03/00257/BRefused

29 August 2003 · Planning Committee on Review

Erection of an agricultural shed

Barroose House, Barroose Road, Baldrine, Isle Of Man, IM4 6ar

Received1 May 2003

Validated1 May 2003

Committee17 Oct 2003

Decided29 Aug 2003

4 months

Received1 May 2003

Validated1 May 2003

Committee17 Oct 2003

Decided29 Aug 2003

4 months

Why was this refused?

Lack of agricultural need and justification
Scale inappropriate for limited agricultural land
Existing buildings available for storage
Harm to countryside character and visual amenity
Conflict with countryside protection policies

The proposal was for a large single-storey agricultural shed measuring 41m x 15m x 6.8m high to ridge, clad in blockwork to 2.2m and dark green sheeting, for uses including indoor dog agility training, horse riding arena, and storage of machinery like JCB, trailers, motorhome and boats.

Refusal Reasons

✗The site already has buildings on it which would be used for some of the uses for which the new building has been proposed. As such the Planning Committee is not persuaded that a building of the size proposed - 41m x 15m is justified on what is a relatively limited size in terms of visible agricultural or grazing land.
✗The site which is associated with the new building is not a viable agricultural holding and there would appear to be no argument that the building is not justified in agricultural terms.

Documents (2)

📐

Floor Plans and Elevations

1 May 031pp

Find Similar Applications

Click a button above to find applications similar to this one.

⚖️

Compare this application

See how this application compares to similar ones — policies, conditions, and outcomes side by side.

Search for an application to compare with

Decision & Reasoning

Refused29 August 2003

The Planning Committee was not persuaded that a building of the size proposed (41m x 15m) was justified on a site with relatively limited visible agricultural or grazing land, as existing buildings co…

Public Comments (1)

ObjectionLonan Parish Commissioners(parish)

View on map →

People

Miss Sarah Corlett, Planning Officer

Case Officer

Cornerstone Architects

Agent

Key Information

Reference: 03/00257/B
Decision: Refused
Date: 29 August 2003
Parish: Lonan
Property: 🏠 Dwelling
Year: 2003
Type: Full Planning Application
Category: Agricultural
Scale: moderate

Property Details

Property Type: agricultural
Proposal Type: new build
Context: rural
Storeys: 1

Property Planning History (16)

19/01138/BRefused2020

Variation of condition 1 of approved PA 14/01135/B, Variation of condition 1 of approved PA 12/01254/B (retention of existing marquee) to extend period of permission by five years

15/00765/BApproved2015

Erection of a replacement conservatory

14/01135/BApproved2014

Variation of condition 1 of approved PA 12/01254/B (retention of existing marquee) to extend period of permission

12/01253/LAWApproved2012

Application for a certificate of lawful use for the rentention of a portakabin and two storage containers

12/01254/BApproved2012

Retention of existing marquee

12/00788/CApproved2012

Additional use of annex for self catering holiday accommodation

AP06/0131Approved2006

Appeal against the refusal for a Retrospective application for the erection of a marquee

05/02025/RRefused2005

Retrospective application for the erection of a marquee

03/00257/BRefused2003Viewing

Erection of an agricultural shed

02/01384/BApproved2002

Construction of disabled access porch to rear of approved garage, store and granny flat (PA 01/02437B)

Why was this refused?

Lack of agricultural need and justification

Scale inappropriate for limited agricultural land

Existing buildings available for storage

Harm to countryside character and visual amenity

Conflict with countryside protection policies

Refusal Reasons

✗The site already has buildings on it which would be used for some of the uses for which the new building has been proposed. As such the Planning Committee is not persuaded that a building of the size proposed - 41m x 15m is justified on what is a relatively limited size in terms of visible agricultural or grazing land.
✗The site which is associated with the new building is not a viable agricultural holding and there would appear to be no argument that the building is not justified in agricultural terms.