Inspector's Report

Report Mrs Jennifer Vyse DipTP, MRTPI, DipPBM on a Planning Appeal - Written Representations Case Site Inspection carried out on 22 September 2025 ____________________________________________________

Appeal Ref: AP25/0021 Planning Application: 24/91334/B Address: Field 534635, Slegaby Lane, Hillberry, Onchan IM4 5BN

The appeal is made by Mr M and Mrs N Barnett against the decision of DEFA Planning to refuse planning permission for the construction of an agricultural storage building.

Description

• 1. Field 534635 lies on the northwestern side of Slegaby Lane, a narrow, single-carriageway lane off the A18 that ends in a private, gated farm track. The irregular shaped field extends to some 15 acres, access to which is in the northeastern corner of the field, off the farm track, at a junction with another track that runs along the northeastern site boundary.
• 2. At the time of my visit, the site was laid to grass, with the boundaries generally comprising overgrown hedges and hedgerow trees. Ground levels generally fall across the field from north to south. The site is generally surrounded by other fields, with a wooded copse immediately to the northeast. Two single-storey dwellings are located on the southern side of Slegaby Lane.
• 3. Approval is sought for the erection of an agricultural building in the eastern corner of the field, adjacent to the farm track at its junction with another track. It would have a footprint of some 43m x 21m, with a height to eaves of around 6m and a ridge height of around 9m. The walls would be of dark green box profile composite cladding above a low plinth, with dark green composite roof cladding. Each gable end elevation would include a large, dark green roller door (4.2m x 4.6m) and a pedestrian door. Each roof slope would contain 28 rooflights (56 in total) plus 13 rows of solar panels on the southeast facing roofslope. The building would be set on an area of permeable hardstanding, approximately 87m x 28m.
• 4. The plans on which my recommendation is based are listed at Annex A. RELEVANT POLICY AND GUIDANCE
• 5. The site lies within an area zoned as ‘not for development’ in the Area Plan for the East.

Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016

• 6. Environment Policy 1 seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake. It resists development that would affect the countryside adversely unless

• there is an overriding national need for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative.
• 7. Where sufficient agricultural need is demonstrated as being sufficient to outweigh the presumption against development in the countryside, Environment Policy 15 requires that any new building should be sited as close as possible to existing building groups and be appropriate in terms of scale, materials, colour siting and form.
• 8. General Policy 2 is generally permissive of development that accords with the relevant land-use zoning subject to various development criteria. These include at b) that need for development to respect the site and its surroundings. Together and among other things, parts c) and g) seek to protect the character of the area.
• 9. General Policy 3 resists development outwith areas zoned for development, other than for specified purposes. These include at f), building operations essential for the conduct of agriculture.

THE CASE FOR MR AND MRS BARNETT (THE APPELLANTS) The material points are: Overriding Need

• 10. Until 2024, active tenants successfully farmed sheep and cattle at Clypse Farm, also engaging in ancillary activities such as the cutting and baling of meadow grass. In 2024 Clypse Farm, which had a stone-built farmhouse with attached barn, various outbuildings, and farm worker accommodation, all extending to approximately 22,750sqft in total, was sold as two lots – Clypse Mooar Farm (176 acres, including all the aforementioned buildings), and Slegaby and Ballacottier (183 acres) which we acquired, used for cattle and sheep, with some ungrazed land left for hay production for winter feed. There are no agricultural storage buildings on our land.
• 11. There has been no change of use of the land since it was divorced from Clypse and the need for the buildings continues - they are essential for the conduct of agriculture by an established operation, in line with General Policy 3f) of the Strategic Plan. Our incumbent tenant was happy to continue farming on the land as long as they had access to the farm buildings. However, they are leaving imminently and advise that we are unlikely to find another tenant unless we can provide storage for equipment, feed, bales and some degree of welfare for stock.
• 12. The proposed building would be used for storage to make the farm selfsufficient, including hay and feed for all the winter feed needs; plant and machinery, including tractors, mowers and bailers; and maintenance of plant and equipment. At present, there are 80 beef cows, 100 ewes and two horses on the land. It is proposed to increase this to 100 beef cows, 300 ewes and five horses.

• 13. As to whether the building is proportionate to the size of the operation, the holding extends to some 183 acres. As such, it is not a ‘smaller farm holding or hobby farm’. We wonder what type of buildings are used by the other 81 Manx farms in the same 150-300 acres bracket referred to in the Isle of Man’s Future Agriculture and Food Strategy.1
• 14. In deciding the type and scale of building to meet our agricultural needs, we have been guided by our neighbours. The buildings at Clypse comprise approximately 22,750 square feet (2,113.5sqm) and originally served two plots, each in excess of 175 acres. This proposal for our own 183 acres equates to 9,600 sqft (892sqm), proportionally less than half the footprint of the established buildings at Clypse.
• 15. Whilst we have no plans to operate a permanent stock facility, such as a cattle shed or piggery, we have identified a need to provide welfare for ewes during lambing, and plan to do so via a number of temporary internal pens. Flexibility to adapt to seasonal demands without further constructions is one of the benefits afforded by an on-site structure, such as the one proposed, versus a number of smaller buildings.

Rural and Appropriate

• 16. Several potential locations for the proposed building were considered within the land available to us. This location was chosen because it offered the least visual impact from all angles, whilst maintaining good levels of practical accessibility. The planning officer agreed with this assessment during a site visit. Onchan commissioners have no objections, and the site is not within a Conservation Area, Flood Zone, nor an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
• 17. We accept that there is a difference in visual impact between several smaller buildings and one larger building of equivalent capacity. However, the latter is more practical and easier to maintain, and is more sympathetic to the countryside than a gradually expanding proliferation of different styles and materials. The proposed design best fulfils our demonstrated need.
• 18. The building would be appropriate to its rural location, having been designed to fit in with other agricultural buildings in the area. The site is abutted by identical farmland with similar agricultural buildings. An aerial survey reveals 11 similar buildings of comparable size within a one mile radius of the appeal site. They do not stand out because one has grown accustomed to seeing them within farmland.
• 19. In summary, the proposed agricultural building is inherently justified to support the ongoing activities of an established operation engaged in agriculture. Moreover, like those that surround it, it would be appropriate within the context of the landscape, proportional to the size of the

• 1 Table at paragraph 2.4.1 in A technical review of policy support for the Isle of Man’s Future Agriculture and Food Strategy (Birnie et al) indicates that in 2022 some 82 holdings out of an Island total of 343 holdings, extended to 150-300 acres.

operation, and would not detract from the character and the quality of the landscape.

THE CASE FOR DEFA PLANNING The material points are: Need

• 20. The information provided with the application lacked any detailed justification for the size of building proposed. Following a request for additional information, it was confirmed that the appellants live on a residential estate next to the farm, and that currently there are 80 beef cows, 100 ewes and two horses on site, with 100 beef cows, 300 ewes and five horses proposed. With no other agricultural structures within the overall site, the information indicated that the building was required to provide storage for the equipment to manage the property, as well as year round feed for stock.
• 21. Since the covering letter with the application stated that farm machinery is generally provided by sub-contractors, stored off-site and transported to site as required, further information was requested regarding the equipment to be stored in the building. The appellants were unable to provide that information, stating that it was not known how much of the upcoming work they could do themselves and how much would be contracted out. Instead, they said they were guided by the existing Clypse buildings, and by the merits of having a barn that one can drive through rather than into.
• 22. In the absence of any clear or evidenced agricultural need for a building of the scale proposed, the Department’s Agricultural Policy Manager was unable to support the proposal, also noting that the referenced livestock do not belong to the appellants, but to their tenant who was leaving imminently. It was also confirmed that the appellants do not currently operate an agricultural business or hold an agricultural holding or a business number.
• 23. Justification for the size of any proposed agricultural building is required. Without an established operation in place, or even a firm plan for establishing such a business and an equipment list, the size of the building proposed here cannot be justified. It is noted, in this regard, that the largest tractor suitable for the Island,2 would only take up 20sqm of the 890sqm proposed, just 2.2% of the overall floor area.
• 24. The appellants say they have been guided by the size of the buildings at Clypse Mooar Farm, apparently used by their existing tenant. However, photographs in the recent seller’s information shows the buildings in a very dilapidated state. If there was a need for an agricultural building to maintain the appellant’s land alongside the Clypse Mooar land (some 350 acres in total) as suggested by the appellants, why are the buildings in such a dilapidated/unused state?

• 2 John Deere 8R 410, which measures approximately 6.636m x 3.080m

• 25. It can be difficult to demonstrate a need for an agricultural building, especially one of the size proposed. However, the appellants do not operate an agricultural business, do not hold an agricultural holding or business number and cannot provide a firm business plan for establishing such an enterprise. As such, there is no justification of the proposed building. Ad hoc buildings such as this. Without sufficient justification, could lead to a proliferation of unwarranted large permanent buildings across the countryside, which may become obsolete should the intended farming operation not materialise as expected, with consequent harm to the character and appearance of the area.

Character and Appearance

• 26. The building would sit in isolation, some 190-220 metres away from existing dwellings to the east and west. Whilst it would sit in an area that dips away from the road it would, at a height of 9 metres, be taller than a two-storey dwelling. Environment Policy 15 only allows for siting in an isolated area in exceptional circumstances. Given that sufficient justification or evidence of need has not been demonstrated for the building, there cannot be an exceptional circumstance for the development. As such, the proposal would result in an unwarranted development in the countryside, with consequent harm to the established character and appearance of the area, contrary to General Policy 3 and Environment Policies 1 and 15 of the Strategic Plan.
• 27. The policies of the Strategic Plan also require that new development should respect and not harm the site and the area in which it is located. General Policy 2 b), c) and g) and Environment Policy 15 require that building design should take into account the particular character and identity of the rural environment in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. In addition to siting, design elements such as scale, material, colour and form require particular scrutiny.
• 28. Whilst the form of the building is typical for an agricultural building, it is exceptionally large and high, with no valid justification. Whilst its siting within a valley dip would limit views of the site, the proposal would result in an isolated form of development. It would appear as a visually intrusive feature which would be out of keeping with the character of the site and its surroundings, unrelated to any existing forms of agricultural development. Its size, and scale would inherently increase built development in this area, and its visibility, contrary to Environmental Policy 15. That impact, together with the associated large hardstanding around the building, would comprise an incongruous feature, with consequential harm to the character and quality of the open countryside contrary to Environment Policy 1 and General Policy 2.

OTHER REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED

• 29. DoI Highway Services: no objection.
• 30. DoI Highway Drainage: applicants should be advised that it is an offence to allow surface water to run onto a public highway.

• 31. Onchan Commissioners: approved for planning purposes only.
• 32. DEFA Minerals and Properties: applicants to contact the Department if any mineral is to be removed from the curtilage.

ASSESSMENT BY INSPECTOR

• 33. The main issues in this case relate to:

• - the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and
• - whether an essential agricultural need for the proposal has been demonstrated sufficient to justify development within the open countryside.

Character and Appearance

• 34. The appeal site lies in the open countryside. It forms part of a field of irregular shape, the boundaries to which generally comprise overgrown hedges and hedgerow trees. The surrounding area comprises an open undulating landscape of hedge-lined fields. Whilst there are some isolated dwellings in the area, built development is limited.
• 35. As the proposed building is intended for agricultural purposes it is, in principle, an appropriate form of development in the countryside and would not, necessarily, be unusual within an agricultural landscape. In my view, it is typical of modern agricultural buildings, using greencoloured profiled wall and roof cladding. However, the visual impact of its siting is an important consideration.
• 36. The building would sit in an area that dips away from the A18. However, whilst the undulating topography and existing boundary vegetation would offer some screening from some viewpoints, the building would be seen from various vantage points on the A18, where those passing have views out over the site and to the land beyond. It is suggested that the building would be seen in the context of other agricultural buildings in the area. However, none were readily visible from the appeal site at the time of my visit. Rather, the building would sit in isolation, some 190-220 metres away from existing dwellings to the east and west.
• 37. In those views, largely from the west and northwest, the building’s substantial height and bulk, together with the large area of hardstanding around it, would introduce a stark, urbanising feature onto the site, with no direct relationship to any other buildings. It would appear as a large, isolated and visually intrusive structure, in a context where the character is overwhelmingly defined by an open and generally undeveloped landscape. Whilst the development would be constructed using appropriate materials for a building such as this, that would not overcome the harm that the building would have on its immediate surroundings.
• 38. The harm that would be a consequence of the development proposed brings the scheme into conflict with General Policy 2 (b), (c), (g) and

Environment Policies 1 and 15 of the Strategic Plan which together and among other things seek to protect the character and appearance of the countryside. Only in exceptional circumstances will such development be permitted. Those circumstances include buildings that are ‘essential’ for the purposes of agriculture.

Need

• 39. The appeal site lies in the open countryside for the purposes of planning policy where, as set out in General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan, there is a presumption against new development other than in exceptional specific circumstances. These include at f), the erection of buildings that are essential for the conduct of agriculture. Environment Policy 1 only permits development that would adversely affect the countryside where there is an over-riding national need.
• 40. Although there was no evidence of livestock on the site at the time of my visit, the appellants advise that it is currently used by a tenant for the grazing of beef cattle and ewes, but utilising buildings at the nearby Clypse Mooar Farm, there being no existing buildings on the appellants’ land. The appellants indicate that the tenant is leaving and that it will be very difficult to secure a new tenant absent any buildings on the land. They indicate that if they were to work the land themselves, a building would be required in any event, to provide storage for farm equipment necessary to manage the property, as well as year round feed for stock and to provide welfare for ewes during lambing by providing a number of temporary internal pens.
• 41. The provisions of General Policy 3f) (and Environment Policy 1) make it incumbent upon anyone seeking permission for an agricultural building in the open countryside to provide detailed information to justify the scale of that proposed development. In this case, no detailed or costed business plan is before me which might demonstrate an essential need. Indeed, there is very little meaningful information regarding the appellants’ firm intentions. Absent such plans, there are no details of exactly what machinery, or quantity of feed etc might require to be stored either. It also seems to me that as the appellants’ tenant has previously been operating on the site, more detail of the floorspace used at Clypse Mooar Farm and how that relates to the scale of the building proposed could have been provided.
• 42. All told, the appellants have provided very little in the way of substantive evidence in support of the proposal. What has been provided falls a long way short of demonstrating an essential need for a building of the scale proposed. Absent such demonstrable need, there would be conflict with General Policy 3f) and Environment Policies 1 and 15 of the Strategic Plan, which together require detailed justification for new agricultural buildings in the countryside to ensure that their scale is commensurate with an essential need.

Overall Conclusion And Recommendation

• 43. The requirement to demonstrate an essential need to justify new agricultural buildings in the countryside is clear. Where that requirement is not met, there is good reason in the interest of policies of rural restraint, to resist such proposals – without proper justification, ad hoc development of a similar nature to this could be repeated all too often, with the consequent erosion of the character and appearance of the countryside. In this case, the appellant has failed to demonstrate an essential need for the building proposed. As such, it would amount to an unnecessary intrusion into otherwise open countryside, contrary to the relevant policy provisions.
• 44. I am aware that the appellants may experience difficulty in finding a future tenant for the land without an on-site building, and note the Commissioners support for the proposal. However, that does not override the objections I have identified. On balance therefore, for the reasons set out above, and having considered all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed and that the decision of DEFA Planning to refuse planning permission be upheld.

Reason: The appellant has failed to demonstrate an essential need for the building proposed. As such, it would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into otherwise open countryside with consequent harm to the character and appearance of the area. This brings it into conflict with General Policy 2b), c) and g), General Policy 3f) and Environment Policies 1 and 15 of the Strategic Plan, which together and among other things seek to protect such interests.

• 45. Should the Minister disagree and grant planning permission, suggested conditions, and the reasons for them, are attached at Annex B below. They are based on those suggested in the Authority’s Statement of Case.

Jennifer A Vyse

Independent Inspector

23 October 2025

• ANNEX A List of plans on which my recommendation is based

Site Location and Land Ownership Plan 1118-01 Site Plan 1118-02 Plans and Elevations as Proposed 1118-03 Bundle of Photographs

• ANNEX B Schedule of recommended conditions
• C1. The development hereby approved shall begin before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision.

Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• C2. The building hereby approved shall be used for agricultural purposes only. Reason: The countryside is protected from development and an exception is being made for a specific purpose. As such the building must be used for the purposes for which it is approved.
• C3: In the event that the agricultural building hereby approved is not used or required for agricultural purposes for a period exceeding 12 months it shall, together with any supporting base and hardstanding, be removed and the ground restored to its former condition within three months from cessation of use, unless an alternative timescale is agreed in writing by DEFA Panning. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity, since its retention when no longer required for its intended purpose would result in an unwarranted intrusion in the countryside.

------------------------End of Schedule-------------------------