Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/00483/B Page 1 of 10
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 24/00483/B Applicant : Mr Steven Lace Proposal : Erection of two agricultural shelters (retrospective) Site Address : Fields 622432 And 62235 Adjacent To Dhoon Loop Road Dhoon Ramsey Isle Of Man
Planning Officer: Graham Northern Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 11.09.2024 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The buildings hereby approved must be used only for agricultural purposes.
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.
C 2. In the event that the agricultural buildings, hereby approved, are no longer used or required for agricultural purposes, the unused building/s shall be removed (including any concrete hardstanding) and the ground restored to its former condition, within 6 months of the date the use ceased.
Reason: The buildings have been exceptionally approved solely to meet agricultural need and any subsequent retention including any foundations would result in an unwarranted intrusion in the countryside.
C 3. The building must be used only for agricultural purposes.
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.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. It is considered the proposed buildings, given the agricultural justification of need, adoption of the Animal Welfare Act 2023 that previous applications predated, would not result in a detrimental visual impact and or harm the character and quality of the landscape and as such
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/00483/B Page 2 of 10
are considered to comply with General Policy 3 and Environment Policies 1, 2 & 15 of the IOM Strategic Plan.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the following drawings received 22 April 2024: Location Plan Site Plan Proposed Shelter Plans Sections and Elevations __
Interested Person Status
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 4(2):
Thalloo Mitchell, Dhoon Loop Road, Maughold, as 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
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site comprises Fields 622432 & 622435 which are 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 northwest section of the site close to the railway and highway with open fields to the north, east and south.
1.2 These fields enclose residential property 'Thalloo Mitchell' Dhoon Loop Road, within its boundary, while the residential property 'Thalloo-Ree' Dhoon Loop Road, has its entire eastern and northern boundaries abutting the southern boundaries of these fields. These boundaries are, however, marked by sod banks of varying heights.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for Installation of 2 No mobile field stable/shelter (retrospective). The proposed shelters would measure 7.3m (24ft) x 3.6m (12ft) x 3m (10 ft. high to top of roof ridge). The shelters has its walls made of timber with pitch roofed over (material not specified but not timber).
2.2 The applicants have indicated on the application form that the shelter will help with the management of the sheep flock, provide shelter for sheep and lambs and enable safe secure storage for feed, minerals, veterinary products and agricultural machinery/tools required for running a sheep farm.
2.3 The applicants have provided a Planning Statement which sets out the reasons for the proposed shelter and approach to the application, the agricultural basis for the scheme, and justification for the proposal which includes; making provision for segregation and isolation of sick or injured animals, providing secure storage for all medicines, providing appropriate biosecurity measures, preventing contamination of feed, control infestation by vermin and other animals, protecting farm materials and equipment from theft, etc. This statement also provides additional information which includes the following:
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/00483/B Page 3 of 10
o The farm to be serviced by the shelter comprises a block of 11 fields totalling about 25 acres of agricultural land. The land is Grade 3 land which is classified as having the potential for mixed livestock and cropping agriculture. o The applicant currently owns 50 ewes which are on the farm and hope to increase the stocking rates with improvements to the farm. o The agricultural machinery currently owned include a Massey Ferguson Tractor, fertilizer spreader, mobile sheep handling system, fencing equipment and other general maintenance machinery which are currently stored off-site. o There is the intension to diversity the farm into other agricultural enterprises to improve the economic viability of the farm. They are considering options to invest in different breeds of sheep with intention of setting up a small pedigree flock. o The shelter is general purpose and can also provide areas for lambing in poor weather and penning for individual sheep when isolation is required. o The shelter will not be located within 20m of any part of the boundary of Thalloo Mitchell' and 'Thalloo-Ree'. o The shelter will not be located in any part of the field where it would be liable to flooding. 2.4 The application is very similar in detail to that of an earlier refusal for one field shelter under 22/00690/B.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of 'High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance' not designated for development under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area or registered tree area, and there are no registered trees on site. The site is also largely not prone to flood risks with only very small patches within fields 622432, 622468, and 624325 considered to have low to medium likelihood of flood risks.
3.2 Due to the land designation of the site and the proposed type of development the following Strategic Plan policies are relevant in the consideration and determination of the application:
3.3 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: (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry; (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage.
3.4 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.
3.5 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.
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/00483/B Page 4 of 10
3.6 Environment Policy 15 states: "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."
3.7 Environment Policy 21 states: "Buildings for the stabling, shelter or care of horses or other animals will not be permitted in the countryside if they would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside in terms of siting, design, size or finish. Any new buildings must be designed in form and materials to reflect their specific purpose; in particular, cavity-wall construction should not be used."
3.8 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.
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Animal Welfare Act 2023- there is a reinforced duty of care, which supports the provision of shelter where necessary.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The site has been the subject of two previous planning applications that are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of the current application.
5.2 PA 05/01212/B for Erection of an agricultural implement shed. Refused on Review. This shed was to be erected within the field at the top northwest end of the site and by the wooded area on the boundary with the rail line.
5.2.1 Reason for refusal: "Based on the level and content of information contained within the planning application the Planning Committee is not persuaded that there is sufficient agricultural need to justify the setting aside of the presumption against new build development in the countryside."
5.3 PA 18/00802/B for Erection of an agricultural building. (Refused at Appeal). This building was also to be erected within the same field as that previously refused for the site.
5.3.1 Reasons for refusal: R1: "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
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/00483/B Page 5 of 10
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."
R2: "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."
5.3.2 The Inspector in determining the application considered the following: "Planning Issues 33. I consider the main issues in this appeal to be the degree of agricultural need and justification for the proposed building and the effect it would have on the appearance and character of the landscape of the surrounding AHLV.
Need and Justification 35. The current farming operation on the appeal site is low-key with no more than 50 ewes grazing periodically on the land, and being otherwise managed from other premises. That is compared with the capacity of the land to accommodate at least 100 breeding ewes and followers.
Whilst the quality of husbandry at the site is questioned by neighbours, the Appellant states that he is Manxman with long family connections to farming the appeal land and an aspiration to produce high quality lamb and other products compliant with the highest statutory and recommended procedures. There is clearly potential for the land to be farmed much more intensively and to a better standard. It is understandable that the Appellant wishes to move from his previous business into farming with the aid of a modern building on site in support of maintaining the required standards of accommodation and animal welfare.
The size of the building, at 180sqm, would evidently be appropriate to the stocking levels envisaged, based upon 1.2 to 1.4sqm per breeding ewe and allowing also for the storage of a reasonable quantity of feed and agricultural equipment.
However, the foregoing amounts only to evidence of assertion. There is no documentary evidence that this relatively small, 26-acre tract of land would, in practice, support a viable agricultural enterprise to justify an exception to the broad policy presumption against new building in the countryside of the surrounding AHLV.
In particular, no past records of the farming enterprise have been submitted as a basis to evaluate its future expansion. Moreover, there is no financial business plan to demonstrate the future viability of the business.
It is widely accepted that new farming enterprise is to be encouraged on the Island but, in the circumstances of this case, the evidence does no more than indicate a desire, albeit genuine, on the part of the Appellant to have the convenience of a building on site, in preference to the off-site facilities that appear to have served the farming of the land hitherto.
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/00483/B Page 6 of 10
41. Whilst it is a matter of judgement for the Minister, I find that the requisite exceptional justification for approval has not been made out in terms of overriding agricultural need and that the proposal does not meet the requirements of EP15 of the IMSP in this regard.
Appearance and Character 42. On that basis, the proposed building is unwarranted in the countryside of the AHLV, being contrary also the important aims of GP3 and EP1-2 to protect its rural landscape. 43. At the same time, although the building would be positioned above the level of the nearby road and railway line, it would be relatively well screened by the existing woodland to the west and by the new tree planting included within the scheme. Accepting that a position closer to the existing farmstead of Thalloo Ree would be liable to flood and that a site adjacent to the residential Thalloo Mitchell would be more obtrusive, I consider that, were the building justified at all, the siting proposed within the site would be the optimum available within the stipulations of EP15.
Other Matters 44. Notwithstanding the genuine concerns of nearby residents, I am not persuaded that the proposed development would unacceptably prejudice their amenity in terms of noise, traffic or drainage works. The residential property would be well separated from the appeal building and the concern regarding drainage works appears to be a civil matter.
Overall Conclusions 46. The proposed building would be appropriately located within the 26-acre appeal site if it were justified by genuine agricultural need. However, the there is insufficient evidence of such agricultural need, beyond the mere aspiration and preference of the Appellant for built accommodation on-site.
Some weight is to be accorded to the broad encouragement given to new agricultural enterprise on the Island and the Minister is entitled to judge that the available evidence of agricultural need is, in the circumstances, sufficient to satisfy the requirement of EP15 and justify approval.
However, it is my own conclusion, on balance overall, that the proposal would be in overriding conflict with the protective measures of GP3 and EP1-2 of the IMSP for the landscape of the countryside within the designated the AHLV and that, accordingly, the appeal should fail.
Recommendation 49. I recommend that the appeal be dismissed. If accepted, this recommendation would have the effect of upholding the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse the application. " 5.4 Permission was refused under application 22/00690/B for "Installation of a mobile field stable / shelter (retrospective)" the reason for refusal was:
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS
==== PAGE 7 ====
24/00483/B Page 7 of 10
Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that they 'Do not oppose' (26 April 2024). They also find the proposal to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and /or parking.
6.2 Garff Parish Commissioners have no objections 22 May 2022.
6.3 Agricultural Policy Manager - 04.09.2024 - While previous guidance from the Department suggested that sheep do not require housing in bad weather or during times of need, there was a shift towards recognising good practice for sheep welfare. The Isle of Man Sheep Welfare Code (2004) suggests that shelter is beneficial during adverse weather conditions, particularly during lambing seasons to reduce lamb mortality. With the new Animal Welfare Act 2023 now operational, there is a reinforced duty of care, which supports the provision of shelter where necessary. This legislation could lend additional weight to welfare- related applications for the buildings.
DEFA's Agricultural Grant Schemes have historically supported the construction of buildings for the welfare management of sheep, particularly in lowland areas like the location in question. The presence of these sheds aligns with the purposes outlined in these grant schemes, providing suitable facilities for housing and managing livestock under specific conditions.
While the applicant is not registered as an "active farmer," it was clearly evidenced to me that farming is taking place on the holding and the land is used to undertake sheep farming activities. Registration with the Department as an active farmer is voluntary and does not negate the ongoing agricultural activity on the land. During my site visit, I noted that the two sheds are well-constructed and, in my opinion, serve the intended purpose. They provide appropriate shelter for a small number of sheep if needed and facilities for the management of the flocks.
With a fresh set of eyes and updated legislative and welfare considerations, approving these two smaller sheds could represent a balanced and forward-looking approach.
6.4 The Owners/Occupiers of Thalloo Mitchell, Dhoon Loop Road, Maughold, object to the application on the following grounds (06 May 2024): o Conflicting information application is for permanent structures but states when the structures are moved? o The development is not essential for the conduct of agricultural activity to outweigh the general presumption against development in the countryside, particularly in an AHLV. o Questions the viability of the business, costs seem inaccurate o They question the animal welfare code compliance justification of the scheme and state that the land could be used for sheep farming without the need for the building as other farmers with small holdings do on the island. o They question why the applicant cannot continue to store his machinery out with the site as is the current practice, as any heavy mechanical agricultural work are still done by local contractors who service the majority of the farming community within the parish. o They refer to the previous applications refused for the site on the grounds that there is not an existing agricultural business extant on this small holding sufficient to justify the erection of a steel frame building, and note that no active farming activity is being or has been undertaken since the previous application to warrant the existence of any such development on the land.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are; i) Principle of development
==== PAGE 8 ====
24/00483/B Page 8 of 10
ii) The agricultural need for the proposed (SP5, GP3f & EP15) iii) Impact on the character and quality of the countryside
7.2 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT (TCPA 1999 & GP 3) 7.2.1 The starting point for any development within the countryside (i.e. not zoned for development) is General Policy 3. Paragraph (f) allows exemption for agricultural buildings in the countryside, subject to the agricultural or horticultural need for a new building, which is deemed sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside.
7.2.2 The use of land for agriculture is set out in section 45 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 at para 4.8, which lists the type of activities and uses. Based on the foregoing, the acceptability of the principle would be dependent on there being sufficient justification for the proposed development as articulated in General policy 3 and Environment Policy 15.
7.3 AGRICULTURAL JUSTIFICATION (GP 3 & HP 15) 7.3.1 As been noted in the Policy section of this report, the site is not within an area zoned for development. In fact, the site is within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance, where an added degree of protection applies. Therefore, as per Spatial Policy 5, any development in the countryside must meet the test of General Policy 3. General Policy 3, paragraph (F) allows exemption for agricultural buildings and Environment Policy 15 addresses their suitability on site. The first paragraph requires first 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.
7.3.2 It would be vital to note here that agricultural enterprises are the sole income of farmers and their livelihood is heavily dependent on their continued and efficient operation. The bigger and more established the farming operation, the easier it's likely to be to demonstrate an agricultural need for a new building to continue the farming operation. This is not to say that smaller farm holdings or start up hobby farms should be discouraged as these can also help contribute to local economy and sustainability. The risk is that any ad hoc decisions taken on agricultural buildings without sufficient justification of need could lead to a proliferation of unwarranted buildings across the countryside which may become obsolete if the intended farming operation do not materialised as expected. As such, in dealing with small scale holdings it is expected that their agricultural justification should be proportionate to the size of the operation and that they can provide detailed evidence to support the need for any building.
7.3.3 In reviewing the supporting information provided by the applicant, the applicants have provided justification which suggest that the shelter will help with the management of the sheep flock, provide shelter for sheep and lambs and enable safe secure storage for feed, minerals, veterinary products and agricultural machinery/tools required for running a sheep farm; matters which are centred on sheep welfare and the storage of equipment and farm machinery.
7.3.4 Advise has already was previously sought for the application 'Erection of an agricultural building' under (PA 21/00727/B). This was considered to be contrary to General Policy 3 (f) and Environment Policy 15, on the grounds that "There is insufficient agricultural justification for the siting of the buildings to outweigh the presumption against development... or enough to exempt the development as having sufficient agricultural need to pass as being essential for the conduct of agriculture". The Head of Agriculture in providing advice on the scheme where it was argued that the new building would be used to shelter sheep in bad weather and during lambing, in addition to serving as storage for equipment, which is similar to the current case, stated that: "There is no Agricultural/welfare need to house sheep in bad weather. In fact, the opposite is the case - sheep are 'designed' to live outdoors in all weathers. Whilst housing machinery does
==== PAGE 9 ====
24/00483/B Page 9 of 10
prolong its life, owning machinery to manage a holding of this size is a luxury rather than a need. It is far better to contract in to get work done. There is no need to have covered area for conducting health checks."
7.3.4 The same advice was used in the consideration of the later application reference 22/00690/B and was again used to refuse the application.
7.3.5 This application has been the subject of discussion between the Planning Officer and the Head of Agriculture to appropriately analyse the farming circumstances on site and the justification for the proposals. What is clear is that the previous refusals predate 2023 and as such the adoption of the Animal Welfare Act which adopted in 2023 now carries weight as referenced in DEFA Agricultures consultation response. The Animal Welfare Act places a reinforced duty of care, which supports the provision of shelter. DEFA Agriculture have also visited the site and consider that the buildings are being used for farming and that they are needed for agriculture as well as animal shelter.
The above as such demonstrates a clear agricultural need for the current buildings as the applicant does require the buildings to house sheep in bad weather, or for lambing. Thus, it is considered that there is sufficient justification for the development when the scheme is weighed against the above advice, particularly as the advice provided by DEFA's Agricultural Team hold a lot of weight in determining agricultural related applications.
7.3.5 As there is a need for the buildings, as has been assessed in the preceding sections of this report. On balance, the Department is satisfied there is sufficient justification to satisfy agricultural need as required by General Policy 3(f) and Environment Policy 15.
7.4 Impact on the character and quality of the countryside (EP1, EP2, EP 15, & EP 21) 7.4.1 In terms of visual impacts, it is considered that given a site plan has been submitted that shows the two positions of the existing buildings that the intention is not for the buildings to be moved within the two fields and that they would remain stationery, as any movement would necessitate a new planning application.
7.4.2 The two buildings are of a stable like design i.e. timber construction and single storey compact buildings. They are well isolated from public vantage points and both back onto strong vegetated boundaries which screens them. The low height of the buildings also means that from a distance they blend in well with the undulations of the landscape. It is my view that a single larger building would have a greater impact visually and in landscape terms due to an increase in scale and height.
7.4.3 Given the above considerations the need for the buildings, the comments from DEFA Agriculture and the activity on site, as well as the timber and compact design of the buildings as opposed to larger scale traditional agricultural buildings on balance the proposals are considered to comply with Environment Policy 15 and would not the character and quality of the landscape complying with Environment Policies 1 and 2.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 For the above reasons, it is considered the proposed buildings, given the agricultural justification of need, adoption of the Animal Welfare Act 2023 that previous applications predated, would not result in a detrimental visual impact and or harm the character and quality of the landscape and as such are considered to comply with General Policy 3 and Environment Policies 1, 2 & 15 of the IOM Strategic Plan. The application is therefore recommended for approval.
9.0 INTEREST PERSON STATUS 9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
==== PAGE 10 ====
24/00483/B Page 10 of 10
(a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land which the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
9.2 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 above who should be given Interested Person Status.
9.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot 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 and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made : Permitted
Date: 11.09.2024
Determining Officer Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Principal Planner
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal