**Document:** Officer Report **Application:** 17/00861/B — Erection of security fencing to perimeter of site **Decision:** Permitted **Decision Date:** 2017-11-23 **Parish:** Braddan **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/22025-braddan-central-creamery-ballafletcher-farm-road-fence/documents/1019107 --- # Officer Report **Application No.:** 17/00861/B **Applicant:** Ballafletcher Estate Limited **Proposal:** Erection of security fencing to perimeter of site **Site Address:** Central Creamery Ballafletcher Farm Road Cronkbourne Douglas Isle Of Man IM4 4QE Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley **Expected Decision Level:** Officer Delegation **Recommended Decision:** Permitted **Date of Recommendation:** 18.10.2017 _________________________________________________________________ ## 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. - C 2. For the avoidance of doubt, the fencing hereby approved shall be of the style and colour - as shown on Drawing 179/020a (date-stamped as having been received 21st September 2017), unless otherwise agreed in advance in writing with the Department. Reason: the acceptability of the fencing has been judged on the basis of its appearance and position. The submitted drawings clearly show the position of the fencing but full elevations of the fencing have not been provided. - C 3. For the avoidance of doubt, no approval is hereby granted for the installation of fencing within Ballafletcher House. Reason: To define the location / limit of the fencing hereby approved. ### Plans/Drawings/Information; The development hereby approved relates to Drawings 179/001 and 179/002 (both datestamped as having been received 10th August 2017) and 179/020a (date-stamped as having been received 21st September 2017). ### Interested Person Status – Additional Persons It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status as they are 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): - - Manx Utilities, who own services in the vicinity of the application site, and - - the Chairman of Isle of Man Meats, which jointly owns Ballafletcher House. _____________________________________________________________________________ ### Officer’s Report 1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is a dog-legged shaped parcel of land that accommodates the Isle of Man Creamery, its associated office and storage space and parking, and also Agriculture House which is an office block independent of the creamery's functions. - 1.2 The site is largely bounded to the southeast by Ballafletcher Road, to the southwest by Ballafletcher Farm Road, and to the northeast by Ballafletcher Farm Lane, the latter understood to be a public highway but which soon becomes a public footpath. There is a robust tree line between the site and Ballafletcher Road, which strongly screens the buildings from view. Ballafletcher Farm Road is also an adopted highway and the buildings are readily visible from within this part of the industrial estate. 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of 2.4m-high anti-climb fencing around the entirety of the site. This would be set behind the tree lines within the site where these exist. The agent explains that the fencing is needed to provide terms-of-licence security to a number of the operators on the site, but also for companies that the Creamery services. The agent further explains that approval of this application is a necessity if the Creamery is to continue servicing those companies, which have strict expectations / controls with regards site security. - 2.2 The submitted drawings show the positions of the fencing, and three sets of sliding gates that would match the fencing, as well as providing a photographic sample of the fencing proposed. - 2.3 The application was altered slightly to show a different location for part of the fencing - at the northeastern edge of the development site, including a break in the fencing, following concern raised by Manx Utilities (see Representation section of this report). 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 Though the wider area has been the subject of several previous applications, none is considered to be of particular material relevance to the assessment of this proposal. - 3.2 It is noted that since this application was submitted, PA 17/01021/C was lodged, seeking approval for "Change of use of part of upper floor from office use and meeting room to food retail and preparation of food products for retail at the premises". ## - 4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Braddan Local Plan of 1991 as Predominantly Industry with which the existing and proposed use of the site complies. As such, General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan is applicable here, particularly parts (b), (c), (h), (i) and (m). - 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services of the DoI offered no objection to the application on 15th September 2017, commenting: "The fence will not impact any visibility splays and the access gate from the highway is set back to prevent vehicles obstructing the highway on entry / exit." 5.2 Manx Utilities objected to the proposed position of the fencing in comments received 5th September 2017. On sight of the proposed amended plan, they withdrew their objection in comments received 19th September 2017. The plan was subsequently submitted and circulated but MU did not comment further. - 5.3 Braddan Parish Commissioners offered no objection to the application on 13th September 2017 and 12th October 2017. - 5.4.1 On 18th October 2017, the Chairman of Isle of Man Meats wrote to advise that an objection letter would be forthcoming. That letter was received 20th October 2017, with eight concerns outlined. They note that they jointly own Ballafletcher House, which is also known as Agriculture House, which is within the application site: - 1. Concern regarding impact on the market value and ability to let Agriculture House - this concern has been raised previously with Isle of Man Creamery, with no compensation agreement reached; - 2. Four of the 11 dedicated parking spaces are within the proposed fencing boundary, seriously de-valuing the lower floor and making it impossible to let. The online advert states nine dedicated spaces are offered with the unit; - 3. The fencing will prevent lower floor access. This is a fire safety and evacuation risk. This also impacts on the ability to let the property, which is advertised as being available either as two separate units or as a single, larger unit. It would likely be impossible to let the lower floor; - 4. The car park within the curtilage of the proposed fencing poses a contamination risk via leachate from vehicles, and may not be in compliance with the British Retail Consortium Global Standard for Food Safety; - 5. The proposed fencing appears to immediately dissect or be attached to Agriculture House. No permission has been granted for this, which we find unacceptable; - 6. Some of the proposed fence would be on jointly owned land. No permission has been granted for this; - 7. Vehicles awaiting entry through the proposed sliding gates will block access to the Agriculture House car park, devaluing our shared property and make it difficult to let by causing logistical problems for future tenants, and - 8. Given the context of its substantially industrialised location we do not feel the visual impact will be negligible as per the application. The proposed fence would be totally out of keeping with Agriculture House as an office building. Permission is being sought (PA 17/01021/C) for the use of the premises as retail and a 2.4m-high fence on the boundary of our car park would be an eye sore. - 5.4.2 The architect has taken the opportunity to respond to the separate points raised, noting the relationship between the Isle of Man Meats and Isle of Man Creamery and some of the circumstances on which it is perceived that the objection has been made. He questions the sincerity of the objection as the Chairman of Isle of Man Meats has written to the applicant to confirm that they would not be making a formal objection to the application, and it is noted that this objection was made soon after an objection was made by Isle of Man Creamery to Isle of Man Meats' application at Ballafletcher House [the aforementioned PA 17/01021/C]. The concern of Isle of Man Creamery in respect of that application is that it includes the preparation of meat products as well as the sale of meat products; the initial understanding is that the application would include only the retail sale of meat products. The response to the eight specific concerns raised by Isle of Man Meats is summarised below: - 1. The effect on the marketability of Ballafletcher House of the proposed fence is a matter of opinion, with the applicant viewing that the segregation of the office and industrial uses will partially mask the Creamery and will enhance the value of the jointly owned asset; - 2. The parking offered with the letting is on a goodwill basis. The proposed fence would not prohibit the Creamery from making the spaces available and in any case is a matter for commercial debate between the owners and not a Planning matter; - 3. The fencing will actually prevent unauthorised access to Ballafletcher House, but in any case access to the building would be available from outside of the security fence. Access to the individual floors can still be provided. There is a second means of escape and so there is no fire risk; - 4. "The relevant part of Section 4.2.2 of the BRC Global Standard states that '…and access to the site by employees, contractors and civilians shall be controlled.' That is the very intention of the security fence - to prevent uncontrolled access to the site. The further requirement of Section 4.2.2, that 'only authorised personnel have access to production and storage areas.' is already met with the existing secure access systems within the building"; - 5. The green fence shown as dissecting the building is an obvious error, and the fence will be connected to the building, for which there is no need to obtain permission; - 6. "The Applicant has confirmed that the strict intention is that the fence is erected on land solely owned by Ballafletcher Estate Limited"; - 7. Deliveries are pre-arranged and so the gate-opening times can be prescriptive and limited and controlled during such times. Vehicles waiting to enter or exit the site would therefore not be required to wait, and - 8. It may be considered that the proposed fence would be beneficial to Ballafletcher House be helping it be visually and physically separate from the industrial-looking Creamery building. ## - 6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 While the Department is able to take into account all material considerations, beyond those of the Development Plan, this is usually only of particular importance where the development proposed is judged to be finely balanced or, indeed, contrary to the applicable planning policies. The potential business outcomes for the Creamery should this application be refused are judged as capable of being such a consideration. 6.2 In this case, the installation of the proposed green anti-climb fencing is considered acceptable in terms of the two key issues: visual amenity and highway safety. Fencing can be a divisive and sometimes inappropriate addition to a streetscene and its installation needs to be treated carefully. In this case, it will be at its most visible from within the industrial estate itself, where fencing such as this is not - as the agent points out - out of context. The positioning of the majority of the fencing behind the tree line is particularly welcomed in reaching this conclusion, and sight of the fencing from the well-used Ballafletcher Road would not be appropriate. It is also to be borne in mind that fencing up to 2m in height can be erected in the positions shown without the need for a planning application. - 6.3 Though it has been concluded that the development proposed is acceptable, this conclusion is based on the positioning and the style of fencing proposed. For the avoidance of doubt, a condition specifying the style of fencing is recommended and has been agreed with the agent verbally. - 6.4 The concern raised regarding the fence dissecting the building is, as noted by the architect, a drawing error and can be clarified by way of condition. - 6.5 In terms of highway safety, the fencing will be well set back from the highways and the views of Highway Services are noted. No concern is therefore raised on this point. 6.6 The other matters raised in objection to the application that have not already been addressed relate to financial and legal issues and accordingly are not material to the assessment of this application. ## - 7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The application accords with the relevant Development Plan policies. 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: - (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; - (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; - (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material; - (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure, and - (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. 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. Decision Made : Permitted Date : 23.11.2017 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. --- *Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).* *Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/22025-braddan-central-creamery-ballafletcher-farm-road-fence/documents/1019107*