Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
18/01013/B Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 18/01013/B Applicant : Mr Geoffrey Boot Proposal : Construction of new agricultural building on site of former cow shed Site Address : Ballagarraghyn Mansion House Main Road Greeba Isle Of Man IM4 3LH
Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : 24.10.2018 Site Visit : 24.10.2018 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 29.01.2019 __
Conditions of Approval
C: Conditions O: Notes
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. The building must be used only for the purposes of storage of vehicles and equipment associated with the maintenance of the land associated with Ballagarraghyn Mansion House.
Reason: The countryside is protected from development and an exception is being made on the basis of agricultural need. As such the building must be used for the purposes for which it is approved.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not 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):
Sea Peep, Peel; King's Court, Ramsey and South Grawe, Laxey/Lonan as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy; their premises are not
==== PAGE 2 ====
18/01013/B Page 2 of 7
within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy; they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy.
__
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE APPLICANT IS THE MINISTER OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL WITH AN OBJECTION FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY
PRELIMINARIES This application has been submitted by an individual who is also currently the Minister of the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the body charged, inter alia, with responsibility for taking decisions on planning applications. It has been suggested that as the applicant is the Minister who represents the Department, it is not appropriate for the same Department, in the form of the Planning Committee or any officer with authority delegated from the Minister, to take a decision on this application as there is a clear conflict of interest.
However, it is clear in the Town and Country Planning Act that the only mechanism for a decision to be taken, other than the Planning Committee or an officer with appropriate delegated authority, would be for the matter to be determined by the Council of Ministers. This procedure is referred to as follows:
(1) If it appears to the Council of Ministers that an application made to the Department for planning approval - (a) raises considerations of general importance to the Island, or (b) for some other reason ought not to be determined by the Department,
the Council of Ministers may direct that the application shall be referred to and determined by it.
The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No.2) Order 2015 includes further guidance:
10 Reference of certain applications to the Council of Ministers (1) An application for planning approval - (a) in which the Department is the applicant or agent; or (b) which is for the development of land any interest in which is vested in, or which is occupied by or controlled by, the Department,
must be referred to and determined by the Council of Ministers.
This is a personal, rather than Departmental application. Whilst the Minister is legally perceived to be the Department, the Minister in his role as the Department, is divisible from his private life.
The Department has carefully considered the legal, governance and conflicts of interests issues presented in relation to the personal application for planning approval made by the Minister and has determined that the application is capable of being determined by the Committee given that:-
==== PAGE 3 ====
18/01013/B Page 3 of 7
1) no call in has been initiated by Council of Ministers under section 11 (1) of TCPA 1999; and 2) section 11(3) of TCPA 1999 and the development procedure order provisions (article 10) do not apply to a personal application made by the Minister (or any political member) of the Department.
Finally, the DEFA Standing Orders of the Planning Committee, 2018/01 make specific provision for this:
3i) "Where an application relates to property owned by the Minister, Department member or Chief Executive of the Department or an employee of the Planning and Building Control Directorate or Planning Policy section of Cabinet Office or by a close relative of those persons"
such applications are to be referred to the Planning Committee.
THE SITE 1.1 The site defined in red is an arbitrarily constructed rectangle around an existing building which sits within a group of buildings on the northern side of Peel Road (A1) to the east of Ballacraine Crossroads. The group of buildings comprises a main house, Ballagarraghyn Mansion House, a dwelling (a former piggery), a barn (which had planning approval for conversion to a dwelling), a beggar's cottage and two outbuildings - a mill and a single storey storage building. The application concerns an area which is further south than the two buildings and sits to the north of a former silage pit.
1.2 The buildings are accessed by a long drive with stone pillars at the entrance and a hardcored surface.
1.3 The site has a number of trees both along the access drive and field edges and in groups around the various buildings.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a new agricultural building where the cowshed was previously. This previous building burned down a number of years ago and was not replaced at the time or since. The applicant's agent lists equipment that needs to be stored, such as the small tractor, Rhino buggy and attachments and quad bike with an additional Kawasaki Mule due to arrive soon, and whilst some of this is currently stored in the mill, this will not be available when that building is used for other purposes. This equipment should not be kept outside, they suggest.
2.2 The building is to have the same footprint as the former building - 7m by 21.3m with an eaves level of 3.2m and a ridge level of 4.2m. The building will be finished in timber cladding horizontally laid with a grey sheeted roof with GRP rooflights within and a stone plinth at the base of the walling with the elevation facing towards the mill finished in stone.
2.3 The applicant advises that he owns approximately 250 acres of farm land around the buildings and has partial ownership of a further 350 acres of hill land alongside and above and he is responsible for regular maintenance, some fencing, hedging and general clearance - works that are excluded from any tenancy agreement as well as being directly responsible for all aspects of lands around the immediate house - around 20 acres. The applicant currently employs a person on a part time basis (two days a week) to carry out the maintenance duties.
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as open space of high landscape value and scenic significance. An area of woodland sits alongside the position of the building.
3.2 There is a presumption against development here as stated in Environment Policy 1:
==== PAGE 4 ====
18/01013/B Page 4 of 7
Environment Policy 1: The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative. 3.3 General Policy 3 makes provision, amongst other things, for the development of buildings which are essential for the conduct of forestry or agriculture. Further advice is provided at Environment Policy 15 as follows:
"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."
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The outbuildings were approved for conversion to residential and tourist use under 02/00803/A, 04/00407/A, 07/01956/REM, 07/01955/REM and 06/00487/REM of the mill, barn and piggery buildings respectively.
REPRESENTATIONS
Copies of all representations received can be viewed on the Government website to which the Committee's attention is drawn: this report contains summaries only
5.1 German Parish Commissioners object to the application as they feel there is no agricultural need for the building, with most of the outbuildings having been converted to other uses which signifies that they were redundant and had no agricultural use. They claim that the applicant has said that he rents the land out. If there is a need for agricultural storage then one of the existing buildings which has permission for conversion should be retained for such purposes. They suggest that as the applicant is the Minister for the Department, an independent inspector should consider the application, in the interests of transparency (09.10.18). They reiterate their objection on 10.01.18, advising that the additional information is irrelevant and the applicant already has sufficient agricultural buildings on the site and should reconsider his intentions for some of the buildings he intends to convert. They question the reference to 350 acres of additional land and find it difficult to believe that the applicant as Minister for the Department cannot locate the relevant planning application numbers for previous applications on his land. They reiterate their belief that neither the Minister nor the Planning Committee has
==== PAGE 5 ====
18/01013/B Page 5 of 7
the authority to determine this application and would suggest that it is "passed to an independent inspector or another impartial person as stated in the legislation".
5.2 The following parties query the decision-making process, as the Minister represents the Department and the Department, or representatives thereof, would be making a decision on its own proposal. They recommend that the application is called in under Section 11 of the Town and Country Planning Act as the Department ought not to determine the application although it is suggested that if the matter is referred to COMIN, who meet in private, there is no power of appeal against a decision taken in this way.
owner of 203, Kings Court, Ramsey (13.10.18 and 22.12.18) owner of South Grawe, Laxey (14.10.18). owner of Sea Peep Peel (19.10.18, 22.10.18, 30.10.18, 05.11.18, 13.11.18, 15.11.18, 29.11.18, 11.12.18, 13.12.18, 16.12.18, 20.12.18, 21.12.18, 23.12.18, 28.12.18, 29.12.18 and 10.01.19).
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issue here is whether there is an agricultural need for this building sufficient to outweigh the presumption against development and whether there would be any adverse environmental impact from the development. If there is no agricultural justification then it is relevant whether there is any other justification for the development to offset both the presumption against development here and any adverse environmental impact from it.
6.2 There is no evidence that the land associated with this development is used for agricultural purposes. As such the proposal cannot be said with certainty to comply with EP15 or GP3 in this respect. There are no policies which refer to the maintenance of non-agricultural open space.
6.3 The site extends to over 170 acres and in order to maintain such an area, whether it is used for agricultural or simply open space, there will be a need for equipment and vehicles, whether this is the land owner himself or someone working on his behalf. The applicant has explained that he is responsible for certain areas of maintenance, extending to around 20 acres immediately around the buildings and house. The proposed building is modest and will be completed screened from public view from the A1 by existing trees which will not be removed by the proposed development. It is neither suggested nor accepted that there would be any harm from the proposal to build a structure where there was once one previously.
6.4 It is a relevant consideration that planning approval has been granted for the conversion of existing outbuildings to living accommodation which would have been based upon the premise that the buildings were redundant for their original purposes which would have been agricultural use/purposes associated with the upkeep of the land. It is not clear from the previous applications how much information was provided in respect of the demonstration of redundancy of the existing buildings before approval was granted: the Planning Committee certainly accepted that the buildings were redundant in both the 2002 and 2004 applications, possibly on the basis that the applicant (the current applicant) advised at the time that the land associated with the main house was farmed by others, as stated in his appeal statement for 02/00803/A whereas he now appears to have some responsibility for the maintenance of some of the land. In any case the mill's largest door opening is 3m: what is proposed would be 4m wide which would more easily facilitate the movement in and out of the modern vehicles and equipment the applicant owns. The mill's ground floor has a footprint of 7.5m by 14m and the proposed new building 6.8m by 21m. The proposed building would also provide a greater floor area for the items to be stored.
6.5 It is also relevant that it is unlikely that a two storey building would today be useful for purely agricultural purposes and its architectural and historical interest as a part of this building group would go some way towards justifying trying to find an alternative use for it so that its
==== PAGE 6 ====
18/01013/B Page 6 of 7
future maintenance is ensured. If it is to be used for residential or tourist accommodation on the first floor, the use of the ground floor for the storage of vehicles and equipment could be incompatible as it may give rise to noise nuisance.
CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposal does not comply with the Strategic Plan policies which make exceptions to the presumption against development in the countryside. However, whilst there are clearly existing buildings which could be used for the storage of vehicles and equipment associated with the maintenance of the site and accompanying land, many of these buildings would be better put to alternative uses which would be incompatible with the usage of the other floors within the building and other buildings in the group and would better ensure their continued maintenance of these buildings which are considered of historic or architectural interest. It is therefore considered reasonable that an additional building is erected to provide this function. The size, appearance and location of the building, where there was formerly a building, would not give rise to any adverse environmental impact and as such the application is supported.
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 : ...Refused... Committee Meeting Date:...11.02.2019
Signed :...S CORLETT... 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 7 ====
18/01013/B Page 7 of 7
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 11.02.2019
Application No. :
18/01013/B Applicant : Mr Geoffrey Boot Proposal : Construction of new agricultural building on site of former cow shed Site Address : Ballagarraghyn Mansion House Main Road Greeba Isle Of Man IM4 3LH
Principal Planner : Miss S E Corlett Presenting Officer As above
Addendum to the Officer’s Report
The Planning Committee refused the application on 11th February, 2019 for the following reason:
There is insufficient information to demonstrate a need - agricultural or otherwise - for the building to justify setting aside the general presumption against development in the countryside as set out in General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 15, particularly given the availability of existing buildings close by within the site.
Reason for Refusal
R 1 There is insufficient information to demonstrate a need - agricultural or otherwise - for the building to justify setting aside the general presumption against development in the countryside as set out in General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 15, particularly given the availability of existing buildings close by within the site.
Plans/Drawings/Information
This decision relates to drawings 01, 02, 03, 04B and 05 all received on 25th September, 2018.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal