DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 19/00753/B Applicant: Marant Farming Limited Proposal: Alterations, erection of extension and detached garage Site Address: Johnsons Cottage Druidale Ballaugh Isle Of Man IM7 5JA Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 11.09.2019 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. The application fails to provide evidence or justification to demonstrate real agricultural need for the proposed residential extensions or for the development of a new outbuilding to sufficiently outweigh the tests of General Policy 3 (a) and (f), Environment Policy 15 and Housing Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. - R 2. In the absence of an essential agricultural need having been established, the application is also contrary to Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, which requires that the countryside be protected for its own sake. - R 3. There is no information provided as to how drainage and waste material at the site and from the proposed agricultural garage building would be dealt with. The application fails to demonstrate that the development will not cause any long term deterioration in water quality or pollution of the surrounding environment, nearby watercourses or the public water supply at Sulby Reservoir. The application therefore fails Environment Policy 7, Environment Policy 8, Environment Policy 22 and Infrastructure Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. - R 4. There is insufficient detail provided to determine the full extent of impact as a result of the development on the surrounding trees and ecology, the cumulative loss of trees or harm to ecology having an adverse impact on the wider visual appearance of the development within the landscape and harming the rural context of the site. The application fails Environment Policy 3, Environment Policy 4 and Environment Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons None

_____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 Johnsons Cottage is located down a private shared access lane around 350m south of the Druidale Road and sitting on the south-western arm of the Sulby Reservoir where the Rhenass River connects. The red line for the site comprises the shared access with Gorse Mill Cottage which runs alongside and partially through a woodland area and terminating at an existing two storey Manx stone cottage with a 3 bay front elevation arrangement which faces south towards the mountain road. The extent of the red line surrounding the cottage forms a rectangular area around 40m x 60m. - 1.2 The existing stone cottage has two integrated stacks at each gable end and a small pitched roof front porch on the front elevation. At the rear the property extends backward with a slated catslide roof providing additional ground floor accommodation. - 1.3 The two storey element of the existing property has a front elevation approx. 8.5m long x 5m wide gable and with eaves level of 4m and a central ridge around 6.5m high. The rear catslide element projects a further 3.5m from the rear elevation with a rear eaves level at 2.5m high. - 1.4 In its current state the ground surrounding the property has been scraped back and cleared. Survey drawings provided for the application indicates that a stone track has been formed around the west of the cottage, this stone track looping under the southern side of the cottage, the track forks to provide access to a levelled area east of the cottage, and south towards the Rhenass River.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The current application seeks approval for the following works:

• i. the upwards and backwards extension of the existing cottage to provide additional living accommodation
• ii. the erection of a linked two storey extension
• iii. the erection of a new detached garage/agricultural building

• i) Extension to existing cottage

2.2 Proposed is the demolition of the single storey rear cat slide extension and its replacement with a larger two storey extension projecting 5.2m from the rear elevation of the existing cottage. The proposal will also include the upwards extension of the existing pitched roof to a proposed central ridge of 8m high. The extensions and alterations will proposed a 8.5m long front elevation and 10.5m wide gable elevations.

• ii) two storey linked extension

2.3 Proposed to the eastern side of the cottage is a two storey extension with a 7.2m long front elevation x 10.5m wide gable. The proposed extension is to be finished in stone and with a matching 8m high central ridge. Three windows are proposed at ground and first floor of the front elevation and two windows and patio doors on the rear elevation. - 2.4 The two storey extension is to be linked to the cottage by a predominantly glazed link with a 5m central ridge. This link will facilitate a central core stairwell and a small shower toilet room, there is proposed to be single door on both the front and rear elevations.

• iii) Garage/agricultural building

2.5 Proposed to the eastern side of the proposed two storey linked extension is a detached garage/agricultural building approx. 9.3m x 9.3m and 3m to eaves and 4.5m to central ridge. The building is proposed to have two large roller shutter doors on the south elevation and 4 roof lights installed either side of the roof slope. The building is proposed to be externally clad in timber weather boarding and fibre cement roof sheeting.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 There have been no previous planning applications for the application site, however there have been previous applications made on other sites within the wider agricultural farm holding and land ownership including for an application submitted early in 2019 for a new agricultural workers dwelling at Mount Karrin, Sulby under PA 19/00292/A. This was refused at delegated powers but is current going through the appeals process. The officer for the application concluded that the information provided by the applicant and minded of the relevant planning policy, that there was a demonstrated need for a worker (one unit of labour) for this farm but that there was insufficient established agricultural need to warrant an approval for a new agricultural dwelling on this site, as opposed to the use of an existing dwelling and commuting to the site or a continuation of the current arrangement which has operated apparently with success for several years without the provision of an on-site dwelling and demonstrating its non-necessity for the farm's management at its current capacity and size. The proposal was considered contrary to The proposal is contrary to Environment Policies 1, 2 and 15, General Policy 3 and Housing Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 The site lies between two areas of designated 'woodland' and within an area not designated for development on the 1982 Development Plan. On review of the 1982 plan the site also sits within a wider area designated as both 'land unsuitable for development owing to a danger of pollution of an existing or future public water supply' and a 'nature conservation zone, nature reserves & sites of ecological importance for conservation'. - 4.2 Minded of the designations of the site and the nature of the development works it is considered that the following policies of the IOM Strategic Plan are considered relevant in the assessment of the application: - 4.3 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:

• (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10);
• (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11);
• (c) previously developed land(1) which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment;
• (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14);
• (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services;
• (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry;
• (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and
• (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage."

4.4 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 overriding 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."

4.5 Environment Policy 3:

"Development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi-natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value."

4.6 Environment Policy 4: "Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect:

• (a) species and habitats of international importance:

• (i) protected species of international importance or their habitats; or (ii) proposed or designated Ramsar and Emerald Sites or other internationally important

sites.

• (b) species and habitats of national importance:

• (i) protected species of national importance or their habitats; (1) Wildlife Sites are defined in

Appendix 1 41

• (ii) proposed or designated National Nature Reserves, or Areas of Special Scientific Interest;

or

• (iii) Marine Nature Reserves; or
• (iv) National Trust Land.

• (c) species and habitats of local importance such as Wildlife Sites, local nature reserves, priority habitats or species identified in any Manx Biodiversity Action Plan which do not already benefit from statutory protection, Areas of Special Protection and Bird Sanctuaries and landscape features of importance to wild flora and fauna by reason of their continuous nature or function

• as a corridor between habitats.

Some areas to which this policy applies are identified as Areas of Ecological Importance or Interest on extant Local or Area Plans, but others, whose importance was not evident at the time of the adoption of the relevant Local or Area Plan, are not, particularly where that plan has been in place for many years. In these circumstances, the Department will seek site specific advice from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry if development proposals are brought forward."

4.7 Environment Policy 5:

"In exceptional circumstances where development is allowed which could adversely affect a site recognised under Environmental Policy 4, conditions will be imposed and/or Planning Agreements sought to:

• (a) minimise disturbance;
• (b) conserve and manage its ecological interest as far as possible; and
• (c) where damage is unavoidable, provide new or replacement habitats so that the loss to the total ecological resource is mitigated."

4.8 Environment Policy 7:

"Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which could not be overcome by mitigation measures will not be permitted. Where development is proposed which would affect a watercourse, planning applications must comply with the following criteria:

• (a) all watercourses in the vicinity of the site must be identified on plans accompanying a planning application and include an adequate risk assessment to demonstrate that works will not cause long term deterioration in water quality;
• (b) details of pollution and alleviation measures must be submitted;
• (c) all engineering works proposed must be phased in an appropriate manner in order to avoid a reduction in water quality in any adjacent watercourse; and
• (d) development will not normally be allowed within 8 metres of any watercourse in order to protect the aquatic and bankside habitats and species.

4.9 Environment Policy 8:

"Agricultural buildings will not be permitted on sites where their existence and associated discharges would result in a breach of the "Code of Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Water." (1)

4.10 Paragraph 7.9.2:

"In some cases agricultural buildings are proposed for the storage of feed or animals or other legitimate agricultural purposes. Where those buildings or developments are proposed close to existing watercourses, such developments should be carefully scrutinised and advice sought from DAFF where appropriate and clarification provided of the proposed, possible and likely nature of the use of the proposed building as this can affect the impact of the development on the water course."

4.11 Environment Policy 15:

"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.

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 it is 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."

4.12 Environment Policy 22:

Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of:

• i) pollution of sea, surface water or groundwater;

• ii) emissions of airborne pollutants; and
• iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution.

4.13 Housing Policy 7:

"New agricultural dwellings will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances where real agricultural need is demonstrated."

4.14 Housing Policy 15:

"The extension or alteration of existing traditionally styled properties in the countryside will normally only be approved where these respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property. Only exceptionally will permission be granted for extensions which measure more than 50% of the existing building in terms of floor space (measured externally)."

4.15 Business Policy 13:

"Permission will generally be given for the use of private residential properties as tourist accommodation providing that it can be demonstrated that such use would not compromise the amenities of neighbouring residents."

4.16 Infrastructure Policy 4:

"Development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on surface water and groundwater quality in the public water supply protection areas defined in the 1982 Development Plan Order and subsequent Local and Area Plans."

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.

5.1 Michael Parish Commissioners - no comments received at the time of writing the report (09/09/2019). - 5.2 DOI Highway Services - No highways interest (09/09/2019) - 5.3 DEFA Arboricultural Officer - No concerns as the impact to the amenities of the area is likely to be minimal (03/09/2019). - 5.4 DEFA Agricultural Officer - Objection - the design statement accompanying the application sets out the agricultural need for an extension to the main house and for the agricultural need for the erection of new agricultural building, based on the information provided DEFA has considered that from a practical farming point of view that the housing currently available is sufficient and that there isn't an agricultural need for further agricultural development. The provision of buildings at Druidale farm which were used by the previous tenant to house cattle would be adequate to meet needs of the current farming system on Druidale and Mount Karrin, and the sheep flock is largely made up of hill breeds which do not require shelter even in the hardest of winters.

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The application comprises three main parts, the extension works to the main house, the development of a new detached agricultural/garage building and the additional use of the dwelling for tourism purposes. There are number of fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of each part, these issues include:

• o The agricultural need;

• o The visual impact;
• o The wider impact on the public water supply and watercourses;
• o The impact on the trees, and
• o The impact on the designated nature conservation zone.

Extensions to Dwelling (agricultural need and visual impact)

6.2 The existing dwelling is a typical Manx three bay cottage with a single storey cat slide

at the rear, the dwelling is sized enough to provide a reasonable level of living accommodation. The dwelling is habitable although it's understood from the design statement that it is currently undergoing some renovation works. In terms of need the existing dwelling would be considered a sufficient dwelling in its own right to meet agricultural need without the need for further extensions, therefore the principle of the extension in terms of GP3 and HP7 and agricultural need is not considered acceptable.

6.3 However there are policies in the Strategic Plan which acknowledge existing houses in the countryside setting out best code of practice in how to appropriately extend or alter such properties. HP15 specifically refers to traditionally styled properties and how development will normally only be approved where it respects the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property and only exceptionally will permission be granted for extensions more than 50% of the existing building. In the case of the current application the upwards and rearwards extension to the existing dwelling would impact on the traditional proportions of the original dwelling, however given the fairly remote location with views from a public perspective only achievable from a distance it's likely that these works will maintain the general character and appearance of the dwelling as a standalone three bay Manx cottage in the landscape. - 6.4 The stepped glazed link presents a clear split between the old and new, its contrast in material and subordinate size ensures that the traditional character and appearance of the existing dwelling (albeit modified as above) remains the principal structure. Where this principal nature is challenged is in the proposed development of the large two storey extension, while the link splits the old and new, the three bay arrangements in trying to match the main dwelling presents a slightly contrived appearance with a front elevation that has solid to void ratio and proportion that is askew. From a distance this unbalance would not be readily visible, and it may be that the external finishes being of matching stone and slate perhaps appears as a barn or rural outbuilding conversion which has then been linked to the main house. Views to the site are from a distance, in terms of HP15, the modifications to the original dwelling, the introduction of a glazed link and the matching material design of the proposed extension would likely presents an acceptable level of development and while the traditional and vernacular proportions of the original dwelling will be lost, the proposal as a whole would not be so unreasonable as to impact the general appearance of the property standing alone in the wider landscape as it does now.

Agricultural/Garage Building (Agricultural need, visual impact and pollution impact on water supply and watercourses)

6.5 The design statement indicates that the proposed detached building is to be multipurpose providing garaging facilities for farm equipment and winter sheltering for livestock as there is insufficient shelter at present to accommodate the applicant's agricultural enterprise. The design statement indicates that the building is also to provide garaging for at least two full size family vehicles. - 6.6 The DEFA Agricultural Officer has provided specific comments based on agricultural need indicating that there is a provision of farm buildings at Druidale Farm which are more than adequate to meet the needs of the current farming enterprise across Druidale and Mount

• Karrin, and that the sheep flock referred to in in the design statement is largely made up of hill breeds which do not require shelter even in the hardest of winters. DEFA Agriculture does not accept that there is an agricultural need for the proposal.
• 6.7 In addition to the information provided by DEFA Agriculture in relation to the available buildings at Druidale Farm, information provided within PA 19/00292/A also highlights that an agricultural building exists on the site at Mount Karrin.
• 6.8 Visually, these types of buildings are not uncommon across the countryside and most are clustered around the nucleus of the farm holding and farmhouse, the position of the proposed building here would sit in close proximity to the existing house working towards the tests of EP15, the remote location, and the woodland to the north of the site would help to provide a backdrop to the site and helping to reduce the development breaking the sky line. In this respect the visual impact would be considered acceptable, however the application fails the first test of agricultural need.
• 6.9 The site is within an area designated as 'land unsuitable for development owing to a danger of pollution of an existing or future public water supply', agricultural buildings are exempt from building regulations. Those buildings for the storage of feed or animals or other legitimate agricultural purposes which are close to existing watercourses should include information on drainage and carefully considered as part of any planning application. The current proposal has not been provided with any details in this respect, and consequently there can be no assessment in relation to the drainage of the building or in understanding whether or not there would be any adverse impacts or unreasonable levels of contamination across the surrounding lands, lower grounds, watercourses or Sulby Reservoir. In this respect the proposal fails to comply with Environment Policies 8 and 22, and Infrastructure Policy 4.
• 6.10 While visual impact was accepted, there is a lack of genuine agricultural need demonstrated within this application and insufficient drainage details for the building to ensure no impact or pollution on the surrounding environment particularly the designated area of public water supply. Tourism Use
• 6.11 There are a number of polices which support the use of existing dwellings or rural buildings for tourism purposes. However there is an area for debate within this application; the design statement for the application defines an agricultural need for both the proposed residential developments and the agricultural garage building however challenges this by also seeking additional tourist use, indicating that from 'time to time' the family would be in Australia tending to their other farming business. This tourist use undermining the agricultural need for the proposed extensions and developments at the site. So while the use of an existing residential property for tourism purposes would generally be supported and in this case would have no impact on any neighbours, the dubiousness of the current application and its proposals tilts the balance against the acceptability of the additional use for tourism. Miscellaneous Matters (Land Ownership, Trees and Ecology)
• 6.12 The farm holding comprises two existing dwellings (Aryhorkell and Johnsons Cottage) and the applicant has also recently sought approval for another agricultural workers dwelling at Mount Karrin PA 19/00292/A, this application was refused and is currently undergoing the appeal process. The application is accompanied with an Isle of Man Land Registry document indicating the transactions of the property to the applicant in 2016. This document is accompanied with a map which outlines in red the residential curtilage of the property and in green the access track. On review of the aerial mapping for the site and the plans submitted for the application it appears that some of the works fall outside of this red line curtilage. It also appears from the aerial images that there have been a number of works undertaken at the

• site since 2016 which have resulted in the loss of parts of the northern woodland area, alterations to the access track, scraping back of the land and formation of new tracks to the south of the dwelling. There is no information relating to these works included with the application and no planning history for the site which includes these.
• 6.13 The DEFA Arboricultural officer was contacted with regards to the application and has indicated that there would be a limited impact in terms of the visual amenity of the area from the development. It may be that a separate license has been attained for the removal/felling of these trees although no evidence has been provided as part of this application and the unnecessary and unacceptable loss of trees would be contrary to EP3. Where further concern lies is in the cumulative impact of the removal of part of the woodland and the scraping back of the land, particular as this area is indicated as being an area of nature conservation where the subsequent impact of such works could have a drastic and harmful impact on any local habitats or species found in this area and contrary to EP4.

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 There are a number of inconsistencies throughout the application which result in a contradicting nature to the proposals. In light of the findings as set out above, it is not considered that a sufficient or real agricultural need has been demonstrated as part of the application for either the extensions to the existing dwelling nor for the development of a new agricultural garage building to outweigh those polices against development in the countryside. The application is considered contrary to GP3 (a) and (f), EP1, EP15 and HP7. - 7.2 In addition to the unacceptable principle, the application fails to provide drainage information to sufficiently demonstrate that there would be no harmful impact in terms of pollution to the surrounding land, watercourses or to the area designated as being a public water supply to satisfy EP7, EP8, EP22 and IP4. - 7.3 The application fails to provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposal would not have an impact on the nature conservation zone or on the ecology of the site and surrounding area contrary to EP4 and EP5. - 7.4 The additional use for tourism has not been considered acceptable in the specific case and circumstances of this application, although generally would not compromise the tests of BP13 as there are no neighbours in the immediate area which would be affected through such a use.

- 8.0 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:

• (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
• (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material
• (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and
• (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

8.2 The Planning Committee must determine:

• o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
• o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Refused Date: 16.09.2019 Determining officer

Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Principal Planner

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.