Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/00246/B Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 24/00246/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs Roger & Bronwen Raatgever Proposal : Modifications to an existing agricultural field access (Field Ref: 432477) and creation of a new perimeter track. Site Address : Field 432477 Douglas Road Ballasalla Isle Of Man IM9 3DN
Planning Officer: Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken : 19.09.2023 Site Visit : Expected Decision Level :
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 02.05.2024 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. There is insufficient essential agricultural need demonstrated for the surfacing and perimeter track works for the essential conduct of agriculture. As such the application is considered to fail to comply with General Policy 3(f) and Section 7.13 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 2. The siting, design and appearance of the works of the pull-in area and the perimeter track are considered to be out of keeping with the green and rural character of the area and resulting in spread of materials not readily found in the countryside having an adverse visual impact on the countryside and for which there is no overriding national need demonstrated contrary to Environment Policy 1, Strategic Policies 3, 4, 5 and paragraphs 7.4.1 and 7.5.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 3. The area of works relating to the pull-in area and the perimeter access track result in a notable loss of field around two edges cumulatively resulting in an unacceptable loss off high quality agricultural land contrary to Environment Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 4. While there may be some highway improvements from widening the field access by removal of the pillars, there is concern with the unknown level of development required in relation to the reduction to the remaining traditional stone wall within the visibility splay and so a proper assessment cannot be made as to the visual impact on the countryside in this respect which would be at odds with Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/00246/B Page 2 of 7
R 5. The culmination of works proposed coupled with the anticipated intensification of use of the access by agricultural traffic or other vehicles in such a close proximity to the neighbours is expected to have an adverse effect on the living conditions of the neighbours at Maggies Cottage through noise, activity and possible vibrations contrary to GP2(g) and undermining Environment Policies 22 and 23 and those principles in EP15 seeking to best protect neighbouring residential properties from agricultural related activity as set out in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The red line site relates to field number 432477 sitting on the south side of Douglas Road (A7). The blue line encapsulates Malew House, fields 435010, 432480 and 432482, and two outbuildings. There is an existing access into Malew House and the outbuildings from Malew Road (A3).
1.2 Recently the applicant has removed a gate pillar and made alterations to widen the existing farm access from Douglas Road into field 432477, created a pull in area directly off the road and installed a perimeter track leading to the south west corner of the field finished. These works have all been finished in a dark coloured gravel aggregate.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 Retrospective approval is sought for the access alterations and creation of the pull in area and perimeter track. Further approval is also sought for the removal of the other gate pillar, modifications to the access to create 6m wide access and to have a concrete or tarmac bound surface for first 6m of the pull in area. The remaining stone boundary wall to the west is also to be reduced to 1.05m within the visibility splay.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There have been no specific applications relating to field 432477. There have been a number of previous applications specifically relating to the main Malew House although none of these are considered relevant in this case. There have been two applications relating to outbuildings one approved and one issued a split decision: o PA 02/01725/B - Erection of barn and stables SPLIT DECISION o PA 02/02440/B - Erection of agricultural barn APPROVED
3.2 In addition to the above it is also relevant to have consideration for the following applications for similar access and track works in the countryside: o 21/01289/B - Ballavarvane Farm, Fields 435406, 434589 - APPROVED o Level of works considered essential for conduct of agriculture and not resulting in any visual intrusion, having acceptable highway safety and although resulting in some loss of trees there are generally of low value and under mature and this scheme would not affect the Elm tree corridor further along the road. A S13 agreement was required to prevent a previous access approval 20/01215/B to ensure protection of the Elm Tree Corridor. o 20/01297/B - Fields 314218, 314225, 314220 and 314219 - REFUSED o Insufficient essential agricultural need demonstrated for the amount of works proposed which were also considered visually intrusive and resulting in an incongruous feature in the countryside, and result in the loss of very rare marshy grassland. o 20/00661/B - Apple Orphanage, Field 310346 - APPROVED o Level of work considered essential for conduct of agricultural (horticulture) and not to have any adverse visual impact.
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/00246/B Page 3 of 7
o 16/01086/B - Ballavarvane Farm, Field 430648 - APPROVED o Level of work considered essential for conduct of agriculture and not to have any adverse visual impact.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site is not designated for development on the Area Plan for the South 2013 (APS2013). The access and field is not recognised as being at any flood risk but the main farmhouse and existing agricultural building are recognised as being at some surface water risk. The site is not within any Conservation Area but does sit on the cusp of Landscape area's F8 and D14 in the APS2013. Given the nature of the proposal is it relevant to consider the following policies: o Strategic Policy 1 - optimising and making best and efficient use of sites o Strategic Policies 3 and 5 - promote good design and use of local materials and character o Strategic Policy 4 - protect or enhance landscape quality and nature conservation of rural areas o Strategic Policy 10 - not adversely affect highway safety for all users o Spatial Policy 5 - development only permitted in countryside if in accordance with GP3. o General Policy 2 - general standards towards acceptable development o General Policy 3(f) - sets out exceptions to development in the countryside including operations essential for conduct of agriculture, o Paragraphs 7.4.1 and 7.5.1 - Landscape and open countryside protection o Environment Policies 1 and 2 - seek to protect the countryside for its own sake and from harmful and unwarranted development o Paragraph 7.6.1 - Landscape assessment and classification o Paragraphs in Section 7.13 - protection of agricultural land and real agricultural need must be demonstrated o Environment Policy 14 - no loss of high quality agricultural land o Environment Policy 15 - outlines the general design criteria for agricultural buildings being positioned as close to existing buildings as possible and being of appropriate scale and sympathetic to the landscape o Environment Policy 22 - smell, smoke, fumes impact on neighbours. o Environment Policy 23 - potential adverse impact on existing neighbours o Environment Policy 42 - promotes development taking account of locality in design. o Transport Policy 4 - capable of accommodating vehicle and pedestrian journeys
4.2 The Town and Country Planning Act 1999 states "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."
4.3 APS013 Landscape Character Area Appraisals o F8 - Poyll Vaaish and Scarlett Peninsula (F8) The overall strategy is to conserve the strong sense of openness throughout the area, with strong field pattern as well as the setting of the numerous archaeological sites and wartime structures within the area. Key Views Open and panoramic views out to sea, up to the Southern Upland peaks over open fields and towards the built-up areas of Castletown and Ballasalla are obtained from various slightly elevated positions within the area, where the cumulative effects of hedgerow trees does not intervene. Foreshortened views in some flatter areas where the accumulated effects of hedgerow trees create a wooded horizon. o D14 Ballamodha, Earystane and St Marks (D14) 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. Key Views Distant views prevented at times
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/00246/B Page 4 of 7
by dense woodland in river valleys and by the cumulative screening effect of hedgerow trees, which tend to create wooded horizons. Open and panoramic views out to sea from the higher areas on the upper western parts of the area where there are few trees to interrupt views.
4.4 Soil Classification Map = Class 1 / 2.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Malew Parish Commissioners - No objections (04/04/2024)
5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - Do Not Oppose (18/03/2024) - no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking.
5.3 No responses from any neighbouring properties
5.4 Comments were also sought from the following but no response received as of 07/03/2024: o Manx Utilities
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The key matters to assess as part of this application are: i. Principle ii. Visual impact iii. Loss of Agricultural Land iv. Amenity impact v. Highway safety
6.2 i) Principle 6.2.1 This application indicates that the works undertaken so far were to facilitate maintenance to the estate and repair works to agricultural buildings. These works were undertaken by a local business who required the works in order to get access into the site for their larger commercial vehicles and to avoid unnecessary disruption and mud being tracked through the residential area. The intention was to remove the works and return it to its previous state once the works were completed, however the applicant now seeks to retain the widened access due to the improved visibility and to keep the track in order to separate the agricultural access from the residential area.
6.2.2 Spatial Policy 5 states that development can only be permitted in countryside if in accordance with General Policy 3, and GP3(f) sets out exceptions to development in the countryside including operations essential for the conduct of agriculture, and in considering such an exception that real agricultural need must be demonstrated as set out in Section 7.13.
6.2.3 Looking to those similar access and farm track applications listed in 3.0 of this report, those which were successful formed part of much larger established farms operations and considered essential for the continued growth and operation of those farm businesses. For example 16/01086/B the level of access track works was considered small comparative to the rest of the 150+ acre land holding and visually was to be read in connection with the farmyard and "sufficiently necessary and related to the growth of the farming business as to qualify as an essential need".
6.2.4 Access has historically run from Malew Road and adjacent to the main house, there have been no highway safety issues raised or evidenced in respect of the use of this Malew Road access. Agricultural vehicles are also noted to have travelled across the field ad hoc and without a defined track in order to reach the outbuildings should they wish, this movement of
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/00246/B Page 5 of 7
farming vehicles is not uncommon minded that most of such vehicles are specifically designed for such off road travel.
6.2.5 The supporting information as part of this application indicates only an intention by the applicant to possibly undertake agricultural activity at the site in the form of planting crops and harvesting. There is no established operation demonstrated, nor any evidence of the nature of farm vehicles visiting the site, frequency of visits, size of vehicles nor why these vehicles can no longer use the existing access from Malew Road (which is already well established and which has been used to date).
6.2.6 While there may be some justification to widen the access to improve visibility and manoeuvring, a genuine agricultural need has not been sufficiently evidenced or demonstrated in this case to warrant the level of surface and perimeter track works in this location. Particularly mindful that agricultural access is still achievable from Malew Road alongside the house, and that evidence indicates that the original farm gate from Douglas Road was also in use prior to the works being undertaken that the proposed works are not considered essential for the conduct of agriculture in this location failing General Policy 3(f).
6.3 ii)Visual Impact 6.3.1 Strategic Policies 3 and 5 seek to promote good design which is appropriate to its locality and Strategic Policy 4 and Paragraphs 7.4.1 and 7.5.1 4 seek to protect or enhance rural landscape areas and open countryside. Environment Policy 1 seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake and any development which would adversely affect it will not be permitted.
Visual Impact of Access Works 6.3.2 The loss of a small part of the wall and stone pillars to facilitate the immediate widening of the access is not considered to be so visual harmful as to adversely impact the overall streetscene or character of the area being such a small section and also helping to facilitate to some degree, the improved visibility and manoeuvring in and out of the site.
6.3.3 However, the remaining works for the proposed access include the reduction to the wall to 1.05m within the visibility splay. Whilst this may work towards improving visibility there are no levels provided on any plans nor any existing or proposed elevations in order to be able to determine how much of that traditional stone wall is to be lost nor how that will appear, therefore an assessment as to the visual impact cannot be done. If this access is to be used only by agricultural vehicles and that most agricultural vehicles tend to sit higher in the road, it is also questioned whether there a genuine need for its lowering to 1.05m which is domestic car level height.
Visual Impact of Track Works 6.3.4 This type of access to allow vehicles to pull in off the road is becoming more common due to highway safety matters, but their engineered appearance is not typical of the countryside and can appear out of keeping and harmful. Their installation often has to be weighed against the level of use warranting its installation and highway safety implications.
6.3.5 It is clear that this increased opening allows for a greater views of the rest of the site and the installed track, and the installed dark aggregate draws more attention to the site compared to its previous typical farm gate and natural earth. The site and track are also prominent and visible from the main public highway and footpath running passed the side.
6.3.6 While the fencing and metal gates used are perhaps not uncommon features used as agricultural boundary treatments, their arrangement here coupled with the extent and finish of the track and its route around the field and leading towards the far side and amongst the trees closest to the main dwelling that it appears somewhat suburban and associated to the house rather than as an agricultural track.
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/00246/B Page 6 of 7
6.3.7 Comparative to the size of the field the track is large, visually dominant and not considered to be sympathetic to rural landscape taking away the existing green and rural quality of the area by introducing a manmade track which would is constructed with imported materials which do not bear similar characteristic of the existing field or rural context. The proposed track and pull in area would represent a detrimental intrusion adversely affecting the countryside contrary to Environment Policy 1, Strategic Policies 3, 4 and 5 and paragraphs 7.4.1 and 7.5.1.
6.4 iii)Loss of Agricultural Land 6.4.1 The site is recognised as being high quality Class 1/ 2. Environment Policy 14 states that development which would result in the permanent loss of such important and versatile agricultural land will not be permitted unless there is an overriding need for it. This proposal results in the loss of around 21% of field 432477 from agricultural use which is a notable proportion considering the site is recognised as being of such high quality and that the overall land holding (including fields 432480, 432482, 435010) only equates to around 7.7 acres. The works are not considered to be of any overriding need to warrant setting the policy aside and therefore the proposed track and aggregate areas are considered to fail Environment Policy 14.
6.5 ivHighway Safety 6.5.1 The application results in the widening of an existing access and this along with the removal of the pillars helps to increase visibility to some degree compared with the existing situation. The provision of a pull in section off the road provides an area where vehicles can stop off the highway whilst opening and closing the access gates without causing any network or highway safety issues and this would also be an improvement over the existing situation. From a highway safety perspective the works are considered acceptable in line with GP2 (h and i) and Transport Policy 4 and Strategic Policy 10.
6.6 v)Neighbouring Amenity Impact 6.6.1 The applicants have outlined a preference to not have their own agricultural traffic pass by their house but instead seek to make changes to the Douglas Road field gate to provide separate and permanent access for agricultural vehicles. This field gate sits directly adjacent to Maggies Cottage and the access runs immediately alongside their end gable. The anticipated works will likely facility an increased level of traffic through this access whether agricultural or perhaps part of the residential dwelling given the connectivity route. This intensification of vehicle movements directly along their gable would intensifying the impact of noise, activity and possible vibrations on their property from any vehicles including agricultural vehicles. While there is often a level of accepted agricultural activity when living in rural locations such as this, the proposal would make notably worse the current situation and this having an adverse impact on the occupants of Maggies Cottage conflicting with Environment Policies 22 and 23, and contrary to General Policy 2 (g)
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The application has not sufficiently demonstrated any essential agricultural need for the proposed works for the essential conduct of agriculture failing the tests of GP3(f) and Section 7.13 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
7.2 Furthermore, the overall siting, design and appearance of the works, specifically the pull in area and the perimeter track are out of keeping with the green and rural character of the area, resulting in spread of materials not readily found in the countryside and having an adverse visual impact on the countryside contrary to Environment Policy 1, Strategic Policies 3, 4, 5 and paragraphs 7.4.1 and 7.5.1.
7.3 The spread of works around two edges of the field also result in a notably loss off high quality agricultural land contrary to Environment Policy 14.
7.4 While the widening of the access by removal of the pillars is considered acceptable and not having any increased highway safety issues, there is concern with the unknown level of
==== PAGE 7 ====
24/00246/B Page 7 of 7
development required in relation to the reducing of the remaining traditional stone wall within the visibility splay and so a proper assessment cannot be made.
7.5 In addition to which the level of access works proposed and the proximity to the neighbours it is anticipated that there will be an intensification of use of the access by agricultural or other vehicles and this having an adverse effect on the living conditions of the neighbours at Maggies Cottage contrary to GP2(g) and undermining Environment Policies 22 and 23 and those principles in EP15 seeking to best protect neighbouring residential properties.
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 the Acting Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status
Decision Made : Refused Date : 02.05.2024
Determining officer Signed : A MORGAN Abigail Morgan
Acting Head of Development Management
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