DEC Officer Report

Applicant: George Alfred Moore Proposal Erection of two agricultural buildings and creation of new field access Site Address Field 324368 Top Road Crosby Isle Of Man Case Officer : Mr Paul Visigah Site Visit: Expected Decision Level Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 01.07.2021

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• 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 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• C 2. The buildings hereby approved may only be used for agricultural purposes.

Reason: the countryside is protected from development and an exception is being made on the basis of agricultural need. As such the buildings must be used for the purposes for which it is approved.

• C 3. The agricultural buildings hereby approved shall be removed and the ground restored to its former condition in the event that they are no longer used or required for agricultural purposes.

Reason: The buildings have been exceptionally approved solely to meet agricultural need and their subsequent retention would result in an unwarranted intrusion in the countryside.

• C 4. Prior to the use of the access hereby approved, the first 6m (minimum) of the existing access shall be made of a bound material, and all access arrangements, including visibility, shall accord with drawing titled 'Visibility Splays' and thereafter retained as such. Reason: in the interests of highway safety.
• C 5. The development hereby approved shall be undertaken in accordance with the points set out below.

• o Any vegetation to be removed to facilitate the development shall only be cleared by cutting or strimming during the non-active reptile season (start of October to end of February) to make the habitat unsuitable for lizards (this will also avoid breeding bird season). Clearance
• of this vegetation shall only be undertaken using a strimmer or brush cutter in two passes, the first to 0.2 m, the second close to the ground, both passes to be carried out on the same day and all cuttings raked and removed the same day. The vegetation shall be maintained at the short length throughout the works to ensure common lizards do not use these areas.
• o Removal of the bank shall only take place between Mid-April to August to avoid days when lizards are likely to be active. Sod bank removal should be done from the mid-section (mid-way along the length of the sod bank) outwards towards the ends of the sod bank to allow any lizards present to escape.
• o The turfs from the current bank should carefully be removed and retained and used on top of the new section of sod bank in order to retain the existing seed bank and thus the existing wildflowers.
• o If any lizards are found during operations all work must stop immediately, the Department be contacted for advice and such advice must be received and complied with prior to work recommencing. REASON: To protect the biodiversity and ecology of the site.

• C 6. The design and construction details of the new Sod bank structure shall include large stones which partly protrude from the bank to allow common lizards 'access to the interior. These details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department before any development is commenced and thereafter, the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details as approved. Reason: To safeguard statutorily protected species.
• C 7. The plastic coated steel sheets to be used on the external walls of the storage building must be coloured olive green or as otherwise approved by the Department and retained as such.

Reason: to minimise the visual impact of the development on the countryside which is generally protected from development.

• C 8. Prior to the use of the agricultural buildings hereby approved, the levelled site area proposed to be grassed shall be grassed and retained as such. All planting, seeding or turfing of the site must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or before the occupation of the buildings, whichever is the sooner. Any plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and the surrounding countryside.

N 1. Common Lizards are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife Act 1990. It is an offence to intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take any wild animal listed in Schedule 5, or damage or destroy any structure or place which they use for shelter or protection. The Maximum penalty that can be imposed is a fine of £10,000.

All birds, their nests, eggs and young are protected by law (Wildlife Act 1990) and it is an offence to:

• o intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take any wild bird
• o intentionally or recklessly take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird whilst it is in use or being built
• o intentionally or recklessly take or destroy the egg of any wild bird
• o intentionally or recklessly disturb any wild bird listed on Schedule 1 while it is nest building, or at a nest containing eggs or young, or disturb the dependent young of such a bird.

The maximum penalty that can be imposed - in respect of a single bird, nest or egg - is a fine up to 10,000 pounds.

The bird nesting season is usually between late February and late August or late September in the case of swifts, swallows or house martins, and pigeons have been known to nest year round if conditions are favourable. Thorough checks for birds, their active nests and eggs should be undertaken prior to vegetation removal. If a nest is discovered while work is being undertaken, all work must stop and advice sought from the Ecosystem Policy Team, DEFA.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. Overall, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of both agricultural need and visual impact and broadly accords with Environment Policies 15, 1 and 2, and General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to:

• o Location Plan
• o Site Plan
• o Floor Plans and Elevations
• o Visibility Splays
• o Aerial Photographs
• o Photographs, and
• o Rural Business Consultancy (Supporting Information) Received 9 February 2021; and
• o Location Plans and Land Ownership
• o Revised Plans and Elevations
• o Supporting Information from Agent Received 16 June 2021.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:

Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Flood Risk Management Division

________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE DEVELOPMENT COULD BE CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site represents the curtilage of Field 324368 situated on the northern side of the A23 (Top Road), Crosby and north-west of Nab Farm. Access to the land is via a single lane road which links the site to Top Road and serves the site and the surrounding fields and farms further north. The field is enclosed by Manx hedges which run along the western, northern and eastern boundaries of the site, while the southern boundary comprises and combination of sod bank and line of trees. There is a lower line of trees which links the southern tree line and runs along this boundary by about 97.8m. The sod bank on the western boundary which abuts the highway rises to about 2m to 2.5m. The current field access is situated on the south-west end of the site.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of two agricultural buildings and creation of new field access. - 2.2 The external building footprint for each building is proposed to be 36.5m long x 12.2m wide with a pitch roof height of 6m (4.57m to the eaves). These buildings would be built together, joined at the eaves and forming a double pitched roof. Both buildings would cover a floor area of 890.6sqm. - 2.3 The livestock shed which would be positioned to the south of the storage building is proposed to be steel framed with concrete panels to the base and Yorkshire boarding above. The Fibre cement sheet roof will include the installation of 8 GRP rooflights for natural light on each roof plane. The doors to this building which would be positioned on the gable ends will comprise sliding door and sheeted gates 3m wide and 2m high. This building will have open ventilated ridge on its roof. - 2.4 The storage shed which would be positioned to the north of the livestock shed and would have its external walls finished plastic coated steel sheets over concrete panels at the base. The Fibre cement sheet roof will also include the installation of 8 GRP rooflights for natural light on each roof plane. The doors to this building which would be positioned on the gable ends will comprise sliding door and sheeted gates 3m wide and 2m high. - 2.5 The new buildings would be positioned such that their west elevation (Gable 2) would be 68.5m from the highway, while the east elevation (Gable 1) would be 10m from the eastern boundary. Its south elevation (Side 1) would be about 3m from the southern boundary which comprises the line of trees and sod bank. The North elevation (Side 2) would have views to the surrounding field to the north. - 2.6 Other elements of the proposed works would involve:

• i. Blocking up the existing gateway which is on the southwest end of the site and erecting a new gate on this side of the boundary positioned about 20m further north on this boundary. This gate will be 5m wide and would be positioned 4m from the side of the abutting highway. The access would be 10m where it meets the highway. This will enable the creation of an 87m sight line to the south and 70m sight line to the north.
• ii. Alterations to the ground level to make the building appear sunken and limiting the appearance from the surrounding fields and highway.

2.7 The applicants have provided the following supporting information:

• a) The farming business currently extends to 280 acres of which approximately 9.5 acres are placed in cereals annual. The remainder is grass to support the livestock.
• b) Of the total acreage, 70acres are owned while the remainder are leased on various lengths of agreement.

• c) The business is a beef and sheep operation based on numerous sites across the island, including Crosby, Balromma at Maughold, CronkDhoo at Greeba, Ballaglonney on Mount Murray back Road and the home base at Cypress on the Ballavitchel Road, Crosby.
• d) The farm business currently has a labour requirement of 2.51 standard labour units.
• e) Building one is intended to be used for housing of cattle and building two for the storage of hay and straw bedding for the livestock plus some machinery.
• f) The buildings will allow for more livestock to be housed on the holding as currently two sheds are leased for the housing of livestock and the storage of bedding and machinery.
• g) Of the land parcels owned, the 30 acres at Crosby is favoured due to the amount of surrounding land, the distance to Cypress and it is also felt that the location is least obtrusive to neighbours. He site is naturally screened by trees and its location.
• h) Cypress is where the business operates from and the applicant resides here. However, due to the proximity of his neighbours, it was felt that erecting further buildings on the site would not be neighbourly and also there is limited land immediately available to support the stock.
• i) Building at Cypress would also result in significant increase in vehicle movement.
• j) The buildings will allow for the total number of cattle housed to be increased from approximately 75 head (35 Stores plus 40 finishing cattle) to 115 heads (50 stores and 65 finishing cattle) and for 50 ewe lambs to be housed.
• k) The space required for the cattle and sheep enterprise is 1543sqm while the currently owned buildings total approximately 1055sqm.
• l) No excavated material will be removed from the site, with the excavated soil used to bring up the lower levels to create a level area for access to the buildings.
• m) Water will be drained via the existing drainage systems.

2.8 The additional details provided in the appendages show that the farm is a substantial farm. - 2.9 Following further consultations with the applicants, the agents have provided the following additional information in an email dated 14 June 2021:

• o The land owned by the applicants include Cypress, Ballavitchel road (2.89acres owned), Greeba (37.72 acres owned), and Nab (30.74acres owned).
• o The applicant wishes to build at the Nab site due the farming unit at Cypress having very little support ground and the extra cost of bringing feed and bedding into the site and manure out of the site, plus there are a number of non-farming neighbours in close proximity.
• o The owned land at Cronk Dhoo, Greeba has previously had an application for an agricultural building turned down PA/18/00577/B and the applicant accepts that the visual impact into the countryside is a significant consideration in planning - hence the proposed location which is already naturally screened (the proposed building will have a limited visual impact due to its positioning and location). The proposed works, when completed will be naturally grassed so as to blend into the surrounding countryside.
• o Concerns over the animal manures and effluents generated was also a challenge for the application at Cronkdhoo. Thus, the current application would ensure that cattle are to be straw bedded and fed on a diet of hay or haylage along with a barley based supplement. As a result any slurry or liquor will be minimal, due to the straw bedding and high dry matter content of the diet.
• o The site is owned at Nab combined with the leased land has some 60acres of support land available to it. Coupled with the relatively close proximity to the applicant's home the site is probably the most favourable of all options.
• o The applicant is a member of the DEFA Agricultural Development scheme and Red Tractor farm assurance which both seek to limit the environmental risk from pollution.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The site is shown on the 1982 Development Plan Map as being land that is not designated for any particular purpose, albeit, the site is within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. The site is also not designated for development on the Area Plan for the East (Map 10) and the site is not within a flood risk zone on the Isle of Man indicative Flood Map. Within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, the following policies are considered relevant: - 3.2 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; - 3.3 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 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".

3.4 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 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: 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 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:

• (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or
• (b) the location for the development is essential.

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 The application site has not been the subject of any previous planning applications and as such there are no previous planning applications considered to be materially relevant in the assessment and determination of the current application.

4.2 Whilst not directly related to the site, PA 18/00577/B for Erection of an agricultural building at Field 314831 on Land Adjoining Cronk Dhoo, Main Road, Greeba is considered relevant to the current application. This site is the other farm site owned by the applicant which would have served as an alternative location for the farm buildings considering the Ballavitchel site would not be suitable for the development. The application was refused on 17 December 2018, and Refused at Appeal on 10 April 2019.

• 4.2.1 The following sections of the Inspectors Report are considered relevant: "18 I consider that the main issues that arise from this case are first, the potential risk of flooding of adjacent properties; second, the arrangements for the management of animal waste; and third, the effect of the proposed development on adjacent trees and the landscape of the AHLV. 20 The proposed building would be used to house livestock, including cattle. The planning application included no indication of how animal waste would be managed, and the concern of local residents about this matter is understandable. It is now clear that the intention would be to bed livestock in the proposed building on straw, which would absorb excreta to form a solid waste, rather than liquid slurry. The solid waste would then be removed to be stored and degrade at suitable sites on the appellant's land, where there would be no risk of water pollution. A bund would be installed to prevent contaminated effluent from escaping from the proposed building. In my view, these arrangements should be the subject of a written scheme, to be agreed between the appellant and the Department, which could then form the basis for a planning condition. That should help dispel any concerns that local residents may have.

• 22 Although the application form states that there are no trees or hedges within 15m of the proposed development site, this is not the case, as the proposed building would be within 6m of a hedgerow containing a number of trees. As the appeal site lies within an AHLV, it is especially important that these trees should be protected. I agree with the Department that it would not be possible to impose a planning condition requiring that the proposed building be sited further away from the trees. This appeal arises from an application for full planning approval, and the siting of the proposed building is not a reserved matter.
• 23 Given the proximity of the proposed building to the hedge line, I am not satisfied that the proposed development could be undertaken without damage to one or more of these trees. I consider that an application for development here should be accompanied by a tree survey and a tree protection plan. In the absence of such documents, I find the present scheme unsatisfactory."

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

5.1 The Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division have indicated support for the scheme subject to the inclusion of conditions that all access arrangements, including visibility, accord with drawing titled 'Visibility Splays' and that the first 6m minimum of the new access is made of a bound material. An advisory for a S109 (A) Highway Agreement was also to be added (11 March 2021)

• 5.1.1 Highways Services notes the amended documents submitted for the application below and indicate that they have no further comments to those made on 08/03/2021 in a letter dated 22 June 2021.

5.2 DEFA's Ecosystem Policy Officer has indicated support for the scheme and requested that a condition requiring works to be carried out according to the Common lizard and breeding bird protection methodology, and the inclusion of an advisory note on Common Lizards protection under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife Act 1990, in a letter dated 11 March 2021: Common lizard and breeding bird protection methodology:

The vegetation on top of the bank must be cleared by cutting or strimming during the nonactive reptile season (October to February inclusive) to make the habitat unsuitable for lizards (this will also avoid breeding bird season). If this is not possible then clearance can take place in March but only after thorough checks for common lizards and breeding birds have been undertaken. Clearance of this vegetation will be undertaken using a strimmer or brush cutter in two passes, the first to 0.2 m, the second close to the ground, with all cuttings raked and removed the same day.

Removal of the bank must not take place until sunny, warm days between Mid- April to August when lizards are likely to be active. Sod bank removal should be done from the mid-section outwards to allow any lizards present to escape.

The turfs from the current bank should be carefully removed and retained if possible and used on top of the new section of sod bank in order to retain the existing seed bank and thus the existing wildflowers.

The new sod bank structure should incorporate large stones which partly protrude from the bank to allow common lizards access to the interior.

If any lizards or breeding birds are found then work must stop immediately and advice be sought from the DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team.

5.3 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Flood Risk Management Division confirms that that there is 'No Flood Risk Management interest' in the letter dated 30 March 2021. - 5.4 Marown Parish Commissioners have stated that they have no objection to the application in a letter dated 18 March 2021.

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The key issues to consider when assessing applications such as this are the principle of the development and the impact the development will have on the character of the countryside.

6.2 The principle of the erection of the agricultural buildings

• 6.2.1 As with any countryside development, there is a presumption against any which would adversely impact the countryside. With this development proposal, which is within the countryside, it must be established if there is sufficient need for the building.
• 6.2.2 The Strategic Plan Environment Policies 1 and 15 are key to the assessment of the acceptability of the principle of erecting the agricultural buildings. General Policy 3 also provides a backdrop to EP15 by restricting development in the countryside other than in exceptional circumstances - the relevant one being operations "essential for the conduct of agriculture." EP15 goes into further detail about the 'agricultural need' for a new building sufficient to outweigh GP3's general presumption against countryside development. It is also vital to note that EP2 would be application given the location of the site within an AHLV.
• 6.2.3 The reasons provided by the applicant are that the buildings would be used to house livestock and increase the size of facilities to house livestock for their farm operations, in addition to providing storage to house bedding and machinery to support their activities. It is also noted that the proposed building would ensure the livestock size on the farm can be increased to sustainable levels. From the information submitted it is evident that the farm is a substantial farm operation and the information submitted would appear to clearly identify a need for a new agricultural building to meet the need of the agricultural business.
• 6.2.4 Whilst it would have been more appropriate for the new buildings to be located at the Cypress site (situated on the south east side of Ballavitchel Road), given that the site already has an established cluster of farms buildings situated within close proximity to the farm dwelling, which would aid management of the farm operations. However, the limited land immediately available to support the stock at this location would make locating the buildings

• here unsustainable. As well, the other site owned by the applicant (Field 314831 on Land Adjoining Cronk Dhoo, Main Road, Greeba) which have serve as an alternative location would not be suitable for the farm buildings for reasons well-articulated in the Inspectors Report for PA 18/00577/B (See Section 4.2.1 above). Besides, the preference for the site above the other fields has been clearly articulated in the supporting information which makes the chosen location a more feasible location for the farm buildings considering there is room for expansion and this is the farm location owned by the applicant with the least potential to impact on the environment and neighbours. Moreover, the application site is within 5 minutes' drive from the main farm yard (Cypress) which would ensure that any stock kept here would be effectively managed.
• 6.2.5 Whilst it is noted that the new farm buildings would not be well-suited to the requirements of EP15 in terms of nearness to the existing building group considering they would be situated about 84m from the nearest building group in the locality, this distance is not considered to be out of character with the area as the existing building groups are well dispersed from each other. Besides, the buildings would be appropriate for the site in terms of scale, materials, colour, siting and form; features which would ensure that the buildings are sympathetic to the landscape. Accordingly, it is considered the justification for the buildings at this location is acceptable and therefore complies with Environment Policy 15 and Environment Policy 2.

6.3 Impact on the character of the countryside

• 6.3.1 The new buildings would be sited to fit within a partly enclosed and secluded section of the site, which would be sufficiently screened by trees and shrubbery, and would not be prominent from the surrounding highways or nearby fields, although there would be views to the site when directly in front of the proposed access and when approaching the site from the north on the U56. As well, its site levelling works around the buildings would ensure that it blends into the landscape and treeline since the land would be re-grassed to reflect the character of the countryside. The buildings will also be sited relatively closer to the building group within the locality (about 84.6m from Ballakelly which are the nearest building group) and will have limited visual impact from its proposed location (due to its proximity to the tree line on the southern and eastern boundary. In this respect, it is considered that the building would fit within the existing layout of the site and would not appear intrusive when viewed from the surrounding countryside; thus complying with EP1 and EP2.
• 6.3.2 The nature of the dwellings and farm clusters around the application site is also considered to be a positive for the location as the separating distance between the properties here are considerably high. A review of the distances show that apart from Little Mount and Glen View (situated by the highway which are 43.8m apart, the separating distance between the other buildings and farm clusters within close proximity to the site are over 100m. Nab Farm to Ballakelly is 131m apart; Ballakelly to Little Mount is 109m apart; Nab Farm to Little Mount is 139.8m apart; Corvonah (and its group of buildings) to Ballakelly is 152m apart; while Corvnah to Glen view is 218m apart. As such, it is considered that the separating distance between the proposed buildings and Ballakelly (the nearest building group) which is about 84.6m is in keeping with the setting.
• 6.3.3 In terms of the siting, design, scale, colour, form and material finishing, it is considered that the proposed buildings would be fitting additions to the field which is purely agricultural. Whilst the timber cladding on the part of the west elevation (which can be viewed from the access) would be well suited to the area, the plastic coated steel sheets which would form a large part of the north and west elevations would be conspicuous, unless they are coloured green to reduce their impact. As such, a condition would be imposed to ensure that plastic coated steel sheets are finished in green colour to enable these elevations blend with the landscape. Accordingly, the proposal in terms of design, finish and siting would comply with the requirements of EP 15.

• 6.3.4 It is also considered that the works would not harm the character and quality of the landscape. This is hinged on the fact that the buildings would be located at a section of the site that would have limited impacts on the general views attainable or the use of the broader site area (field). Moreover, the buildings would be located on Class 3 soils which is described as land with moderate limitations which restrict the choice of crops and/or demand careful management (Paragraph 7.13.1); with limited capacity for agricultural production. As well, the chosen location is considered to be essential considering the limitations created by size of land available at Cypress (the main farm site) and the restrictions with the site at Greeba. The development is therefore considered to comply with Environment Policy 2.

6.4 Environmental Impact

• 6.4.1 In terms of environmental impacts, the key concerns relate mainly to wildlife due to the removal of the sob bank and the level changes on site. However, these impacts are considered to be minimal given that the excavated soils would be used on site with the dislodged biota retained within the broader site area. It is also noted that the displaced sod bank would be reused on site to close up the previous entrance to the site. Whilst it is noted that there could be impacts on lizards as noted by the Ecosystem Policy team, a condition would imposed to ensure that the method of removal of the sod bank to create the new access adheres to the methodology recommended by the Ecosystem Policy Team. The works would also not involve the removal of any tree on site.
• 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 In summary, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of both agricultural need and visual impact and broadly accords with the aforementioned policies of the Strategic Plan. The application is therefore recommended for approval. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
• (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
• (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
• (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

8.2 The decision maker 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 above 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 the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to the it by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.

Decision Made : Permitted Committee Meeting Date: 12.07.2021

Signed : P VISIGAH Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

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.

Planning Committee Decision 12.07.2021

Application No. : 21/00174/B Applicant : George Alfred Moore Proposal : Erection of two agricultural buildings and creation of new field access Site Address : Field 324368 Top Road Crosby Isle Of Man

Planning Officer : Mr Paul Visigah Presenting Officer As above

Addendum to the Officer’s Report

The Planning Committee approved the application at its meeting of 12th July, 2021 subject to the addition of condition 9, to control the straw bedding of the building floors to reduce effluent generation:

"C9: Animal waste management Notwithstanding the submitted plans, the details of the animal waste management scheme including the floor treatment/maintenance (straw bedding of the buildings) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department before any development is commenced and thereafter the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details as approved.

Reason: To ensure that the proposal is permanently provided with satisfactory animal waste management arrangements, so as to avoid unacceptable pollution resulting from animal manures and effluents generated in the buildings."