Loading document...
This planning statement has been prepared to take into account the recent court decision with regard to enforcement action in so far as this have a bearing on the planning proposal, previous decisions and appeal report on applications on the site, planning policy designations and agreements reached with relevant Government Departments.
The nursery has been developed since 2009. Initially it was intended simply to grow plants, fruit and vegetables for their own enjoyment but subsequently the decision was taken to open up the nursery more commercially. This has proved successful. The nursery is wholly organic.
The nursery will supply plants for both individual private needs, supply Mrs Neffgen’s needs as a gardener / plantsman for other individuals and organisations and provide wholesale stock for other retail units who are unable to grow their own stock. The nursery is open from 8am for sale for wholesale supply and from 1pm in the afternoon for individual private retail sales. So far as is known this is the only organic nursery that undertakes this dual operation and it is much in demand particularly for the former. The nursery is also visited by accompanied parties of school children who are taught about the natural environment, growing plants organically and help undertake small tasks.
As demonstrated by news articles and letters of support the nursery is very popular and is able to employ other staff including disabled people.
The site is effectively divided into four different types of area :
The intention is to continue the current operation with other members of staff managing the site in the afternoons when Mrs Neffgen is not able to be there. For this reason apart from a sales point there needs to be a welfare unit on site. To work efficiently these are best combined and of necessity have to be on the front part of the site.
This will be the sole structure on this part of the site. The raised beds are not an engineered structure. They sit on the pre-existing ground.
The ground surface for car parking / turning is loose gravel hardcore. Such an area would be required for access to the site by the applicants themselves whether or not the site was also accessed by the public.
2 The rear nursery area which will accommodate the polytunnels, potting shed, heated growing shed and greenhouse. Access to this area is restricted to staff only. It is reached by a continuation of the loose gravel hardcore surface winding through a well treed area with trees approaching 25ft in height which separates it visually from the front portion above and reinforces the unobtrusive nature of the development as seen from the public highway.
The proposals show the position of the stuctures on site and their height. The Court has determined that the existing polytunnel at the rear of the site which is not fixed to a wall does not require to the subject of planning consent but it is shown on the planning application for the sake of completeness.
None of the structures is greater than 3.5m(ridge) or 2.4m(eaves) in height. If they had been within a residential area some would fall within the category of being Permitted Development. The biggest structure is the heated growing shed; this will have the appearance of an agricultural building.
While some of the structures are within 9m of the watercourse to the north neither the water derived from surface drainage nor the organic use of the site per se will adversely impact on this watercourse in terms of the quantity or quality of water it has to cope with.
3 Wild land area / screening These have been created / retained and are maintained all around Areas 1 and 2 above. They provide a natural backdrop to the proposal and ensure that it is minimally visible from public highway. As above existing trees are between 20ft and 25ft in height. Advice on further planting to strengthen these areas has been obtained from Dr. Peter McEvoy of the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture and is included in the application. One pond has been created at the northwest corner of the site.
4) Wildlife area to the east
This area covers 1247 sq m and will remain as Curragh with willow being coppiced to enable a richer understorey of vegetation. This part of the site abuts the Manx Wildlife Trust’s Reserve to the east. However due to the organic practices used and the collaboration with DEFA in terms of the management of this part of the site there will be no adverse impact on the Reserve. The area contains bee hives and is nagged so as to be attractive to owls and other wildlife. Apart from staff the accompanied parties of school children are the only members of the public who will be allowed to access this part of the site.
Policy / Designation
On the 1982 Isle of Man Development plan the site is shown as whiteland within a zone designated “Nature Conservation Zone, Nature Reserves and Sites of Ecological Importance for Conservation”.
The Court determined that the latter designation carries no statutory significance other than, as being designated as such on the 1982 Development Plan, the Department must have regard to it under section 10(4) of the 1999 Act when considering an application for planning permission. As whiteland the land is designated for agricultural use. Accordingly its use for horticultural purposes per se does not represent a change of use.
Following court direction it was determined that there was an existing access but that this had only been 3.5m wide. Accordingly the application is for the widening of this access to 4.8m. This is retrospective and no increase in width beyond that which is now existing is actually proposed. Previously a felling licence had been obtained for the removal of four trees along the roadside. This has been undertaken. As the trees were not Registered no planning consent for their removal was required. A copy of the felling licence is included.
However the site is utilised, given the far greater use of Clenagh Road as a route to Jurby in particular, a safe and convenient access together with repair of the associated drainage works underneath the existing access would be required. The proposed access enables visibility splays of 2.4 x 100m in either direction to be achieved. Highways Division have previously agreed that this is sufficient (see attached letter of 25th May 2012). Part of the visibility to the south is over land not owned by the applicants. However they have the agreement of its landowner that they may maintain the land such as to retain the required visibility (see letter). Highways Division are satisfied with this. Accordingly the proposal should be deemed as sufficient to overcome the reasons for refusal of the earlier application PA 09/01239/R.
The Court direction considered that there was a pre-existing hedgerow along the rear of the verge and that its removal constituted development as it formed part of the access widening operation. Accordingly it is proposed to underplant the trees along this verge line at the rear of the visibility splay to provide a greater screen to the roadside. Species to be used will be selected with the aid of DEFA.
The access into the site actually crosses a ditch and this is culverted into a pipe replaced the pre-existing oil drums which were acting as a culvert when my clients bought the site. Walls which are within the permitted development limits in height have been erected on either side of the access track to ensure there is no hazard to users of the site or danger of them failing to notice the ditch. The walls lead back 11m to gate piers. The distance back from the highway to the gate piers is such that vehicles can manoeuvre onto or out of the site when a gate is shut. The gate piers of stone and the walls they attach to are within Permitted Development heights
In relation to Enforcement Notice 12/00312/A the planning application specifically shows
The reinstatement of the hedgerow at the back of the visibility sprays of the access.
The retention of areas of hardstanding beyond the 3.5m wide x 6.0m depth for vehicle parking and turning in the western part of the site and to form a track going into and around the rear part of the site
The retention of a lowered brick wall (well within the limits allowed for in para 39 of schedule 1 of Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012) to form the bases of coldframes; the rest of the polytunnel is proposed to be removed to the eastern part of the site.
The reinstatement of land with soil to its original level with no hardcore save as above but also including polythene membranes where these are necessary prior to addition of sheds, polytunnels or greenhouses or raised beds above.
In respect of the planning appeal decision into the refusal of PA 10/01003/B with regards to
a) The built development proposed in the form of polytunnels, greenhouse, shed are all of a relatively small scale being less than 3.5m in height; such structures which are light weight in construction are in character with the willows and self-seeded trees of the surrounding areas and Curragh and agricultural buildings much more so than solid build structures such as the exchange building 150m distant in open countryside;
b) the development has no impact on residential amenity; there are no residences nearby
c) including part of b) above the modification / widening of the access has been agreed with the highway authority and any impact on the environment is to be mitigated through the reintroduction of a hedgerow at the rear of the visibility sprays. The use itself, particularly the part open to the public, is relatively small scale compared to other nurseries. Both as a use and in respect of the amount of other traffic generating uses utilising the Clenagh Road the traffic generated will not create a hazard to the highway.
d) the polytunnels and all other structures bar one are proposed to be erected a minimum of 64m from the highway where they will be screened from public gaze by the existing natural vegetation upto 20-25ft high both around the edge of the site and within it.
The proposed site is shown as being part of a Phase 2 site Close e Kewin which appears to cover a very extensive area (P Mcevoy plan & letter.) The current planning application represents a very small percentage of this site on its western edge. DEFA have confirmed that a 1992 survey of the Island by DAFF / DEFA classified the area of ecological importance. The latter classified habitats (Phase 1) and identified areas of importance (Phase 2). Phase 2 sites are those which are or were of ASSI quality. It is understood that some further assessment that might lead to more formal higher designation of such Phase 2 sites may have been ongoing since 1992 but there have been no indicators that the proposed site is / or was a site that required any high priority in such assessment
and no particular animal or plant that would warrant the site's protection has been identified on the site (letter Richard Selman 1st August 2011).
It is recognised by DEFA that the removal of trees from within the site did not result in the loss of any valuable specimens or species. Notwithstanding this the site has been positively identified as neither having any international or national importance itself nor adversely affecting the nearby wildlife trust reserve. Albeit if the cleared areas of the site are not used they would probably gradually recolonise with willow scrub with the understorey being of botanical interest there is no requirement by DEFA for willow scrub to be reinstated.
Discussions have been ongoing with DEFA over the proposal and their comments have been taken on board in designing the proposal; it is recognised that sensitive management of the coppiced area does help mitigate loss of areas of grey willow scrub and curragh that are perceived to have been destroyed. Such management also enables the introduction of appropriate species as understorey to the trees which gives added interest to the site. Specifically Dr Peter McEvoy of DEFA has produced a scheme for the management of existing wild areas around the perimetre of the site and the eastern part of the site which are all recognised as being in good condition; this is included as part of this proposal. As the sites are recognised as being in good condition no further tree planting will take place; some coppicing will be undertaken. In areas to be restored for wildlife - currently one pond is included in the site - areas will be restored and managed at different surface levels. A list of plant species that are suitable for growing in these areas is included. No exotic, non-native species will be allowed to colonise the areas.
The proposal for the site is its continued use as a form of agriculture ie primarily horticulture and tree management. As with any site for horticulture a number of structures are essential for the encouragement of the early growth of some plants. Improving the access and providing an appropriate amount of hardstanding for vehicles to park and turn round in is also essential for any use of the site. It is therefore considered that the proposal is in compliance with this policy.
It is one of the applicant's aims to encourage the general public's interest in the organic and sustainable management of the site and production of plants including those native to the Curragh and willow scrub landscape. In this respect works are proposed to be undertaken to help with the interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife and heritage.
No other areas of land are available to the applicants to use for horticulture; the benefits that they are giving to the area by diversifying the wildlife content of the site would not necessarily be possible for them to achieve without at the same time deriving some economic benefit from the site. By simultaneously developing the site in a wholly organic and sustainable fashion and opening it up to the public, as witnessed by the letters and petition of support, they have brought a great deal of enjoyment and appreciation of the wildlife of such areas in the countryside to the public as a
whole. Substantial other areas of "Curragh" are preserved either as National Nature reserve or Manx Wildlife Trust reserve. The importance to the sustainability of the Island's ecology by introducing an alternative way of encouraging interest in and conservation of "Curragh" and grey willow scrub areas should not be underestimated or undervalued. If the site had been of such ecological value that it should not have been disturbed on any account then it should and could have been bought by the appropriate authorities when it was available. The proposal is adding enhancement to the countryside and its ecology.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
