185027

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      18/01102/B                                     Page  1  of  5

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 18/01102/B Applicant : Mr Stuart Christian Proposal : Erection of an agricultural building for storage and livestock Site Address : Field 214552 (formerly 211012) Ballacrye Jurby Isle Of Man

Senior Planning Officer: Mr Thomas O'Connor Photo Taken : 30.01.2019 Site Visit : 30.01.2019 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 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and Environment Policy 15 of this document which 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 __

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

None received __

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE 1.1 Location of this 2.4ha field, red lined on the submitted location plan, is in open countryside within the Parish of Jurby some distance from any settlement. Access to the site is via a narrow farm track from the A13 highway some 400m to the south which also serves two isolated dwellings the closest being at Upper Ballacrye which would be some 200m distant to the south and separated by a hedged field. Further to the south along the track is the dwelling at Ballacrye some 360m distant. The applicant has blue lined 5 other fields to the north east and south of the application site to indicate his intention purchase and form a 32.44 acre agricultural holding should planning permission for this building be granted.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Located n a blockwork base the height of the main two storey element would be 8.9m to the ridge of the double pitch roof with an overall width of 22.8m and depth of 13.7m to this

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      18/01102/B                                     Page  2  of  5

part of the building and with an overall footprint of some 312sqm. Access would be via a sliding barn door located centrally on the east elevation facing onto the lane. In addition to this, the west elevation would have adjoining gated sheep pens 9.1m deep with mono pitch roof. Access to the building would be via the existing farm track that terminates within the field. The site is screened on all sides by a dense tree and hedge screen.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 Relevant : Recent

o 07/00240/B Erection of an agricultural building - permitted o 01/00839/B Erection of polytunnel - permitted on review o 01/00839/B - erection of agricultural building for horses and cattle - refused on review

4.0 PLANNING STATUS AND POLICY 4.1 Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The land is not zoned for development; is not within a Conservation Area or within an area zoned as High Landscape Value or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. The site is not within a Flood Zone

4.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 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.

4.3 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.

4.4 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.

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      18/01102/B                                     Page  3  of  5

4.5 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.

4.6 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 located, in landscape terms, close to existing building groups in the rural landscape.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Jurby Parish Commissioners- 22/11/18 No objection

5.2 Highways: No observations received

5.3 Local Residents No observations received

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 Planning permission was granted ( 07/00240/B) for a smaller agricultural building than that proposed for the keeping of up to 35 sheep with a footprint of some 100 square metres within a blue lined 35acre site that encompassed this application site as well as adjoining additional land to the south between the dwellings of Upper Ballacrye and Ballacrye. Indeed this building was sited close to the curtilage of Ballacrye which was then the residence of the applicant and is therefore outside of the red or blue lines of the current application. Though encompassing the current application site this site was considerably bigger, under different ownership and no issues were raised at the time of consideration in respect of the control or ownership of land within the then blue area. Though initial concerns were raised in terms of development within the countryside at this time, on balance, the Officer recognised that the applicant had recently retired from the MEA and intended to farm the land for 20 - 30 sheep and approved the barn to be located very close to the applicants dwelling. No barn was subsequently erected and the application has since elapsed.

6.2 The application site is submitted is materially different to that approved in 07/02040/B in that the building approved is outside of the current application site. The red-lined on the submitted drawings comprises a 2.4ha field which is within an isolated location away from the highway and some distance from the closest dwellings to the south. Though the lane serves as an access to two dwellings the track is suitable only for farm traffic. The blue line area to comprise the 32.44 acre site is NOT within the ownership or control of the applicant and merely indicates an INTENTION to purchase should he succeed in this application. As such, the blue line area is misleading in that it could not be conditioned as part of any planning permission if it were to be granted.

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      18/01102/B                                     Page  4  of  5

6.3 No stock was observed on site at the time of the site visit on 30/01/2019 but 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 submitted or business plan made in support of this application other than this declaration for farm 32.44 as a single holding. However, the only land under his control and able to be considered at this time is the red line area of 2.4ha which is far too small to be viable as a farmstead. Even if the applicant were to purchase the other land indicated in blue on his plan at some future date, which in itself is misleading as he neither has control or ownership of this land, the resulting farmstead would remain too small to justify a building for the keeping of sheep.

6.4 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 is unable 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 requires 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. 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.

6.5 The applicant has therefore failed to indicate 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.

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 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

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

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                      18/01102/B                                     Page  5  of  5

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 : 13.02.2019

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.