Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90465/B
Page 1 of 9
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90465/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs Roger & Bronwen Raatgever Proposal : Creation of new vehicular access and removal of existing vehicular access Site Address : Field 432477 Douglas Road Ballasalla Isle Of Man IM9 3DN
Planning Officer: Vanessa Porter Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 14.07.2025 __
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 visibility splay(s) identified on drawing No.2307/1 1A; shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter kept permanently clear of any obstruction exceeding 1050mm in height above adjoining carriageway level.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
C 3. No development shall commence until a schedule of materials and finishes and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details.
For the avoidance of doubt no approval is given for the use of any "Tier" or similar stone cladding system to the proposed walling.
Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90465/B
Page 2 of 9
C 4. The access area hereby approved shall be finished a bound and consolidated material and retained as such thereafter.
Reason: in the interest of Highway Safety.
C 5. Within 3 months of the new access being brought into use, the existing access shall be blocked up in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: to ensure the development takes place in accordance with the approved details.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. Whilst on the face of it, the application fails several relevant policies, the proposal which has an increased highway safety and a reduced neighbouring impact to the occupants of "Maggie's Cottage," is ultimately deemed acceptable and as such the proposal is recommended for approval.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This decision relates to the following plans and drawings, date stamped received on 7th May 2025; o Location Plan o Drawing No. 2307/1 2A o Drawing No. 2307/1 0A o Drawing No. 2307/1 1A o Planning Statement
__
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: DOI Highway Services - No objection subject to conditions Malew Commissioners - No objection __
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT IS CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
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 There have been recent alterations to the existing access, which includes the removal of a gate pillar, and alterations to widen the existing farm access from Douglas Road into field 432477, which have created a pull in area directly off the road and installed a perimeter track leading to the South West corner of the field. These works have all been finished in a dark coloured gravel aggregate.
PROPOSAL 2.1 The current planning application seeks to reply to the previously refused application PA24/00246/B, by blocking up the existing entrance adjacent to Maggie's Cottage and the
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90465/B
Page 3 of 9
creation of a new access situated to the Western side of the field, this new access will facilitate a gravel access track, which leads to the existing yard of Malew House.
2.2 The proposal includes the creation of splayed stonewall 2m away from the main road, leading to a 4m gate entrance. The entrance will include 6m of bound surface from the highway.
2.3 The proposed gravel track is to measure approximately 65m ending with a small fenced off area adjacent to the existing yard. The access track is to have a central grass strip.
2.4 The retrospective works to the existing farm entrance adjacent to Maggie's Cottage are to be permanently closed off and in-filled with a stone wall to match the existing boundary wall and the retrospective perimeter track will be excavated to remove the gravel/ type 1 base and the soil (from previous excavation) to be reinstated as per the Enforcement Notice.
PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There is one previous application, which is relevant to the assessment of this application, PA24/00246/B, which was for "Modifications to an existing agricultural field access (Field Ref: 432477) and creation of a new perimeter track," which was refused for the following reasonings;
R1 - 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.
R2 - 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.
R3 - 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.
R4 - 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.
R5 - 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.
3.2 The application was subject to an Appeal of which it was refused at Appeal for the same refusal reasons above in a different order.
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90465/B
Page 4 of 9
3.3 In addition to the above application, 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 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 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 Level of work considered essential for conduct of agricultural (horticulture) and not to have any adverse visual impact.
o 16/01086/B - Ballavarvane Farm, Field 430648 - APPROVED Level of work considered essential for conduct of agriculture and not to have any adverse visual impact.
PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as "Not for Development" on the Area Plan for the South 2013. 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 - 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
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90465/B
Page 5 of 9
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 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.
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 The following representations can be found in full online, below is a short summary;
5.2 DOI Highway Services have considered the application and state, "After reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/ or parking, as the proposed access has improved visibility compared to the existing access, subject to conditions on visibility splays, bound and consolidated access surface, and the existing access being closed up before use of the new access. Note to attach to permission: The Applicant will need to obtain a S109 highway agreement with DOI for the proposed changes to the accesses." (12.05.25)
5.3 Malew Parish Commissioners have considered the application and state, No Objections." (12.06.25)
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The key matters to assess as part of this application are:
6.2 PRINCIPLE 6.2.1 The starting point with any application within land designated as "not for development," is whether the proposal would comply with the relevant planning policies in connection with the site designation as per section 4 of this report. This is especially relevant when noting the previously refused application (PA24/00246/B) and that this application is to respond to the refusal reasons.
==== PAGE 6 ====
25/90465/B
Page 6 of 9
6.2.2 Spatial Policy 5 states that development can only be permitted in the countryside if in accordance with General Policy 3, of which General Policy 3(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 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
6.2.3 The supporting information with the application states the following with regards to the agricultural justification of the proposal, "4.9 It may also have been inferred that the heritage wheat will be grown only in the roadside field whereas it is proposed to introduce this crop on the remaining fields north of the house, which amount to around 3 acres with a further potential if there is a demand, to use the fields to the south of the house which would be a further 4 acres. The intended purchaser of the wheat is very excited about growing Heritage Wheat locally and has already done initial tests on the soil and confirmed that it has no pesticides and herbicides, this is very unusual and very exciting for quality wheat. He's also excited about growing locally as it will also give the Island food security and resilience should we encounter wheat shortages or delivery challenges from across."
6.2.4 When looking for further information regarding agricultural justification, there is nothing major within the supporting information. Whilst it is noted during the officers site visit that the field in question was currently laid to agriculture with the planning of beans, this could not be said for the largest field to the South of the site, which whilst not viewed during the officers site visit, when viewed upon the aerials show several non-agricultural items which have arisen in the latter years. It was also noted during the officer’s site visit that the existing yard was housing several non-agricultural items such as what appeared as a food truck trailer.
6.2.5 Whilst the above does not necessarily mean that the site is not being used as agriculture, the amount that is being used is minimal. Adding onto the fact that since the last application no sufficient information has been provided to the department on whether the site has an established operation, nor evidence of the nature of farm vehicles visiting the site nor the frequency of visits.
6.2.6 Ultimately, from a principle point of view whilst it was for the previous application there is an agreement with the appeals inspector on the current agricultural justification, of which the appeals inspector stated within their inspectors report, "62, I recognise the possibilities and benefits of the appeal site being cultivated for vintage wheat, but I am not convinced that it is necessary to extend the access and create the perimeter track to facilitate this agricultural usage. It would be small scale and it has not been shown why other more accessible parts of the estate could not be used. Whilst the appellants may prefer not to have agricultural machinery or the site manager's vehicles accessing the barns and fields passing by their house, this is an already established situation and not a justification for the appeal proposal. It is not uncommon for Farmers to drive their machinery along the perimeter of fields without the benefit of hard surfaced tracks. By the very nature of tractors and similar they are built to negotiate terrain which may be unmade and muddy. More domestic vehicles such as cars, vans, land rovers and lorries can still access Malew House and the buildings behind, as they have done for some time, from Malew Road."
6.2.7 Whilst the proposal does not comply with General Policy 3, it is still necessary to assess the visual impact, loss of agricultural land, highway safety and neighbouring amenity impact.
6.3 VISUAL IMPACT 6.3.1 Strategic Policies 3 & 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 seek to protect or enhance rural landscape areas and open countryside and lastly Environment Policy 1 seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake and any development which would adversely affect it will not be permitted.
==== PAGE 7 ====
25/90465/B
Page 7 of 9
6.3.2 Firstly, it is necessary to assess the impact of the access works on the overall streetscene. The proposal is to block up the existing altered entrance adjacent to "Maggie’s Cottage" and create a new entrance to the West of Field 432477. The existing altered entrance is approximately 6m wide with the proposed new entrance being approximately 8m wide. Due to the nature of the works being a new entrance, several factors are required to make sure that the proposal meets the Manual for Manx Roads, with this type of access, which allows vehicles to pull in off the road becoming more common due to highway safety matters.
6.3.3 Whilst this is the case their engineered appearance is not typical of the countryside and can appear out of keeping and harmful and their installation often has to be weighed against the level of use warranting its installation and highway safety implications.
6.3.4 It is clear that that the existing entrance and track, whilst retrospective and not acceptable (refused under PA24/00246/B), have a substantial impact upon the overall streetscene. Whilst it's noted that there has been a historic entrance into the field from Malew Road, vehicles are noted to have travelled ad hoc across the field and in no particular path.
6.3.5 The proposal within this application whilst agricultural in its appearance, gravel with a central grass strip, this track is more akin to an agricultural driveway to a dwelling in the countryside and not an access into a field. The proposal is also keeping a large area of the site nearest the yard as a gravelled paddock.
6.3.6 It should be noted that the retrospective track currently has an Enforcement Notice situated upon it, as such the reinstatement of the track does not need to be conditioned.
6.4 LOSS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND 6.4.1 Turning towards Environment Policy 14 and the potential loss of agricultural land. Environment Policy 14 is specific in that it states that applications which result in the permanent loss of versatile agricultural land (Class 1-2) will not be permitted unless there is an overriding need for it. The application site is defined within an area on the Isle of Man Soils Map, as Class 1/2, with the proposal resulting in a loss of around 10% of Field 432477, from agricultural use which is a notable proportion considering the site is recognised as being such high quality and that the overall holding equated to around 7.7 acres.
6.4.2 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 HIGHWAY SAFETY 6.5.1 Highway Services have considered the merits of the proposed entrance on the existing entrance, with their comments as the transport professionals being heavily relied upon and it is noted that they do not object to the application and even state that the proposed access will have improved visibility compared to the existing access.
6.5.2 Whilst the above is the case they have requested several conditions be attached to any approval for the following, visibility splays, bound and consolidated access surface, and the existing access being closed up before use of the new access.
6.6 NEIGHBOURING AMENITY 6.6.1 One of the main differences in this application and the previously refused applications is the removal of the entrance from adjacent to "Maggie's Cottage." The blocking up of the existing access and it's replacement to the Western side of the overall field means that the only traffic adjacent to "Maggie's Cottage" will be from already accepted agricultural activity when working the field. This reduces the overall impact on "Maggie's Cottage" and ultimately will be making the overall impact of the proposal on the neighbouring amenity significantly better than the existing situation.
==== PAGE 8 ====
25/90465/B
Page 8 of 9
CONCLUSION 7.1 When assessing the proposal, not enough evidence has been demonstrate that the proposal is essential agricultural need, especially when noting that there are other accesses available to the fields within the applicants ownership and that the visual impact of the proposal being substantial compared to the existing situation prior to the retrospective works, especially when noting that the tracks appearance is not relative to its proposed use. This means that the proposal fails the test of General Policy 3(f), Environment Policy 1, Strategic Policies 3, 4 and 5.
7.2 Whilst the above is the case the proposal in itself is making the situation better for the occupants of "Maggie's Cottage," by moving the entrance away from being adjacent to their property and situating it West of the field. This will greatly improve the living conditions of "Maggie's Cottage" and as such means the proposal would comply with General Policy 2(g).
7.3 The removal of any land that is classed as 1/2, without an overriding need would generally mean that the proposal is against Environment Policy 14, whilst this is the case, the proposal within this application is half the amount of what would be original if the field was used for crops as it currently is, as such ultimately the proposal is making a situation better in this regard, and would comply with the principles of Environment Policy 14.
7.4 The proposal as per Highway Services, will be creating an improved access from a Highway Safety point of view and as such this means the access would comply with Strategic Policy 10, General Policy 2(h) and Transport Policy 4.
7.5 Ultimately, when looking at the proposal, the increased Highway Safety and reduced neighbouring impact of the proposal in this instance override the lack of agricultural justification and the visual impact of the proposal, and as such the proposal is recommended for approval subject to several conditions.
RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 8.1 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).
8.2 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.
8.3 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.
8.4 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.
==== PAGE 9 ====
25/90465/B
Page 9 of 9
__
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made: Permitted Date:
Signed : Presenting Officer - Mrs Vanessa Porter
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