Loading document...
Application No.: 10/01815/B Applicant: Port St Mary Commissioners Proposal: Erection of 25 sheds (Re advertised due to additional information received) Site Address: - Sand Field (formerly Field 1540) - Mount Gawne Road - Port St. Mary - Isle Of Man ### Considerations Case Officer: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 14.02.2011 Site Visit: 14.02.2011 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee ### Written Representations - Carrick Bay View Mount Gawne Road Port St Mary Isle Of Man - Highfield Mount Gawne Road Port St Mary Isle Of Man - Objects to the proposal - Consultations - Consultee: IOM Water & Sewerage Authority (Water) - Notes: No objection subject to the following condition: - Consultee: Highways Division - Notes: Comments received - Consultee: Rushen Commissioners - Notes:** Defer till after 19.01.10 - Further comments received 24.1.11
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION WHICH WAS PERMITTED BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE WAS REFUSED AT APPEAL
The site is a roughly triangular piece of land situated between the Southern Civic Amenity site and Mount Gawne Road with a gated entrance from the latter and formal controlled access from the former, off Castletown Road (A5) shared with the Civic Amenity site. The site is a little over three acres in size. The site slopes downward from east to west and the site has been laid out for up to 79
allotments. The allotments start some approximately 25 m from the eastern access and there is a path around the site with smaller pathways intersecting the allotments.
Part of the site is visible from the gate entrance on Mount Gawne Road and from further afield the site is visible - for example from the Howe Road (A31) and the neighbours have suggested that the site is visible from the Sloc Road (A36): from these distances it is apparent that the site is laid out as allotments through the appearance of individual fences and posts.
The site lies within an area designated on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982 as "white land", that is, not designated for development. On the draft Southern Area Plan, the site is within a wider area of Incised Slopes where the following advice is provided: "Landscape Character Area 3 - Port Erin and Port St Mary: Much of this area forms the immediate setting for the villages of Port Erin and Port St Mary, and the smaller settlements of Ballafesson and Ballakillowey. It also serves to separate these settlements from each other. However, as is indicated in the Landscape Character Assessment report, there is generally little tree cover.
Environment Policy 5: Additional residential development at the edge of Port Erin, Port St Mary, or Ballafesson should include landscaping which softens the existing hard edges of the settlements and includes generous tree-planting, such as not only to mitigate the landscape impact of the development, but also to maintain effective separation between the settlements."
Proposed is the erection of sheds on twenty five of the allotments. The selection of which plots will accommodate a shed relates to which allotment holders have requested a shed and are scattered within the site - for example west to east there are five sheds on the top row of plots, four on the second row, three on the third, four on the fourth, three on the fifth, three on the sixth, two on the seventh, one on the eighth and non on the two southernmost row.
The sheds are to be a maximum of 8 feet by 6 feet , built in timber with small windows and a felted pitched roof and the illustrated shed has a height of 2.06 m .
The appropriate Strategic Plan policies are General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 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: 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".
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 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 is it 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."
Environment Policy 17 states: "The development of buildings and other facilities associated with nurseries and market gardens will only be permitted where: a) any built development is of a scale, form, design and material in keeping with the character of its surroundings; b) any development does not unacceptably affect residential amenity or local highway conditions; c) there is no adverse impact on the character or appearance of the area or a requirement for significant highway alterations and d) if appropriate, those buildings are erected away from public highways and are screened from public gaze."
Planning permission was granted for the creation of a car park in association with the allotments, on the land alongside the allotments and accessed through the civic amenity site entrance, under PA 09/1112. A planning application was submitted for the erection of a shed and a greenhouse on each plot under PA 10/0468. This was permitted by the Planning Committee and subject of an appeal. The appeal inspector recommended that the application be permitted but the Minister's decision was to allow the appeals and refused the application. The Inspector noted that despite the fact that the application proposed a shed and a greenhouse on each plot, it was unlikely that every allotment holder would wish to have a shed and greenhouse but in the absence of a firm indication of which allotment-holders wished to have a shed and/or greenhouse, the application was difficult to determine. He accepts that the visual impact of so many buildings would be significant as viewed from the private dwellings alongside, but that this is not a material planning concern. As the buildings are associated with the allotments, they should be considered in respect of EP15. In respect of the need for the sheds, if there were no sheds then the allotment holders would be leave tools and equipment in plastic or metal containers on the plots and could lead to more trips to and from the site and by vehicle rather than on foot or bicycle. He concludes that the best solution is to allow the sheds and greenhouses, but accompanied by a condition requiring screening of each structure noting that an existing privet hedge had been introduced on plots 31 and 43 which was growing well.
The acting Minister however considered that the visual impact as viewed from the neighbouring properties was something to consider and that as there were so many structures this would have "a seriously adverse impact on the character of the area and thus the living conditions of residents in adjoining properties". He doubts that the visual impact would be mitigated by the introduction of hedging. The refusal is accompanied by two notes that there was general support for the principle of allotments and that the applicants should consider a smaller number of communal sheds and greenhouses.
The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority notes that a public sewer crosses the site and affects the shed to be erected on plot 50 . The digging of the ground is not an issue for the depth of the sewer but the need to remove the shed and any concrete base to gain access to the sewer, is.
The owners of Carrick Bay View which is immediately to the north of the entrance from Mount Gawne Road, objects to the application, having objected to the previous application. She notes that no attempt has been made to screen the allotments from the view from neighbouring residential properties and that there are too many allotments. She also points out that the appearance and condition of the site has deteriorated in recent months, mainly due to lack of management and lack of uniformity in the layout. She still maintains that the solution is for a small number of sheds in the car park end of the field.
The owners of Highfield, which is immediately to the south of the Mount Gawne Road entrance, object to the application on the basis of the intensity of the use of the site and suggests that 25 sheds is still too great a number for the site. They consider that the materials which can be seen around the site are not the sort of things which will or even could be stored in the sheds and the site would still appear to be overdeveloped and the random location of the sheds would further the "ramshackle" appearance of the site. They indicate that they are concerned about people stealing, about vandalism and unauthorised access outside daylight hours. They too indicate that a smaller number of sheds should be considered all located alongside each other.
Highways and Traffic Division indicate that the sheds may reduce the number of vehicle journeys, in accordance with sustainability objectives
Rushen Parish Commissioners express concern that the plans are vague about the precise location of the sheds and that the illustration is an indication of what may be erected and are concerned that the sheds look cheap and may not stand up to the exposure of the site.
The previous decision is a material consideration in the consideration of this latest application and the findings of the Inspector, and more importantly the conclusions of the acting Minister although some of these conclusions are not consistent with each other. The final advice from the Minister encourages the use of communal sheds which is not what is proposed in this instance although the number of sheds is reduced from that proposed previously. The number and location of the sheds is not related directly to an aim to reduce the visual impact of the structures or the impact on neighbours, rather it would appear to respond to the demands of those to whom allotments have been allocated. As such, the future control of the sheds is almost at the whim of the allotmentholders - if additional holders would like sheds then it is assumed that additional sheds will be applied for. If communal sheds are not an agreeable way forward for the Society, perhaps a more responsive approach may have been to group together the allotments where holders wish to have sheds in a part of the site which is furthest from and least conspicuous from the local residents and the public gaze - ideally in the south western part of the site which is lower than those on the northern boundary or those plots closest to Mount Gawne Road. As proposed, there would be a shed some 35 m from the Mount Gawne Road and at least a further five will be visible from this point, scattered within the allotments in an irregular fashion.
Whilst the previous application for an increased number of sheds above those now proposed, was recommended for approval, the conclusion on appeal was that this was not acceptable for visual reasons and that a smaller number of communal sheds and greenhouses was the appropriate way forward. This latest application does not propose communal sheds and merely reduces the number of sheds proposed but still scattered around the whole site with no real future indication that further sheds would not be requested or permitted. The plots on which the sheds are proposed have not been selected because they are less visually intrusive than others, nor are they grouped together they simply respond to the allotment holders requests for sheds.
As such the proposal is not considered to respond to the appeal decision and would potentially result in just as much of a visual intrusion as that which was previously refused. As such the application is recommended for refusal.
The local authority (Rushen Parish Commissioners) is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.
The owners of Highfield and Carrick Bay View are immediately alongside the site and as such should be afforded party status in this case.
The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority raise issues relating to building over a main sewer which is a material planning consideration and as such the Authority should be afforded party status in this case.
The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 15.02.2011
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals
The previous application for a greater number of sheds and greenhouses was refused on appeal for reasons relating to the adverse visual impact of the proposed structures and it was suggested that a smaller number of communal sheds and greenhouses was the appropriate way forward. Whilst the number of sheds has been reduced, and there are no longer any greenhouses proposed, the number and location of the sheds does not relate to attempting to reduce the visual impact and if the application were approved, there would be little to resist further sheds, leading to the situation of the previous application which was refused. Many of the proposed sheds are still on the highest part of the site and visible from Mount Gawne Road which is the closest public vantage point into the site. As such the proposal is considered to have an adverse visual impact and does not overcome the previous reason for refusal in relation to PA 10/0468.
15 February 2011 10/01815/B Page 5 of 6
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Decision Made : Signed : Presenting Officer Committee Meeting Date : Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown