DEC Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No.: 24/90934/B Applicant: Mrs Anne Thomson Proposal: Erection of a detached machinery storage Building Site Address: Field 430685 Swallows Rest Bayrauyr Road St Marks Ballasalla Isle Of Man IM9 3AT Planning Officer: Graham Northern Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 07.10.2024 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. In light of the appeal decision in 2021 removing the agricultural tie and the evidence presented which demonstrated that there was no agricultural activity taking place and that it was also unviable as a business, the Department considers that there is no justification for an agricultural building and that no agricultural need exists as such the proposals conflict with General Policy 3(f) and Environment Policy 15. Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: Department of Infrastructure Highways - No objection. Malew Parish Commissioners - No Objection ___________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the field 430685 which lies adjacent to the north of 'Swallows Rest' Gibdale Farm, Bayrauyr Road, St. Marks. - 1.2 The wider site which consists of land in both the red and blue line forms a wider expanse of land associated with Swallows Rest and was highlighted as such in application reference 20/00473/B which sought to remove the agricultural tie from the dwelling Swallows Rest, covered in detail later in this report. The wider site and land in association with the property consists of 66.7 acres with just 30.25 acres farmable however this is of low quality

• grade. An appeal was allowed which remove the agricultural tie citing no agricultural activity at the site, and that given the grade of land it was unviable financially.
• 1.3 The residential dwelling sits to the north of the highway set back approx.100m+ in a rural setting with high hedges on both sides of the highway.

2.0 PROPOSAL - 2.1 The current application proposes the construction of an agricultural storage building for machinery. The building would measure 25 metres long by 9 metres wide, with a ridge height of 4.06 metres. - 2.2 The building is a steel clad steel portal frame construction. - 2.3 The applicant has provided a document stating the building is required for protection of machinery, enhancement of efficiency, compliance with environmental standards and support for sustainable practices. An inventory of equipment is also provided. - 2.4 The submission does not include any details of the existing farming activity, business or intended agricultural activity on the site.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1. The application site is within an area not designated for development on the 1982 Plan. The site is not recognised as being at any flood risk on recent maps nor in an area at risk of flood. Site Specific - 3.2 Given the nature of the proposal is it relevant to consider General Policy 3(f) which sets out exceptions to development in the countryside including operations essential for conduct of agriculture, Environment Policy 15 which outlines the general design criteria for agricultural buildings and Environment Policy 1 which ultimately seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake and from harmful and unwarranted development. - 3.3 The Town and Country Planning Act 1999 states "agriculture" includes horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming, the breeding and keeping of livestock (including any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skins or fur, or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land), the use of land as grazing land, meadow land, market gardens and nursery grounds, and the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for other agricultural purposes, and "agricultural" shall be construed accordingly." - 3.4 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: f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry." - 3.5 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 overriding 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." - 3.6 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 sited, in landscape terms, close to existing building groups in the rural landscape."

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 Recently permission was permitted for the "Erection of two single storey extensions" at the host dwelling under application reference 23/01080/B. - 4.2 Of more relevance was the application for removal of the agricultural tie to Swallows Rest under application reference 20/00473/B which was allowed at appeal in January 2021. The Inspectors report stated the following: - 4.3 Paragraph 4 covering appellants case - There is now no need for a farm worker's dwelling to serve Gibdale Farm, as this holding is no longer used for commercial agricultural production. More than half of its area consists of woodland, marshland, lakes, scrub, buildings, hardstandings, and roads. The remainder is suitable only for grazing, falling within Grades 3 2 and 4 of the Agricultural Land Classification. A livestock enterprise on this land would not provide sufficient income to support an agricultural worker. For instance, assuming a stocking rate of 7.5 ewes per hectare, the land would provide an annual yield of little more than £3,000, once variable costs (such as feed and veterinary bills) had been taken into account. - 4.4 Paragraph 7 Appellants case when planning approval was granted for the erection of Swallow's Rest, no agricultural need for this dwelling had been claimed by the applicants, and the Planning Authority had been made aware that no agricultural enterprise was operating at Gibdale Farm. Importantly, for rating purposes, Swallow's Rest had always been assessed as an unrestricted dwelling, and the rates paid by the present appellants had never been reduced to take account of the agricultural occupancy condition. - 4.5 Paragraph 12 - The evidence suggests that in 2009, Gibdale Farm was no longer being used for commercial agricultural production. It is no longer a viable agricultural unit. It contains large unproductive areas, has soils of indifferent quality, and provides a limited area of pasture, which would not generate sufficient income to pay a farmworker's wage. The application to build Swallow's Rest as a replacement dwelling was not made on the basis of agricultural need. And since it was built, Swallow's Rest appears never to have been occupied by an agricultural worker. - 4.6 The appeal was allowed on the basis that no activity relating to agriculture was or had occurred since 2009 and information presented also proved that due to the soil quality an enterprise was unviable.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 The following representations can be found in full online, below is a short summary; - 5.2 LOCAL AUTHORITY

• Malew Commissioners raise no objections (04.09.24)

- 5.3 STATUTORY BODIES

• Highway Services have considered the application and state, "Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as the site layout and access are acceptable for this replacement building, providing it is retained for the storage of machinery only. (23.08.24)

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are;

• i) Principle of development
• ii) The agricultural need for the proposed (SP5, GP3f & EP15)
• iii) Impact on the character and quality of the countryside

- 6.2 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT (TCPA 1999 & GP 3)

• 6.2.1 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.
• 6.2.2 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.
• 6.3 AGRICULTURAL JUSTIFICATION (GP 3 & HP 15)

• 6.3.1 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 open Countryside, 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.
• 6.3.2 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.
• 6.3.3 To understand the situation it is key to consider the application for removal of the agricultural tie which was allowed at appeal in 2021 under application 20/00473/B. The applicant at the time provided an extensive statement of case which demonstrated that no farming activity had taken place on the site since the dwellings construction, and that its construction was not intended to be for an agricultural worker. The Inspector agreed with these findings and considered the dwelling of a value that would far exceed anyone that was permanently employed in agriculture.
• 6.3.4 The appellant also stated that of the 66.7 acres, 5.66 acres were made up of buildings and curtilage. Of the remaining 61.04 acres just 30.25 acres were farmable and even then were only suitable for grazing due to shallow soil and low fertility. The soil map identifies the land as Grade 3 and Grade3/4 which is land with moderate limitations and poor quality land with severe limitations. It was concluded after an assessment that the land holding would render an enterprise totally unviable financially. Indeed a marketing exercise also found no interest from perspective purchasers to buy the property with the agricultural tie.

• 6.3.5 Given the evidence presented at appeal and the inspectors findings it is clear the land cannot support an agricultural enterprise and as such this application for an agricultural building is considered unjustified and contrary to planning policy in principle. The Department is considers that there is no justification for an agricultural building and that no agricultural need exists as such the proposals conflict with General Policy 3(f) and Environment Policy 15.

• 6.4. Impact on the character and quality of the countryside

• 6.4.1. On the basis of the building not been justified in agricultural terms, the proposed building is unwarranted in the countryside, being contrary to policies GP3 and EP1-2 which seek to protect its rural landscape.
• 6.4.2 Whilst the building proposed is located close to other buildings and attempts are made to screen the building as stated above there is not considered to be any justification for an agricultural building and as such a building would result in a detrimental impact on the openness and rural character of the countryside.

7.0 CONCLUSION - 7.1. In light of the appeal decision in 2021 removing the agricultural tie and the evidence presented which demonstrated that there was no agricultural activity taking place and that it was also unviable, the Department considers that there is no justification for an agricultural building and that no agricultural need exists as such the proposals conflict with General Policy 3(f) and Environment Policy 15.

8.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE - 8.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted). - 8.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to:

• o applicant (in all cases);
• o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and
• o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.

8.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10. - 8.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required):

• o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant);
• o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area;
• o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and
• o in the case of a petition, a single representative.

8.5 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 the Right to Appeal. _____________________________________________________________________

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 : Refused Date: 01.10.2024 Determining Officer Signed : J SINGLETON Jason Singleton 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.