Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
22/00150/B Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 22/00150/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs Debora And Gregory Carcas Proposal : Erection of polytunnel and shed. Site Address : Field 425031 Ronague Road Ronague Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 4HG
Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 04.07.2022 __
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 retail sales shall take place from the building hereby approved.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure the development takes place in accordance with the approved details.
C 3. The building/structure 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 agricultural or horticultural purposes.
Reason: The building has been exceptionally approved solely to meet agricultural/horticultural need and its subsequent retention would result in an unwarranted intrusion in the countryside.
C 4. The building/structure may only be used for horticultural or agricultural purposes.
Reason: The countryside is protected from development and an exception is being made on the basis of a horticulture storage need only.
==== PAGE 2 ====
22/00150/B Page 2 of 7
C 5. The shed hereby approved must be coloured olive green or as otherwise approved by the Department and retained as such.
Reason: to minimise the visual impact of the development on the countryside which is generally protected from development.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The application is considered to accord with General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 15 and is supported.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the Planning Statement, Photographs, Location Plan, Polytunnel Details, Shed Details, and Proposed Site Layout Plan, all received on 17th February, 2022. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is field 425031 located just north east of Ballaglonney Farm which sits roughly within the area between Ronague and Grenaby and approx. 1.25 miles north of Ballabeg when travelling along the B42.
1.2 The existing field measures approximately 3 acres and is bound by a mix of sod hedging and vegetation along all sides and provided with an existing gated access from the existing single lane farm track which serves the field and surrounding fields/farms.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The current application seeks approval for the erection of polytunnel and shed. The Polytunnel would be situated near the western boundary of the site which is nearest the farm track serving the site, and would measure 10.9m x 5.4m. This polytunnel which would be 2.59m high would have Supertherm polythene over its arched structure. A large double door is proposed for both ends of the polytunnel. The supporting statement indicates the The polytunnel will not have any fixed foundations but have the hoop feet on plates dug into the ground which can easily be removed when it is no longer needed.
2.2 Also proposed is a timber shed that would be erected directly west of the polytunnel, positioned about 4m east of the existing sod bank on the western boundary of the site. The shed would be 5.3m long, 3.7m wide and 2.8m high (2m to the eaves). This would be a Kit built shed constructed in treated softwood with two openable windows and double door to front elevation. It would have its pitch roof finished in Mineral felt roof with treated softwood barge boards and fascias. The applicant has provided a layout of how the shed would be used. The applicants state that the shed will be of wooden structure, so it can also be easily removed when it is no longer needed, on a foundation of paving stones and gravel.
2.3 The supporting statement provided by the applicants states the following: o The field is mostly laid to grass and is about 3 acres of gently sloping land. o The field boundary has a sod bank which is about 5-7 foot (1.5m - 2.1m). o Part of the land has been planted with trees (eg: willow, rowan, copper beech, horse chestnut, alder, eucalyptus, hawthorn). Some of these will be coppiced to provide firewood. It also has an orchard, planted with elder, hazel, apple, plum, cherry and pear trees. Part of the land has also been cultivated to create a fruit bed and market garden.
==== PAGE 3 ====
22/00150/B Page 3 of 7
o The southern end is being sectioned off with fencing to create two paddocks for sheep. o There is a (DEFA registered) apiary on the northern section of the field (by the sodbank). o It is proposed to put the polytunnel next to the vegetable bed to provide an area where seedlings can be raised and a more sheltered growing environment (particularly important in the harsh Manx winter) can be created. o It is proposed to put the shed next to the highest part of the sod bank so it is not easily visible from the public right of way and have extra plants to screen it (e.g. Willow, olearia, eucalyptus, honey suckle etc. It will be used as a secure place to store tools (spades, forks, rakes), horticultural equipment (pots, seed trays, seeds, watering can, string, netting etc.), bee keeping equipment/extra hives (so that swarming can be avoided if possible), food/bedding for hens (and sheep in the future) (away from vermin) and any extra space will be used for rotavator, lawn mower, auger, and chainsaw. (See plan for more details).
2.4 The applicants' state that they previously applied for planning approval in February 2020 for a shed, but this was turned down due to "insufficient evidence of the agricultural need". The note that the evidence shown of how the land has been used and continues to develop, the planning department will see the real need for secure storage in the form of a shed and the ability to nurture and grow plants that are more susceptible to the Manx climate outdoors (e.g. tomatoes, courgettes, lettuce and seedlings) in the form of the polytunnel. They further state that these proposals are also in a form that can be easily removed if the need arises and the land returned to grass. There are no known constraints to development on the land.
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 the site is not within a Conservation Area. The site does not lie within a high flood risk zone, there are no Registered trees on the site, and the site is also not within a Registered Tree Area.
3.2 The site is within character appraisal area D14 on the Area Plan for the South where the following apply:
3.2.1 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".
3.2.2 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".
3.3 The Town and Country Planning Act 1999 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, and "agricultural" shall be construed accordingly."
3.4 Due to the site location, zoning and the type of proposal, the following policies within the Strategic Plan are relevant for consideration:
==== PAGE 4 ====
22/00150/B Page 4 of 7
3.4.1 Environment Policy 1: Seek to protect the countryside and its ecology for its own sake.
3.4.2 General Policy 3 (f): Seeks to ensure that there is a sufficient agricultural need demonstrated to warrant a building in the countryside.
3.4.3 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.
3.4.4 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.
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".
3.4.5 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."
3.4.6 Environment Policy 4 protects biodiversity (including protected species and designated sites).
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY
==== PAGE 5 ====
22/00150/B Page 5 of 7
4.1 The site has been the subject of a single planning application for erection of an agricultural building under PA 20/00205/B which was refused on 6th May 2020.
4.2 The application was refused on the following grounds: "There is insufficient justification and evidence of agricultural need demonstrated for a building of this size and design at this site contrary to General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016".
4.3 The Planning Officer argument for refusing the application are hinged on the permanency of the building, as well as it size. See paragraphs 6.6 and 6.7 of the Officer Report: "6.6 In seeking to address the chicken and egg situation, it may be that the basic farming/horticultural needs are first met with a smaller and less permanent building, then once a greater need can be established and agricultural need for additional space be sufficiently demonstrated would a larger more permanent unit be considered.
6.7 Although it is empathised that the applicants wish to have a building to keep their suggested equipment safe and support agricultural and horticultural activities it is not considered that there is sufficient justification of agricultural or horticultural need demonstrated or an overriding national need for a building of this significant size and of such permanent design in this location to outweigh those policies that seek to protect the countryside for its own sake and for which there is no other reasonable and acceptable alternative proven".
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that they 'Do not oppose' in a letter dated 3 March 2022.
5.2 Arbory Commissioners have indicated that they support the application (23 March 2022).
5.3 No comments have been received from neighbouring properties.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The key issues to consider when assessing the current application are: i. the principle of the development; ii. the impact the development will have on the character of the countryside; and iii. Ecological impacts.
6.2 The principle 6.2.1 As with any countryside development, there is a presumption against any which would adversely impact the countryside. With this development proposal, which is within the countryside, it must be established if there is sufficient need for the building.
6.2.2 The applicant has demonstrated in their written submission supported by well- annotated site plan and floor plan, as well as photographs which clearly indicate the existing use of the site and proposed use of the site (including the polytunnel and shed), which serves to reinforce the agricultural and horticultural use of the site. There is also supporting information showing the various uses of the proposed structures and site which falls within the acceptable use for buildings setup in support of horticulture/agriculture. It is also considered that the proposal accords with the guidelines stipulated in Section 7.14 of the Strategic Plan on Horticulture and EP 15.
==== PAGE 6 ====
22/00150/B Page 6 of 7
6.2.3 Likewise, it is important to note that in the previous application (PA 20/00205/B), there were concerns that little evidence was provided to show that the site was being used for horticulture and agriculture. In the current case, whilst there is limited evidence to show that the site supports livestock, and no photographic evidence has also been shown of the existing sheep or hens being kept by the applicants, there is sufficient evidence to show that the site supports horticulture, and at a scale that would benefit from the proposed polytunnel and shed.
6.2.4 Similarly, the issue of permanency of the structures proposed for the site, as well as the size of the building proposed has also been addressed by the current scheme as the scale of the structures proposed are considerably smaller than that previously proposed with the new structures set up in a manner 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. Given the above, it is considered that the reasons for refusal for PA 20/00205 which borders on size and design have been addressed by the current scheme.
6.2.4 Given the reasons that have been articulated above, it is considered that the information provided within the submitted plans, photographs and supporting statement is sufficient to justify the need for the polytunnel and shed with a combined footprint of 78.47sqm to support a predominantly horticulture operation on a 3 acre field is acceptable. The agricultural need for the new structures is therefore accepted.
6.3 Impact on the character of the countryside 6.3.1 In assessing impacts on the countryside, it is considered that the new structures would be sited within an area of the site where only about 700mm of the shed and 400mm of the polytunnel would rise above the sodbank, and as such, they would not be easily noticeable from the surrounding fields, with limited views only attainable when using the abutting agricultural track and directly in front of the field. It is also vital to note that the timber finish of the shed which would be the structure easily seen from the access track given its proximity to the sod bank would ensure that it easily blends into the landscape and treeline (when the trees on this side of the site are fully grown). Besides, the structures would be read within the context of the existing area which has farm buildings and polytunnels, not counting the fact that the new structures are a significant improvement on the previous proposal as they could easily be removed from site when no longer required without creating significant alterations to the site area and character. In this respect, it is considered that the structures would fit within the existing layout of the field and would not appear out of place. No further impact on the surrounding countryside is envisaged.
6.4 Impacts on Ecology 6.4.1 In terms of ecological impacts, it is noted that there would be no changes to the sodbanks or any shrubs on site and the scheme would not result in any form of site stripping or excavation which could impacts on crawling fauna. Thus, it is considered that the scheme would comply with the requirements of Environment Policy 4 in terms of impacts on ecology within the site or area. 7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 In summary, it is considered that there is an agricultural need for the proposed buildings, and impacts on the countryside would be minimal if any. The proposal is therefore compatible with the aforementioned policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and is recommended for approval.
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);
==== PAGE 7 ====
22/00150/B Page 7 of 7
(b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by 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.
Decision Made : Permitted
Date: 04.07.2022
Determining officer Signed : J SINGLETON
Jason Singleton
Principal Planner
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