11 March 2004 · Minister for Local Government and the Environment
Ballakilpheric Farm, Ballakilpheric, Colby, Isle Of Man, IM9 4bt
The proposal was for a new agricultural building (15.24m x 13.789m, 15% roof pitch) attached to the eastern elevation of an existing farm building at Ballakilpheric Farm in the rural settlement of Ballakilpheric, for storing straw (primarily) and temporary cattle housing.
Click a button above to find applications similar to this one.
See how this application compares to similar ones — policies, conditions, and outcomes side by side.
The Minister accepted the Planning Inspector's recommendation to dismiss the appeal against the Committee's approval, confirming permission subject to an added condition.
Policy BPH/P/1 (Ballakilpheric)
Zoned for 2 dwellings in Development Area 7 only; no new dwellings elsewhere except per circulars 3/88 or 3/89. Site in broader Area 7 but agricultural proposal on existing farm; Inspector deemed residential zoning irrelevant as landowner not pursuing and policy unlikely repeated without exceptional need.
Policy ENC/P/1
Designates entire local plan area as Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance to protect rural character. Proposal related to existing farm buildings in open countryside; Inspector found no need for resiting to protect appearance.
Time limit
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
Approved plans
This approval relates to the land holding plan and drawing no. 2806-01 which are date-stamped 5th January 2004, and to the location plan date-stamped 16th February 2004.
No cattle housing
The building hereby approved shall not be used for the housing of cattle.
no objections
no objection
no objections, no adverse traffic impacts
no objection, in favour as provides shelter from northerly winds
Drainage Division and Highways Division raised no objection subject to drainage conditions; Rushen Parish Commissioners approved the application; local residents Mr and Mrs Watterson objected strongly on amenity, health, noise, smell, and visual grounds.
Key concern: health impacts from animal hair, hay and smells aggravating chronic allergic asthma
Drainage Division, Department of Transport
Conditional No ObjectionNO OBJECTION In principle subject to; NO OBJECTION in principle, but subject to
Conditions requested: There must be NO discharge of surface water (directly or indirectly) from this proposed development to any foul drainage system(s); The use of soakaways are subject to Building Control approval and if this approval is not granted, the Drainage Division would not give permission for the discharge of surface water into the existing foul system and an alternative means of disposal would have to be sought
Drainage Division, Department of Transport
Conditional No ObjectionNO OBJECTION in principle, but subject to
Conditions requested: There must be NO discharge of surface water (directly or indirectly) from this proposed development to any foul drainage system(s) so as to comply with the requirements of the Department of Transport Drainage Division; The use of soakaways are subject to Building Control approval and if this approval is not granted, the Drainage Division would not give permission for the discharge of surface water into the existing foul system and an alternative means of disposal would have to be sought
Rushen Parish Commissioners
SupportApproved
Highways Division, Department of Transport
No ObjectionThe Highways Division of the Department of Transport has no views on the following application, the application having been considered and having no adverse traffic impacts
Mr T P R Watterson and Mrs L M Watterson
ObjectionWe wish to object to the above planning application which would be sited opposite and in close proximity to our residential property
Mr T P R Watterson and Mrs L M Watterson
ObjectionHaving now discovered from your correspondence that the proposed building would be used for housing cattle in the winter months and hay and machinery in the summer months, we now have serious concerns regarding the impact it would have on health grounds
The original application (04/00006/B) for erection of an agricultural building attached to an existing farm building was initially refused by the Planning Committee due to unacceptable impact on residential amenity of nearby occupiers, but approved following review based on applicant's justification of farm needs and siting. Appellants (neighbours) appealed, arguing visual impact, overbearing effects, health concerns from asthma triggered by hay/animal hair, and proposing alternative siting northwards, citing landscape policies and skyline avoidance. The inspector distinguished the case from precedent AP 1930/PA02/1761 (refused for residential amenity harm at 25m), found the farm efficient and operational needs justified the location, rejected alternative siting, deemed residential zoning irrelevant, but accepted health risks warranted a condition banning cattle housing. The appeal was recommended dismissed with the added condition, upholding the grant subject to restriction.
Precedent Value
Demonstrates agricultural operational needs can outweigh residential amenity at ~25m if justified by evidence, distinguishing from livestock precedents; conditions banning specific uses (e.g. cattle) enable approval; distinguishes cases on merits over strict distance rules. Future applicants should provide quantified farm data; neighbours need evidence beyond general nuisance.
Inspector: Terrence Kemmann-Lane
