Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/91149/B Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 24/91149/B Applicant : Mrs Grizelda Taylor Proposal : Erection of Polytunnel Site Address : Field 425236 Ballamaddrell Farmhouse Grenaby Road Ballabeg IM9 4HD
Planning Officer: Hamish Laird Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level :
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 03.12.2024 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. No external lighting to be installed unless a sensitive low level lighting plan, following best practise as detailed in the Bat Conservation Trust and Institute of Lighting Professionals Guidance Note 8/23 on Bats and Artificial Lighting (2023), has been submitted to DEFA Planning and approved in writing. Thereafter, any such lighting scheme shall be permanently retained and maintained for the lifetime of the development.
Reason -To assist in mitigating against any adverse ecological impacts in respect of Statutorily Protected Species (bats) arising from the development in accordance with the provisions of Policy ENV5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposed development is considered to be acceptable and accords with the provisions of Policy GP2 g); GP3 f); and ENV1, 5, 14, 15 and 22 in the IoMSP 2016.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
The development, hereby permitted, shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the following drawings and details:
Drawing No. CA-3371-001 - Existing Site and Location Plan; Drawing No. CA-3371-003 - Proposed Site Plan;
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/91149/B Page 2 of 7
Drawing No. CA-3371-100 - Proposed Polytunnel Plan and Elevations; Drawing No. CS1762-07P - Proposed Polytunnel Structural Details and Specifications - Roof Plan and Elevations;
All stamped received and dated 11 October, 2024. __
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: DOI Highway Services - No Objection Local Authority - No comments received. MUA - No comments received.
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given the Right to Appeal as they have submitted an objection that meets the specified criteria: Grassy Creek Grenaby Road Ballabeg Castletown __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site represents the curtilage of Ballamaddrell Farm, Grenaby Road, Ballabeg, Arbory. The site has a number of existing buildings within the curtilage including Ballamaddrell Farmhouse, garaging and an outbuilding. The current use of the broader site area includes agricultural use within field 425236 attached to the southern end of the residential curtilage.
1.2 The entire northern and eastern boundaries are enclosed by mature trees and shrubbery which lines the site boundary with the only open section being the western boundary and parts of the southern boundary. There is a fence that lines the boundary with Grenaby Art Studios on the west.
1.3 At the time of the Case Officer's site visit on 24/10/2024, works to install the approved 20 ground-mounted solar photovoltaic panels split into two separate blocks, appearing as two parallel rows, located to the northern boundary of Field Nr 425236 to the southeast of the main dwelling Ballamaddrell Farm, were progressing.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a Polytunnel, which is a half-round structure measuring approx. 4.2m wide x 6.4m long x 2.6m high to the apex of its curved roof. It would be constructed from a polyethylene pipe framework overlaid with polycarbonate sheeting attached to a curved timber frame above a timber shiplap cladding upstand approx. 300mm high above ground level. It would be pegged into the ground by spikes secured in concrete surrounds, and would be accessed by 2 No. outward opening, wooden framed, pedestrian doors - one located at each end.
2.2 The Polytunnel would be set in the North-western corner of Field Nr 425236 located adjacent to the northern boundary, on a line with the above-mention solar PV array. Field Nr 425236 is located to the southeast of the main dwelling Ballamaddrell Farm. The Polytunnel would be sited next to the flied boundary and to the south of an existing Polytunnel on the adjoining field to the north (Field Nr 421519). This northern field boundary set between Field Nr 425236 and Field Nr 421519 is a mature hedgerow. To the north of this boundary is a neighbouring residential bungalow which is located approx. 37m from this shared boundary and approx. 38.5m from the proposed Polytunnel, and the closest solar photovoltaic panel.
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/91149/B Page 3 of 7
2.2 The proposed use of the Polytunnel is for growing produce in connection with residential/agricultural purposes.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The application site lies within an area not designated for any particular purpose on the Area Plan for the South 2013 and within character appraisal area D14. As such, the following parts of the Strategic Plan are considered to be relevant:
3.2 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:
f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry.
3.3 Environment Policy 1: 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.
3.4 Environment Policy 15: "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.
3.5 Section 7.14 of the Strategic Plan also refers to horticultural activity albeit on a much larger nursery and market garden scale, although the principle tests of their acceptability is also relevant (Environment Policy 17).
3.6 Section 7.14 Horticulture "7.14.1 The use of land for horticulture, market gardens or nursery grounds is common on the Island and often found on sites in the urban fringe or free-standing in the countryside. Such uses can contribute to the economic activity of rural areas, but the requirement for buildings and adequate access and parking spaces means that such developments can be intrusive in the countryside. The development and expansion of such sites needs to be carefully managed particularly where there are traffic implications and in order to prevent the proliferation of buildings, which may include growing tunnels and external displays and greenhouses, leading to an adverse impact on the character of such areas.
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/91149/B Page 4 of 7
7.14.2 Selling the produce grown in a market garden or a nursery from the site may not constitute development, but retailing other products does, and will be subject to the Department's general retail policies."
3.7 Environment Policy 17: "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."
3.8 The Town and Country Planning Act 1999 also provides guidance as it defines activities that are considered to constitute agriculture. It states that:
"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.
3.9 Climate Change Act 2021
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The following planning applications are considered relevant in the determination of the application:
4.2 24/90964/B - Erection of 20 ground-mounted solar photovoltaic panels - approved by Planning Committee 29/9/2024.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Highway Services comment there is no highway interest (11.10.2024).
5.2 Arbory and Rushen Parish Commissioners - no response received by the report drafting stage 3/12/2024.
5.3 Manx Utities Authority (MUA) - no response received by the report drafting stage 3/12/2024.
5.4 Third Party Representations The occupier of Grassy Creek, Greenaby Road, Arbory (28/10/24) writes raising objection to the proposed development as follows:
"I write again, as part-owner of property immediately adjacent to the application site, to register further objection to this subsequent planning application that closely follows the previous application for solar panels (24/00964/B), for which our request for right to appeal
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/91149/B Page 5 of 7
was surprisingly rejected despite our immediate proximity to the site and the developments significantly negative impact on our outlook (or view).
We note that the site has been incorrectly recorded as having a boundary of a sod hedge, and this has been used as mitigation for the harm caused. I need to clarify that the boundary is not a sod hedge and is in fact a fence, where we have grown hawthorn on our side. The solar panels, for which we were not allowed to appeal against, and this current application for a poly tunnel, and any other further development will therefore directly and negatively impact our outlook (or view). The land slopes to the south, the siting for the current planning application, as with planning application 24/00964/B, will be directly in front of us. We are finding it difficult to understand how so much incremental development can be allowed on an agricultural field which was only a few years ago grazing land. It now has landscaping, conifers, an agricultural shed that we have previously highlighted as never being used for agriculture, play equipment, gravel track and now solar panels and potentially a poly tunnel. It is concerning how fast the pace of development in this agricultural field, and we are concerned at the intention for the future, is this to be residential development by stealth?
We are still trying to understand how our request for right to appeal was so quickly rejected for the previous application, all because we used the word 'view' instead of 'outlook' despite the words having the same meaning, and despite us referring to the correct policy, and despite us being immediately adjacent to the application site and directly impacted. The previous decision for solar panels was also based on incorrect information, assuming that the solar panels would be screened by a sod hedge boundary. If there RedactedRedacted Redacted Redacted 2 had been any site visit by the planning officer, it would have been clear that there was no such thing. The Planning Committee either made an assumption, or were misinformed. As it stands, the solar panels will be very clearly visible in front of our property and totally unavoidable. As will this new application for a poly tunnel if it is successful (and we are rejected for some tenuous reason again).
The site is rapidly becoming overdeveloped and we must object. We note that all of the recent applications for development are sited in front of our property, not in front of the applicants property.
The proposal does not meet any of the exceptional criteria set out in General Policy 3 and is therefore contrary to policy. The proposals are also contrary to Environment Policy 1 - to protect the countryside for its own sake. Proposals for development in this area would be detrimental to our enjoyment of our property. Environment Policy 23: When considering alterations and improvements to existing facilities the Department will require that consideration be given to the potential adverse impact of the proposed changes to existing neighbours. The applicant has once again not considered the negative impacts that the proposed development will have on our property.
The applicant has made no attempt to discuss the proposals in advance, nor have they evidenced how they would mitigate for the considerable negative impact on our property. Our property is raised significantly above, is immediately in front of, and directly faces, the application site. As such the development will be unavoidable even if we tried to grow our small hedge to a significantly increased height.
We once again reiterate our strong objections to the application and request interested party status and the right to appeal, as property owners immediately adjacent to the proposed development whose outlook will be adversely impacted, and we wish it to be clearly noted that we consider the previous decision on 24/00964/B to be flawed."
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 In terms of the visual impact Environment Policies 1 & 17 are the most relevant policies, the first of which needs to ensure it would not adversely affect the countryside and the latter
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/91149/B Page 6 of 7
requires the buildings are erected away from public highways and are screened from public gaze. In this respect, the provisions of Environment Policy 1 is particularly relevant where it states that within such areas development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted. Whilst it is also considered that the need for the building as stipulated in Policy GP3 should be established, in that "GP3 f) requires that development in the countryside in the form of "building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry.", should be established, in this case the small scale nature of the development and close proximity to an existing, similar size/scale Polytunnel in the adjoining field to the north is considered sufficient to outweigh this stipulation, when other factors which are outlined below are taken into consideration.
6.2 From public views (Grenaby Road), the Polytunnel is unlikely to be apparent, given the significant boundary features which run along the Grenaby Road, the height of the Polytunnel at 2.6m max., its proximity to the Polytunnel in the neighbouring field to the north and distance from public viewpoints. The Polytunnel would also be located close to the northern field boundary, which is made up of fencing and a mature hedgerow. While it is proposed outside the residential curtilage of the main dwelling (i.e. garden) it would be within 25m - 30m of the dwelling. The applicants advise that it would be used for growing produce in connection with residential/agricultural purposes, and it is located on agricultural land albeit near to the main dwellings rear garden area. It is also considered that the proposal accords with the guidelines stipulated in Section 7.14 of the Strategic Plan on Horticulture and Environment Policy 15.
6.3 Overall, it is considered the siting is arguably the best location within the ownership of the applicant. It benefits from a south facing orientation which would maximise solar gain; is not publically visible and is positioned along a boundary of a field close to an existing Polytunnel on neighbouring land, which would ensure that the majority of the field in which it would be located is still available for agricultural activities to take place without obstruction, should such activity occur. As such, the position of the Polytunnel on the field would not spoil the character of the surrounding countryside and not have an adverse visual impact, thus the development would comply with Environment Policy 1.
6.4 Accordingly, there is not considered to be any undue loss of agricultural land (Class 2/3
6.5 There would be no ecological implications arising from the proposed development. This would accord with the provisions of Environment Policy 5 in the IoMSP 2016.
6.6 In respect of the impact on neighbours residential amenities, the comments received from the occupants of Grassy Creek, Grenaby Road, Ballasalla are noted. As outlined above, it is considered that the siting of the Polytunnel is in arguably the best location within the ownership of the applicant. It would not be publically visible from Grenaby Road and would be positioned along and screened by the field boundary of the adjoining field in close proximity to an existing Polytunnel on this neighbouring land (Grassy Creek), thus limiting any harm to this neighbours amenities, particularly in respect of views of and visual impact upon the occupants of this neighbouring dwelling and property. This is a small scale proposal, The proposed development is considered to be acceptable and accords with the provisions of Policy GP2 g); and ENV22 in the IoMSP 2016.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 For these reasons, the proposal is considered to be appropriate in this location and complies with the relevant polices of the IOM Strategic Plan and the application is therefore recommended for an approval subject to conditions.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
==== PAGE 7 ====
24/91149/B Page 7 of 7
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
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 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 and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made: Permitted Date: 04.12.2024
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 office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal