Loading document...
Application No.: 18/00533/B Applicant: Mr Paul Carey Proposal: Erection of an agricultural building for the storage of machinery and implements Site Address: Ballasalla Farm Coast Road Jurby Isle Of Man IM7 3AS Planning Officer: Mr Owen Gore Photo Taken: 31.07.2018 Site Visit: 31.07.2018 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 11.10.2018 _________________________________________________________________ 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 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following organisation should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
Alan Grisdale, 'Cliffhangar', Coast Road, Jurby west, IM7 3AS is not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy. _____________________________________________________________________________
Officer’s Report THE SITE
1.1 The application site is part of an agricultural holding on Coast Road between Jurby and Ballaugh. The wider site comprises of THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The proposal is to erect a dark green, 'Plastisol'-coated, portal-framed industrial building, adjacent to the existing similar unit, as stated in the applicant's justification statement. The
building is 465m2 and is 6.6m tall to the ridgeline and 4.9m tall to the eaves. The site area shown on the site location plan, the blueline area, including the redline application site, is approx. 24088.2m².
2.2 The applicant has stated that the purpose of the proposed building is to store various pieces of mechanical equipment used in the applicant's farming business, many of which are presently stored in the open around the site; animal feed will also be stored in the building. They have stated that adverse weather and the proximity of the farm to the shoreline makes the application site vulnerable to deterioration and the corrosion of machinery in stormy conditions. PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The application site is shown on the 1982 Development Plan northern map as not designated for any site specific purpose.
3.2 The Strategic Plan contains several policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.
3.3 General Policy 3 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'. - 3.4 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'. - 3.5 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… Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:
3.6 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…
…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'.
4.1 The previous planning application 02/01489/B for the Extension to farm house to form additional living accommodation and erection of new implement and feed store is considered to be specifically material in the assessment of the current application.
5.2 Jurby Parish Commissioners have commented on this application and stated that they oppose the application, in the letter dated 19 June 2018. The comments continue: -
'[Jurby Parish Commissioners] are opposed to the proposal as they consider it will not be used as indicated because the Commissioners are not aware that the applicant owns or occupiers [sic] any agricultural land, and therefore the building is more likely to be used in which to store construction plant and similar machinery'
5.3 An objection was received stating that 'Ballasalla Farm is not being operated as a farm any longer but as a 'Civil Engineer' plant workshop and storage area. Therefore to apply for the building as 'agricultural' is misleading…Application 02/01489/B of 22 Oct 2001 allowed for the erection of implement and feed store which I assume is the building now being used as a plant workshop for the repair and service of 'Paul Carey Civil Engineers'…'. - 5.4 The comments continue by describing the noise from non-agricultural machinery moving on the site and banging from the plant workshop, exacerbated by the addition of a door to the implement and feed store, as considerable. The comments raise concern regarding the damage to the highway and water mains as a result of vehicle movements, carrying huge loads onto and off of the site. The comments also state that the property 'is an eyesore as run at the moment'.
6.1 The key issues for this proposal are principle and the character and appearance of the proposal. The principle of development
6.2 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'. 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. The starting point for the assessment is considering whether the site is used as part of a viable agricultural use. - 6.3 Following discussions, the applicant provided a statement of justification prepared by applicant's agent. In this statement it is stated that 'The farm business approximately one thousand sheep are cared for in three off-site rented areas, requiring regular attendances to monitor and attend to the animals and maintain the grazing areas; and existing covered areas are used for equipment in sub-contracting farm activities. - 6.4 Of the existing building, the applicant states that there is no spare space to accommodate the additional equipment and animal feed, as it is: -
'…fully utilised with parked machinery and repair workshop with some storage of interchangeable attachments for the multi-purpose equipment. The equipment owned by the farm business includes three large tractors and two quadbikes, with many interchangeable
pieces of equipment. These include hay cutters, harrows, baling machinery, buckets, trailers of various sizes, extension arms, rollers, scrub-brushers, etc.
A second agricultural building, as proposed, would enable the pieces of equipment presently stored in the open to be kept in a dry environment, minimising the maintenance and increasing the life cycle of each one. The long-term benefit is obvious as would be the general appearance of the site'.
6.5 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. - 6.6 When visiting the site, the area indicated by the redline boundary on the site location plan was mostly hardstanding made up of tarmac and compacted hard-core/aggregate; in this area there were numerous bags of construction materials such as sand, gravel, there was plastic sheeting, timber, plaster boards, insulation, scaffolding, bollards, herras fencing with concrete supports, road/construction signage, concrete blocks, commercial pallets, uPVC and flexible pipework, bricks, large manhole style sewerage pipes, rebars, as well as parts of various machinery, vehicle batteries, oil storage and tyres. - 6.7 In the fields to the west there was similar to the above, including various street furniture both historic and modern and various commercial vehicles in varying states of repair, many appear antique/historic and many of which would not normally be associated with managing agricultural land or tending to livestock; many of the vehicles bear the logo 'Paul Carey & Sons Ltd Plant Hire & Civil Engineering Contractors'. At the time of visiting it was observed that several commercial vehicles (lorries) were being serviced/repaired in the open. - 6.8 The existing implement and feed store is stated as being '…fully utilised with parked machinery and repair workshop with some storage of interchangeable attachments for the multi-purpose equipment'. However, when visiting the site the store included various plant and machinery, items such as oil barrels and domestic items; before leaving the site and artic tipper lorry arrived and pulled into the store to be worked on. - 6.9 The applicant has not disclosed any specific details regarding the stated livestock on offsite rented areas, but the current use of the site and the building does not appear to be agricultural and appears to be part of the applicant's plant hire and civil engineering business. Although some of the equipment shown in the submitted justification could genuinely be used agricultural purposes, this could easily be housed in the existing implement shed if it were being used for is approved use as storage and not as a workshop for other parts of the business. The site is dominated but plant/machinery, materials and waste from the applicant's civil engineering business and could not be reasonably described as an agricultural use. - 6.10 It is considered therefore that the proposal is not essential for the conduct of agriculture and the principle is therefore not accepted. Therefore Environment Policy 15 need not be considered; however since details have been provided, this aspect has been assessed. Character and appearance - 6.11 Only after this policy is 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.
6.12 The proposal is a large, 6.6m tall building that is sited perpendicular to the existing implement store. It is set away from the highway near other buildings; however the layout means that the longest elevation is facing the highway and will block the view of the sea from the public highway. Due to the scale, design and siting it is viewed in the context of the flat horizon behind it and with the adjacent, two storey stone building to the south east. The development is considered to harm the character and quality of the landscape and had if the need been adequately demonstrated, the siting and the scale are not considered appropriate and the applicant would need to demonstrate that this is an exceptional circumstance and that the location for the development is essential. Impact on neighbours - 6.13 The proposed development would not result in a significant adverse impact upon the living conditions of neighbouring residents, subject to controls.
7.1 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 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:
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 : 12.10.2018 Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
