Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
20/00424/B Page 1 of 8
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 20/00424/B Applicant : Mr Philip & Mrs Hilary Ridgway Proposal : Erection of a chicken coop with three associated pens and bee hives with associated hedging Site Address : Field 224318 Glen Road Ballaugh Isle Of Man
Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: __
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The development is considered to accord with General Policy 3, Environment Policies 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 15.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This decision relates to the drawings and information all received on 21st April, 2020. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following public authority should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations
Manx Utilities
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject
==== PAGE 2 ====
20/00424/B Page 2 of 8
matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
The Old Hall, Maple Cottage, Brook Villa, Burnside and Bridge Cottage as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). __
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
Preamble Since the publication of this report which was intended to be considered by the Planning Committee on 29.06.20, it has been pointed out on 19.06.20 by a local resident that the reference in paragraph 1.1 to a pedestrian access into the site is incorrect as this is an access only to the Manx Utilities facility, not the application site. The report should be considered in accordance with this correction.
THE SITE 1.1 The site is a strip of land which runs parallel with the Ballaugh Glen Road but separated in part by Maple Cottage and its residential curtilage and by the Ballaugh River. Access is available into the site from an existing entrance off Ballaugh Bridge at the northern end of the site and there is a pedestrian access via Ballaugh Glen Road to the south of Maple Cottage. An electricity substation sits immediately to the south of the site served by the pedestrian access referred to above.
1.2 The site has recently undergone work including walling and level changes (approved under 19/01429/B). The site is visible from Ballaugh Bridge where newly planted trees are visible.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a chicken house, fencing to create three coops and three bee hives.
2.2 The chicken house will be 1.37m high at its ridge and 1.1m wide at its widest points.
2.3 The coops will be formed by fencing which will create three areas to provide alternative scratching areas in rotation. No details of the fencing are provided but fencing can be erected without permission up to a height of 2m under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (Class 39).
2.4 The apiary area will be in the south of the site where three hives, each 46cm by 46cm and 315mm high surrounded by new hedging which will comprise blackthorn, rowan and griselinia).
2.5 The hive closest to the river will be 4m away: the hen house 10m from the river.
2.6 The applicants provided additional information following queries raised about the flood risk zone and the comments raised by others, stating that the MEA/DoI flood maps show that some of the land may flood during a '1 in 100 year' event and has a 1% chance of flooding in any single year and they advise that the electrical substation providing for the village is also situated within a flood zone, as is the neighbouring field used for the grazing of livestock, as well as The Old Hall itself and several other nearby residential and agricultural buildings.
2.7 They point out that as shown on the planning application, the chicken house and bee hives will all be constructed so as to be off the ground. One of the reasons for this is to alleviate
==== PAGE 3 ====
20/00424/B Page 3 of 8
flooding risks. Other reasons include insulation and damp proofing. This is standard practice in chicken and bee-keeping. Further, the chicken house will be built on a portion of the land outside of the flood-zone, so that even if a run should be flooded, the chickens will not be trapped in that area. The bee hive currently planned for the flood-zone, can be moved, built on higher stilts or just deleted from the application entirely, however since bees can fly, there is little to no risk of bees being trapped in a flooded hive.
2.8 In terms of alleged noise and activity levels they comment that when purchased, this land was effectively wasteland, not being touched for 35-40 years; overgrown with weeds, populated with diseased trees and unfit for agriculture of any sort. In order to bring this land back to a viable agricultural state a considerable amount of work was required in terms of vegetation cutback and landscaping. Maintenance of this state will require an ongoing and regular investment of time and energy and funding regardless of the type of agriculture. However, the decision to grow fruit-bearing trees, to keep bees and raise chickens was made in part because of their relatively low-maintenance requirements, compared to other types of agriculture such as raising larger livestock species or growing and harvesting cereal crops or vegetables, all of which would require commercial levels of activity on the site and none of which would require planning permission. Whilst the work of upgrading and maintaining the site requires the use of some machinery, the bulk of the actual agriculture; building hives, collecting honey/eggs, picking fruits etc just requires, albeit a lot of, manual labour.
2.9 They comment that agriculture doesn't happen automatically or by accident. To develop and maintain an agricultural asset requires a considerable and consistent investment of time and energy. That being said, as a recreational farm designed to provide a small-holding level of agricultural return, the current and expected levels of activity at the site are minimal.
2.10 They do not consider that the two comments that have been submitted onto this planning application have any relevance to this application.
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The north part of the site between Maple Cottage and Ballaugh Bridge is shown on the 1982 Development Plan map for the north as being land that is not designated for any particular purpose and the southern part that forms Registered Tree Area RA1435 is shown as an Area of Private Woodland or Parkland. The site is within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
General Policy 3 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: -
(f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry';
3.2 Environment Policy 1 states that 'The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake...Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative'.
3.3 Environment Policy 2 states that 'The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:
==== PAGE 4 ====
20/00424/B Page 4 of 8
(a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential'.
3.4 Environment Policy 3 states that 'Development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi- natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value'. Some of the trees within the site and surrounding area are Registered.
3.5 Environment Policy 7 states 'Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which could not be overcome by mitigation measures will not be permitted. Where development is proposed which would affect a watercourse, planning applications must comply with the following criteria:
(a) all watercourses in the vicinity of the site must be identified on plans accompanying a planning application and include an adequate risk assessment to demonstrate that works will not cause long term deterioration in water quality; (b) details of pollution and alleviation measures must be submitted; (c) all engineering works proposed must be phased in an appropriate manner in order to avoid a reduction in water quality in any adjacent watercourse; and (d) development will not normally be allowed within 8 metres of any watercourse in order to protect the aquatic and bankside habitats and species'.
3.6 Environment Policy 8 states 'Agricultural buildings will not be permitted on sites where their existence and associated discharges would result in a breach of the 'Code of Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Water'.'
3.7 Environment Policy 15 states that 'Where the Department is satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building (including a dwelling), sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside, and that the impact of this development including buildings, accesses, servicing etc. is acceptable, such development must be sited as close as is practically possible to existing building groups and be appropriate in terms of scale, materials, colour, siting and form to ensure that all new developments are sympathetic to the landscape and built environment of which they will form a part. Only in exceptional circumstances will buildings be permitted in exposed or isolated areas or close to public highways and in all such cases will be subject to appropriate landscaping. The nature and materials of construction must also be appropriate to the purposes for which it is intended.
Where new agricultural buildings are proposed next to or close to existing residential properties, care must be taken to ensure that there is no unacceptable adverse impact through any activity, although it must be borne in mind that many farming activities require buildings which are best sited, in landscape terms, close to existing building groups in the rural landscape'.
3.8 The site lies partly within a flood risk zone shown on the Indicative Flood Map for the Ballaugh River although the site of the henhouse and two of the bee hives are outwith the predicted flood area. Parts of the hen pens are within the flood risk area. The risk of flooding comes from the river. EPs 10 and 13 presume against development which would be at risk from or which would risk a flood unless this can be satisfactorily mitigated.
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The most relevant previous application is that for the erection of a storage shed, 18/01152/B which was refused under delegated powers, for the reason that:
"The applicant has not provided adequate justification to demonstrate that the agricultural need for a new building is sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the
==== PAGE 5 ====
20/00424/B Page 5 of 8
countryside proposal. The proposal therefore conflicts with General Policy 3 and Environmental [sic] Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016."
4.2 This shed was to be positioned approximately in the centre of the widest part of the site but abutting the western boundary of the site and was to be 10m by 8m and 3.75m high.
4.3 More recently, planning approval was granted by the Planning Committee for alterations to existing walls, levels and the infilling of the old house remains on the site (19/01429/B).
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Ballaugh Parish Commissioners have not commented at the time of writing.
5.2 Highway Services do not oppose (18.05.20).
5.3 DEFA Fisheries request that the applicant complete a form relating to Development within 9m of a Watercourse after which they will provide additional comments (14.05.20). They later advise on 28.05.20 that they have received the completed form and have no objections to the application provided that there is no adverse effect on the adjacent watercourse.
5.4 DEFA Arboricultural Assistance advises that the work will not affect any retained trees (01.06.20).
5.5 Manx Utilities were contacted for their views and indicated that they would be discussing the matter in respect of the need for a brief FRA and later confirmed that they discussed the proposals with the applicant and initially advised that any works adjacent to the watercourse would require consent under the FRM Act. This has been applied for in advance and approved by MU FRM team. They advise that they have no real concerns over the requirement for a flood risk assessment given the development proposals but we advised the applicant to speak to the Planning section on whether you would insist on one (12.06.20).
Local residents 5.6 The owners of Bridge Cottage which sits 13m across the Glen Road from the site, object to the application, reiterating their concerns expressed to 18/01152/B, considering that the amount of maintenance which is required is excessive and noting that vermin has been relocated to residential property but stating that their experience since the change of ownership of the land has brought an increase in noise. They are concerned with the addition of more animals will increase the amount of noise and waste resulting from the site and that bees could be incompatible with the popular TT area surrounding the site and this may compromise the helicopter landing should this be required and they do not know how bees will react to two stroke engine noise. They are concerned with the timing of the application during the current global pandemic and consideration for those lliving in the village and the use of the planning process to establish a precedent for further development of this site (22.05.20).
5.7 The owner of The Old Hall, Glen Road which sits immediately to the south of Bridge Cottage, expresses concern that the site lies within a flood risk zone and he was advised by Manx Utilities that the application land is a flood plain and could never be built upon and hopes that he will not be faced with a series of planning applications for such. He is aware of the previous application which was refused and which was before he purchased The Old Hall. He understands that the site is agricultural but appears to be used intensively including several vehicles, a large tent and many people present which he considered inappropriate. He is concerned about noise and the development of what was a beautiful spot. He considers the private land signs and "huge plastic fences" are an eyesore (26.05.20).
5.8 The owners of Maple Cottage request interested person status as immediate neighbours of the site and suggest that the site has been used for recreational and social functions with rope swings and a slide and with events involving fireworks with no warning given to local residents.
==== PAGE 6 ====
20/00424/B Page 6 of 8
There are also a number of vehicles parked here. They state that the fencing which has been erected affects their view and the activity has affected their privacy. They do not believe that the applicants have any intention of using the site for agricultural purposes and are using this application to cover their domestic use of agricultural land which was referred in 18/01152/B as being unacceptable. They consider that the comment made by the applicant that they could turn the field over to livestock or crops as a barely veiled threat to them and their neighbours (08.06.20).
5.9 The owner of Brook Villa agrees with the points made by the owners of Bridge Cottage and The Old Hall regarding the excessive noise at weekends. They have no objection to the bee hives or the chicken coops but the field appears to be used for lifestyle purposes not agriculture. They would have no objection to the use of the field by sheep or cattle (09.06.20).
5.10 The owners of Burnside objects to even more noise and interruption from mowing the grass at early morning at around 8.30 am the dogs that they bring that just continually just bark all day while they are there. They suggest that the trees seem to be slowly disappearing again with cutting back the small digger that has seem to be the normal on the land. They consider that the three large hen houses that will bring even more vermin onto to the land (seems to have more on our own land since the alterations have taken place). The total disregard for any of the neighbours for instance large bonfire in the field with no mention to any neighbours regarding their animals etc. They suggest that the hen houses can hold up to 30 hens which increase his need to be at the site plus bees which have to have a flight path into the hives which with race and practice periods this is a very popular destination for the bikers . They just feel this is another step along the path for a larger building that they have already had planning refused to be built (20.05.20).
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issues in this case are whether the proposed structures would have any adverse visual impact on the character and appearance of the area, having regard to the fact that the site is within an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance where the countryside is protected for its own sake; whether they would have any adverse impact on the watercourse given that some of the development is within 8m thereof; whether there would be any adverse impact on the living conditions of those in Maple Cottage or the operation of the substation; whether there would be any adverse impact on any existing trees and if there are any adverse impacts, whether there are any material considerations which would override these. It is also appropriate to consider the impact of potential flood risk.
Visual impact 6.2 The structures will be visible from the public highway (Ballaugh Bridge), particularly the chicken coop although in time the newly planted trees will help to screen them. There is one hen house and three coops which can accommodate as many hens as the hen house can accommodate - in this case more likely to be 6-10 not 30 as suggested as the hen house provides the night time protection for the animals. Whilst agricultural in function, the coop has a domestic appearance which is a little at odds with the designation for the site as part of the countryside. The site is, however adjacent to the centre of the village and there are dwellings close by both Maple Cottage and those to the west. As such, the visual impact, whilst important, is not as significant or potentially adverse as it would be in the open countryside without buildings nearby. As such, the visual impact is considered acceptable in this case.
Impact on the watercourse 6.3 The only part of the development within the critical distance of the river are the bee hives - relatively small structures with no foundations and which will not have an impact on the watercourse.
Impact on living conditions of those in Maple Cottage and substation
==== PAGE 7 ====
20/00424/B Page 7 of 8
6.4 The structures themselves are modest and will not adversely or significantly affect the living conditions of those in Maple Cottage or any other residential property in the vicinity. The coop is positioned at the furthest end of the field to Maple Cottage and the two are separated by vegetation and the watercourse. Agricultural use of land can result in impacts on adjacent dwellings through noise, smell and activity: if the land were used for the keeping of animals that did not require a building, this could happen without the need for planning approval. It is not considered that the development will have a significant or adverse impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties.
6.5 The objections which have been raised are from properties some distance (over 100m) from the actual proposed structures: agricultural activity closer to them than that does not require planning approval. The proposed development is not considered to have any impact on Bridge Cottage or The Old Hall due to distance from the proposed structures and these properties. The impact of the bee hives and chicken coops and henhouse would not affect Maple Cottage or Brook Villa and indeed the objections do not relate to these elements of the use of the site, but rather the non-agricultural use of the site for social or recreational purposes which is more a matter for planning enforcement than this planning application which does not propose a residential or recreational use of the site.
Impact on trees 6.6 The structures are modest and not close to existing trees. There will, therefore be no adverse impact on existing trees. DEFA Forestry, Amenity and Lands Directorate have no objection on this basis (confirmed by e-mail dated 01.06.20).
Potential flood risk 6.7 The development is modest and will not increase the risk of flooding of other land. Whilst there is a risk that the structures on the site could be susceptible to flooding (one of the bee hives appears to be within the MU flood risk map), the structure is elevated by design and should not be affected by water ingressing the site. The applicant is aware of the flood risk maps and risk of flooding. It is not considered that there is aneed for a flood risk assessment given the nature of the application.
CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposed structures are significantly smaller than that previously refused and will enable the land to be used for agricultural purposes. The introduction of the bee hives will enhance the biodiversity of the surrounding area with little or no adverse environmental impact. The chicken coop will be visible from the public highway but its size results in a relatively small impact and one which is considered acceptable. The application is therefore supported.
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:
==== PAGE 8 ====
20/00424/B Page 8 of 8
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.
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status. __
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : ...Permitted... Committee Meeting Date:...13.07.2020
Signed :...S CORLETT... Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal