Loading document...
Application No.: 16/01045/B Applicant: David John Cooil Proposal: Alterations and removal of hedges and creation of a track. Site Address: Ballagawne Farm Ballagawne Road Ballabeg Castletown Isle of Man IM9 4PD Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 11.10.2016 Site Visit: 11.10.2016 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site comprises a large number of fields that together fall within the control of Ballagawne Farm, which is to the north of Colby. The land is undulating and there are plenty of natural and built environment features - hedges, trees, sod banks, hills, the nearby covered reservoir and associated Manx Utilities building, the farmhouse and associated buildings further to the north - that mean there is no position from which the entirety of the site can be seen.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the removal of three sections of hedging, with one to be replaced in a slightly different position, along with the creation of three new stone tracks. The stone tracks are within, or connect, fields where cattle are or will be kept and the central farmhouse / farmyard. Two of the hedges to be removed are to the north, with the newly realigned hedge there as well; the third is much further south. - 2.2 The application has been submitted with a supporting statement explaining that the fields are not all of an easy shape within which to manoeuvre modern farm machinery, but are also bounded by hedges in poor condition that would require lots of tidying up to repair and to allow the erection of livestock-proof fencing. The new hedge would be planted with natural grasses to allow gorse to grow with a view to creating a wildlife-friendly hedge. - 2.3 The statement further explains that the stone tracks are designed to allow cattle to move between fields, and remain on them longer, without causing additional damage to the field but also providing a more cow-friendly pathway for trips to and from the milking parlour. There would be roughly 1200m of new stone track, 3.5m wide, and topped with quarry dust and geotextile membrane, which combined would be 10-15cm in height.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 No applications have been submitted on exactly the same outline as that which comprises the current application site. However, there have been a number of applications submitted within or adjacent it, none of which related to the creation of new stone tracks or the removal of hedges. However, the planning history (including the recently approved pair of agricultural buildings under PA 16/00323/B) clearly demonstrates that Ballagawne Farm is an active and viable agricultural enterprise.
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 4.1 The site lies within an area designated on The Area Plan for the South (Map 6 - Colby & Ballabeg) as "white land" - that is, not designated for development. In view of the nature of the proposal, it is considered appropriate to assess it against General Policies 2 and 3, Environment Policies 1 and 4 and also the following paragraphs of the Strategic Plan:
4.2 The Area Plan also includes some useful text: Landscape Character Area D14 states, in part: "The overall strategy is to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the area, with its wooded valley bottoms, its strong geometric field pattern delineated by Manx hedges, its numerous traditional buildings and its network of small roads and lanes. The strategy should also include the restoration of landscapes disturbed by former mining activities."
5.2 Highway Services of the DoI indicated on 03.10.2016 that the application has no highways implications. - 5.3 The Curator: Natural History of Manx Natural Heritage commented on the application on 10.10.2016. Information from a landscape and visual perspective was intended to be provided by the officer responsible was unavailable at the time and such information would be provided if possible; to date, no such information has been passed to the Department. The Curator understands that there is a 'no net loss' policy with regards hedgerows in DEFA, which MNH supports, and trust that DEFA will scrutinise the application for compliance with boundary management in accordance with the agricultural support payments. Should the application be approved they request conditions ensuring that works avoid the bird nesting season and also will not adversely impact on "other protected species, such as orchids". - 5.4 Arbory Parish Commissioners offered no comments on the application in comments dated 26.09.2016.
6.1 The landscape characterisation as set out in the Area Plan is interesting to note. The plans submitted demonstrate the clear field pattern described, and there is no doubt that this particular farm contributes to this characterisation. Protection of those features from a visual point of view is therefore important (D14 of the Area Plan; EP1 of the Strategic Plan) and careful consideration needs to be given in this respect. Moreover, protection of the habitat the hedgerows provide is also important (EP4). Against this needs to be balanced part (f) of General Policy 3, which states that "engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture" are one of the eight specified exceptions to development in the countryside. This application, given the reasoning outlined by the applicant, is considered to be sufficiently necessary and related to the growth of the farming business as to qualify as an 'essential' need. - 6.2 The points made by the Senior Biodiversity Officer and MNH are understood, even though neither amounts to what might be termed an objection. In this case, in the first place, it is considered that the impact of the hedgerow removal from a visual point of view, even in the absence of proposed additional hedgerows elsewhere within the site. Views of the hedgerows to be lost are not readily visible from roads, although one section is alongside a not particularly well used public footpath. The remainder of the footpath would retain its existing hedgerows. The hedgerow to the north of the site appears from the plan as if it would be readily observable from the highway immediately south, but it sits against well-established trees and, moreover, the land falls away quite sharply here. - 6.3 The loss of habitat is also potentially troubling, but the comments received in this respect suggest there are no protected species have been recorded within the hedges proposed to be removed or on the land where the tracks are proposed to be laid. It is concluded that the key tests of EP4 are met and as such the fundamental balance is between visual impact and agricultural need. The condition requiring the works be undertaken outside of the bird nesting season is, however, appropriate. - 6.4 There is no doubt that modern farm machinery is large and manoeuvring in smaller fields is more difficult than in larger fields of more regular shape. It is also true that the stone-laid tracks would improve animal welfare. These points clearly demonstrate the agricultural need for the proposal, as required under part (f) of GP3. - 6.5 The concerns raised are noted, but none are considered strong enough to reflect a clear reason to refuse the application, especially given the essential need demonstrated in the application. The loss of the hedging remains unfortunate, but in the wider context of the landscape the amount that would be lost would not harmfully affect the character of the area; this is sufficient to conclude that the application complies with EP1, and nor is it at odds with Landscape Character Area H14, which applies to the area. - 6.6 That all being said, there is a clear expectation from the consultees regarding the 'no net loss' policy applying to hedgerows. Although additional hedgerows are to be planted be agreement with other parties elsewhere in DEFA, this has not formed a part of the application. This is not a concern from a process point of view because the planting of hedgerows on this scale would not generally comprise 'development' and so can be addressed via condition. However, the provision of additional hedgerows would clearly be of benefit to the area from a general point of view (even if these could not be readily seen from a public position) and so clarification via condition in respect of this would be appropriate in order to ensure the Department is taking a 'joined-up' approach to its activities with respect to removal / planting of hedgerows. - 6.7 The condition requested by MNH that the works should not adversely affect "other protected species, such as orchids" is not precise enough to be enforceable. Nor, it must be said, is it considered necessary, since the protected species that may or may not exist benefit from that protection via the Wildlife Act. The purpose of EP4 is to ensure that habitats are retained where
there is evidence of protected species using them or forming that habitat: in this case, the evidence provided does not point to this. No Planning condition relating to this is therefore reasonable to attach in this case.
7.1 In light of the above, it is recommended the application be approved subject to the conditions discussed. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
The development hereby approved relates to the Site Plan, the Location Plan, and Fig 1, all datestamped as having been received 7th September 2016.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Permitted Date: 31.10.2016 Determining officer
Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown