Loading document...
The application site is field 234363, which forms the agricultural curtilage of Cammall Farm, Douglas Road, Kirk Michael. The site is located on the eastern side of the Douglas Road and is southeast of Kirk Michael Village. The boundary treatment which runs adjacent with the Douglas Road consists of Manx banking and a number of mature trees and hedges.
The dwelling has been zoned under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982 as being within an area of 'white land'; the site is not within a Conservation Area but is within an area zoned as High Landscape Value or Costal Value and Scenic Significance.
Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:
Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which could not be overcome by mitigation measures will not be permitted. Where development is proposed which would affect a watercourse, planning applications must comply with the following criteria:
Policy 8: Agricultural buildings will not be permitted on sites where their existence and associated discharges would result in a breach of the “Code of Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Water.” (1)
Policy 13: Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted.
Policy 22: Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of:
i) pollution of sea, surface water or groundwater; ii) emissions of airborne pollutants; and iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution.
The application proposes the erection of an agricultural building widening of existing access (Re submission of refused 06/00450/B).
The proposed barn is sited approximately 20 metres north of the exiting water course and Cammall Farms driveway. The barn would have a width of 12 metres, a depth of 30 metres and a maximum height of 5.7 metres. The barn would have a steel framed construction, finished with Yorkshire boarding above block work. Additional to the barn the submission includes a farm yard area which projects 7.4 metres from the proposed eastern elevation of the barn. The yard will have a blinded hardcore finish. Along the western elevation of the barn the submission proposals to create a bank, which will be planted on top with a hedgerow of hawthorn and other native species.
The alterations to the access include the widening of the access by 2 metres, which involves the removal of a single tree and cutting back the existing Manx banking. The southern pillars and wall will be re-built in style as existing. Additionally the proposed alteration to the access includes the installation of a cattle grid with drainage outlet linking back into water course.
Erection of an agricultural building and widening of existing farm entrance - 06/00450/B - REFUSED at appeal on the following grounds:-
Approval in principle for the erection of a retirement cottage - 04/01435/A - REFUSED at review on the following grounds:-
Conversion of barn to two holiday units - 03/00860/B – APPROVED Approval in principle for conversion of cowhouse to form two holiday cottages - 02/01350/A – APPROVED Alterations to roof & windows to rear of dwelling - 98/00566/B – APPROVED Approval in principle to refurbish cowhouse to form 3 holiday cottages - 91/04058/A – APPROVED Erection of dwelling, Field 1285 - 89/01495/B – APPROVED Approval in principle to erect dwelling, Field 1285 - 89/00010/A - APPROVED
The Michael Commissioners have objected to the planning application, which can be summarised as; drainage concerns, erection of the farm building away from the main farm complex; Impact the proposal will have on the character and appearance of the landscape contrary to EP 9, The need of the building of this size is questioned located away from the main farm complex contrary to EP 8 and EP 10; And in respect of EP 8 and 27 it is believed that the existing watercourses do need to be attended to especially in view of the comments made by the neighbour who is still suffering flooding when it rains.
Highways Division:- Do not oppose
S.P.M.C. & E:- In view of the Inspector’s report following the recent Appeal on 06/0450, there is little we can do but accept the situation.
The Society thinks it is quite wrong to site this barn so far from the farm building group and foresees an application to later build a new house near the barn.
The owners/occupiers of Plum Tree Cottage, Douglas Road, Kirk Michael, have objected to the planning application, which can be summarised as; impacts the proposal will have upon the existing drainage, which would result in further flooding; What happens when the proposed water tanks are full; The plan offers little protection against contaminated flood water; The hay and straw can stop the flow of water completely in a site where blocked drains/culverts already occur, resulting in damage and danger to motorists; there are no exceptional circumstances for the barn in this location as required by Manx Policy; And the roadside site could have great commercial value should a change of use occur.
The owners/occupiers of Cammal Beg, Douglas Road, Kirk Michael have objected to the planning application, which can be summarised as; the design and size of the building is completely out of keeping, its new position would be even more damaging to the views from our property; Intrusive on the nature of this Island; We do not understand why Mr Graham will not improve the farm lane, to ensure the safety of all vehicles allowing the require building to become part of the farm complex;
What guarantees would we have that the building wont be used for non agricultural activities; And it has been our understanding that the animals in the fields around and adjacent to our property have belonged to a tenant farmer, this raises the question of the present need for such a building.
The following material Planning Matters need consideration for a development of this type and location:-
The proposed agricultural barn would be located within the countryside, and therefore General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan needs particular consideration. This policy lists what exceptions are allowed for development within the countryside. Paragraph (f) states that; "building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry". As indicated within the previous inspectors reports "Cammall Farm is a long established and on-going farm business supporting fluctuating but significant numbers of livestock. The building would increase the stock carrying capacity of the 60-acre holding and free up farmland for crop growth. It would also address highway safety and animal welfare considerations associated with the transportation of livestock up the lane to the farmyard. All in all, I am satisfied that the building is justifiable in agricultural terms..."
The Agricultural Adviser commented on the previous application, and stated; "On this basis there would appear to be agricultural justification for a building based on Mr Graham's proposed farming system. This is supported by Mr. Graham's June return submissions to DAFF which shows a gradual increase in breeding sheep numbers over the past 4 years. Furthermore a suitable agricultural building would assist the running of such a sheep enterprise, in that it would allow winter housing of the ewe flock, thus reducing damage to grazing land during the winter months and increasing the effective stock carrying capacity of the farm".
I would therefore agree with the previous inspector and with the Agricultural Adviser who commented on the previous application that the proposed agricultural barn is justified.
Regarding its location, I would also support the proposal, being located in this position. It was apparent during my site visit that the existing driveway to the farm is totally unsuitable for modern day large vehicles, particularly due to the narrow 90 degree uphill bend and therefore the barns new location would certainly improve the highway safety of the vehicles and the animal welfare.
As stated within the history section of my report, the previous application was refused on the grounds that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the effluent associated with the proposed use of the building, being in close proximity, would not cause deterioration in water quality leading to pollution of the water course. This application proposes to overcome these concerns. Firstly the proposed shed/yard has been located 19 metres (closest point) away from the nearest water course compared to the 4 metres proposed in the previous application. This distance is well above the distance of 8 metres which is distance indicated within EP 7 (paragraph d) that development closer than 8 metres will not normally be allowed. Obviously, with the barn and associated yard being sited this distance away, this reduces the risk of effluent entering the watercourse. Additionally the proposed barn would have no drainage connections to the water course, and the proposal includes dwarf walls to ensure the animals and associated animal waste are fully contained and the waste is simple collected in the bedding which is ultimately spread on the land.
The applicant states that they have been in contact with Andrew McDonald of the Department of Agriculture has confirmed that the collection of animal waste in bedding is a normal farming strategy that is widely adopted throughout the Island and is particularly suitable to sheep farming as; the solid waste from sheep is extremely low; and the time periods for the sheep being housed within the building is generally limited to winter and lambing periods.
The previous Planning Inspector stated that "It is possible that the risk of pollution might be addressed by relocating the building away from the watercourse but this would transfer the development outside the application site as delineated on the submitted plans and would require a separate application".
I have discussed the proposal with the Departments Environmental Protection Officer (water) who considers due to the building being set back some distance and is lower that the stream. These factors including the rain water separation, permeable covered floor and the fact that it is a sheep and not a cattle shed suggest that there is no pollution risk.
I therefore consider that the proposal will not have an adverse impact upon the quality of the water course, and I also of the opinion that the drainage concerns have been satisfied, with the installation of a culvert to the entrance of the barn and with the proposed cattle grid which will also be converted.
The proposal to increase the width of the access will significantly improve the highway safety for the users of the access and the user of the Douglas Road (A3). Whilst the scheme does involve the loss of a single tree, I consider the improved safety of the access significantly outweighs the loss of the tree, and is therefore acceptable.
The proposed barn would be partially screened from the public highway, due to the existing mature trees and in part mature hedgerows. The applicant also proposes additional trees along the western boundary of the site to provide additional natural screening. Added to the trees, the applicant is also proposing to create banking approximately 2 metres in height, with hawthorn and other native species on top. This proposal will run along the entire length of the western elevation of the barn and partially along the north elevation of the barn.
Whilst in a different location to the previous scheme, I consider that with the existing vegetation and the proposed vegetation and banking, the proposal will not have a significant impact upon the visual appearance of the surrounding countryside, especially when travelling along Doulgas Road. This is a conclusion the previous Inspector concluded; "Whilst close to the road, the barn would be sited beside mature trees along the boundary with the A3. From the perspective of motorists driving past it would be a fleeting feature and less conspicuous in the landscape than if sited up the hill at Cammall Farm where a farm building of the size proposed would appear as skyline development from the A3".
I consider due to the position, orientation, distance and because of the existing and proposed boundary treatment, the barn would have no adverse impacts upon the residential amenity of the property 'Plum Tree Cottage' through loss of light and/or overbearing impacts.
The owners/occupiers of Cammal Beg have objected on the grounds that the proposal would have a "more damaging to the views from our property". However the loss of a view is not a material planning consideration, and I do not consider the proposal would have any adverse impacts, particularly as Cammal Beg would be located approximately 110 metres away.
Accordingly, for these reasons stated previously I consider the proposal would be appropriate in this location and therefore my recommendation is for an approval.
I consider that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
I consider that the following parties that made representations to the planning application do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded interested party status:-
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 08.11.2007
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2. This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings 0053/01/01, 0053/01/02 and 23463 all received on 25th May 2007.
C 3. 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.
C 4. 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.
C 5. 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.
C 6. The building must only be used for agricultural purposes.
I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular Nos 44/05 (Delegation of Functions to Director of Planning and Building Control) and 47/05 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer)
Decision Made : Permitted Date: 11/01/2023
Signed: M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown