DEC Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Application No.: 22/01392/B Applicant: Mrs Brenda Carter Proposal: Erection of an agricultural building Site Address: Field 425009 Ballafodda Farm Ronague Road Ballabeg Arbory Isle Of Man Planning Officer: Mrs Vanessa Porter Photo Taken: 09.01.2023 Site Visit: 09.01.2023 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 09.01.2023 _________________________________________________________________ R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons Reasons for Refusal - R 1. There is no overriding need for the proposed building, as has been assessed in the preceding sections of this report. No exceptions can be justified within the submission, as required by General Policy 3, and there is a conflict in the information provided for the proposed building. - R 2. There is insufficient justification for the proposed building to warrant setting aside the presumption against development outside areas zoned for development. Furthermore, the proposed size, materials and exposed isolated position within the countryside is not considered appropriate and would harm the character and quality of the landscape and as such contrary to General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 & 15. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status

Additional Persons None _____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report THE APPLICATION SITE

1.1 The application site is field 425009, which is a separate field adjacent to Ronague Road, Ballabeg. The field is accessed via a farm gate to the South of the site and due to the location of the field it is situated at a higher level than the dwelling. THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The current planning application seeks approval for the erection of an agricultural barn measuring approximately 19.1m by 12.192m with an overall height of 5.365m. There are proposed 8 rooflights to the structure, of which whilst not provided the structures materials look to be brickwork to the lower half and steelwork to the upper half and roof.

2.2 The internals of the barn is, to the front where the roller door is, there is proposed a workshop, log store, storage for 5 quadbikes and 4 motorbikes, two tractors and a topper, with there being two "rooms" behind, the first is for hay and animal feed store and the second is for a like stock area. PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 There are no previous Planning Applications associated with the application site. PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as "not for development" on the 1982 Development Plan, North Map. The site is not within a Conservation Area, Flood Zone, nor an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.

4.2 Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider General Policy 3 (f) which sets out exceptions to development in the countryside including operations essential for conduct of agriculture, Environment Policy 1 which seeks to protect the countryside from unwarranted development and Environment Policy 15 which outline the general design criteria for agricultural buildings. - 4.3 The Town and Country Planning Act 1999 states "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." REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 The following representations can be viewed online in full;

5.2 Highway Services have considered the application and have no highways interest. (17.11.22 - 5.3 Arbory and Rushen Commissioners have objected to the proposal. (21.11.22) ASSESSMENT

6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application is its principle

- 6.2 PRINCIPLE

• 6.2.1 When looking at the principle of agriculture in applications such as this where there is a proposed new agricultural development within the countryside, it is necessary to assess

• whether the principle of the development prior to any other material matter is acceptable, with the starting point for this development being General Policy 3(f) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
• 6.2.2 This policy states that development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of those buildings which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry.
• 6.2.3 The justification given for the proposed barn is "Ballafodda Farm is situated in approximately 18 acres of land. It is currently used for grazing livestock and poultry. Various crops are grown all year round and in order for us to expand and diversify our farm we really do have a need for a more larger modern building."
• 6.2.4 The above statement is in contradiction with the information provided, firstly whilst the information provided states that the barn is in a very poor condition, no details have been provided to prove this. Secondly the proposed barn is not suitable for the purpose of agriculture. Whilst it could be stated that the internal layout of a structure is not relevant when it comes to planning, when looking at the proposal we can see first that there is a large part of the barn which is for the storage of "agricultural" items, of which 18 acres do not require 5 quadbikes and four motorbikes as a necessity to function. It is also unsure on what the work shop area is to be used for.
• 6.2.5 Turning towards the other half of the proposed barn, where the proposed hay /animal feed store and live stock area is situated. This is the most confusing part of this application. The proposed live stock area is situated to the rear of the barn and highly unustable due to having to go through the roller door, then the hay and animal feed store to get to the livestock area and you have to hope that the livestock will fit through an ordinary door width as that is the only way to access this area and whilst it is stated that there will be ventilation areas, none have been shown on the plans.
• 6.2.6 There is also the question of the livestock, whilst there is generally a chicken and egg situation when it comes to agricultural need and agricultural buildings, and whilst it is not necessarily a direct reason for refusal, without an established operation in place it can often be difficult to demonstrate the need for a building. Throughout all the information given, whilst it is stated they have sheep and cows, no information has been provided on the quantity of these grazing animals, or proposed quality and as such it is hard to assess whether there is a need from this point of view.
• 6.2.7 Having discussed this application with the DEFA Head of Agriculture, it is understood that the site is on the ADS scheme but the name upon the ADS scheme is neither name given by the applicant nor her son and once again whilst this isn't a direct reasoning for a refusal, it does not correspond with the proposal.
• 6.2.8 Often agricultural enterprises are the sole income of farmers and their livelihood is heavily dependent on their continued and efficient operation. The bigger and more established the farming operation the easier it's likely to be to demonstrate an agricultural need for a new building to continue the farming operation. This is not to say that smaller farm holdings or start up hobby farms should be discouraged as these can also help contribute to local economy and sustainability, but rather that their agricultural justification is proportionate to the size of the operation and that they can provide detailed evidence to support the need for any building.
• 6.2.9 The risk is that any ad hoc decisions taken on agricultural buildings without sufficient justification of need could lead to a proliferation of unwarranted large permanent buildings across the countryside which may become obsolete if the intended farming operation had not materialised as expected.

• 6.2.10 It is increasingly apparent from the information provided that there is not sufficient justification or evidence or need has been demonstrated for a building of this size and footprint within this location for agricultural purposes.
• 6.2.11 Lastly turning towards the proposed character and appearance of the proposal upon the streetscene, the proposal suggests that there is to be works to the front of the site to facilitate a hardstanding area and that some soil would be proposed to be removed. No details have been provided regarding site levels nor the hardstanding area, both of which would require Planning Permission, it was deemed that due to the other issues with regards to this application that requesting this information and delaying the inventible would be unacceptable.
• 6.2.12 The location of the building whilst still within the structures on site is in an isolated position and would due to the roadway between the buildings would be read as being separate from any other parts of the holding. Whilst the applicants have outlined why the site was chosen, no details have been provided on why the proposal could not be located near the existing stone barn on site, whilst this is the case as stated previously, this is not enough justification to require an additional structure and ideally, a building should be located where existing structures are to limit the impact of the proposal. There are concerns that the building is in isolated position and again contrary to EP 1 & 21. CONCLUSION

7.1 On balance, there is no overriding need for the proposed building, as has been assessed in the preceding sections of this report, no exceptions can be justified within the submission, with there being a conflict in the information provided, for the proposed building as required by General Policy 3.

7.2 With the above reasons, the application is recommended for refusal as the Department is not satisfied that there is sufficient justification for the proposed building to warrant setting aside the presumption against development outside areas zoned for development. Furthermore, the proposed size, materials and exposed isolated position within the countryside is not considered appropriate and would harm the character and quality of the landscape.

7.3 As such, the proposal is concluded to represent unwarranted development that is detrimental to the amenity of the countryside contrary to the provision of General Policy 3(g) and Environment Policies 1 and 15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. 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: 20.01.2023 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.