DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 18/01157/B Applicant: Mr Daniel Potts Proposal: Erection of an agricultural building for the storage of agricultural machinery Site Address: Field 320909 Top Road Crosby Isle of Man Planning Officer: Mr Owen Gore Photo Taken: 28.02.2019 Site Visit: 28.02.2019 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 10.04.2019 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. The applicant has not provided adequate justification to demonstrate that the agricultural need for a new building is sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside proposal. The proposal therefore conflicts with General Policy 3 and Environmental Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons None _____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report THE SITE

1.1 The application site is a small agricultural field to the south of Ballaclucas Farm on Top Road; the site is accessed by private track but is otherwise landlocked. THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The proposal is to erect an agricultural shed to house farming equipment. The proposed building would be 7m wide by 12m long and approx. 4.6m tall to the ridge; it will be finished on green coloured cladding on the elevations as well as the roof and will have three large roller shutter doors. PLANNING POLICY

3.1 The site is shown on the 1982 Development Plan map for the south as being land that isnot designated for any particular purpose; however the site is within an Area of HighLandscape or Costal Value and Scenic Significance.

General Policy 3 states that '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';

3.2 Environment Policy 1 states that 'The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake…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'. - 3.3 Environment Policy 2 states that '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'.

3.4 Environment Policy 15 states that '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'.

PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The previous planning applications are not considered to be specifically material in theassessment of the current application.

REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.

5.1 At the time of writing no representation has been received from the Department ofInfrastructure (DOI) Highways Division.

5.2 Marown Parish Commissioners have commented on this application and stated that they do not object in principle, in the letter dated 22 November 2018. The comments continue: -

'However, they do have concerns at the access visibility onto the Top Road, which does not appear capable of improvement without the felling of some mature trees which the Commissioners would not support. The speed of vehicles using this road has been a matter of concern to the Board who have communicated this concern to the Highway Division for a number of years.

The Commissioners wonder therefore whether there might be a better site on Braaid Farm itself: they recognise the undesirability of moving equipment to and from Cronk-y-Voddy when user and location of use are both in Crosby'.

5.3 The DEFA Arboricultural Officer has commented on this application and has stated the following: -

'To help prevent damage occurring to the existing trees in the hedgerows surrounding the proposed location, and to reduce the risk of future conflict occurring with the trees once the barn is built, the footprint of the building should be a minimum of 5m from the existing fence lines in this corner of the field…'

ASSESSMENT

6.1 The key issues for this proposal are principle and the impact to the character of the countryside. The principle of development

6.2 The site is shown on the 1982 Development Plan as being land that is not designated for any particular purpose and also within an Area of High Landscape or Costal Value and Scenic Significance. General Policy 3 part (f) and Environmental Policy 2 reference the need for any proposal to be 'essential' with the former requiring the proposed building to be 'essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry'. - 6.3 The application form states that the proposal is for the 'construction of [an] agricultural building for the storage of agricultural machinery'. The details within the statement provided continue: -

'The entrance to the land is located directly opposite the applicants permanent residence at 'The Old Forge'…The equipment to be stored at the site is used in connection with the applicant's nearby farm, The Braaid Farm, Marown. The Braaid Farm, which has an area of 65 acres, is currently mainly used for the grazing of sheep. The farm is located above Crosby on the Lower slopes of Cronk Breck mountain. The machinery to be stored includes 2 tractors, a plough and a hay bailer. Due to a lack of covered storage at The Braaid Farm the applicant currently stores the equipment 12km away, in Cronk Y Voddy. This arrangement cannot be considered ideal as the equipment is used on a regular basis and may be required at short notice to access & tend livestock in the event of poor weather. Whilst the chosen site is slightly remote from the main farm it was felt ideal due to its location near the land owners dwelling allowing for easy access to and the security of the equipment and be less exposed and less visible than at the main farm'.

6.4 The site has an approximate area of 3514.56m², excluding the access lane. This field appears to have been part of a larger farm holding, as it doesn't seem to have any amenities of its own. - 6.5 With any application such as this we begin with General Policy 3 of the IoM Strategic Plan; this applies to development outside of those areas which are zoned for development, which applies to this site. The site is within the open countryside and therefore development is

• restricted to a specific list of exceptions, one of which is part (f) 'building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry'. The starting point for the assessment is considering whether the site is used as part of a viable agricultural use. The overarching purpose is to protect the countryside and avoid the proliferation of unnecessary buildings in the landscape.
• 6.6 In order to be considered acceptable, the Department needs to be satisfied that the agricultural need for a new building is sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside.
• 6.7 The applicant's statement indicates that the equipment proposed to be stored in the building is to be primarily used on The Braaid Farm which is located approx. 1.6km to the north west or approx. 2.1km by road. Although the described activities fall within the definition of agriculture, the activity extends to other land off-site and the proposed shed for storage near the applicant's home.
• 6.8 There is no formal tie between this site and the site that the equipment would be required for, or indeed any of the adjoining fields; therefore if it were no longer required on The Braaid Farm then this could lead to future pressure to use the site in connection with a commercial use. At the time of visiting the site it appeared to be used for car parking. There were several domestic cars parked on the site as well as two 4x4 vehicles, only one of which looked like a typical farm workers vehicle.
• 6.9 The applicant has stated that The Braaid Farm is currently used mainly for the grazing of sheep and in reference to the existing arrangement for the storage of this equipment they state that it 'cannot be considered ideal as the equipment is used on a regular basis and may be required at short notice to access & tend livestock in the event of poor weather'; however they confirm that the equipment includes 2 tractors, a plough and a hay bailer. It is no clear why any of the equipment listed would be required 'at short notice to access & tend livestock'. The applicant has not given clear reasoning as to what storage is already available as The Braaid Farm and in reference to why it needs to be located on the application site they state 'easy access to and the security of the equipment and be less exposed and less visible than at the main farm'.
• 6.10 The equipment, if proposed to be used as part of a wider business doesn't really need to be located on this site and due to the frequent use on the other site as described in the statement, it should be stored there; the justification gives the impression that this building is more for the sake of convenience than a genuine need.
• 6.11 The principle is therefore not accepted in accordance with General Policy 3 and Environmental Policy 2, and therefore Environment Policy 15 need not be considered; however since details have been provided, this aspect has been assessed. Character and appearance
• 6.12 Only after the test of being essential within General Policy 3 and Environmental Policy 2 are satisfied, we look at Environment Policy 15; this policy defines the criteria, if it is considered to be genuinely needed. This policy states that 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.
• 6.13 The proposal is a large, 4.6m tall building with an 84m2 footprint; it sits in the corner, on the north boundary middle of this 'L' shaped site, set back from the highway and is completely isolated from any other buildings. It is unclear why this site has been subdivided but it was

likely part of a larger farm holding, as it doesn't seem to have any amenities of its own apart from the access. Even if the need were to be considered to be there, the isolated location away from other building, the siting and the scale are not considered appropriate and the applicant has not demonstrated that this is an exceptional circumstance.

CONCLUSION

7.1 The use of the site is low density and more of a casual use. Although the applicant has described agricultural activities the submitted information does not demonstrate that the agricultural need for a new building is sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside proposal. The proposal therefore conflicts with General Policy 3 and Environmental Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
• (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material
• (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and
• (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Refused Date : 12.04.2019 Determining officer

Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the filecopy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.