Loading document...
Application No.: 17/00738/B Applicant: Mr Andrew McGee Proposal: Erection of a polytunnel and associated planting Site Address: Field 522740 Quines Hill Port Soderick Isle Of Man Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 21.03.2017 Site Visit: 21.03.2017 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is a large and parcel of land largely comprising Field 522740, which is one of many fields owned in association with Ballamona Farmhouse in Port Soderick. Also within the application site is a manege, which sits at the northwesternmost part of the Ballamona Estate that has changed quite significantly in recent years. - 1.2 The manege is very well-screened from the public highway, with much of the Estate being set in amongst existing and established trees. The submitted plans show a bank in front of the manege, but the trees are the dominant feature. The Estate is surprisingly well-hidden from the Old Castletown Road, from which it is accessed, with highway-bounded hedges and walls providing intermittent screening. The land slopes down from the highway in a sweeping rather than especially dramatic manner, but the Estate is a striking one set in attractive and treed grounds.
2.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 2.1 PA 17/00294/B was approved earlier this year. The development granted approval was described by the case officer as follows:
"Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a polytunnel to the north of the manege in the position of the existing bank. The existing tree-line would be partially re-planted further north with some to be retained in their existing position. Also shown adjacent the polytunnel is a vegetable garden, but no details of this have been provided.
"The proposed domed polytunnel would measure 12.19m in length and 5.49m in width, giving an overall footprint of just under 67sqm. It would be covered in Lumisol diffused polythene, which is the fairly common plastic finish. The land would be flattened slightly to allow the polytunnel to sit flat to the ground, with a 1m-high gabion basket retaining wall set into the land to provide screening - only 0.65m of this would be visible from the north / northwest, with the remainder hidden by the slope of the land. On the other three sides would be an integrated (i.e. closeboarded) fence 2.2m in height but, again, due to land levels much of this would be subsumed within the land."
2.2 He continued:
"It is arguable as to whether or not the fencing and walling requires planning approval, given the provisions of Class 39 of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012, but they are nevertheless set out within the application and should be assessed here. The vegetable
garden would likely be considered as agricultural and therefore this, too, would not need planning approval - and as it does not form a part of the planning application it should not be assessed here."
2.3 It is worth noting some of the assessment made:
"…here, the proposed location site is not an especially visible one, and moreover would be wellscreened by existing landscape features that would be partly retained and partly replanted. Also in favour of the application is the fact that the site would be surrounded by walls, fences and hedging. The polytunnel would therefore sit somewhat comfortably within the existing landscape, especially given the screening present but also given that its visual impact would be set against the existing manege, which is another obviously man-made feature."
2.5 The approval was subject to conditions relating to tree-planting. - 2.6 The wider estate has been the subject of several applications for various conversions of the associated buildings in the early 2010s onwards, though none of these is considered specifically material to the assessment of this proposal. Under two of these applications (PAs 10/00340/B and 10/01468/B), the existing manege was approved as it was very clearly shown on the submitted drawings, but the case officer on neither occasion assessed its impact.
3.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED - 3.1 The development now proposed is very similar to that for which approval was granted under PA 17/00294/B. On this occasion, the polytunnel would be 12.00m long (not 12.19m) and would have a pitched roof formed of internal structural support, with the ridge 2.8m above ground level (not the 2.5m height of the domed polytunnel). The entirety of the 'compound' that would enclose the polytunnel / vegetable garden would be situated slightly further south, adjacent to the existing manege, and accordingly would not result in the removal or replanting of any trees. - 3.2 The agent to the application explains that the change relates in part to a desire to retain the existing trees, and partly as the polytunnel now proposed is guaranteed to survive the Isle of Man weather.
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 4.1 The site falls within an area zoned on the Braddan Local Plan of 1991 as Open Space/Agricultural and the lodge is situated within a small area of Woodland. The Braddan Local Plan also indicates that all areas of land not designated for development should be identified as of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. The Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982 which introduced the concept of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance on development plans, shows the area identified as such. - 4.2 Environment Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan states: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or 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 different 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:
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 DOI Highway Services stated the proposal had no highway safety implications on 28.07.2017, while Braddan Commissioners offered no objection in comments received two days prior.
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 Although the site is not zoned for any particular form of development, and moreover is designated as being of high landscape value, this does not preclude new development such as that proposed. The key issue is the extent to which the proposal is acceptable in the context of Environment Policy 2: in essence, to be acceptable the proposal must be judged to not harm the quality or character of the landscape. - 6.2 Polytunnels are rarely a welcome intervention in countryside locations, particularly so where they are large and that countryside is identified as being of high value - such as here. The application has not explained whether or not other sites have been considered across the large landholding associated with the Estate. - 6.3 It is considered that the development proposed here will be an improvement over that approved earlier in 2017. The retention of the existing trees, which appear to be healthy, is welcome in providing an immediate 'buffer' to the polytunnel. That proposed here will have a larger mass than that for which approval was granted, but is smaller in footprint, and as such it is considered that the overall visual impact arising from this proposed polytunnel will not be materially different from that for which approval exists. The conclusions reached previously in terms of the visual impact remain as applicable today.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 It is concluded that the siting proposed would not harm the character and quality of the landscape to a degree to warrant the application's refusal, and it is therefore recommended for approval. It is something of a balanced conclusion, and the retention of the existing trees for screening has been important in reaching this conclusion even given the highway screening in the form of walls / hedging, and is judged to provide a material benefit relative to the extant approval. As such, a condition requiring the re-planting of any trees that are removed or die is again recommended on this occasion.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 16.08.2017 Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: In the interest of the proper landscaping of the site and in order to adequately screen the approved polytunnel.
The development hereby approved relates to Drawings 17-553 X 001, 17-553 X 002, 17-553 PL 001 Rev A, 17-553 PL 201 Rev A and 17-553 PL 301 Rev A, all date-stamped as having been received 10th July 2017.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Permitted Date: 17.08.2017 Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
