Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
23/01441/B Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 23/01441/B Applicant : Mr Stanley Skinner Proposal : Erection of two agricultural buildings Site Address : Field 321916 Cooil Road Douglas Isle Of Man
Planning Officer: Toby Cowell Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 04.09.2024 __
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. No development shall commence until a schedule of materials and finishes to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including all hardsurfacing, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
C 3. Prior to the commencement of development, a soft landscaping plan incorporating native species shall be submitted to the Department for approval in writing. The landscaping plan shall be implemented in full as per the approved details. Any new planting which is removed, becomes severely damaged or diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced. Replacement planting shall be in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure the delivery and retention of an appropriate landscaping scheme, in the interests of the visual amenity of the locality.
C 4. The buildings hereby approved must be used only for agricultural purposes.
Reason: The countryside is protected from development and an exception is being made on the basis of agricultural need. As such the buildings must be used solely for the purposes for which they are approved.
==== PAGE 2 ====
23/01441/B Page 2 of 7
C 5. In the event that the buildings hereby approved are no longer used or required for agriculture they shall be removed and the ground restored to its former condition within 18 months of the date the use ceased.
Reason: The countryside is protected from development and an exception is being made on the basis of agricultural need.
C 6. No external lighting may be installed without the prior consent of the Department in writing.
Reason: To prevent light pollution and impact on wildlife.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in principle having demonstrated a clear agricultural need, without detriment to the visual amenities of the immediate locality and wider landscape. The proposals are considered to be in accordance with Strategic Policy 5, Spatial Policy 5, General Policies 2 and 3, and Environment Policies 1 and 15 of the Strategic Plan (2016).
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the following drawings and documents referenced;
Additional response letter from agent Received 19.08.24
23-128-04 Rev A - location plan 23-128-03 Rev A - site plan 23-128-01 Rev A - building 1 plans 23-128-02 Rev A - building 2 plans Planning statement Received 13.12.23 __
Interested Person Status
It is recommended that the following should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
Ballacotch Cottage, Braaid Road
as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. __
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR DETERMINATION DUE TO THE OBJECTION RECEIVED FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND THE PROPOSALS EXCEEDING A FLOOR AREA OF 500SQM IN AN AREA NOT ZONED FOR DEVELOPMENT
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site relates to the north-eastern section of Field no. 321916, which is largely comprised of gravelled hardstanding and includes a sizeable modern agricultural
==== PAGE 3 ====
23/01441/B Page 3 of 7
building adjacent to the site's northern boundary. Upon inspection of the site by officers, it was noted that a significant amount of aggregate and additional materials were stored outside of the building, together with wrapped hay bales.
1.2 The site is effectively enclosed by densely planted sod hedging along its perimeter, with a vehicular access and metal palisade gates present at the site's south-western corner. The site is located immediately adjacent to and is accessed from a gravel and stone access track (Ballacotch Lane) which extends from Cooil Road to the south up to Braaid Road to the north- west, providing access to a number of farms and properties along its length.
1.3 The site forms part of a wider agricultural holding which extends to approximately 1000 acres, and includes much of the adjoining and adjacent fields stretching westwards towards Braaid village. It is understood that the wider holding accommodates circa. 1500 breeding sheep and their lambs together with 300 cattle, with the holding being based at Ballachrink Farm in East Foxdale.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of two modern agricultural buildings adjacent to the existing building. The first of which, titled 'building 1', would comprise a dual- pitched roof with dimensions of 18.3m by 27.4m, with an eaves height of 5.6m and ridge height of 8.1m. This building would be sited to the south of the existing.
2.2 'Building 2' would comprise a pair of dual-pitches roof with a central valley, with dimensions of 18.3m by 18.4m, an eaves height of 5m and ridge height of 6.7m. This building would be sited to the east of the existing adjacent to the site's eastern boundary.
2.3 Both buildings would be finished in dark green sheeting with a blockwork plinth for the lower section as per the existing building on site. The submitted plans and documentation note that the building would be used for the storage of feed, hay bales and agricultural implements. The proposals further include raising the height of the exiting sod hedging along the boundary by 2m, with a new septic tank and leach field to be installed in the site's north-eastern corner.
2.4 The submitted planning statement provides the following commentary as to the justification for the additional buildings:
"The site accommodates an established and lawful agricultural building which was approved due to the agricultural need for it at that time. Since then, the applicant's land holding has grown but importantly, the agricultural buildings available to him have reduced, in particular in respect of three large barns which were previously used by him at Lanjaghan Farm in Onchan which was sold and the buildings were approved to be converted to non-agricultural purposes. The applicant now has more land than previously but fewer agricultural buildings.
In addition, the changing climate - particularly increasing and unpredictable wind and rain results in animals needing to be brought inside more frequently to avoid sickness and loss and equipment is also being required to be kept inside when not in use, more frequently than in previous years. Crops and feed are less likely to be successfully kept outside. The additional wool storage also increases the need for indoor storage facilities and this is an important element of sheep farming on the Island such that wool is used and provides an income for local farmers whereas recently wool has had insufficient value to warrant it being processed and sold on. The buildings at Ballachrink Farm are all fully utilised.
It is considered that the buildings are fully justified in agricultural terms and the additional banking, which could be supplemented by planting if deemed appropriate, and comply with General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 15. There is no loss of versatile agricultural land (EP14) and the building is located alongside an existing building and some distance from any residential property (EP15) although the nearest neighbour has confirmed in writing that he is
==== PAGE 4 ====
23/01441/B Page 4 of 7
fully supportive of the application and has had no issue with the existing building since its construction.
These additional facilities will enable the farming enterprise to function properly, securely and efficiently and to continue to support the local agricultural industry. The site is sufficiently distant from the site of archaeological interest to warrant protection therefor."
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 11/00387/B - Erection of an agricultural building - Approved at appeal
3.2 10/01433/B - Creation of a field access - Permitted
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The application site comprises land that is not zoned for development in the Area Plan for the East (2020). The site is not within a Conservation Area or falls within an area ta risk of flooding.
4.2 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application;
Strategic Policy 1 Efficient use of land and resources 2 Priority for new development to identified towns and villages 5 Design and visual impact
Spatial Policy 5 Development only in countryside in accordance with General Policy 3
General Policy 2 General Development Considerations 3 Exceptions to development in the countryside
Environment Policy 1 Protection of the countryside 15 Development of agricultural buildings in the countryside
Transport Policy 4 Highways safety
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Marown Parish Commissioners - The Commissioners resolved to oppose the application on the following grounds:
The size and bulk of the proposed structure is too large resulting in an overdevelopment of the site, and therefore detrimental to the surroundings;
In the planning statement, the agricultural need for the two buildings or any building is not detailed beyond a vague reference to the applicant having more land than previously. Neither is there any supporting documentation from DEFA;
There is a presumption against development in the open countryside. Albeit the proposed building are adjacent to an existing barn there seems to be a large agglomeration developing. The buildings would be visible from the west and north. (18.01.24)
==== PAGE 5 ====
23/01441/B Page 5 of 7
5.2 Highway Services - Development would have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking, as the site has suitable access visibility onto Ballacotch Lane and the Cooil Road. (22.12.23)
5.3 Highways Drainage - 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. Recommendation: The applicant should be aware off and comply with the clauses above. (18.12.23)
5.4 Agriculture and Lands Directorate - Having reviewed the agricultural census data held in the Department I can confirm the scale of agricultural business is of a significant size. I believe the business will be able to demonstrate a genuine need for buildings of this type and size and the industry has a genuine need for development. The buildings laid out in the plans would be suitable for the purpose of the storing and the processing of agricultural goods, feed storage, workshops or as machinery stores. To note; the buildings as presented would NOT be suitable for use as livestock buildings. (13.02.24)
5.5 Forestry Officer - No response received at the time of writing.
5.6 One letter of representation has been received providing support to the proposals on the following grounds:
The existing building has caused no other issues and we believe that the new development would pose no threat to the surrounding countryside and be beneficial to the applicant's farming activities.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The starting point for any development within the countryside (i.e. not zoned for development) is General Policy 3, which allows an exemption for essential agricultural buildings and those required for interpretation of the countryside. Likewise Environment Policy 15, which states that where the Department is satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building/s, 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.
6.2 The presented justification for the additional 2 buildings has been outlined in the submitted planning statement as detailed in section 2 of this report. It is also noteworthy to make note of additional information/clarification provided by the agent on behalf of the applicant in response to commentary submitted by the Local Authority:
"As is stated in the Planning statement submitted with the application the holding farmed in association with this site extends to over a 1000 acres farmed with approximately 1500 breeding sheep and their lambs and approximately 300 cattle. The farm has insufficient buildings available at the home farm. One of the major problems being limited access. It is insufficient for any large animal transport wagons, delivery wagons with farm goods like hay and straw and silage and tractors with trailers or large farm equipment. Quite simply the lane is not wide enough to accommodate them and the yard is not big enough for them to turn because of the restrictions of the positioning of the original farm house and buildings which are over 100 years old."
6.3 From the site visit it was clear to officers that a significant level of activity was occurring on site, with the presence of materials and equipment witnessed as being stored outside. The site forms part of a well-established substantial agricultural holding and already accommodates a lawful building in agricultural use. Based on the level of information supplied to date, it is considered that a clear agricultural need has been demonstrated for the 2 additional buildings.
==== PAGE 6 ====
23/01441/B Page 6 of 7
Likewise, DEFA's Agricultural Policy Team have further reviewed the submission and note the following:
"Having reviewed the agricultural census data held in the Department I can confirm the scale of agricultural business is of a significant size. I believe the business will be able to demonstrate a genuine need for buildings of this type and size and the industry has a genuine need for development. The buildings laid out in the plans would be suitable for the purpose of the storing and the processing of agricultural goods, feed storage, workshops or as machinery stores."
6.4 Upon inspection of the site and in particular the existing building itself, it was evident that the building was at maximum capacity in terms of equipment and general storage and therefore, in the context of the above referenced comments received, the principle of development is considered to be acceptable.
6.5 When reviewing the proposals in the context of Environment Policy 15, the proposed buildings would be sited adjacent to an existing modern agricultural building in a largely enclosed site that is covered with hardstanding. The proposed buildings would further mirror the scale and general vernacular of the existing, particularly in terms of the proposed materials palette, and therefore ensure that the development would be appropriate from a visual perspective in the context of the site's immediate setting.
6.6 It is further worth clarifying that EP15 seeks to prevent the development of isolated new buildings in the countryside and/or in isolated and exposed locations. Given that the proposed development would be sited adjacent to an existing lawful agricultural building, with the site being largely enclosed by perimeter sod hedging away from a principal highway; the proposals are considered to be in conformity with the requirements of EP15. Likewise, the proposals include the raising in height of the southern section of the sod hedge bank by 2m to further reduce the visual impact and prominence of the additional development in the context of Cooil Road to the south.
6.7 Whilst it is recognised that the development, and in particular Building 2 in the north- eastern corner of the site, would be more prominent in the context of the adjacent access track; it is not considered that such an impact would be wholly demonstrable from a wider landscape impact perspective. Indeed, long distance views of the existing building from the north, north-east and west are already possible. The additional built development as proposed would likely be read in the context of the existing level of development on site, whilst the new buildings would in any case display the vernacular of modern agricultural buildings which are not an uncommon feature in the open countryside.
6.8 In summary therefore, it considered that a clear agricultural need for the additional development has been sufficiently demonstrated, without severe detriment to the character and appearance of the site's immediate setting, nor indeed more long distance views in the context of the wider landscape. The proposals would sit reasonably comfortably within a site that is already developed for agricultural purposes, and in particular would not result in the loss of prime agricultural land to accommodate the development. The proposals are therefore deemed to fully compliant with the relevant policies of the Strategic Plan 2016, and in particular General Policies 2 and 3, and Environment Policy 15.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 In summary, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable in principle having demonstrated a clear agricultural need, without detriment to the visual amenities of the immediate locality and wider landscape. The proposals are considered to be in accordance with Strategic Policy 5, Spatial Policy 5, General Policies 2 and 3, and Environment Policies 1 and 15 of the Strategic Plan (2016), and therefore recommended for approval.
==== PAGE 7 ====
23/01441/B Page 7 of 7
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status
__
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body 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 and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made : ...Permitted... Committee Meeting Date:...16.09.2024
Signed :...TOBY COWELL 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 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