Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/91312/B Page 1 of 8
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. 24/91312/B Applicant : KNR Construction Limited Proposal Change of use of building for storage of equipment and tools and vehicle workshop; alterations including installation of roller shutter door and creation of hardstanding for parking of work vehicles (retrospective) Site Address Ballachrink Farm Ballanicholas Garth Cosby Isle Of Man IM4 2HD
Case Officer :
Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken :
13.02.2025 Site Visit :
13.02.2025 Expected Decision Level Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 04.03.2025
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2019 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), the building outlined in red on the approved plans shall not be used other than for the storage of equipment, tools and materials; and for no other purpose in Class 2.4 of Part 2 of the Order at any time.
Reason: The Department has assessed the impact of the proposal on the basis of the specific use and any alternative uses within the same Use Class will require further consideration.
C 2. The use hereby approved relates only to the use of the building annotated 'STORAGE' on the approved plans only and to the associated parking of one vehicle relating to the approved use within the hardstanding area within the red line.
Reason: The development hereby approved is only acceptable in this location because of the small scale nature of the building and operation.
C 3. With exception to the parking of an associated vehicle on the approved hardstanding area, there shall be no external storage of any equipment, tools or materials unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Department.
Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining land users and reduce spread of any operations.
C 4. No customers are permitted to the site at any time.
Reason: The application has been assessed on this basis only.
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/91312/B Page 2 of 8
C 5. Should the approved use cease for a period of 6 months or more, the site outlined in red shall revert to agriculture with immediate effect.
Reason: the application has been approved on an exceptional basis and if the use ceases the site shall be reverted to agriculture to avoid the accumulation of unwarranted development in the countryside.
N 1. The applicant is reminded of their separate obligations under the Highways Act 1986 in respect of not allowing surface water runoff into the highway.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. New development should be directed to town or village centres and designated land, though some rural buildings may be repurposed for tourism or small-scale commercial uses under Environment Policy 16 and this can help in providing extra income for farms. While this building lacks merit under EP16b, it remains intact and the proposed use requires no extension, meeting EP16(a) and (c). The building's small size and small scale of operation do not cause significant traffic issues or affect town vitality, in line with EP16(d) and (e) and Transport Policy 4, and this small size and scale means the proposal doesn't adversely harm the agricultural character of the site or surrounding countryside to an unacceptable degree, meeting EP16(f) and Environment Policy 1. Parking on the rear hardstanding does not impact agricultural land per Environment Policy 14, nor harm surrounding farming operations or the wider landscape. Conditions will restrict use and ensure the site returns to agriculture if the use ceases.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the following all date stamped and received 15/11/2024: o Planning statement o Location plan o Existing site plan o Proposed site plan o Existing Floor plan o Proposed Floor Plan o Before and After elevation o Roller Shutter Door Spec o Aerials 2021 and 2024 o 5 x Site Photographs __
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should be given the Right to Appeal on the basis that they have submitted a relevant objection: o Local Commissioners - Marown Parish Commissioners o Department of Infrastructure
__
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSAL COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, HAS RECEIVED OBJECTION FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site relates to an existing agricultural shed forming part of the wider cluster of farm buildings at Ballachrink Farm. The shed is attached to a larger building and with
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/91312/B Page 3 of 8
a small concrete apron to the front serving both. The shed and larger building were both approved for use as part of the farms agricultural plant repair business under 19/00248/C.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 This current planning application seeks approval for: o The change of use of the smaller shed for the storage of builders materials and tools o Installation of a roller shutter door and single personnel door o Creation and use of parking area to rear for the parking of larger HGV vehicle.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The site has been subject to a number of previous planning applications including 19/00248/C for the additional use of the building and shed as part of the farms agricultural plant repair business. Conditions were added to control the use and linking it to the main farm: o C1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
o C2. The plant repair use hereby approved shall be limited only to within the area outlined in red on drawing number 01 Rev A date stamped as received on 4th March 2019. Reason: The application has been assessed on an exceptional basis and any use outside of this area would need to be assessed as part of a separate application.
o C3. The additional use hereby approved shall remain connected with the main farm in that it shall only be owned and operated alongside the wider farm. Reason: To ensure that segregation of the commercial site from the wider farm does not occur.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site is not designated for development on the Area Plan for the East 2020. The site is not at any flood risk on recent maps nor is it within any Conservation Area and there are no registered trees nearby.
4.2 Relevant policies of Strategic Plan. o Strategic Policy 1 - make best use of existing underused sites o Strategic Policy 2 - new development directed to existing towns and villages o Strategic Policy 8 - major employment generating development should be in existing centres on land zoned for such o Spatial Policy 5 - development only in countryside in accordance with GP3. o General Policy 2 - general development standards o General Policy 3 - exceptions to development in the countryside o Environment Policy 1 - protection of countryside for its own sake o Environment Policy 14 - loss of Class 1 or 2 agricultural land o Environment Policy 16 - reuse of existing rural building for small-scale industrial/commercial o Business Policy 1 - growth of employment opportunities encouraged o Paragraphs under 9.2 - industry and storage and distribution "It will also be appropriate, when formulating Area Plans for our smaller settlements, to make provision for the continued operation of small-scale family businesses, particularly those serving local needs such as garages and builders." o Business Policy 2 - industrial land designations in all parts of island having regard to scale, public transport links, labour and services. o Paragraph 9.2.7
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/91312/B Page 4 of 8
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Marown Parish Commissioners - objection (02/01/2025) on two grounds o the change of use from agricultural to industrial - it is not the location for that type of commercial business, and o the resultant degradation of the agricultural industry.
5.2 The Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - do not oppose (17/12/2024) and no further comments (09/01/2025).
5.3 The Department of Infrastructure Highway Drainage - there is no information provided to determine details of surface water or its interaction with the main highway to understand the proposals compliance with Section 58 of the Highway Act 1985 and 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads.
5.4 The following were also consulted but no response received as of 17/02/2025: o DEFA Forestry
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 There is therefore a presumption against development here and where the protection of the countryside and landscape is a priority, as set out in Environment Policies 1 and 2 and General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan. The Plan makes provision for development in such areas where there is agricultural justification and there is no unacceptable environmental impact which outweighs the justification.
6.2 Industrial development which would perhaps best describe the proposed use, is generally directed to land designated for such purposes and there are no policies which would indicate that an industrial use such as this would be acceptable in an area not designated for development.
6.3 Agriculture plays an important role in shaping and maintaining the landscape and as such serious consideration needs to be given before losing agricultural land to development and this is reiterated through Environment Policy 14.
6.4 There are a number of traditional farm buildings strewn across the Island, some being of size unsuitable or of only limited use for modern farming. Some of these traditional rural buildings represent not only a valuable part of Island heritage, but also an opportunity for diversification and re-use. Environment Policy 16 sets out the criteria for such conversions.
6.5 The key matters to consider in the assessment of this application are the physical works to the building itself and to the hardstanding at the rear, and the change of use for buildings storage.
6.6 Physical Works 6.6.1 The physical works in respect of the doors and hardstanding are unobjectionable. They do not result in any increased or adverse harm to the overall appearance of the building or site in this location and are not visible from any public view. The size and scale of the hardstanding immediately adjacent the existing farm yard and buildings does not result in any loss of high quality agricultural land nor result in any unacceptable spread or adverse visual impact on the landscape. The land owner was on site during the visit and indicated that the cutting works to the rear of the building were initially undertaken to allow better drainage to the rear of the buildings and now doubled up as parking area and with access still into the field behind.
6.7 Change of Use
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/91312/B Page 5 of 8
6.7.1 Existing building and shed have an approval for use as agricultural or agricultural plant repair business. The proposal seeks to change the use of the shed area to a new use for the storage of builder's materials, tools and equipment. Unlike the agricultural plant repair operation, this new builder's use is not owned or operated by the farm holding and does not incorporate any agricultural links. From a planning perspective if there is a culmination of approvals for the change of use or additional use of existing agricultural buildings to alternative uses, there is risk this could set unfavourable precedent for future applications, and in the loss of agricultural buildings may increase pressures in the future to release other land to accommodate other agricultural works.
6.7.2 The size of the shed is 14.5m x 5.5m. During the site visit there appeared to be scaffold, reinforced steel fixing and tin decking materials, ply, plasterboard, ladders, mini fork lift and other builders equipment neatly stored and locked within the building. At the time of the visit there were also two people loading equipment and tools into two vans in preparation for a job elsewhere on Island. There was a flatbed wagon parked on the hardstanding to the rear. The adjoining building for 'Manx Agri Plant Services' was not in operation at the time of the visit, agricultural vehicles and plant were parked on the apron to the front and also within the surrounding area, other buildings and the farm yard appeared just as a typical operational farm areas with bales, farm machinery and farm vehicles visible throughout.
6.7.3 The shed subject to this proposal was originally included within the red line for the application for the agricultural plant repair operation and so has already been accepted for some form of additional/alternative use although still linked to agriculture on the contrary this proposal would have no agricultural link. It's a steel framed modern building and so not of any social, historic or architectural merit warranting its protection or conversion under EP16(b) although is structurally intact and capable of housing the proposed use, and its existing size already clearly capable of accommodating the proposal without any extension to it.
6.7.4 Compared to other buildings within the site the shed is one of the smallest and its size self-governing the size and scale of the operation occupying it. There was no builder's equipment stored outside and it was clear from meeting with the farm owner onsite that they were aware of and managing the site as a whole. Access into the farm is via a private access land along which are some passing places. It is clear that the builders use would have traffic associated with it but this being for the loading and unloading of vehicles and not for any customers or deliveries. The applicant explained that materials for jobs are generally delivered straight to site and only tools and equipment owned by them stored at the site between jobs and any left-over/spare materials. The traffic associated would not result in any unacceptable implications on the site or wider area.
6.7.5 EP16(e) sets out that conversion to rural buildings for small scale industrial/commercial use may be permitted where "conversion does not lead to dispersal of activity on such a scale as to prejudice the vitality and viability of existing town and village services". Abovementioned the shed is one of the smallest at the farm and self-governing in its size and scale of operation. The business occupying is a local builders company who mainly operate at various construction sites across the Island and using this shed building primarily for storage between jobs. The small scale nature of the shed and its operation combined is not considered to prejudice the vitality and viability of existing town or village services, while yes the location on a farm like the commissions have stated is not typical for this type of builders storage operation and would be at odds with what its normally found across the countryside, however given its small size it is not considered in this instance to be so harmful or unacceptable as to adversely impact the countryside in this case. If it was occupying anything larger this likely would have tipped the balance the other way.
6.7.6 The commissioners also raised concern regarding the possible degrading of the agricultural operation and industry, although it should be minded that if the use of the shed be needed back by the farmer or be causing inconvenience to them they could cease the contract
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/91312/B Page 6 of 8
at any time. A condition to return the shed back to agricultural use should the operation cease would also safeguard this part. With exception to the shed, the remaining farm holding and cluster of buildings are quite clearly in agricultural use. The adjoining building is used for agricultural plant repair and so the dominant character of the site remains evidently and recognisably agricultural. The occupation of anything larger or occupation of multiple spaces for non-agricultural related operation may alter this character. A condition to restrict the proposed operation to within the red line only would therefore be appropriate, with no external storage of any materials, tools or equipment and the hardstanding apron being used only for parking of vehicles associated with the use of the shed.
6.8 Highway Drainage 6.8.1 The site is accessed via a fairly long private lane and considerable distance from the main road. The typography is as such that the farm building sit lower than the road. The proposal is not considered to result in any new or increased impact compared to the existing situation in terms of highway drainage. There are no issues in this respect.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 It is accepted that new development is first to be directed to appropriate town or village centres and on land designated for such purposes, however there is some acceptance in the re- use of some rural buildings as outlined in General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 16 for tourist or small scale industrial or commercial uses which can offer some additional income and diversification for farms. While this building is not of any interest or merit meeting EP16b and this weighs against the proposal, the building it is intact and doesn't require extension meeting EP16(a and c) and the small scale size of the shed and nature of operation doesn't result in unacceptable traffic implications nor a level of activity that prejudices vitality or viability of existing town or village services meeting with EP16(d and e) and Transport Policy 4. It is this small size and small scale nature that helps to ensure the proposal does not result in any adverse harm to the overall agricultural character of the site as a whole, and of a size and scale not to harm the overall surrounding countryside environment or wider rural landscape in line with EP16(f) and Environment Policy 1 and this weighs in favour of the proposal. The parking of a vehicle on the rear hardstanding would not result in the loss of any high quality agricultural land as per EP14, nor is it considered to result in any harm to the surrounding agricultural operations or gate into the field behind, noting that the farmer is on site and any disruption to them they could cease the operation at any time. Conditions will help to ensure control is restricted to the proposed use only and should the use cease returned to agriculture, and the approved use only within the red line as shown on the plan and no external storage of materials or equipment on the site.
9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 9.1 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).
9.2 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.
9.3 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.
9.4 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);
==== PAGE 7 ====
24/91312/B Page 7 of 8
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. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to the it by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Permitted
Committee Meeting Date: 17.03.2025
Signed : L KINRADE Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
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.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 17.03.2025
Application No. :
24/91312/B Applicant : KNR Construction Limited Proposal : Change of use of building for storage of equipment and tools and vehicle workshop; alterations including installation of roller shutter door and creation of hardstanding for parking of work vehicles (retrospective) Site Address : Ballachrink Farm Ballanicholas Garth Cosby Isle Of Man IM4 2HD
Planning Officer : Lucy Kinrade
==== PAGE 8 ====
24/91312/B Page 8 of 8
Presenting Officer As above
Addendum to the Officer’s Report
The case officer updated the Committee on matters relating to comments received from DOI Highway Drainage and the interested persons listed in the Right to Appeal. The Case Officer sought to update their recommendation since the writing of report and publishing of the agenda so as to remove Department of Infrastructure from the right to appeal list on the basis that their representation was not an objection but comments highlighting the need for separate compliance with other legislation and so the case officer recommended that their approval include a note to remind the applicant of their separate obligations under the DOI Highways Act 1986 in respect of not allowing surface water onto the highway.
One member of the Committee made reference to the dark skies location of the site and suggested a further condition be added to prevent any external lighting at the site.
The Committee refused to accept the Case Officer's updated recommendation on the basis of 5 conditions and 1 note, and instead recommended approval on the basis of 6 conditions and 1 note.
Members unanimously agreed that Right to Appeal only be given to the local authority, and Department of Infrastructure would not get right to appeal.
C6. There shall be no external lighting at the site. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure no harm to the dark skies.
N1. The applicant is reminded of their separate obligations under the Highways Act 1986 in respect of not allowing surface water runoff into the highway.
It is recommended that the following organisations should be given the Right to Appeal on the basis that they have submitted a relevant objection: o Local Commissioners - Marown Parish Commissioners
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal on the basis that they have submitted a relevant objection: o Department of Infrastructure
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal