DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 21/00211/B Applicant: Mr Keith Kinrade Proposal: Siting of a storage container for agricultural machinery and animal feed and creation of associated hard standing (retrospective) Site Address: Field 510788 Old Castletown Road / Off Arragon Lane Santon Isle Of Man IM4 1HG Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 20.04.2021 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. There is insufficient agricultural justification for the siting of the container to outweigh the presumption against development here or enough to exempt the development as having sufficient agricultural need to pass as being essential for the conduct of agriculture. As such, the proposed development would fail to comply with General Policy 3 (f), of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. - R 2. The storage container is situated in an isolated location which would result in the structure appearing visually intrusive within the landscape which would be contrary to Environment Policy 1 and 2 and Environment Policy 15 of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following Government Departments should not be given Interested Person Status on the basis that although they have made written submissions, there comments are that there is no flood risk management interest:

Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Flood Risk Management Division

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following property should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not 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):

Arragon House, Arragon Road, Santon

as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site comprises Field 510788 situated on the north-western side of Arragon Lane which branches off the southern side of the Old Castletown Road. This 1.48 acre field is situated 54.6m southwest of Seafield, a two storey detached property situated at the junction between the Old Castletown Road and Arragon Lane. The field sits to the west of Arragon Lane and is accessed through an existing field gate situated on the northeast section of the site which abuts the lane. The site boundary comprises sod bank and cluster of trees spread across the entire stretch of the boundary, with the sod bank rising to about 1.8m on the boundary with Arragon lane.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The planning application seeks planning approval for the siting of a storage container for agricultural machinery and animal feed and creation of associated hard standing (retrospective). The dark green metal 'shipping' container, measuring 2.44m x 6.10m is placed on blocks and over a hardcore area by the site access on the north-west boundary of the site. - 2.2 The applicant has indicated that the container would serve as agricultural storage unit for agricultural machinery and animal feed. It is also indicated that the land is to be used for growing organic vegetables for personal use only (not commercial). This is built on the desire for self-sufficiency in line with environmental considerations and would involve local production of root crops, planting of a range of fruit trees, together with bee keeping and egg production. The container is sited on blocks as it is not a permanent structure and to minimise environmental impact. - 2.3 The application has provided Supporting information as justification for the development which includes the following:

• i. The desire to self-sufficient in the growth of organic produce
• ii. The intention to graze sheep and potentially goats on the site
• iii. The use of the field to include growth of vegetables, fruit tree nursery, egg production and bee keeping.
• iv. The desire to minimize food miles and associated carbon footprint
• v. Need to secure machinery on site as there was a Loss of agricultural machinery (trailer) in the field to theft in 2013
• vi. Partitioning of the site for the proposed use for growing of crops and livestock into vegetable plot and livestock field.

- 3.0 PLANNING POLICY

3.1 The site lies within an area identified on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as of an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. On the Area Plan for the East, the site is not designated for development and the site is not within a Conservation Area. The site is not within a flood risk area on the Isle of Man Indicative Flood Maps. As such, there is a presumption against development other than where it would accord with other Strategic Plan policies, particularly General Policy 3 which provides guidance on development outside of those areas which are zoned for development. - 3.2 General Policy 3 (In part):

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 which states: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape of Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce difference categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:

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

3.6 Section 7.14 of the Strategic Plan: Horticulture

• 7.14.1 The use of land for horticulture, market gardens or nursery grounds is common on the Island and often found on sites in the urban fringe or free-standing in the countryside. Such uses can contribute to the economic activity of rural areas, but the requirement for buildings and adequate access and parking spaces means that such developments can be intrusive in the countryside. The development and expansion of such sites needs to be carefully managed particularly where there are traffic implications and in order to prevent the proliferation of buildings, which may include growing tunnels and external displays and greenhouses, leading to an adverse impact on the character of such areas.

• 7.14.2 Selling the produce grown in a market garden or a nursery from the site may not constitute development, but retailing other products does, and will be subject to the Department's general retail policies.

3.7 The Area Plan for the East Landscape Character Appraisal provides the following advice for the area in which the application site sits:

Landscape Strategy: Conserve and enhance:

• a) the character, quality and distinctiveness of the area, with its wooded valley bottoms and wooded horizons;
• b) its scattered settlement pattern;
• c) its Victorian garden and the railway.

Key Views Open and expansive views from the higher areas along the rugged coast in the east and inland towards the upland areas over Braaid. Incinerator chimney forms a notable landmark in the immediate area. Glimpsed views framed by vegetation in the valley bottoms and along the main roads where they follow the wooded valley bottoms. Views in the northern part of the area up to the Transmitting Masts on top of Douglas Head hill top. Views from Isle of Man Steam Railway.

Landscape Proposal 7 (Santon) In cases where new development is proposed, applications must demonstrate that it can be suitably integrated into the surrounding landscape setting through reasonable mitigation measures and considering siting, colours, materials, finishes and the general scale.

3.8 Other material considerations

• 3.8.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1999, Section 6, Meaning of Development; "Subject to the following provisions of this section, in this Act "development" means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land".
• 3.8.2 The Town and Country Planning Act 1999, Section 45, defines; "agriculture" includes horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming, the breeding and keeping of livestock (including any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skins or fur, or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land), the use of land as grazing land, meadow land, market gardens and nursery grounds, and the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for other agricultural purposes, and "agricultural" shall be construed accordingly".

- 4.0 PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The application site has not been the subject of any previous planning applications and there are no previous planning applications within the vicinity of the application site that are considered to be materially relevant to the current application. - 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 confirms that they 'Do not oppose' in the letter dated 22 March 2021 with the following additional comment:

After reviewing this Application, Highway Services find it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network efficiency and /or parking.

5.2 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 6 April 2021. - 5.3 Santon Commissioners have not made any representations regarding the application although they were consulted on 2 March 2021. - 5.4 The Owners/occupiers of Arragon House, Arragon Road, Santon, who also own the fields to the south and east of the application site object to the application on the following grounds:

• i. The Application has been misleadingly presented to the Planning Authority as all the neighbours were not consulted before the storage container was placed in the field.
• ii. The Application is actually for an Agricultural Storage Unit for agricultural machinery and animal feed but with conflicting comments as to temporary or permanent.
• iii. A Shipping Container is entirely unsuitable to be considered as a permanent (or Temporary) structure both in terms of Appearance and Design especially in the Open Countryside and which is also within a conservation area.
• iv. Siting of the Container: The shipping Container has been sited within 2 metres of the Eastern boundary of the site adjacent to Arragon Lane in a position that interrupts the view from the road to the wider beautiful landscape of the surrounding open countryside in an incongruous and unacceptable manner. This affects all visitors to, and all residents of, Arragon Lane.
• v. Proximity to a popular Public Footpath.

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The key issues to consider when assessing applications such as this are;

• i) principle of development (TCPA 1999)
• ii) the agricultural need for the proposed (GP3f & EP15)
• iii) impact on the character and quality of the countryside (EP1 & EP2)

6.2 Principle of development

• 6.2.1 The use of containers can provide a temporary solution for storage until a more permanent solution is identified. However, the placement of containers is tightly controlled to avoid proliferation across the Island. Whilst their use has become more common place as they are readily moveable with the right machinery, when placed 'on' the ground, they are technically deemed as 'structure' and by virtue of the definition of development under the Town and Country Planning Act 1999, planning consent is require for their retention. It is also noted that there is currently no permitted development rights for the temporary or permanent placement of containers on land in the Island.
• 6.2.2 It is also considered that the use of land comes within the definition of agriculture as set out in section 45 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999, which considers agriculture to include horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, … market gardens and nursery grounds,…; activities which reflect some of the proposed undertakings to be carried out on the field.
• 6.3 Agricultural justification

• 6.3.1 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.
• 6.3.2 The applicant has provided justification in their written submission supported by a well annotated site plan indicating the proposed used of the site, which shows a clear subdivision of

• the site and the use of the various sections which they consider to be a feasible form of agriculture. There is also supporting information showing the various uses of the storage container which falls within the acceptable use for buildings setup in support of agriculture. It is also considered that these elements of the proposal accords with the guidelines stipulated in Section 7.14 of the Strategic Plan on Horticulture and EP 15.
• 6.3.3 As well, the size of the land which is only 1.48 acres is also considered to be suitable for predominant horticulture use (which part 9 of the application form describes as the predominant activity) since it does not require large land expanse to function but smallholdings. Besides its location within Capability Class 3/4 land which can be summarised as land with moderate limitations which restrict the choice of crops and/or demand careful management will ensure that the proposed use, which is intensive, would be appropriate for the field.
• 6.3.4 The challenge however lies in the fact that over 80 percent of the site has been allocated to the use as livestock field with only 0.26acres (1,050.9sqm) which makes up less than 20 percent allocated to the growth of vegetables and fruit nursery, as well as egg production and bee keeping. This site allocation puts a question mark on the key intention of the scheme as it appears the scheme is not predominantly horticulture as described in Section

• 9 of the application form which indicates the following; "the land would be used for growing organic vegetables for personal use. Desire for self-sufficiency in line with environmental considerations - local production of root crops, planting of range of fruit trees, together with bee keeping and egg production". The keeping of livestock is only mentioned in detail on the supporting information and as such should be a supplementary activity to support the horticulture activity on the farm. However, the site allocation indicates this is the major activity and as such it would be difficult to assess the main activity as horticulture which the application describes as the key use of the field. Besides, there is no information provided on size of livestock for which the majority of the land has been allocated. The size of the land allocated to horticulture also cast doubts on the sustainability of the scheme as it would be difficult to justify how only 0.26 acres (an area which is no larger than a plot 30m x 35m) would support the storage container and hardstanding area, root crops, fruit trees, bee keeping and egg production, even with over intensification of the allocated field area. As such, it is considered that the conflicts in the information provided makes it difficult to provide a clear justification for the scheme.

6.4 Impact on the surrounding countryside

• 6.4.1 In terms of impact on the countryside, it is noted that the proposed container would be located only about 2m from Arragon Lane (a private lane) which is the primary access to the properties south of the site and as such would be a prominent feature on the landscape. Whilst it is noted that the lane is private and that the storage container would be about 113m from the Old Castletown Road where no views can be obtainable, the abutting lane is the key access to the properties to the south and as such is a prominent route for these neighbours. Besides, the position of the storage container makes it an obtrusive feature as you enter the lane given its position by the site access and at a position where the surrounding vegetation offers no form of screening for the structure.
• 6.4.2 Similarly, the nature of the topography in the area which offers clear views over long distances and from high points within the neighbouring fields makes this isolated structure, out of keeping within the open nature of the countryside as it can be viewed from many of the surrounding fields. Granting the green colour would help to mask its appearance, the boxed nature which is not a common form for structures in the countryside would make it appear obtrusive (as the surrounding landscaping would not be sufficient to conceal its appearance). As such, it is considered that its presence would have a detrimental visual impact on the countryside and that of the AHLV, as it would stand out as an incongruous feature, much to the detriment of the character and quality of the countryside, contrary to EP 1 and 2.

• 6.4.3 Overall, it is considered that any incidental benefit to the management of the land would carry very little weight in comparison with the level of harm that the presence of a container would do to the fundamental aims to protect the countryside from unwarranted development, as defined in EP1&2.

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 For the above reasons, It is considered the container given the insufficient justification for agricultural need, the isolated position within the countryside and being apparent from public views would result in a detrimental visual impact and harm the character and quality of the landscape contrary to General Policy 3; Environment Policy 1, 2, & 15 of the IOM Strategic Plan. - 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

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 and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.

Decision Made : Refused Date: 22.04.2021 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.