132829

==== PAGE 1 ====

1

APPEAL: 16/0064 PLANNING APPLICATION: 16/00899/B__

Report of a planning appeal being dealt with by written representations

Site inspection: 16 January 2017

Appeal by Mr Christopher Grose and Miss Susan Barlow against the decision to refuse retrospective planning approval for the erection of an agricultural storage shed in Field 130688, Kella Road, Sulby, Isle of Man.

The site and its surroundings

1 Field 130688 is a parcel of about 3 acres, lying in open countryside to the south and west of Kella Road, Sulby. Access from Kella Road is by means of an unmade, grassy track. The field is mainly undeveloped, but the westernmost part of it (which has been fenced off) contains two timber sheds, decking and timber walkways, garden furniture, an external heater, and ornamental ponds. There are also a number of newly planted fruit trees on this part of the site. At the time of my visit, a quantity of hay was stored in the open, and a tractor was parked here. The eastern part of the appeal site, which contains a small shelter for animals, was being grazed by a flock of seven Loughton sheep.

The shed

2 The application seeks retrospective planning approval for a wooden shed, which stands close to the field’s northern edge, within the fenced off area. This shed measures about 4.3m by 4.3m. It has a pitched roof, with a ridge height of about 3.5m. The front (southern) part of this structure consists of a covered veranda. Access to the shed’s interior is from the veranda, via a pair of glazed, uPVC, patio doors. There is also a large uPVC window in the shed’s eastern elevation. At the time of my visit the shed contained a log burner with an external flue, two mowers and some other tools, some bags of animal feed, and an armchair.

The case for the Planning Authority

3 The appeal site is not within an area that is zoned for development under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan indicates that development will not be permitted outside those areas that are zoned for development, except in certain specified circumstances. Exception (f) refers to building operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture.

4 Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan provides that the countryside will be protected for its own sake. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted, unless there is an overriding national need.

==== PAGE 2 ====

2

5 In August 2016, there were 7 Manx sheep on the appeal site, and there was also a small area of ploughed land. However, the shed which forms the subject of the present appeal was being used for domestic or recreational (rather than agricultural) purposes. In addition to a log burner, it contained chairs, a book shelf, a table and decorative ornaments. Its design is such that it could not be used to house sheep. Furthermore, its solid (rather than glazed) roof would tell against its use for growing seedlings. The Department is not satisfied that there is an agricultural need for this building sufficient to outweigh the presumption against development in the countryside set out in General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan. Accordingly, planning approval was refused.

6 Environment Policy 15 of the Strategic Plan would apply if there were an agricultural need for the building. This requires that such a building should be appropriate in terms of its scale, materials, siting, colour and form, so as to be sympathetic to the landscape in which it is set. With its uPVC doors and fenestration, the shed which forms the subject of the present appeal has the appearance of a domestic summer house. It is not of a design that one would expect to see on agricultural land in the countryside. Accordingly, it fails to comply with the requirements of Environmental Policy 15 of the Strategic Plan, and is also unacceptable on that count.

7 In all the circumstances, the Minister is asked to dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision to refuse planning approval. However, if the Minister is minded to allow the appeal and grant planning approval, it is suggested that conditions should be imposed, requiring that the storage shed be used only for agricultural purposes; and requiring that, if the shed is no longer required for agricultural purposes, it be removed, and the ground be restored to its former condition. The case for the Appellants 8 The appellants bought Field 130688 about a year ago. At that time it was unfenced, and was severely overgrown with trees and rushes, which had not been cut back for many years. The field was mainly used for racing motorcycles and old cars, and included motorcycle jumps. Parts of old vehicles (including batteries and wheels) and other rubbish were buried here. A lot of these items have now been removed by hand, and the appearance of the site has been greatly improved. The soil is mainly a hard pan clay, and the land is subject to extensive flooding in winter.

9 The appellants aim is to create three distinct areas within the field, respectively for livestock, for the cultivation of crops, and as an orchard. Some 10 fruit trees have now been planted, together with some fruit bushes and other vegetation. A small area has been used as an experimental vegetable patch, to see whether anything would actually grow in this soil.

10 The shed that forms the subject of the present appeal would be used to store livestock feed and fruit, and to grow seedlings. The crop area is still being prepared, as there is a large amount of buried galvanised sheeting and other rubbish to be removed. However, this land will be ploughed and rotavated, and crops will be planted in the Spring of 2017.

==== PAGE 3 ====

3

11 The shed has only recently been erected. It was temporarily used to store certain items of furniture, as the appellants had nowhere else to store them, having just sold their house. However, these items have now been removed. At present, the shed is used for general storage purposes and to provide some comfort for the appellants when they are working on the site - hence the presence of the log burner. In addition, Mr Grose suffers from diabetes and must have a place on site, in which to eat, rest and store his medication.

12 Seven Manx sheep are currently kept in this field. At present, there are 35 hay bales on the site, and it is intended that these should be stored in the shed, together with bags of oats and other essential animal feed. It intended to enlarge the flock to include a further 6 rare breed sheep.

13 A second shed on the appeal site is used to store a rotavator, a strimmer and other tools. In addition, the appellants have purchased a tractor and grass topper to improve the grassed areas, which have now been cut and fenced. The only other wooden construction on the site is a small winter shelter for sheep, as required by the livestock control body.

14 The appeal premises are in a secluded corner of the field and cannot be seen from any roads or footpaths. The shed has been attractively designed and is not a rusty metal container as so often seen in the countryside. It is neither a summerhouse nor a house in which to live. Its appearance will mellow with time. The windows and doors were given to the appellants and were used because they were free. Their colour could easily be changed. They would illuminate light the interior of the shed, so as to allow this building to be used for the growth of seedlings. A glass roof would have been desirable for this purpose, but would have been prohibitively expensive.

15 From the Government’s planning and building control website, the appellants had mistakenly understood that planning approval was not required for the erection of a small shed for agricultural use. Their previous house had had a bigger garden shed. In all the circumstances, the Minister is asked to allow the appeal and grant planning approval.

Other representations

16 The Lezayre Parish Commissioners have recommended that planning approval be granted. Highway Services do not oppose this development.

Inspector’s Assessment

17 I consider the main issues in this case to be first, the agricultural need for the shed with which this appeal is concerned; and second, its effect on the appearance of the rural landscape.

Agricultural need

18 The agricultural potential of this three acre field appears to be limited. The evidence is that the land is prone to flooding. The soil is a hard-pan clay, which may well be difficult to

==== PAGE 4 ====

4

cultivate. A small area has been used as an experimental vegetable patch, to see whether anything would grow there, but no results of this experiment have been given. An amount of metal remains buried beneath the appeal site. A few fruit trees and bushes have been planted; and, at present, seven sheep graze there. Although the appellants plan to enlarge their flock and grow crops, no details of the expected output are supplied. At present, no part of the site appears to have been prepared for planting. I could see no evidence of the shed being used to grow seedlings, although the south and west facing windows probably admit the passage of sufficient light for it to be used for this purpose. However, this appears scarcely to amount to a viable agricultural enterprise. I am doubtful whether the planned agricultural activity would cover the costs of the capital invested, or generate an income equivalent to an agricultural worker’s wage. In the circumstances, it seems to me that this field has an uncertain future as an agricultural unit.

19 Nevertheless, it is evident that there is currently agricultural activity on this land, and substantial investment seems to have been made in livestock, feed and machinery. It seems to me to be necessary that there should be covered accommodation on the holding, in which tools and feed can be stored, if the enterprise is to have any opportunity to thrive and grow. In view of the uncertain future of agriculture here, I consider that it would be unwise to grant approval for the permanent retention of the shed. However, a temporary approval for a trial period of, say, five years, would give the applicants time in which to establish whether the land has a serious future as an agricultural holding. At the end of this trial period, the agricultural use of the land could be reviewed, and a permanent approval could be granted if the circumstances so warranted. That would enable a fair assessment to be made as to whether the requirements of General Policy 3(f) of the Strategic Plan would be met in the longer term.

Effect on the landscape

20 The appeal premises are not visible from any highway and have only a marginal impact on the character of the countryside. I am not satisfied that retention of the shed for a trial period would be counter to Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan.

21 Environment Policy 15 of the Strategic Plan provides that, where there is an agricultural need for a new building, that building should be of an appropriate form, so as to be sympathetic to the landscape of which it forms part. While the shed has the appearance of a domestic summerhouse, it is reasonably well hidden. I do not consider that its retention for a trial period would breach Environment Policy 15. If the agricultural use of the holding is flourishing at the end of the trial period, it may be appropriate to consider whether the shed should be modified or replaced, if the permanent retention of a storage building here is found to be justified.

Conclusions

22 On balance, I consider that approval should be granted for the retention of the shed for a trial period of five years. I consider that planning conditions should be imposed to preclude the

==== PAGE 5 ====

5

use of the shed for non-agricultural purposes; and to require that the shed be removed at the end of the trial period.

Recommendation

23 I recommend that the appeal be allowed and that retrospective planning approval be granted for the erection of an agricultural storage shed at Field 130688, Kella Road, Sulby, Isle of Man, subject to the following conditions:

1 The agricultural storage shed hereby approved shall be used only for agricultural purposes. Reason: The countryside is generally 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. 2 This approval is for a temporary period of five years from the date of this decision, after which the shed hereby approved shall be removed from the site and the ground restored to its former condition.

Reason: The viability of the proposed agricultural use of this land is uncertain. The temporary approval will allow the position to be reconsidered within five years, with a view to then granting approval for a permanent structure if appropriate.

This recommended decision relates to three unnumbered drawings and a photograph, all date stamped as having been received on 1 August 2016.

Michael Hurley BA DipTP Independent Inspector 27 January 2017