extension. The Ecosystem Policy Team therefore request that the following advisory note is provided to the applicant:

All birds, their nests, eggs and young are protected by law (Wildlife Act 1990) and it is an offence to: o intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take any wild bird o intentionally or recklessly take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird whilst it is in use or being built o intentionally or recklessly take or destroy the egg of any wild bird o intentionally or recklessly disturb any wild bird listed on Schedule 1 while it is nest building, or at a nest containing eggs or young, or disturb the dependent young of such a bird. The maximum penalty that can be imposed - in respect of a single bird, nest or egg - is a fine up to 10,000 pounds.

The bird nesting season is usually between late February and late August or late September in the case of swifts, swallows or house martins. Thorough checks for birds, their active nests and eggs should be undertaken prior to clearance of vegetation. If a nest is discovered while work is being undertaken, all work must stop and advice sought from the Ecosystem Policy Team, DEFA.

5.3 Jurby Parish Commissioners have made the following comments dated 27 August 2020:

Having reviewed the plans it was deemed an excessive development for the size of the area and would appear to have an adverse visual impact on the surrounding properties and countryside.

ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are the essential need for extension to the agricultural building and the new shed, and the impact of the building on the surrounding properties and countryside.

6.2 Need for the Buildings (Agricultural Justification)

6.2.1 The starting point for any development within the countryside (i.e. not zoned for development) is General Policy 3, which allows an exemption for essential 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.

6.2.2 The applicant has provided details to confirm they are the farmer/ owner of Loughan Farm where approval was granted under PA 19/00749/B to allow for a new site farm manager and family to live on site, with a land holding totalling 1100 acres of land split across its holdings (this section of their land south of Bretney Road, Jurby amounts to 166 acres). From the supporting information provided in the previous application (PA 19/00749/B) which the applicant refers to, it is clear the farm owns a significant head of cattle, sheep, and arable land that the proposed building and extension would support. It is also noted that the site visit

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                      20/00832/B                                     Page  6  of  8

carried out on 25 September 2020 showed that the existing facilities are operating at full capacity, affording limited working space to support increased operations within the facility. As such, it is considered the justification for the building is acceptable and this aspect is deemed to accord with General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 15.

6.3 Impact of the new building and extension

6.3.1 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 to 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.

6.3.2 With this in mind, the siting and location of the new farm building and extension are two of the most important factors to consider in the context of this application. It is noted from the submission details that the existing farm buildings, as well as neighbouring dwellings and farm buildings are all clustered together in close proximity to the farm house (under construction) 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.

6.3.3 It is accepted the building would not easily be visible from the Highway; given the nature of the existing site boundary which would only allows views to the site area when directly in front of the site access, albeit this would be read in the context of the existing farm buildings on the site and surrounding fields; particularly the large green agricultural building to the north-east (on East Loughan) which provides a backdrop to the area.

6.3.4 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. In terms of the scale, materials, colour, siting and form it is considered that the proposed building and extension would be seamlessly integrated into the existing building structure on the farm without undue impact on the surrounding landscape. As well, the precast silage effluent storage tank would be completely concealed at the rear of the existing building and extension, with the raised mould which rises to about 4m and formed around the southern sections of the site providing additional screening from distant views to the south. It is, therefore, considered that this application would be in accordance with Environment Policy 15 for the reasons stated above.

6.4 Impact on neighbouring properties

6.4.1 With regard to possible impacts on surrounding properties, it is noted that the closest residential property to the proposed facilities with possibility to be impacted would be Goldies Loughan. This building is however situated about 37m away from the closest building which is the new shed to be sited on the north-west corner of the site. Besides, this boundary of the application site has sufficient tree cover and shrubbery which would screen views and provide a buffer from activities going on within the new shed; making any impacts on this neighbouring dwelling negligible.

6.4.2 Whilst the Jurby Parish Commissioners have stated that the scheme would be an excessive development for the size of the area and would appear to have an adverse visual impact on the surrounding properties and countryside, it is noted that these neighbouring buildings which are referred to are within farm clusters with stables, sheds and other outbuildings situated within their curtilage and as such the presence of agricultural buildings within close proximity would not be considered unacceptable as the closest of the proposed buildings would be situated by an existing agricultural building on the neighbouring property with use complimentary to that of the existing building. More so, the separating distance between the proposed scheme and these properties, as well as the existing boundary

==== PAGE 7 ====

                                      20/00832/B                                     Page  7  of  8

treatment would soften any impact that results. In addition, none of the owners or occupiers of the neighbouring properties have raised any concerns with the proposed development. It is, therefore considered that the proposed aligns with EP 15 which provides the baseline for assessing developments such as the proposed stating that: "... 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."

6.4.3 In terms of excessive development of the site, it is also noted that the application site is part of a wider farm area which stretches from the south boundary, covering an area over 160 acres (not counting the fields situated northwest, northeast and southeast of the (B13) Poly Road) and as such would not constitute excessive development when judged within the context of the broader site area which is within the ownership or control of the applicant. Granting the application site boundary has been marked to exclude the broader site area, it is considered that the agricultural buildings would only be situated in the current location and within close proximity to the approved agricultural dwelling which is nearing completion on the north-east boundary of the application site and the existing cluster of buildings in the locality, but would serve the operations of the entire farm which stretches beyond the application site with sufficient farm holdings to suggest that the farm is a substantial agricultural business on the island, requiring such facilities to support its operations.

CONCLUSION 7.1 In summary, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of both agricultural need and visual impact and broadly accords with the aforementioned policies of the Strategic Plan. The application is therefore recommended for approval.

INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

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 above who should be given Interested Person Status

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.

__

==== PAGE 8 ====

                                      20/00832/B                                     Page  8  of  8

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 : Permitted

Committee Meeting Date: 19.10.2020

Signed : P VISIGAH 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.