Planning Officer Report 12/00688/B

Application No.: 12/00688/B Applicant: Mr Trevor Lee Glassey Proposal: Erection of an animal shelter Site Address: Field 434756 (Formally 660) Ballamodha Straight Ballamodha Ballasalla Isle Of Man Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 22.05.2012 Site Visit: 22.05.2012 Expected Decision Level: ** Planning Committee ---

Officer's Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE

The Site

1. The site is a field which lies on the eastern side of the Ballamodha Straight (A3) between existing properties Cooyrt Vane to the south (separated from the site by a field) and White Lodge, to the north (separated from the site by two larger fields). The site has a frontage of 40m and is 95m deep. Access to the site is from the east via a lane which runs parallel with the A3. The land which is owned by the applicant amounts to 12 acres at Ballamodha.

1. The applicant also owns other land - 77 acres spread between the Moaney Road in Newtown and Ronague.

The Proposal

1. Proposed is the erection of a new building 9.2m by 9.1m and 5.7m high (the same as the building approved on the applicant's land to the north) towards the rear (eastern end) of the site. The building is proposed to be used as an animal shelter and will be finished in red brick to 2m high and timber boarding above that with a gated opening in the front elevation.

1. The access to the building is already in place through PA 10/1699.

Planning Status

1. The site lies within an area designated on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as "white land", that is, not designated for development.

1. On the draft Southern Area Plan the site lies within an area of land not designated for development.

1. As such, the following Strategic Plan policies are considered relevant in the consideration of the application:

General Policy 3: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:

27 July 2012 12/00688/B Page 1 of 6

• (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry."

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."

"4.5 Type D: Incised Slopes

The overall strategy for the protection and enhancement of the Incised Slopes Landscape Character Type is to conserve and enhance: the remote and rural character; the relatively sparse settlement pattern of traditional hamlets and scattered farm buildings; the network of sunken and enclosed rural roads; and the substantial hedgerows and sod banks dividing irregularly-shaped pastoral fields.

Key landscape planning considerations in relation to the protection and enhancement of this Landscape Character Type are as follows:-

• Care should be taken to ensure that housing and business development does not detract from the distinctive identity and setting of settlements, and avoids coalescence with other settlements within this Landscape Type;

• The design and layout of new housing and business development should include appropriate native structure planting to soften urban edges and enhance the transition to the wider landscape;

• Approach routes, key views, and gateways to settlements within these landscapes should be enhanced;

• Linear development along roads from settlements that extends urbanising influences into the wider countryside should be avoided;

• The use of local vernacular building styles and materials should be encouraged;

• New farm buildings that would compromise the pattern and scale of farmsteads across the undulating Incised Slopes landscapes should be discouraged;

• Care should be taken to minimise loss of hedgerows, sod banks, and other distinctive boundary features along road corridors;

• Tourist-related development, such as camp-sites, should avoid visually prominent locations, particularly those which can be viewed from higher land and those which would extend urbanising influence along the coast;

• Care should be taken to avoid the suburbanisation of river valleys and stream corridors;

• Tall vertical telecommunications masts or structures which detract from the sloping landform or create visual clutter should be avoided."

PLANNING HISTORY

27 July 2012

1. There have been two planning applications on this site: one for the development of an agricultural building on the field which is the site of this application. PA 08/0954 proposed a building which was 9.1m by 18.4m and 5.7m high for the purposes of the storage of tractors (some vintage) and animals and feed and the other for the widening of the access and formation of hard standing area where the building is proposed (PA 10/1699).

1. There have been other applications for the development of land in the vicinity of this site, by the current applicant. These are as follows:

• PA 09/1560 - erection of animal shelter, field 430539 - permitted. This building is 9.2m by 9.1m and 5.7m to the ridge
• PA 07/2375 - erection of stables and store - permitted - field 430539
• PA 07/2260 - approval in principle for erection of a dwelling - refused and presently the subject of an appeal - field 434756. This is in fact alongside the Ballamodha Straight in the same field as the current application proposal.
• PA 06/0998 - erection of a dormer bungalow - refused on appeal - field 430539
• PA 03/1565 - conversion of agricultural building to tourist accommodation with extensions - refused on appeal - field 430539
• PA 03/0749 - erection of extension to existing stables - pc declined to consider - field 430539
• PA 02/1393 - erection of agricultural building to provide hay store - refused at appeal - field 430539
• PA 02/1393 - erection of agricultural building to provide hay store - refused on appeal - field 430539
• PA 01/2122 - erection of agricultural building - refused on appeal - field 430539
• PA 01/0175 - extension to stables to provide vehicle store and erection of new stables - refused on appeal - field 430539
• PA 00/664 - approval in principle for erection of dwelling - refused on appeal - field 430539
• PA 98/1352 - erection of agricultural building (amendment to PA 98/0098) and creation of vehicular access - permitted - field 430539
• PA 98/0098 - erection of agricultural building - permitted - field 430539
• PA 95/1636 - erection of horse stables and creation of new access - permitted - field 430539
• PA 95/1170 - approval in principle for erection of dwelling - refused on review - field 430539.

1. It is also relevant that there is a current application for the erection of a building 5m by 5.5m and 2.8m tall to the south of Ballahaven which lies to the south of this application site - PA 12/0693. This is to support a small horticultural unit. A previous application on this site for a building 6m by 8m and 3m high was refused as there was considered to be inadequate justification for the building which was intended for the applicant's personal belongings.

REPRESENTATIONS

1. Malew Parish Commissioners do not object to the application.

1. The Manx Electricity Authority recommends that the applicant consult them regarding existing electricity supplies to the site. There are existing high voltage overhead wires in the vicinity of the proposed building - 9m as shown on the plans, from the route of the supply which would comply with Energy Policy 2 which states: "Land within 9m either side of an overhead High Tension power cable will be safeguarded from development." The applicant should consult the MEA in this respect and the development may not come within 9m of the overhead line.

1. The owner of Ballahaven objects to the application on the basis that the proposed shed is large and too close to residential properties. She is concerned about potential smell and flies and vermin which may be generated from the keeping of cattle in the shed as proposed.

1. A resident of Douglas objects to the application on the basis that it is sporadic development in the countryside (he also makes the same recommendation in respect of PA 12/0693). He also claims that the site lies within an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance: in fact it is outwith this designation.

1. The owner of Cooyrt Vane objects to the application on the basis of potential smell, flies and vermin and possible contamination of their land through effluent seeping through the field towards their property. He also points out that the approved hardstanding which was supposed to be for bales has been used for vehicle storage and the proposed building will have an adverse visual impact on their property.

1. The owner of Fernlea objects to the application on the basis that the building is too large and the building will attract vermin and due to the absence of drainage seepage may occur.

ASSESSMENT

1. The applicant's agent explains that following the testing of his client's cattle for TB, the Government vet advised that a separate building would be required for isolation purposes. The owner of Cooyrt Vane disputes that there is a need for a building on this basis as long term segregation of cattle is not used as part of the bovine tuberculosis control policy as all cattle herds are regularly tested for TB every two years and a slaughter policy is used to remove infected animals. Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture has responded by agreeing that whilst there is no long term policy for segregation of animals relating to TB. However, in specific conditions, for example in inconclusive test cases, imports and other Animal Health reasons to isolate a suspected disease carrier isolation facilities are be officially required. In situations of TB inconclusive reactors, the animals must be isolated for 60 days before being re-tested. There are other instances, such as lame animals or cows calving where the farmer may wish to isolate his animals. They also suggest that segregation is a good way to control respiratory disease although there is no Animal Health requirement for such a long distance between buildings for this purpose.

1. They also comment on the lack of information on the floor of the building. They suggest that cattle building can either have a concrete floor or hardcore with bedding on top which will allow drainage through percolation. Woodchip corrals have no concrete base nor do field shelters.

1. The Strategic Plan, Environment Policy 15 states that the Planning Authority must be satisfied that there is agricultural need for the building to outweigh the presumption against development in the countryside. In this case the Agricultural Adviser comments that the building is justified and would aid the development of the agricultural enterprise (letter dated 17th July, 2012).

1. The applicant does own other land in the vicinity on which he could erect this further building. However, much of this land which is not closer to existing buildings than would be the proposed building, does not have the accessibility which the proposed building would have and could, in some instances be more visible if closer to the road. The building as proposed would be 70m to the nearest residential boundary. As proposed, from the A3 the building would be screened by the roadside hedges and distance from the road and would have a backdrop of the conifer belt to the east.

1. As there are suggestions that the site is not used for agricultural purposes, if the application is permitted it should be subject to a condition that the building is used only for the keeping of cattle and associated feed and also that if the building is no longer required for this purpose it must be removed from the site.

PARTY STATUS

27 July 2012

1. The local authority, Malew Parish Commissioners, are, under the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.

1. The owner of White Lodge is not alongside the application site and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.

1. The Manx Electricity Authority raise issues which are material considerations and referred to in the Strategic Plan and as such should be afforded party status in this instance.

1. The owners of Fernlea, Ballahaven and Cooyrt Vane are close enough to the proposed development to warrant being afforded party status.

1. The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.

---

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 27.07.2012

---

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: Notes attached to refusals

---

C 1.

The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

---

C 2.

This permission relates to the erection of an agricultural building as shown in drawings 01, 02 and 03 all received on 9th May, 2012.

---

C 3.

The building may be used only for the keeping of cattle and associated feed and equipment. If the building is no longer used or required for these purposes it must be removed from site within one month of it being no longer being required or used as approved.

---

27 July 2012 12/00688/B Page 5 of 6

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005

Decision Made : Committee Meeting Date :

Signed : Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate

YES/NO