Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90379/B
Page 1 of 14
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90379/B Applicant : Mr Patrick Hughes Proposal : Erection of an agricultural building and associated hardstanding on Field 524401 Site Address : Ballig Farm West Baldwin Isle Of Man IM4 5EU
Planning Officer: Hamish Laird Photo Taken : 18.07.2025 Site Visit : 18.07.2025 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 30.07.2025 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is a justified agricultural operation requiring the kind of agricultural development proposed in this location. This is contrary to the provisions of Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3(f) and Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016.
R 2. The proposed development is unacceptable due to the size, scale and siting of the proposed agricultural building set on a constrained site on the valley floor of this Upland Valley Glen close to the West Baldwin Reservoir, where it would be unrelated to any other existing agricultural buildings. It would result in the erection of a large, visually intrusive structure in the open countryside which would be harmful to the secluded rural character of the site and its surroundings. This is contrary to the provisions of Strategic Policy 4, Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 2 (b), (c), and (g); General Policy 3 (f); and, Environment Policies 1, 2 and 15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 3. The application raises concern that the building proposed too large to adequately fit on the site with sufficient space around it for ancillary operations and storage of equipment, fodder and servicing the animals through the winter period which will require a significant amount of animal feed (1170 silage bales approx.) and bedding (430 bales approx.) to be transported to the site and how manure/effluent would be transported away from the site. This is contrary to the design principles set out in Environment Policy 15 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 and those within the DEFA Welfare Code for Cattle.
R 4. There is no over-riding or warranted need to outweigh the potential visual harm and impact on the countryside that a large agricultural livestock shed located on a constrained site with an immediate land-holding of approximately 5 hectares (12 acres) of agricultural land including a residential curtilage would have. Furthermore, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that there are no other reasonable or alternative sites that could come forward.
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90379/B
Page 2 of 14
This is contrary to the provisions of Environment Policies 1, 2, 15 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 and Landscape Character Appraisal 2008. __
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:
DOI Highway Services/Drainage - No Objection __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application relates to field 524457 which is on grazing land to the north of Ballig Farm, West Baldwin. The site sits towards the northern end of the road but south of the West Baldwin Reservoir. The field sits between the B22 and River Glass and is surrounded on two edges by registered trees RTA RA2030 and RTA RA 0880. The site lies between the road and the West Baldwin River/ River Glass which runs from Injebreck Reservoir to join the River Dhoo at the National Sports Centre, becoming the River Douglas and flowing out to sea at Douglas Harbour.
1.2 The site extends to the north and south of the building group in the form of gently sloping agricultural land which borders the river. Access into the site is through a newly formed entrance (24/00170/B). There is an additional access to the south of the original entrance into the site.
1.3 Ballig Farm comprises approximately 5 hectares (12 acres) of agricultural land and a residential curtilage. The site accommodates a complex of existing buildings including a dwelling and smaller outbuildings all situated on the eastern side of the B22 West Baldwin Road. Off-site on the western side of the road, slightly higher than Ballig Farm, are farm buildings which are in the process of being converted to a dwelling.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The Planning Statement in support of this full planning application for the erection of an agricultural building and associated hardstanding, advises as follows:
"4.1 The application is a resubmission of the application which was withdrawn - 24/00796/B - and this application seeks to address the issues raised.
4.2 The application proposes the erection of a new agricultural building situated to the north of the existing farmhouse. The building will have a footprint of 20m by 40m including a straw bale store against the northern elevation of the structure and an area for the external storage of silage bales on the western side of the building.
4.3 The building will have an eaves height of 5m and an overall height of 8m. The building will be finished in a combination of sheeting, timber boarding and stonework with a 1.8m high stone plinth on the west, east and southern elevations with the northern elevation finished in timber boarding. The roof will be finished in green sheeting.
4.4 A concrete apron will be formed around the building, extending to 18m to the west (towards the road), 5.5m to the north, 5.2m to the east (towards the river) and 8m to the south (towards the house).
4.5 Two subterranean slurry tanks will be introduced underneath the hardstanding to the south of the building. Drainage pipes will collect rain and surface water from the building to discharge
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90379/B
Page 3 of 14
into the river via a protected outfall. 4.6 Internally the building will have a central aisle either side of which will be cattle holding stalls"
2.2 The building is to have one large access on one end gable and a single pedestrian door on one side elevation.
2.3 Drawing details indicate the following for external finishes "Walls to be constructed with portal frame steelwork. Low level walls to be natural stone clad concrete block work. High level walls to be vertically hung natural timber cladding in hit and miss 'Yorkshire boarding' style". The low level natural stone cladding base wall measures 1.8m high. The roof is detailed as "Roof to be corrugated sheet cladding (either colour powder coated steel or Marley Eternit Big 6 Fibre cement sheeting) with protected open ridge."
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The site has been the subject of the following applications:
96/01133/B - Installation of dormer window, new uPVC windows and French doors and replacement of roof - permitted (no documents available online) 97/00881/B - Erection of cattle shed, log store and creation of two wildlife pond - permitted (no documents available online). 97/01294/B - Alterations to existing vehicular entrance to dwelling and relocation of vehicular access to nearby fields - permitted (no documents available online) 02/01988/B - Extension to dwelling - permitted (no documents available online) 03/01511/B - Amendments to approved extension (02/01988/B) - permitted (no documents available online) 07/02250/R - Retention of alterations to dwelling - permitted. 24/00170/B - Creation of additional access to improve site access - permitted. The applicant confirmed in the application form that the current access provides the owner with difficulties accessing the site with larger farm vehicles.
24/00796/B - Erection of agricultural building - withdrawn. This would have been refused for the following reasons:
"1. The application has failed to provide sufficient evidence or justification of any agricultural need warranting a new agricultural building in this location contrary to Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3(f) and Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016.
The application raises concern that the building proposed is insufficient for the stated need being too small and no evidence of sufficient facilities for general operation and cattle welfare including storage of any equipment, feed and bedding, and how waste would be dealt with contrary to the design principles set out in Environment Policy 15 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 and those within the DEFA Welfare Code for Cattle.
There is no over-riding or warranted need to outweigh the potential visual harm and impact on the countryside and it hasn't been demonstrated that there are no other reasonable or alternative sites first coming forward contrary to Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 and Landscape Character Appraisal 2008."
3.2 In support of the current 25/90379/B application, the applicant advises that in respect of the previously withdrawn 24/00796/B - erection of agricultural building - withdrawn. This application generated comments from: o The Highway Services Division of Department for Infrastructure had no objection to the application o The Highway Services Division of Department for Infrastructure Drainage initially submitted a comment indicating that there is no information on the access to the field. The applicant confirmed that "On this application we proposing to extend into the field a hardcore access
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90379/B
Page 4 of 14
with this track being many meters below and well away from the highway no contact or connection with the highway. The hardcore track is permeable with the concrete turning area being the only new hard surface outside the buildings entrance doors." On this basis the Department indicated that they had no objection. o Braddan Parish Commissioners had no objection o Andy Cooper, whose job title is not provided in his correspondence to the planning officer but who is understood to be an agricultural adviser in Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, was approached by the planning officer and he made a range of comments about the amount of manure and urine which would be generated by the number of animals in the proposed building but which was not addressed in the application and also that there was no provision for the storage of the amount of straw required for bedding. He also commented on feed passages and queried the ownership of land said in the application to be owned by the applicant and whether the applicant was registered and supporting the application."
4.0 PLANNING POLICY
4.1 Site Specific o not designated for any development on the Area Plan for the East 2020 (TAPE) o located within landscape area B7 - Narrow Upland Glens - West Baldwin on TAPE as outlined in the Isle of Man Landscape Character Assessment 2008. o agricultural land use capability map - Class 3 o falls within land highlighted as containing registered trees on TAPE o Registered Tree Areas RA2030 and RA0880 o Part of the site along the River Glass is recognised as being at some surface water risk o Not in a conservation area
4.2 Relevant policies of TAPE o Landscape Proposal 3 (West Baldwin) - preserve character of West Baldwin village and applications must demonstrate consideration to scale, location and design of development in order to protect and enhance the village and its setting and that the proposed development can mitigate adverse effects. o Landscape Proposal 4 (West Baldwin) - Any development visible from the West Baldwin Reservoir must be designed to be sensitively integrated into the landscape with complementary colours and materials and non-reflective finishes.
4.3 Relevant policies of Strategic Plan. o Strategic Policy 1 - optimising and making best and efficient use of sites o Strategic Policies 3 and 5 - promote good design and use of local materials and character o Strategic Policy 4 - protect or enhance landscape quality and nature conservation of rural areas o Paragraph 4.3.11 of the Strategic Plan states, "Merely arguing that a new building cannot be seen in public views is not a justification for the relaxation of other policies relating to the location of new development". o Strategic Policy 10 - not adversely affect highway safety for all users o Spatial Policy 5 - development only permitted in countryside if in accordance with GP3. o General Policy 2 - general standards towards acceptable development o General Policy 3(f) - sets out exceptions to development in the countryside including operations essential for conduct of agriculture, o Paragraphs 7.4.1 and 7.5.1 - Landscape and open countryside protection o Environment Policies 1 and 2 - seek to protect the countryside for its own sake and from harmful and unwarranted development o Paragraph 7.6.1 - Landscape assessment and classification o Paragraphs in Section 7.13 - protection of agricultural land and real agricultural need must be demonstrated o Section 7.9 including para's 7.9.1 and 7.9.2 - watercourse and wetland protection
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90379/B
Page 5 of 14
o Environment Policy 7 - any development causing demonstrable harm to watercourse not permitted unless can be overcome by mitigation o Environment Policy 8 - Agricultural buildings not permitted if discharge results in breach of "Code of Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Water." o Environment Policy 13 - no increased flooding on or off site. o Environment Policy 14 - no loss of high quality agricultural land o Environment Policy 15 - outlines the general design criteria for agricultural buildings being positioned as close to existing buildings as possible and being of appropriate scale and sympathetic to the landscape o Environment Policy 22 - smell, smoke, fumes and pollution impacts and impacts on neighbours. o Environment Policy 23 - potential increased adverse impact on existing neighbours o Environment Policy 42 - promotes development taking account of locality in design. o Transport Policy 4 - capable of accommodating vehicle and pedestrian journeys o Community Policy 7 - designing out crime o Community Policy 11 - prevention of outbreak and spread of fire o Infrastructure Policy 5 - water conservation and management measures
4.4 Reference any relevant Planning Policy Statement (PPS) or National Policy Directive (NPD) 4.4.1 n/a
4.5 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."
5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 Legislation o Section 68 of the Flood Risk Management Act (2013) indicates that any published Flood Risk Management Plan and the extent to which the proposed development creates an additional flood risk are material considerations.
5.2 Policy/Strategy/Guidance o Food Matters Business Development Strategy 2015-2025 o Agricultural Soils of the Isle of Man (2001) is the study that classifies areas of the Island by agricultural requirements. It contains the Agricultural Land Use Capability Map. o Isle Of Man Landscape Character Assessment 2008 o DEFA Welfare Code for Cattle
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 DOI Highway Services - Do not oppose (15/05/2025) - Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as the access onto the highway is acceptable for the proposals being modified under application 24/00170/B, and the internal layout accommodates the operation of the proposals. There are passing places along W Baldwin Road to allow large agricultural vehicles to pass opposing traffic.
6.2 DOI Highway Drainage - accepted proposal (8/5/2025) "Allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads.
==== PAGE 6 ====
25/90379/B
Page 6 of 14
Recommendation: At any entrance onto the highway the applicant is required to conform to the clause above."
6.3 DEFA Agricultural Officer - (21/7/25), comments as follows:-
"As the Agricultural Policy Manager for the Isle of Man Government, I have reviewed this application and visited the site.
The following observations are made for the Planning Directorate's consideration. The land referenced in the application, including the smaller parcel at Ballig Farm, has, according to DEFA records, been farmed for 'at least' the last six years by Ballacutchel Farms Ltd, a well-established farming business.
DEFA records do not show any farming activity directly undertaken by Mr Hughes currently or during the last six years.
I arranged to meet Mr Hughes on 2nd July 2025 on site to discuss his farming business. He did not attend.
I was however, met by (redacted) and employees of Ballacutchel Farms Ltd. They explained that Ballacutchel farms Ltd currently farm the land and livestock under an informal contract arrangement with Mr Hughes.
(Redacted) confirmed that his business provides all labour, feed, management, machinery and facilities for the livestock and land.
He also stated that once the proposed building is complete (subject to planning), Mr Hughes intends to begin farming in his own right, employing his own staff. Until then, the livestock will continue to be managed by Ballacutchel Farms Ltd.
Mr Hughes does have an active livestock holding number with the Department linked to his land, this was first registered in March 2024. Mr Hughes has recently (May 2025) registered with DEFA as an agricultural business. However, he has not applied to any Government agricultural support schemes for the 2025-26 scheme year.
The proposed building location is constrained in terms of access and layout with steep and narrow access.
The shed design appears suitable for housing the number of cattle indicated. The animals would require approximately 566.75m2 and taking account of the bedding storage area there would be 574m2 available.
Due to the limited amount of land available at the site, servicing the animals through the winter period will require a significant amount of animal feed (1170 silage bales approx.) and bedding (430 bales approx.) to be transported to the site and manure/effluent to be transported away from the site.
During my visit, Ballacutchel's staff told me their plan would be to deliver feed regularly and remove muck for spreading routinely however no contracts are currently in place. Slurry runoff from the shed internals would be collected via underground tanks but these would need managing and emptying regularly. There was uncertainty around where the excess straw and feed will be stored off site as the plans only allocate a small area which look like it could hold up to 1 weeks' worth at a time on site, and how efficiently the site can handle such volumes given the limited hardstanding and topographical constraints.
==== PAGE 7 ====
25/90379/B
Page 7 of 14
I am aware that the larger parcel of land as indicated in the planning application has been associated with a separate planning matter conversation, which leaves me unclear as the ownership of the land associated with this application. It is also not clear who own the livestock associated with this application or if there is an intention for the sale of the livestock from Ballacutchel Ltd to the applicant.
To conclude: The current farming activity is suggested to be undertaken by a third party under an informal contract agreement. The information provided to me during the visit differs in material respects from the justification set out in the application and statement.
The proposed shed appears physically suitable for overwintering cattle, but the site lacks supporting infrastructure, and there are some obvious practical challenges around feed, manure/waste handling, and access.
There are certainly benefits to the housing of livestock through the winter period over outwintering. However, given the information presented I am not confident that the location is the best site and the cost saving of housing the animals would outweigh the extra costs associated with this location. It's also not clear where the animals are housed or managed currently."
6.4 DEFA Ecosystems Policy Team (13/5/25) - comments as follows: "General Stance No objection subject to condition
Detailed comments The application proposes the removal of a tree group to facilitate the development, but new tree planting to mitigate this has been provided, as have plans showing the erection of 2 bat boxes on trees around the site.
Potential conditions o Trees to be planted as per Wilson Tree Care Tree Replanting Plan and Schedule o Bat boxes to be erected in the locations shown on the Proposed Site Plan, prior to development commencing
Additional information The Arboricultural Impact Assessment identified a number of mature category U trees around the field, which though are not to be removed to facilitate the development, were also recommended to be removed. No photos have been provided showing whether these trees have potential bat roost features. The applicant must ensure that thorough checks for bat roost features are undertaken prior to felling taking place, should any features of potential significance for bats be found during these checks, then these may need more detailed checking via torches and endoscopes and might need checking by a trained ecologist. Arborists should follow the advice in the 'Method Statement for the Appropriate Use of Endoscopes by Arborists'.
Should bats be found then the works must stop and advice be obtained from the Ecosystem Policy Team on 651577."
6.5 Braddan Parish Commissioners - no comments have been received by the Report drafting stage. 30/7/25
6.6 The following were consulted but no comments have been received by the Report drafting stage. 30/7/25 o DEFA Forestry, Amenity and Lands
==== PAGE 8 ====
25/90379/B
Page 8 of 14
o Manx Utilities
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.1 The key considerations in the determination of the application are: a) Principle of development b) Need c) Impact on countryside d) Impact on watercourse e) Impact on residential amenity f) Highway safety and traffic g) Impact on trees and registered woodland h) Other issues
7.2 a) Principle of Development 7.2.1 The site lies within the countryside as defined in Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan, and within a landscape area B7 - West Baldwin as part of the 'Narrow Upland Glens' as outlined in the Landscape Character Assessment 2008 and within B7 in TAPE. Strategic Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan indicates that development in the countryside will be permitted only in the exceptional circumstances identified in General Policy 3. Exception (f) applies to works essential for the conduct of agriculture; and, Environment Policy 15 indicates that the agricultural need for any building must outweigh those general presumptions against development in the countryside and that its impact including any accesses, servicing etc. is also acceptable.
7.2.2 The field forms part of 12 acres (5 ha) relating to the main property known as "Ballig Farm". At the time of the Case Officer's site visit on 18/7/25, there is one small, 2-storey size/scale building of painted render walls under a slate roof with 2 No. garage door openings in both the west and east side elevations. It has a flight of external stone steps to the first floor (hayloft) on the north side elevation; and, 2 No. wooden lean-to structures attached to each side elevation which allow access to the adjoining field used to accommodate a Donkey/livestock, machinery, and on the upper floor, feedstuff. Otherwise, there are no other existing agricultural buildings on the site.
7.2.3 The formal plans submitted by the agent outline in blue additional land in the applicant's ownership comprising 92.36 acres near Staarvey, Peel, and 9.05 acres at St Judes, Andreas. The supporting statement provided by Sarah Corlett advises that these land holdings are owned by the applicant, and that neither has any buildings on them. It is noted that in the previously withdrawn submission, the then Agent, Agrimanx, advised that this additional land was leased and not owned. No proof of ownership of these parcels of land has been provided. The supporting statement advises at paragraph 4.8:
"4.8 The applicant is a registered farmer with Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture with a holding number - 282. He currently has 80 head of cattle and 25 young cattle but no buildings of his own to accommodate them. There is sufficient storage space within existing structures at Ballig to accommodate the telehandler for bale handling and grass toppers and equipment needed for management of the holding."
7.2.3 In the report received from the DEFA Agricultural Officer on 21/7/25, the DEFA Agricultural Officer advises: "I arranged to meet Mr Hughes on 2nd July 2025 on site to discuss his farming business. He did not attend. I was however, met by Mr Downey and employees of Ballacutchel Farms Ltd. They explained that Ballacutchel farms Ltd currently farm the land and livestock under an informal contract arrangement with Mr Hughes. Mr Downey confirmed that his business provides all labour, feed, management, machinery and facilities for the livestock and land.
==== PAGE 9 ====
25/90379/B
Page 9 of 14
He also stated that once the proposed building is complete (subject to planning), Mr Hughes intends to begin farming in his own right, employing his own staff. Until then, the livestock will continue to be managed by Ballacutchel Farms Ltd."
7.2.4 It is noted that: o There are no completed agricultural questionnaires provided with the application; o DEFA records do not show any farming activity directly undertaken by Mr Hughes currently or during the last six years; o There is no evidence of any tenancy agreements; o There is a lack of clarity that the existing stock is in fact the applicants: o There is lack of information as to how long the applicant has been a farmer; and, o Whilst Ballacutchel Farms Ltd currently farm the land and livestock under an informal contract arrangement with Mr Hughes, there is no information to show if or where the current stock is housed or where the existing farming equipment including bedding and feed is kept.
7.2.5 The applicant has an active livestock holding number, which the Agent confirmed as Holding No. 282 with the Department linked to his land, this was first registered in March 2024. Mr Hughes has recently (May 2025) registered with DEFA as an agricultural business. However, he has not applied to any Government agricultural support schemes for the 2025-26 scheme year. At the time of the Case Officers Ballig Farm site visit on 18/7/25, some equipment was apparent, this being a yellow/black coloured teleloader; orange coloured excavator; red/black Quad bike attached to a small open livestock trailer; blue Quad bike with black rollover cage; and, a front blade excavator.
7.2.6 It is presumed, that farming equipment (as opposed to construction equipment - orange coloured excavator; front blade excavator), would be housed at Ballacutchel Farms Ltd's premises during the winter months with the cattle being kept on either or both of the land parcels 92.36 acres at Staarvey, near Peel; and, the 9.05 acres at St Judes, Bride, during the months between mid-March and the beginning of November - which signifies the grass growing season. Given that Mr Downey from Ballacutchel Farms Ltd confirmed that his business provides all labour, feed, management, machinery and facilities for the livestock and land, and that the applicant, Mr Hughes did not attend a pre-arranged site meeting with the DEFA Agricultural Officer, after the Officer had sought to meet on more than one occasion, there is doubt regarding the applicants commitment and involvement with this proposal, as concluded by the DEFA Agricultural Officer, in his comments on the application, namely: "The current farming activity is suggested to be undertaken by a third party under an informal contract agreement. The information provided to me during the visit differs in material respects from the justification set out in the application and statement." Furthermore, the DEFA Agricultural Officer commented:
"During my visit, Ballacutchel' s staff told me their plan would be to deliver feed regularly and remove muck for spreading routinely however no contracts are currently in place. Slurry runoff from the shed internals would be collected via underground tanks but these would need managing and emptying regularly. There was uncertainty around where the excess straw and feed will be stored off site as the plans only allocate a small area which look like it could hold up to 1 weeks' worth at a time on site, and how efficiently the site can handle such volumes given the limited hardstanding and topographical constraints."
7.2.7 In the previous Officer report into the withdrawn 24/00796/B application, paragraph 7.32.5 advised: "7.2.5 Publically available information shows that Ballig Farm was marketed for sale in 2021 and with a recent land transaction showing acquisition and completion between 22/23. There were no agricultural buildings at that time. It is unknown if the applicant is the recent purchaser and whether they are also new to farming, or is the operation longstanding and relocating. If the latter there is no information or evidence of where the current established operation runs from and why this is now no longer available."
==== PAGE 10 ====
25/90379/B Page 10 of 14
7.2.8 It is clear that the validity of this proposal and whether the applicant is an active farmer, given the management of the existing livestock by Ballacutchel Farms Ltd, is in doubt. In his comments, the Agricultural Officer advised: "I am aware that the larger parcel of land as indicated in the planning application has been associated with a separate planning matter conversation, which leaves me unclear as the ownership of the land associated with this application. It is also not clear who own the livestock associated with this application or if there is an intention for the sale of the livestock from Ballacutchel Ltd to the applicant."
7.2.9 Whilst the proposed shed appears physically suitable for overwintering cattle, the site lacks supporting infrastructure, and there are obvious practical challenges around feed, manure/waste handling, which have not been sufficiently addressed by this proposal given the small scale nature of the land-holding. The suitability of the access is also questioned. It is noted that engineering operations for works to the existing access are in progress (with photographs taken - 18/7/25). However, questions have been raised regarding whether the works as carried out, but not yet completed, have been lawfully implemented. An investigation by DEFA Planning is currently ongoing regarding the access.
7.2.10 There are, without doubt, benefits to the housing of livestock through the winter period compared to outwintering - keeping livestock in the open. However, given the information presented the Department is not confident that the location is the best site and the cost saving of housing the animals would outweigh the extra costs associated with this location in terms of the distance involved between the land-holdings at Staarvey, near (Peel 22 minutes/ 16.5 km by road); and, St Judes, Bride, (19 minutes/13.8 km by road) via Barregarrow. Furthermore, it has not been made clear where the animals are currently housed or managed, although it is assumed that this is by the staff at Ballacutchell Farms Ltd, and that they are housed at their farm premises on Ballacutchel Road, Mount Murray (approx. 10 km/15 minutes from the site) during the winter months.
7.2.11 In respect of the appropriateness and functionality of the proposed livestock building, the DEFA Agricultural Officer advised that: "The shed design appears suitable for housing the number of cattle indicated. The animals would require approximately 566.75m2 and taking account of the bedding storage area there would be 574m2 available."
7.2.12 However, the DEFA Agricultural Officer went on to advise that: "Due to the limited amount of land available at the site, servicing the animals through the winter period will require a significant amount of animal feed (1170 silage bales approx.) and bedding (430 bales approx.) to be transported to the site and manure/effluent to be transported away from the site."
7.2.13 The proposals would involve a considerable number of vehicle movements along the public highway, which is generally of a narrow width, and not always capable of accommodating two way traffic between West Baldwin and the A23 Mount Rule Road to the south. To the north of the site and West Baldwin Reservoir, in addition to being generally of a narrow width, the public highway is steeply graded as it traverses the mountains on its way to the A3 to the north-west at Barregarrow. It is noted that DoI Highways has raised no objection to the proposals, commenting that "There are passing places along W Baldwin Road to allow large agricultural vehicles to pass opposing traffic."
7.2.13 Notwithstanding DoI Highways comments, given the above, it is considered that the proposed development is unacceptable in terms of both principle, and need. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is a justified agricultural operation requiring the kind of agricultural development proposed in this location. This is contrary to the provisions of Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3(f) and Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016.
==== PAGE 11 ====
25/90379/B Page 11 of 14
7.3 b) Impact on Countryside 7.3.1 The building would be located in the middle of the field north of the house and in its own right would be standalone with no other nearby agricultural buildings, although geographically close to the existing main house and close to the old outbuilding located on the opposite side of the narrow B-road (this outbuilding has been subject to approvals for its conversion to a new dwelling dating back to the 1990's and 2000's). The site is located within the valley of West Baldwin and is surrounding by trees with the valley river running along the eastern boundary. The Landscape Character Assessment of 2008 indicates some of the key characteristics of the area being the steep V shaped valley, scattered white washed houses, remote rural and tranquil feel, enclosed views of the valley opening to expansive views of upland areas, the reservoir and dense deciduous woodland valley. The proposal would be below the reservoir level and not impacting on the expansive views. There would be some views down into the valley through breaks in vegetation and during the leafless winter months. A new building here would undoubtedly have a visual impact beyond the current open field situation and an unjustified building which is not considered essential in this location would be unacceptable in respect of the key tests of EP1 and EP2.
7.3.2 The proposed building is 20m x 40m and almost 8m to ridge height. (The previously proposed structure was 20m x 20m and almost 8m to ridge height.) It would be contained within the field although likely to have associated agricultural activity spread into its immediate area which may increase the overall impact of the building and site on the tranquil character of the area having a degree of negative impact. There would be little room for manoeuvre around the building given the constraints of the field due to adjoining trees, river, and rising land, between which it would be sited. This would result in the appearance of a cramped and visually discordant form of development.
7.3.3 The location of the site is below and away from the West Baldwin Reservoir which lies approx. 350m to the north of the site. The site is set below the level of the road and towards the lowest part of the valley in this location. Its siting is not expected to impact the expansive views uploads or the open nature of the reservoir and its proximity to the main dwelling helps to limit its views as an isolated structure, however, there would be intermitted public view and this could be seen to negatively impact the character of the landscape in the setting of West Baldwin.
7.3.4 If agricultural need was to be successfully demonstrated, this might be sufficient to outweigh those negative impacts as a result of its siting. However, without that essential agricultural need being demonstrated a building here with no agricultural use would be an unwarranted building in the countryside impacting on the character of this area.
7.4 c) Impact on Watercourse 7.4.1 Environment Policy 8 states "Agricultural buildings will not be permitted on sites where their existence and associated discharges would result in a breach of the "Code of Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Water". The application has not been provided with any details of drainage or how slurry will be dealt with. DEFA Agricultural office comments state "the shed is very close to a watercourse and livestock effluent, if not very carefully managed from a significant herd of cattle will penetrate the groundwater causing significant contamination and pollution to the watercourse and surrounding area."
7.4.2 Agricultural buildings are exempt from Building Regulations and therefore it is necessary that drainage details be included as part of the submitted planning application. The applicant advises that "two subterranean slurry tanks will be introduced underneath the hardstanding to the south of the building. Drainage pipes will collect rain and surface water from the building to discharge into the river via a protected outfall." The application form states that surface water will be dealt with. No comments have been received from DoI Flood Management Division (FMD) regarding the proposals and it is noted that the site is not shown the DoI's Flood Risk Maps as being located in a Flood Risk Zone, although there is the potential for surface water
==== PAGE 12 ====
25/90379/B Page 12 of 14
flooding form the adjoining stream which acts as an outlet from the reservoir. Given the above, it is considered unlikely that there would be any adverse impacts or unreasonable levels of contamination across the surrounding lands or the nearby watercourse. This would accord with Environment Policies 7, 8, 13 and 22.
7.5 d) Impact on Residential Amenity 7.5.1 Neighbouring residents may be affected by the creation of new agricultural cattle livestock building here as a result of noise and smells arising from the proposed use. The site is agricultural land within the countryside where such noise and smells may likely to be expected as a matter of course. The nearest property would be the main dwelling owned by the applicants and so a level of acceptance. A dwelling sits on adjacent side of the river around 160m away and the approved barns for residential conversion site on the opposite side of the road approximately 100m away. It has not been demonstrated that the potential increased activity including noise and smell would not have an adverse impact on the nearest neighbours residing in this tranquil glen setting. However, no third party representations have been received from any neighbours, and on balance it is considered that the proposed development would accord with the provisions of Polices ENV22iii) and ENV23 in the IoMSP 2016.
7.6 e) Highway Safety and Traffic 7.6.1 The application drawings show an access track for the field from the field gate. The location plans do not appear up-to-date and fail to include the internal route up to the field within the site. There are two access off the main road into the main house which could accommodate traffic to the site off the road. None are indicated as being subject to any changes or alteration as per the application or application form.
7.6.2 The proposed building is to be for cattle livestock housing and this would increase agricultural activity and agricultural vehicular movements at the site beyond the existing residential use. This likely to peak at times when livestock are moved to and from the site from those locations of leased land located between 20-30minute drive away with the immediate roads being narrow and steep in places and requiring considerable vehicular/trailer movements.
7.6.3 DOI Highway Services have indicated that the proposal would have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking and they would not oppose. The nature of a farm operation with majority of its landholding elsewhere on the Island may increase agricultural traffic movements on this single track highway but minded of those comments received from DOI Highways the proposal is considered acceptable and not to undermine the principles of GP2 (h and i) and Transport Policy 7.
7.7 f) Impact on Trees 7.7.1 The application is provided with information in respect of trees and the relationship of the building being away from them in the most part. An Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) is submitted with the application. A total of 33 individual trees and 11 groups of trees have been surveyed, the AIA shows one Category C tree group (black willow) is to be removed, along with a small group of trees (G1 on plan) as being removed to accommodate the development. The CEZ plan provided as part of the AIA indicates that pruning to provide crown clearance from the driveway will be needed to the crown of a mature Sycamore (T3). Full specifications for the proposed tree works with all pruning works carried out in accordance with BS 3998:2010 - Recommendations for Tree Work and undertaken by a qualified arborist, are considered to be acceptable. The retained trees should not be in direct conflict with any buildings or infrastructure. However, future growth of tree crowns could potentially cause issues such as shading, and overhanging of branches.
7.7.2 On this basis, it is considered that the impact on the trees arising from the proposal is considered to be acceptable and accords with Environment Policy 3. Nevertheless, this does not outweigh the concerns raised in respect of the adverse impact on character of the site and
==== PAGE 13 ====
25/90379/B Page 13 of 14
surrounding that the development would have contrary to General Policy 2 b) and c; and, Environment Policies EP1 and EP2.
7.8 h) Other issues
7.8.1 The comments received from the Ecosystems Policy Team (EPT) are noted. In the event of an approval being recommended, the EPT's requirements could be secured by condition.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The application has failed to provide sufficient evidence or justification of any agricultural need warranting a new agricultural building in this location contrary to Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3(f) and Environment Policies 1 and 2. Whilst previous concerns that the building proposed is insufficient for the stated need have been addressed, remaining questions relating to the need for sufficient facilities for general operation including storage of any equipment, feed and bedding, and how waste would be dealt with have not been addressed. This is contrary to the design principles set out in Environment Policy 15 and those within the Welfare Code for Cattle. The revised proposal is for an agricultural building 20m x 40m and almost 8m to ridge height. (The previously proposed structure was 20m x 20m and almost 8m to ridge height.) It would be contained within the same field pas previously proposed, although it is likely to have associated agricultural activity spread into its immediate area which may increase the overall impact of the building and site on the tranquil character of the area having a degree of negative impact. There would be little room for manoeuvre around the building given the constraints of the field in which it would be sited. This would result in the appearance of a cramped form of development.
8.2 There is no over-riding or warranted need to outweigh the potential visual harm and impact on the countryside and the application fails to demonstrate that there are no other reasonable or alternative sites first coming forward contrary to Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Isle of man Strategic Plan 2016; and, in the Isle of Man Landscape Character Appraisal, 2008.
8.3 The application is recommended for a refusal.
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); 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
==== PAGE 14 ====
25/90379/B Page 14 of 14
o in the case of a petition, a single representative.
9.5 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: 30.07.2025
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