Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90438/B
Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90438/B Applicant : Coole Farms Ltd Proposal : Erection of two replacement cattle sheds Site Address : Ballamodha Moar Ballamodha Straight Ballasalla Isle Of Man IM9 3EL
Senior Planning Officer: Jason Singleton Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 03.07.2025 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. 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 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. The buildings must be used only for agricultural purposes only.
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 3. In the event that the building hereby approved is not used or required for agricultural purposes for a period exceeding 12 months, the agricultural buildings hereby approved shall be removed and the ground restored to its former condition within 18 months of its last use.
Reason: The building has been exceptionally approved solely to meet agricultural need and its subsequent retention could result in an unwarranted intrusion in the countryside.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of the agricultural need satisfying General Policy 3, and the proposed buildings scale, materials, colour, siting and form would be in accordance with Environment Policy 1 and 15 of the Strategic Plan.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This decision relates to drawings submitted on 2nd May 2025, __
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90438/B
Page 2 of 5
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: Malew Commissioners - No Objection DoI Highways Services - No Objection __
Officer’s Report
THE SITE 1.1 The application site is referred to as Ballamodha Moar Farm, Ballamodha Straight, Ballasalla. The agricultural holding is situated on the eastern side of the A3 Ballamodha Road and sits approx. 330m from the main Highway A3 (Ballamodha Straight)
1.2 The farm is characterised by a number of agricultural buildings clustered together and a detached dwelling house opposite the farm building with a trackway bisecting the two uses. Most of the farm buildings are more akin to lean to sheds with timber framing and profiled sheeting that provide shelter and care for cattle and also during calving.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the removal of these timber framed structurers located to the south west corner of the collection of buildings and in its place, overlapping the existing footprint is the erection of two modern, purpose built cattle sheds sited side by side and adjacent to an existing cattle barn.
2.2 The proposed buildings would each measure approx. 42m in length and one building would be 16m wide and the other 14m. Both would have overhanging eaves by 1.5m facing one another to allow for covered feeding areas. The building would be spaced approx. 4.5m apart to allow for vehicle (tractor) access between them.
2.3 Both buildings would feature a shallow pitched roof and a ridge height of approx. 6.4m and eaves 4.3m. The building would be finished with natural grey profile sheeted roof in a single skin fibre cement roof sheets, with GRP rooflights regularly spaced along each roof scape.
2.4 The vertical elements would be timber Yorkshire barding walls and the lower proportions precast concrete panels to all elevations. The framework would be a modern metal portal "wareings building" frame build on a concrete raft foundation.
2.5 The old building to be replaced have a total square meter total of 929m2. The proposed new buildings are 1127m2. Giving a difference of 198 new square meters.
2.6 The applicant notes; "The current agricultural buildings were built over 40 years ago, constructed as a pole barn. The buildings are at the end of their working life - we are keen to proactively replace them before they suffer any further storm damage, as we saw from storms Darragh and Eowyn. The buildings are used to house cattle over the winter and are imperative to the success of our business. We are very concerned that if serious damage were suffered whilst the sheds were in occupancy, this is a major health and safety risk to both the both animals and farm workers. Our plan is to replace the sheds with modern livestock housing systems. This will be highly beneficial to the business for many reasons: improved animal welfare, health and safety, livestock handling, more efficient bedding and feeding".
3.0 PLANNING POLICY
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90438/B
Page 3 of 5
3.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is noted on the Area Plan for the South as an area recognised as being within white land or land not zoned for development or not for any particular purpose and within an area of 'Incised Slopes' as part of the Landscape assessment. The intention of the latter is to protect the countryside and its rural character.
3.2 The site is not within a Conservation Area or within an area identified as flood risk. There are no defined registered trees or registered trees areas on the Govt maps.
3.3 Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the following policy are considered to be the pertinent relevant policy in the determination of this application:
General Policy 3f - Exceptions for Development in the countryside for agriculture Environment Policy 1 - Protection of the countryside and its ecology
Environmental Policy 15 - visual impact of any buildings Environment Policy 22(iii) - Environmental Harm through vibration, odour, noise and light
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The application site/ Farm benefits from the following approvals; o 18/00544/B - Construction of a slurry lagoon. o 11/01276/B - Erection of an agricultural building o 90/04197/B - Erection of agricultural building.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Malew Commissioners has no objection (12/06/25)
5.2 Highways Services do not object (12/05/25) "Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking".
6.0 ASSESSMENT
(i) Principle for essential need. (Gp3f) (ii) The visual impact in terms of siting, design, size or finish (EP15) (iii) Any adverse visual effect upon the countryside. (EP1) (iv) Impact upon the residential amenity (Ep22, EP15)
(i) Essential Need 6.1 There aforementioned policies would indicate there is a general presumption against new development in the countryside, as indicated in Environment Policy 1 and General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan. The starting point for any development within the countryside (i.e. not zoned for development) is therefore General Policy 3, paragraph F which allows exemption for agricultural buildings and Environment Policy 15, which requires, firstly the Planning Authority to be satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building, sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside. Then further assessment to ensure the built form is appropriate in terms of size, scale material and colour with siting and form that is sympathetic to its surroundings without being detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside. This is also underpinned through Environmental Policy 1 to ensure any development does not adversely affect the countryside.
6.2 The site is an active farm with its land holding and dairy operation. The main farm buildings and dwellings are all clustered together and at the centre of the farming lands as noted on the land ownership plan submitted as part of this proposal. The buildings on site area currently being used for agricultural purposes for the husbandry of animals and for their support (storage of feed, hay and farm equipment). As such the principle of an extension to and existing farm building for the welfare of animals/ milking would accord with GP3f where its use would be used for the conduct of 'agriculture'.
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90438/B
Page 4 of 5
6.3 In support of the application, it is noted this is for a replacement agricultural building on the same footprint albeit slightly larger in footprint but of a more modern and useable footprint. The design of the building and its dwarf wall and Yorkshire board timber cladding lends itself for the welfare of animals for adequate ventilation which the policies allow specifically for.
6.4 The replacement agricultural building on an active farm would accord with GP3f where its use would be used for the conduct of 'agriculture' and can be conditioned accordingly.
(ii) Design and siting 6.5 Having considered the justification and its broad acceptance in principle, we turn to the siting of the building. Environment Policy 15 notes the proximity of the proposal should be sited as close the farmstead as possible and be appropriate in terms of scale, materials, colour, siting and form to ensure they are in keeping with their surroundings.
6.6 In this case the design of the building uses a modern method of construction, namely a portal "wareings" framed building and cladded with timber boarding. This would be of the same style and level of finish using the Yorkshire boarding timber sheets to clad the vertical elements (concrete walls to the lower proportions) and roof pitches would be seen to match that of the existing farm buildings adjacent. Furthermore, the ground levels will be unaltered and the floor level of the building will be flush with existing ground levels surrounding the site.
6.7 The location would be built over the existing footprint of buildings and is also sited close (immediately adjacent) to the existing group of farm buildings, and (approx.30m) from the residential farm house and would be considered appropriate for its intended use for the husbandry and welfare of animals, as noted above.
6.8 In this case the proposal would be seen to reflect the agricultural nature of the building in terms of size and scale which would be of similar appearance and proportions to other 'modern' farm buildings and not look out of place in the countryside for its intended use. As such this aspect of the proposal would be in accordance with Ep15.
Visual Impact on the countryside 6.9 The siting of the proposed building as noted above would confirm the location is not one of open countryside but would be read within the context of an existing working farm to which planning policies support for the placement next to existing building groups and replacing an existing building. From the highway the building would be read amongst other agricultural buildings of similar type, size and colour, if viewable from the highway. The replacement with this proposed building and its use would confirm to the guidance given in EP15 where it would not be considered to have any detrimental impact upon the wider countryside (EP1) or would not be considered to harm the character and quality of the wider landscape.
Impact on the residential amenity 6.10 The later paragraph of Ep15 refers to the potential conflicts of siting of agricultural buildings near residential properties, which is further supported through EP22 that deals with statutory nuisances. Firstly, in considering the farm dwelling closest to the proposed building (Applicants Farm House) this would be approx. 30m away. Given the current farm layout and the respective residential curtilage the proposal would not be eroding any amenity space of the dwelling and is close enough to allow the owners or occupants, who farm the land to be on hand where they would have responsibility for the welfare of the animals during the calving periods and wider agricultural responsibilities.
6.11 In this instance the replacement agricultural building and its use would be no different than the current use and would not be considered to have any detrimental impact upon their neighbouring amenities through any statutory nuisance though Ep22.
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90438/B
Page 5 of 5
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The planning application has been designed to ensure its siting and appearance has no adverse impact on the character of this site and the wider countryside, or that of the neighbouring property, which has been recommended for approval.
8.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL 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 : Permitted
Date: 03.07.2025
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