Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
18/00802/B Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 18/00802/B Applicant : Mr Steven Lace Proposal : Erection of an agricultural building Site Address : Field 622432 (formerly 2432) Adjacent to Dhoon Loop Road Dhoon Ramsey Isle of Man
Senior Planning Officer: Mr Thomas O'Connor Photo Taken : 01.02.2019 Site Visit : 01.02.2019 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 14.02.2019 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. There is not an existing agricultural business extant on this smallholding sufficient to justify the erection of a steel frame building. Therefore such a development would be contrary to the requirements of General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 which require that the Department be satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside
R 2. The site is located within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. The steel framed building as proposed would be an isolated and incongruous feature positioned in an elevated field of steep gradient within the open countryside within a sensitive landscape. The proposal would not be amenable to screening and result in an unacceptable level of detriment to the character and visual amenity to the surrounding Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. Such development would be contrary to Environment Policy 2 and General Policy 3 of the Island Wide Strategic Plan 2016.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners of the following property 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):
Thalloo Mitchell (address given as Warren Garth) as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018).
==== PAGE 2 ====
18/00802/B Page 2 of 6
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):
Ballellin House, Main Road, The Dhoon, Ramsey and Warren Garth, Ballagorry Drive, Glen Mona, Maughold as
these properties are not 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 ; the submissions do not fully refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and 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
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 Located in open countryside within the sheading of Garff, the application site comprises part of a field accessible via a lane that leads off the Dhoon Loop Road in Maughold. A small area of woodland is located to the west of the site close to the railway and highway with open fields to the north, east and south. The site is located within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic significance under the 1982 Island wide Plan.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 This application seeks to erect a multi-bay agricultural building constructed of a box profile steel sheeting plastic coated in Olive Green or similar colour. Height would be 4.3m to the eaves and 5.4m to the ridge of the shallow pitch roof. The main access would be via a sliding barn door located centrally on the south elevation facing onto the lane.
2.2 A hardcore hardstanding would be formed at the entrance to the building with a driveway of some 22 m in length leading to the gate and lane beyond. A tree of unidentified species would be removed close the entrance.
2.3 The plans show planting of two groups of trees (5 and 2 trees) again of unidentified species and the formation of new banking on the approach to the building. The topographical information provided in the plans would indicate that the barn would occupy an elevated position in the local landscape some 4 metres above the tramway/highway to the west.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 Relevant: Recent 05/01212/B Erection of an agricultural implement shed - refused on appeal, the inspector concluding that there was insufficient need to justify a building of the size proposed (9m by 18m and 5.75m high to the ridge) and particularly noting that "it appears clear that significant farming activity could be undertaken without a building on the land although no doubt it would be less convenient and there would be a problem of storing existing equipment which has to be moved from within the existing barn..."
4.0 PLANNING STATUS AND POLICY 4.1 The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 (amended up to 1st April 2008)
==== PAGE 3 ====
18/00802/B Page 3 of 6
4.2 The site is indicated on the approved plans of this document as being classified as Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) and, as such, Policy 2 of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 now applies.
4.3 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 4.4 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.
4.5 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.
4.6 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: (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10); (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11); (c) previously developed land 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 where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment; (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14); (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services; (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry; (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage.
4.7 Environment Policy 14: Development which would result in the permanent loss of important and versatile agricultural land (Classes 1-2) will not be permitted except where there is an overriding need for the development, and land of a lower quality is not available and other policies in this plan are complied with. This policy will be applied to (a) land annotated as Classes 1/2 on the Agricultural Land Use Capability Map; and (b) Class 2 soils falling within areas annotated as Class 2/3 and Class 3/2 on the Agricultural Land Use Capability Map.
4.8 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,
==== PAGE 4 ====
18/00802/B Page 4 of 6
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.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Garff Parish Commissioners- 19.10.18 structure was contradictory to the Environmental Polices of the IOM Strategic Plan. Planning Officer and Committee should consider the adequacy of the information provided. If in their opinion the information with the report is convincing enough to warrant the setting aside of Policy then the Commissioner request that a condition (as suggested by the applicant) is included in any approval that limits the use of the building to agricultural proposes only. The building must not be used as a facility to support equestrian or horticultural activities, etc., or to house facilities for activities such as commercial machinery or vehicle repair, or activities to support commercial leisure operations such as quad biking or motorcycling. 21.08.18 Request a planning officer consider the need and size/scope of the building.
5.2 Highways: No observations received
5.3 Local Residents
5.4 Five letters of objection have been received from local resident of three properties - Ballelin House which lies on the other side of the road from the site, Warren Garth which is further away next to Ballagorry Drive and these individuals also own Thalloo Mitchell which is in the centre of the site. Synopses of material reasons for objection are as follows:
There is insufficient justification for a building of this size on a 24.61 acres smallholding; Exposed and inappropriate location to position a steel framed barn structure; No demonstration made that the building would serve a viable agricultural holding; There is significant farming activity that can be carried out without the need of a building of this size. Previous 2005 application refused by the Inspector on appeal on the grounds that no clear agricultural need for the building was demonstrated; The proposed barn would be overbearing in its size; isolated and incongruous in its siting in an elevated position within an agricultural field within the open countryside within an area of High Landscape and Scenic Significance to the detriment of the character and visual amenity of the area as a whole. The building will bring increased traffic on the shared access road and The building could bring increased noise nuisance through the upkeep of the farm machinery and vehicles and the disposal of waste from the use of the building.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The applicant proposes to farm some 26 acres of land within the vicinity with no buildings located on the site but with a gated access onto a private lane that leads onto the highway network located nearby. Though no stock was observed on site at the time of the site visit on 30/01/2019, the applicant has declared an intention to farm sheep to Farm Assurance standards. No details of stock to be kept upon the land or any business statements have been
==== PAGE 5 ====
18/00802/B Page 5 of 6
submitted in support of this application. As such no business justification has been given for the location of a steel framed building of this type on the land on what is, as best a small holding and where the applicant already has the ability to store equipment and feed nearby off the site.
6.2 There is a general presumption against development outside of areas zoned for development in General Policy 3 of the Island Wide Strategic Plan 2016 and Environment Policy 15 of this document requires that the Department be satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside. This application singularly fails to do this within the context of this isolated smallholding in which the applicant has failed to provide any indication of its viability as a farmstead or indeed the need for a farm building. In any case, this policy required that such development be sited as close as is practically possible to existing building groups and be sympathetic to the landscape and built environment of which they will form a part. This policy also states that 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. In these respects alone, the proposal would inconsistent with the requirements of Environment Policy 15 of the 2016 Plan in terms of: o Failure to demonstrate an agricultural or horticultural need for the building; o Failure to demonstrate that the proposal would be a viable farming unit; o Sited away from existing groups of buildings o Being sited in an exposed and isolated area close to a public highway and railway.
6.3 The site is located within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic significance under the 1982 Development Plan and its importance is reiterated in Environment Policy 2 of the 2016 Plan which states that in respect of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's), the 1982 Development Plan will continue to be used as a basis until superseded. 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.
6.4 As already indicated, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the building would be either necessary for the commencement or continuation of a viable small agricultural business on the site or that the location of the building would be essential for the operation of the smallholding. There is a general presumption against development in the countryside without justification contained in General Policy 3 of the Island Wide Strategic Plan 2016.
6.5 The location of the building is materially different to the one considered by the Inspector in in upholding the 2005 refusal which was set considerably back from the highway within a much larger site of some 140 acres. This building would occupy an elevated position in the open countryside some 4m above the level of the nearby highway and railway and therefore be a prominent structure within to the local landscape designated as an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance
6.6 A steel framed structure as that proposed would be an isolated and incongruous feature located in an elevated field of steep gradient within the open countryside within a sensitive landscape. It's exposed and elevated position within the landscape would not be amenable to screening and result in detriment to the character and visual amenity of the Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 There is not an existing agricultural business extant on this smallholding sufficient to justify the erection of a steel frame building. Therefore such a development would be contrary to the requirements of General Policy 3 of the Island Wide Strategic Plan 2016 and Environment
==== PAGE 6 ====
18/00802/B Page 6 of 6
Policy 15 of this document requires that the Department be satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside
7.2 Occupying an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance, the steel framed building as proposed would be an isolated and incongruous feature positioned in an elevated field of steep gradient within the open countryside within a sensitive landscape. The proposal would not be amenable to screening and result in an unacceptable level detriment to the character and visual amenity of the Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. Such development would be contrary to Environment Policy 2 and General Policy 3 of the Island Wide Strategic Plan 2016.
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 can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Refused
Date: 21.02.2019
Determining officer
Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett
Principal Planner
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal