Officer Planning Report

Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:121558}} {{table:121559}} {{table:121560}} {{table:121561}} ### Considerations {{table:121562}} ### Written Representations ### Consultations

Officer's Report

Description Of Application Site

• The application site is an agricultural field situated on the southern side of the Jurby Road.
• The site is surrounded by agricultural fields.
• The site is within an area not zoned for development.
• There are substantial trees and shrubs along the northern and eastern boundaries of the application site.
• The site can be accessed via a field gate located on the northern boundary of the applications site.

Proposal

• The proposal is to erect an agricultural building.
• The building will be 13.8m in length and 9.1m in width.

• The height of the building will be 4.3m to the ridge.
• The roofing and part of the facing of the building will have box profile plastisol coated metal sheets.

Relevant Planning History

• 04/00639/A – Approval in principle for the erection of an agricultural workers retirement dwelling – refused at appeal on 11.1.05

Development Plan Policies

• Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan Order) 1982
• The site is within an area not zoned for development
• Isle of Man Strategic Plan (Modified Draft) 2004; GP2, EP18

Statutory Consultation Responses

• Jurby Parish Commissioner – have no objections to the proposal
• Highways Division of the DoT have made no comments in relation to the application

Public Responses

• Press notices were posted on 20/12/05
• Representations have been received from SPMCE. They have the made the following comments:
• This claims to be associated with Farrants Fort from an agricultural viewpoint. However, it seems to be well known locally that Farrants Fort is no longer a working farm, but rather concentrating on alternative functions. How can there be an agricultural need for this building?
• An agricultural workers dwelling seems to have been approved here (04/0639) but its location is not shown on the submitted drawings.
• It is all rather confusing and as it involves a new building in the countryside, the society must object, pending an further information forthcoming.

Issues

• The applicants are wishing to erect a secure building for animal foodstuffs, tractors and machinery for agricultural purposes. The applicants claim that suburban bungalows do not have suitable storage for their needs and feel that one shed would be preferable to several barns on this site.
• However, the applicants do not live in a suburban property. Their current residency is at Farrants Fort which is 400m away to the North West of the application site.
• The building is located in an isolated position. The general policy is that new agricultural buildings should be built next to an existing group of buildings. Strictly speaking, the proposed building should be located within the existing group of buildings at Farrants Fort.
• The proposed agricultural building would be partially visible from the public highway of the A13 due to the gaps within the existing strip of landscaping running along the eastern boundary of the site and from the access gate into the application site. Furthermore, the proposed building is not within an existing group of buildings which also exacerbates the impact on the visual amenities of the locality. If a new agricultural building is needed it should be located within the existing group of outbuildings on the site. I therefore consider the proposal would impact on the visual amenities of the locality when viewed from the public highway.
• I consider the proposed location is inappropriate and amounts to sporadic development in the countryside.
• Furthermore, the applicant has not provided any evidence to demonstrate why other buildings within the complex are unsuitable for the proposed purposes. I therefore consider this proposal is not sufficient in information and would be inappropriate to approve this application.

Conclusion

I therefore recommend that permission be refused for the above reasons.

Party Status

I consider that the following should be granted party status due to them being a Statutory Consultee:

• Jurby Parish Commissioners
• The Department of Transport Highways Division.

I consider that the following do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded interested party status:

- SMPCE;

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 02.05.2006

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: Notes attached to refusals

R 1.

The proposed building would by reason of its height, siting, massing and design introduce a prominent and incongruous feature into the landscape, which would cause demonstrable harm to the openness and character of the countryside and would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality. Furthermore, the applicant has not demonstrated that there is sufficient need to justify an excessively large building within the countryside to the detriment of the visual amenities of the locality.

R 2.

The applicant has not provided any evidence to demonstrate why other outbuildings within Farrants Fort are unsuitable for the proposed uses and therefore it would be inappropriate to allow a new building without first considering this information.

I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular Nos 44/05 (Delegation of Functions to Director of Planning and Building Control) and 47/05 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer)

Signed : M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control