155274

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      17/00678/B                                     Page  1  of  17

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 17/00678/B Applicant : IOM Goats Proposal : Alterations, erection of a facility for the rearing / husbandry of goats with associated dairy, butchery, cafe, farm shop and visitor centre along with parking, access alterations and landscaping Site Address : Field 234267 High Tilt Farm Douglas Road Kirk Michael Isle Of Man

Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 17.07.2017 Site Visit : 17.07.2017 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 06.11.2017 __

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to condition

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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

C 2. Prior to the building hereby approved coming into use, the parking and manoeuvring areas and new access / egress track shall be laid out as shown on approved Drawing 22 (date- stamped as having been received 26th June 2017), and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interest of ensuring sufficient parking and manoeuvring within the application site.

C 3. Prior to the commencement of the construction of the building hereby approved, the site access as approved to be amended shall be carried out as shown on approved Drawing 25 (date-stamped as having been received 26th June 2017), and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interest of ensuring sufficient parking and manoeuvring within the application site.

C 4. The farm shop and café and butchery and dairy hereby approved shall be for the benefit of High Tilt Farm only and shall not be run independently of the farm.

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      17/00678/B                                     Page  2  of  17

Reason: To prevent the undesirable establishment of a more general retail use in this countryside location.

C 5. The L-shaped area of the farm shop / café shall be as shown on approved Drawing 20 (date-stamped as having been received 26th June 2017), unless otherwise agreed in advance in writing with the Department.

Reason: To prevent the undesirable establishment of a more general retail use in this countryside location.

C 6. The goods sold from the farm shop hereby approved shall be sourced from produce solely grown or produced on the Isle of Man and seafood products caught off the Isle of Man or processed here and ancillary and / or complementary items to the use of the building as a farm shop.

Reason: The part of the building shown as farm shop shall not be used for any other purpose within Class 1 of Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification).

Plans/Drawings/Information;

The development hereby approved relates to Drawings 20, 21, 22, 24 and 25 and the Design and Access Statement (all date-stamped as having been received 26th June 2017), and also to Drawings 26.6 and 26.3 Rev A (both date-stamped as having been received 24th October 2017).

__

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following persons 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 Article 6(4):

o The owner / occupier of Lhergy Vreck Farm and Little Acres (as the proposed access to the site is also the access to these properties).

__

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OWING TO THE NATURE AND SCALE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED, WHICH COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is a dog-leg-shaped parcel of land situated to the rear of a number of dwellings that line Douglas Road in Kirk Michael. The land is associated with High Tilt Farm, the land ownership of which extends significantly to the north and northwest, being largely bounded in these directions by the eastern extent of Kirk Michael itself. High Tilt Farmhouse is situated just to the northeast of the application site, within the blue-edged land. High Tilt Farm is an established agricultural enterprise, with heavy reliance on goat livestock - hence its perhaps more commonly known name, Isle of Man Goats.

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      17/00678/B                                     Page  3  of  17

1.2 The site is accessed between two dwellings - 'Westlands' and 'Cass A Lergy' - via an existing highway access. The access lane runs along the southeastern boundary of the site and is formed of block paviours with trenches either side. There are a number of trees that line this access road, while the field within the application site also has a number of existing trees to the western and northwestern boundaries.

1.3 The site cannot be readily viewed from the highway, and the existing trees also help screen it from the neighbouring dwellings.

2.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a building to provide a goat rearing / husbandry facility with associated and ancillary uses, comprising:

o Three goat pens, one of which would provide / allow for public interaction visits; o An "Isle of Man product farm shop / visit tickets" area, including café tables and a server area; o An associated kitchen / preparation room; o Two storage rooms; o A staff room; o A dairy, and o A butchery.

2.2 Beyond the building, there would also be associated parking, decked viewing areas, goats / kids play areas ('kids' in this sense understood as being children rather than young goats), and some tree-planting. The building itself would be almost rectangular in plan, and would be finished with a mixed of timber cladding and metal profiled sheeting, with the pitched roof finished in grey. There would be five extract vents sitting proud of the roof apex, with others inserted in the gables. The main building's apex would be 8.3m above ground level, while the associated single storey element has a mono-pitched roof 4.6m above ground level and joining the larger element the latter's eaves level. The long elevation would measure 44m, with the short elevation measuring 31.3m at its longest and 25m at its shortest.

2.3 The application includes a Supporting Statement, which explains the rationale behind the proposal and also gives some more specific comments in respect of the discrete elements of the scheme.

Goat barn

2.4 This will be to house Angora goats over-winter in line with best practice, as well as kidding for this species and also Boers. There will be a small number of dairy goats for retailing of their milk, possibly their cheese, and also with the possibility of these along with the meat being used in the café.

Farm shop

2.5 This would be to sell not just Isle of Man Goats' own products but also "those of other small Manx producers. A real hub for sellers and buyers". The applicants are understood to be passionate about promoting local produce.

2.6 The café would have what is described as an idyllic setting on the farm with a glass frontage to the south and west, incorporating the outside seating areas and a play area for children. The café is intended to provide a range of "light bites, cakes, etc.", all produced locally, to include meat, dairy, salads / vegetables and fruit grown on the land but otherwise sourced locally. Roughly 20-30 covers would be provided.

Commercial kitchen

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      17/00678/B                                     Page  4  of  17

2.7 This is proposed to be created for the café and tours with "specialist cookery courses, etc." concentrating on goat meat and dairy usage.

Community butchery and chill storage facility

2.8 While the farm's goats would continue to be slaughtered at the abattoir, it is intended to store the meat at the site. The 'community' element was described by the agent as follows:

"Generally the small pig / goat producers have their animals culled at the abattoir, but once they have carcasses back, do not have facilities to do butchery / packaging. As IOM Goats are looking to provide their own sterile butchery facility, there are a few producers which may book times to butcher their own meats. This does not affect the local butchers as this is only the likes of the specialist independent goat and Tamworth pig farmers supported by DEFA."

Fleece / Yarn / Dyeing area

2.8 This area is for the processing of mohair fleeces and also for the running of workshops / courses in the use of yarn. It is understood that most wool is sent off-Island and made into socks and other products for resale here.

Farm tours

2.9 There are already tours of the existing facility at Ballanorman Farm in Ballaugh. These have proved very popular for children, families, schools, elderly people and those with disabilities, and it is intended that these would be run from the proposed building, but with additional facilities.

2.10 These would occur roughly 1-2 times per day (Monday to Thursday, 11am to 1pm and 2pm to 4pm), from March / April through to September (when goats are kidding). Roughly 10- 12 people would be expected on each tour, each comprising a mixture of adults and children, and for a two-hour period, depending on weather.

The building proposed

2.11 The statement notes that the proposed building is intended to maximise environmental design and sustainable energy through the use of solar and wind power energy, greywater recycling and reed bed cleaning.

Other matters

2.12 In addition to the building and the uses it would provide, a new access lane is proposed within the site, along with new tree-planting. The new access lane would, along with the car parking area proposed, be laid with gravel matting. The existing access lane would be retained and, while the drawings appear to show two 'in' routes and therefore no 'out' routes, this is likely an error in the positioning of arrows. A new tarmacadam entrance area would be created behind the existing access, along with new render walls and piers to match the existing at a height of 900mm.

2.13 The envisaged number of employees would increase from four to between eight and 10.

3.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 As noted, High Tilt Farm is an established agricultural enterprise, and this is borne out in the recent planning history related to it, which includes the erection of an agricultural building under PA 15/01299/B and nine livestock shelters (PA 14/01267/B).

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                      17/00678/B                                     Page  5  of  17

4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4.1 The application site has two Local Plan zonings that apply: 'Open Space (Agriculture)' to the eastern side, and Predominantly Residential to the west. In respect of the latter zoning, it is noted that two applications have previously been submitted for residential development of significant scale, but both were refused. The primary concern related to the poor visibility that could be achieved from the access that was proposed at the junction of the A3 Peel Road and A4 Douglas Road - off which the application site is accessed. There are no policies within the Kirk Michael Local Plan that are considered material in respect of the assessment of this application, although it is worth noting that the Local Plan does not specify a particular retail or village 'centre' for the settlement, but there are areas zoned as a mixture of Retail and / or Residential.

4.2 At this stage, then, it is appropriate to assess the proposal against those policies that relate to development in the countryside; it is to be noted that the countryside here does not have the additional 'High Landscape Value' protection.

4.3 The Strategic Plan does presume against development on land not zoned for it, and the location of the proposed building would be sited on the land zoned as Open Space (Agriculture). However, there are also exceptions to this where there is a defined, essential agricultural need.

4.4 Part (f) of General Policy 3 states that development essential for the conduct of agriculture is one of those exceptions, with Environment Policy 1 clear that the countryside should be protected for its own sake but Environment Policy 15 setting out the general criteria for approving applications where the Department is convinced that there is an agricultural need for a new building. It is worth noting the wording of that policy in full here:

"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."

4.5 Whereas there is a clear policy support for the re-use of existing buildings of architectural, social or historic interest as non-residential (Environment Policy 16), it is a matter of fact that there is no existing building on the site, and it is a further matter of fact that there are uses proposed within the building that are not agricultural, albeit that they may be linked to the business operating here.

4.6 As such, reference also needs to be made to Business Policy 10, which directs new retail uses to established town and village centres. Business Policy 11 adds further protection: "Tourism development must be in accordance with the sustainable development objectives of this plan; policies and designations which seek to protect the countryside from development

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                      17/00678/B                                     Page  6  of  17

will be applied to tourist development with as much weight as they are to other types of development."

4.7 There are no equivalent policies with respect to specifically café or light industrial uses, whereas the general protection that applies to the Manx countryside as set out in the aforementioned General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 apply to these elements of the proposal. However, there are policies that are clear that land for industrial uses specifically will be zoned through the Area Plan process. It is also known that the Employment Land Review has evidenced an Island-wide shortage of such land, albeit that this is most severely felt in the East. There is no immediate timetable for the start of work on the Area Plan covering Kirk Michael.

4.8 Finally, it is worth bearing in mind paragraph 7.13.2 of the Strategic Plan, which relates to the nature of what is proposed here:

"One of the prime considerations in the determination of development proposals in the countryside will continue to be the conservation and enhancement of the landscape. In terms of the diversification of farms and farm buildings, there may be some circumstances where this may be appropriate and it is acknowledged that small scale enterprises can promote healthy economic activity in rural areas whether this be for commercial, industrial, tourism, sport or recreation uses. There is, however, a general presumption against the introduction of new uses into the countryside (including industrial or office uses):

(a) for which there is no local need; (b) which would materially effect the rural character of an area; (c) which would necessitate the creation of new buildings; and (d) which would be more appropriate in industrial zones, business parks or within urban centres."

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure initially sought to defer consideration of the application in comments received 14th July 2017, noting as follows:

"It is normally the case that such a development would be supported by a Transport Statement giving more details of the access and forecasts of traffic generated by the different uses.

"There are no details of the number of vehicles that are forecasted to visit the site, whether the number of parking spaces are adequate or what provision there is for service vehicles.

"It is important that pedestrians who visit the site on foot are catered for in terms of adequate provision in the form of a footway / footpath...this can also be extended to cyclists.

"Visibility is a key part of determining whether an access is safe for drivers emerging out onto the public highway but also for drivers on the main road approaching the site access from the north / south.

"Drawing no 860.21 shows visibility splays in either direction 2.4m x 110m, the visibility to the left is not drawn correctly, the splay should terminate at the kerb on the site side of the carriageway...this has been measured on site and is 2.4m x 30m.

"Such a reduction is visibility is not considered acceptable and is therefore a concern given vehicle speeds on this particular stretch of road."

5.1.2 On receipt of further information, comprising both further details and also additional drawings, Highway Services revised their position to one of 'no objection', subject to the attaching of conditions:

==== PAGE 7 ====

                                      17/00678/B                                     Page  7  of  17

"The drawings now show the applicant can achieve a 90m sightline in either direction based on a 2.4m set back.

"The applicant has provided additional information on the typical traffic generations and number of parking spaces for the development, these I believe are a reasonable forecast of what you would expect.

"Whilst there maybe peaks in terms of visitors to the farm shops / café type attractions during the summer it is the view of highway services that the site can accommodate additional demand given its size.

"Nevertheless, I would not want to restrict the granting of planning permission on highways grounds.

"Therefore please attach the following conditions:

"1. Prior to development commencing, the visibility splays as shown on drawing nos 860-26- Layout3a & 860-26-Layout 6 shall be provided to the satisfaction of the department and maintained throughout the life of the development thereafter.

"Reason: in the interests of highway safety.

"2. The footpath as shown on approved plans shall be provided prior to development becoming operational.

"Reason: In the interests of pedestrian safety and promoting active travel.

"3. The car parking provision as shown on the approved plans shall be solely for the purposes of accommodating staff and visitors to the centre. The spaces shall remain free from obstruction throughout the life of development.

"Reason: In the interests of highway safety."

5.2 Kirk Michael Commissioners offered no objection to the application in comments received 14th July 2017 and repeat this in comments received on the 3rd November 2017.

5.3 The owner / occupier of Lhergy Vreck Farm, which is situated to the northeast of the application site, and who has a right of way over the access to the application site, objected to the application in comments dated 17th August 2017 but date-stamped as having been received 19th September 2017. In summary, his concerns are:

o The planning notice was not displayed prominently, and I drove past it several times without noticing it; o The previous planning application for the erection of dwellings on this land was refused, one of the most important reasons being the restricted site access. The site would have yielded £40,000 per dwelling, placing a value on the land of between £6 and 8 million. It should be noted that the proposed development involves the widening of the access; o This is a huge development! 25 parking spaces, plus extra for trucks to service the shop, cafeteria, butchery and goat sheds; o The cost must be around £250,000, and it must be asked as to what economic return could be had; o There is not enough information to judge if the proposals' numbers make sense, to this admittedly non-expert eye; o A dressed goat carcass fetches £140 wholesale, with the margins in the region of around £250/goat/year over feed costs, but this was based on 575 Saanens being fed off 340 hectares, not the 100-200 on the land at present;

==== PAGE 8 ====

                                      17/00678/B                                     Page  8  of  17

o Angora hair is highly prized, but its value is based on the quality and this is usually obtained in the cropping of young goats; o There is an established butcher and a new café in the village. I can't see how this can prosper without passing trade. Kirk Michael is not a must-visit destination and while it may do better when the TT is on, bikers are not the first people one thinks of as wanting to play with goats; o What if it is the owner's intention to increase the number of goats on this land? Four sheds / farm buildings have appeared on the land - is factory-farming the intention? This raises many issues; o Confining goats in sheds is contrary to their nature; o Diseases, pathogens and the sheer burden of the correct care of animals intensifies as a geometrical progression when the scale of anything is changed; o Most diseases affecting sheep and goats do not affect humans, but some are zoonotic. Best practice suggests that contact with animals and animal products should be minimised. If animals are raised intensively here, there should be no public access, contradicting the shop and play proposals!; o The land abuts the local school, the local pub and the village; o The proposed shop, butchery, goat and children play area are uphill of the school and proposed drainage into a reed bed is all that will protect the downstream beneficiaries of this drainage, in an area prone to severe flooding; o The key element in this proposal is the widening of the highway access. This is 'bait and switch'. There is no intention to make a profit on the development or even to break even. When / if the project fails, the access will be there, and the real extraction of value from the land will begin - 250+ houses, all developer profit, all infrastructure costs borne by the taxpayer, all inconvenience to be borne by Kirk Michael residents and those who must drive through it; o Any variations of this application should be within the constraints of the present access.

5.4 The agent to the application responded to the comments made as follows:

"Mr Rhys-Davies does not 'share' the drive as this implicates ownership. He has a right of way access his property. It is not Mr Lewis' land that is subject to the Planning Application: this land is owned by a separate company, which has only one shareholder. Mr Rhys-Davies chooses to add the term 'Farm' onto the title of his property Lhergy Vreck Farm. However, he is, and never has been, a farmer of the small amount of land he owns. He is we understand hardly ever in residence, but spends most of his time in New Zealand and/or Los Angeles.

"The planning notice was clearly displayed and a copy of the photographed notice was given to the Planning Department.

"As previously stated the IOM Company owns the land subject to this planning application. The land subject to this application to build the goat facility was not subject to an application to build houses in the past; the proposed housing development applications were on land further down the farm. This is NOT a residential planning application. The widening of the existing Farm access and incorporating the existing field gate is to facilitate proper safe working access for the proposed Goat Facility, in consultation and with the support of Highways. IOM Goats Limited has farmed goats on the land for over 5 years.

"The existing Farm access is already used many times a day. High Tilt is a busy working farm and since the farmers, currently live on their much smaller Holding just north of Ballaugh, are frequently going to and from the main Holding at High Tilt. Last year they erected a new barn during Winter 2016/17 with full planning permission. We have reason to believe that Mr R-D was absent from Lhergy Vreck for such a long period during that Planning Permission and build time that he was totally unaware of the new barn until he saw it completed when he returned to the Island after a lengthy absence.

==== PAGE 9 ====

                                      17/00678/B                                     Page  9  of  17

"It should be noted that Mr Rhys-Davies is not party to IOM Goats stocking levels now or in the future and we are unaware of him having any knowledge of the true returns that can be achieved from a well-run agricultural business. "Mr Rhys-Davis we understand is not a Farmer with Goat Rearing Expertise. IOM Goats herd started with 13 goats in Autumn 2012 and it peaked at 285 goats in June 2016. They keep very accurate records, not just for business purposes, but also because it is a legal requirement with DEFA of any livestock farming. As of the 17th October 2017 the goat herd stands at 169 animals.

"We are not sure where Mr Rhys-Davies is obtaining his data from concerning Goat Rearing & Market Values. Perhaps from the UK where there are quite a few goat meat producers competing against one another? IOM Goats Limited are the ONLY farm on the Isle of Man to produce goat meat, goat skins, and a range of Angora goat Mohair products. They do not sell our goat products wholesale, but sell everything direct to their customers. Their meat prices are some of the highest on the Island and all our meat is sold on Island for the benefit of the Island community.

"IOM Goats do not farm Saanen Goats so we are not sure of the significance of this data.

"There appears to be a complete misunderstanding of any aspect of goat farming. Yes, Kid Mohair is highly prized and our Laceweight Manx Mohair knitting yarns, made only from our Finest Kid (first shearing) sell for £38 per 100g. However, the kid fleeces are useless for turning into our highly popular Manx Mohair socks. For Mohair socks only the fleeces from older animals are required as the hair has become smooth rather than baby soft. So we use only our adult fleeces for the sock yarn for our range of Manx Mohair socks. In the first 12 months of sale our sock turnover was well in excess of £20K and our socks have gone to many parts of the world including Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Siberia, Canada, USA, various parts of Europe, and have even been worn on the Antarctic peninsula.

"IOM Goats have hundreds of visitors to their home farm in Ballaugh to do just that... 'play' with the goats. They run 'kidding chaos' which is similar to Lambing Live events that some sheep farmers run. On their last Open Weekend, advertised only 5 days before it was held, they had over 350 visitors in two days. There are all sorts of ways of increasing the economic return of goats. For example, Goat Yoga is the current 'must do' in parts of the USA. Diversification is a must in current farming and IOM Goats aim to follow through on many goat diversifications. They are in the process of changing the herd make up slightly to include dairy goats and have reserved some very special dairy goats that will be born in Cheshire early next year. Constantly they are being asked for Goat Milk, hence the proposal to create a facility that can offer this service to the IOM Market. Goats' milk is nutritionally closest to cows' milk than other alternatives and yet it has certain physical properties that set it apart. Many people who perceive they have issues with cows' milk can drink goats' milk without any problems, and even say that their symptoms (such as eczema; asthma; bloatedness; constipation; digestive discomfort and catarrh) are reduced or go away altogether.

"Again there appears a complete lack of knowledge re goats: goats have almost zero lanolin in their coats/fleeces (which are hair, not wool) and they also have little body fat for insulation. This combination, being the opposite of fat, waterproof sheep, mean that goats MUST have access to weather proof shelter 24/7. They must be able to get in from rain. All the fields have either a field shelter or access to a barn for the grazing goats. Interestingly the Boer goats like to sleep out in a hard frost, but all our goats run into the shelters at the slightest drop of rain.

"The herd is predominantly kept free range. Only if ill and needing TLC or at kidding time are Does kept in and this is vital for various reasons:

o the bonding of new mums to their kids; o to check on the feeding by new mums of their kids;

==== PAGE 10 ====

                                      17/00678/B                                     Page  10  of  17

o to check on the health of the goat mums and kids; o to apply ear tags, iodine cords... lots of jobs are better done with penned goat mums. o New born goat kids cannot regulate their body temperature until around 48 hours after birth. o The goat kids are extremely valuable and we need to monitor them and their mums during the crucial first few days after kidding. o It does of course also facilitate the highly lucrative kidding chaos sessions!

"IOM Goats are in the process of applying 'lean principles' to their goat business. Higher numbers are not possible as our stocking ratio is dependent on our acreage as free range with access to shelter is the best way to keep goats. With good business practice, diversification, and 'leaning', income can be increased without having to increase the goat herd. IOM Goats do not advocate and never will pursue 'factory farming'. The extra barn space will be invaluable for the Angoras when they are first sheared which has to be March and September/October each year. Also the extra space for easier kidding. Of course the large barn will also provide the extra space required for milking. It does not mean that the sheared goats or the dairy goats will be locked in and never see a blade of grass. It is about having the facilities to exercise best practice at any given time.

"IOM Goats have never knowingly facilitated direct contact with an ill goat and any member of the public. Of course goats can get ill and they are experienced with all sorts of injuries and infections that a goat can sustain and the necessary treatment. They seek the advice of local vets whenever they need to. The new facility will not need to have any poorly goats in it. IOM Goats have already decided that a 'sick bay' when needed will be at their home farm well away from the main herd. The new facility will give them such options.

"At risk of being repetitive, IOM Goats are not looking to increase their herd, but simply to offer more products and interactive experiences from their goat herd. Yes, there are health issues with direct contact with any animal, not just agricultural species, but even domestic dogs and cats. For example, in their direct contact kidding chaos sessions, they do not allow pregnant women to attend (for similar reasons that pregnant women should not deal with cat faeces/ cat litter trays) and they fully inform visitors regarding the hygiene aspects of handling goats. Much enjoyment is gained from close contact with people-friendly farm animals. They often host Special Needs groups and also Schools. With a better purpose-built facility they would aim to give an even better goat experience, with the educational aspects that a goat farm brings to the younger visitor.

"The goats are all grazing fields that abut the school, the pub and various private residences already. IOM Goats take exception to this [flooding-related] comment particularly. Some years ago they traced the pooling of rainwater in their bottom field (behind Kelly's Yard) to the blockage in a drainage ditch belonging to Mr R-D and Mr and Mrs Naylor. When approached all parties denied ownership of the drainage ditch. Since the Lewis family had originally farmed a larger acreage at High Tilt, that included Lhergy Vreck they literally knew the lie of the land. They confirmed ownership of the drainage ditch through the Land Registry to the above parties and had to involve the Water Board to ensure proper clearance of a very large fallen tree that was blocking the ditch. They also found that the culvert that ran under the yard at Lhergy Vreck (the Naylors and Mr R-D being jointly responsible for) had completely collapsed. This resulted in ALL the water running off the hill behind Lhergy Vreck flowing over the lower fields instead of being contained in the drainage ditch. When they started goat farming on the land, some of the ground beneath field gates had been eroded by approximately 18inches due to Lhergy Vreck`s neglect of its waterways.

"IOM Goats Limited after ongoing consultation have been given the full support of the Village Commissioners, DEFA and the Tourist Department for this application and its proposals for the business and public interaction. DEFA wants IOM Goats to make it 'a Destination'. It ticks all the boxes pertaining to the Government's Food Matters Strategy as IOM Goats seek to diversify

==== PAGE 11 ====

                                      17/00678/B                                     Page  11  of  17

their goat business further and bring more products to the local community. It will of course provide employment opportunities and a great venue for the community & Island visitors. They have sold all their goat products direct to their customers for the last 4+ years. They know their customers and know their target audiences. They have straw polled many of the people who buy from them about this Planning Application and every time the answer is the same; yes please, we will support it and cannot wait for it to be up and running."

5.5 A letter of objection from the owner/occupier of Little Acres, Baltic Road was recieved on the 6th November 2017 and raises various concerns as summarised below.

o "The occupants of Little Acres... and of Lhergy Vreck farm ... have a servitude right of way, specified in the deeds, over the acess road. The new plans for the access would alter the route of our right of way but its route cannot be altered without our consent. The applicants do not have such consent from ourselves nor from (the occupants of Lhergy Vreck Farm). therefore, the access on the new plan cannot be implemented. o "An application to build houses, about 4-5 years ago was refused by the planning inspector because amongst other concerns, it would spoil the view from Douglas corner. The present application would not be so large or so near to Douglas corner but it would still significantly adversely affect an important Manx view" o "There is no estimate of traffic volume" o "There is no estimate of profitability. It would not be good planning to create buildings for short term use on green field sites". o "The land is not scheduled for commercial use. Indeed, on the local plan the land is scheduled to remain "Agricultural" (a butchers shop is not agricultural)".

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The planning application raises a number of issues owing to the variety of uses proposed:

o The principle of agriculture-related development in this location; o The principle of non-agriculture-related development in this location, specifically retail (Class 1(a)), café (Class 3) and commercial kitchen (Class 5), along with public access in the form of tours; o The design of the building proposed; o The visual impact of this and the landscaping and hardstanding proposed; o The impact on neighbouring living conditions, and o The acceptability of the proposed development from a highway safety point of view.

The principle of agriculture-related development in this location

6.2 The established nature of the agricultural enterprise, and the applicants' long-term interest and work in an agricultural background, are together sufficient to conclude that the agricultural elements of the proposed building are acceptable in principle. The 'essentialness' test as set out in General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 is, therefore, considered met.

The principle of non-agriculture-related development in this location, specifically retail (Class 1(a)), café (Class 3) and commercial kitchen (Class 5)

6.3 While the agricultural element of the building is judged acceptable, it is a matter of fact that this is inextricably linked with the other elements. There is a much more difficult balance to reach: were there solely a shop, café and commercial kitchen proposed here then it is likely that the principle would be concluded as being unacceptable as they would fail to comply with the policies that seek to protect the countryside for its own sake (and could also fail the policy tests that require new retail space to be located within existing town centres as set out in Strategic Policy 9; Business Policies 9 and 10). While there is an exception to this principle for essential agricultural need, there is no equivalent provision in respect of Classes 1, 3 and 5.

==== PAGE 12 ====

                                      17/00678/B                                     Page  12  of  17

There can be no argument that these uses are, in Planning terms, ancillary to the agricultural use. 'Ancillary' in Planning means that the other use is fully reliant (often the word used is 'parasitic') upon a main use without which the 'ancillary' use simply could not exist. That is not the case here.

6.4 Accordingly, any recommendation will be finely balanced, and it is appropriate to reflect on the other material considerations applying in respect of this proposal. These are: (a) the harm that would arise from this proposal; (b) the alternative options available, and (c) the other possible benefits that may result.

6.5 In terms of the first matter, the main harm will be through the loss of countryside land that should be protected for its own sake and the possible impact on nearby retail centres. In respect of the former, this will be largely addressed in the assessment of the design of the building that comes later in this report. However, it is true that this land cannot be readily viewed from public positions, and moreover - despite what may appear from the mapping / aerial photography of the area - the field in question does not sit within open countryside and, due in part to its location between residential dwellings, feels more like a private paddock. While a new building here would break a near horizon as viewed from the private access lane within the site, it is not considered that the erection of a well-designed building would be objectionable. (It is perhaps helpful to note that if the application proposed a 'pure' agricultural building, the design of that proposed here would be recommended as meeting the provisions of Environment Policy 15.)

6.6 As noted, Kirk Michael does not have a defined retail centre. There are commercial premises along the Main Road, but these do not form a particularly coherent or well-defined commercial core. One of the units is a grocer and may, possibly, sell similar products to those proposed here. Commercial competition is not a material planning consideration, of course, but ensuring the vitality and viability of retail centres is such a consideration, and moreover there is a general expectation that new retail uses should not be located outside of established centres to that end. However, the scale and nature of that proposed here would be unlikely to have such an effect. Reference to the nature of the retail use is particularly important. The building, overall, is large and the retail element could - one day, in the future - expand beyond that shown on the submitted drawings and moreover could, without appropriate planning control, alter to another form of retail that could be of a scale or nature to materially harm the vitality and viability of Kirk Michael, to the village's overall detriment. Accordingly, should the application be approved, there would need to be conditions limited the amount of retail space to that shown on the submitted drawings and also in respect of the type of goods that could be sold from the defined area.

6.7 There is also, potentially, concern that the failure of the business proposed could result in pressure on the Department to accept an application seeking approval for new development in its place. This concern, raised to some extent by the private objector, is well-founded in this case. Normally, with agricultural buildings, this is not a concern since such buildings are specifically excluded from the definition of 'previously developed land', meaning that part (c) of General Policy 3 could take effect.

6.8 The majority of the building proposed is, however, agricultural. Therefore, only those non-agricultural (i.e. minority) elements of the building proposed could be judged as falling into the definition of 'PDL'. It is also strongly worth bearing in mind that the simple fact of land being previously developed does not give a carte blanche approval for redevelopment. There are other policy tests before such a scheme could be judged acceptable just in principle, before the details are considered (namely: "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 [emphasis added] where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment"). It is judged very likely that an application seeking approval for redevelopment could struggle to

==== PAGE 13 ====

                                      17/00678/B                                     Page  13  of  17

adequately demonstrate that the first clause is applicable while, as noted already, the building proposed is quite well-screened and is judged appropriate in form, meaning that an application seeking to demonstrate that a redevelopment proposal was acceptable may fall foul of the element that demands an improvement in visual impact terms.

6.9 The concern raised by the owner of Lhergy Vreck Farm in respect of the use of the wider landholding for 250+ dwellings is unlikely to come to fruition. The fundamental point is that the highway access is unsafe for such a level of development, and cannot be made so - this was indeed one reason for the refusal issued to the application seeking approval for the dwellings in this area. Therefore, the widened access as proposed could not be sufficient to overcome those previously raised concerns.

6.10 The above three paragraphs do delve a little into hypothesising, but this is appropriate given the concern raised and also given that the purpose of the Strategic Plan is to ensure sustainable development, which intrinsically requires a consideration of the potential long-term impacts of a proposal. Accordingly, it is concluded that this

6.11 In respect of alternative options, in this case it is to be strongly borne in mind that the applicants' land is located in the immediate vicinity, while for the commercial kitchen there is a very limited amount of light industrial land within the village of Kirk Michael itself. There are few vacant commercial premises in Kirk Michael. In view of the nature of the proposal, which relies to some degree on the ability of people to understand the process behind the creation of animal-sourced products, splitting these separate elements may not be the most sustainable or appropriate way (or even viable) for the business to operate. It is not considered that an alternative site for the uses and the building proposed would be reasonable to seek.

6.12 Finally, there are some benefits that may accrue from the proposal. Firstly, it is noted that the proposal is apparently unique. While uniqueness per se is not a reason to approve an application, it remains true that the proposal is not likely to arise again, and its uniqueness (in terms of the individual components) reflects the applicants' existing business model. Secondly, while not tourist accommodation, the business model does reflect a use to which people may wish to travel and experience. This in turn has a positive effect on the economy, and moreover as the proposal has its roots in agriculture the proposed building could reasonably be judged to be proposed in an appropriate location. Thirdly, the proposal reflects agricultural diversification, which is to be encouraged in principle and where such diversification can be shown to not have other materially and adversely harmful effects. Fourthly, there is a growing interest in locally sourced and produced food and products on the Island, and this proposal would help contribute to that growth. These are all material points in favour of the application.

The design of the building proposed

6.13 The design proposed is, as noted, appropriate for an agricultural enterprise and location. It is bespoke to the uses proposed and moreover would reflect contemporary agricultural design. The addition of ground-level glazing helps hint at its public accessibility and the use of timber will help reduce its impact. While the intention to have as little environmental impact as possible is welcome, limited weight can be given to this as limited information has been provided to this end with the application. Nevertheless, the form, mass and design of the building would not harmfully affect the character of the countryside.

The visual impact of the building proposed and the landscaping and hardstanding proposed

6.14 As noted, the site is not particularly visible from public positions, and moreover it feels unlike what might be considered as traditional 'agricultural land'. The new building would be essentially agricultural in appearance but with some elements designed to allow it to be welcoming to attending members of the public. Given the nature of the site, and also of the uses proposed, this styling is judged to be appropriate for this location. The proposed tree-

==== PAGE 14 ====

                                      17/00678/B                                     Page  14  of  17

planting and hard and soft landscaping will reinforce the boundaries of the site and also retain a quasi-agricultural, but essentially rural, character and appearance.

The impact on neighbouring living conditions

6.15 Owing to its position, the building itself would not affect neighbouring living conditions. It is too far from existing residential dwellings to result in any material loss of outlook.

6.16 However, the comings and goings of vehicular traffic will have a material impact. At present, traffic movements are limited to those associated with the farm already and also the small handful of private residences along this track. The number of people potentially visiting this facility would increase those traffic levels significantly and, with the access proposed to be immediately between two dwellings, there is a chance that this increase in traffic movements - both in and out - throughout the week may well harm local living conditions through the noise created by vehicles, which, it must be remembered, will be private cars, possibly minibuses or coaches, and certainly commercial (delivery) vehicles. While there is an argument that the people here live immediately adjacent to the TT course, and therefore some element of disruption from vehicles is inevitable, this is at present limited to four weeks per year.

6.17 The road is a busy one (irrespective of its being the TT course: it is busy as a main route through the Island) at present, and any additional noise arising from the vehicular traffic associated with the proposed building does not seem likely to result in an unduly harmful impact on neighbouring living conditions. This is something of a balanced judgement - in the absence of any noise reports - but strong weight has been given to the lack of objection received on this point and also the general disturbance that already exists to some degree purely by virtue of the existing highway.

The acceptability of the proposed development from a highway safety point of view

6.18 The views of Highway Services are relied upon. The additional traffic can, it would appear, be accommodated safely from the access, and the development would be connected to a main road capable of accommodating additional levels of traffic. The conditions recommended by Highway Services are considered reasonable.

Other issues

6.19 The concerns raised with regards disease are not really capable of being material planning considerations, since there is no way to control the number of livestock on a particular area of land through the planning process. Concern regarding the commercial viability of the development is not a material consideration per se, but the potential impact of the business failing in terms of the effect on the long-term use of the land has been addressed earlier in this report.

7.0 CONCLUSIONS 7.1 The application has a number of positive features. While there are clearly some in- principle concerns, it is concluded that these are outweighed by the otherwise limited harm that these would seem likely to bring, alongside the positive nature of the detail of the application. The Island is lucky to benefit from a close relationship between its residents and its farm animals, and this application would help develop that relationship further. While the concerns raised by the local resident are noted, these are not judged sufficient on which to base a recommendation to refuse.

7.2 Conditions are required in order to provide an appropriate level of control over the use of the building, which is key to its acceptability. Three of the recommended conditions reflect those attached to the approved farm shop at Close Leece Farm, which the Planning Committee may recall assessing and determining earlier this year (PA 17/00322/B). It is to be

==== PAGE 15 ====

                                      17/00678/B                                     Page  15  of  17

remembered that planning conditions must meet several legal tests, one of which is their necessity. The suggested Condition 6 could be difficult to enforce, and may be considered unnecessary in the event that recommended Condition 4 is retained.

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 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: 13.11.2017

Signed : E RILEY

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.

==== PAGE 16 ====

                                      17/00678/B                                     Page  16  of  17

PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 13.11.2017

Application No. :

17/00678/B Applicant : IOM Goats Proposal : Alterations, erection of a facility for the rearing / husbandry of goats with associated dairy, butchery, cafe, farm shop and visitor centre along with parking, access alterations and landscaping Site Address : Field 234267 High Tilt Farm Douglas Road Kirk Michael Isle Of Man

Presenting Officer : Mr Edmond Riley

Addendum to the Officer’s Report

The Committee noted that Highway Services recommended three conditions but that only one of these had made its way onto the recommended condition set. Accordingly, they enquired as to whether or not those conditions should be added, and it was agreed that they had likely not been included because of an error and it was therefore agreed that they should be included on the approval notice.

Conditions of Approval

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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

C 2. Prior to the building hereby approved coming into use, the parking and manoeuvring areas and new access / egress track shall be laid out as shown on approved Drawing 22 (date- stamped as having been received 26th June 2017), and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interest of ensuring sufficient parking and manoeuvring within the application site.

C 3. Prior to the commencement of the construction of the building hereby approved, the site access as approved to be amended shall be carried out as shown on approved Drawing 25 (date-stamped as having been received 26th June 2017), and retained as such thereafter.

==== PAGE 17 ====

                                      17/00678/B                                     Page  17  of  17

Reason: In the interest of ensuring sufficient parking and manoeuvring within the application site.

C 4. The farm shop and café and butchery and dairy hereby approved shall be for the benefit of High Tilt Farm only and shall not be run independently of the farm.

Reason: To prevent the undesirable establishment of a more general retail use in this countryside location.

C 5. The L-shaped area of the farm shop / café shall be as shown on approved Drawing 20 (date-stamped as having been received 26th June 2017), unless otherwise agreed in advance in writing with the Department.

Reason: To prevent the undesirable establishment of a more general retail use in this countryside location.

C 6. The goods sold from the farm shop hereby approved shall be sourced from produce solely grown or produced on the Isle of Man and seafood products caught off the Isle of Man or processed here and ancillary and / or complementary items to the use of the building as a farm shop.

Reason: The part of the building shown as farm shop shall not be used for any other purpose within Class 1 of Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification).

C 7. Prior to the building hereby approved coming into use, the footpath as shown on approved plans shall be provided.

Reason: In the interests of pedestrian safety and promoting active travel.

C 8. The car parking as shown on the approved plans shall be solely for the purposes of accommodating staff and visitors to the centre. The spaces shall remain free from obstruction while the building hereby approved is in use.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

Plans/Drawings/Information

The development hereby approved relates to Drawings 20, 21, 22, 24 and 25 and the Design and Access Statement (all date-stamped as having been received 26th June 2017), and also to Drawings 26.6 and 26.3 Rev A (both date-stamped as having been received 24th October 2017).