Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
18/01152/B Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 18/01152/B Applicant : Mr Phillip & Mrs Hilary Ridgway Proposal : Erection of storage shed Site Address : Field 224318 Next To Ballaugh Bridge Main Road Ballaugh Isle of Man IM7 5JG
Planning Officer: Mr Owen Gore Photo Taken : 03.01.2019 Site Visit : 03.01.2019 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 09.04.2019 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
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. __
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):
Bridge Cottage, Glen Road, Ballaugh, IM7 5JG; and Burnside, Glen Road, Ballaugh, IM7 5JG, 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):
Brook Villa, Main Road, Ballaugh, IM7 5EH although they have identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy it is not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in
==== PAGE 2 ====
18/01152/B Page 2 of 7
accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy. They do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy.
2 Glen View, Glen Road, Ballaugh, IM7 5JG; Maple Cottage, Glen Road, Ballaugh, IM7 5JG; and Glen House, Glen Road, Ballaugh, IM7 5JG as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. __
Officer’s Report
THE SITE 1.1 The site is Field 224318 which sits on the west of the Ballaugh River that forms the eastern boundary between it and the highway for Druidale Road; the site stretches from Ballaugh Bridge on Main Road past Maple Cottage on Druidale Road and includes the Registered Tree Area RA1435 to the south of Maple Cottage.
1.2 The site has an approximate area of 2745.63m2, made up of the grassed area to the north of the site and the wooded area to the south. The western boundary is enclosed by a Manx sod hedge and the eastern boundary is formed of the river.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal is 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.
2.2 The proposed shed will be 10m long, 8m wide and 3.75m tall to the ridge. It will be finished in dark green cladding.
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
==== PAGE 3 ====
18/01152/B Page 3 of 7
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'.
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'.
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'.
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The previous planning applications are not considered to be specifically material in the assessment of the current application.
REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
==== PAGE 4 ====
18/01152/B Page 4 of 7
5.1 At the time of writing no representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division has been received.
5.2 Ballaugh Parish Commissioners have commented on this application and stated that they object, in the letter dated 21 November 2018. The comments continue: -
o 'Access to the field, directly after Ballaugh Bridge, would prove dangerous and whilst the application states that plant machinery etc. would be stored on site, there would undoubtedly be more traffic to and from the field. o The commissioners are concerned by the large number of trees that the applicants have been granted a felling licence for. In addition, the felling of the trees could affect the stability of the river band and, by disturbing the bank, could encourage the spread of Japanese Knotweed which is already a problem in the area. The Commissioners would be interested to know whether a wildlife survey has been carried out on the site o Overall, the Commissioners strongly feel that this would be an inappropriate development for this piece of land'.
o Brook Villa, Main Road, Ballaugh, IM7 5EH (Received 01 December 2018) o 2 Glen View, Glen Road, Ballaugh, IM7 5JG (Received 05 December 2018) o Maple Cottage, Glen Road, Ballaugh, IM7 5JG (Received 04 December 2018) o Burnside, Glen Road, Ballaugh, IM7 5JG (Received 05 December 2018) o Bridge Cottage, Glen Road, Ballaugh, IM7 5JG (Received 06 December 2018) o Glen House, Glen Road, Ballaugh, IM7 5JG (Received 07 December 2018)
5.4 The main planning points are as follows: -
o The planning site notice was not displayed for the appropriate amount of time; o The access is dangerous; o Size and position of shed is excessive for the equipment required to manage a field of this size and would be unsightly in this location; o Proposed shed is not necessary, nor is the creation of parking; o The creation of hardstanding would reduce the land for agricultural use; o The proposed size would detract from the charm of the area, especially considering the number of trees that are to be felled, which would result in the shed being more visible; o Portaloo onsite since before the application was submitted, which is unsightly and unnecessary; o No benefit to the local community to outweigh the negative impacts; o Impact to view; o Increase in noise from the use; o Loss of the trees will detrimentally impact the riverbank; o Site and/or building may be used for commercial purposes;
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The key issues for this proposal are principle, the impact to the character of the countryside, the potential impact to the immediate environmental features such as the watercourse and impacts to the neighbouring properties.
The principle of development 6.2 The site is shown on the 1982 Development Plan as being land that is not designated for any particular purpose and also within an Area of High Landscape or Costal Value and Scenic Significance. General Policy 3 part (f) and Environmental Policy 2 reference the need for any proposal to be 'essential' with the former requiring the proposed building to be 'essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry'.
==== PAGE 5 ====
18/01152/B Page 5 of 7
6.3 The application form states that the proposal is for the 'erection of a storage shed for field and tree maintenance equipment and storage of logs produced from on-site tree felling'. The details within the form continue: -
'The shed is required to provide secure storage for equipment that is being used to maintain the field and the trees. The equipment cannot be left on the site at present as it would not be insured...currently the applicants have to bring the equipment with them every time they come to site. The whole field had become overgrown and is being cut back... A felling licence has been issued by forestry division in respect of a number of trees...none of these were specifically in the way of the proposed development. There will still be a large number of trees on the eastern boundary of the field. The felled trees will be cut up into logs which will also be stored in the shed until required for applicant's use'.
6.4 Additional details have been provided by the applicant's original agent stating that the shed will likely accommodate 'mini tractor with attachments, large grass cutting equipment, smaller maintenance machinery mini utility vehicle and trailer, field tiller, mini manure spreader, [a] chipper/mulcher, strimmers, hedge frailer, maintenance bench and vice, log splitter, stored logs [and] fencing equipment'.
6.5 The site has an approximate area of 2745.63m2, although the area that is likely to be usable for agriculture is less than half an acre (approx. 0.45 acres or 1844.73m2), this being the grassed area to the north of the site; the remainder of the site to the south is wooded and will be the subject of the forestry type operations. The western boundary is enclosed by a Manx sod hedge and the eastern boundary is formed of the river. The agricultural area is comparable to a large domestic garden and the list of trees in the statement produced by Manx Roots includes only 29 trees, some of which appear to have already been removed.
6.6 With any application such as this we begin with General Policy 3 of the IoM Strategic Plan; this applies to development outside of those areas which are zoned for development, which applies to this site. The site is within the open countryside and therefore development is restricted to a specific list of exceptions, one of which is part (f) 'building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry'. The starting point for the assessment is considering whether the site is used as part of a viable agricultural use. The overarching purpose is to protect the countryside and avoid the proliferation of unnecessary buildings in the landscape.
6.7 In order to be considered acceptable, the Department needs to be satisfied that the agricultural need for a new building is sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside.
6.8 Although the described activities fall within the definition of either agriculture or forestry, the size of the site is relatively small compared a typical agricultural or forestry holding and therefore unless the activity extends to other land off-site or the importing of timber to the site any levels of activity are likely to be of a low density and more of a casual use of the site. The list of equipment suggests a larger scale operation and that the site will in fact be used for storage or processing materials from off-site.
6.9 The activities described and the list of equipment suggest that the logs will be chopped and split on-site and the remaining materials will be fed through the chipper and made into mulch; this will take up an area of the grassed field, as will the footprint of the proposed building and the parking area for the applicant's vehicle. The proposed building is also in the centre of the field, reducing the usability of the site for agricultural purposes. The extent of the boundary that is hedged of fenced off is relatively small. Therefore it is unclear to what extent a tractor with attachments, large grass cutting equipment, a field tiller, a manure spreader, a hedge frailer or fencing equipment will be necessary on what is essentially the equivalent to a large domestic garden.
==== PAGE 6 ====
18/01152/B Page 6 of 7
6.10 Once the felling of the trees identified in the tree report has been carried out, several pieces of the equipment and all of the log storage space will not be required anymore. This could lead to future pressure to use the site in connection with a commercial use i.e. storage of equipment or processing materials from off-site.
6.11 Other equipment such as smaller maintenance machinery and the utility vehicle and trailer, it is not clear what role they play in any agricultural or forestry operations, particularly on this scale. At the time of visiting site there was a port-a-loo, a domestic bar barque, garden furniture, ladders, and a tyre swing; the list of equipment included a maintenance bench and vice, which in tandem with the other domestic equipment this proposal is tantamount to 'lifestyle land' which is not recognised in terms of planning as a standalone use and denotes the domestic use of agricultural land, which is not acceptable.
6.12 The size of the site and the amount to on-site felling identified in the tree report does not justify the need for a significant building such as that proposed. The list of equipment is extensive and would reflect a much larger operation than would seem possible on a site of this size. The equipment, if proposed to be used as part of a wider business doesn't really need to be located on this site and due to the causal use of the site described in the statement could be stored elsewhere locally and transported; the justification gives the impression that this building is more for the sake of convenience than a genuine need.
6.13 The principle is therefore not accepted in accordance with General Policy 3 and Environmental Policy 2, and therefore Environment Policy 15 need not be considered; however since details have been provided, this aspect has been assessed.
Character and appearance 6.14 Only after the test of being essential within General Policy 3 and Environmental Policy 2 are satisfied, we look at Environment Policy 15; this policy defines the criteria, if it is considered to be genuinely needed. This policy states that 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.
6.15 The proposal is a large, 3.75m tall building with an 80m2 footprint; it sits in the middle of the site, set back from the highway and is completely isolated from any other buildings. This field appears to have been part of a larger farm holding, as it doesn't seem to have any amenities of its own. Even if the need were to be considered to be there, the isolated location away from other building, the siting and the scale are not considered appropriate and the applicant has not demonstrated that this is an exceptional circumstance.
Impact on neighbours 6.16 There have been several objections from neighbouring properties highlighting several issues including the safety of the access or the impact to the character of the area; however the only issues raised that concern potential, direct impact to the surrounding properties in terms of loss of amenity is increase in noise from the use.
6.17 Although it is considered not acceptable for the applicant to erect a storage shed on the site, as per the above considerations, the applicant is entitled to manage the land, which includes using the land for its intended agricultural purpose and/or managing the area of Registered Trees as per the licence issued by the forestry team within DEFA. Therefore the level of activity would remain the same, unless as stated above there is future pressure to use the site in connection with a commercial use.
==== PAGE 7 ====
18/01152/B Page 7 of 7
6.18 The proposed development would not result in a significant adverse impact upon the living conditions of neighbouring residents, subject to controls.
Parking and highway safety 6.19 The access is existing and the applicant is understood to park their vehicles on site already to carry out the maintenance of the registered tree area. Therefore, as above, providing that the level of activity would remain the same, unless as stated above there is future pressure to use the site in connection with a commercial use.
CONCLUSION 7.1 The use of the site is low density and more of a casual use. Although the applicant has described agricultural activities the submitted information does not 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.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) 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; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
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 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 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: 12.04.2019
Determining officer
Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett
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