Loading document...
Application No.: 19/00068/B Applicant: Ms Martina Neffgen & Mr Gary Coleman Proposal: Creation of horticultural nursery, alteration to access, erection of growing sheds, shed for staff welfare, greenhouse / conservatory and siting of polytunnel (partial retrospective) (amendments to PA 12/01692/B) Site Address: Field 134801 Y Gharey Clenagh Road Sandygate Ramsey Isle Of Man Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken: 06.02.2019 Site Visit: 06.02.2019 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 09.07.2019 _________________________________________________________________
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: The buildings have been exceptionally approved solely to meet horticultural needs and its subsequent retention would result in an unwarranted intrusion in the countryside.
Reason: The countryside is protected from development and an exception is being made on the basis of horticultural need. As such the building must be used for the purposes for which it is approved.
Reason: The purpose of the required plant species list is to avoid the planting of any invasive species or species that are potentially harmful to the ecology of the surrounding area.
Reason: The buildings have been exceptionally approved solely to meet horticultural needs and its subsequent retention would result in an unwarranted intrusion in the countryside.
Reason: The buildings and use have been exceptionally approved solely to meet horticultural needs and its subsequent retention would result in an unwarranted intrusion in the countryside.
Reason: This current application only deals with the amended buildings and approval is not given for any other changes/alterations to the site.
advertisement consent prior to its erection. Should any signage be proposed it is recommended that advice is sought from the Department.
This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings reference numbers LEZ.YG1, LEZ.YG2, LEZ.YG3, LEZ.YG4, LEZ.YG5 and LEZ.YG6 all received on 24th January 2019.
Conditions 2,3,4 relate to plans approved under application 12/01692/B _______________________________________________________________
Additional Persons
It was determined that the following organisation should not be given Interested Person Status as it is not 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 Wildlife Trust as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy and are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy. _____________________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSAL COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT RECOMMENDED FOR AN APPROVAL
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site forms part of Field 134801, Y Gharey, Clenagh Road, Sandygate, which is located to the eastern side of Clenagh Road, between Sandygate and Sulby. The site has been operating as a nursery for a number of years and is open to members of the public. - 1.2 During the consideration of this application is important to note the site is essentially split into three sections, front, middle and rear.
2.0 PROPOSAL - 2.1 The proposal seeks approval for the construction of shed for mushroom growing/store/staff welfare, greenhouse/conservatory and siting of polytunnel. These could be viewed as amendments of approved Planning Application 12/01692/B (partial retrospective), all located within the middle section of the site. However, as there is no mechanism to amend a planning application, if approved, the current application would result in a fresh approval even though
12/01692/B has been implemented and no changes to the use (or access, car parking area or the existing raised bed nursery area which are to the front section of the site) are proposed the application has been assessed as a discreet application for structures on land which has an existing use.
3.0 PLANNING STATUS - 3.1 The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of "Nature Conservation Zone, Nature Reserve and Site of Ecological Importance for Conservation" not designated for development 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 nor a Conservation Area.
3.3 Due to the land use designation of the site, and the nature of the proposed development, the following Planning Policy is relevant in the consideration of the application:- - 3.4 General Policy 3 states: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
3.5 Environment Policy 1 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." - 3.6 "Environment Policy 4 states:"Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect:
3.8 "Environment Policy 18 sates: "Retailing from farms, market gardens and nurseries (excepting ancillary sales of produce grown thereon) will be subject to the Department's general retail policies."
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 The application site has been the subject of four previous planning applications that are considered material to the assessment of this current planning application: - 4.2 Planning application 09/01238/R sought planning approval for the erection of two polytunnels. The previous planning application, which was submitted retrospectively, was refused on the 19th February 2010 for the two following reasons:
4.3 Planning application 09/01239/R sought planning approval for the creation of new road from existing access. This previous planning application, which was submitted retrospectively, was refused on the 19th February 2010 for the three following reasons:
"The provision of the new access by reason of the removal of vegetation and the creation of hardstanding is detrimental to the visual amenities of the area and harmful to the site designation."
4.4 Planning application 10/01003/B sought planning approval for the creation of a horticultural nursery including polytunnels, access and associated works. This previous planning application, which was submitted partially retrospectively, was refused on the 15th February 2011 for the five following reasons:
4.5 Planning application 12/01692/B sought planning approval for the creation of a horticultural nursery including alteration to access, polytunnels, storage buildings and associated works (partial retrospective). This was approved by the Planning Committee on the 21st June 2013 with the following conditions and notes attached:
"C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
5.1 Highway Services comment there are no highway interest (15.03.2019): "The applicant has confirmed:
Highway Services does not oppose the application."
5.2 Lezayre Parish Commissioner's initially sought a deferral (08.02.2019) then after receiving additional clarification (20.03.2019) the application was considered at their 08.03.2019 meeting where they made the following comments: ""The Commissioners have received confirmation that there are no changes to the access of the site. It is stated in the title as this application is an amendment to PA12/01692/B.
Approved Unanimous - The Commissioners are disappointed that this application is partial retrospective. Given the history of the site, the applicant is fully aware of the planning system and should have made enquiries prior to making any alteration to the site, preventing yet another retrospective application.
They would like to see condition 7 of the original planning approval 12/01692/B added to this application should it be approved."
5.3 The Manx Wildlife Trust raises concerns with the application (08.02.2019) which are summarised as; being close to our Close e Qualye Nature Reserve and was previously part of the southern edge of a Site of Ecological Importance under the 1982 Development Plan; History of works on site are retrospective, evidence that works continue to start without any assessment or permission; the change in original is now historical, which is a shame as it once held much more ecological interest; MWT would like to know that there would not be any impact on our nature reserve though this use, not limited to exotic species establishing, run off and pollution through linked drainage; MWT would also hope the building that has been present in part form since the summer is not a prelude to requesting permissions for more permanent dwelling(s) on site.
6.1 The main considerations are; the principle of the development and the potential visual impact upon the amenities of the countryside/ecological impacts. THE PRINCIPLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT
6.2 There is a general presumption against development outside of areas designated for development, such as the countryside, under planning policy, outline previously. However, it is recognised that some development is inevitably required or is location dependent within the countryside and exceptions to planning policy to deal with such situations can be found with the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
6.3 Environment Policy 17 is considered to be of particular relevance in this respect. Clearly under the previous application (12/01692/B) permission was granted to use the site as a horticultural nursery and associated works which included alteration to access, two polytunnels, greenhouse, potting shed, a growing shed (appearance of a agricultural barn), parking areas, access lanes/areas of hardsurfacing within site and raised bed nursery area. Therefore the principle of the use of the site as a horticultural nursery, associated access and parking areas have already been approved and are established. Accordingly it is consider these aspects are once again acceptable. Furthermore, permission has been granted for a number of buildings (listed above) associated with the horticultural nursery, some implemented in accordance with this previous permission and other have been altered/re positioned (retrospective) and this current application also deals with this alterations to namely four of the buildings which are listed:
6.4 The above are the only aspects seeking to be altered by this application. No other changes to the access, parking areas, existing screening etc are proposed under this application and remain as previously approved. - 6.5 The proposal does have advantages, in that the proposed buildings are located closer together and less spread out within the middle section of the site. Additionally, the single polytunnel, potting shed, Greenhouse/Conservatory are all similar size and/or design to what was approved previously and are not considered to be unacceptable now. - 6.6 The heated mushroom growing area/store/staff welfare building being constructed of blockwork does raise some initial concerns, namely its construction. Environment Policy 17 does state that "any built development is of a scale, form, design and material in keeping with the character of its surroundings". The previous approval was constructed and would have appeared
"The heated mushroom unit. On PA12/01692/B drawing 418.06 this is notated as 'heated growing shed'; this is in fact what the non-staff part of the building is proposed to be in total; I was accidentally misled by the clients' enthusiasm for describing their mushroom growing project into suggesting the whole unit would be used for this purpose. About 60% of this part of the shed will be used for growing mushrooms. The rest of the space being for propagation of seeds - the shed will enable this to happen earlier in the year than currently is possible - and propagation of cuttings both more quickly and over a longer period of time - currently this can only happen for about two months of the year while, with the shed, it can take place over 6 months of the year.
The principal and in fact the detail of having both aspects of the unit has been previously approved and is still valid. I am therefore slightly concerned that you refer to the need to justify the development when that has already been established. The application is purely about changing the design and layout of previously approved buildings. Mushrooms do not need sun or light as they do not have chlorophyll. They can be grown either in light or dark, the energy they need for growing comes from the growing medium and a controlled temperature. Moisture and temperature must be right to avoid invasion by other fungi. The health benefit of mushrooms are that they boost the immune system, are antimicrosimal, anticancer, antiviva, protein rich, cholesterol free and contain high levels of Vitamins D, D3, D5 and A. Different varieties are available to suit different seasons of the year. Primarily two varieties of mushrooms will be grown.
Shiitake (Japanese for oak) mushrooms, which naturally grow on trees, will be grown on deciduous hardwood logs (oak, maple, beech). These are stored on racks on mobile stacks in the shed. There are 12 logs per stack. The logs are innoculated with spores in spring; after this
temperatures are kept high above 15.5 degrees Centigrade. The crop grows in 5-7 days and is harvested every 8 weeks. Refruiting occurs every 8 weeks until temperatures are below 4.5 degrees Centigrade. The lifespan of the crop is 7 years. Production can be maintained all year in a heated growing shed. On 100 logs about one third of one log represents a profit. Oyster mushrooms have a faster production rate, health & culinary benefits and are the easiest variety to grow. Spawn is mixed with substrate material which can be agricultural waste products eg pellets, sawdust, straw, cardboard, or used coffee grounds and placed in mushroom cultivation bags with small holes in them (ie they will be in the dark). The bags will be hung from racks in the shed at temperatures 20 - 24 degrees Centigrade during which the mycilli will colonise the growing substrate. After exposing to autumn-like conditions the mushrooms will be harvested in 5-7 days.
In design terms there is a linking door between the staff quarters and heated growing / mushroom unit primarily as a second means of escape in the event of a fire in the former area."
6.7 Overall, it is considered the justification and design of the building is acceptable and complies with Environment Policy 17 from these respects. - 6.8 In response to Manx Wildlife Trust commenting that they hope the application "is not a prelude to requesting permissions for more permanent dwelling(s) on site"; the applicant's agent comments; "There is absolutely no intention to erect a dwelling on the site. The growing shed has a cavity wall solely on its west side and this is solely so that it can be heated as required for proposed mushroom growing." A new application would be required for any dwelling on the site.
6.9 In terms of the visual impact Environment Policy 1 & 17 are the most relevant policies, the first of which needs to ensure it would not adversely affect the countryside and the latter requires the buildings are erected away from public highways and are screened from public gaze. As mentioned earlier in this report the middle section of the site is well screened from public views given the mature vegetation within and along the boundaries of the site (which is required to be retained under AP 12/01692/B). Further, permission has been given for buildings on a similar scale/size/height which could still be undertaken. - 6.10 It is noted the previous Planning Officer for apparition 12/01692/B made the following comments, which are again considered appropriate now: "One of the key issues raised by Environment Policy 17, which echoes within general planning considerations, is an assessment of the impact and acceptability of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. In terms of this it can be seen that significant natural screening both within close proximity and wider afield from the application site acts as a good visual barrier to limit views of and into the application site. It can also be seen that the application site itself is surrounded by significant natural screening through trees and hedging. The proposed development would see larger structures (polytunnels, growing sheds, glass houses) being located away from the Clanagh Road frontage, in positions that would be further screened by existing internal planting. That change in position of these structures is materially different to the development previous proposed and refused under previous planning application 10/01003/B. Based on site visits it is concluded that the proposed development within the application site would only be directly visible from public viewpoint when adjacent to it or within close proximity when travelling along Clanagh Road. The impact of that visibility on the overall character and appearance of the area is ultimately a subjective judgement but it is concluded, on balance, that the proposed development does not cause sufficient harm to warrant refusal of the planning application on such basis." - 6.11 Accordingly, it is considered the proposal in terms of the visual impact upon the countryside and public views form the highway is acceptable complying with EP 1 & 17. - 6.12 With regard to concerns of the Manx Wild Life Trust they are noted and are reasonable concerns. In response the applicant's agent provided the following comments:
"With regard to the comments of the Manx Wildlife Trust Ms Neffgen has preached and practised organic gardening since the age of 12. This site was originally chosen because it was clearly unaffected by modern agricultural practices; it had virtually no ecological interest. As confirmed by a letter from Dr Richard Selman of DAFF on 1st August 2011 (attached) "that Department then was not aware of any species protected under the Wildlife Act 1990 being present on the land. There has been no designation made in respect of the land under the Act."
No chemicals and no artificial fertiliser have ever been used on the site. At the west side of the site there is a 10m deep 40m wide wildlife corridor around the access. On north and south sides of the site there are wildlife corridors and a wildlife "island" between the outdoor growing area and the area where the structures are located. These have been managed to improve and build on their ecology with the advice of Dr Peter McEvoy of DEFA. Beyond to the east is a substantial wild area / buffer zone untouched except for the addition of beehives. Throughout the site planting is undertaken to encourage pollination. As a result the site NOW has an abundance of wildlife including hedgehogs, nesting bumblebees and a very large range of birds including dunnets, finches, wrens, wild ducks and an owl. The ecology of the area has vastly improved since it has been managed by Ms Neffgen, not the reverse. Verbally on 22nd March 2019 Ms Neffgen left a message with Manx Wildlife Trust asking if Mr Tim Graham would like to visit the site; no reply has been received to date."
6.13 The Planning Officer and subsequently the Planning Committee, considered the potential ecological impacts of the uses and associated development on this site during the previous application (12/01692/B) and the officer made the following comments; "In addition to the above, as highlighted earlier in this report the application site is located within a wider area of land designated as Nature Conservation Zone, Nature Reserves & Sites of Ecological Importance for Conservation under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982. However, it is understood that this is a somewhat broad designation made
6.14 Again the comments outlined above are considered relevant again. It is also important to note that this current application only deals with the alterations to previously approved buildings, rather than increasing the level of hardstanding or removal of any vegetation etc. Accordingly, given the new buildings would be still contained within the middle section of the site and in a more compact arrangement, it is not considered the proposals would have any significant ecological impacts to warrant a refusal. However, given the change in positions a number of the conditions previously attached and subsequently discharged by the Department, need to be re addressed/updated given the changes now. OTHER MATTERS - 6.15 Environment Policy 17 also requires a consideration of the impact of the proposed development on residential amenity. In this regard it can be seen that the application site and the proposed development is located considerable distance from any residential properties, the closest being approximately 175 metres away. Given the significant distances and the fact that the
7.1 For these reasons the proposal is considered to be appropriate in this location and comply with the relevant polices of the IOM Strategic Plan and the application is therefore recommended for an approval subject to conditions. - 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:
8.2 The decision maker must determine:
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : Permitted Committee Meeting Date: 15.07.2019
Signed : C BALMER Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
Application No. : 19/00068/B Applicant : Ms Martina Neffgen & Mr Gary Coleman Proposal : Creation of horticultural nursery, alteration to access, erection of
growing sheds, shed for staff welfare, greenhouse / conservatory and siting of polytunnel (partial retrospective) (amendments to PA 12/01692/B)
Site Address : Field 134801 Y Gharey Clenagh Road Sandygate Ramsey Isle Of Man Principal Planner : Mr Chris Balmer Presenting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer’s Report
The Planning Committee approved the application subject to the removal of Condition 1 (repeated twice) and two of the notes, with the other two notes absorbed into a single note to read as:
Reason: The countryside is protected from development and an exception is being made on the basis of horticultural need. As such the building must be used for the purposes for which it is approved.
Reason: The buildings and use have been exceptionally approved solely to meet horticultural needs and its subsequent retention would result in an unwarranted intrusion in the countryside.
N 1. For the avoidance of doubt the applicants are advise any alterations to existing buildings and/or change to their siting, layouts changes within the site, any new buildings/hardstanding or change of use etc are likely to require planning approval and they are strong advised to discuss such proposal with the Planning Department before undertaking the unlawful works. The applicant is also advised that the erection of signage for the horticultural nursery may require advertisement consent prior to its erection. Should any signage be proposed it is recommended that advice is sought from the Department.
Reason: The countryside is protected from development and an exception is being made on the basis of horticultural need. As such the building must be used for the purposes for which it is approved.
Reason: The buildings and use have been exceptionally approved solely to meet horticultural needs and its subsequent retention would result in an unwarranted intrusion in the countryside.
N 1. For the avoidance of doubt the applicants are advised any alterations to existing buildings and/or change to their siting, layouts, changes within the site, any new buildings/hardstanding or change of use etc. are likely to require planning approval and they are strongly advised to discuss such proposal with the Planning Department before undertaking the unlawful works. The applicant is also advised that the erection of signage for the horticultural nursery may require advertisement consent prior to its erection. Should any signage be proposed it is recommended that advice is sought from the Department.
This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings reference numbers LEZ.YG1, LEZ.YG2, LEZ.YG3, LEZ.YG4, LEZ.YG5 and LEZ.YG6 all received on 24th January 2019.
Conditions 2,3,4 relate to plans approved under application 12/01692/B
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
