22 November 2007 · Director of Planning and Building Control (delegated under Article 3(13) of the Town and Country (Development Procedure) Order 2005)
Field 234363, Douglas Road, Kirk Michael, Isle Of Man, IM6 1au
The proposal is for a steel-framed agricultural barn measuring 12m wide by 30m deep by 5.7m high, with Yorkshire boarding above blockwork walls, a blinded hardcore farmyard, and associated access improvements including widening by 2m, cattle grid, and culverting of a watercourse, on field 234363 forming part of Cammall…
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 officer accepted the agricultural justification per previous Inspector and DAFF advice, as the 60-acre farm supports significant livestock (e.g.
General Policy 3
Restricts countryside development except essential agricultural buildings. Officer assessed as compliant as barn justified for livestock winter housing on established farm, improving capacity/welfare/safety; location essential due to unsafe lane.
Environment Policy 2
Protects High Landscape/Coastal Value areas unless no harm or location essential. Proposal sited low with existing/proposed screening (trees, banking, native hedge), fleeting from road, less conspicuous than at main farm; essential for safety.
Environment Policy 7
Protects watercourses (no dev <8m normally, risk assessment). Now 19m away exceeding buffer; no connections, containment walls, waste management, confirmed no pollution risk by Env Protection Officer.
Environment Policy 8
Ag buildings not to breach water protection Code. Normal sheep bedding collection/spreading; low solid waste, seasonal use, no muck heaps, rainwater separation acceptable.
Environment Policy 13
No unacceptable flood risk. Site free-draining, culvert/cattle grid improvements, tanks/soakaways for runoff; no history adjacent, won't exacerbate off-site.
Environment Policy 22
No unacceptable harm via pollution/noise etc to amenity/environment. Contained waste, no significant impacts at distance.
Time limit
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
Approved plans
This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings 0053/01/01, 0053/01/02 and 23463 all received on 25th May 2007.
Landscaping scheme
On completion of the proposed barn, the proposed hedging/banking is to be planted/created. The planting is required to take place in the first planting and seeding seasons. Any trees or shrub which within 5 years from the completion of the development dies, is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with another of similar size and species unless the planning authority gives written consent to any variation.
Materials approval
Prior to the commencement of any works, there must be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority, samples of the external finishes of the proposed barn. The colour of the external walls should be finished in an olive green colour, whilst the roof should be finished in a natural grey colour.
Access completion
Prior to the occupation of the proposed barn, all works to the existing access and the proposed culverting of the existing water course are to be completed.
Agricultural use only
The building must only be used for agricultural purposes.
Do not oppose
Michael Commissioners objected to the agricultural building citing landscape impact and policy non-compliance while supporting access widening; DOT Highways Division had no objection to the resubmission; private representations strongly objected on flooding, drainage, pollution, agricultural justification, and environmental grounds.
Key concern: adverse landscape impact and non-compliance with Environment Policy 9
Michael Commissioners
ObjectionThe commissioners agree that the widening of the driveway would be beneficial but not in conjunction with the barn.; what is being proposed will not be in keeping with the character of the countryside
Department of Transport, Highways Division
No ObjectionDo not oppose; The Department of Transport would not oppose an application which seeks to improve the access and will not increase the volumes of traffic using the access.
The original application PA 06/00450/B for erection of a livestock building and widening of farm access at Cammall Farm was refused by the Planning Committee for reasons including proximity to watercourse risking pollution, visual harm, and access details. The appellant argued agricultural need, safety benefits, and mitigation measures. The first inspector accepted agricultural justification and visual impacts but dismissed the appeal due to unaddressed pollution and flooding risks from livestock effluent and stormwater near the watercourse. A resubmitted application PA 07/01023/B addressed these by increasing separation to 19m, adding rainwater tanks and soakaways, and was approved by the Planning Officer under delegated powers. Third parties (owners of Plum Tree Cottage and Cammal Beg) appealed this approval, citing farm sale undermining justification, increased flooding/pollution, and inappropriate siting. The second inspector found drainage/pollution risks adequately mitigated, accepted agricultural need despite concerns over siting away from farm complex, and recommended dismissing the appeals, confirming approval.
Precedent Value
Demonstrates that resubmissions precisely targeting refusal reasons (e.g., quantified setbacks, engineered drainage) can succeed even for contentious siting; provides benchmark for livestock building separation (19m) from watercourses under EP7/EP8; emphasises need for robust evidence over speculation on farm sales.
Inspector: G Farrington (first appeal); Graham F Self (second appeal)
