Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
23/01067/A Page 1 of 9
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 23/01067/A Applicant : Mrs Cheryl Witchell Proposal : Approval in principle for the erection of 2 dwellings with associated access and siting and all other matters reserved Site Address : The Secret Garden Nurseries Ballacharry Road St Marks Ballasalla Isle Of Man IM9 3AU
Planning Officer: Mr Toby Cowell Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 07.03.2024 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The principle of development, namely the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes, represents an unsustainable form of development that is contrary to the Island's spatial strategy, whilst further resulting in a form of development which would pose a detriment impact upon the character and appearance of its isolated rural location. The proposals are therefore contrary to Spatial Policy 5, Strategic Policy 4, General Policies 2 and 3, Housing Policy 4 and Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan (2016).
R 2. In the absence of sufficient information demonstrating otherwise, the proposals have the potential to result in a detrimental impact upon protected species and the site's biodiversity credentials, contrary to Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan (2016).
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
Ballanank Farm, Phildraw Road, Ballasalla Thie Hollyn, Ballamodha Straight, Ballasalla
==== PAGE 2 ====
23/01067/A Page 2 of 9
as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site comprises The Secret Garden Nurseries, Ballacharry Road, St Marks, Ballasalla which is located on the on the eastern side of the Ballacharry Road, north of Ballasalla. The site would appear to have a number of existing structures in place (polytunnel/sheds etc.), albeit very well screened from the adjacent public highway and from distance views due to the substantial landscaping which runs along all four boundaries of the site. The site is however very overgrown and is understood to not have been used as a nursery for circa. 25 years, with structures on site generally in a very poor state of repair and not visible in the context of the adjacent streetscene.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Approval in principle is sought for removal of all structures from the site and the erection of 2 no. detached dwellings. The proposals would utilise the existing vehicular access to the site with the present area of hardstanding to remain. The siting of the dwellings would be largely centrally located within the site and at angles to each other with separate vehicular access stemming from a central point. The indicative proposals note the planting of a substantial number of trees within the rear third of the site which would falls outside of the proposed garden areas/curtilage of the new dwellings, with the addition of further landscaping within the residential areas. Existing mature vegetation along the site's perimeter would be largely retained and managed as necessary, however full details have not been provided at this stage.
2.2 Indicative plans indicate that the dwellings would take the form of 1.5 storey structures, with the smaller (north-eastern) dwelling comprising a stone/stone effect 'farmhouse', whilst the larger (south-western) dwelling would be largely timber clad and mimic the appearance of a barn range. Such details are however only provided for illustrative purposes and are not subject to full approval at this stage.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The site benefits from a relatively extensive planning history, with 4 no. applications noted from the early to late 1990s for works in connection with the Nursery, and specifically relating to the erection of polytunnels, a greenhouse, a small shed, hardstanding and associated works.
3.2 More recently, planning permission was granted in 2012 for the erection of a wooden potting shed and tool store, together with 2 no. netting tunnels. Within this application, it was noted in the case officer's report that the use of the site as a Nursery creased some 13 years prior following the applicants takeover of Ballagawne Nurseries in Colby, however the site was still in continued use for produced. This use is understood to have ceased 3 years prior to the submission of the 2012 application, with the site subsequently being unused and overgrown.
3.3 The 2012 application was submitted on the basis of facilitating the use of the site for the propagation and production of hedging and hardy plant stock for sale at Ballagawne Nurseries. Likewise, the netting tunnels were to be used to protect stock and produce raised initially in the existing polytunnels and greenhouse.
3.4 It is unclear whether this permission was implemented and the subsequent operations as described in the 2012 application were undertaken. However, it is noted from aerial imagery that a shed in the approximate location and comparable size to that which was approved in
==== PAGE 3 ====
23/01067/A Page 3 of 9
2012 is present on site, whilst further being labelled as a potting shed on the site clearance plan submitted with the present application. It is noted however that no reference to the operations described in 2012 is present within the planning statement for the present application, with the statement only noting that, following the purchase of 'a new site for the business' (presumably Ballagawne Nurseries), the site was 'retained in its current form for recreation and quiet observation of local wildlife'.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The application site is identified within the Area Plan for the South as forming part of the open countryside, outside of a defined settlement boundary and therefore not zoned for any particular form of development.
4.3 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application;
Strategic Policy 1 Efficient use of land and resources 2 Development to be located within existing towns and villages 4b Protection of the landscape and biodiversity 4c No environmental Pollution 5 Design and visual impact
Spatial Policy 3 Development only permitted in countryside in accordance with GP3
General Policy 2 General Development Considerations 3 Development not permitted in the countryside aside from defined exceptions
Environment Policy 1 Protection of the countryside 4 Protection of species and habitats
Housing Policy 4 New Housing to defined existing towns
Transport Policy 4 Highway Safety 7 Parking Provisions
4.4 Residential Design Guide (2021) This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Malew Parish Commissioners - no response received at the time of writing.
5.2 Highways Services - The proposal is for the development in principle of two residential dwellings on the site of a former garden nursery. The proposal would retain the use of the existing access. All other matters are reserved for full approval.
The access is off Ballacharry Road which is rural, and single lane. Vehicular traffic will likely be very low as the link serves only a handful of farm steads and rural accesses, and does not pose a practical through route for any other trips. As a result of the lane width, vehicle speeds will likely be low also. The road is generally winding providing low forward visibility to approach
==== PAGE 4 ====
23/01067/A Page 4 of 9
vehicles, but with some straighter longer sections where forward visibility increases likely creating an increase in speed.
At the location of the development access, the road has a series of bends to the south and straightens to the north. Through the bends vehicle speeds would be lower then increasing upon exit, and on approach to the access and bends vehicle speeds would start higher and decrease. Passing vehicle speeds would be approx. 30mph.
The proposal has included a visibility splay drawing from the location of the existing access. To the south, visibility is shown at 2.4m by 65.6m and 2.4m by 40.8m to the north. The Manual for Manx Roads standards for 30mph vehicle speeds in a rural location would require a 70m minimum splay. The southern splay falls only 5m short of this, with the northern splay short by 30m. It should also be noted that the southern splay has been drawn incorrectly. Whilst drawn to the nearside edge of carriageway, there is a section at the bend that has been omitted from the sightline. As drawn, this would indicate a hidden section where visibility is not achievable, reducing visibility below the 65m shown. In reality, it is clear that this section is visible from the setback position.
Despite falling short of the usual visibility requirements, the development is utilising an existing access. Previous use of the access would serve multiple vehicle types and a higher number of vehicle trips, as numerous garden users would have access. The proposal would reduce access use to provision for two dwellings. This would be considered a decrease in intensity of use. In addition, the rural nature and low traffic environment means that a 2m setback may be accepted in this location. This would increase visibility further in both directions.
The visibility achievable from the access falls below the usual required minimum for 30mph vehicle speeds on a rural road. However, the road is likely to be a very low traffic environment with multiple rural accesses throughout. The proposal is utilising an existing access, and whilst not proposing any significant increases in visibility, will see a reduction in the intensity of use of the access. There is no recorded collision history at the location of the access or along Ballacharry Road. For the reasons given, Highways accept the level of visibility achievable from the access.
The existing access is proposed to be altered to 3.6m in width, which meets the minimum requirement for a single dwelling. For a private street the usual minimum width would be 4.8m, however, this access is providing for only two dwellings. The previous use of the site would have seen regular two-way movements throughout the day of varying vehicles types. The proposal would reduce the use of the access, with cars being the predominant vehicle type. At a width of 3.6m, the access is sufficient to allow pedestrian and vehicular access and can facilitate the access of emergency vehicles. As such, the access arrangements are acceptable to Highways.
The assessment of the access arrangements does not consider the construction phase. Construction traffic may find access and egress into the site difficult due to the width of Ballacharry Road. Any temporary access or temporary access alterations will similarly need Highways and/or planning permission before creation.
The block plan provided indicates that the access is to be, or is currently, constructed of gravel. As a loose material, there is the chance that gravel will be brought onto the highway by vehicles. The plans should be altered to provide a bound and consolidated material surface for at least the first 5m of access from the edge of highway.
Although using an existing access, there may be some drainage improvements that should be required. Highway Services Drainage Team should consider this proposal and any current drainage issues and agree on improvements (if any) that should be made. The applicant should
==== PAGE 5 ====
23/01067/A Page 5 of 9
also be advised that a Section 109(A) Highway Agreement will be required for any alteration works to the highway.
Highway Services DC accept the proposal addressing means of access, with all other matters reserved. However, the following comments should be considered when submitted the full approval.
The indicative site plan shows sufficient space to provide the Strategic Plan minimum parking standard of two spaces per dwelling and room to turn in order to exit in a forward gear. There is a proposed carport of size 5m x 6m. The construction details of this carport are not provided, so it is not known if the sides are to be open and therefore can allow for the opening of car doors. The dimensions fall short of the 6m x 6m minimum for a double garage, meaning the carport may not be sufficient in size to house two vehicles. However, it is not essential in order to meet the parking standards, therefore Highways are not requesting an increase in size.
The applicant should consider the provision of an electric vehicle charging point in order to support the islands sustainable transport goals. The applicant will need to provide details of bicycle parking to the Manual for Manx Roads minimum requirement of one space per bedroom. The bicycle storage should be secure and covered.
The proposal raises no significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues. Accordingly, Highway Services Development Control raises no objection to the proposal subject to a bound and consolidated surface material being provided for a minimum of first 5m from the highway, and all access arrangements to accord to Drawing No. 103 and 104. The Applicant is advised that a S109(A) Highway Agreement is needed after the grant of planning consent. (25.09.23)
5.3 DEFA Biodiversity - The Ecosystem Policy Team currently object to this application because of the lack of supporting ecological information. We are concerned by the proposed use of this site for 2 new dwellings for the following reasons:
o Semi-natural habitats - Though the area was mapped as improved grassland in the 1991-1994 Phase 1 habitat survey, aerial photographs show the land now looks to be an area of broadleaved woodland, scrub, hedgerows and semi improved grassland, all of which is important habitat in its own right but also which has the potential to be supporting a variety of native species. o Wildlife Act 1990 protected nesting birds - these proposals could result in temporary and permanent damage and destruction of legally protected nesting birds and their habitats. o Wildlife Act 1990 Schedule 7 Northern Marsh Orchids - we have records of orchids in this immediate area, though we are not sure if they from this site or on adjacent land. Development could result in the destruction of legally protected orchids, which are most likely associated with the semi-natural grassland area in the south and east of the site. o Wildlife Act 1990 Schedule 5 Common Lizards - we have records of lizards from land immediately adjacent to the site. Development could result in the destruction of legally protected lizards and their breeding, hibernating and feeding habitats. Lizards are likely to be associated with the boundary features, scrub and semi-natural grassland. o Wildlife Act 1990 Schedule 5 Common Frogs - Development could result in the destruction of legally protected frogs and their habitats. Our records show that a pond used to be located in the east of the site. If still present, it could be being used by breeding frogs, and the rest of the site has good foraging and hibernating habitats. o Wildlife Act 1990 Schedule 5 Bats - Development could result in the damage or destruction of legally protected bats and their roosts, as well as feeding and commuting habitat. Roosting bats could be present in the buildings or trees on site. o There is also potential for damage and destruction of habitat used by invertebrates and fungi.
==== PAGE 6 ====
23/01067/A Page 6 of 9
We believe the ecological value of the site needs to be obtained at this stage before in principle approval is given for residential use of the site and so the Ecosystem Policy Team request that a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA), adhering to CIEEM (2017) Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (2nd edition) undertaken by a suitably qualified ecological consultancy, is submitted to Planning prior to determination of this application.
The applicant should also obtain this ecological assessment before they plant the 500 trees, because tree planting in the wrong areas could result in the damage or destruction of legally protected species, in particular to this site, the destruction of legally protected orchids. The Ecosystem Policy Team are not against tree planting but we are fully supportive of the principle of the right tree in the right place, which requires carefully planning before tree planting takes place to make sure that planting is appropriate for the site and undertaken with the right species.
We request that the survey reports are submitted prior to determination in line with best practise, which is referred to in Section 9.2.4 of the British Standard Biodiversity - Code of Best Practise for Planning and Development (BS 42020:2013). Which states: The presence or absence of protected species, and the extent to which they could be affected by the proposed development, should be established before planning permission is granted; otherwise all material considerations might not have been considered in making the decision. The use of planning conditions to secure ecological surveys after planning permission has been granted should therefore only be applied in exceptional circumstances. (09.10.23)
5.4 Two letters of representation have been, a summary of their comments are as follows:
o Current car parking and usage described inaccurate; o Site has never seen to be n use as a shop or company over the last 12 years; o Site is not in an area compatible with area planning; o If tree planting were to be undertaken with the correct species then objection would be removed; o Visibility for the site is important given the speed at which motorists go along the road; o The proposals would not result in a reduction in traffic as the site has not been in operation for several years; o Hope that existing trees on site would be retained with additional tree planting proposed welcomed; o Development is unlikely to be visible from the highway due to presence of established trees and shrubs and noting that the dwellings would be 1.5 storeys, however it is hoped that they would not be visible from nearby property; o Addition of solar panels on the south facing roofs welcomed.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The site falls within the open countryside and an area not zoned for any form of development in accordance with the Area Plan for the South. General Policy 3 states that development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan, aside from a number of defined exceptions. One such exception, which is the only one listed that is of any relevance to this application, relates to previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment.
6.2 Previous developed land is defined in Appendix 1 of the Strategic Plan to be as follows:
"Previously-developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure.'
==== PAGE 7 ====
23/01067/A Page 7 of 9
Land that was previously-developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape in the process of time (to the extent that it can reasonably be considered as part of the natural surroundings).
There is no presumption that land that is previously-developed is necessarily suitable for housing development nor that the whole of the curtilage should be developed."
6.3 In this instance, there is a degree of ambiguity as to how much of the site could reasonably be described as 'previously development land' as per the above definition. The majority of structures still present on the site comprise polytunnels, with the addition of a greenhouse and potting shed. Such structures would typically be more closely associated with agricultural and/or horticultural activities, and therefore be excluded from the above referenced definition. It is also noteworthy that the original use of the site as a garden nursery with retail element has long since ceased; likely circa. 25 years ago. Since that time, the site has become significantly overgrown, with the structures still present on site now in an extremely poor state of repair and no longer particularly if at all visible from public vantage points. It is however accepted that the derelict shop/retail structure and associated hardstanding could arguably be defined as previously developed land.
6.4 Nevertheless, the fact that some of the site could arguably be described as conforming to the definition of 'previously developed land' does not provide automatic support for its redevelopment as noted within exception (c) of General Policy 3. The other tests relate to whether such redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or wider environment, and further result in improvements to the landscape and environment.
6.5 Due to the site being heavily overgrown, existing structures within the site effectively present no material impact upon wider landscape views in any direction, and therefore the site's redevelopment for residential purposes would undoubtedly result in an increased visual impact. This would be exacerbated by the creation of formal grassed garden areas, footpaths and driveways and associated paraphernalia which would result in increased domestication of the site to the detriment of the wider landscape. Moreover, the application has not been supported by any accompanying ecological information, and therefore the clearance of structures from the site, together with associated built development, has a strong propensity to result in the loss of key ecological habitats. It is therefore difficult to argue that the proposals would result in an environmental improvement.
6.6 On the basis of the above, and notwithstanding the degree of ambiguity as to how much of the site could reasonably be described as 'previously development land' in accordance with the definition outlined in Appendix 1; the proposals are not considered to reduce or improve the site's present impact on the landscape or wider environment and therefore do not conform to one of the defined exception to the presumption against development in the countryside, contrary to Spatial Policy 5 and General Policy 3.
6.7 With respect to design and layout, such matters would be covered as part of any future Reserved Matters application and are therefore not up or consideration of part of this application. That being said, whilst the general design, form and layout of the proposals submitted on an indicative basis are considered to be broadly acceptable, this does not
==== PAGE 8 ====
23/01067/A Page 8 of 9
overcome the strong in principle objection to the site's redevelopment and would in any case contribute to the site's adverse impact on the wider landscape in an isolated and unsustainable location.
6.8 Further concerns have been raised by the Ecosystems Policy Team over the development of a site of this nature, which could result in the permanent loss of any future wildlife interest of the site. Notwithstanding this, should there have been general support for the principle of development in this location, it has been requested that a preliminary ecological appraisal should be produced and submitted for consideration prior to determination as a minimum to determine whether there is a presence of protected species on the site. This would also have informed whether the location and species of proposed tree planting would have been suitable.
6.9 Highway Services have considered the proposals to be largely acceptable from a highway safety and parking standpoint, and have therefore raised no objection. Further clarification and detail, particularly in relation to the materials proposed for the hardstanding and construction access versus residential access, would be required as part of a future Reserved Matters application.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The principle of redeveloping the site for residential purposes is deemed to be unacceptable in this location, and in particular would not meet one of the defined exceptions to the presumption against development in the countryside. The proposals would result in an increased visual impact upon the wider landscape and further amount to increased domestication of an isolated plot in an unsustainable location. Furthermore, insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposals would not give rise to an adverse impact upon protected species, or indeed demonstrate that the location and species of the proposed tree planting would be appropriate. The proposals are therefore considered contrary to Spatial Policy 5, Strategic Policy 4, Environment Policies 1 and 4, and General Policies 2 and 3 of the Strategic Plan (2016), and recommended for refusal.
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 __
==== PAGE 9 ====
23/01067/A Page 9 of 9
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the 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 : 13.03.2024
Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
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