Loading document...
| Application No.: | 14/00720/B |
| Applicant: | Mr Mark R Oats |
| Proposal: | Erection of an agricultural building |
| Site Address: | Field 134313 Adjacent To Kerrowmoar Croft Kerrowmoar Sulby Isle Of Man |
1.1 The application site is Field 134313, which is within a larger farmholding located to the east of Sulby. The overall landholding comprises a number of other fields, all contiguous with one exception to the northeast, located to the north of the A3. The site is located immediately adjacent the A3, and has a gated access onto the highway. To the immediate west is Kerrow Mooar Croft, which is the farmhouse associated with the wider landholding and the home of the applicant.
1.2 The site lies slightly below the road level, and the trees and hedges lining the road and field boundaries make the site less visually prominent than might be expected.
1.3 It would appear that the site is situated on Grade 2 Agricultural Land, which is amongst the best and most versatile. Immediately to the east, the land is Grade 3/4 in equal measure.
2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of an agricultural building to the rear (north) of Field 134313. The barn would be 18.30m in length and 9.15m in depth, with a 15 degree-pitched roof, the apex of which would sit 4.95m off the ground. It would be solid on three of its elevations, with the eastern side elevation being wholly open.
2.2 The walls are should as concrete blockwork to 1.80m above finished floor level, with a juniper green box profile sheeting above this height. The roof would be constructed of grey fibre cement sheeting.
2.3 The applicant advises that the building would be used to store machinery and straw/animal feed. They also advise that the need has come about following the recent subdivision of the farmholding, which has resulted in the loss of access to a storage building.
| Case Officer: | Mr Edmond Riley |
| Photo Taken: | |
| Site Visit: | 30.07.2014 |
| Expected Decision Level: | Officer Delegation |
3.1 The site has not been the subject of any planning applications considered of material relevance to the determination of the current application.
4.1 The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of 'woodland' not zoned for development under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area, but is within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. The site is not within Flood Zone 3, but the fields to the north and west are.
4.2 There are therefore several policies of relevance in the Strategic Plan. The relevant parts of General Policy 3 state: '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'.
4.3 Environment Policy 1 reads in full: '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'.
4.5 Environment Policy 2 reads in full: 'The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLVs) 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 different 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:
4.6 Environment Policy 14 reads in full: 'Development which would result in the permanent loss of important and versatile agricultural land (Classes 1-2) will not be permitted except where there is an overriding need for the development, and land of a lower quality is not available and other policies in this plan are complied with. This policy will be applied to:
4.7 Environment Policy 15 reads in full: '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'.
5.1 Highway Services do not oppose the planning application.
5.2 Lezayre Parish Commissioners recommend approval of the planning application.
5.3 DEFA's Agricultural Advisor states that the storage required by the landholding for the grain, straw and machinery totals just under 350sqm, while the barn will provide just over 165sqm. Therefore, he advises the application is agriculturally justified.
6.1 Approval is sought for the erection of an agricultural building. An assessment of the principle of the proposal is first made - that is, (i) the extent to which the building agriculturally justified, and (ii) whether the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land would be acceptable. Following this, three specific matters of detail are considered: (a) the extent to which the siting, scale, colour, form and materials are appropriate, and (b) the level of impact upon the countryside in terms of character and appearance that might arise from the grant of approval.
6.2 The principle in this case rests not only on whether the proposal is agriculturally justified but also, given the nature of the land on which it is situated, whether the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land would be acceptable. The agricultural land capability maps are not altogether clear as to where the application site is situated as there is a boundary in the vicinity of the farm between Grade 2 and Grade ¾. It does seem, however, that the site falls within land defined as of a Grade 2 quality. Grades 1 and 2 are the best quality agricultural land, and Environment Policy 14 is clear that development will not be permitted where it results in the permanent loss of such land, except where (i) there is an overriding need for the development, (ii) land of a lower quality is not available, and (iii) other policies in the Strategic Plan are complied with.
6.3 It is considered that a pragmatic approach should be taken in respect of Environment Policy 14. The principle issue is whether or not the development proposed will result in the permanent loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land. In respect of the proposed "loss" of roughly 165sqm of land from agricultural use, the proposed barn will not permanently remove the land from future agricultural use as the option will remain open for those fields to be so used.
6.4 Advice has previously been sought from the Agricultural Advisor in respect of whether such land would retain its agricultural quality rating should a lain surface (in this case, concrete) be removed in the future; it was made clear that, if the removed top soil was retained on the farm and returned to the land should the barn ever be removed, this would
secure its Grade 2 status. It was advised that by not removing the top soil from the landholding, this would in itself result in the retention of the good quality agricultural land.
6.5 Notwithstanding the above assessment, it remains valuable to consider the three issues set out in Environment Policy 14. Firstly, the word "overriding" in this context is taken to mean "taking precedence over all other considerations", with the point being in the case of this application that, if the development did not take place, the business would fail. While there may not be an overriding need for the development to take place, there is perhaps a compelling need. It certainly appears that the business is well-established albeit currently in a transitional period. There is no objection raised on this point.
6.8 Turning to issue (ii) of Environment Policy 14, the entirety of the applicant's landholding - not just that within the application site - is situated within land designated as Grade 2 quality. (Indeed, the majority is probably Grade 2). On this basis, there is no poorer quality of land available for the proposal within the control of the applicant. There is evidently lower quality agricultural land elsewhere on the Island available for such a purpose, but it remains the pragmatic view that the proposed farm buildings would need to be located within a reasonable distance of the existing farmhouse - as required, it should be noted, by other Strategic Plan policies - and no lower quality land is within the applicant's control.
6.9 Issue (iii) as set out in Environment Policy 14, which requires any development resulting in the loss of any grade 2/3 land to meet the other (relevant) policies in the Strategic Plan are complied with, is considered throughout the remainder of this Report in its assessment of those other policies.
The Principle: Agricultural Justification
6.10 Advice received from the Agricultural Advisor is usually instructive in determining whether or not a building is agriculturally justified. He is clear on the landholding and its use are such as to require a building of this nature, and also that there are no such buildings (indeed, no storage buildings at all) within the applicant's control. This makes the case somewhat compelling.
6.11 It is therefore judged that the justification for the agricultural need for the building has been established in accordance with General Policy 3(f).
The Details
6.12 In terms of the siting, scale, colour, form and materials of the proposed building, no objection is raised. It is accepted that the building is of a relatively uninspiring design but, in the context of agricultural buildings, it is very much "of its type". That the roof colour would be grey in colour and thus provide a level of camouflage from the open nature of the countryside is, however, welcome, while the proposed green box profile sheeting would match the colour of the countryside.
6.13 While there are no other buildings - save for the farmhouse - that the building proposed here could be measured against, it is not especially large and would probably sit lower than the existing farmhouse. Its positioning away from the road and in a corner of the application field is welcome from this point of view as this would minimise its visual impact. The applicant advises that they are prepared to plant trees to screen the building, although this is not shown on the submitted plans. While there are other, perhaps less visually prominent, parcels of land within the applicant's ownership, a large amount of this is within areas subject to flood risk. It is therefore considered that the positioning is logical - it is also near a highway, which makes access for the machinery easier in this regard - and no objection is therefore raised on the siting or scale of the proposed building.
6.14 The follow-on from this is whether or not the proposal meets the strict test of Environment Policy 2. The site is flat although it does have a good level of screening. While it has not been demonstrated by the agent that the building proposed will not have a negative impact on the countryside, an assessment of this has been made by viewing the site from further afield and considering its impact relative to the buildings already present.
6.15 The site is flat; the land surrounding it is also flat. As such, views into the site from further afield are limited - and further limited by the site's being set a little lower than the surrounding landscape. The land to the north is not publicly accessible in any meaningful way and, as such, the main views of the building will be from the road itself. Much of the land here is characterised by its agricultural use and attendant buildings. The proposed building will not be especially large. It will also quite likely blend into the countryside relatively well given its positioning at the western edge of a field bounded by hedging to the west and also its colouration. On balance, then, it is considered that an objection purely on this basis could not be sustained.
6.16 As to the proposed siting of the building, it has been effectively seen that the location here is essential inasmuch as no better location exists and there is a pressing need for the building to serve the farm. As such, while full accordance with both elements of EP2 may not be shown to be fully met, it is noted that only one of those tests needs to be met for a proposal to be considered acceptable - but, moreover and as set out above, there is no especial concern with respect to either of these.
7.1 The policies of the Strategic Plan are clear that development should not take place in the countryside unless there is a clear justification for that development. On balance, the proposed building is considered to be agriculturally justified, and appropriate in terms of the proposed design and siting, and therefore a recommendation of approval is made.
8.1 In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application; Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits.
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
| Recommendation | |
| Recommended Decision: | Permitted |
| Date of Recommendation: | 31.07.2014 |
C 1.
The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
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.
C 2.
The building hereby approved must be used only for agricultural purposes.
Reason: in the interests of protecting local amenity.
C 3.
The agricultural building hereby approved shall be removed and the ground restored to its former condition in the event that it is no longer used or required for agricultural purposes.
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.
This approval relates to the following plans, date-stamped as having been received 10th June 2014: 12 889 1, 12 889 2 and 12 889 3.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control /Head of Development Management/ Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made : Permitted Date : 1/8/14
Signed : ... Chris Balmer
Senior Planning Officer Signed : ... Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control
Signed : ... Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer Signed : ... Jennifer Chance Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
