DEC Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Application No.: 22/00770/B Applicant: Mr Keith Lionel Kinrade Proposal: Erection of stable, feed store and field shelter. Site Address: Field 510788 Old Castletown Road Santon Isle Of Man IM4 1HG Planning Officer: Mr Toby Cowell Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 12.10.2022 _________________________________________________________________ R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons Reasons for Refusal - R 1. Insufficient information has been provided clearly evidencing that the proposed agricultural development is essential and practical for its intended purpose within the countryside, contrary to Spatial Policy 5 and General Policy 3 (f) of the Strategic Plan (2016). - R 2. The development would further result in a degree of harm upon the wider landscape by reason of its footprint, scale and siting in an isolated location away from other buildings. In the absence of reasoned justification for the development, particularly demonstrating that the development would be of overriding national need in land use planning terms for which there is no reasonable acceptable alternative, the proposals do not outweigh the presumption against development in the countryside, and are therefore contrary to General Policy 2 and 3 (g), and Environment Policies 1, 2, 15 and 21 of the Strategic Plan (2016). _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status

Additional Persons

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 no. 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 a 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 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a building for the purposes of providing shelter and storage associated with the keeping of two donkeys. The building would be subdivided into 3 distinct sections:

• o Field shelter - 2.85m x 3.45 m
• o Stable - 2.85m x 3.05m
• o Feed room/barn - 4.75m x 3.45m

2.2 The building would comprise a total width of 10.55m with a maximum depth of 5.05m, comprising a dual pitched roof for the stable and field shelter (ridge height of 2.92m) , and a dual pitched roof for the feed room/barn with the ridge perpendicular to the other (ridge height of 3.87m). - 2.3 The building would be finished in green coloured timber wall cladding, dark green metal sheeting for the roof, a double barn door on the eastern elevation for the feed room/barn and a single barn door for the stable. The field shelter would have an open access. - 2.4 The site has already been subdivided into 2 distinct areas, with a dwarf hedgerow having been planted together with post and wire fencing, as per the plans for the previously refused application discussed further in this report. This is proposed to remain and include access to the lower portion of the site. The proposed stable block/barn would be recessed 17m from the existing field access off Arragon Lane, whilst running parallel to the site's northwestern boundary facing south-eastward. - 2.5 The support letter which was submitted following initial submission of the application states that the development is necessary to provide suitable, safe accommodation for two donkeys, which the applicants have recently agreed to purchase, whilst also providing suitable storage for feed and equipment for the continued maintenance of the land. The letter makes the point that the proposals do not represent a commercial enterprise in any way.

- 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 Planning permission was previously refused in 2021 (PA 21/00211/B) for the siting of a metal container to store agricultural machinery and animal feed with associated hardstanding on a retrospective basis. - 3.2 The application was submitted following an initial enforcement inquiry into the works having been undertaken. The applicant stated in their accompanying support letter that they wished to develop the field into designated areas, which included utilising the lower paddock

• for grazing sheep and potential goats, with the upper paddock to be used as a large vegetable plot, fruit tree nursery, egg production and keeping of bees. The storage container was noted by the applicant as being required to store machinery associated with the fruit/vegetable production, together with a dry storage area for animal feed and potential machinery if required. It is understood the application was submitted on the basis that the activities proposed on site would be for personal use only, and not a commercial enterprise.
• 3.3 The application was subsequently refused based on the lack of justification having been provided to support the storage container, particularly given the small area of land shown to be used for the growing of fruits and vegetables, and the lack of information provided on the size of potential livestock to occupy the vast majority of the site. Moreover, the development was considered to be intrusive and an incongruous feature in the landscape, with the minimal benefits associated with the site's management insufficient to outweigh the visual harm of the development and the Department's fundamental aim to protect the countryside from unwarranted development.
• 3.4 It is understood that the metal container is still in situ and the hardstanding still in place. The supplementary letter with accompanies the present submission describes the site as comprising managed grassland, with a small section set aside for apple trees and a further area for growing vegetables for family use.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY

4.1 The site falls outside of a defined settlement within the countryside and therefore an area not zoned for development within the Area Plan for the East. The site is not within a Conservation Area but falls within an Area of High Landscape Value in accordance with the 1982 Development Plan. - 4.2 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application; Strategic Policy

• 1 Efficient use of land and resources
• 2 Priority for new development to identified towns and villages

5 Design and visual impact Spatial Policy 5 Development only in countryside in accordance with General Policy 3 General Policy 2 General Development Considerations 3 Exceptions to development in the countryside Environment Policy

• 1 Protection of the countryside
• 2 Protection of Areas of High Landscape Value 15 Development of agricultural buildings in the countryside 21 Development for stabling or shelter of animals in the countryside

Transport Policy 4 Highways safety

4.3 In the absence of specific Manx guidance, the 'Code of practice for the welfare of horses, ponies, donkeys and their hybrids' (December 2017) produced by the UK Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) is given material weight in the determination of this application.

- 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Santon Commissioners - no response received at the time of writing. - 5.2 Forestry Officer - no response received at the time of writing. - 5.3 Highway Services stated that they have No Highways Interest in the proposals 15.07.22, whilst further noting that their stance remained unchanged following the submission of the support letter (29.07.22). - 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 applicant has been untruthful on the application form under the section that asks if the applicant has consulted the Department before making the application.
• ii. The applicant has provided misleading information in their 'additional information' statement, particularly by claiming that a 'number of our neighbours have donkeys', without consultant their closest neighbours or giving due consideration to the position and size of the building.
• iii. The applicant has little to no knowledge about keeping donkeys and we are concerned for the welfare of the animals if they were to be kept on this site.
• iv. The application is believed to have been submitted on the basis of comprising a precursor for turning the site into a residential site.
• v. 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, and is not designated for development.
• vi. There is insufficient agricultural justification for a building of this nature and the proposed development would therefore fail to comply with General Policy 3 (f) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
• vii. A structure such as this would adversely affect or harm the countryside and/or landscape and has a design that is out of keeping with the local area.
• viii. Siting of the structure and proximity to a public footpath, impacting wider panoramic views and outlook.
• ix. No determinable difference between this application and Planning Application 21/00211/B and its refusal.

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The site falls within the open countryside and an area not zoned for development within the Area Plan for the East. There is a general presumption again development in the countryside with development to be focussed towards defined settlements in accordance with Spatial Policy 5. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with the exceptions outlined in General Policy 3, one of which includes 'building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry'. - 6.2 Environment Policy 1 advises that the countryside will be protected for its own sake, and development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms. Environment Policy 2 adds that when considering development in Areas of High Landscape Value (AHLV's), the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration, unless it can be shown that the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape, or the location for the development is essential. - 6.3 In accordance with Environment Policy 15, should it be deemed that a need has been presented for a new building in the countryside, then such development should be sited as close as is practically possible to existing building groups and be appropriate in terms of scale,

• materials, colour and siting. Only in exceptional circumstances will buildings be permitted in exposed or isolated areas, or close to public highways.
• 6.4 Furthermore, as it is pertinent to this particular application, Environment Policy 21 states that buildings for the stabling, shelter or care of horses or other animals will not be permitted in the countryside if they would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside in terms of siting, design, size or finish. Any new buildings must be designed in form and materials to reflect their specific purpose.
• 6.5 The application has been submitted on the basis as being necessary for the shelter and care of 2 donkeys which the applicants are intending to purchase. This application follows a previous scheme refused in 2021 for the siting of a metal storage contained in connection with the growing of fruits and vegetables etc. in the upper portion of the site and gazing of sheep and possibly goats in the lower portion. It would appear concept of introducing the latter element has been abandoned in favour of keeping 2 donkeys.
• 6.6 Whilst such proposals would fall within the definition of agriculture (from the Town and Country Planning Act 1999), very limited information has accompanied the application aside from the 'additional information' document which simply states that the building is necessary to provide a field shelter, stabling, a feed store and space for housing machinery which may be required. No information has been provided on the likely machinery required in connection with the keeping of donkeys and/or the site's general maintenance.
• 6.7 Likewise, no information has been provided justifying the size and dimensions of the building evidencing that a building of this design and scale is required to care for 2 donkeys. Indeed, from reviewing the relevance guidance from DEFRA on the keeping or horse, ponies and donkeys, it is evident that the building has not been designed specifically to house donkeys. For example, the stable door is far too high and there is no provision for ventilation in the roof. The following is stated at para. 1.13 in this respect:

"Doors should be a minimum of 1.25m (4ft) wide. The height of the door and roof should allow the horse or pony to look out with the head comfortably over the door in order to be able to express natural behaviours maintained by visual stimulation. It should be noted that a standard height stable door (1.32m, or 4ft 6in) will be too high for a small pony or standard donkey."

6.8 The code also states that there is a need to give the Donkeys access to feed quality straw which will need to be stored. Donkeys require approximately 2.5kgs of roughage a day and the average small bale of straw/hay contains some 20-25kgs. Therefore, if the Donkeys were only to be fed from conserved hay/straw, a bale would last the Donkeys 4 days and 50 bales would be required for a 200 day winter. In reality however, it is presumed the applicant will be proposing to allow the donkey's restricted access to grass and feed half of their requirement as straw in accordance with UK standard practice. If this is the case then 25 bales would be required. A small bale measures approximately 30x40x100 cm, therefore to store the maximum number of bales (50) straw would require 6m3. The proposed storage barn provides roughly 8 times the required space. - 6.9 Given the above assessment of the proposed building in the context of the code of practice, and in light of the limited degree of information accompanying the application, it is difficult to conclude that the proposals in their current form are 'essential' or necessary for their intended purpose. Far more detailed information on the needs/welfare requirements of the animals, together with full justification for the building as proposed (i.e. scale, dimensions etc.), would have been expected for a development of this nature. On balance, the development appears to be excessive in the context of providing shelter, care and storage associated with the keeping of two donkeys, whilst further being impractical in the context of the relevant sections of the abovementioned code of practice. This brings into question

• whether clear thought has been given over to the proposals in the context of their intended use.
• 6.10 Furthermore, the development would be isolated whilst not relating to any other existing buildings or structures, save for an unauthorised metal storage container which is the subject of a live enforcement investigation. Environment Policy 15 states that isolated buildings will only be permitted in the countryside in exceptional circumstances. It is not considered that exceptional circumstances have been evidenced in this case. Indeed, the application relates to an excessive and impractical development for its intended purpose, and for the care of two donkeys which have yet to be purchased by the applicant and residing on the land in question.
• 6.11 From a design perspective, the proposals are clearly more in keeping with their surroundings than the metal container presently in situ (albeit this remains unauthorised), and of a reasonably traditional built vernacular. However, and as noted above, the development would be isolated and, given its footprint and scale, would clearly pose a material impact upon wider landscape views, particularly from the south and the Pubic Right of Way (No. 321) which corresponds with the adjacent highway of Arragon Lane.
• 6.12 The development, by reason of its footprint and siting, would be clearly evident within the wider landscape and therefore pose a degree of harm upon its character and appearance. In the absence of reasoned justification for the siting of a structure of this size in relation to its intended use and clear benefits associated with the development, the proposals are not considered to be essential, and therefore contrary to Environment Policies 1, 2, 15 and 21, and General Policies 2 and 3.

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 Insufficient information has been provided clearly evidencing that the proposed agricultural development is essential and practical for its intended purpose within the countryside. The development would further result in a degree of harm upon the wider landscape by reason of its footprint, scale and siting in an isolated location away from other buildings. In the absence of reasoned justification for the development, particularly demonstrating that the development would be of overriding national need in land use planning terms for which there is no reasonable acceptable alternative, the proposals do not outweigh the presumption against development in the countryside, and are therefore contrary to General Policy 2 and 3 (f) & (g), and Environment Policies 1, 2, 15 and 21 of the Strategic Plan (2016). The application is therefore recommended for refusal. - 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 in Article 6(4) 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: 25.10.2022 Determining officer Signed : J SINGLETON Jason Singleton 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.