Loading document...
The site defined in blue represents a field approximately 0.47ha (1.1 acres) located on the eastern side of Wigan Lane, a narrow public road which runs parallel with the A3 Ballamodha Straight and joins the A3 at a point to the north of the site opposite the A30 Bayrauyr and to the south close to the junction with the A34 Phildraw Road. The site presently accommodates a shed (9m by 14m) with fenced enclosures on the southern side, a caravan and timber cages which accommodate birds, located to the west of the shed. The shed sites in the north western corner of the field with the
remainder of the site open and generally free of structures. A contained has been placed alongside the shed bounding the northern edge of the site, outwith the immediate curtilage of the shed.
The site lies within an area of "white land" on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982, that is, not designated for development.
Permission was refused for the principle of the erection of a dwelling in the field, under PA 88/0306. Permission was then granted on appeal for the erection of the agricultural building under PA 98/0899.
Permission is currently being sought for the retention of the caravan and its use for living accommodation (PA 08/01529).
Proposed here is retrospective approval for the contained which sits alongside the shed. No accurate plans or dimensions of the container are given (the location plan shows a structure which has a footprint of 1 m by 3 m ) but as measured from aerial photography, the container would appear to be 7 m long and 4 m wide and the photograph would appear to indicate that it is around 2 m in height. the container walling is dark green.
Malew Parish Commissioners object to the application on the basis that "it is setting a precedent for the future and there are no facilities".
The occupant of Middlemede objects to the application on the basis that the proposal will result in increased traffic using Wigan Lane, which is narrow.
The occupant of Cly Cur objects to the application on the basis that there is no justification for the structure and it would contravene Strategic Plan Environment Policy 1 and General Policy 3. He also recommends that enforcement action is taken in accordance with General Policy 5.
The owner of Hillcroft objects to the application although no specific material planning reasons are given.
The container would appear to have been in place for some time - five years. A container was referred to in the application for the agricultural building but this was removed in accordance with the condition. The Appeal Inspector notes in his report, summing up the case for the applicant "The proposed barn was needed for lambing...Another small container is currently located on the field and is used to store feed for the ponies. They had written permission for it and want to continue to use it for the same purposes" (paragraph 3). He goes on "Having considered the representations made at the Inquiry and the written submissions, I have concluded that although the proposed building would be large in relation to the area owned by the Appellants, it would not be an incongruous addition in this rural area provided that the colour of the material is carefully chosen and additional planting is undertaken. I consider that the existing yellow container must be removed from the site. The internal arrangements in the barn must be planned to accommodate not only the livestock but also related equipment and feedstuff so that it will be unnecessary to site any other buildings or container's [sic] on the field" (Paragraph 6)
The final decision was an approval, subject, inter alia, to a condition which stated "The existing container and any other temporary accommodation shall be removed before the proposed building is brought into use for any agricultural or other livestock purposes. Notwithstanding any provisions under the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order, no further permanent or temporary structures shall be put on the site except with the benefit of specific planning permission".
The applicant has confirmed that the container has been used for store horse drawn carriages and general storage.
It would appear that the container would be in conflict with the conclusion of the application for the agricultural building, which was approved so that containers of this type could be avoided. As such, the application is recommended for refusal.
The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
Hillcroft is immediately alongside the site and as such should be afforded party status. Middlemede and Cly Cur share the same access lane as the application site and as such, as the container could arguably add more traffic to the lane, should be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 30.09.2008
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1.
The container would represent unwarranted development in an area not designated for development and where an agricultural building has been permitted on the basis that all temporary structures would be removed (PA 98/0899). The structure would as such be contrary to Environment Policy 15 in terms of lack of agricultural justification and the appearance of what is clearly designed as a temporary facility for storage.
I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular No 44/05 (Delegation of Functions to Director of Planning and Building Control)
Decision Made : Refused Date: 3/10/08
Signed: [Handwritten signature] M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
