Officer Report

Application No.: 24/91334/B Applicant: Mr & Mrs Mark & Nicky Barnett Proposal: Construction of Agricultural Storage Building Site Address: Field 534635 Slegaby Lane Hillberry Onchan Isle Of Man IM4 5BN Planning Officer: Vanessa Porter Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 02.06.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. The Department is not satisfied that there is sufficient justification for the proposed building to warrant setting aside the presumption against development outside areas zoned for development. Furthermore, the proposed size and siting will be seen in an isolated position within the countryside, it is not considered appropriate and would harm the character and quality of the landscape. As such, the proposal is concluded to represent unwarranted development that is detrimental to the amenity of the countryside contrary to the provision of General Policy 3(g) and Environment Policy 1. - R 2. There is no overriding need for the proposed agricultural building, as has been assessed in the preceding sections of this report. No exceptions can be justified within the submission, as required by General Policy 3f, and there is a conflict in the information provided for the proposed building. _________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: DOI Highway Services - No objection DOI Highway Drainage - No objection Onchan Commissioners - No objection

_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report THE APPLICATION SITE

1.1 The application site is within Field No. 534635, Slegaby Lane, which is a field situated within the Slegaby Farm holding as is accessed from the Mountain Road. Slegaby Lane serves three properties. Slegaby Lane is a single track road which ends with a Farm track which is within the applicants ownership. - 1.2 Field No. 534635 measures approximately 15 acres, with the access to the field being situated to the upper North of the field. THE PROPOSAL

2.1 The current planning application seeks approval for the erection of an agricultural barn measuring approximately 43m by 21m with an overall height of approximately 9m. The barn will have a plinth measuring approximately 0.3m from ground floor level of which no material has been provided for this, a roller shutter door, measuring approximately 4.2m by 4.6m with a pedestrian door to the North West elevation and South West elevation and a pedestrian door to the North West elevation and South East elevation. The exterior of the barn will be dark green thick box profile composite cladding, with the roof matching in material and colour and the roller shutter doors and pedestrian doors all matching in colour. The barn is also to have 28 rooflights within the North West Elevation and 28 rooflights with 13 rows of solar panels situated between to the South East elevation. - 2.2 The agent on behalf of the applicant states the following regarding why the specific spot has been chosen, " The site for the building has been carefully considered so as to be central within the land, easily accessible and to be unobtrusive…….It is important to the applicant the building will not be intrusive within the countryside. Due to topography, low lying position and existing and intervening hedgerows the building will not be visible from the Hillberry to Cregny-Baa section of the A18, Mountain Road. When viewed from the North the green clad building will have a backdrop of trees behind, when viewed from the west a copse of trees will provide a suitable backdrop. The building will be well screened when viewed from the South by large trees immediately to the South of the Farm Lane." - 2.3 With regards to the installation of solar panels, the agent on behalf of the applicant states, "A solar panel installation is included on the south elevation roof slope to provide power for lighting and power for maintenance and other power needs."

PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 There are no applications situated upon the field in question, but there is one application which is relevant and within the applicants red line boundary provided, PA07/02312/B Creation of three ponds, which was Permitted. PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as "not for development" on the Area Plan for the East. The site is not within a Conservation Area, Flood Zone, nor an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.

4.2 Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider General Policy 3 (f) which sets out exceptions to development in the countryside including operations essential for conduct of agriculture, Environment Policy 1 which seeks to protect the countryside from unwarranted development and Environment Policy 15 which outline the general design criteria for agricultural buildings. - 4.3 The Town and Country Planning Act 1999 states "agriculture" includes horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming, the breeding and keeping of livestock (including any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skins or fur, or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land), the use of land as grazing land, meadow land, market gardens and nursery grounds, and the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for other agricultural purposes, and "agricultural" shall be construed accordingly."

REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 The following representations can be viewed online in full;

5.2 DOI Highway Services have considered the application and state, "After reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as the access onto the A18 from Slegaby Lane is acceptable for the proposals and the building is likely to reduce agricultural traffic entering and exiting the site to/from the local highway network." (22.04.25) - 5.3 Onchan Commissioners have considered the application and recommend, "Approved for planning purposes only." (20.12.24) - 5.4 DEFA Minerals and Properties have considered the application and note "Your proposal has the potential to intersect DEFA's minerals and therefore if any mineral is to be removed from the curtilage of the surface holder's landholding, it is a requirement that you must contact DEFA's Energy & Minerals Team and obtain consent. Depending on the makeup and amount of material the material removed may be subject to a royalty payment." (08.01.25) - 5.5 DOI's Highway Drainage have considered the application and state, "Allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads. Recommendation: Applicant should be aware of the clause above." (13.01.25)

ASSESSMENT

6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application is its principle and it's character and appearance.

- 6.2 PRINCIPLE

• 6.2.1 With application such as these where there is proposed new agricultural development within the countryside, it is necessary to assess whether the principle of the development prior to any other material matter is acceptable, with the starting point for this development being General Policy 3(f) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
• 6.2.2 This policy 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 those buildings which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry.
• 6.2.3 The information provided with the application, whilst there was a comprehensive covering letter was lacking in its justification for a large barn on site, just stating, "The building will be used as storage to make the farm self-sufficient in respect of the required feed and plant & machinery, including:

• - Hay & feed for all the winter feed needs of the land.
• - Plant & machinery including tractors, mower and bailers
• - Maintenance of plant & equipment It is not intended that the building will be used for the housing of animals."

• 6.2.4 As the above was lacking, additional information was requested in the form of an agricultural questionnaire and additional information regarding the machinery and plant proposed. The agricultural questionnaire provided the following relevant information, they live on a residential estate next to the farm, with there currently being 80 beef cows, 100 ewes and 2 horses on site, with 100 beef cows, 300 ewes and 5 horses proposed. They also state that there are no other agricultural structures within the overall site.
• 6.2.5 When asked for additional information regarding the items proposed within the agricultural barn, the applicant has provided the following information, "Unfortunately I don't

have an inventory at this stage, nor a proposed floor plan. The latter depends on the former, and the former will depend on how much of the upcoming work we can do ourselves and how much will be contracted out…………Right now I can't prioritise a machinery wish-list because I've nowhere to put anything, so in drawing up the plans for the proposed barn we've allowed ourselves to be guided by our neighbour's existing Clypse buildings, and by the merits of having a barn that you can drive through rather than into."

• 6.2.6 Applications for agricultural buildings are often difficult due to an understanding that storage is required for certain aspects of a farm holding, as such a consultation was undertaken with the Agricultural Policy Manager, to get a better understanding of the justification for the proposal and whether there was an agricultural need for the proposal.
• 6.2.7 The comments from the Arboricultural Policy Manger, which are based on their contact with the applicant state that they are unable to support the proposal due to the applicant not demonstrating a clear or evidenced agricultural need for a building of the scale provided. They also state that the referenced livestock within their agricultural questionnaire do not belong to the applicant, nor does the applicant currently operate an agricultural business, or hold an agricultural holding or a business number.
• 6.2.8 Whilst generally there is often, a chicken and egg situated when it comes to agricultural need and agricultural buildings, without an established operation in place or even a firm plan for establishing such a business, it can often be difficult to demonstrate a need for a building, especially for the large size proposed within this application.
• 6.2.9 Often 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, but rather that their agricultural justification is proportionate to the size of the operation and that they can provide detailed evidence to support the need for any building.
• 6.2.10 The risk is that any ad hoc decisions taken on agricultural buildings without sufficient justification of need could lead to a proliferation of unwarranted large permanent buildings across the countryside which may become obsolete if the intended farming operation had not materialised as expected.
• 6.2.11 Overall it is not considered that there is sufficient justification or evidence or need has been demonstrated for a building of this size and footprint within this location.

- 6.3 CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE

• 6.3.1 This then brings into question whether the proposal would meet Environment Policy 15, which states in 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." When looking at where the proposal is situated, it is noted that the proposal is situated in isolation approximately 190-220m away from the residential dwellings to the East and West, and whilst the proposal is situated within an area that dips from the roadside, the overall height of the proposal must be noted. The proposed height of the agricultural barn is 9m high; this is over the height of a two-storey dwelling.
• 6.3.2 According to Environment Policy 15 above, such siting should only be allowed in exceptional circumstance. Given that the proposal fails to prove an actual agricultural need for the building in the first place, there also cannot be an exceptional circumstance for the proposed siting in isolation. Because of the above reasons, the proposal would fail to comply with General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

• 6.3.3 Finally the policies within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan set out a requirement for the development to respect and not harm the design of the site and the area in which it is located. In particular, General Policy 2 (b), (c), (g) and Environment Policy 15 require design to take into account the particular character and identity of the rural environment in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Accordingly to Environment Policy 15, the assessment should scrutinise design elements in addition to siting, such as scale, material, colour and form.
• 6.3.4 Whilst the proposal is in the form of a typical agricultural building, the proposal is exceptionally large and high with no valid justification for either. It is noted why the proposal has been situated within a valley dip to limit viewpoints of the site, whilst this is the case, the proposal would result in an isolated form of development and would appear as a visually intrusive feature which would be out of keeping with the character of the site and surroundings and unrelated to any existing forms of agricultural development.
• 6.3.5 By way of its size, and scale, the building would inherently increase the built development in this area and its visibility within the context of this part of the countryside contrary to Environmental Policy 15 where new development in the countryside should be sympathetic to the landscape and built environment of which they will form a part. It is further considered that this impact and any proposed engineering works to create a significantly large hard standing around the proposal, would be greater than without it being there, thus creating an incongruous feature, much to the detriment of the character and quality of the countryside contrary to Environmental Policy 1 and 2.
• 6.3.6 With the above in mind the proposal would result in an unwarranted development in the countryside contrary to General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

CONCLUSION

7.1 On review of the application submission and those relevant policies of the Strategic Plan it is not considered that sufficient justification or evidence of need has been demonstrated for a building of this size and footprint in this location and as such the proposal would result in an unwarranted development in the countryside contrary to General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 & 15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE - 8.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).

8.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to:

• o applicant (in all cases);
• o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and
• o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.

8.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10. - 8.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required):

• o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant);
• o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area;

• o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and
• o in the case of a petition, a single representative.

8.5 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 the Right to Appeal.

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 and/or rights to appeal.

Decision Made : Refused Date: 02.06.2025 Determining Officer

Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Principal Planner

Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects thecontent of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/ customers and archive record.