Loading document...
Application No.: 16/01084/B Applicant: John Francis Moore Proposal: Erection of agricultural barn in field 510984 Site Address: Field 510984 Balnahowe Santon Isle of Man Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 06.10.2016 Site Visit: 06.10.2016 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation
Officer’s Report THE SITE
1.1 The site is a field situated on the southern side of the road which leads from the Old Castletown Road (A25) to Ballacregga Farm overlooking Port Soderick. The application site is an area of around 9 acres (3.7ha) with a further 17 acres (6.7ha) to the north including a dwelling, Hillcrest which sits alongside the highway immediately to the north of the application site. - 1.2 The land associated with this application used to belong with Balnahowe Farm but has recently been sold with the application site and Hillcrest being owned together and the farm buildings owned separately. It is understood that the remaining land formerly associated with the farm buildings has also been sold off separately. - 1.3 The farm buildings are a traditional group of stone structures arranged close to the roadway which leads on from the application site, through the farmyard and on to Ballacregga - a no through road for public vehicles. The applicant indicated on site that these buildings were not ideal for modern farming practices when he was able to use them. - 1.4 A long distance footpath runs alongside the site, up the main highway then down a lane alongside but not within the application site, to Santon Head. THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Proposed is the erection of an agricultural building at the northern end of the site, alongside and over the hedge from Hillcrest. The building will be 13m by 9m and 2.4m to the eaves and 3.2m to the ridge. The roof will have a pitch of 10 degrees. The building will be finished in tanalised timber boarding with metal sheeting on the roof, colour unspecified. - 2.2 The site slopes downward away from the vehicular entrance to the south with an access lane running between Hillcrest and the application site. Hillcrest is visible on the skyline as one approaches or views the site from the north west. Hillcrest is a modern, low profile bungalow of a similar footprint to the proposed building. PLANNING POLICY
3.1 The site lies within an area designated on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as not for a particular purpose and of high landscape value and scenic significance. As such, there is a presumption against development as set out in Environment Policies 1 and 2 but with provision available for agricultural development as set out in General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 15:
3.2 Environment Policy 1: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. 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". - 3.3 Environment Policy 2 states: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape of Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce difference categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:
3.4 General Policy 3: Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry". - 3.5 Environment Policy 15 states "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 form a 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 is it intended.
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".
REPRESENTATIONS
4.1 Highway Services note that the proposal is to erect an agricultural building in a field. The field is bounded on the northeast and the east by a public right of way, access to the field is onto the public right of way at the northeastern corner of the field close to the site of the proposed building. Walkers using this PROW will be aware that they are in an agricultural area and the location of adjacent buildings will help to make them aware of possible vehicle movements. This building and its use for storage of equipment may increase the number of vehicle movements in the area but this should not cause undue risk to users of the PROW. Highway Services does not oppose this application (13.10.16). PLANNING HISTORY - 5.1 The site was the subject of a planning application for a dwelling - PA 87/01938/B which was in association with a daffodil farm. This was refused.
5.2 In the area more generally there have been a number of recent applications for the removal of agricultural occupancy conditions for the dwellings which have been approved.
5.3 Withaney lies to the north of the application property and was approved on the basis that the intended occupants had up until recently then, farmed at Meary Veg Farm which had been sold to Government for the creation of the sewage treatment works. They were tenants of Meary Veg and at the time of the purchase of the farm, Mr. Oates was not in particularly good health and would not have been able to continue farming somewhere else. It was recommended by those supporting the application that his knowledge however would be useful as a self-employed rural worker in the area and he and his wife wished to remain in this part of the Island where they had lived for a large part of their lives. Mrs. Oates still resides in the property. The dwelling was approved in principle and detail subject to a condition which required that, "The occupation of the proposed dwelling must be limited to persons whose employment or latest employment is or was employment in agricultural in the Island and including also the dependants of such persons aforesaid." This condition was removed upon application 16/00330/VAR.
5.2 Ballacregga Farm to the east has two properties, one of which has a specific agricultural occupancy condition (PA 88/01250/B). The main dwelling here was approved to be replaced where the original dwelling had no such tie but a condition was considered to be appropriate. This has since been effectively removed through the granting of a Certificate of Lawfulness for use of the dwelling as a private house. Ballacregga is a low output holding which is stocked only to manage the landscape and uses some contracted labour when required. - 5.3 Greenfields (approved under IDO 51877) is associated with a farm which has a further two dwellings available to it, Balnahow Farmhouse (an old property) and Hillcrest, the application property approved in 1973 (IDO 34987). It is understood that Balnahow Farm is managed in a traditional manner - the owner farming the close lying land and land further out from the farm is let out. - 5.4 A further property was approved in the early 1990s to the south west close to the railway line Thie ny Hawin (PA 91/00535/B). - 5.5 Oatlands Farm is becoming more agriculturally active, being owned and occupied by a young farmer. - 5.6 Ballaquiggin Farm is now entirely tenanted out to a farmer in Ballasalla who has a farmhouse and had planning approval for two further dwellings on that farm, together with a range of farm buildings, operated by a family and using casual labour when required.
6.1 The issue in this case is whether the proposed building results in any visual harm to the surrounding area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance and if so, whether there are any reasons, particularly relating to agricultural need, why these concerns should be set aside. There is a presumption against development here.
6.2 It is of concern where existing serviceable buildings are sold off from the land which provides their raison d'etre particularly if the buildings are then claimed to be redundant but where this redundancy relates to a change of ownership rather than a true lack of need or use. However, in this case, the existing buildings are largely traditional ones which are not ideally suited to modern agricultural practices and as such, it may be that even if the applicant had still owned the buildings, there would be a need for a more modern structure to respond to his needs. As it is, the original buildings are no longer available to the applicant so he is seeking approval for a new one. - 6.3 The siting is as close to the existing dwelling, the closest existing building, as is practicable which will limit its impact, as seen behind Hillcrest rather than as an isolated building in the countryside. The building is also modest in area and height which will assist in the reduction of its impact. The building will be visible from the right of way, but alongside an existing dwelling and of modest size and whose use is compatible with the expected management of the land.
6.4 The field is prone to being marshy as was evident by the various rushes growing in the field although it was relatively solid under foot at the time of the site visit (06.10.16) It is proposed to have an area of hard standing at the entrance where vehicles may enter, manoeuvre and exit although this is not shown on the plans. - 6.5 The introduction of new buildings in the countryside should only be accepted where it is absolutely necessary and whilst it is of concern that this may be necessitated due to property being sold, in this case, the visual impact of the new building is limited due to its size and position and the circumstances around the proposal are considered to justify approval of the application. A condition should be attached which requires the removal of the building should it no longer be required or used for its intended purpose.
7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 18.10.2016 Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Reason: The building has been exceptionally approved solely to meet agricultural need and its subsequent retention would result in an unwarranted intrusion in the countryside.
Reason: to minimise the visual impact of the development in the countryside which is generally protected from development.
This approval relates to the drawings and plans received on 14th September, 2016.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Permitted Date: 04.11.2016 Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
