Statement of Case Eric Carey

Patricia S. Newton BSc. Dip (Fp. MRCP), Town and Country Planning Consultant Phone: 3ax: 01624 361560 Email: [email protected]

2 Glen View, South Cape, Caxey, 20 JUN 2011

PA 10/01491/B ERECTION OF FIELD SHELTER, EXTENSION OF HARDCORE TRACK (both retrospective), ERECTION OF BARN AND CREATION OF HARDCORE YARD AREA

STATEMENT OF CASE ON BEHALF OF MR ERIC CAREY APPLICANT / APPELLANT

Background

1 The site effectively consists of three fields all under the Number 134889 and accessed off the Ramsey to Sulby Road on its north side. Previously permission has been given to improve the field access with construction of a hardcore track (12m) from the access point off the public highway to a point adjacent to the access to the field (PA 05/01085). The track has since been extended. Two of the fields are to west of the access and the third is to the east. A stream (referred to by third parties as being from Glen Ny Killey) / drainage ditch runs north-south between the two halves. The site for the proposed buildings and hardcore area is in the more northerly field furthest away from the public highway. The extended track links the previous consent for the access to this field.

2 Since my client's, Mr Eric Carey, acquisition of them in 2004 the fields have been used for growing hay and silage crops. A portakabin was put in the south-west corner of the northern field in Spring of 2005. A field shelter was erected which subsequently my client was advised would require to be the subject of a planning application.

3 The Planning Officer advised my client to seek permission for all the works he might want to do on the site and accordingly PA 10/00369/B was submitted for extension of the hard core track, erection of the field shelter and a separate barn and stables along with a screening mound for the latter (see Appendix A). This was refused (Appendix B) but the decision was not taken to appeal.

4 Following further discussions with the Planning Officer it was agreed that a further application for a reduced number of buildings could be submitted; it was indicated that if buildings were to be permitted they should be kept altogether and that the actual siting now shown would be the most appropriate. Accordingly this revised application omitting the stables which were on a different part of the site was submitted. At the same time a screening mound which had been made on the south side of the proposed stable site from material excavated from the ditch was lowered.

5 Tree planting has taken place between the two fields on the west side of the access. This planting consists of evergreen trees on the actual boundary of the fields to provide a quick initial screen with three rows of deciduous trees being a mixture of oak, elm, silver birch and ash planted on the south side of them.

6 Additionally the various fields are being fenced.

Considerations

The Proposal and Need for Buildings

7 As shown on the application plan it is Mr Carey's intentions to keep livestock (cattle and pigs) on the site and to continue to use the eastern field in particular for fodder crops. To this end Mr Carey has become a Registered Producer (Isle of Man Fatstock Association Ltd) and has a Pig Holding Number from Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (Appendix C certificates). Pigs are currently housed in temporary pens at the northern end of the site. When the appropriate stock proof fencing is complete the pigs will be moved into the southern field where there are small field shelters for pigs.

8 The existing monopitch field shelter in the northern field provides some undercover storage for machinery used on the fields and it is proposed to retain it for such use - plough, harrows, seed drill etc Being sited close to the western boundary, only 3m high at its front and backed by trees and hedges it is not greatly visible from the public highway and will be totally screened from it once the tree planting described above has had time to grow. It is in an equivalent position to an open barn which has been permitted on the western edge of Field 134409 to the west.

9 The barn is required for the maior part of mv client's stock rearing business. It is his intention to use it to house

young cattle to fatten them up for the beef market. Essentially the cattle are kept undercover for 14 months before being sent for slaughter. This bull beef raising is an accepted form of stock raising and is found both as an enterprise on its own or as part of a larger farm business on many farms on the island. The animals would be bedded on straw. The remainder of the barn would be used for tractor and fodder bale storage. This partially open sided barn would face northwards so that there would be no obvious awareness of its use from the roadside. It should be noted that on drawing Number 003 the titles of teh elevations have been transposed as follows:

• East should read as North
• West should read as South
• North and South should read as east and west.

The orientation of the barn is shown correctly on Drawing Number Lez.Carey.001. The proposed barn is some 31m from the stream / drainage ditch to the east.

1. Again, once trees have grown, at only 3.5m high to the eaves with the roof pitch going away from the public viewpoint to a height of 5.5m it would be soon largely be screened from view. With the land dropping away northwards from the roadside and at a minimum of 116m from the roadside any views would be distant and as much over the top of the barn as directly towards it.

1. My client notes that the Agriculture Division do not support his application on grounds that essentially relate to the fact he is not a fulltime farming business. Notwithstanding the fact that my client is self-employed in contractual work that relates primarily to agriculture whether or not he is fulltime should not impact on whether or not the proposal is justifiable in planning terms. Of the estimated 400 Registered Producers or "farms" on the Island (the full list can be produced at the Inquiry as evidence) a substantial number do not rely solely on farm derived income. That does not mean their enterprises including any buildings erected are not justified. Instead my client would submit that they should be welcomed as a form of sustaining agriculture on the Island. It is noted that even Ballakillingan Farm to the east, one of the Island's long established dairy farms has recently applied to diversify its landuse through the creation of a camp site (Appendix 4 PA 11/00447/B). While my client appreciates that the Agriculture Division would perhaps not wish through the grant of planning consent to be committed to supporting small agricultural businesses in terms of grant aid for buildings or fencing etc this should not be mixed up with the purely agricultural justification for the buildings. Notwithstanding the fact that my client has no intention of applying for grant aid for the buildings at present it is understood that most forms of grants are no longer available.

1. It is emphasised that while my client Mr Eric Carey is a contractor primarily dealing with land drainage and part time farmer his contracting business and the machinery associated with that is based at Ballacrebbin Farm Andreas and The Garey Farm, Lezayre and is not associated with the appeal site. As a farmer he has recently obtained the use of a 6/7acre field opposite Ballacain in Jurby in addition to the fields at Close -e-Kelly and The Dhoor mentioned in the application. These are all being used to produce fodder crops for his own livestock and for sale to others. As he does not own the fields he does not have the option to build on them. Following the break up of his marriage he lives at Ballaglass Farm in Jurby where his son has converted old farm buildings into residential and tourist premises. There are no changes in circumstances proposed to this situation.

1. Using the fields for any form of agriculture requires the use of agricultural machinery. The revised access was required to provide safer access and egress for a tractor and trailer between the field and public highway and to stop mud being transported onto the road by such machinery. However at intervals throughout the year larger vehicles for transporting stock including pigs which are generally only kept for 9 months at a time and bales will also need to enter the fields and turn around in them. Their weight will grind the field down and inevitably they may get stuck if there is no hardcore base from them to utilise - see photographs attached.

1. As a Registered Producer my client also has to undergo an assessment under the Farm Assured Scheme. Such a scheme does require that there is undercover shelter for any stock so that they may be transported to the Abattoir dry. It also requires that there are safe facilities for the transfer of stock to a haulage vehicle. That would be difficult to achieve without extending the hardcore track and the provision of a turning area within the site.

Planning Policy

1. The extant Area Plan covering the site is the 1982 Isle of Man Development Plan. While the site is within An Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance it is also "white" land ie agricultural land. Large amounts of the Island have high landscape value designations on them and it is not possible to carry on the principle landuse of agriculture without enabling the construction of buildings in such areas.

1. Particularly in the North of the Island farms have traditionally had small parcels of land separate from the main farm. When these small parcels have become available they have been frequently acquired by other small scale farming enterprises not the larger farms. My client's land is being brought into full agricultural use, much more so now than it has been in the recent past. As such he is entitled to seek permission for the agricultural buildings he needs on an enterprise of the scale he is running. This does not mean that he is going to apply for a house on the site.

17 As the site is in essence designated agricultural land and is still proposed to be used solely for agricultural purposes under Isle of Man Strategic Plan General Policy 2 may be considered in detail as follows:-

(a) there is no development brief for the site;

(b) being small scale and set well down in the site away from the public highway respects the site and surroundings in terms of siting, layout, scale and form and landscaping of buildings;

(c) being well screened does not adversely affect the character of the surrounding landscape;

(d) has not been subject to any adverse comments for Wildlife organisations or the appropriate division of DEFA with regard to any adverse impact on wildlife;

(e) is inland and therefore does not affect views of the sea; (f) retains existing trees; (g) does not impact on the amenity of local residents; (h) has safe and convenient access from the highway;

(i) proposes to improve its access to highway by ensuring that larger vehicles may turn round safely within the site and not transfer mud onto the highway;

(j) has no requirement for other services; (k) does not change the existing long established use of the land from agriculture; (l) is not on contaminated land; (m) is of a frequently used design and is sited and orientated so that the general public is not attracted into the site; (n) is not relevant to the proposal. 18 With regard to General Policy 3

Under (f) constitutes building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture. This policy does not differentiate between fulltime and part time operations / businesses in agriculture or the scale of the agricultural enterprise.

Environment Policy 2

Development in this locality is characterised by buildings in groups both at roadside and set back from it midway down fields. Both in terms of farms and houses there is a considerable amount of development in the locality. In this context the proposed buildings will scarcely be noted and will not harm the character and quality of the countryside.

Environment Policy 15

The policy does not want buildings close to public highways; in such circumstances the proposals are as close to other buildings as they may be including the portcabin. The design is of standard agricultural design. They are not of a design that could be readily converted to use for any other purpose.

19 It is noted that Environment Policy 17 (Horticulture) and Environment Policies 19-21 (Equestrain Activities) recognise that buildings may be sought in association with such enterprises. Environment Policy 18 only rules out large scale developments in Areas of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. Policy 17 makes no reference to such landscape areas. It is unreasonable to refuse small scale agricultural buildings on agricultural land on the basis that there are not justified as part of a small agricultural enterprise when equivalent sized buildings might be permitted for alternative agricultural land dependent uses on the same acreage of land. Additionally in recent years permission has been granted for buildings and accesses in relation to boarding catteries on other sites off the same public highway between the site and Sulby village eg PA 090/01502/A at Field 131638 Kerrowmoar Farm Sulby.

(110201401K2)