23 June 2006 · Minister for Local Government and the Environment (following appeal inspector C Farrington's report)
Field 234363, Douglas Road, Kirk Michael, Isle Of Man, IM6 1au
The proposal involved constructing a purpose-built livestock shelter for sheep and cattle, measuring 30m long by 15m wide by 5.5m high to the ridge, with a yard for waste management (spread on farmland), located in the southwestern corner of an agricultural field adjacent to the A3 road and a watercourse.
Click a button above to find applications similar to this one.
See how this application compares to similar ones — policies, conditions, and outcomes side by side.
The inspector accepted the agricultural justification for the building to improve winter housing, stock capacity, animal welfare, and address hazardous access via steep lane with bends and poor visibi…
Environment Policy 8 (emerging Strategic Plan)
Requires protection of watercourses from pollution/deterioration. Officer/inspector found proposal within 6m lacks drainage details, risk assessment, or effluent separation, failing to prove no water quality harm from livestock waste.
Environment Policy 27
General environmental protection. Cited with EP8/EP16 for pollution/flooding failures due to inadequate demonstration of no adverse impacts.
Environment Policy 16
Addresses flood risk. Watercourse history of flooding A3/Plum Tree Cottage; no flood risk assessment or mitigation for large roof/yard runoff upstream of culvert.
Policy EP18 (Isle of Man Strategic Plan Modified Draft)
Landscape/visual amenity protection. Original refusal cited prominent/incongruous feature from isolated siting/scale/design; inspector found acceptable due to roadside trees, low site, fleeting view, no overbearing on neighbours.
Environment Policy 9
Countryside character. Objectors cited isolated farm building; inspector accepted agricultural need outweighed, less harmful than alternative at farm (skyline).
Would not oppose entrance improvements if no traffic increase; conditions could control future use. Visibility splays 2m x 215m required, involving vegetation removal.
Michael Commissioners and Department of Transport Highways Division object to the application citing landscape impact, lack of agricultural justification, drainage concerns, and inadequate visibility splays; private residents including Huxleys also strongly object on flooding and environmental grounds.
Key concern: inadequate visibility splays of 2.0m x 215m and potential traffic intensification
Michael Commissioners
Objectionwhat is being proposed will not be in keeping with the character of the countryside and will be in contrary to Environment Policy (EP 9); it can be questioned if there is a real need to have such a large building for the World-wide Export business
Conditions requested: specified drawings for driveway widening showing reinstatement of pillars and flanking walls; proof of livestock ownership via DAFF licensing documentation
Department of Transport Highways Division
ObjectionVisibility splays of 2.0 metre by 215 metres must be constructed to serve the needs of this development
Conditions requested: conditions to control usage and ensure no significant traffic change
Department of Transport Highways Division
Objectionthe development of a 370 square metre barn has the potential to permit an intensification of operation which will result in additional vehicle traffic
Manx Wildlife Society
ObjectionThe Society looks askance at proposals to construct isolated farm sheds, especially large ones
The original application for erection of a livestock building and widening of the farm entrance was refused by the Planning Committee for reasons including proximity to a watercourse risking pollution, visual harm in the landscape, insufficient access details, and loss of roadside vegetation. The appellant argued agricultural need, minimal visual impact with screening, safety benefits of access improvements, and that conditions could mitigate pollution risks. The inspector accepted the agricultural justification and found no unacceptable visual or amenity harm, but concluded that lack of drainage details and risk assessments meant pollution and flooding risks could not be dismissed, upholding refusal on those grounds only. Access improvements were seen as beneficial but could not be approved separately. The appeal was recommended for dismissal.
Precedent Value
Demonstrates that even strong agricultural cases fail without robust environmental risk assessments for pollution/flooding near watercourses. Future applicants must provide authoritative technical studies upfront, especially in high landscape value areas; access safety arguments persuasive but cannot be severed from main proposal.
Inspector: G Farrington
