Loading document...
Application No.: 10/01003/B Case Officer: Mr Chris Balmer Applicant: Mr Gary Coleman Proposal: Creation of a horticultural nursery including polytunnels, access and associated works (partial retrospective) Site Address: - Field 134801 - Clenagh Road - Sandygate - Ramsey - Isle Of Man Recommendation: Refused ### Consultations #### EPU & Public Health Comments received #### Lezayre Parish Commissioners They have concerns regarding the size of the polytunnels and entrance to the site. Planning also refused this application, and the Commissioners would like to see this refused on the same grounds. #### Highways Division Objection ### Representations - Gollane Sheear Clenagh Road Sandygate Isle Of Man - Objects to the proposal** ### Planning
The Planning Application is before the Planning Committee at the request of the Senior Planner.
The application site forms part of the curtilage of Field 134801, Clenagh Road, Sandygate, which is located to the eastern side of Clenghagh Road, between Sandygate and Sulby.
The application seeks approval for the creation of a horticultural nursery including polytunnels, access and associated works (partially retrospective).
The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of "white land", not zoned for development, and within a Nature Conservation Zone, Nature Reserve and Site of Ecological Importance for Conservation, all under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
PC Agenda 10.02.2011
Due to the location of the site, its zoning and the type of proposal, the following policies are relevant for consideration:-
"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:
Some areas to which this policy applies are identified as Areas of Ecological Importance or Interest on extant Local or Area Plans, but others, whose importance was not
evident at the time of the adoption of the relevant Local or Area Plan, are not, particularly where that plan has been in place for many years. In these circumstances, the Department will seek site specific advice from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry if development proposals are brought forward."
"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."
"Environment Policy 18: Retailing from farms, market gardens and nurseries (excepting ancillary sales of produce grown thereon) will be subject to the Department's general retail policies."
The following planning application is considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:
Creation of new road from existing access - 09/01239/R - REFUSED on the following grounds:-
Erection of two polytunnels - 09/01238/R - REFUSED on the following grounds:-
Lezayre Parish Commissioners:-
"They have concerns regarding the size of the polytunnels and entrance to the site. Planning also refused this application, and the Commissioners would like to see this refused on the same grounds."
Highways Division have objected for the following reason: "Visibility splays of 120 metres cannot be achieved"
The Senior Biodiversity Officer from the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture has objected to the application which can be summarised as; previous applications was recommend for refusal on the grounds of ecological reasons; there is no new supporting evidence to change our view; Section 18 of the application form is incorrect DEFA Forestry input is required as tree felling has already occurred, which would require a tree felling licence; Due to sensitivity of the Ballaugh Curragh and surrounding wetland areas and proximity to a connected watercourse provision should be made for control of runoff from the site; The applicant states that work has been undertaken in a way to encourage wildlife, despite of some positive spin-offs from tree coppicing allowing the proliferation of understory flora, there are no other biodiversity benefits; There is a loss of habitat on the site due to the loss of Curragh area to hard standing and the planting of non-native and potentially invasive species such as Montbretia; and further proposed works will result in the loss of further Curragh.
The owners/occupiers of Gollane Sheear, Clenagh Road, Sandygate have objected to the application which can be summarised as; the land is not zoned for development, should remain unaltered and certainly not be used for commercial development; The access is in the centre of a 'S' bend on a de-restricted road and as such is very hazardous; and most work already undertaken.
The starting point is perhaps to outline which aspects of the development require planning permission. In terms of growing plants/fruits on site this is agricultural/ horticulture which does not require planning permission. A tree felling licence would be required from the Department of Environment Food and Agriculture, if any trees were to be removed. What requires planning permission is the alterations to the access arrangements, creation of large amount of hardstanding, and the erection of any building/polytunnels.
As indicated within the history section of this report the application for the polytunnels and the access has already been refused. However, as large amounts of the works had already been undertaken it was decided with the applicant that a new application should be submitted which showed the existing and possible future development on the site (master plan) to establish if there would be any wider economic benefit and to try to overcome the objections relating to the access and the visibility of the polytunnels.
General Policy 3 states possible exceptions for development on land not zoned for development in the countryside. One of these exceptions is paragraph f which states; "building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry."
Environment Policy 17 deals more specifically with development of buildings and other facilities associated with nurseries and market gardens which should only be permitted where: any built development is of a scale, form, design and material in keeping with the character of its surroundings; any development does not unacceptably affect residential amenity or local highway conditions; there is no adverse impact on the character or appearance of the area or a requirement for significant highway
PC Agenda 10.02.2011
alterations; and if appropriate, those buildings are erected away from public highways and are screened from public gaze."
Environmental Policy 17 is perhaps the most relevant policy which needs consideration for this application. From the directly adjacent public highway (Clenpagh Road) the western part of the site is very apparent, even when landscaping along the western boundary has leaves. During autumn/winter periods the site is open and apparent.
The aspects most apparent are the two polytunnels, both are 12 metres in length and 5 metres in width. Other aspects of the development which increase the amount of new development is the enlargement of the entrance onto the Clennagh Road and the large amount of gravel hardstanding which takes up a large part of the site.
It is considered the introduction of the polytunnels results in an incongruous and detrimental intrusion into the countryside. Furthermore, the siting of the structures relatively close to the public highway results in the polytunnels not being adequately screened from public gaze, especially when required visibility splays might require limited landscaping along the western boundary of the site, adjacent to the highway and as there is a nearby watercourse which runs along the western boundary.
A Manx stone wall has been erected along this western boundary approximately 1 metre in height. This may reduce the appearance of the polytunnels, but in doing so is increasing the amount of built development within the open countryside in an isolated position. Although the wall does not in itself require planning permission, it is doubtful it would have been built had the land had not been put over to this use.
A further concern of relying heavily on a thin band of landscaping to hide development is that there are no planning controls which could ensure the landscaping in the long term. While their land does have some roadside hedges which would screen a small part of the site, there can be no guarantee that they would remain. Moreover, the roadside hedge to the south has been removed which further increases the visibility of the site from public view.
It would not be unreasonable to also consider, that given the proposal is a commercial business, open to members of the pubic, that the removal of the hedges to increase the visual appearance of the site, from a commercial point of view would be advantageous. Therefore no guarantees can be made to ensure the long term future of any planting along this roadside boundary or any boundary of the site. Furthermore, having tall substantial planting next to a growing area would reduce sun light potentially impacting upon the growth of plants.
The proposed entrance would have a bellmouth onto the highway of 16 metres in width and would be setback into the site approximately 10 metres. This is to provide the required visibility splays and adequate access arrangements. Again this increases the amount of development in the countryside, impacting upon the visual amenities of the locality.
The proposal also shows hard surfacing within the application drawing. This has been laid down not only to enable the applicants to visit the site, but also for people to visit to purchase the produce grown.
The Senior Biodiversity Officer from the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture has objected to the application as indicated previously. Perhaps it is important to note that he disagrees with the applicants comments that the proposal would be of benefit to encourage wildlife, and states; "there are no other biodiversity
benefits" and goes on to conclude that; "There is a loss of habitat on the site due to the loss of Curragh area to hard standing and the planting of non-native and potentially invasive species such as Montbretia; and further proposed works will result in the loss of further Curragh." It is difficult to see with this level of hardstanding within the site, that the proposal can have an improved level of biodiversity as stated by the applicants and it is judged that it is likely there would be an overall loss of habitat.
The hard surfacing fails Environment Policies 1, 4 and 7 in that it unduly impacts on the natural habitat and is not of any overriding national need. The full extent of the impact of the hardstanding can be viewed from aerial photograph (2009), which clearly shows the site has had a considerable loss of vegetation in two areas of the site (particularly to the east and south of the polytunnels). Furthermore, the application includes a master plan which would result in substantially more hard surfacing to the east, projecting approximately 70 metres from the western boundary of the site, further reducing the visual amenities of the countryside, reducing wildlife on land which is within a Nature Conservation Zone, Nature Reserve and Site of Ecological Importance for Conservation.
The objection from the Highways Division regarding the access being not suitable for commercial purposes due to an increase in traffic movement onto a fast stretch of road and poor visibility from the site, is taken as evidence that the proposal would be dangerous for the general public to use and would lead to an increased risk of accidents to both existing and proposed road users.
The applicant has indicated that the extent of land within their ownership or control is limited to that identified in the application and edged in red on the submitted drawing. As such, no additional land is available for the required visibility splay of 120 m in both directions suggested by the Department of Transport and as such, it is considered that the creation of the access cannot be improved to make the proposal acceptable.
Furthermore, the appearance of the access constructed is not particularly pleasing, with the poor form of the entrance and use of materials throughout the site considered to be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area.
Overall, it is considered the proposed developments would be highly prominent in this view and unacceptably harmful to the character and appearance of the countryside. Consequently, the proposal would be contrary to Environment Policies 1, 4 and 17 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. Accordingly it is recommended that the application be refused.
It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
It is considered that the following do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded interested party status:
Gollane Sheear, Clenagh Road, Sandygate
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
