Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
22/01544/B Page 1 of 8
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 22/01544/B Applicant : Mr Jimmy Callow Proposal : Erection of new agricultural shed comprising of tractor and hay storage with associated hardstanding within southern end of Field 134001 Site Address : Field 134001 Bride Road Ramsey Isle Of Man
Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 10.03.2023 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The department is not satisfied that there is sufficient justification for the proposed development to warrant setting aside the presumption against development outside areas zoned for development. Furthermore, there is no overriding need for the proposed building and works, as has been assessed in the preceding sections of this report. No exceptions can be justified within the submission, as required by General Policy 3. As such, the proposal is concluded to represent unwarranted development that is detrimental to the amenity of the countryside contrary to the provisions of General Policy 3 and Environment Policies 1 and 15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 2. The proposed shed, earth works and associated hardstanding area which are all within an isolated and open position within the countryside, and within close proximity to the highway where it would be particularly noticeable would have a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the countryside contrary to Environmental Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
R 3. Insufficient information has been provided to support that drainage from the site would not result in adverse impacts on the site ecology and the adjacent Marine Nature Reserve, and as such the development is considered to be contrary to Environment Policy 4 and Strategic Policy 4 (b & c).
__
==== PAGE 2 ====
22/01544/B Page 2 of 8
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site falls within field 134001, which is situated on the eastern side of the A10 Bride Road, Lezayre. The field is a long narrow strip of land which measures about 293m on the north-south direction, 40.8m on the southern boundary with Barrule Cottage, and 80.2m on the northern boundary. The application site is directly opposite the access and driveway to the property Balladoole Beg on the West side of the Highway. The eastern boundary falls away to the beach and Ramsey Bay.
1.2 There are two existing entrances into the field, one access is to the most southern point of the site and near the boundary with Barrule Cottage, while the second entrance is near and almost opposite the entrance way to Balladoole Beg.
1.3 The site is completely exposed when passing by the highway, with the existing sodbank along its western boundary offering little screening for the site.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for Erection of new agricultural shed comprising of tractor and hay storage with associated hardstanding within southern end of Field 134001.
2.2 The proposed works would include: 2.2.1 Site level changes/earthworks to development area: a. The site area for the proposed building and hardstanding, as well as the existing bank would be excavated to a depth of about 2m below the existing ground level on this part of the site. b. A new manhole to surface water soak away within soft landscaping would be created to serve hardstanding and roof rainwater runoff. The new surface water soakaway is to be sized following ground percolation testing. c. The existing Manx Sod/ Hedge height around the development area and building to remain between proposed shed and road d. A new ramped access hardstanding would be created to serve the site.
2.2.2 Erection of tractor store and hay barn a. The proposed building would measure 12m long and 7m wide and be 4m high on the front (north) elevation and 2.8m high on the rear (south) elevation. b. This building which would have a monopitched roof would Have its roof finished in green colour corrugated steel sheet, while its external walls would be clad in a combination of timber effect cladding and green colour corrugated steel sheet. c. Two large doors would be installed on the front elevation, one measuring 3.5m x 4m, while the smaller door would measure 3.1m x 3.5m.
2.2.2 Creation of hardstanding area a. The new hardstanding are would measure 26m long on the northwest stretch and about 16m wide. b. The elevation drawings how that the hardstanding would be flat throughout, although it would slope steeply away from the adjoining highway at the access due to the level drop by about 2m. c. No details have been provided as to the nature of hardstanding or material.
==== PAGE 3 ====
22/01544/B Page 3 of 8
2.3 No supporting information has been provided as justification for the proposal in terms of agricultural holding the building would support, nature and size of agricultural activities the building would support, and the need for the building. Also, no ecological information is provided as supporting information for the proposal.
3.0 PLANNING POLICIES 3.1 The application site is not designated for any site specific purpose and lies within an area recognised as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance under the 1982 Isle of Man Development Plan. The site is not within a Conservation Area, or prone to flood risks, although the northern parts of the broader site area are prone to surface water flood risks. The site is adjacent and slopes towards the Ramsey Bay Marine Nature Reserve.
3.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains three policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:
3.2 Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider the following parts of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016):
3.2.1 General Policy 3 Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
f) Building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry;
3.2.2 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.
3.2.3 Environment Policy 1 reads in full: 'The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative'.
3.2.4 Environment Policy 2 states:
==== PAGE 4 ====
22/01544/B Page 4 of 8
"The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape of Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce difference categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:
a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or b) the location for the development is essential."
3.2.5 Environment Policy 4 protects biodiversity (including protected species and designated sites).
3.2.6 Strategic Policy 4 (In part): Proposals for development must: (b) protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations; and (c) not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance.
3.2.7 Environment Policy 9: A precautionary approach(1) will be adopted for development relating to land affected, or likely to be affected, by erosion or land instability. In the case of receding cliffs, development will not be permitted in areas where erosion is likely to occur during the lifetime of the building.
3.2.8 Appendix 1: "Precautionary Approach Assumes that activity might be damaging unless it can be proved otherwise in respect of development where significant environmental implications are involved. Where activity could prove to be harmful (to people, wildlife or the environment) and science cannot tell us the risks of the proposed activity then prevention is best.
3.2.9 The supporting text relating to Environment Policy 9 (Paragraphs 7.11.1 and 7.11.2) seek to ensure that the open character of the coastline is protected and where works take place they consider landscape, nature conservation and natural coastal processes.
3.2.10 Spatial Policy 5: New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3.
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1999, Section 45, defines; "agriculture" to include 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".
4.2 IOM Biodiversity Strategy 2015 to 2025 4.2.1 The strategic aims (In part): o Managing biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats. o Maintaining, restoring and enhancing native biodiversity, where necessary.
4.2.2 Habitat loss actions "21. DEFA will continue to promote a policy of 'no net loss' for semi-natural Manx habitats and species and ensure that unavoidable loss is replaced or effectively compensated for."
==== PAGE 5 ====
22/01544/B Page 5 of 8
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications that are considered relevant to the current applications:
5.2 PA 16/00335/B for Alteration and widening of vehicular access - Approved. The access which was approved as part of the application would serve the new building.
5.3 PA 17/00258/B for Installation of sod bank to eastern boundary of field - approved.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that they 'Do not oppose' the application in a letter dated 6 January 2023. They find the proposal to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and /or parking.
6.2 Lezayre Parish Commissioners have recommended that the application be refused (3 February 2023).
6.3 No comments have been received from neighbouring properties.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are; (i) The principle of development (GP3, EP 15, SP 5); and (ii) The visual impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the countryside (EP 1, EP2 and EP 15).
7.2 PRINCIPLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT 7.2.1 In assessing the principle of the proposed development, it is considered that the site is not within an area zoned for development. As per Spatial Policy 5, any development in a countryside location must therefore meet the test of General Policy 3, which in this case would be part (f) which relates to building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry.
7.2.2 In the case of the current application, whilst the development would be within an agricultural field, no information has been provided to state the type of agricultural operation the building would support, where this farm operation currently operates, why the building would be needed, or that there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms for the proposed building which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative. Similarly, no details have been provided on why the proposal could not be located in a location with existing agricultural buildings, or within close proximity to existing built groups within the countryside.
7.2.3 It is also considered that the structure proposed within the scheme could pass for a domestic shed/garage building and be open to domestic uses which have no relationship with agriculture, particularly as there is nothing to suggest that it would serve agricultural purposes.
7.2.4 It should be noted that whilst there is generally a "chicken and egg" situation when it comes to agricultural need and agricultural buildings, without an established operation in place it can often be difficult to demonstrate the need for a building. Throughout all the information given, no information has been provided on why the building would be required and at the proposed location. Thus, it is hard to assess whether there is a need from this point of view. From the information available for assessing the application, it is increasingly apparent that
==== PAGE 6 ====
22/01544/B Page 6 of 8
there is not sufficient justification or evidence of need for a building of this size and footprint within this location for agricultural purposes.
7.2.6 Therefore, it is not considered that sufficient agricultural need has been demonstrated in this case. Accordingly, the proposal would be unacceptable in principle and at variance with the requirements of General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 15.
7.3 VISUAL AND COUNTRYSIDE IMPACT 7.3.1 In terms of visual impacts, it is considered that although the design of the proposal would serve to limit its visual impact from the adjoining highway, the proposed development would still be visible from the A10, particularly as no development currently exists within the site. It would be vital to note here that the immediate surrounding area is characterised by open fields bounded by Manx sod hedges, with existing access to the development affording views to the new development, even though it would sit on a lowered site level.
7.3.2 It is also considered that what is proposed under this scheme would take away the existing green and openness of the area by introducing a partly enclosed built development which would still be noticeable from the surrounding area and highway, and as such would represent a detrimental intrusion into the countryside. Whilst the measure to minimize the impact of the proposal bay lowering the site level and retaining the sodbanks on the boundary are noted, the site is situated within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) which is afforded a high protection status, and where developments are only acceptable where they would not bring any harm to the character and quality of the landscape, and where the location is considered to be essential.
7.3.3 In this case, it is not considered that the location for development is essential and the development would still introduce a form of built development in this open part of the countryside where none currently exists. As such, the proposal is judged to cause major harm to the character and quality of this open part of the countryside landscape which overlooks the coast.
7.3.4 It is also considered that the new hardstanding area and building would not appear as natural features of the landscape and as such would alter the existing character of the area and would conflict with the requirements of Environment Policies 1 and 2. The new agricultural building is also not proposed next to or as close as is practically possible to existing building groups, and it is not considered that the new developments would be sympathetic to the landscape setting, failing the requirements of Environment Policy 15.
7.3.5 Based on the foregoing, the proposed development is deemed to adversely affect this part of the countryside, and would harm the character and quality of the landscape failing Environment Policies 1, 2, 15 and Strategic Policy 4 (b).
7.4 OTHER MATTERS 7.4.1 Issues of site Drainage/Ecological Concerns 7.4.1.1 Whilst the applicants have indicated that the new surface water soakaway would be sized following ground percolation testing, no details of percolation tests have been provided to enable the department ascertain if this would be appropriate for the site, considering the level of excavation would be 2m deep across the site with potential for increased run off from the highway and hardstanding area created within the site. As such, it is not considered that there is sufficient information to ascertain if the proposed drainage system would be achievable or appropriate for the site.
7.4.1.2 There is also concern that if the site drainage is not property designed and managed, there is potential the works could have adverse implications for the adjacent Marine Nature Reserve (the Ramsey Bay Marine Nature Reserve), given that the sodbanks which run around the site boundary would be non-existent on the northern boundary and parts of the southern
==== PAGE 7 ====
22/01544/B Page 7 of 8
boundary of the proposed development, where increased runoff from the development could flow towards the MNR due to the site topography which slopes towards the coast creating sedimentation challenges and other associated water pollution.
7.4.1.3 Given the above, it is not considered that there is sufficient drainage and drainage management information provided to ensure that there would be no adverse impacts resulting from the development on the site ecology and the adjacent MNR. As such, it is considered that the proposal would fails to comply with the requirements of Environment Policy 4 and Strategic Policy 4.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 It is considered that there is no overriding need for the proposed building, as has been assessed in the preceding sections of this report, and no exceptions can be justified within the submission for the proposed building as required by General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 15. The proposal is, therefore, concluded to represent unwarranted development that is detrimental to the amenity of the countryside contrary to the provision of the aforementioned section of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
8.2 On balance, the application is recommended for refusal as the Department is not satisfied that there is sufficient justification for the proposed building to warrant setting aside the presumption against development outside areas zoned for development. Furthermore, the proposed size and exposed isolated position within the countryside is not considered appropriate and would harm the character and quality of the landscape.
9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 9.1 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.
9.2 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 : Refused Date: 17.03.2023
Determining officer Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Principal Planner
==== PAGE 8 ====
22/01544/B Page 8 of 8
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