Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
Appeal: AP25/0019
Planning Application: 24/91373/B __ __
1 Report on a Planning Appeal by the written procedure
Site Visit: Monday 18 August 2025
Appeal made by Mr Robert Husband against the decision of the Planning Authority to grant planning approval to Mr Kieran Mildwaters for erection of polytunnel, glasshouse and barn-stables on Part Fields 312149 and 312151, Ballachrink Farm, Brack-a-Broom Lane, Poortown, Isle of Man, IM5 2AP. __
Contents
page
Procedural Matters
1 Site and Surroundings
2 Proposed Development
2
Planning Policy
2 The Case for the Appellant - Mr R Husband
4 The Case for the Planning Authority
7 The Case for the Applicant - Mr K Mildwaters
13 Other Representations Received
20 Assessment by the Inspector
21 Recommendation
28
Appendix
29
Procedural Matters
When I inspected the appeal site I also visited Brack-a-Broom Farm, the property of the Appellant.
Whereas the Appellant complains that the application plans were not properly shown to the Planning Committee, this appeal provides for a completely fresh and independent review of every matter concerning the disputed development.
The Appellant also claimed that the Applicant was given unfair advantage in being granted an extension of time to submit a rebuttal statement but this was due to the formal invitation failing to reach the Applicant. A rebuttal statement had been received on time from the Appellant who was afforded an opportunity to demonstrate that the late submission of the Applicant’s rebuttal had compromised his case for the appeal. The Appellant replied only that no notice of any time extension for submission of rebuttals was given and noting that the Appellant’s rebuttal was published before that of the Applicant, notwithstanding that it is stated that the Applicant’s rebuttal was prepared without reference to the Appellant rebuttal. In my view, there is no prejudice in this course of events to the requisite independent assessment of every pertinent matter and the Minister can safely move to a decision on the basis of this Report.
==== PAGE 2 ====
Appeal: AP25/0019
Planning Application: 24/91373/B __ __
2 Site and Surroundings
The appeal site lies in the open countryside, partly screened from its immediate surroundings by mature hedgerows and tree belts.
Access to the site from Poortown Road is via the winding, single-track Brack-a-Broom Lane. The Lane is shared by a number of properties including Brack-a-Broom Farm, the property of the Appellant. This lies to the north west of the appeal site and is the closest property to it.
The Ballachrink farmstead includes a house with outbuildings, including an original stone barn located close to and north west of the house. The barn has been adapted by the addition of modem, steel-framed extensions clad in profiled metal sheeting.
Proposed Development
The proposed barn-stables, glasshouse and polytunnel are for the stated purpose of creating a commercial market garden at Ballachrink Farm
The proposed barn-stables building would stand north of the present barn with an intervening courtyard. The building would be about 15m by 12m on plan overall and 7.3m high, comparable in size with the present barn. The steel-framed building would be clad in proprietary profiled sheeting, save for the west wall in Manx stone. There would be solar panels over the south eastern roof slope.
The glasshouse and polytunnel would be positioned northwest of an area of existing garden beds, which are in turn northwest of the farmhouse and existing barn.
Planning Policy
The site is in open countryside where the following provisions of the adopted the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IMSP) are directly relevant to the appeal proposal.
General Policy 2 (GP2) permits otherwise policy-compliant development subject to criteria including that the development: (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including watercourses;
==== PAGE 3 ====
Appeal: AP25/0019
Planning Application: 24/91373/B __ __
3 (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; and (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways.
GP3 resists new building outside areas zoned for development but with exceptions including: (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry.
Environment Policy 1(EP1) protects the countryside for its own sake and provides that development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an overriding national need for it in land use planning terms, which outweighs the general requirement to protect the countryside.
EP3 protects woodland; EP4 protects ecology; and EP5 makes exceptional provision for minimising disturbance and securing compensation where development would harm ecology.
EP7 protects watercourse and EP13 seeks the avoidance of flood risk due to development.
EP15 relates specifically to agriculture and horticulture and states that, where there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside, and the impact of buildings and accesses is acceptable, the 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.
Supporting paragraph 7.13.1 recognises the importance of sustaining the agricultural industry, including by allowing appropriately designed and sited new buildings, where need is established; however, this must not be at the expense of the appearance and character or openness of the landscape. Paragraph 7.13.2 acknowledges that small scale enterprises can promote healthy economic activity in rural areas. That is subject to the presumption against rural development for which there is no local need, which would material affect local character or a necessitate new buildings.
EP17 states that buildings and other facilities associated with nurseries and market gardens will only be permitted where: a) any built development is of a scale, form, design and materials in keeping with the character of its surroundings; b) any development does not unacceptably affect residential amenity or local highway conditions;
==== PAGE 4 ====
Appeal: AP25/0019
Planning Application: 24/91373/B __ __
4 c) there is no adverse impact on the character or appearance of the area and no requirement for significant highway alterations; and d) if appropriate, new buildings are erected away from public highways and are screened from public gaze.
Supporting paragraph 7.14.1 states that horticulture, market gardens or nurseries can contribute to the economic activity of rural areas but can be intrusive in the countryside. Such development and expansion of such sites need to be carefully managed, particularly where there are traffic implications and in order to prevent the proliferation of buildings, which may include polytunnels and greenhouses, leading to an adverse impact on the character of such areas.
EP21 resists buildings for the stabling, shelter or care of horses or other animals if they would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside in siting, design, size or finish and states that any such new buildings must be designed to reflect their specific purpose, avoiding cavity- wall construction.
EP22 safeguards the environment and neighbouring property from the adverse effects of pollution due to new development.
Business Policy 1 (BP1) generally encourages the growth of employment opportunities throughout the Island, provided that development proposals accord with the other policies of the IMSP.
Transport Policy 4 (TP4) requires safe and appropriate access to all development and TP7 requires on-site car parking meeting adopted standards.
The Case for the Appellant - Mr R Husband
The material points are:
Issues
Need
==== PAGE 5 ====
Appeal: AP25/0019
Planning Application: 24/91373/B __ __
5
Unsuitability of Brack-a-Broom Lane
Brack-a-Broom Farm has its private main access direct from Poortown Road and only a secondary agricultural access from Brack-a-Broom Lane. In contrast, the Lane provides the sole main access to Ballachrink Farm, over a length of around half a mile and past Brack-a-Broom Farm. The narrow, winding, single-track route is poorly maintained, with many potholes, and has no passing places. There is a 10mph advisory speed limit. Boundary trees and hedges to Brack-a-Broom Farm are vulnerable to vehicle damage, especially on a right-angle bend and there is potential for damage to a watercourse.
The junction with Poortown Road is hazardous, with a mirror to aid visibility, such that the Highway Authority proposes that the appeal development be limited to private use. But the claim of private use is in direct contradiction to the stated purpose of the application to create a commercial market garden.
The proposed buildings are of commercial scale and their operation is likely to require significant human resources and deliveries, resulting in a damaging increase in traffic on Brack-a-Broom Lane.
Comparison is made with broadly equivalent operations at Staarvey Farm and Y Gharey Nursery which are stated to employ six or seven full or part- time staff, indicating the labour-intensive nature of the development proposed here.
For these reasons, and in the absence of information on the number of employees required and the traffic implications of this projected commercial market garden, the proposal is contrary to EP17 and GP2 of the IMSP.
Siting and Scale
The proposed glasshouse and polytunnel would be contrary to EP1, EP15 and EP17 as they would not be as close as practically possible to existing building groups nor appropriate in terms of scale. They would be sited next to the highway and be of significant mass and height, have an adverse impact on the appearance of the area, exacerbated by a loss of tree cover, and would fail to protect the countryside and ecology for its own sake.
There is no evidence to substantiate the assertion by the Planning Authority that the proposed polytunnel and glasshouse are designed as non- permanent structures ensuring that they can be dismantled when no longer required, mitigating their long-term impact on the countryside. Such long-
==== PAGE 6 ====
Appeal: AP25/0019
Planning Application: 24/91373/B __ __
6 term impact would be manifest as operational buildings, not just as disused, potentially derelict structures.
Justification for the Stone Barn-Stables
The application misleadingly implies that an eastern extension to the existing barn is extant whereas it is totally ruinous and overgrown.
In its initial approval, the Planning Authority erroneously applied equestrian policies EP19 and EP20 to working horses to justify approval on the basis of a non-existent diversification of the rural economy. The term equestrian refers in planning terms to horse riding and competition but this is ruled out by Condition 5 for private use. The initial approval allows equestrian activities under Condition 4 despite this not being requested in the application and permits the erection of a barn-stable building which mirrors a house.
The proposal includes no specific use for the existing barn which could accommodate some uses for the 16ha holding. The proposed barn-stables, resembling a permanent house with garage doors and solar panels, appears excessive.
The Planning Committee, who failed to conduct a site visit, was misled that the hillside site was largely flat, whereas the barn-stables would be set down into the sloping ground. Only its gable would be clad in stone, leaving a length of retaining wall exposed to view from the Lane.
The adjacent 80-acre (32ha) Brack-a-Broom Farm has approval for replacement of two sheds with a new agricultural store and conversion and extension of a stone barn to two-storey residential accommodation, as well as a part-replacement access. As a working agricultural unit for the breeding and rearing of highland cattle, with an overall reduction in agricultural buildings, the approved Brack-a-Broom proposal is in no way comparable to the current application for Ballachrink Farm
Adverse Impact on Amenity at Brack-a-Broom Farm
The proposal is contrary to EP15, EP22 and GP2 of the IMSP in that no assessments have been made of the impact on the residential amenity of the neighbouring property that would arise from siting a large glasshouse, within 20m of the Brack-a-Broom Farm boundary, involving a reduction in tree cover and a potential for light pollution. Nor is there any information on the commercial market garden traffic that would use Brack-a-Broom Lane, nor regarding artificial lighting or use of farm machinery.
Furthermore, the Planning Committee was misled by statements that there is only one residential property at Brack-a-Broom Farm, when in truth there are two, and that this residential property is 160m from the development, when in fact the two residential units are only 80m and 87m from the site of the proposed glasshouse. There is a significant degree of intervisibility between the two properties when intervening trees are not in leaf.
==== PAGE 7 ====
Appeal: AP25/0019
Planning Application: 24/91373/B __ __
7 Access and Parking
Impact on the Countryside - Loss of Trees
Conclusion
For all the foregoing reasons, this appeal should be allowed and the initial approval overturned.
However, without prejudice, amendments are suggested to the conditions and stated reason for approval, to be applied should the permission sought in the appeal be granted, despite the foregoing conclusion.
The Case for the Planning Authority
The material points are:
Issues
Principle
Polytunnel and Glasshouse
==== PAGE 8 ====
Appeal: AP25/0019
Planning Application: 24/91373/B __ __
8 surrounding landscape. Additionally, the careful siting near existing structures would reduce visual intrusion, consistent with EP17.
Barn and Stables
The proposed barn-stables building satisfies the principles of EP1 and GP3 by demonstrating its necessity for agricultural productivity and the use of working horses, while remaining consistent with policies that protect countryside character and support the rural economy.
The submitted evidence of agricultural need demonstrates significant agricultural elements warranting exception under GP3(f) and outlines the necessity of the proposed barn for securely housing essential equipment and machinery to support livestock and arable farming. The principle of development is further strengthened by its dual-purpose function, with the barn sustaining essential agricultural operations and the stable contributing to the use of working horses. Together, these uses align with policy objectives to support rural economies and enhance land productivity while safeguarding environmental integrity.
The inclusion of working horse facilities would enhance the agricultural use of the site and contribute to the vitality of the rural economy, ensuring that the development would align with the overarching goal of the IMSP for countryside sustainability and productivity. The agricultural function of the barn would support livestock and arable farming, contributing directly to the Island rural economy.
The proposed barn-stables building would be appropriately located adjacent to existing buildings, ensuring compatibility with the surrounding countryside and avoiding unnecessary intrusion on undeveloped land. The integration of the dual-purpose use of the barn-stables into the rural setting would meet policy requirements to balance economic utility with countryside preservation.
Character of the Countryside
==== PAGE 9 ====
Appeal: AP25/0019
Planning Application: 24/91373/B __ __
9 layout. As a result, the development would not appear out of place, and no significant additional impact on the surrounding countryside would occur due to the development
The new barn-stables building would be partly set down into the ground, diminishing its apparent bulk and ensuring that its scale would be proportionate to the operational needs of the Farm. The inclusion of a traditional Manx stone facing to the west gable wall would further integrate the building into the rural setting, reducing its visual impact whilst preserving rural character.
The proposed development demonstrates compliance with the relevant policies regarding impact on countryside character, including EP1, EP15 and EP17 of the IMSP.
Trees and Ecology
While six Category U trees and one tree group would require removal due to poor condition and limited lifespan, this aligns with EP3 of the IMSP. The development would retain and integrate existing landscape features, particularly mature trees, ensuring minimal alteration to the natural characteristics of the site. The proposal includes proactive conservation measures, such as root pruning and the establishment of Tree Protection Zones to minimize disruption to retained trees with protective fencing, ground protection measures, and specialist foundations within Root Protection Areas to help prevent soil compaction and root disturbance.
The existing tree cover plays a vital ecological role, offering connectivity between habitats and serving as a refuge for local wildlife, and these would be largely retained. The development footprint would avoid undue disruption to potential habitat features, with mitigation measures in place to prevent habitat fragmentation.
The proposal demonstrates a conscientious approach to integrating development with ecological and tree conservation objectives, aligning with established environmental principles promoted by EP1, EP3-5, EP7 and GP2(d) and (f) of the IMSP.
Neighbouring Amenity
==== PAGE 10 ====
Appeal: AP25/0019
Planning Application: 24/91373/B __ __
10
Highway Safety
The appeal site is served by Brack-a-Broom Lane from Poortown Road. Concerns are raised by neighbours regarding increased heavy goods traffic using the overgrown narrow Lane with the attendant risk of damage to hedgerows, verges, and a stream crossing.
However, the appeal proposal emphasises private use only, with no evidence of activities that would require frequent or heavy commercial vehicle movements. The limited scale of the development would ensure that its operation would remain in keeping with the present small-scale, private agricultural and horticultural character of the site. By maintaining such appropriate usage levels, the development would avoid further degradation of Brack-a-Broom Lane and impact on its hedgerows, verges or an underlying stream. On that condition, the Highways Authority has confirmed that the existing access arrangements and site layout are sufficient to accommodate the development.
Regarding the junction of Brack-a-Broom Lane with Poortown Road, concerns about its limited visibility, lack of passing places, and potential safety hazards are also noted. However, the remote location and private- use condition would ensure that the proposed development would not generate significant additional traffic.
The appeal proposal complies with GP2(h) and TP4 of the IMSP regarding safe access and highway network functionality. A condition should, however, be imposed to ensure that no commercial activity is carried out at the site.
Drainage and Flood Risk
The site does not fall within a recognized flood risk area and the development design incorporates sustainable land management practices, such as maintaining natural sod banks and gradients, to manage run-off effectively. The proposal thus avoids significant increases in hard surfaces and retains many of the natural landscape features of the site, ensuring no additional flood risk to areas downstream.
The development would thus prevent unacceptable flood risk on or off-site, in line with GP2 and EP13 of the IMSP.
==== PAGE 11 ====
Appeal: AP25/0019
Planning Application: 24/91373/B __ __
11 Response to the Appeal
Need
The glasshouse and polytunnel are required for the protected cultivation of high-value, climate-sensitive produce not commonly grown on the Island but suited to evolving local demand, particularly in the hospitality and ethnic food sectors. They would be modest in size, discrete in profile, and consistent with the expectations of paragraph 7.14.1 of the IMSP which supports horticultural activity on rural land where visual and traffic impacts are appropriately managed.
The existing stone barn is constrained by heritage limitations and structural inefficiency and is too small and sensitive for modern conversion.
The stable would meet the need for housing horses working on the farm. It is accepted that animals kept for farming are classified as livestock and their accommodation is deemed agricultural. The dual-purpose of the barn- stables would align with accepted multifunctional use of farm buildings.
The combined footprint of the proposed structures would be proportionate to the scale and operational model of the 16ha holding, such that the development is justified, appropriately scaled, and functionally necessary to support the agricultural and horticultural operations proposed.
Whilst the Appellant contests the commercial validity of the proposed crops, no contrary evidence or alternative market data is provided. In the absence of such evidence, the Planning Authority is entitled to accept the case of the Applicant, particularly given the limited footprint, lack of on-site retail, and conformity with countryside protection policies. The agricultural and horticultural justification is well-founded.
Commercial Use of Brack-a-Broom Lane
a. Lane Condition and Use: Brack-a-Broom Lane is narrow and lightly constructed, but it already serves agricultural purposes and benefits from a 10mph advisory speed limit. The development would not introduce new uses or vehicle types that would materially exceed current baseline conditions. b. Access and Visibility: The existing access point is unchanged, and while the Poortown Road junction is constrained, it is not expected to experience a change in traffic levels or turning frequency under the private-use limitation.
==== PAGE 12 ====
Appeal: AP25/0019
Planning Application: 24/91373/B __ __
12 c. No Formal Upgrade Required: Given the limited scale and non- commercial nature of the proposal, the Planning Authority concludes, with the agreement of the Highways Division, that no formal transport statement or road improvement scheme was necessary. d. Alternative Siting Rejected: Suggestions to relocate the development to reduce travel distance along the lane were rejected due to their impact on productive land and wider countryside character
Traffic Generation and Employment
Siting and Scale
Prior Reliance on Equestrian Policies
Neighbouring Amenity
Loss of Trees
==== PAGE 13 ====
Appeal: AP25/0019
Planning Application: 24/91373/B __ __
13 than 10 years. The development has been carefully designed to retain all higher-value trees, including appropriate protective measures secured by condition.
Access and Parking
Conclusion
The Case for the Applicant - Mr K Mildwaters
The material points are:
Planning Assessment
Introduction
Stables and Working Horses
The Applicant also has heavy horses which would be used to work the land, resulting in highly sustainable food production. The proposed building would be more robust than a typical timber stable, in order to accommodate these larger animals. The proposed stone finish would complement the existing barn immediately to the south and create a more traditional farm group than would a timber building.
At the same time, the proposed barn would comprise a clad steel portal frame. It would not be of cavity-wall construction and would be of a size to accommodate the heavy horses. The retaining walls to the north and east ground floor level would be of solid concrete. It is not accepted that the proposed barn-stable would have a residential appearance. It is deliberately designed to mirror the existing barn in its size, shape and roof pitch.
==== PAGE 14 ====
Appeal: AP25/0019
Planning Application: 24/91373/B __ __
14
The elevation facing directly towards the highway is proposed to be finished in stone, whilst the courtyard elevation contains cladding as a finish. This is appropriate and would be a dark colour so as not to stand out or be otherwise unsympathetic. Solar panels have been included to maximise the potential for renewable energy rather than using fossil fuel based energy and indeed, planning permission is no longer required for attaching solar panels to any building.
There would be no loss of high-quality agricultural land and the ability to keep the horses on the site would reduce the amount of farm traffic to and from the site. The stable would not be of large scale and its visual impact would be limited due to its location and screening. The stable facilities are therefore considered to accord with EP21. The working heavy horses would be considered agricultural animals and also subject to EP15.
The existing available buildings to serve the holding are limited in use due to their size and the width and position of door openings. The largest building can be used for storing and packaging produce but is not suitable for large, modern machinery and vehicles. However, the proposal reflects the size, materials and proportions of what exists and is not considered excessive. It is submitted that the proposed barn would fulfil the criteria for an exception to be made to the presumption against development here, as advocated in GP3 and EP15. The building would be sited next to existing buildings would not be prominent from a public vantage points. The building would be s approximately 130m from the nearest part of the closest building on Brack-a-Broom Farm to the north west.
Polytunnel and Glasshouse
The polytunnel and glasshouse would be closer to the road and visible to anyone passing the site. However, their chosen location is sheltered, which is important given the nature of the buildings, and there are roadside trees which provide some screening of the area where the buildings will be erected.
Submitted specialist arboriculture information explains that within the site there is one individual Category A tree and one Cat A tree group, elm, 3 Category B trees, 3 Category B tree groups, 2 Category C trees, 6 Category U trees and 1 Category U tree group. The individual Cat A elm sits in the bank between the proposed glasshouse and the proposed stable and the Cat A group site on the southern side of the entrance up to the farmhouse. The report goes on to confirm that the proposed works would only result in the removal of a group of 6 Category U trees comprising and otherwise the pruning of 3 Category B trees to provide clearance for construction traffic. These measures are recommended regardless of the appeal proposal due the poor structural and physiological condition of the trees and colonisation by Ash Dieback disease. Nevertheless, new planting of 3-year-old saplings from a range of Manx native trees would be undertaken to mitigate the tree loss
==== PAGE 15 ====
Appeal: AP25/0019
Planning Application: 24/91373/B __ __
15 89. The tree report also confirms that minor Root Protection Area (RPA) incursions from both the glasshouse and the polytunnel and the construction of necessitating specialist foundation methods to minimise impact. The Cat A tree and tree group would not be affected by the proposed development.
Policy Compliance
The proposed agricultural buildings are necessary to enable this holding to be managed economically. The buildings would be sited as close to the existing buildings as is practical and would be finished in the material necessary for their purpose. It is submitted that the new buildings would be appropriate in appearance, materials and construction for their intended agricultural use and would have no adverse impact on their surroundings.
Brack-a-Broom Lane is not heavily trafficked and the proposed buildings would only be visible when passing the site and even then, the impact would be mitigated by the existing vegetation. In any case, what will be visible are agricultural structures which are not out of place in a rural landscape, situated close to existing farm buildings. The buildings would be sufficiently distant from neighbouring properties to avoid any adverse impact upon them. The proposal thus satisfies EP15, EP17 and GP3(f).
The planning approval granted at adjacent Brack-a-Broom Farm for building renovation and conversion to living accommodation demonstrates a welcome involvement in the rural buildings along Brack e Broom Lane and what is proposed in this current application is considered to continue this investment and bringing the land and buildings back into use, ensuring their continued maintenance. The traditional buildings which exist on site are an important reminder of the Island’s past but need to be supplemented by new structures which better suit modern agriculture.
The plan for the Farm would result in its economic viability whilst improving the condition of the existing structures and the land more generally.
The Applicant believes that the proposed development would not only satisfy the relevant planning policies but would result in a positive environmental impact and an enhanced contribution to the Island in terms of the availability of new and different local foodstuffs, the investment in existing buildings of interest and the farm holding.
The development would respect the landscape, preserving the features identified in the Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) of scattered farm houses surrounded by tree blocks linked by small lanes and tracks. Concentrating the new buildings around the existing farmstead, close to the road, would preserve the noted features of this landscape, namely its predominantly open rural character, large angular fields and woodland blocks. The development would not affect adversely key views or any identified ecological features and would conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the area.
==== PAGE 16 ====
Appeal: AP25/0019
Planning Application: 24/91373/B __ __
16 Response to the Appeal
Need
It is self-evident that many products can either only be grown under cover or within a protected environment or will grow better under such circumstances. Greenhouses and polytunnels are not inexpensive investments and need to produce results to justify the expenditure. The objective for the holding is to focus on growing nutrient-rich Asian fruits, vegetables, and herbs for sale to the restaurant trade, the grocery retail trade, and the public through off-site facilitators, such as food market sales.
This concept is based on several successful ventures; for example, Boon Luck Farm, Thai Gardens, Byron Bay, Australia, which supplies the Thai Chat restaurants in Sydney, and Ryewater Nursery, Dorset, England, which supplies Plaza Khao Gaeng Speedboat Bar, Viet Populaire, and Bebek!Bebek! restaurants in London.
A key component of this approach is conservation agriculture and regenerative practices to include, no-till cultivation, no use of chemicals or artificial fertilizers and seasonal production without artificial light and heat, with rotating mob grazing by rare breeds to aid land and livestock conservation. Heavy horses are more sustainable than mechanical plant in working this land, which does not accommodate tractor or quadbike traffic in wet conditions.
Currently, no-one on the Island grows these nutrient-rich Asian fruits, vegetables and herbs, which have to be sourced from abroad, whereas the key to higher quality cuisine is the freshness of the produce. This is particularly true of Vietnamese, Thai and Filipino cuisine. The on-Island Asian restaurant and retail trades and their customers, including the large Filipino community, indicate a market for the wide range of exotic fruits and vegetables intended to be produced at Ballachrink, at lower prices than imports. The Applicant has customers for honey to be produced from hives already on the Farm. There are also free-range eggs, chicken, pork and beef from rare breeds. The orchard will produce a range of fruits within five years. Finally, it is intended to introduce truffle-impregnated oak trees in the next three years, in hope of producing truffles.
On this basis, the essential need for the development is established.
Brack-a-Broom Lane
==== PAGE 17 ====
Appeal: AP25/0019
Planning Application: 24/91373/B __ __
17 102. The glasshouse and polytunnel would enable a more efficient and effective arrangement for growing crops but are essentially no different in function from planting crops in the ground. The reference to a commercial market garden was to clarify that the structures were not intended for the growing of flowers and produce for the Applicant’s own consumption and that they would be grown for sale elsewhere. Indeed, Condition 2 of the initial approval precludes the sale of any item directly from any of the proposed buildings.
There is no proposal nor intention to have the public or customers come to the site. The plan is, and has always been, to take the produce from the site to the place of sale. Travel to and from the site to take items to market would be minimised far as possible, in the interests of reducing travel time and costs.
There is no explanation for the suggestion that the proposed development would increase the amount of traffic using the Lane or why the proposed buildings are considered to be commercial, any more than a proposed agricultural building would be. The stable building is intended to accommodate the Applicant’s own animals and it is not proposed to offer liveries.
Siting and Scale
The visual impact of the buildings would be mitigated by existing trees. Where trees would be removed due to poor condition, others would be planted. In summer especially, the tree line along Brack-a-Broom Lane is dense and the site is almost completely hidden, including by self-seeded vegetation reinforcing the hedgerow.
It is not accepted that the proposed siting would result in the buildings being isolated from the Farm complex and, whilst they may factually be closer to the road than they are to the existing stone barn, existing and proposed tree planting and topography prevent the polytunnel and glasshouse being any closer. All the buildings would be served by the same existing access and are located in the least exposed position. In practical terms, the proposed buildings could not be any closer to the existing built group without being exposed and difficult to access, taking up land more valuable for grazing.
It is submitted that these exceptional circumstances justify the location of the proposed polytunnel and glasshouse on the flattest part of the Farm. To site them elsewhere would reduce their efficiency and they would be closer to Brack-a-Broom Farm and more intrusive in respect of its outlook.
Stone Barn-Stables
==== PAGE 18 ====
Appeal: AP25/0019
Planning Application: 24/91373/B __ __
18 109. The barn would be of a size to allow the storage on the ground floor of all the machinery, equipment and tools required on the holding. Currently farm equipment is stored outside or off-site. The upper floor would allow the storage of hay made on the Farm and other feedstuffs.
The stables would be solely for the Applicant’s working heavy horses and there is no interest in operating a livery yard. The existing barn could not be used as the doors are too small, the existing stabling comprises traditional tying stalls instead of modern loose boxes and the building lacks ventilation.
Any alterations to create larger openings, create modern stables and provide adequate ventilation would require extensive alterations which would significantly change the appearance of what is understood to be a very good example of a traditional Manx barn.
Residential Amenity
The existing dwelling at Brack-a-Broom Farm is situated approximately 80m from the closest part of the proposed glasshouse and 112m from the closest part of the proposed stables. The approved Brack-a-Broom barn conversion, with its extension under construction, is 77m from the nearest part of the proposed glasshouse, substantially in excess of the recommended 20m separation distances for residential properties.
In addition, the application site is considerably lower than the Brack-a- Broom farmstead, with considerable tree screening in between. There would be no loss of intervening tree cover and it is actually proposed to plant more trees.
With regard to lighting, there would be no growing lights, as noted above. The only lights would be for work as the light fades or emergencies.
The principal view from the Brack-a-Broom extension is toward the south west, away from Ballachrink. Even were these large windows and principal rooms facing directly towards the application site, the distance and difference in level involved, together with the existing tree screen, would prevent any unacceptable impact on the living conditions of occupiers.
Countryside - Loss of Trees
Only trees in poor condition and of short life expectancy are to be removed on professional recommendation, regardless of the development but with replacement planting. Sycamores are already spreading through self- seeding.
The whole ethos of the entire operation is to increase biodiversity and it would not serve the Applicant or the holding to destroy trees which do not need to be removed.
==== PAGE 19 ====
Appeal: AP25/0019
Planning Application: 24/91373/B __ __
19 Access, Surfacing and Parking
The same access routes will be used as at present to move around the site, with no intention of creating permanent roadways between the buildings. The only hard surface would be a courtyard between the two barns for the management of working horses and other livestock.
There would be no public access and so there would be no need for parking beyond the present hard gravel driveway, which has always proved more than adequate, and would only require topping with finer material.
Reporting Errors
Notwithstanding errors admitted by the Planning Authority, the Appellant has confirmed that the distances between existing and proposed buildings are 80m (not 160m) and slightly less for the converted and extended barn. It is also agreed that the use of horses for agricultural activities represents agricultural and not equestrian use.
Even taking account of these points, it is not considered that that they invalidate the recommendation of the Planning Authority to approve the application.
The Applicant has addressed the impact on neighbours, clearly stating the actual distance between the buildings and concluding that there would be no adverse amenity impact resulting from the proposed development. Similarly, the fact that the horses would be agricultural animals does not undermine the merits of the application as the stabling therefore complies with EP21 and EP15.
Conclusion
This proposed development would enhance the agricultural productivity of Ballachrink Farm in a way which would not have any detrimental impact on the environment or the living conditions of those in adjacent property.
It is fully accepted that the proposed structures are larger than might ordinarily be found on a residential property but this is an agricultural holding where structures, by the nature and scale of the operations, need to be larger. This is not a residential curtilage.
Whilst some of the proposed structures might be seen if one caught sight of them through the trees, what will be seen are well built structures that are clearly agricultural in character and function and not something that would be unexpected in a rural location as part of a farmyard.
Brack-a-Broom Lane is limited in width, forward alignment and is in places in poor condition. However, what is proposed is agricultural production, which is the objective of most farms. It is not considered that what is proposed would generate any more traffic than would any other form of
==== PAGE 20 ====
Appeal: AP25/0019
Planning Application: 24/91373/B __ __
20 agriculture activity, the latter being an acceptable land use in the countryside.
Other Representations Received
The material points are:
German Parish Commissioners raised concerns about infrastructure, noting that access to the site is via a single-track road, which is unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles.
DOI Highway Services indicate no significant negative impact on highway safety, network functionality, or parking due to the proposal. The existing access and layout are deemed acceptable for the relatively small scale of the proposals, subject to a condition to restrict the development to private use for road safety and accessibility reasons.
The DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team has no objections, subject to conditions relating to tree protection, light pollution and bat and bird strike.
There are objections from members of the public concerning: commercial activity and traffic impact on narrow, poorly maintained Brack-a-Broom Lane and a watercourse; loss of trees and light pollution affecting ecology; visual impact on rural character; potential future conversion of the barn to residential use; and lack of agricultural justification or need
==== PAGE 21 ====
Appeal: AP25/0019
Planning Application: 24/91373/B __ __
21 Assessment by the Inspector
Issues
Principle
EP1 of the IMSP protects the countryside for its own sake from any adverse effects of development, unless there is an overriding planning need for the development which outweighs that general requirement; but GP3(f) makes exception for building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture.
EPs 15 and 17 together provide that, where such an overriding need exists for agricultural or horticultural buildings, their impact must be acceptable and the development sympathetic to the landscape, and nurseries and market gardens must comply with criteria regarding scale, design, amenity, highway conditions, character and appearance.
Paragraphs 7.13.1-2 of the supporting text to EP15 recognise the importance of sustaining the agricultural industry, including by allowing appropriately designed and sited new buildings but specify that the need for them must be established and that such development must not be at the expense of the appearance and character or openness of the landscape. Paragraph 7.14.1, in support of EP17 acknowledges that market gardens and nurseries can benefit the rural economy, but only when their effects are managed.
Accordingly, the buildings and structures proposed in this appeal to be erected in the countryside are acceptable in principle, provided there is substantive evidence of an overriding planning need for the development, which must also comply with all other relevant policy requirements.
Planning Need
==== PAGE 22 ====
Appeal: AP25/0019
Planning Application: 24/91373/B __ __
22 reason to doubt the intention of the Appellant to expand and consolidate this operation, using sustainable farming practices including heavy horses to work the land sensitively, in order to create a commercial market garden.
The Appellant states that a niche market has been identified, in particular among the Filipino community on the Isle of Man, for a wider range of exotic fruits and vegetables not commonly available in the British Isles, other than by relatively expensive importation. Examples are quoted of specialist outlets for such produce in the UK and further abroad.
Crucially, for the appeal proposals to be regarded as essential to the conduct of agriculture in terms of GP3(f), there must be a proven need for these new facilities.
I accept that the overall scale of the proposed structures would be proportionate to this intensified 40ha farming and largely market gardening operation. The present traditional barn, with old-fashioned tying stalls and narrow doors, appears sub-standard for modern horse keeping and welfare. I am broadly satisfied that the proposed barn-stables, glasshouse and polytunnel would be needed for the proposed farming operation, as described, in providing storage for equipment and implements, housing the working horses in acceptable modern and safe accommodation and in facilitating crop growing in a duly protected environment.
However, it would reasonably be expected that an application of this nature would be accompanied by a professional agricultural assessment, by DEFA or a specialist private consultancy. This would typically describe and quantify the management of the proposed market garden and livestock operations, with projected amounts of produce and sales and available markets, with an indication of their likely practical and financial viability. It might also be expected that stated evidence of local demand would be supported by verified documentation.
Unfortunately, in this case there is no such supporting information and the indications of need provided amount to no more than a series of assertions and aspirations put forward by the Applicant. These are no doubt sincere but they are not sufficient to demonstrate that the proposed, intensified farming and growing operation would succeed in practice.
It follows that, on the evidence available in his appeal, the proposed development cannot reasonably be regarded as essential to the conduct of agriculture, as required by GP3(f), or that there is an overriding planning need for the development, in terms of EP1 of the IMSP, to outweigh the general requirement to protect the countryside.
I return to this consideration in assessing the overall planning balance below but first, without prejudice, consider the planning effects of the proposed development.
==== PAGE 23 ====
Appeal: AP25/0019
Planning Application: 24/91373/B __ __
23 Brack-a-Broom Lane
From inspection and the written evidence, it is clear that Brack-a-Broom Lane is very narrow and enclosed by hedges and in poor condition over much of its half-mile length between Poortown Road and the appeal site entrance. At a sharp bend in particular, the highway boundary vegetation is vulnerable to damage from passing vehicles. An underlying watercourse is also liable to damage from heavy vehicles.
The junction of Brack-a-Broom Lane with Poortown Road is also substandard in its layout geometry and visibility.
There appears to be no dispute that the Lane is incapable of accommodating any significant additional traffic, without compromising road safety and public amenity. The argument in this appeal revolves around the extent to which the use of the Lane, especially by commercial vehicles, would increase as a result of the proposed intensification in the operation of Ballachrink Farm.
As a precaution against overuse of the Lane, on Highway Authority advice the Planning Authority imposed initial Conditions 2, 4 and 5, respectively prohibiting retail sales, limiting the buildings to agricultural use and the stables to private use with no liveries. I accept that this would virtually eliminate any likelihood of the proposed development increasing public access to Ballachrink Farm.
However, throughout the written representations by the Applicant and the Planning Authority, there is a degree of contradiction as to whether the operation of the market garden would be commercial, as expressly described in the application, or to be regarded as a private enterprise.
In reality, I consider it reasonable to describe the proposed agricultural and horticultural operation as private, but only to the limited extent that it would offer no public retail or livery services and appears to be family-run business. However, the whole purpose of the development is to intensify the production of farm produce for sale. That is a commercial endeavour by any definition, with inherent potential to generate traffic on Brack-a-Broom Lane by way of goods vehicles delivering or collecting produce for wholesale customers and non-resident farmworkers commuting to the site.
But discourse around the meaning of terminology is less important than the true planning effects of the development on which this appeal falls to be assessed. My real concern in this appeal, as similarly expressed above in connection with the issue of need, is that there is no quantified evidence to indicate whether the traffic generated would be minimal, as claimed by the Applicant and accepted by the Planning Authority, or more substantial as alleged by the Appellant and other objectors.
I recognise that, even with the proposed market garden development in place, the 16ha Ballachrink Farm would amount to a comparatively small agricultural holding within the wider farming industry of the Island.
==== PAGE 24 ====
Appeal: AP25/0019
Planning Application: 24/91373/B __ __
24 However, there is some evidence that two operations of comparable scale on the Island find it necessary to employ small but significant numbers of off-site staff for at least parts of the year.
In the absence of any evidence of the actual amounts of produce to be transported away from the Farm or the number of employee work trips to serve it, I am unable to form a view as to whether the traffic on Brack-a- Broom Lane would increase beyond an acceptable level as a result of the development.
Therefore, on the evidence available on the adequacy of Brack-a-Broom Lane to accommodate traffic from the proposed development, I can only regard the appeal proposal as failing to comply with TP4 and GP(h-i) of the IMSP with respect to access and road safety.
Character and Appearance
The proposed barn-stable would be of modern construction internally but partly stone-clad with a pitched roof profile. It would accordingly complement, in form and style, the existing stone barn, with which it would be closely associated within the existing built farmstead group. Thus, whilst it might mirror a house to some extent, it would also appropriately mirror its traditional companion barn. Moreover, it would not incorporate domestic cavity walling and its solar panels would be equally appropriate to a barn as to a dwelling. Any residual potential for a domestic conversion would be obviated by initial Condition 4, limiting its use to agriculture.
The glasshouse and polytunnel would not be so closely associated with the present farmstead group. However, they would stand on the flattest part of the site, already occupied by livestock and growing enclosures. They would be partly screened from the adjacent Lane by existing mature and proposed new trees following the recommended removal those which are diseased and some necessary pruning of others.
Otherwise with reference to trees, I am satisfied that those of higher quality and value to be retained would be adequately protected by initial Condition 9, requiring full compliance with recommended tree and root protection measures. This would satisfy EP3 of the IMSP to protect woodland.
I am satisfied that all the proposed buildings and structures would be optimally sited within the context of the holding, as close as practically possible to the existing farmstead, and would be of design and character recognised in the countryside as typically associated with farming. To that extent, they would be in sympathy with the landscape with reference to Policies EPs 15 and 17 of the IMSP, which govern agricultural and horticultural buildings when exceptionally permitted.
I do not agree however that the glasshouse and polytunnel in particular could reasonably be described as modest. They would be of substantial scale in the local context have a clear impact on the countryside, affecting
==== PAGE 25 ====
Appeal: AP25/0019
Planning Application: 24/91373/B __ __
25 its open rural character. This would justify dismissal of the appeal under GP2(b-c) and EP1 of the IMSP in the absence of overriding need.
Initial Condition C3 requires the removal of the buildings on cessation of use but that would have no effect on their impact for a potentially protracted period of operation and it would not be appropriate to apply such a stipulation to the permanent barn-stables building. I give this consideration minimal weight in this case.
I do, however, take into account that artificial lighting for growing purposes would be prohibited by initial Condition 7.
Overall though, I find that, in its design and layout, the potential impact of the proposed development would be minimised such that, if the development were proven to be essential to agriculture, it would be acceptable with respect its effect on the character and appearance of the site and rural landscape, notwithstanding the general protection provided by EP1.
Residential Amenity
The proposed glasshouse and polytunnel would be as close as 20m to the shared boundary between Ballachrink and Brack-a-Broom Farms, with a noticeable degree of intervisibility between the two farmsteads, especially in winter when trees are not in leaf.
The residential buildings of Brack-a-Broom would look down upon the substantial market garden structures with their potential for glint and glare, albeit significant night-time light pollution by skyglow would be avoided by the condition to prohibit artificial lighting for the purpose of crop-growing.
However, I consider that the substantial horizontal and vertical separation distance of 70 or 80m between the buildings themselves, coupled with the boundary screening available, is sufficient to ensure that there would be no unacceptable impact on the outlook or privacy of Brack-a-broom Farm as the nearest neighbouring property. Neither do I think that property would suffer undue additional noise due to the development, nor any unacceptable odours, given Ballachrink is already a working livestock farm and the glasshouse and polytunnel would replace current pig enclosures.
I therefore find that the proposed development would comply with GP2(g) and EP22 of the IMSP with respect to the protection of neighbouring amenity and the avoidance of pollution.
Other Matters
Site Access, Circulation and Parking
==== PAGE 26 ====
Appeal: AP25/0019
Planning Application: 24/91373/B __ __
26 Drainage, Flood Risk and Watercourse
Ecology
Planning Benefits
Conditions Reason for Approval (without prejudice)
Irrespective whether the Minister decides to overturn or uphold the initial approval, it is necessary to review afresh the conditions attached to it. In doing so I take into account suggested amendments put forward without prejudice by the Appellant.
In my view, including for the reasons explained above, I consider that all ten initial conditions are generally appropriate but should be amended for clarity. Condition 2 should specify no retail sales arising from any of the buildings. Condition 3 should refer to removal of the glasshouse and polytunnel on cessation of use but not the permanent barn-stables building. Condition 4 should name the buildings and structures to which the agricultural use limitation applies. Condition 5 should omit reference to equestrian use because there is no question of equestrian diversification, working horses are agricultural and liveries are expressly prohibited. Reference to private or commercial use should be deleted to avoid confusion and the buildings simply limited to agricultural use. Condition 7 should expressly prohibit lighting until a scheme is approved and the reason for the lighting condition should include reference to safeguarding neighbouring residential amenity.
==== PAGE 27 ====
Appeal: AP25/0019
Planning Application: 24/91373/B __ __
27 173. The stated reason for approval, if granted should not refer to diversification which is not a feature of the proposal to intensity the existing agricultural use and should state the determinative overriding need for the development as essential to agriculture in terms of policy.
Overall Planning Balance and Conclusion
I have found no objection to the proposed development with respect to neighbouring residential amenity, site access, circulation and parking, drainage, flood risk and ecology. And I have found limited material economic planning benefits if the development were otherwise acceptable.
However, I have found that, on the evidence available in his appeal, the proposed development cannot reasonably be regarded as essential to the conduct of agriculture, as required by GP3(f) of the IMSP, or that there is an overriding planning need for the development, in terms of EP1 to outweigh the general requirement to protect the countryside.
I have also found that there is insufficient information to establish that the development could proceed without causing an unacceptable increase in traffic along Brack-a-Broom Lane, contrary to adopted policy.
Furthermore, despite finding no objection to the inherent design and layout of the proposed barn-stables, glasshouse and polytunnel, I have noted a degree of landscape impact that could only be overridden by a proven essential agricultural need.
In short, having paid regard to all relevant planning policy and every other material consideration arising from the written representations, I have formed the overall view that the development, as whole, would be acceptable in planning terms but for the lack of a proven need for it and clear evidence that there would be no significant increase in traffic along Brack-a-Broom Lane.
It is solely on this basis that I conclude that this appeal should be allowed and the initial approval of the application overturned.
==== PAGE 28 ====
Appeal: AP25/0019
Planning Application: 24/91373/B __ __
28 Recommendation
a. The proposal fails to comply with Policies E1 and GP3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 in that it would be located in the countryside and there is no proven need for it as essential to the conduct of agriculture.
b. There is insufficient information provided to determine whether or not the proposed development would generate excessive vehicle traffic on Brack-a-Broom Lane serving the site, contrary to General Policy 2(h) and (i) and Transport Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 .
B J Sims
B J Sims BSc (Hons) CEng MICE MRTPI Independent Inspector
15 September 2025
==== PAGE 29 ====
Appeal: AP25/0019
Planning Application: 24/91373/B __ __
29 APPENDIX
Schedule of Suggested Planning Conditions, Approved Drawings and Reason for Approval to be applied if the Minister grants approval
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 retail sales shall take place from the appeal site of any produce from the barn-stables building, glasshouse or polytunnel hereby approved.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure the development takes place in accordance with the approved details and without geniting excessive traffic on Brack-a-Broom Lane.
C 3. The glasshouse and polytunnel hereby approved shall be removed and the ground restored to its former condition in the event that they are no longer used or required for agricultural or horticultural purposes.
Reason: The building has been exceptionally approved solely to meet agricultural and horticultural need, and its subsequent retention would result in an unwarranted intrusion in the countryside.
C 4. The barn-stables, glasshouse and polytunnel may only be used for horticultural or agricultural purposes.
Reason: The countryside is protected from development and an exception is being made on the basis of a horticultural and agricultural need only.
C 5. The stables shall be for agricultural use only and not for livery use.
Reason: In view of the location of the site in the countryside and the nature of the adjoining road, the Department does not consider the site suitable for anything other than agricultural use.
C 6. Prior to the removal of any tree on site, a Bat Roost Assessment shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified ecologist to determine the presence of bat roosts or potential roost features. The findings, including any required mitigation measures, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the Bat Roost Assessment.
Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for bats existing on the site or in the immediate vicinity.
==== PAGE 30 ====
Appeal: AP25/0019
Planning Application: 24/91373/B __ __
30 C 7. No lighting shall be installed in the glasshouse or polytunnel unless a detailed lighting scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. Such scheme must be designed in accordance with the recommendations of the BCT and ILP Guidance Note 8: Bats and Artificial Lighting (12th September 2018) to minimize disruption to nocturnal wildlife.
The lighting details shall include detailed drawings of the proposed lighting columns and fittings, information about the levels of luminance and daily duration and any measures for mitigating the effects of light pollution. The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved scheme.
Reason: To ensure artificial lighting within and around the glasshouse and polytunnel does not negatively impact wildlife but safeguards biodiversity and neighbouring residential amenity.
C 8. No later than the first planting season following the buildings and structures hereby approved being brought into use, all tree planting associated with the development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved landscape drawing. Any alterations to the species, location, or planting arrangement must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department prior to implementation.
Any retained tree which within five years of the approved development being occupied or completed (whichever is the later) dies, is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced by a similar species, of a size to be first approved in writing by the Department, during the next planting season or in accordance with a programme of replacement to be agreed in writing with the Department.
Reason: to ensure that replacement tree planting takes place to mitigate the tree removal required to facilitate the development.
C 9. All tree protection measures associated with the development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the Wilson Tree Care Ltd Arboricultural Impact Assessment - BS 5837, specifically within Section 5: Arboricultural Impacts, and the Tree Protection Plan - Drawing No. 5112-WTC-TPP-V1. Within the Construction Exclusion Zones identified on Drawing No. 5112-WTC- TPP-V1, nothing shall be stored, placed or disposed of above or below ground, the ground level shall not be altered, no excavations shall be made, no mixing of cement or use of other contaminating materials or substances shall take place, nor shall any fires be lit.
Reason: to ensure that all trees to be retained are adequately protected from damage to health and stability throughout the construction period to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality.
C 10. The glasshouse glazing must be installed using methods for the prevention of bird strike which may include etching, decals or ultraviolet coatings prior to the glasshouse being brought into use and shall be retained as such thereafter.
==== PAGE 31 ====
Appeal: AP25/0019
Planning Application: 24/91373/B __ __
31 Reason: in the interest of preventing bird strike in view of the large size and rural location of the glasshouse.
Reason for Approval:
The proposed development is considered acceptable as it aligns with Business Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, supporting rural economic development through sustainable agricultural and horticultural practices. There is an overriding agricultural need for the development as essential to agriculture in terms of Environment Policy 1 and General Policy 3. The careful integration of features such as natural screening, tree protection measures, and drainage management minimizes potential ecological impacts, maintaining compliance with Environment Policies 1 and 4, which emphasize the importance of preserving countryside habitats and biodiversity. Furthermore, the proposal meets the requirements of Environment Policy 15 and Environment Policy 17 by demonstrating agricultural and horticultural need and ensuring the structures harmonize with the rural landscape. The development represents a balanced approach that promotes resource efficiency, aligns with strategic goals, and preserves the intrinsic environmental qualities of the area.
Approved Drawings:
Drg 07 Rev A - Landscape Details (12 February 2025) Drg 01 Rev A - Site and Location Plan (12 February 2025) Drg 02_1_200_SITE_PLAN (5 December 2024) Drg B210-LS - Topographical Survey (Sheet 1) (5 December 2024) Drg B210-LS - Topographical Survey (Sheet 2) (5 December 2024) Drg 03_GLASSHOUSE_POLYTUNNEL_PLANS_ELEVATIONS (5 December 2024) Drg 04_EXISTING_BARN_SURVEY_DRAWING_LQ (5 December 2024) Drg 05_PROPOSED_BARN_STABLES_DRAWING_LQ (5 December 2024) Drg 06_PROPOSED_STABLES_FIRST_FLOOR_SECTION (5 December 2024) Drg SS-01 - BARN_SURVEY - Sections (5 December 2024) Drg GLASSHOUSE DETAIL (6 December 2024) Drg QU20891-001 Rev A - POLYTUNNEL DETAIL (6 December 2024)
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
