Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/91315/B
Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 24/91315/B Applicant : Ms Siobhan O'Connor Proposal : Erection of three polytunnels, and construction of pond and hardstanding area. Site Address : Field 214317 Jurby East Isle Of Man
Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Photo Taken : 17.02.2025 Site Visit : 17.02.2025 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 12.06.2025 __
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. The structures may only be used for horticultural and agricultural purposes.
Reason: The countryside is protected from development and an exception is being made on the basis of a horticulture/agriculture need only.
C 3. The structures hereby approved shall be removed and the ground restored to its former condition in the event that they are no longer used or required for a period exceeding 12 months for agricultural/horticultural uses.
Reason: The structures have been exceptionally approved solely to meet agricultural/horticultural need, and their subsequent retention would result in an unwarranted intrusion in the countryside.
C 4. No retail sales shall take place from any of the structures hereby approved.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure the development takes place in accordance with the approved details.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposed development is appropriately sited to protect the rural landscape, maintaining its character and integrating harmoniously with its surroundings, in accordance with Strategic Policies 4 and 5. The polytunnels, pond, hardstanding, and mound align with Environment Policies 15 and 17, ensuring minimal landscape disruption and supporting farm operations. The
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/91315/B
Page 2 of 7
scheme does not compromise biodiversity (EP 1 & 4) or high-quality agricultural land (EP 14) and remains adaptable for future agricultural use. Given these considerations, the development meets policy requirements and represents a sustainable agricultural operation that supports rural land use objectives.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This decision relates to the documents and plans received 19 November 2024, and Drawing No. 24-129-04 Rev B - Proposed Site Plan received 12 May 2025. __
Right to Appeal
None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site comprises Field 214317, Jurby East, which sits southwest of the Ballachrink Farmhouse situated at the end the lane that serves the dwellings and fields in the area. Access to the site is via this long single lane farm lane (with passing places), with junction that sits northeast of the junction between the C7 (Rhendhoo Road) and Jurby East Road to the south.
1.2 The site is largely enclosed in shrubbery, trees and sodbanks which largely encloses the site such that there are limited views from the surrounding fields, although there are gaps along the site frontage that allow views from the adjoining lane. The site is largely flat.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for Erection of three polytunnels, and construction of pond and hardstanding area.
2.2 The proposed polytunnels would be situated on the northwestern end of the field, about 7m from the boundary. The polytunnels would be 9.1m long, 4.8m wide and be 2.5m from the ground level to the top of its arched roof. These polytunnels would have frames formed from Pre-formed Galvanised hoops and be covered in with polythene. There would be double doors on either gable end.
2.3 Other works would include (already commenced): a. A new circular pond that would sit on the southern end of the field and about 3.9m from the boundary. This pond would have a diameter measuring about 8.4m and be 1.5m deep. The pond will be fed from existing ditch with overflow back into existing ditch. b. A new hardstanding area would be created directly in front of the field access, measuring 14.4m x 16.2m. The new hardstanding area is to be topped with type 1 stone, but it is currently composed of a mix of gravel, soil, and wood chips. c. Partly enclosing the hardstanding area is a new planted mound boundary that would be 3m wide at its base and be 1.2m tall.
2.4 The Supporting Statement accompanying the application advises that: 1. The site is a 1.2-hectare field on the northwestern side of Ballachrink Lane, accessed via a gated entrance. 2. It is currently unused and bordered by self-seeded trees, ivy, willow, blackberries, and gorse. 3. A ditch runs along the northwest and northern boundaries; during a November 2024 visit, it contained standing water, and the field was damp in places.
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/91315/B
Page 3 of 7
4. The applicant also owns an adjacent copse of trees (field 210199), which is not part of the proposal. 5. The proposal is to erect up to three polytunnels, starting with one and adding more as resources allow. 6. The site will be used for grazing animals (initially chickens and ducks, later sheep, pigs, goats, and bees) and growing fruit and vegetables. 7. The aim is to create a self-sufficient smallholding for one family, with potential for sales or bartering of surplus produce. 8. Polytunnels will be placed directly on the ground, surrounded by bark or chippings for stability and protection. 9. No foundations will be used; the structures are removable to preserve the field's condition. 10. Polytunnels will be sited over 5 meters from the ditch to prevent nutrient runoff and protect watercourses. 11. The applicant intends to enhance biodiversity by maintaining a wildlife corridor, using natural products, installing bird and bat boxes, and planting native species such as hawthorn, blackthorn, holly, elder, and fuchsia.
No changes are proposed to site access or the adjacent ecologically significant copse.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site is located in an area not zoned for development on the 1982 Development Plan Order and the site is not within a Conservation Area. The site is largely not prone to flood risk, although small stretches of the northeastern and southwestern boundaries have likelihood of surface water flood risk. The site is not within a Registered Tree Area, and there are no registered trees on site.
3.2 National: STRATEGIC PLAN (2016) 3.2.1 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of the planning application:
3.2.2 Relevant Strategic Plan Policies: a. General Policy 3 - Exceptions to development in the countryside. b. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations. c. Environment Policy 1 - Protection of the countryside and inherent ecology. d. Environment Policy 4 - Protects biodiversity (including protected species and designated sites). e. Environment Policy 5 - Mitigation against damage to or loss of habitats. f. Environment Policy 7 - prohibits developments that harm watercourses, wetlands, or similar habitats unless mitigation measures are effective. Applications must identify nearby watercourses, prevent water quality harm, and avoid development within 8 meters to protect ecosystems. g. Environment Policy 13 - Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted. h. Environment Policy 14 - Prohibits development leading to the permanent loss of high- quality agricultural land (Classes 1-2) unless there is an overriding need and no lower-quality land is available. i. Environment Policies 15 and 17 - Refers to the visual appearance and best location of agricultural or horticultural buildings. j. Strategic Policy 1 - Promotes resource efficiency by ensuring efficient site use (b) and utilizing existing and planned infrastructure (c). k. Strategic Policy 4 - development proposals must protect or enhance the nature conservation and landscape quality of urban as well as rural areas. l. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact.
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/91315/B
Page 4 of 7
m. Transport Policy 1 - Proximity to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes important for new development. n. Transport Policy 4 - Highway safety. o. Business Policy 1 - Encourages the growth of employment opportunities across the Island, provided development proposals comply with this Plan's policies. p. Paragraph 7.14.1 (Horticulture): "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."
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 The Isle of Man's Biodiversity Strategy (2015 - 2025) 4.1.1 The Department's Biodiversity Strategy is capable of being a material consideration. It seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary.
4.2 DEFA's Food Matters Strategy 2015-2025 4.2.1 This is a development strategy to grow the economic contribution of Isle of Man Food and Drink from 2015 to 2025.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The site has not been subject of any recent planning application that is considered relevant in the assessment and determination of the current application.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 The DOI Highways have no interest (9.12.24/17.12.24).
6.2 Jurby Parish Commissioners have not made any comments although they were consulted on 3.12.24/12.05.25.
6.3 No comments have been received from neighbouring properties.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The key issues to consider when assessing the current application are: 1. the principle of the development; 2. the impact the development will have on the character of the countryside; and 3. Ecological impacts, and 4. Loss of agricultural soils.
7.2 The principle (GP 3, BP 1, Paragraph 9.2.3) 7.2.1 The starting point for any development within the countryside (i.e. land not zoned for development) is General Policy 3 (GP3) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. This policy states that development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan and sets the exceptions which may be acceptable in the countryside. Agricultural and horticultural development is one of the recognized exceptions, provided it reinforces the agricultural function of the site and does not compromise environmental sustainability.
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/91315/B
Page 5 of 7
7.2.2 The applicant has demonstrated in their written submission that the proposed use of the site (including the polytunnels) would be for agricultural and horticultural use, uses which fall within the exceptions allowable under GP3(f), which serves to reinforce the agricultural and horticultural use of the site. It is also considered that the proposal accords with the guidelines stipulated in Section 7.14 of the Strategic Plan on Horticulture, as well as the provisions of EP15 and EP17, which set standards for agricultural and horticultural developments to ensure they align with sustainable land management principles. Environment Policy 15 further reinforces that agricultural development must demonstrate a justified need and be appropriately sited to minimize impact on the rural environment.
7.2.3 Whilst there is currently little evidence to give a better context of the scale and nature of agricultural use from visiting the site, the applicants have clearly indicated that the field is currently unused with the goal to erect the three polytunnels in phases, starting with one and adding more as resources allow, in order to support grazing animals (initially chickens and ducks, later sheep, pigs, goats, and bees) and growing fruit and vegetables. It must be emphasized that the type of the structures proposed, being polytunnels, will effectively support the nature and scale of the proposal, pending when the farm would be fully developed and allow for permanent structures should they be needed. This phased approach aligns with Section 7.13, which supports agricultural expansion while ensuring that land remains viable for future farming use. Additionally, EP17 emphasizes that agricultural and horticultural structures should be developed in a way that does not negatively affect the surrounding environment, ensuring responsible land use.
7.2.4 As has been noted above, the issue of permanency of the structures proposed for the site, the size of the structures proposed, and the manner in which the structures are to be set up would ensure that they could easily be removed without creating marked impacts on the soil or site character. None of the structures would have a concrete base, and they would be constructed in a manner that they can easily be removed when no longer needed. In accordance with EP15, the temporary nature of the structures ensures minimal long-term impact on the rural setting. Furthermore, Section 7.13 reinforces the need for agricultural development to balance functionality with environmental conservation. Given the above, it is considered that the rationale for the current scheme is acceptable.
7.2.5 The proposed pond, hardstanding, and mound align with the principles set out in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. In accordance with EP15, the structures support essential farm operations while remaining consistent with the site's agricultural function. The pond aids in water management, contributing to sustainable land use without compromising soil integrity. The mound serves an agricultural role in land shaping, reinforcing soil stability and assisting with drainage management, in line with EP17. The hardstanding facilitates stable access and temporary storage of essential materials for the site. Section 7.14 of the Strategic Plan emphasizes the need to carefully manage horticultural structures to prevent adverse impacts, ensuring that supporting features do not undermine rural character or agricultural viability. Given these considerations, these elements of the development remain acceptable in principle, demonstrating compliance with relevant policies while safeguarding agricultural productivity.
7.3.6 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the information provided within the submitted plans, and supporting information/plans are sufficient to justify the need for the development with a combined polytunnel footprint of 131sqm which would be built incrementally to support a predominantly horticulture operation on a 1.2-hectare (2.97acre) field is acceptable. The scheme is, therefore considered acceptable in principle.
7.3 Impact on the character of the countryside (GP 2, EP 15 and 17, and STP 4 and 5) 7.3.1 In assessing impacts on the character of the site and surrounding landscape, it is considered that the new structures would be sited within an area of the site where they would not be prominent additions to the landscape and would be largely screened from the surrounding fields by the existing trees and mature boundary treatment (sod banks and
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/91315/B
Page 6 of 7
shrubs). This aligns with Environment Policy 15, which requires agricultural structures to be appropriately sited to minimize disruption to the landscape. The separating distance between polytunnels, which would be the most notable additions to the site, from the farm track situated southeast (159m away) ensures that there are no detrimental visual impacts, complying with Strategic Policy 5.
7.3.2 Furthermore, the structures would be read within the context of the existing area, which is predominantly agricultural. Given their temporary and functional nature, they align with the broader rural character and do not introduce elements that would disrupt the visual coherence of the landscape. Environment Policy 17 emphasizes that agricultural developments must be appropriately scaled and positioned to avoid adverse impacts on the surrounding countryside. Similarly, Strategic Policy 4 requires development to protect or enhance the landscape quality of rural areas, ensuring that new structures complement rather than detract from the existing setting. In this respect, the proposed structures follow the natural layout of the field and integrate seamlessly into the rural environment. Additionally, General Policy 2 ensures that development considerations factor in compatibility with surrounding land uses, further reinforcing the acceptability of the proposal. No further impact on the surrounding countryside is envisaged.
7.4 Impacts on Ecology (EP 1 & 4) 7.4.1 The proposed development is not expected to cause unacceptable environmental disturbance or significantly impact biodiversity. Environment Policy 1 emphasizes the protection of the countryside and inherent ecology, and the proposal aligns with this by ensuring that the existing sod banks and shrubs will remain untouched. Additionally, Environment Policy 4, which safeguards biodiversity, is satisfied, as the scheme does not involve significant site stripping or excavation that could disrupt crawling fauna or other wildlife habitats. The site appears to be currently cultivated for fodder, limiting its potential to serve as a natural habitat for diverse biota. Given these factors, the development would not introduce substantial ecological risks and remains consistent with strategic environmental policies aimed at preserving rural ecological integrity.
7.5 Loss of Agricultural Soils (EP 14) 7.5.1 In terms of the loss of high-quality soils, the proposal site does not represent high- quality agricultural land (Classes 1 and 2), and as such, the development would not result in a reduction of superior farmland. The soils here are within capability class 3 on the Government's Agricultural Soils Capability Map, which does not represent high-quality agricultural land. It is, therefore, considered that the scheme complies with the requirements of Environment Policy 14.
7.5.2 Furthermore, the scale of the polytunnels is not such that it would compromise the overall use of the site for agricultural purposes. The structures have been designed to support existing agricultural operations rather than restrict them. Additionally, as the polytunnels are temporary, they can be removed if necessary, allowing the land to be restored to full agricultural use without long-term impact. This ensures that the site retains its agricultural function, aligning with strategic rural development objectives.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 Overall, the proposed development is acceptable in principle, complying with General Policy 3 by reinforcing the site's agricultural and horticultural function while preserving environmental sustainability. The polytunnels, pond, hardstanding, and mound align with Environment Policies 15 and 17, ensuring minimal impact on the rural landscape. Adequate separation and screening mitigate visual disruption (Strategic Policies 4 and 5), while the project safeguards ecological integrity (Environment Policies 1 and 4) and avoids the loss of high-quality agricultural land (Environment Policy 14). The temporary nature of the structures ensures adaptability, maintaining agricultural viability. Overall, the scheme represents responsible and sustainable rural development.
==== PAGE 7 ====
24/91315/B
Page 7 of 7
9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 9.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).
9.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to: o applicant (in all cases); o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.
9.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10.
9.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required): o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant); o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area; o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and o in the case of a petition, a single representative. __
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 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: 16.06.2025
Determining Officer
Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Principal Planner
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