Loading document...
Application No.: 15/00889/B Applicant: Magher Grianagh Farm Limited Proposal: Erection of four mobile kiosks for the display and selling of produce and erection of a section of fencing (retrospective) Site Address: Field 130579 Magher Grianagh St Judes Road Sulby Isle Of Man Senior Planning Officer: Jason Singleton Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 01.12.2025 _________________________________________________________________
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: To prevent the undesirable establishment of a more general retail use in this countryside location.
Reason: to prevent the establishment of a more general retail use in this countryside location or an unsustainable expansion of the use
This decision relates to drawings and supporting information submitted on 3 August 2015.
_________________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status
It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status as they are 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):
Close Yn Ellan St. Judes Road Sulby .
_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site (15m x 17m) identified in red represents a small part (south west corner) of field 130579 Magher Grianagh, St Judes Road, Sulby which is a parcel of land on the eastern side of the St Judes Road and north of the Sulby Bridge. - 1.2 The overall site within the ownership of the applicant comprises of fields 34146 and
1.3 On site is a hard standing area with various kiosk type structurers for the retail of farm produce generate from the wider site identified in blue. Present on site is a log store, an egg kiosk, a veg stand and the larger structure is a plant display unit. - 1.4 The kiosks are essentially lightweight timber structurers, other than the polytunnel and are placed to the north and south boundary of the extents of this site. The site is boarded by a
3.2 14/01341/A - Approval in principle for erection of an agricultural worker's dwelling. Approved. - 3.3 17/00360/REM - Reserved matters application relating to PA 14/01341/A for the erection of a detached agricultural workers dwelling, addressing siting, design, external appearance, access, internal layout and landscaping.
4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area of "White Land" under the Isle of Man Development Plan, 1982. The application site is not within an area recognised for development, under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a
Conservation Area, nor within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
4.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains two policies which are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application; - 4.3 Spatial Policy 5 New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3. - 4.4 General Policy 2 Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:
4.5 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:
4.6 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. - 4.7 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.
4.8 Environment Policy 18 Retailing from farms, market gardens and nurseries (excepting ancillary sales of produce grown thereon) will be subject to the Department's general retail policies. - 4.9 Para 7.13.2 (Agriculture and farm diversification) One of the prime considerations in the determination of development proposals in the countryside will continue to be the conservation and enhancement of the landscape. In terms of the diversification of farms and farm buildings, there may be some circumstances where this may be appropriate and it is acknowledged that small scale enterprises can promote healthy economic activity in rural areas whether this be for commercial, industrial, tourism, sport or recreation uses. There is, however, a general presumption against the introduction of new uses into the countryside (including industrial or office uses):
REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Lezayre Parish Commissioners - (05.10.15) commented to; "Approved 2-1 Majority. Although the Commissioners have approved this application they do have reservations concerning highway safety issues. The St Jude Road has a de restricted speed limit and traffic does tend to drive fast due to the straight nature of the road. the new site does have a larger are for the various structures maybe some off road parking could be introduced. Vehicles should be made to take all 4 wheels off the road, rather than only 2 when parking to make purchases".
5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services commented (02.11.15); "The applicant must ensure that the visibility from the access is kept clear of all obstructions. Vehicles are not to park within the visibility splay. The applicant must ensure that the made up layby has been done in accordance with Manx Roads 2 and permission for the works be sought from Highways. The Lay-by has been installed without the permission of highways. This would require planning application to ensure all visibility and parking standards are met in accordance with Manx Roads 1".
5.3 Close Yn Ellan St. Judes Road Sulby - 15 September 2015 : "I own the property known
ASSESSMENT The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are; (i) The principle of development (SP5, Gp3,)
6.1 The application site falls outside of any defined settlement boundary with the nearest being Sulby (Sulby Local Plan 1998) which is approx. 1km to the south of the site on the A17 to Sulby Bridge. The site is identified as white land or agricultural land / land not zoned for development.
6.2 However, consideration shall be given to a number of policies within the Strategic Plan including Spatial Policy 5 and General Policy 3 where exceptions can be found. The starting point for any development within the countryside (i.e. not zoned for development) is General Policy 3, in this instance paragraph F which allows exemption for agricultural buildings and links to Environment Policy 15. The first paragraph requires first the Planning Authority to be satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new "building", sufficient to outweigh the general policy against 'development' in the countryside.
6.3 In terms of "need" whilst the proposals are not seeking any buildings per say, it does propose the erection of the lightweight timber structures for the display and retailing of farm produce which would be linked to the wider agricultural / horticultural farm operation that ties in with the landownership of the applicant, and an agricultural dwelling that sites to the north, of this site, which has a farm workers condition attached to it use, as noted in the planning history.
6.4 As such, the use of this part of the site, essentially a corner of a field adjacent to the highway for sale of farm produce could be acceptable in accordance with GP3f in this instance subject to further examination below.
6.5 Out of town retail linked to agricultural / horticultural produce can be acceptable where the produce grown on the land is sold from the land/ farm as part of the farming enterprise. Support is broadly given through Ep18 for the retailing from farm and market gardens and nurseries. Further support can be found though para 7.13.2 of the strategic plan which notes the circumstance where it may be appropriate for rural economic activity and farm diversification. - 6.6 An important consideration in this instance, is the size and scale of the proposals and the longevity of its use as identified on aerial imagery pre 2015, which has been well established and continues, to date (at the time of writing) operates in a small scale of use without much inconvenience to highway users and for its majority is retailing produce commonly associated with the farm and not in large quantities that would be a concern for major retailing out of town settlements. It is noted this area is not "manned" by staff on a permanent basis and operates on an honesty system to pay but overseen by CCTV. - 6.7 The applicant confirmed in their supporting statement a break down of how the structures are used and; "a brief description of the four units that we use to display and sell our produce and goods from. They are all mobile and are moved (or even taken away) as and when is necessary - for example unfavourable weather and sunlight". - 6.8 Noting the overall use of the site is linked to the farm holding and the retail on a small scale of produce to serve the local community and the planning history of the site and its adjoining land ownerships general support can be found in this instance though Ep18 for the use of the site and the small cale of retail operation. - 6.9 In this case as support can be found for the proposals for retail development in the countryside, it would be appropriate to affirm such as use as the applicant's background is agricultural and still operates his own farm with an agricultural tied dwelling house. As such the need is justified in accordance with General Policy 3, the retail use from the farm aligned with Ep18 subject to the inclusion of a condition limiting the size, scale and produce to be sold from the site to prevent any mis-use or unwarranted development in the countryside.
6.10 Having considered the justification and its broad acceptance of use of the site, we further consider the general design and appropriateness of such and the border impacts on this site and that of the rural countryside. Environment Policy 15 notes the proximity of the proposal should be sited as close the farmstead as possible and be appropriate in terms of scale, materials, colour, siting and form to ensure they are in keeping with their surroundings. - 6.11 In this case the proposal would be sited approx.100m to the south of the dwelling house and to the southwestern corner of the land holding where it is adjacent to the highway and is part of the agricultural holding. The retail aspect is using portable "structures" or kiosks that are made from light weight timber construction to display the produce for sale. The level of permanence and its physical attachment to the ground ensures that if the retail aspect no longer is viable those "kiosks" could be easily removed without much in the way of disturbance to the site or the ground, and as confirmed by the applicant. - 6.12 The size and scale of the proposals and the lack of any permanent building on site and the display of the produce are essentially manoeuvrable, would be seen to reflect the agricultural nature in terms of size and scale for a retailing from a farm and would not look out of place in the countryside. - 6.13 The site is well screened and only really visible when passing the entrance and would not be to seen to erode any agricultural land and its use as offering the farm produce as a byproduct of agriculture or horticulture, would be acceptable in this instance and to a degree
6.16 The later paragraph of Ep15 refers to the potential conflicts of siting of agricultural buildings near residential properties. When considering whether there would be any adverse impact upon any of the neighbouring properties, specifically those bordering the site, the siting and distances involved, and any intervening barriers need to be carefully balanced. - 6.17 Given the distances involved between the structures the site and any residential dwellings, the nearest being the applicants property at 100m to the north, it is not judged to cause harm in terms of loss of light or overbearing impact to the enjoyment of those dwellings or is it considered to harm their amenity from the physical aspects of development and would be considered to be compliant with those sections of General Policy 2(g).
6.18 Concerns on the proposals have been raised regarding the parked vehicles on the highway from the neighbouring property owners at Close Yn Ellan St. Judes Road, who are approx. 770m to the southeast of the site, but use the access lane to access their property which sits to the immediate south. This is noting their access lane and their wide visibility splay to their property where it meets the highway and that it is 70m to the south of the application site that sits adjacent to the highway (A17) and deemed a local road in the road hierarchy. - 6.19 The initial comments from highway services are noted and as they don't object to the proposals but offer some commentary to ensure safe use for all highway users. Assessing this highways aspect, and being satisfied the distance between the two sites, noting the topography of the area, the straightness of the highway (not on a bend) and the absence of any parking restrictions on the highway, also the nature of the proposals and the small scale and low use of the site for farm produce accepting this is not a stocked supermarket but a farm shop, in that when the produce is gone it is gone and not restocked as you would expect in a retail store. - 6.20 The updated comments from Highway Servies are helpful and it is noted in their commentary the lack of objection and advise on the issue of visibility and highway safety; "With the scale of this development and the generous width of access, I would not expect a vehicle parked adjacent to the access to pose a significant road safety issue. A road user exiting the access would be able to manoeuvre their vehicle accordingly so that they are not exiting directly at the closest part of the parked vehicle. In addition, a parked vehicle on the side of this road is also not a significant issue. While it is likely a high speed link, there is very substantial forward visibility in both directions meaning any approaching vehicle will see the parked one and adjust accordingly". - 6.21 As such, while the principle is acceptable and the size and scale is proportionate to the overall farm holding, the issues regarding visibility splays and highway use, in this instance,
RECOMMENDATION
7.0 Overall, for these reasons indicated above, the application is considered to be appropriate and the application is therefore recommended for an approval in accordance with GP2, GP3 and EP1 and Ep15, Ep18 with conditions. 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:
8.2 The decision maker must determine:
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 and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status, and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made : Permitted Date : 15.12.2025 Determining Officer
Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management
Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/ customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
