**Document:** Officer Planning Report Recommendation **Application:** 11/01785/B — Creation of hardstanding for agricultural use (retrospective) and re-positioning of access gate **Decision:** Refused **Decision Date:** 2012-05-10 **Parish:** German **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/2138-german-scravorley-curragh-road-st-johns-hardstanding-agricultural-use/documents/1263552 --- # Officer Planning Report Recommendation ## Statement Submitted On Behalf Of Planning And Building Control Division (Department Of Infrastructure) PA11/01785/B Creation of hardstanding for agricultural use (retrospective) and re-positioning of access gate, Field 315982, Scravorley, Curragh Road, St Johns Statement prepared by Steven Stanley, BA (Hons), MA (Hons) TRP, MRTPI ## Contents: 1. Planning report and recommendation 2. Decision notice 3. Recommended conditions ## 1. Planning report and recommendation ## Planning Report And Recommendations [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] ## Officer's Report ### Introduction 1. This application seeks to create a hard-standing for agricultural use and re-position an access gate at a rural property located within St Johns. The works are partly retrospective. The hard-standing is in place and the access has been created/re-opened. However the gates and fencing have not been installed. ### The Site 2. The application site is parcel of land occupied by the detached property known as Scravorley, Curragh Road, St Johns. The dwelling has no physical boundary between it and the large paddock/field to the north (which is in the same ownership along with several other fields) and this would seem to be a historic situation. It was noted on a site visit that a washing line was in use on the land to the rear of the property which would suggest that part of this paddock is used as the curtilage of the dwelling. ### The Proposal 3. This application seeks retrospective approval for the creation of hard-standing for agricultural use and the re-positioning of an access gate. The access has been created and a hard-cored area has been installed however the gates and fencing have not been installed. The development is described by the applicant as being for agricultural purposes. With the exception of the gap created for the access, the roadside hedging and trees would remain. 4. The application seeks approval to retain the access point and the hard-cored area to be used for agricultural purposes. It is set out that the creation of the area of hard-standing for agricultural use is to provide for agricultural vehicles, machinery, equipment and animal feed. The repositioning of the roadside gate is described as being in the interests of safety. The applicant states that "Due to the up-hill rise into the field, the original roadside gate swung out into the road to the central white line, therefore in the interests of safety I wish to re-position it further back into the field." The applicant continues by stating that "The surface in the gateway had become muddy and slippery and in the interests of safety needed to be renewed to be able to be used for agricultural purposes". ## Planning Status 5. The application site is located within an area identified as being within a wider area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. As the site is within the countryside, the following policies are relevant to the proposal: General Policy 3, which states: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: - (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10); - (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11); - (c) previously developed land(1) 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; - (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14); - (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services; - (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry; - (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and - (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage." Environment Policy 1, which states: "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." 6. As the application proposes a new access onto a public highway, Transport Policy 4 is also relevant. This states: "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan." ## Planning History 7. The following previous planning applications are judged to be relevant: 11/00810/B – Re positioning of gates and alterations to hedges and removal of trees to improve visibility, Field 315982. Refused for the following reasons: 1. "Whilst the motives for constructing an access and hardstanding area to serve the property Scravorley are understood, the proposed access does not provide adequate visibility in either direction and as such would be prejudicial to highway safety contrary to Transport Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan." 2. "The creation of the vehicular access would require substantial alteration to the boundary bank and the removal of several mature trees. This would be harmful to the character of the surrounding area contrary to Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan." 11/00752/B – Material alteration of field access, creation of hardstanding and access drive and change of use of land to residential (retrospective). Refused for the following reasons: 1. "Whilst the motives for constructing an access and hardstanding area to serve the property Scravorley are understood, the proposed access does not provide adequate visibility in either direction and as such would be prejudicial to highway safety contrary to Transport Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan." 2. "Whilst not proposed by this application, the creation of the vehicular access would require substantial alteration to the boundary bank and the removal of several mature trees. This would be harmful to the character of the surrounding area contrary to Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan." 8. The applicant requested an appeal into the decisions of these applications but subsequently withdrew these prior to them being heard. ### Representations 9. The Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure has commented on this application as follows: "This application would require the creation of a new vehicular access for use by agricultural vehicles. The applicant is unable to comply with the standards relating to visibility sight lines. The DoI's policy relating to the Hierarchy of the Island's Road Network classes the A3 as a strategic route. Traffic data indicates that 85% of vehicles are travelling at 42mph. In accordance with PPG13 (Planning Policy Guidelines 13) visibility splays of 2.4 x 160 metre splays are required. This could be reduced to 120 metres due to the fact that no accidents have been recorded at this location. The applicant is unable to achieve the reduced splays of 120 metres over land within their ownership. NOTE: Google images of the site clearly show that there was not an existing vehicular access at this location; however a boundary fence can be seen. Therefore this application is for a new access and not an improvement on a current access." 10. German Parish Commissioners do not object to this application. ### Assessment 11. The main issues to consider in the assessment of this application are highway safety and impact upon the character of the area which is within the countryside. #### Highway safety 12. Any application for a new access must be able to demonstrate an acceptable level of safety in terms of visibility and general design so as to protect the safety of road users. The Planning Authority has not been able to find conclusive evidence to demonstrate when the original access was last used. the applicant has provided photographs in 1971 which show the field and the gate in position. The applicant has responded to the comments received from the Highways Division, stating: "As indicated on my 3 planning applications and photos from 1971 there has always been a vehicular and animal stock access at this location. The 'boundary fence' was in fact several wire mesh panels originally fastened to the bars of the gate to prevent the newborn lambs escaping between the bars of the gate and onto the road. When my father became ill and suffered a coronary in 1990 he had to sell his sheep. years later when the gate was in a state of disrepair, and we had no stock grazing the fields, he removed the broken wooden bars of the gate, but left the wire mesh panels across the gateway. Also, due to the original gate swinging out into the road (due to the uphill rise into the field from the road) he did not want to replace it in the same way so just left the wire mesh panels across the gateway. And this is how it has remained until improvements last year." 13. It is difficult to say whether the original access as closed up can be considered to be have been an existing access at the time that the works were carried out. From what the applicant has said, from 1990 to 2010 the access was not used and was closed off in a temporary manner with mesh panels. The gap would likely have remained albeit in a overgrown state. 14. The Highways Division has assessed the proposal as a new access due to the time period of non-use and on the basis of what has been submitted object to the development as it would not provide adequate visibility splays. If assessed in this way, the proposal would fail to accord with TP4 in that the proposed access would not be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by the existing dwelling in a safe and appropriate manner. Impact upon the countryside 15. GP3 sets out the forms of development that may be acceptable within areas that are not designated for development. New accesses are not an exception that is listed by the policy although depending on their impacts and the need that is demonstrated these can be deemed to be acceptable when assessed against EP1. 16. In this particular case the proposed access does not include any changes to the existing roadside boundary. The fencing and gates would be set back from the highway so as to not be prominent. As such this element of the proposal is not considered to cause any unacceptable harm to the surrounding area. The hard-standing is largely shielded from view by the roadside boundary. This aspect of the proposal is also deemed to be acceptable when assessed against EP1. Conclusions 17. The proposed access would provide inadequate visibility splays and as such would prejudice highway safety, contrary to TP4. However the applicant has set out that whilst it had not been used for around 20 years prior to works being carried out, the access was still in place if somewhat overgrown and closed off with mesh panels. 18. The key issue is whether the reinstatement of the original field access after approximately 20 years to allow its use for agricultural purposes is acceptable bearing in mind that the visibility onto the A3 would be extremely limited. 19. On balance, it is judged that the impact upon highway safety is the overriding consideration and as such the application is recommended to be refused. Whilst sympathising with the applicant, it is concluded that given that the closing off of the access would have itself required planning permission and that the intervening period in which the mesh panels were in place prevented access to the site, the re-opening of the access essentially renders it a new access which has to be assessed against modern standards. RECOMMENDATION 20. Refuse. ## Party Status 21. It is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, accord with the requirements of Planning Circular 1/06 and are therefore, afforded Interested Party Status: German Parish Commissioners. 22. Accordingly the following parties are not granted Interested Party Status: The Highways Division and the Planning Authority are both part of the Department of Infrastructure. As such, the Highways Division cannot be afforded Interested Party Status. ### Recommendation **Recommended Decision:** Refused **Date of Recommendation:** 03.05.2012 ### Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal - : Notes attached to refusals C 1. The proposed access would not provide adequate visibility in either direction onto the A3 which is a strategic route. As such the access would be prejudicial to highway safety contrary to Transport Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan. I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager/ Senior Planning Officer. **Decision Made : Refused** **Date :** 8 May 2012 ### Determining officer (delete as appropriate) Signed : _________________________ Anthony Holmes Senior Planning Officer Signed : _________________________ Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control Signed : _________________________ Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer Signed : _________________________ Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager --- *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/2138-german-scravorley-curragh-road-st-johns-hardstanding-agricultural-use/documents/1263552*