Officer Report

Application No.: 17/00322/B Applicant: Mrs Tracey Ridgway Proposal: Conversion of existing barn to provide a farm shop (Class 1) and cafe (Class 3) with associated kitchen, erection of an agricultural building, improvement works to existing farm tracks and creation of additional parking Site Address: Close Leece Farm Patrick Road St Johns Isle of Man IM4 3BR Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 20.04.2017 Site Visit: 20.04.2017 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OWING TO THE COMMENTS FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY, WHICH AMOUNT TO AN OBJECTION, WHILE THE APPLICATION CARRIES A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE.

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is a large area of land straddling the north and south of the Patrick Road that runs roughly east/west between A27 to the west and St. John's village to the east. The site comprises all the land associated with Close Leece Farm, which includes a recently completed dwelling and a stone barn to the south of the highway, with the majority of the fields with associated farm animal shelter buildings to the north. It is an active and working farm that has expanded significantly in recent years. - 1.2 The barn, which has had its render removed to expose the natural stone behind, is two storeys in height and in apparently sound structural condition. It is situated almost immediately south of the highway, further southwards from which the land rises steeply up towards the new house. Along the access track from the highway to the dwelling are some pig pens. - 1.3 To the north are the open fields associated with the farm. To the northwest are mobile chicken coops, while to the northeast are goat field shelters. Stock-proof fencing is situated across these fields. There are two highway accesses from Patrick Road, either side of a treed bank that runs in a northeastern direction. The land to the north is, topographically, very flat, which is perhaps due to the nearby River Neb that cuts through the northeastern side of the farm's landholding. - 1.4 The submitted application includes a Planning Statement that provides a background on Close Leece Farm. Historically a dairy farm, it was no longer operational when the applicants purchased it in 2009 and as a result they cleared the redundant buildings and the old farmhouse. The farm, at 42 acres, is small and as such the applicants have concentrated on premium products (rare breed; free range; high welfare standards) that are supplied to local restaurants, cafes and hotels. They have 750 chickens, 30 Golden Guernsey goats (an increase from 13 in 2014, according to the planning history), 30 Tamworth pigs and four beehives. The applicants explain that their objective now is to make Close Leece Farm a viable business with a long-term future.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application has been subject to some alterations since its original submission owing to concern raised by various officers within the Environmental Protection teams, Highway Services and also the Commissioners in respect of the effect the proposals would have on a freshwater environment and also highway safety. Following extensive negotiations between the parties, the application has been amended and is now not subject to any concerns on these matters from the statutory central government consultees - though the Commissioners' originally stated reservations have not been amended. The amended drawings were circulated to the interested parties for their further view. - 2.2 The application now proposes a number of separate elements, some major and others more minor, all of which are explained in the Planning Statement, which has been updated to reflect the changes made to the application since its initial submission. Each element is set out in turn below. Barn conversion

2.2 A structural survey was prepared for a previous application for another development proposal, and has been submitted again on this occasion for completeness. It explains that a renovation of the barn is structurally practicable. - 2.3 Proposed is the conversion of the barn to a mixed use of café, farm shop and commercial kitchen. The existing windows and doors would be fully retained, with repairs and repainting undertaken as necessary. A small lean-to toilet block is proposed at the rear of the barn, which would be formed entirely of Manx stone and natural slate and provide two WCs, one accessibility for people with disabilities. Internally, there would be no changes to the first floor arrangement, while at the ground floor one of the internal walls would be broken through and another more or less removed. Six tables with four seats to each are shown in an L-shape around the southwestern corner of the building; while 28 covers would be provided inside. The café, farm shop and commercial kitchen will be fairly well interlinked in use terms, although the shop may sell some products from other Manx farms. The commercial kitchen will produce local and export food products. - 2.4 It is proposed that the café / shop would be open 9am to 6pm seven days per week, although the Planning Statement suggests that these are likely to be condensed during the offseason and at the initial stages of opening. A new barn - 2.5 A new barn is proposed to the north of the Patrick Road, to be accessed from the western of the two field accesses. This would provide for a variety of uses: a goat milking parlour, an egg processing and packing room, four pig / goat stalls, and a vehicle and general storage area. There is also to be a store room within the upper storey of the building, which is described as also having the potential to satisfy any future demand for the expansion of the commercial kitchen. - 2.6 The building would be 28m in length by 14.5m in width, and would sit perpendicular to the highway approximately 15m from it. It would be 5m in height to its eaves, 7m in height to its apex. It would be finished entirely in metal cladding: the front elevation wold have a single, central opening, while the rear elevation would be punctured by five separate openings for the egg processing room and pig / goat stalls. Access alterations, parking facilities, manoeuvring areas - 2.7 Both the converted and new barn would be accompanied by various alterations to the land north and south of the highway to provide access, manoeuvring and associated parking facilities.

2.8 In respect of the new barn, there would be a turning area for delivery trucks, formed of hardcore and gravel. This would be something akin to an L-shape, 33m in length at its longest and 13m in width at its widest. It is not proposed that any of this be used for parking for members of the public. A visibility splay of 2.4m by 90m is shown on the drawing. - 2.9 In respect of the proposed barn conversion, again a visibility splay of 2.4m by 90m is shown from the existing access. Three parking spaces are to be provided to the east of the barn (but west of the access track that snakes up to the house), with a further 10 to be provided east of that access track and within an area that is well-treed around the boundaries but fairly open where the proposed parking area would be. The Planning Statement indicates that there was a Dutch barn here until 2011 when it was demolished due to redundancy. The foundations and base for the barn remain and the car park would be sited on this: as such, the Planning Statement avers, no trees would be affected by this element of the proposal. Beyond eight of the spaces to the east is an historic concrete yard and turning area with an existing highway access. This access is proposed to be closed off. The new parking areas would be finished with hardcore and gravel, much like that to the north. Foul water treatment - 2.10 Both the new barn and the proposed barn conversion would need waste water treatment. A new Klargester biodisc treatment plant would be installed to serve the converted barn, with a 2000 litre underground storage tank to receive flow from the drains in the stalls / milking area. Both these would be installed to the north of the highway, with the new pipe from the converted barn to be installed under the highway. The storage tank is proposed following comments made by officers within DEFA regarding water quality but also good husbandry. Reinforced farm tracks - 2.11 The final element of the application is the reinforcement of tracks through the farm. The Planning Statement notes that there is need to gain vehicular access to fields to provide feed for animals. In wetter times the tracks at present are apparently so unusable that feed has to be transported by hand. The proposed reinforcement would be done through the laying of terram geotextile with two strips of hardcore, to a depth of around 100mm, with a total of roughly 550m of track to be laid. The majority of this would run from the two field accesses northwards, with spines to the east and west. The Planning Statement is clear that this is not intended to form a permanent roadway but, rather, to allow enough traction for a farm vehicle to use it. Other matters - 2.12 As noted, the application has been quite significantly amended since it was originally submitted. The new barn was originally proposed in a different location, towards the River Neb, but this was within an area at risk of flooding, while Environmental Protection and Fisheries officers also raised caution and concern respectively regarding the possible impact on the water quality and protected riverine species. Highway Services also initially sought the deferral of the application seeking further information / clarification with regards visibility splays, car parking numbers and manoeuvring areas and also service vehicle areas. The amended plans were submitted as a means to address those concerns; the comments received are set out in Section 5 of this report.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, including several in recent years, but the majority of which relate to the creation of the new dwelling as described above. - 3.2 Of most relevant to the current proposal is PA 14/00958/B, which gained approval for the "creation of mobile goat field shelters, mobile chicken coops and installation of stock fencing".

4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 4.1 The application site is in an area zoned as "Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance" as zoned on the 1982 Development Plan; it is not zoned for any particular kind of development. - 4.2 There are a number of elements to the proposal, which require assessment against different policies. All the elements require assessment against General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 2, with additions as set out below. - 4.3 The proposed new barn also needs to be assessed against Environment Policy 15 and parts (d) and (l) of General Policy 2. - 4.4 The proposed barn conversion also needs to be assessed against parts (b), (c), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of General Policy 2, and also against Environment Policies 16 and 34, Business Policy 10 and Transport Policy 7. - 4.5 The proposed waste water treatment development needs also to be assessed against Environment Policies 7 and 8. - 4.6 The proposed farm tracks also need to be assessed against parts (b), (c), (g), (h) and (i) of General Policy 2. - 4.7 Those policies are set out below:

General Policy 2 (in part):

"Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:

(b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
(c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;
(d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;

(f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
(g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
(h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
(i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding."

General Policy 3 (in part):

"Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:

(b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11); (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry."

Environment Policy 2:

"The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:

(a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or
(b) the location for the development is essential."

Environment Policy 7:

"Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which could not be overcome by mitigation measures will not be permitted. Where development is proposed which would affect a watercourse, planning applications must comply with the following criteria:

(a) all watercourses in the vicinity of the site must be identified on plans accompanying a planning application and include an adequate risk assessment to demonstrate that works will not cause long term deterioration in water quality;
(b) details of pollution and alleviation measures must be submitted;
(c) all engineering works proposed must be phased in an appropriate manner in order to avoid a reduction in water quality in any adjacent watercourse; and
(d) development will not normally be allowed within 8 metres of any watercourse in order to protect the aquatic and bankside habitats and species."

Environment Policy 8:

"Agricultural buildings will not be permitted on sites where their existence and associated discharges would result in a breach of the "Code of Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Water.""

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."

Environment Policy 16 (in part): "The use of existing rural buildings for new purposes such as tourist, or small-scale industrial/commercial use may be permitted where:

(a) it is demonstrated that the building is no longer required for its original purpose and where the building is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation;
(b) the reuse of the building will result in the preservation of fabric which is of historic, architectural, or social interest or is otherwise of visual attraction;
(c) it is demonstrated that the building could accommodate the new use without requiring extension or adverse change to appearance or character;
(d) there would not be unacceptable implications in terms of traffic generation;
(e) conversion does not lead to dispersal of activity on such a scale as to prejudice the vitality and viability of existing town and village services; and
(f) the use of existing buildings involves significant levels of redevelopment to accommodate the new use, the benefits secured by the proposal in terms of impact on the environment and the rural economy shall outweigh the continued impact of retaining the existing buildings on site." Environment Policy 34:

"In the maintenance, alteration or extension of pre-1920 buildings, the use of traditional materials will be preferred."

Business Policy 10: "Retail development will be permitted only in established town and village centres, with the exceptions of neighbourhood shops in large residential areas and those instances identified in Business Policy 5." Transport Policy 7: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards."

- 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1.1 Highway Services initially sought for the application to be deferred in comments made 11th April 2017. They sought drawings "indicating that all vehicle types expected to visit the site can enter and leave the site in forward gear without obstructing oncoming traffic. A drawing to an appropriate scale is required demonstrating that the required visibility splays of 2.4m x 90m in each direction are available without obstruction."
5.1.2 Commenting informally on the proposed amended plans (and also further details showing vehicle tracking information) prior to the submission of those, Highway Services expressed the view that they were acceptable and that they would not object to the application on the basis of those amended drawings. However, at the time of writing (26th June 2017), no formal comment has been received by Highway Services and so it is hoped that an update can be given verbally to the Planning Committee.

5.2.1 The Inland Fisheries Development Manager initially noted a significant lack of information submitted with the application. Commenting on 24th March 2017 - prior to the application being amended to show the new barn set well away from the River Neb - she noted that there are known salmon spawning gravels here and there was concern about agricultural runoff affecting the water quality. This concern was reinforced by the Environmental Protection Officer on 27th March 2017 (also commenting prior to the application's amendment), and latterly by the Agricultural Policy Manager on 26th April 2017, who further commented that:

"…I would say that it is highly inappropriate for Parlour and Dairy washings to be allowed to go straight into a 'land' drain. Equally there must be some washings derived from cleaning the farrowing house which also should be contained and dealt with accordingly."

5.2.2 Following discussion with these three officers and the applicants, the position of the new barn was amended to that as described in Sections 2.5-2.6 of this Report.
5.2.3 Commenting on the proposed amendments, the Agricultural Policy Manager stated on 18th May 2017 (in part) that "This proposed 'entrapment' and treating process should meet my concerns."
5.2.4 Commenting on the proposed amendments, the Inland Fisheries Development Manager stated on 18th May 2017:

"I can confirm that the new position of the barn and the inclusion of the pit to receive waste (assuming it is of the correct design for operations) do address the concerns that Inland Fisheries raised regarding potential impact of run-off into the watercourse. The proposed new Klargester with soakaway to land also appears to be a positive move to ensure that waste from other parts of the proposed development do not impact on watercourses."

5.3 The Senior Biodiversity Officer noted that the proposed new barn was near a river whose banks have been reported as exhibiting Japanese knotweed. He recommended the site be checked to that end and that steps be taken to ensure there is no spread of the plant from any of the proposed works. These comments were received 7th April 2017, prior to the application being amended to show the new barn set well away from the river banks in question. - 5.4 Manx Utilities' flood risk team sought a flood risk assessment. These comments were

received 5th April 2017, prior to the application being amended to show the new barn set well away from the area of Close Leece Farm at risk of flooding.

5.5 Patrick Parish Commissioners commented on the application, unfortunately without resolving to either support or object to it, in a letter received 12th April 2017. They noted that the application covered diverse elements that may have been better served by separate applications. They offered no comment with respect to the farm tracks, but felt the proposed parking area insufficient for a 28cover café and shop and also noted concern about possible roadside parking in respect of the barn conversion. They also noted concern with the proposed position of the new barn, welcoming its position as close as possible to existing (DOI) buildings, but also raising concern that it could be seen from the nearby Heritage Trail and moreover that significant screening would be required. On all points the Commissioners were commenting prior to the application being amended to show the new barn in the position as described in Sections 2.5-2.6 of this Report. - 5.6 It should be noted that no additional comments were received in respect of the application subsequent to its major amendments.

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 In the first place, it is considered that the minor elements are essentially unobjectionable. Certainly the waste water treatment elements would not be seen and would address a demand arising from the development proposed in respect of the two barns. - 6.2 The reinforced access tracks are large in scale and would have a visual impact on the appearance of the area. The works are proposed, though, to existing tracks and the use of two strips of hardcore above what would be an obscured geotextile membrane would not have a harmfully greater visual impact than the existing situation. Moreover, there is a clear and defined need for these works in the locations proposed such that, even were there any visual harm resulting from the proposal, it is considered that this would be outweighed by the provisions of part (f) of General Policy 3, and also the caveats of part (b) of Environment Policy 2. - 6.3 Turning to the more major aspects of the proposal, in some ways the proposal to convert one agricultural barn to a non-agricultural use alongside a proposal to erect a new barn might be said to pull in opposite directions. Environment Policy 16 is clear that such conversion works should

only be approved where the existing use of the building can be shown to be redundant - this clearly requires some evaluation in this case.
6.4 The existing barn would not be suitable for contemporary agricultural farming methods. While it could be altered internally, it remains a period building and one not particularly well-suited to good husbandry. While it is true that the intention is to convert that barn for human use, it seems unlikely that the works undertaken to that end would be financially viable for the applicant were the end-use to be for livestock. It is also true that there are no large openings within the building, as are often required for animal care. It is accordingly concluded that the principle of both a new build and conversion of an existing barn is acceptable.
6.5 There is clearly an agricultural need for the new barn. This has been demonstrated in the Planning Statement but also from examining the recent planning history, where it can be seen that the head of livestock is increasing (and, indeed, is increasing in line with the projections the applicant made in their 2014 application). It is also true that this barn is needed at least partly because of the processes that would arise from the proposed use of the converted barn, but the main uses - secure and covered feeding area; secure and covered vehicle storage; secure birthing stalls - relate to the existing and expanding agricultural enterprise.
6.6 The siting for the proposed barn is undoubtedly a little exposed. The originally proposed position would have been far preferable from a visual impact point of view but, given the other impacts arising therefrom, its siting here not only avoids those impacts but moreover almost appears the only feasible location. This is helpful to note from the point of view of both parts (a) and (b) of Environment Policy 2. That being the case, it is considered that the existing (moveable) chicken coops represented perhaps the most difficult balance to strike since they were new buildings in an area previously open. On this occasion, the additional building would be seen very much against a context of existing ones and, while prominent from the highway and not particularly attractive in and of itself, it could not be said to be unduly harmful to the character of the area. Moreover, the well-defined need for the building and the discounting of other options due to issues relating to water quality, flood risk, spread of Japanese knotweed and the location of overhead power lines leaves the applicants with little choice other options.
6.7 The existing access to this field is acceptable without being exceptional. The intention is to provide visibility of 90m in each direction and this should be required by condition.
6.8 Turning finally to the proposed barn conversion, there are a number of issues for consideration: the physical works proposed; the use; the impact on trees and the area generally, and finally highway safety.
6.9 In the first place, it is highly commendable that the intention is to not only retain the appearance of the building but also to retain its existing window and door frames. It was clear from the site visit that the applicants have gone to significant lengths to improve the appearance of the building (which even beforehand would likely have met part (b) of Environment Policy 16) through exposing its natural stone finish and retaining the timber fenestration. While the addition of a small toilet block to the rear is unfortunate, and indeed might be preferably of more modern construction to allow this to be more clearly read against the historic fabric, this will not be readily seen from public positions and is not judged to be fundamentally objectionable, albeit that this is somewhat a balanced conclusion in the context of part (c) of Environment Policy 16. It is concluded that the character and appearance of the building would not be harmfully affected by the proposed works, including those internal to the building.
6.10 The use is perhaps more difficult to support. Clearly there is a presumption that new retail and café uses should be located within existing retail town centres so as to avoid any impact thereon. The Strategic Plan policy provisions to this effect were somewhat based upon a 1987 Tynwald resolution that stated as follows:

"Positive steps should now be taken to revitalise existing town and village centres for the benefit of the whole community...and no further major out of town retailing developments should be permitted".
6.11 Proposed, however, is not a major out-of-town retail development. It is of a scale relative to the existing agricultural enterprise and would sell or serve products produced within the building or on the farm itself. The applicants already undertake some of these processes but at other premises, which are less economically viable than would be having the machinery on the farm. The various uses proposed within the building could not be said to harmfully impact on the vitality or viability of existing nearby centres, not least since there are very few farm shops on the Island in any case.
6.12 The commercial kitchen and café uses are perhaps less clearly compliant to that end and might be said to reflect unsustainable development practices given the reliance on members of the public accessing the site primarily by private car. It is to be noted that there is no immediate intention to expand beyond the existing premises, and the almost industrial nature of the commercial kitchen may normally be better suited to an industrial estate or possibly even to a commercial / retail centre.
6.13 However, this does need to be balanced against the provisions of Environment Policy 16, which although not encouraging the re-use of historic and interesting fabric does nevertheless reflect the point that such buildings, which positively contribute to the appearance and character of the Island, will need to have some form of use in order for them to be retained rather than lost. Though this is not a particularly well-used highway, the existing barn is very prominent from it and accordingly its being brought into an active use as proposed, related to the existing farm, and in the sympathetic manner proposed is judged acceptable.
6.14 That being said, in order to ensure that the use remains related to Close Leece Farm, a condition requiring that the products sold from the shop, café and commercial kitchen should in some way be linked to Close Leece Farm. This will ensure that the use does not accidentally or incrementally expand and thereby harm both rural amenity and also retail centres.
6.15 A condition limiting the opening hours to those as set out by the applicant would also be appropriate. While the opening hours would be extensive, it is to be remembered that the site is far enough removed from neighbouring properties that any impact on the living conditions of those would be very limited. The condition is needed, however, just in order to ensure that the use does not continue during unsociable hours in a manner that may affect either nearby /rural amenity or highway safety. It is also to be remembered that while objections have not been received with respect to the opening hours, this may well be because people have felt those hours as suggested are reasonable and offered no comment on the assumption that they would be taken forward should the application be approved.
6.16 The proposal would have no impact on trees. The proposed parking area is well-hidden behind those that exist, and would be set on an existing area of hardstanding. The softening impact of the trees on that proposed parking area is such that they should be retained, and a condition to that effect is recommended accordingly.
6.17 Finally, the matter of highway safety needs to be addressed. Following significant concern raised from the Highway Services team, significant additional information and amended information has been submitted. Highway Services offered their informal view prior to the details' submission that they satisfied their concerns. The information submitted certainly seems to address the major issues, namely the provision of sufficient parking and manoeuvring space. Moreover, the applicant intends to provide visibility splays of 2.4m by 90m from both the existing access for the new barn (as already described) and also from the existing access for the new barn. This is necessary to control / ensure by condition, as is the provision of the parking and manoeuvring areas.

6.18 It is also important that the new parking and manoeuvring space be accommodated without visual harm. The land on which these areas would be provided are already open and with some hardstanding. No alterations would be made to the topography of the land, and nor would the surface be markedly different from that which currently exists. The most noticeable change will be that adjacent the new barn, but this will be largely hidden by the highway boundary treatment and, in any case, would not be out of keeping with the developing nature of the land north of the highway.

- 7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 The application has raised a number of issues, which reflects its varied nature. While the Commissioners' view that the application may have been better served by being split into separate elements is noted, the only element that could reasonably be severed would be the access track work. The new barn and barn conversion schemes are somewhat interrelated, while the waste water treatment elements of the proposal are wholly dependent on those works being undertaken. - 7.2 The issues raised in the application have been satisfactorily addressed. The application has been prepared entirely by the applicants and is of a good quality for that, bur moreover their passion and enthusiasm for the project is readily identifiable. There are some elements that still cause some concern, and a number of conditions are needed, but overall it is considered that the scheme is acceptable and accordingly is recommended for approval.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
o 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;
o Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material;
o Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure, and
o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

8.2.1 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.
8.2.2 In this instance, it is considered that the following persons have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person: o Manx Utilities' flood risk team
8.2.3 In this instance, it is considered that the following persons do not have sufficient interest and therefore should not be awarded the status of an Interested Person:

o The Inland Fisheries Development Manager, who sits within the same Department as the Planning & Building Control Directorate, and
o The Agricultural Policy Manager, who also sits within the same Department as the Planning & Building Control Directorate;
o The Environmental Protection Officer, who also sits within the same Department as the Planning & Building Control Directorate, and
o The Senior Biodiversity Officer, who also sits within the same Department as the Planning & Building Control Directorate.

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 26.06.2017 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 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 commencement of works on the barn conversion hereby approved, a visibility splay of 2.4m by 90m unless otherwise agreed in advance with the Department shall be provided from the existing access to the south of Patrick Road, and the existing access lane widened, as shown on Drawing 3 (Version 2.0) (date-stamped as having been received 6th June 2017). The visibility splay shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
C 3. Prior to the erection of the new barn hereby approved, a visibility splay of 2.4m by 90m unless otherwise agreed in advance with the Department shall be provided from Field no.334899 as shown on Drawing 3 (Version 2.0) (date-stamped as having been received 6th June 2017). The visibility splay shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
C 4. Prior to the car parking and turning areas hereby approved coming into use, the existing access annotated as "historic access now closed" on Drawing 3 (Version 2.0) (date-stamped as having been

received 6th June 2017) shall be permanently closed. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

C 5. Prior to the barn conversion element of the application coming into the uses that are hereby approved, each of the parking, turning and manoeuvring areas as shown on Drawing 3 (Version 2.0) and Drawing 4 (Version 2.0) (both date-stamped as having been received 6th June 2017) shall be provided and shall thereafter remain permanently clear of obstruction for the purposes of access, manoeuvre and parking. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
C 6. The existing trees shall be retained in accordance with the approved details. Any retained tree that, within five years of the approved development being completed, dies, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced by a similar species, of a size to be first approved in writing by the Department, during the next planting season or in accordance with a programme of replacement to be agreed in writing with the Department. Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.

C 7. No customers shall be served or remain in the approved barn conversion or on the associated outdoor land outside of the following hours: 9am to 6pm, seven days per week. Reason: In the interests of public amenity.
C 8. Anything sold from the farm shop must be ancillary to the operations of Close Leece Farm.

Reason: The barn conversion has been approved on the basis of the interrelationship between its proposed use and the day-to-day running of the farm, and on the basis of the available parking. The sale of goods unrelated to Close Leece Farm from the farm shop itself could go against the provisions of Business Policy 10 and part (e) of Environment Policy 16 such that any change to the nature of the business would require fresh consideration.

The development hereby approved relates to Drawings 1 (Version 2.0), 2 (Version 2.0), 3 (Version 2.0), 4 (Version 2.0), 5 (Version 2.0), 6 (Version 2.0), 7 (Version 2.0), 8 (Version 2.0), 9 (Version 2.0), 10 (Version 2.0), 11 (Version 2.0), 12 (Version 2.0), 13 (Version 2.0), 14 (Version 2.0) and 15 (Version 2.0), and also the 'Planning application supporting documents' document, all date-stamped as having been received 6th June 2017.

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: 03.07.2017 Signed : Mr Riley Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required YES/NO See below PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 03.07.2017 Application No. : 17/00322/B Applicant : Mrs Tracey Ridgway Proposal : Conversion of existing barn to provide a farm shop (Class 1) and

cafe (Class 3) with associated kitchen, erection of an agricultural building, improvement works to existing farm tracks and creation of additional parking

Site Address : Close Leece Farm Patrick Road St Johns Isle of Man IM4 3BR

Presenting Officer : Mr Edmond Riley

Addendum to the Officer’s Report

A.1 There was a lengthy discussion in relation to conditions, with members agreeing with the expressed view of the applicant regarding the effect of Condition 8. With this in mind, three separate conditions in replacement of the initially recommended Condition 8 were now proposed to the members: each of these was discussed with the applicant prior to these being suggested to the Committee. Those three conditions - one linking the shop to the wider farm, one controlling the floor area and one restricting what could be sold - were concluded to be acceptable.
A.2 There was some discussion as to whether the first two conditions would be sufficient, but it was felt that a condition restricting the items that could be sold was required as well, but the wording should be amended from that which had originally been recommended - perhaps along the lines of that suggested by the applicant.
A.3 Finally, it was agreed that the recommended Condition 7 relating to opening hours was unnecessary given the site's isolation and situation away from anyone who may be affected by a lack of control in this respect.
A.4 Accordingly, the Conditions 7 and 8 recommended in the officer report were deleted, to be replaced with those three discussed above and set out in full below:

C7 The farm shop and café hereby approved shall be for the benefit of Close Leece Farm only and shall not be run independently of the farm.