Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
18/00766/B Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 18/00766/B Applicant : Michael Duggan Proposal : Erection of an agricultural storage unit (retrospective) Site Address : Field 114116 West Kimmeragh Road Bride Isle Of Man
Planning Officer: Mr Owen Gore Photo Taken : 03.10.2018 Site Visit : 03.10.2018 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 21.01.2019 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The applicant has not provided adequate justification to demonstrate that the agricultural need for a new building is sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside proposal. The proposal therefore conflicts with General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties 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):
Thurot Cottage, Thurot Cottage Road, Bride, Isle Of Man, IM7 4BE; as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). __
Officer’s Report
THE SITE 1.1 The application site is a narrow parcel of pasture land to the south of Thurot Cottage; the site is accessed from a shared track to the cottage, from Thurot Cottage Road. The topography of the land of field No.114157 rises to the south before reaching a summit at approximately the halfway point, before dropping into a small valley and back up again, then down towards field No.114116.
==== PAGE 2 ====
18/00766/B Page 2 of 7
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks retrospective approval for the erection of an agricultural storage unit. The application site includes two fields, No.114157 and No.114116; the retrospective permission however applies to a small mobile office/welfare unit located to the north of the site.
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The application site is within the open countryside and is outside of any specific local authority Area Plan; therefore the 1982 Development Plan is applicable. The site is shown on the north plan as predominantly 'while land' open countryside, the access however falls within the Thurot Cottage area that is designated as an 'Area of Private Woodland or Parkland'. To the north of Thurot Cottage is an 'Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance'.
3.2 General Policy 3 applies to Development outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan and states that such proposals will not be permitted with the exception of:
'(f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry'; or '(h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage'.
3.3 Environment Policy 1 states that 'The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake...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'.
3.4 Environment Policy 2 notes 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. Stating that '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'.
3.5 Environment Policy 3 states that 'Development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi- natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value'.
3.6 Environment Policy 15 applies to development that have demonstrated that they meet General Policy 3 for agricultural need, 'Where the Department is satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building, 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
==== PAGE 3 ====
18/00766/B Page 3 of 7
which are best sited, in landscape terms, close to existing building groups in the rural landscape'.
3.7 Environment Policy 22 states that 'Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of:
i) pollution of sea, surface water or groundwater; ii) emissions of airborne pollutants; and iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution'.
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 There are no previous planning applications that are considered to be specifically material in the assessment of the current application.
4.2 The objection to the current application has reference the enforcement case ref: - 14/00026/COMP, also understood to be owned by the applicant, for 'Non-agricultural use of land and placement of caravans' this was understood to have taken place on the adjacent field (ref: - 114116) also close to West Kimmeragh Road.
REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that they do not oppose, in the letter dated 23 August 2018.
The comments continue: -
'The storage building is located away from the site access and the public highway. It should not create any new highway issues. Highway Services does not oppose the application'.
5.2 Bride Commissioners have commented on this application and stated that they do not object, in the letter dated 24 August 2018.
5.3 An objection was received on behalf of a neighbouring property; the comment references the appropriate policies as identified above, which have not been repeated. The planning points raised are as follows: -
'...the storage unit is not agricultural in appearance, it is akin to a caravan or a mobile home with narrow doors and is on wheels suggesting that it is not suitable or necessary for agriculture. A similar (if not the same) structure to this unit and an additional caravan was used in 2014 for lifestyle purposes until enforcement action was taken. The land has previously been kept as grass and only occasionally used for the grazing of cattle and sheep. Therefore an agricultural storage unit would not seem to be justified for the current use of the land.
The poor appearance and lack of functionality of the storage unit and its temporary nature does not suggest it will assist in the preservation of the rural character of the countryside.
The storage unit is not constructed of materials which are sympathetic to the landscape and the nature of the unit is not appropriate for the intended use of agricultural storage due to the elevation of the unit off the floor and having very small doorways to enter.
The unit would have an adverse effect on the countryside surroundings that would result in an oppressive living environment for our client therefore demonstrating a loss of outlook and an adverse visual impact.
==== PAGE 4 ====
18/00766/B Page 4 of 7
Additionally, the positioning of the unit on the site would overlook out client's property and garden. The unit has three windows on the rear side which is facing our client's property and would impact on their privacy. Although there are trees on the images attached to the application, there is a break in the trees which would allow overlooking from the rear windows of the unit'.
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The key issues for this proposal are principle, whether the proposed building is essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry; the impact to the neighbouring property and the impact to the rural character of the site as well as the surrounding countryside.
The principle of development 6.2 The application site is within the open countryside, located on 'while land' under the 1982 Development Plan. As the site is not zoned for development General Policy 3 therefore applies. Development in such locations is restricted to a specific list of exceptions, one of which is part (f) 'building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry', which is what has been applied for in this instance.
6.3 In order to be considered acceptable, the Department needs to be satisfied that the agricultural need for a new building is sufficient to outweigh the general presumption against development in the countryside. The overarching purpose is to protect the countryside and avoid the proliferation of unnecessary buildings in the landscape. So the starting point for the assessment is considering whether the site is used as part of a viable agricultural use.
6.4 No agricultural justification was submitted with the application and when requested, the applicant provided additional details in the email dated 29 August 2018. The applicant has stated that they had grown potatoes, green vegetables and strawberries, and had a chicken coop on the field to produce eggs. These activities ceased when the chickens were all killed by a ferret; the applicant then buried the chickens and dismantled the coop and the activities have not recommenced since. The email goes on to imply culpability; however the Department make no comment on this aspect.
6.5 Although requested, no details have been provided regarding any yields of crops or head of livestock, nor have any details of the equipment that is proposed to be stored in the building and why it cannot be kept elsewhere on or off site. From the site visit, it appears that there are no other farm buildings associated with parcel of land, there was no farming vehicles or equipment on the site and there was no livestock. The land itself is a long strip of agricultural land with a steep incline in the centre; most of the site appears to be on a hillside facing either north or south, excluding the area immediately adjacent to the small building that is the subject of this application, to the north of the site at the entrance, and also at the southernmost end of the parcel of land.
6.6 The building that is located on the site, as proposed, appears to be a small mobile office/welfare unit on wheels; the unit is green with decal designs and windows on both 'sides' with small doors on the 'side' and 'rear' and a tow-hitch on the 'front'. On the 'front' it includes the words 'Andreas Racing Pam Cannell Race Office'. Inside the unit there was some hay/grass on the floor, but otherwise the items appeared to be mostly domestic, including small ladders/step ladders, garden furniture and a table and stool, as well as some other, sundry items.
6.7 At the time of visiting there didn't appear to be any tools in the unit except for some paint, brushes and white spirits; although the applicant has stated previously in an email to a member of the validation team dated 24 July 2018, when asked for more information, that 'You will find that the box is empty of any items which may be construed as not being used for anything but for the agricultural purposes it is intended to contain'. Later in the email dated 29 August 2018 the applicant stated, following the removal of the chicken coop, 'We became
==== PAGE 5 ====
18/00766/B Page 5 of 7
thoroughly disillusioned and decided to cease growing at this site. This being so you can see why the box is at present empty'.
6.8 The building would not be suitable for larger agricultural equipment as the doors on the 'side' and 'rear' are both the standard size for a person to access, but not a vehicle or large piece of equipment or indeed to allow the reasonable storage of standard unit sizes of associated farming products such as animal feed, bedding, fertiliser or crops that would be required for an established farming business. The only storage that this unit could reasonably provide would be domestic in scale.
6.9 In the enforcement case ref: - 14/00026/COMP, the officer visited the site, understood to also be owned by the applicant; during the visit the officer observed the following: -
'...both a caravan (painted green) along with what could be described as a wheeled potacabin, also painted green, were in place along with a hen coup. Additionally, a small section of land covered in plastic sheeting appeared to have been rotovated ready for cultivation, the square area being approximately 2m x 8m. Outside of the structures were camping gas cylinders, folding chairs, plastic chairs, bags of compost and other items associated with both an allotment and overnight camping. Inside the caravan was a portable W.C, a cooker and mattresses. The portacabin also contained chairs, a table and large model aircraft/gliders. Between the caravan and the portacabin was a large object covered by a plastic sheet'.
6.10 The officer indicated that the overall impression of the site was that the land in question was being used for what is frequently described as 'life-style land' - a weekend escape where individuals can enjoy the country side and grow their own produce, along with general recreational pursuits. This is not a recognised use in planning terms. It is understood that a letter was sent by the department, seeking removal of all items and this was complied with.
6.11 Although the described activities in both the current application and in the above enforcement case, taken individually, are made up of agricultural activities it seems to be of a low density and more of a casual use of the site. The justification given to date gives the impression that this building is more for the sake of convenience than a genuine need.
6.12 The principle is therefore not accepted and therefore Environment Policy 15 need not be considered; however since details have been provided, this aspect has been assessed.
Character and appearance 6.13 Only after the above General Policy 3 is satisfied we look at Environment Policy 15; this policy defines the criteria, if it is considered to be genuinely needed. This policy states that 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.
6.14 As the proposal is considered to fail the requirements of General Policy 3 the following sections have only been included for the sake of completeness.
6.15 The immediate location of the unit is fairly secluded from the surrounding highway network; the private woodland areas around the adjacent site, Thurot Cottage, as well as the hills around the site provide some shelter. The fields appears to have been grazing, pasture land and look to have been part of a larger farm holding, as they don't seem to have any amenities of its own.
6.16 The proposal is a wheeled potacabin/mobile office/welfare unit, which is alien to the surrounding countryside and is completely isolated from any other buildings; Thurot Cottage is
==== PAGE 6 ====
18/00766/B Page 6 of 7
approx. 90m away to the north of the proposed portacabin. The storage unit is not agricultural in appearance and is more akin to a caravan or a mobile home. Considering the likely use of this site as 'life-style land', it is also considered likely to include items associated with an allotment and/or overnight camping, introducing domestic paraphernalia that would further degrade the rural character of the open countryside.
6.17 The unit is not appropriate for the intended use of agricultural storage. The unit is purpose built for its intended use as a potacabin/mobile office/welfare unit and has not been constructed of materials that are sympathetic to an agricultural setting. It is considered that it would have an adverse effect on the rural character of the site as well as the surrounding countryside. Even if the need were to be considered to be there, the isolated location away from other buildings, the siting and the design are considered not to be appropriate and the applicant would need to demonstrate that this is an exceptional circumstance.
6.18 The proposal would not unacceptably harm the characteristics of the existing building or the character of its surroundings. In this respect, the proposal conflicts with the policies within the strategic plan.
Impact on neighbours 6.19 The objection that was submitted raised concern for the positioning of the unit on the boundary with the neighbouring site, stating that it would overlook this property and its garden leading to a loss of privacy and that its siting would impact their outlook. The unit has three openings, two windows and a door that has a glass panel in the top half, on the 'side' of the unit that currently faces north onto the neighbour's property. As stated above, Thurot Cottage is approx. 90m away to the north of the proposed portacabin.
6.20 The recognised domestic curtilage of Thurot Cottage, for planning purposes, is thought to be the area immediately around the dwelling, excluding Field Number: 114156. The boundary for this area is approx. 65m away from the boundary for the application site and the closest point to the proposed portacabin. Due to this distance and considering the proposed use is not living accommodation and the porticabin is a non-habitable room, it is unlikely that the proposed use would result in a significant adverse impact upon the living conditions of neighbouring residents.
CONCLUSION 7.1 The use of the site is low density and more of a casual use. Although the applicant has described agricultural activities the submitted information does not demonstrate that the agricultural need for a new building is sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside proposal. The proposal therefore conflicts with General Policy 3.
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
==== PAGE 7 ====
18/00766/B Page 7 of 7
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 the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Refused Date : 22.01.2019
Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
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