**Document:** DEC Officer Report
**Application:** 20/01208/B — Erection of two sheds for agricultural purposes
**Decision:** Refused
**Decision Date:** 2020-12-02
**Parish:** Jurby
**Document Type:** report / officer_report
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/13686-lezayre-sandygate-ramsey-shed/documents/1001787

---

# DEC Officer Report

**Application No.:** 20/01208/B
**Applicant:** Mr Richard Wilkinson
**Proposal:** Erection of two sheds for agricultural purposes
**Site Address:** Field 211090 Sandygate Ramsey Isle Of Man Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer
**Expected Decision Level:** Planning Committee
**Recommended Decision:** Refused
**Date of Recommendation:** 27.11.2020 _________________________________________________________________ R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons Reasons for Refusal - R 1. The erection of the proposed sheds would have a detrimental visual impact which would harm the character and quality of the landscape contrary to General Policy 3 and Environment Policies 1 and 15 of the IOM Strategic Plan. - R 2. It is not considered there is sufficient agricultural need for the buildings and that the buildings scale, materials, colour, siting, form and overall design and appearance are not sympathetic to the landscape which they form a part and therefore contrary to Environment Policy 1 and 15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status as they are 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 6(4):

The owner/occupier of Ballacrye Farm, Sandygate as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018).

_____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT.

1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION - 1.1 The application site is within a field identified as 211090, of which is constitutes around 0.8 acres in the north eastern corner beside the field entrance. The site is accessed from a narrow private gravel lane which serves properties "Ballacrye" and "Upper Ballacrye" and numerous fields either side. The private lane is accessed from Sandygate Road to the south.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seek planning approval for the erection of two sheds for agricultural purposes (retrospective). First is a tractor shed (measures 2.4m x 3.7m) ; workshop and storage for tools (measures 4m x 3m & 2m x 3.6m). All structures are timber framed and cladded built on a concrete base foundation.

## - 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 The following applications are considered relevant in the determination of this application: - 3.2 Alterations, erection of a tractor shed and storage shed / workshop and use of part of field for recreational use (retrospective) - 19/00625/B - REFUSED at Appeal for the following reason: "R 1. The erection of the proposed sheds and parking of the vehicles would have a detrimental visual impact which would harm the character and quality of the landscape contrary to General

- Policy 3 and Environment Policies 1 and 15 of the IOM Strategic Plan. R 2. The development amounts to residential development in the countryside due to its semi-permanent nature. Accordingly, it does meet the exceptions to a presumption against new development in the countryside as set out in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3, Housing Policy 4, the Strategic Aim and Strategic Policies 1 and 2."

3.3 Use of part field for recreational use including siting of motorhome from March to September holiday use and erection of four sheds / structures and concrete pad for solar panels (retrospective) - 18/00823/B - REFUSED at Appeal for the following reason: "R 1. The erection of the proposed sheds and parking of the vehicles would have a detrimental visual impact which would harm the character and quality of the landscape contrary to General Policy 3 and Environment Policies 1 and 21 of the IOM Strategic Plan." - 4.0 PLANNING POLICY

4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area zoned as white land / open space, i.e. not designated for development on Isle of Man Planning Development Plan Order 1982. - 4.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this application; - 4.3 Spatial Policy 5: New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3. This is reiterated in Housing

Policy 4 and supported by the Strategic Aim and Strategic Policies 1 and 2.

4.4 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; - 4.5 Environment Policy 1 states: 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 overriding 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.

4.6 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."

## - 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Highway Services do not object (13.11.2020). - 5.2 The owner/occupier of Ballacrye Farm, Sandygate objected to the proposal on the following grounds (19.11.2020):

"1. The applicant has not conformed to the previous decisions of IOM Government regarding the previous unsuccessful planning applications viz:

- i. the motorhome has not been removed from the field
- ii. the concrete bases for the previously proposed buildings and solar panel strip have not been removed
- iii. the partially erected buildings for which permission was refused have not been removed.

- 2. The application is unclear and without adequate detail. If new sheds are proposed, using new materials, the dimensions and footprints of the sheds are unclear and no heights / elevations are shown in the application.
- 3. The size of the bigger shed is being partially justified for the storage of poultry and pig feed. The application mentions increasing the number of existing poultry from 120 to 200 and keeping pigs, presumably bred from the 6 weaners already there. The proposed intensive poultry rearing and pig breeding in this small field is not appropriate to its location close to three residential properties. The proposed poultry and pig breeding facility with associated buildings, noise, vehicles, smells etc. is less than 50 metres from our registered four-star selfcatering cottage which is advertised as being in an idyllic country setting.
- 4. There is no indication of measures for safe waste water disposal or for manure control or in fact for a water supply."

## - 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The key considerations in the assessment of this planning application are;

- (i) the principle of development;
- (ii) the visual impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the countryside.

### 6.2 Principle of the Development

- 6.2.1 The site is not within any area zoned for development. As per Spatial Policy 5, any development in such a countryside area must therefore meet the test of General Policy 3. Prior to this development, the site was used as part of an agricultural field, the works must therefore meet agricultural need. Previously it was considered that no agricultural activates where taking place and it was considered by the previous Planning Office that; "…the structures in questions appear more as domestic sheds, it is not considered that sufficient agricultural need has been demonstrated in this case. The proposal is therefore unacceptable in principle."
- 6.2.2 Further, the Planning Inspector for the previous application commented: "The development might be regarded by the Applicant as essential to his intended use of his land. Crucially however, in the wider public interest and in strict planning terms, the case for the appeal amounts to no more than a personal desire to occupy the land on a part-time basis. There is no evidence of a true agricultural need for the development, or that there is no alternative site for it. Any incidental benefit to wildlife or the management of the land carry very little weight in comparison with the harm the presence of the development does to the fundamental aims of GP3, EP1 and EP15 of the IMSP to protect the countryside from unwarranted development. For this reason alone, I consider that the appeal should fail."
- 6.2.3 The applicants comments that they now have a total of 6 pigs currently and hope to increase this and have a total of 120 poultry again hoping to increase this number to 200+. They also confirm that they cultivate part of the field for planting of beans/asparagus etc. The applicants comment that the proposed buildings are to house a tractor and feed/workshop/tool store.
- 6.2.4 Accordingly, whilst the level of agricultural activity has increased, there remains the question whether the buildings in question are essentially for the conduct of agricultural activities.
- 6.2.5 A further question is whether the design and finish of the building are appropriate, even if it were acceptable there was an agricultural need for such buildings. It is clear from the previous applications that when the buildings where constructed they were not for the proposed intended use now i.e. agricultural. The applicants initially sought the approval (18/00823/B) of the buildings for storage of their motorhome and motorbike and also for the maintenance of the fields and their intention is to plant more trees and cultivate a vegetable plot. The applicants initial wish was to utilise the site for recreational use i.e. garden. Accordingly, the buildings which were constructed where arguable with these uses in mind, rather than fully fledged agricultural activities. Environment Policy 15 requires that any agricultural building: "…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.". It is not considered the buildings in any way shape or form meet the requirements of the policy, in that they are not designed or constructed or finished in materials which are sympathetic to the landscape which they will form a part. The buildings do not appear as agricultural styled buildings, rather more domestic in appearance; albeit constructed of a wide of materials which only add to the concerns raised. Accordingly, the proposal is clearly contrary to Environment Policy 15. Visual and Countryside Impact
- 6.2.6 Accordingly, with this in mind it is important to consider the visual impact, as any countryside development must be carefully assessed in respect of the impact it would have on the surrounding area. The previous refusals for this site, confirmed by the planning appeals

- outcomes, made clear that the structures and use on this site were out of keeping with the countryside nature of the area and have a detrimental visual impact on the countryside. This remains the case, whilst the structures are themselves small; it is considered that the impact with the structures is greater than without, to the detriment of the character and quality of the countryside.
- 6.2.7 The Inspector previously stated:

"It is still important to gauge the degree of adverse impact that actually occurs, and would increasingly occur to the site and surrounding countryside, if the development were to continue.

- 32. It has be accepted that the harm would be relatively constrained in visual terms, with the built part of the development basically suitable to its intended use and situated in one corner of the field, with the some landscape planting to soften its appearance.
- 33. However, it is inescapable that the recreational and part residential use of the site would generate additional activity and alter the rural character of an area which is undesignated for any use other than agriculture.
- 34. Therefore, in terms of appearance and character too, the development would be in clear conflict with the protective provisions of GP3 and EP1 of the IMSP."

- 6.2.8 Whilst the recreation aspect and part residential use maybe overcome; the fact remains that Environment Policy 1 requires that development that; "…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." It is considered this proposal fails this policy as well.

## - 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 In conclusion, there are not considered any significant material factors which outweigh the clear policy objections to the proposed development. If planning approval were granted in the present case, the Department might have difficulty in resisting similar schemes elsewhere, the cumulative effect of which would be further to erode the quality of the Manx countryside. The proposal does not accord with SP5, GP3, EP1 or EP15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and is not in an area zoned for development as per the 1982 Development Plan. As outlined in the above assessment, the proposal is considered unacceptable and is recommended for refusal. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 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 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. 8.2 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.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Decision Made : …Refused……….... Committee Meeting Date:…30.11.2020

Signed :…………C BALMER…….. Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officerreport).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

## 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 onlineservices/customers and archive record

---

*Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).*
*Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/13686-lezayre-sandygate-ramsey-shed/documents/1001787*