Appendix 12

Derry City and Strabane District Council Planning Committee Report

COMMITTEE DATE: 8th March 2017

APPLICATION No: LA11/2015/0504/F

APPLICATION TYPE: Full Application

PROPOSAL: New agricultural shed for existing farm business

LOCATION: Adjacent to 15 Edenreagh Road, Eglinton, BT47 3AS

APPLICANT: Leonard Curry, 19 Edenreagh Road, Eglinton, BT47 3AS

AGENT: M R Jess Ltd, 1 Jordanstown Road, Newtownabbey, BT37 0QD

ADVERTISEMENT: 23.09.2015, 20.01.2016

STATUTORY EXPIRY: 15.09.2015, 14.01.2016

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE

REASON FOR PRESENTATION TO COMMITTEE: Recommendation to Refuse

All planning application forms, drawings, consultations, letters, representations etc. relating to this planning application are available to view on www.planningni.gov.uk

1. Description of Proposed Development

The proposed development is for the erection of an agricultural shed in the south west corner of

the site with an adjacent hard standing area for the storage of bales and a parking and turning

area. The shed will house three livestock pens and a pallet/feed store. It will be 4m high with a

footprint of 50 sqm and will be finished in green corrugated tin sheeting.

2. EIA Determination

The development does not fall within the scope of the types of the agricultural development

identified in Schedule 2 - 1 of the Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (NI)

2015 and as such does not need to have an EIA determination carried out.

Appendix 12

3. Site and Surrounding Area

The application site is an approx. 0.5 ha parcel of land located on Edenreagh Road. The western

portion of the site comprises a yard used for the storage of vehicles associated with the applicant’s

commercial business at 13 Edenreagh Road. The remainder of the site comprises a small paddock

with an access lane running through the east and northern portions of the site to the storage yard.

There is a chicken house adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site and there are small trailers

along the northern boundary use for storing wood. The land within the site slopes up from the

road in a westerly direction. The site is served by an existing access off Edenreagh Road. The

northern site boundary with No. 15 and the roadside boundary of the site is defined by trees. The

south and west boundaries of the site are defined by hedge and the storage yard is separated

from the paddock by hedge also.

The site is approx. 1 km North West of the settlement of Tamnaherin. It is located adjacent and

to the south of the detached dwellings at 15 and 17 Edenreagh Road and south of the applicants

dwelling and car breakdown and repair business at 13 Edenreagh Road. The surrounding land to

the south, east and west are agricultural fields.

Figure 1 : Aerial photo of application site

Appendix 12

Figure 2 : Site Location Plan

4. Site Constraints

No relevant site constraints

5. Neighbour Notifications

Neighbour Address Date Neighbour Notified15 Edenreagh Road Edenreagh More Eglinton Londonderry BT47 3AS

28/09/201508/01/201607/10/2016

17 Edenreagh RoadEdenreagh MoreEglintonLondonderryBT47 3AS

28/09/201507/10/2016

Appendix 12

6. Relevant Site History

A/2013/0224/F Permission Granted 05.12.2013

Proposed vehicle storage compound of 780sq m to provide temporary secure storage for

recovered vehicles, relocation of existing palisade fence and gates, proposed landscaping,

improved visibility splays and proposed restrictions on hours of operation at lands adjacent to No

15 Edenreagh Road, Eglinton, as an off-site expansion of the established vehicle repair workshop

& specialist recovery services business at 13 Edenreagh Road, Eglinton

A/2013/0456/F Permission Refused 08.10.2014 Appeal Dismissed 17.04.2015

Retention of shed type structure for agricultural storage

A/2010/0620/F Permission Refused 16.03.2012

Retention of existing change of use from agricultural field to vehicle storage area to

serve/associated with adjoining business premises

A/2010/0614/F Permission Refused 16.03.2012

Proposed retention of existing open sided shelter/store for use as fuel storage area (firewood)

associated with dwelling at No 13 Edenreagh Road

Enforcement History

A/2010/0122CA Open sided structure & hard standing Planning application received

A/2010/0124CA Storage yard Case closed 06.01.2014

LA11/2015/0019/CA Case closed 08.06.2015

Alleged non-compliance with conditions of approval A/2013/0224/F

7. Policy Framework

Derry Area Plan 2011

Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland

Planning Policy Statement 3: Access, Movement and Parking

Planning Policy Statement 21: Sustainable Development in the Countryside

8. Consultee Responses

DARD NI confirm the Farm Business ID has not been in existence for more than 6 years and Single Farm Payment (SPF) has not been received within the last 6 years.

Appendix 12

Environmental Health have no objection to the proposal provided arrangements in relation to storage and disposal of animal waste are adhered to.

Transport NI requested a detailed topographical site access survey to show works necessary to provide the 2.0m x 62.0m visibility splays

9. Representations Consideration

5 objection letters were received in relation to this planning application. 4 of these were from the

neighbouring property 15 Edenreagh Road and 1 letter was from 17 Edenreagh Road. No. 15

raised a number of queries in relation to the processing of the application and arrangements for

in-office meetings and Council committee meetings, which were responded to directly by

telephone on 11.01.2016. The objection letters also raised the following matters of concern:

Applicant has only had a DARD number since September 2013 and is depending on the

Commissioner’s comments of the previous appeal to prove the farm holding has been

established at least 6 years

Applicant states on the P1C Form that he submits a SFP but this has been discontinued

according to DARD

Does the applicant have a herd number and do the Council contact DARD to seek

confirmation/evidence

How much livestock does the applicant have

What is the need for the shed

How will foul sewerage will be disposed of

There are no farm buildings or dwellings on the site

Objects to more landscaping that will affect light into garden of No.15 as the applicant has

already erected a fence which is higher than the boundary hedge with her property.

Site location plan shows a public right of way which does not exist over No. 17’s property

Alterations to the existing access (as stated on Q15 of the P1 Form) not shown on the plans

Proposal will have a traffic and environmental impact on the neighbourhood

The objector highlighted that the original site address No. 19 was incorrect, this was subsequently

amended to ‘adjacent to 15 Edenreagh Road’ and neighbours/objectors were re-notified of this

amendment on 18.01.2016 and the application was re-advertised on 20.01.2016.

Appendix 12

All other issues raised in relation to the access, traffic, rights of way, farm business, farming

details, sewerage, landscaping etc. are considered in my assessment below.

10. Planning Assessment and Other Material Considerations

Section 6 (4) of The Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 requires the Council to make planning

decisions in accordance with the local development plan, unless material considerations indicate

otherwise. The site is located within open countryside as defined in Map 1 of the Derry Area Plan

2011. This proposal has therefore been assessed against the policy framework listed in paragraph

7 and all other material considerations including consultation responses, representations and

relevant planning history.

Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland

There is no conflict or change in policy direction between the provisions of the SPPS and those of

PPS 21. PPS 21 therefore remains the applicable policy context under which to consider the

proposed development.

The SPPS supersedes PPS 1 General Principles, however the guiding principle of what PPS 1 aimed

to achieve in terms of public interest is supported through the SPPS; in particular, paragraphs 2.3

and 5.72. The impact of the proposal on the surrounding land uses and buildings has been

considered under criteria (e) of CTY 12 below.

PPS 21: Sustainable Development in the Countryside

Policy CTY 1 of PPS 21 permits agricultural development in the countryside in accordance with

Policy CTY 12. Policy CTY 12 indicates that planning permission will be granted for development

on an active and established agricultural holding where it is demonstrated that it complies with

criteria (a) - (e).

Active & Established Farm Holding

The starting point for making an assessment under Policy CTY 12 is establishing whether there is

an active and established agricultural holding. Paragraph 5.56 of PPS 21 advises that for the

purposes of this policy, the determining criteria for an active and established business will be that

set out under Policy CTY 10. Criterion (a) of CTY 10 refers to a farm business being currently active

and having been established for at least 6 years. The amplification text states that the applicant

Appendix 12

will therefore be required to provide the farms DARD business ID number along with other

evidence to prove active farming. Paragraph 5.39 states what agricultural activity refers to for the

purposes of this policy, which includes maintaining land in good agricultural and environmental

condition.

The application site incorporates the total of the land identified on the submitted farm map

comprising one parcel of land. DARD advised that the Farm Business ID was allocated on

02.09.2013. It has not been in existence for more than 6 years and Single Farm Payment has not

been received within the last 6 years. The applicant advises that, since its purchase in 2002,

farming activity on his holding includes ploughing and planting land with potatoes every year,

keeping a flock of hens producing free range eggs, keeping a flock of sheep for lamb production,

cutting silage, cutting and harvesting turf, tree/hedge and general land maintenance, land

improvement including drainage etc. Evidence submitted by the applicant to prove active farming

includes:

Invoices from D&M Farm Services (February 2010 - December 2012)

Invoices from John McDevitt Tractor & Machinery Spares (June 2013)

Invoices from C&T Tractors (July 2013)

Letter from Chambers confirming they will stock their hay/straw (May 2014)

Andres Witherow Fencing (December 2014)

Invoices from Chambers (May / July 2016)

Insurance renewal invoice tractor insurance (December 2015 & July 2016)

Letter from C McFarland stating he trimmed & maintained hedges for several years

Letter from Station Restaurant advising applicant supplied them with vegetables & eggs until

they retired in 2008

Letter from Cowan Bros (March 2012) stating the applicant has been involved in farming &

they supplied them for several years

Letter from Len Curry (November 2013) stating that he carried out soil testing for 9 years

Solicitors letter (June 2014) stating he purchased 2 acres of land adjacent to farm

Letter Morris Curry, 40 Ervey Rd (May 2015) stating the applicant correctly renting 15 acres

from him

The applicant has also made reference to a previous planning appeal on this site (2014/A0136 -

A/2013/0456/F) in which the Commissioner accepted that the farm holding was currently active,

given support from the Ulster Farmers Union, and that the holding was established for at least 6

years, based on invoices submitted indicating that the applicant had maintained the land in good

Appendix 12

agricultural and environmental condition. Whilst the majority of the invoices submitted with this

application, and those which were the subject of the appeal, do not make any specific reference

to this particular farm business, it would be difficult to sustain a refusal on this basis given that

the Planning Appeals Commission have accepted that the farm business as active and established.

In this respect it must therefore be accepted that the proposal meets the initial test set out in

CTY 12.

Criteria (a) necessary for the efficient use of the holding

The submitted farm maps dated 17.08.2015 indicate that the holding comprises one small field

(0.24 ha) which is the application site, within which the farm building is proposed. The applicant

has indicated on the site location plan that part of the adjacent field (0.6 ha) is within his

ownership. He submitted an email from his solicitor dated 29.01.2015 confirming that he

purchased these lands on 28.10.2014 and a letter from DARD dated 28.09.2015 acknowledging

receipt of the applicants request to include additional lands to the farm business. The applicant

has also submitted a letter which states he currently rents 15 acres of land from Morris Curry of

40 Ervey Road. The applicant was asked to provide accurate and up-to-date farm maps which

include these additional lands within his farm holding, but this information was not provided.

Figure 3: DARD Farm Maps

Appendix 12

The applicant has not specifically stipulated the intended use of the building, on the plans it is

noted for livestock use and dry storage of feed. The applicant advised in June 2016 that livestock

on the holding comprises 30 sheep and 40 chickens. The applicants Flock Number was allocated

4 November 2014 and the applicant has submitted flock movement records to demonstrate a

stock of animals on the farm and the necessity for the farm building. However, I note that the

submitted flock movement records show that 46 sheep were bought in various transactions

between February and October 2015 and following this 34 sheep were sold between then and

April 2016. According to the submitted documentation, there does not appear to have been any

sheep purchased in connection with this flock since October 2015. Despite the applicants letter

dated 20 June 2016 stating that livestock on the holding comprised 30 sheep, DARD confirmed

on 23 June 2016 that there were no animals under the flock number, at that time. Given that

there does not appear to be any sheep currently associated with the applicants flock number, it

can be concluded that the proposal is not necessary for the efficient running of the agricultural

holding given the small scale nature of the farming enterprise and is contrary to criteria (a) of CTY

12.

The plans for the proposed shed indicate three livestock pens and a pallet/feed store internally.

However, the design of the building does not lend itself to its function of housing livestock. There

is no ventilation, no slurry tank and no means for internal run off or collecting of animal waste.

The building could not function to house livestock.

Overall, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed building is necessary for the efficient

use of the farm holding given that the business does not appear to have any substantial livestock

associated with it, other than the chickens which are housed within the existing chicken pen on

this site. The design of the building does not lend itself to housing livestock. In addition, the

extent of the total farm holding comprises only 0.24 ha according to the submitted farm maps

dated 2015 as no up-to-date farm maps have been provided to include the additional lands which

the applicant is laying claim to. Furthermore, if a farm building is constructed on this parcel of

land and the yard laid out as per the submitted site plan, this would develop the only land

remaining that could be farmed. As such, the proposal fails to comply with criteria (a) of CTY 12.

Criteria (b) character and scale appropriate to the location

The proposed shed will measure 10m x 5m with a ridge height of 4.2m. It will have a footprint of

50 sqm, which is relatively small for a building of its nature. The design and materials are fairly

typical of modern agricultural buildings. It will be constructed in green corrugated tin sheeting

Appendix 12

with a painted block plinth. The building will have a large roller shutter door to the front onto the

yard and two smaller shutter doors to the rear onto the adjacent field. The scale and character of

the building is therefore appropriate to this area of countryside in compliance with criteria (b) of

CTY 12.

Figure 4: Proposed Floor Plan & Elevations

Criteria (c) visually integrates into landscape and additional landscaping provided as necessary

It is proposed that the building will be sited on the south west corner of the site which sits at a

higher level above the road. The south west boundary with the adjacent field is defined by a

hedge and trees. The site will be visible for a short distance when approaching from the south

along Edenreagh Road, however I consider that the proposed shed will not appear overly

prominent on this site given the low ridge of the building and the intervening vegetation which

will assist in screening the building. The site will also be visible from Tamnaherin Road around the

junction with Brockagh Road across the valley to the east, however these are long range views

along this busy road and from this vantage point the site would benefit from surrounding

vegetation and would not appear visually prominent in the landscape. In this respect, I consider

that the proposal will integrate into the surrounding landscape in accordance with criteria (c) of

CTY 12 and also in accordance with CTY 13 and CTY 14 of PPS 21.

Appendix 12

Figure 5: View of site approaching from south along Edenreagh Road

Figure 6: Long distance view of site from Tamnaherin Road across the valley

No additional landscaping is considered necessary, however the applicant has provided details of

new planting on the submitted site layout. This scheme indicates that existing mature vegetation

to all site boundaries shall be maintained and augmented with new hawthorn hedge in any gaps

and shows that new trees will be planted on the northern portion of the site with No. 15. No. 15

has objected to the provision of additional landscaping which will affect light into garden of their

property. With regards to this matter, regardless of what has been indicated on the submitted

Appendix 12

plans, the Council have no control over the planting of trees or any other vegetation within the

site as this would not require planning permission.

Criteria (d) impact on natural or built heritage

There are no natural or built heritage features in the area that will be affected by the proposed

shed. The proposal therefore complies with criteria (d) of CTY 12.

Criteria (e) impact on residential amenity of dwellings outside the holding

Criteria (e) of the policy asks the applicant to demonstrate the development will not result in

detrimental impact on the amenity of residential properties outside the holding including

problems arising from noise, odour and pollution.

The objector at No. 15 queried the means of disposal of animal waste from the proposed shed.

The applicant has advised that no slurry tank will be provided within the shed. Environmental

Health asked the applicant to clarify how he intended to manage the storage and removal of

animal waste from the site and also sought clarification with regards to the use of the proposed

hard standing. Subsequently, the applicant advised that no manure will be stored outside on the

hard standing area but will be spread onto land used for growing potatoes, which can be assumed

to be the potato drills to the north of the shed as identified on the submitted site layout.

The applicant originally proposed to provide a hard standing for storing bales and for parking and

turning adjacent to the boundary with the rear garden of No. 15. However, following receipt of

objections from this property and the issues raised by Environmental Health, this hard standing

area was relocated adjacent to the proposed shed, moving it 60 metres away from the private

amenity space of No. 15. I am satisfied that the additional information and revised layout

provided by the applicant addresses any issues in relation to odour or noise emanating from the

development. Following submission of this information, Environmental Health have no objections

provided that the arrangements for the storage and disposal of animal waste are adhered to. The

proposal will not result in a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of nearby unconnected

dwellings in accordance with criteria (e) of CTY 12.

Appendix 12

Figure 7: Site Layout

Policy CTY 12 then goes on to say that in cases where new buildings are proposed the applicant

will need to provide information to confirm;

- there are no suitable existing buildings on the holding;

- the design and materials to be used are sympathetic to the locality and adjacent buildings; and

- the proposal is sited beside existing farm buildings

There are no existing farm buildings on this holding. The buildings to the north of the application

site at 13 Edenreagh Road are commercial buildings associated with the applicant’s business

enterprise which are not located on the farm holding. They are currently used in connection with

the business. The design and finishes of the proposed building are typical of modern agricultural

buildings and are sympathetic to the locality as detailed in criteria (b) above. There are no existing

buildings on the holding, therefore the proposal is not sited beside existing farm buildings and

does not meet this part of the policy.

Appendix 12

The policy goes on to state that exceptionally consideration may be given to a site away from the

existing farm provided there are no other sites available at another group of buildings on the

holding, and where;

-it is essential for the efficient functioning of the business; or

-there are demonstrable health and safety reasons.

I am not satisfied that the proposed shed is necessary for the efficient function of the farm holding,

as detailed in criteria (a) above and the applicant has not cited any health and safety reasons for

siting at this location. It is therefore considered that the exceptional test within CTY 12 is not met.

Planning Policy Statement 3: Access, Movement & Parking

At the previous appeal for the retention for a farm building on this site, the PAC determined that

visibility splays of 2.0m x 62.0m should be applied to this site access. Transport NI requested a

detailed topographical site access survey to show the works necessary to provide the 2.0m x

62.0m visibility splays. Transport NI point out that this will require the application site to be

extended into lands not indicated as being within the ownership of the applicant. The extent of

the existing splays are 2.0m x 21.0m to the south west and 2.0m x 36.0 to the north east. The

provision of the splays to the south west will require the lowering of 15m of verge and graded

embankment to the existing field level. The provision of the splays to the north east will require

25m of embankment to be cut back and graded to the existing field level, 25m of hedging to be

removed and a telegraph pole to be relocated/removed. The applicant has not submitted the

necessary information to demonstrate that the visibility splays can be achieved in order to provide

a safe access to the site. The proposal is therefore contrary to AMP 2 of PPS 3.

With regards to the public right of way shown on the site location plan which has been contested

by both objectors, the right of way has no bearing on this application as the applicant proposes to

access via the existing access onto Edenreagh Road. The ownership of these lands is a civil matter

between the applicant and the owner of No. 17.

11. Conclusion and Recommendation

Appendix 12

Having considered all material considerations, including the development plan, relevant planning

policies, planning history of the site, consultations an all issues raised in the objections, refusal is

recommended for the reasons below.

12. Refusal Reason

1. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY 1 of Planning Policy Statement 21 in that

there are no overriding reasons why this development is essential in this rural location.

2. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY 12 of PPS 21 in that it has not been

demonstrated that the proposed building is necessary for the efficient use of the agricultural

holding.

3. The proposal is contrary to Policy AMP 2 of PPS 3 in that the applicant has failed to

demonstrate that adequate visibility splays of 2.0m x 62.0m for the proposed development.