Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
22/00690/B Page 1 of 10
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 22/00690/B Applicant : Mr Steve Lace Proposal : Installation of a mobile field stable / shelter (retrospective) Site Address : Fields 622432, 622468, 622467, 622463, 624497, 622465, 622471, 622435, 624326 & 624325 Adjacent To Dhoon Loop Road Dhoon Ramsey Isle Of Man
Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 21.10.2022 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. It is not considered that there is sufficient agricultural need for the shelter to outweigh presumption against development here, or to over-ride the harm to the character and appearance of the countryside. The development is therefore considered to be contrary to Environment Policies 1, 2, 15 and 21 of the Strategic Plan. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
Thallo Mitchell, Dhoon Loop Road, Maughold, as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE
==== PAGE 2 ====
22/00690/B Page 2 of 10
1.1 The application site comprises Fields 622432, 622468, 622467, 622463, 624497, 622465, 622471, 622435, 624326 & 624325 which are accessible via a lane that leads off the Dhoon Loop Road in Maughold. A small area of woodland is located to the west of the northwest section of the site close to the railway and highway with open fields to the north, east and south.
1.2 These fields enclose residential property 'Thalloo Mitchell' Dhoon Loop Road, within its boundary, while the residential property 'Thalloo-Ree' Dhoon Loop Road, has its entire eastern and northern boundaries abutting the southern boundaries of these fields. These boundaries are, however, marked by sod banks of varying heights.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for Installation of a mobile field stable/shelter (retrospective). The proposed shelter would measure 7.3m (24ft) x 3.6m (12ft) x 3m (10 ft. high to top of roof ridge) and be positioned on steel skids so that it can be moved to different fields within the farm when required. The shelter has its walls made of timber with pitch roofed over (material not specified but not timber).
2.2 The applicants have indicated on the application form that the shelter will help with the management of the sheep flock, provide shelter for sheep and lambs and enable safe secure storage for feed, minerals, veterinary products and agricultural machinery/tools required for running a sheep farm.
2.3 The applicants have provided a Planning Statement which sets out the reasons for the proposed shelter and approach to the application, the agricultural basis for the scheme, and justification for the proposal which includes; making provision for segregation and isolation of sick or injured animals, providing secure storage for all medicines, providing appropriate biosecurity measures, preventing contamination of feed, control infestation by vermin and other animals, protecting farm materials and equipment from theft, etc. This statement also provides additional information which includes the following: o The farm to be serviced by the shelter comprises a block of 11 fields totalling about 25 acres of agricultural land. The land is Grade 3 land which is classified as having the potential for mixed livestock and cropping agriculture. o The applicant currently owns 50 ewes which are on the farm and hope to increase the stocking rates with improvements to the farm. o The agricultural machinery currently owned include a Massey Ferguson Tractor, fertilizer spreader, mobile sheep handling system, fencing equipment and other general maintenance machinery which are currently stored off-site. o There is the intension to diversity the farm into other agricultural enterprises to improve the economic viability of the farm. They are considering options to invest in different breeds of sheep with intention of setting up a small pedigree flock. o The shelter is general purpose and can also provide areas for lambing in poor weather and penning for individual sheep when isolation is required. o The shelter will not be located within 20m of any part of the boundary of Thalloo Mitchell' and 'Thalloo-Ree'. o The shelter will not be located in any part of the field where it would be liable to flooding.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of 'High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance' not designated for development under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area or registered tree area, and there are no registered trees on site. The site is also largely not prone to flood risks with only very small patches within fields 622432, 622468, and 624325 considered to have low to medium likelihood of flood risks.
==== PAGE 3 ====
22/00690/B Page 3 of 10
3.2 Due to the land designation of the site and the proposed type of development the following Strategic Plan policies are relevant in the consideration and determination of the application:
3.3 General Policy 3: Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry; (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage.
3.4 Environment Policy 1: The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative.
3.5 Environment Policy 2: 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: (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential.
3.6 Environment Policy 15 states: "Where the Department is satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building (including a dwelling), sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside, and that the impact of this development including buildings, accesses, servicing etc. is acceptable, such 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 of which they will form a part.
Only in exceptional circumstances will buildings be permitted in exposed or isolated areas or close to public highways and in all such cases will be subject to appropriate landscaping. The nature and materials of construction must also be appropriate to the purposes for which it is intended.
Where new agricultural buildings are proposed next to or close to existing residential properties, care must be taken to ensure that there is no unacceptable adverse impact through any activity, although it must be borne in mind that many farming activities require buildings which are best sited, in landscape terms, close to existing building groups in the rural landscape."
3.7 Environment Policy 21 states: "Buildings for the stabling, shelter or care of horses or other animals will not be permitted in the countryside if they would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside in terms of siting, design, size or finish. Any new buildings must be designed in form and materials to reflect their specific purpose; in particular, cavity-wall construction should not be used."
3.8 Environment Policy 14: Development which would result in the permanent loss of important and versatile agricultural land (Classes 1-2) will not be permitted except where there
==== PAGE 4 ====
22/00690/B Page 4 of 10
is an overriding need for the development, and land of a lower quality is not available and other policies in this plan are complied with. This policy will be applied to: (a) land annotated as Classes 1/2 on the Agricultural Land Use Capability Map; and (b) Class 2 soils falling within areas annotated as Class 2/3 and Class 3/2 on the Agricultural Land Use Capability Map.
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 The Isle of Man's First Biodiversity Strategy 2015-2025 4.1.1 Habitat loss "Biodiversity is being lost around the world despite the CBD target to halt biodiversity loss by 2010. Monitoring of indicators is required to quantify biodiversity losses, confirm the main causes and enable targeted action to halt this trend.
Our knowledge of Manx terrestrial habitats and land use is based on maps made between 1991 and 1996. This urgently needs revising in order to quantify habitat changes, understand the reasons and address the causes. Loss is caused not just by active destruction, but also lack of effective management and natural changes such as scrub invasion. Wildlife legislation on the Isle of Man is designed to prevent habitat loss".
4.1.2 Habitat loss actions "21. DEFA will continue to promote a policy of 'no net loss' for semi-natural Manx habitats and species and ensure that unavoidable loss is replaced or effectively compensated for. 22. By the end of 2015 complete a land use and terrestrial habitat assessment to understand rates of habitat loss, use this information to help prioritise habitat and species conservation, through Biodiversity Action Plans, and consider how to monitor success".
4.2 A Development Strategy to Grow the Economic Contribution of Isle of Man Food and Drink from 2015 To 2025 Food Matters: 4.2.1 "to our economy o Growing the economy is a key target for the Isle of Man Government's Agenda for Change o Vision 2020 identifies the £75 million Distinctive Local Food and Drink sector as a priority for growth o The sector is a key contributor to employment, revenue and local multiplier effects."
4.2.2 "to our environment o Local food is better for our environment, reducing food miles, packaging and waste o Food production activities shape our landscape, culture and communities."
4.2.3 "to our future o Contribute to the Island's food security o Adding further value to the Island's economy o Increasing employment opportunities o Supporting the health and well-being of our people."
4.3 Advise provided by the Head of Agriculture for a scheme for a small holding to house sheep and Equipment under PA 21/00727/B for Erection of an agricultural building.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The site has been the subject of two previous planning applications that are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of the current application.
5.2 PA 05/01212/B for Erection of an agricultural implement shed. Refused on Review. This shed was to be erected within the field at the top northwest end of the site and by the wooded area on the boundary with the rail line.
5.2.1 Reason for refusal:
==== PAGE 5 ====
22/00690/B Page 5 of 10
"Based on the level and content of information contained within the planning application the Planning Committee is not persuaded that there is sufficient agricultural need to justify the setting aside of the presumption against new build development in the countryside."
5.3 PA 18/00802/B for Erection of an agricultural building. (Refused at Appeal). This building was also to be erected within the same field as that previously refused for the site.
5.3.1 Reasons for refusal: R1: "There is not an existing agricultural business extant on this smallholding sufficient to justify the erection of a steel frame building. Therefore such a development would be contrary to the requirements of General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 which require that the Department be satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside."
R2: "The site is located within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. The steel framed building as proposed would be an isolated and incongruous feature positioned in an elevated field of steep gradient within the open countryside within a sensitive landscape. The proposal would not be amenable to screening and result in an unacceptable level of detriment to the character and visual amenity to the surrounding Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. Such development would be contrary to Environment Policy 2 and General Policy 3 of the Island Wide Strategic Plan 2016."
5.3.2 The Inspector in determining the application considered the following: "Planning Issues 33. I consider the main issues in this appeal to be the degree of agricultural need and justification for the proposed building and the effect it would have on the appearance and character of the landscape of the surrounding AHLV. 34. It is also appropriate to consider any potential effects upon residential amenity, in particular at nearby Thalloo Mitchel.
Need and Justification 35. The current farming operation on the appeal site is low-key with no more than 50 ewes grazing periodically on the land, and being otherwise managed from other premises. That is compared with the capacity of the land to accommodate at least 100 breeding ewes and followers. 36. Whilst the quality of husbandry at the site is questioned by neighbours, the Appellant states that he is Manxman with long family connections to farming the appeal land and an aspiration to produce high quality lamb and other products compliant with the highest statutory and recommended procedures. There is clearly potential for the land to be farmed much more intensively and to a better standard. It is understandable that the Appellant wishes to move from his previous business into farming with the aid of a modern building on site in support of maintaining the required standards of accommodation and animal welfare. 37. The size of the building, at 180sqm, would evidently be appropriate to the stocking levels envisaged, based upon 1.2 to 1.4sqm per breeding ewe and allowing also for the storage of a reasonable quantity of feed and agricultural equipment. 38. However, the foregoing amounts only to evidence of assertion. There is no documentary evidence that this relatively small, 26-acre tract of land would, in practice, support a viable agricultural enterprise to justify an exception to the broad policy presumption against new building in the countryside of the surrounding AHLV. 39. In particular, no past records of the farming enterprise have been submitted as a basis to evaluate its future expansion. Moreover, there is no financial business plan to demonstrate the future viability of the business. 40. It is widely accepted that new farming enterprise is to be encouraged on the Island but, in the circumstances of this case, the evidence does no more than indicate a desire, albeit
==== PAGE 6 ====
22/00690/B Page 6 of 10
genuine, on the part of the Appellant to have the convenience of a building on site, in preference to the off-site facilities that appear to have served the farming of the land hitherto. 41. Whilst it is a matter of judgement for the Minister, I find that the requisite exceptional justification for approval has not been made out in terms of overriding agricultural need and that the proposal does not meet the requirements of EP15 of the IMSP in this regard.
Appearance and Character 42. On that basis, the proposed building is unwarranted in the countryside of the AHLV, being contrary also the important aims of GP3 and EP1-2 to protect its rural landscape. 43. At the same time, although the building would be positioned above the level of the nearby road and railway line, it would be relatively well screened by the existing woodland to the west and by the new tree planting included within the scheme. Accepting that a position closer to the existing farmstead of Thalloo Ree would be liable to flood and that a site adjacent to the residential Thalloo Mitchel would be more obtrusive, I consider that, were the building justified at all, the siting proposed within the site would be the optimum available within the stipulations of EP15.
Other Matters 44. Notwithstanding the genuine concerns of nearby residents, I am not persuaded that the proposed development would unacceptably prejudice their amenity in terms of noise, traffic or drainage works. The residential property would be well separated from the appeal building and the concern regarding drainage works appears to be a civil matter. 45. Without prejudice to the outcome of this appeal, any approval should be made subject to a condition, as agreed at the Inquiry, limiting the use of the building to agriculture and requiring its removal if that use should cease, given that it would be approved only exceptionally. Further conditions, also agreed, should stipulate the advance approval of finishing materials and landscape planting and secure their implementation and retention, all in the interests of the visual amenity of the countryside landscape of the AHLV.
Overall Conclusions 46. The proposed building would be appropriately located within the 26-acre appeal site if it were justified by genuine agricultural need. However, the there is insufficient evidence of such agricultural need, beyond the mere aspiration and preference of the Appellant for built accommodation on-site. 47. Some weight is to be accorded to the broad encouragement given to new agricultural enterprise on the Island and the Minister is entitled to judge that the available evidence of agricultural need is, in the circumstances, sufficient to satisfy the requirement of EP15 and justify approval. 48. However, it is my own conclusion, on balance overall, that the proposal would be in overriding conflict with the protective measures of GP3 and EP1-2 of the IMSP for the landscape of the countryside within the designated the AHLV and that, accordingly, the appeal should fail.
Recommendation 49. I recommend that the appeal be dismissed. If accepted, this recommendation would have the effect of upholding the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse the application. "
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that they 'Do not oppose' (27 May 2022). They also find the proposal to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and /or parking.
==== PAGE 7 ====
22/00690/B Page 7 of 10
6.2 Garff Parish Commissioners have not made any comments on the application although they were consulted on 31 May 2022.
6.3 The Owners/Occupiers of Thallo Mitchell, Dhoon Loop Road, Maughold, object to the application on the following grounds (20 June 2022): o The development is not essential for the conduct of agricultural activity to outweigh the general presumption against development in the countryside, particularly in an AHLV. o The land has been successfully used for sheep grazing by other parties for many years, including animal welfare, without the need for such a mobile development. o They question the animal welfare code compliance justification of the scheme and state that the land could be used for sheep farming without the need for the building as other farmers with small holdings do on the island. o They question why the applicant cannot continue to store his machinery outwith the site as is the current practice, as any heavy mechanical agricultural work are still done by local contractors who service the majority of the farming community within the parish. o They refer to the previous applications refused for the site on the grounds that there is not an existing agricultural business extant on this small holding sufficient to justify the erection of a steel frame building, and note that no active farming activity is being or has been undertaken since the previous application to warrant the existence of any such development on the land. o They question the commitment of the applicant to return to farming noting that the land has been advertised for sale (Manx net: 9 June 2022).
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are; i) Principle of development ii) The agricultural need for the proposed (SP5, GP3f & EP15) iii) Impact on the character and quality of the countryside
7.2 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT (TCPA 1999 & GP 3) 7.2.1 The starting point for any development within the countryside (i.e. not zoned for development) is General Policy 3. Paragraph (f) allows exemption for agricultural buildings in the countryside, subject to the agricultural or horticultural need for a new building, which is deemed sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside.
7.2.2 The use of land for agriculture is set out in section 45 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 at para 4.8, which lists the type of activities and uses. However, the storage of; "associated hay and straw plus a general work area for the storage of tools, equipment (tractors etc)" does not come within the definition of agriculture, although it is generally accepted that these would generally support the operations of the uses that constitute agriculture and as such there needs to be sufficient justification to prove that agricultural operations actually form the core of activities on land classified as agricultural.
7.2.1 Based on the foregoing, the acceptability of the principle would be dependent on there being sufficient justification for the proposed development as articulated in General policy 3 and Environment Policy 15.
7.3 AGRICULTURAL JUSTIFICATION (GP 3 & HP 15) 7.3.1 As been noted in the Policy section of this report, the site is not within an area zoned for development. In fact, the site is within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance, where an added degree of protection applies. Therefore, as per Spatial Policy 5, any development in the countryside must meet the test of General Policy 3. General Policy 3, paragraph (F) allows exemption for agricultural buildings and Environment Policy 15 addresses their suitability on site. The first paragraph requires first that the Department be satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building, sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside.
==== PAGE 8 ====
22/00690/B Page 8 of 10
7.3.2 It would be vital to note here that agricultural enterprises are the sole income of farmers and their livelihood is heavily dependent on their continued and efficient operation. The bigger and more established the farming operation, the easier it's likely to be to demonstrate an agricultural need for a new building to continue the farming operation. This is not to say that smaller farm holdings or start up hobby farms should be discouraged as these can also help contribute to local economy and sustainability. The risk is that any ad hoc decisions taken on agricultural buildings without sufficient justification of need could lead to a proliferation of unwarranted buildings across the countryside which may become obsolete if the intended farming operation do not materialised as expected. As such, in dealing with small scale holdings it is expected that their agricultural justification should be proportionate to the size of the operation and that they can provide detailed evidence to support the need for any building.
7.3.3 In reviewing the supporting information provided by the applicant, the applicants have provided justification which suggest that the shelter will help with the management of the sheep flock, provide shelter for sheep and lambs and enable safe secure storage for feed, minerals, veterinary products and agricultural machinery/tools required for running a sheep farm; matters which are centred on sheep welfare and the storage of equipment and farm machinery. As advise has already been provided by the DEFA Head of Agriculture on such matters in a recent planning application, inference in this case would be drawn from the application which was for the 'Erection of an agricultural building' under (PA 21/00727/B). This was considered to be contrary to General Policy 3 (f) and Environment Policy 15, on the grounds that "There is insufficient agricultural justification for the siting of the building to outweigh the presumption against development... or enough to exempt the development as having sufficient agricultural need to pass as being essential for the conduct of agriculture". The Head of Agriculture in providing advice on the scheme where it was argued that the new building would be used to shelter sheep in bad weather and during lambing, in addition to serving as storage for equipment, which is similar to the current case, stated that: "There is no Agricultural/welfare need to house sheep in bad weather. In fact, the opposite is the case - sheep are 'designed' to live outdoors in all weathers. Whilst housing machinery does prolong its life, owning machinery to manage a holding of this size is a luxury rather than a need. It is far better to contract in to get work done. There is no need to have covered area for conducting health checks."
7.3.4 The above clearly suggest that there is no agricultural need for the current building as the applicant does not require the building to house sheep in bad weather, or for lambing. Also, a covered area is not required for health checks as the applicants have argued as a justification for the development. Additionally, it would be more sustainable and practical for the applicant to contract out major works rather than buy heavy equipment for a holding that only caters for fifty (50) sheep. Thus, it is not considered that there is sufficient justification for the development when the scheme is weighed against the above advice, particularly as the advice provided by DEFA's Agricultural Team hold a lot of weight in determining agricultural related applications.
7.3.5 As there is no overriding need for this building, as has been assessed in the preceding sections of this report, no exceptions can be justified within the submission for the proposed building as required by General Policy 3. On balance, the Department is not satisfied there is sufficient justification to satisfy agricultural need as required by General Policy 3(f) and Environment Policy 15.
7.4 Impact on the character and quality of the countryside (EP1, EP2, EP 15, & EP 21) 7.4.1 In terms of visual impacts, it is considered that the shelter will not have a fixed location, but would be moved to various locations within the 11 fields on the farm holding where it would not be possible for the building to be sufficiently screened at all time (given that some of the locations would be more exposed than others). Therefore, the chances of the building
==== PAGE 9 ====
22/00690/B Page 9 of 10
resulting in adverse visual impacts would be high, minding the site is within an 'Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance' where the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration for any planning proposal, and it has not been demonstrated that the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape. It would be vital to note here that as specific mobile positions have not been identified within the eleven fields, it would be difficult to ascertain the visual impacts of the development noting there are no specific locations from which the potential impacts on the landscape could be assessed.
7.4.2 Granting the building would have its external walls finished in timber which would serve to diminish its impact on the landscape, the size and height would make it particularly noticeable within the various open fields which form part of this holding, and inherently increase its visibility within the context of this part of the countryside, more so, with there being no other buildings on site. Additionally, a significant number of the fields rise towards the east and slope towards the west affording views from the rain line and long stretches of Dhoon Loop Road. As such, the proposed building would stand isolated within these fields and as such the proposal is deemed to adversely affect this part of the countryside, contrary to Environment Policy 15 and would harm the character and quality of the landscape failing Environment Policies 1 and 2.
7.4.3 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the level of harm that would result from the presence of the building which would be positioned at various isolated locations would outweigh any benefits that may result and as such the proposal is considered to be at variance with the fundamental aims to protect the countryside from unwarranted development, as defined in EP1 and GP3.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 For the above reasons, it is considered the proposed building, given the insufficient agricultural justification of need, the isolated positions within the countryside and being apparent from public views would result in a detrimental visual impact and harm the character and quality of the landscape contrary to General Policy 3 and Environment Policies 1, 2 & 15 of the IOM Strategic Plan. The application is therefore recommended for refusal.
9.0 INTEREST PERSON STATUS 9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land which the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
9.2 The decision-maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status. __
==== PAGE 10 ====
22/00690/B Page 10 of 10
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 26.10.2022
Determining officer Signed : J SINGLETON
Jason Singleton
Principal Planner
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal