Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
17/00109/B
Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 17/00109/B Applicant : Raby Limited Proposal : New farm entrance track Site Address : Raby Farm Main Road Glen Maye Isle Of Man IM5 3AU
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 22.02.2017 Site Visit : 22.02.2017 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is a curved parcel of land connecting a highway access to the farmyard associated with Raby Farm, which is situated to the north of Glen Maye village. The highway access itself does not appear to be within the red line, but is partially outlined with dashed red lines for reasons that are unclear.
1.2 Opposite to the existing highway access is a recently approved new highway access (PA 15/01327/B). Both these fields and many others besides are edged blue on the submitted plans.
1.3 The farmyard and farmhouse is presently accessed roughly 115m south of the application site via a fairly grand, tree-lined entrance with stone walls and pillars fronting the highway. Although there was a 'For Sale' sign present on the highway at the time of the site visit, the property is not listed in online searches.
1.4 Opposite to the entrance is Dinah's Cottage, a dwelling with approval for alterations. Immediately north of this dwelling is a highway access, which serves the same field as the access approved under PA 15/01327/B.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the creation of a farm entrance track within the application site. This would involve the laying of gravel and hardcore on the land with the track to be "generally" 4 metres in width, while the actual length of the track appears to be roughly 135m.
2.2 The agent was contacted seeking further explanation as to the need for the new track in view of the existing entrance 115m to the south and also with regards the route the proposed path would take. He responded with an email that is on the application file, but in summary he makes the following points:
o The proposed location is intended to provide an optimum route to service the relevant farm buildings adjacent to the new access; o Improved road safety would result from the minimisation of mud on the road. The farmer also feels that the field is level with the highway, which is also flanked on both sides by earth banks, hedges and mature trees; o Visual appreciation of the track will be limited to car drivers and pedestrians; o The proposed track allows for a good turning radius off the main road;
==== PAGE 2 ====
17/00109/B
Page 2 of 5
o One of the important points for the previous application was the recessed gateway on the other side of the road, sited directly opposite the existing gateway, establishing the shortest distance for the passage of livestock and farm machinery across the public highway, and o The track will blend in with its surroundings over a short period of time.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The site itself has not been the subject of previous planning applications. The farmyard was the subject of an application that gained approval for the extension of existing barns (PA 99/01589/B).
3.2 Of most relevance is the approval issued to PA 15/01327/B, the development proposed being the highway access already mentioned. The new access has been installed, but a condition requiring that the applicant submit and have approved a plan showing how the surface water will be dealt with in such a way as to avoid its discharge onto the highway remains undischarged.
3.3 Also relevant is the approval issued to the alteration and extension of Dinah's Cottage under PA 14/00508/B, which as described in paragraphs 1.3 and 1.4 above is situated opposite to the existing access to Raby Farm. The drawings submitted with PA 15/01327/B stated that there would be a "separation of farm operations (movement of livestock) from the Dinah's Cottage development)" - however, nothing in PA 14/00508/B stated what kind of separation would be undertaken, if indeed any, and there is no planning condition requiring this.
3.4 Finally, there does not appear to be any planning approval for the widening of the access immediately adjacent to the current application site. While it would appear there was an access here previously, and moreover that the current situation was the case when the 2015 application was assessed, it is fairly clear when the current situation is compared with the Google Streetview images that some form of widening has been undertaken.
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4.1 The application site lies within an area zoned as part Woodland and part Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance under the Isle of Man 1982 Development Plan.
4.2 The Strategic Plan contains three policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:
General Policy 3 states:
"Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
(a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10); (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historical, or social value and interest (Housing Policy 11); (c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of buildings where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environmental and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment; (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14); (e) location-dependant development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services; (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry; (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative and; (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage."
==== PAGE 3 ====
17/00109/B
Page 3 of 5
Environment Policy 1 states:
"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."
Environment Policy 2 states:
"The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape of Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLVs) 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 difference 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."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure offered no objection to the application on 3rd March 2017 on the basis that the existing access arrangements will not be altered.
5.2 The Agricultural Policy Manager of the Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture was contacted, with the case officer setting out concern with regards the suitability of the proposed material for the use of livestock. He stated on 24th March 2017 that meandering cows / cattle would be a problem if the track was not to be fenced off, and moreover indicated that "I agree with your comment about the suitability of the proposed surface of the road".
5.3 Patrick Parish Commissioners offered no objection to the application in comments received 15th February 2017.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 Development proposed in conjunction with agriculture on land not zoned for development needs to be essential in order to meet the test of part (f) of General Policy 3. How much information to seek in determining the "essentialness" of a proposal depends on the nature of the proposal and its likely impact, with its visual impact in particular needing to be kept minimised as required by Environment Policy 1 and also, in this case, Environment Policy 2.
6.2 There is nothing within the application to explain why it is essential to the conduct of agriculture. There is already an existing access into the farmyard, some 115m to the south, while there is also a field access opposite to that access adjacent to Dinah's Cottage and which serves the same field. As such, livestock can already be moved from the field to the east and the farmyard and vice versa. Moreover, it seems that the proposed finish for the track would be inappropriate for livestock. Though it is accepted that machinery may benefit from the proposed finish relative to the existing grass, the existing access to the south remains useable and there is no reason that this cannot be utilised.
6.3 The agent explains that views of the track would be limited to pedestrians and passing traffic. This is not really an argument in favour of the application since it accepts that the track would be visible to a significant number of people. While it is accepted that farm tracks are not unusual in rural locations, their existence still needs to be necessary and not visually harmful. The simple existence of something does not make it harmful. However, this is a very rural area despite its proximity to the village of Glen Maye, and is zoned as being of high landscape value. The laying
==== PAGE 4 ====
17/00109/B
Page 4 of 5
of broken hardcore and gravel across 135m of an agricultural field would harm the open, attractive aspect it currently offers in itself and also in terms of its contribution to the wider area of High Landscape Value.
6.4 It is considered that the introduction into this otherwise very green and rural area of a fairly wide sweep of hardcore / gravel as proposed, which would be visible from the adjacent highway, would be unduly harmful to that character. Without any clear need for the proposal against which to balance this visual harm, it is concluded that the application fails to comply with Environment Policies 1 and 2 and part (f) of General Policy 3.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION 7.1 For the above reasons, it is recommended that the application be refused.
7.2 Consideration may also be given to investigating the possible breaches of planning control with regards the two highway accesses - one immediately adjacent the application site and one immediately opposite it.
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:
o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; o The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; o Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure, and o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
8.2.1 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.
8.2.2 In this instance, it is considered that the following persons do have sufficient interest and should not be awarded the status of an Interested Person:
o The Agricultural Policy Manager of the Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture, which is within the same Department as the Planning & Building Control Directorate.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 29.03.2017
R 1. Given the presence of field accesses and farm tracks that serve both the adjacent field and also the existing farmyard, it is concluded that the proposal represents unwarranted development on land not zoned for it and for which insufficient reason has been given, contrary to part (f) of General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 2. The proposed access track, which is proposed to be roughly 135m in length and 4m in width and finished in hardcore and gravel, would result in the introduction of an inappropriate and visually harmful feature in what is otherwise a green and attractive area that contributes to the high quality
==== PAGE 5 ====
17/00109/B
Page 5 of 5
natural and rural character of the area. The application therefore proposes development contrary to Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 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 : Refused Date: 30.03.2017
Determining officer
Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett
Senior Planning Officer
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