Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
20/01047/B Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 20/01047/B Applicant : Mr Phil & Mrs Hillary Ridgeway Proposal : Erection of an agricultural shed Site Address : Field 224318 Glen Road Ballaugh Isle Of Man
Senior Planning Officer: Mr Jason Singleton Photo Taken :
Site Visit : 14.10.2020 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 29.10.2020 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. There is insufficient agricultural justification for the siting of the building to outweigh the presumption against development here or which seeks to over-ride the level of harm to the character and appearance of the countryside, as such the proposed development fails to comply with General Policy 3, Environment Policy 15 of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan which aim at protecting the countryside for its own sake.
R 2. The siting of the building is in an isolated location which would result in the structure appearing visually intrusive within the landscape which would be contrary to Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 15 of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
R 3. The application site is not zoned for development and is within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. The creation of building in an area not zoned for development would result in an inappropriate development in the countryside contrary to Environment Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
R 4. By way of its size, scale form, siting, and materials, the building would increase its visibility within the landscape and would harm this part of the countryside contrary to Environmental Policy 15. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
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 matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4): Maple Cottage
==== PAGE 2 ====
20/01047/B Page 2 of 6
as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018).
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties 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): The Old Hall Burnside Bridge Cottage Brook Villa as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the extents of field 224318 (approx. 1 acre) , Glen Road, Ballaugh. Access into the site is from the main Highway A3 that serves from kirk Michael to Sulby where there is an existing gated access set back from the edge of the highway. The site sits to the south of the highway at the junction of Ballaugh Bridge and Ballaugh Glen to the east.
1.2 The field is relatively flat throughout and mainly laid to grass. Its boundaries are hedgerows on the western boundary and mature trees on the eastern boundary adjacent to the Ravensdale River.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the erection of an agricultural shed measuring 7m in length, 4m in width and 2.8m to the eaves and 3.4 to the ridge giving a floor area of 28m2. The building would feature a concrete dwarf wall to the lower proportion and dark green cladding to the roof and sides. The front or south east elevation would feature an opening for access. The location of the building would be set back within the site approx. 35m from the gate and would be 2.5m offset from the western boundary.
2.2 A covering letter accompanying the application states the proposal is for a modest shed to house the agricultural vehicles and implements needed to maintain the land. The content to be placed in the shed are as follows: Tractor, Grass Cutter, Trailer, Strimmer's, chain saws, weed control sprayers, agricultural hand tools, diesel wood shredder and wood splitter.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area designated as part white land, or countryside and part woodland on the 1982 Development Plan. The site is also further designated as a site of Area of High Landscape and Scenic Significance.
3.2 Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application:
3.3 Spatial Policy 5:
New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3.
3.4 General Policy 3: Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
==== PAGE 3 ====
20/01047/B Page 3 of 6
(f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry;
3.5 Environment Policy 1: The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. 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.
4.6 Environment Policy 2:
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: (a) The development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) The location for the development is essential.
4.7 Environment Policy 15 states: 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."
4.8 The Town and Country Planning Act 1999, Section 45, defines; "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".
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 20/00424/B - Erection of a chicken coop with three associated pens and bee hives with associated hedging. Approved.
4.2 19/01429/B - Raising of stone walls, infill to old house remains and changes to site levels (retrospective). Approved.
==== PAGE 4 ====
20/01047/B Page 4 of 6
4.3 18/01152/B - Erection of storage shed. Refused.
This application was for the erection of storage shed for field maintenance and tree maintenance and storage of logs produced from on-site tree felling; the application form states that the both the existing and proposed uses of the site are agricultural. The proposed shed will be 10m long, 8m wide and 3.75m tall to the ridge. It will be finished in dark green cladding.
4.4 This application was refused on 15 April 2019 for the following reason;
R.1 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 countryside proposal. The proposal therefore conflicts with General Policy 3 and Environmental Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Ballaugh Parish Commissioners (15/10/20) object regarding the size of the shed, the relevance of the type and machinery for the size of the field, the installation of the chicken runs and houses has reduced the volume of grass to be cut. Advise that "the land is used for recreational purposes rather than agricultural".
5.2 Highways Services have commented (30/09/20) do not oppose
5.3 The owners of the Old Hall, Glen road, Ballaugh commented (1 October 2020) to object as the site notice was not properly displayed, and advised the site has been used for recreational purposes all summer with large tents being erected on site and is not an appropriate use of the site which is mean to be agricultural land.
5.4 The Owners of Burnside, Glen Road, Ballaugh commented (07/10/20) to object, the land is agricultural but is used as recreational, suitability of the building for the site, site is within a flood plain, would lead to a noise nuisance.
5.5 The owners of Bridge Cottage, Glen Road, Ballaugh commented (7/10/20) to object, there is no justification to warrant the need for the building, is contradictory to what was said in the previous application 20/00424/b, the land is no more than a large garden used for recreational purposes and does not require and building on site.
5.6 The owners of Brook villa, Ballaugh Bridge, commented (9/10/20) to object as the site was not advertised property, does not warrant a building of this size, is mainly used for recreations, will look unsightly in the area, and is an iconic point of the TT course.
5.7 The owner of Maple Cottage, Glen Road, Ballaugh, commented (11/10/20) to object as the land is used as recreational and should be refused as the previous application 18/01152/b was. The size of the tractors and equipment are overly exaggerated, the tractor and mower are not suitable for the site and the previous rotary mower sufficed, the area to be mowed has been reduced since the installation of the chicken coop and pens. The use of the field is as a family playground and not agricultural land. They back onto the site and share a boundary along the river.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are; i) principle of development (TCPA 1999) ii) the agricultural need for the proposed (SP5, GP3f & EP15) iii) impact on the character and quality of the countryside (EP1 & EP2)
i) Principle of development 6.2 The starting point for any development within the countryside (i.e. not zoned for development) is General Policy 3. Paragraph (f) allows exemption for agricultural buildings in
==== PAGE 5 ====
20/01047/B Page 5 of 6
the countryside, subject to the agricultural or horticultural need for a new building, which is deemed sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside.
6.3 The use of land for agriculture is set out in section 45 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 at para 4.8, which lists the type of activities and used. However, the storage of; "Tractor, Grass Cutter, Trailer, Strimmer's, chain saws, weed control sprayers, agricultural hand tools, diesel wood shredder and wood splitter" does not come within the definition of agriculture.
ii) Agricultural justification 6.4 The site is not within any area zoned for development, therefore as per Spatial Policy 5, any development in the countryside must meet the test of General Policy 3. General Policy 3, paragraph F allows exemption for agricultural buildings and Environment Policy 15 addresses their suitability on site. The first paragraph requires first the Department to be satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building, sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside.
6.5 From the evidence supplied the scale of the proposal would be akin to a hobby interest in the land at 1.0 acres. The comments from the neighbouring property owners whom look into the site, all confirm the land is used for recreational purposes rather than anything else. When it comes to justifying the agricultural need to justify a building, it can be difficult to demonstrate this without agricultural the use in place. The site visit confirmed there were no animals within the field at that time and DEFA Agricultural Directorate confirmed (29/10/20) the site is not registered under the Agricultural Development Scheme.
6.6 The applicant has evidenced on the plan that the use of the building is for the storing of machinery and equipment and is not for animal welfare, where exemptions are allowed. The ability to have the convenience of a building on site, can be beneficial. However as the onsite storage does not fall within the terms of agriculture or horticulture, there is no justification to set aside the exceptional need for a building in the countryside. On this basis the development would not be deemed to be essential for the conduct of agriculture on the site, and would therefore be contrary to General Policy 3. As there is no agricultural need, the proposal would also then fail the test of Environment Policy 15.
iii) Visual and countryside Impact 6.7 The aforementioned policies would indicate there is a general presumption against new development in the countryside, as indicated in Environment Policy 1, 2. The proposed building would be located 35m away from the highway access and sited to the North West proportion of the site making it visible from the main highways and from glen Road. The appearance of the proposal would be a single story industrial type building with the use of dark green wall and roof cladding. By way of its size, scale form, siting, and materials, the building would inherently increase its visibility within the context of this part of the countryside, more so, with there being no other buildings on site or within the vicinity, would stand isolated and deemed to be considered to adversely affect this part of the countryside, contrary to Environment Policy 15 and would harm the character and quality of the landscape.
6.8 The building within this field would be very visible from the highway as mentioned above, and would be seen as an isolated structure, out of keeping within the open nature of the countryside. In turn its presence would be considered to have a detrimental visual impact on the countryside, twinned with their being no essential requirement, there would be a strong level of harm to the character and quality of the landscape and that of the AHLV contrary to Environment Policy 2. It is further considered this impact and any proposed landscaping around it, would be greater than without it being there, thus creating an incongruous feature, much to the detriment of the character and quality of the countryside.
==== PAGE 6 ====
20/01047/B Page 6 of 6
6.9 As there is no overriding need and no alternative location which would be considered available within this field, neither of these exceptions can be justified within the submission. Any incidental benefit to wildlife or the management of the land would carry very little weight in comparison with the level of harm that the presence of a building in an isolated location would do to the fundamental aims to protect the countryside from unwarranted development, as defined in EP1&2.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 For the above reasons, It is considered the container given the lack of agricultural need, the isolated position within the countryside and being apparent from public views would result in a detrimental visual impact and harm the character and quality of the landscape contrary to General Policy 3; Environment Policy 1,2, & 15 of the IOM Strategic Plan.
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 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.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 06.11.2020
Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal