Loading document...
Where new agricultural buildings are proposed next to or close to existing residential properties, care must be taken to ensure that there is no unacceptable adverse impact through any activity, although it must be borne in mind that many farming activities require buildings which are best sited, in landscape terms, close to existing building groups in the rural landscape." ### Planning History 8. There are no previous applications with regard to this site. ### Representations 9. Highways Division indicate that they do not oppose the application subject to the following condition:- "Nothing must be planted, erected or allowed to remain within the visibility splay that exceeds or may exceed one metre in height above the level of the adjacent carriageway." 10. The Braddan Commissioners have no objection. 11. The owners/occupants of Kilkenny Cottage, Colooneys Lane, Cooil have objected to the proposal which can be summarised as; existing use of site is not agricultural it is a woodland, the proposed hardstanding would impact upon tree roots; proposed new use could be describes as a allotment; the canopy of the trees results in insufficient light to grow crops and where the ground if full of roots form the trees; proposed use of site does not justify a garden store; and the proposal is contrary to Strategic Policy 2 & 10 and Environment Policy 7 & 15 of the Strategic Plan. 12. The owner/occupant of Kilkenny Bungalow, Colooneys Lane, Cooil has objected to the proposal which can be summarised as; highway safety concerns due to traffic coming and going from the access of the site, which has poor visibility; existing use of site is not agricultural; building and engineering operations would encroach beneath the tree canopy; difficult to envisage any gardening activity as the entire surface/subsurface is interlaced with tree roots and tree coverage would seriously inhibit any conventional gardening; and no plan showing the existing trees. 13. The owner/occupant of Kilkenny Farm, Colooneys Lane, Cooil has objected to the proposal which can be summarised as; The site in the last 23 years has never been cultivated or gardened but remains as a glade under the canopy of the long established trees; applicants do not have any rights to vehicular access from the private roadway to the site; the proposal is out of keeping with the area and would demonstrate an over intensive use of the site and detract from the amenities of the area; the site is small and being under a canopy of tree is hardly capable of cultivation with only snowdrops and bluebells ever grown; to cultivate the site it will be necessary to removal or curtail the canopy created by the established trees which would detract from the amenity of the area; and garden store is not justified. ### Assessment 14. From visiting the site, studying the submitted information and written correspondents received it is considered the main issue with the proposal is whether the proposed works are justified for the use of the site and whether they would adversely affect the amenities of the site. 15. In terms of the use, the local plan designated the site as "Open Space/Agriculture". The local plan does note a number of woodland areas but this site is not designated as such. However, visiting the site and reading the submitted information from all parties, it is clear the site is a small wooded area which would not appeared to have been used for agricultural activities. It is also noted that on the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982 (Braddan Local Plan superseded the 1982 Dev Plan) the site was designated within an area of woodland which also included the land of Kilkenny Lodge, Kilkenny and Kilkenny Farm. Overall, it is considered the site is clearly a wooded area, albeit within the countryside not zoned for development. 16. The applicants propose to plant hedges/bushes and plants. All these aspects can be undertaken without planning approval as such works would not be classes as development. The creation of the hardstanding and shed are classes as development and it is these aspects which need approval. 17. When visiting the area it was clear it was a parcel of land, albeit small, which had a positive appearance to the visual amenities of the countryside, given the wild flora found within the site, coupled together with and large mature trees surrounding the boundaries of the site. The applicants themselves have indicated this was one reason why they purchased the site. The concern that the proposed hardstanding and shed raise are because both types of development are what you would expect in a domestic garden. Therefore concern is raised that this small wooded area with wild flowers etc would appear and be used as a domestic garden, detrimental to the character and appearance of the site from a very rural and natural site. Whilst each planning application is judge on its own merits, the Planning Department must consider that there are likely a number of similar sites throughout the countryside, and allowing development which is not essential and justified, could lead to a number of similar types of development which in turn would have a significant visual impact upon the countryside. 18. The applicants indicate that it is not practical carrying supplies to and from the site; hence why the submission includes a shed, for the storage of tools. However, whilst it may be more convenient for the shed to store tools etc, it is not considered to be essential, especially for a small plot, which would unlikely need heavy equipment to undertake the proposed planting works. Such tools could be brought to the site via vehicle, negating the need for onsite storage. The hardstanding area is proposed to be constructed with hardcore and then wood chipping places above. As indicated previously such hardstanding 4 metres in length, two metres in width, would affect the existing character of the site. It is considered the amount and design of the hardstanding area as proposed would not be in keeping with the rural/wild natural of the site and would therefore have a detrimental impact upon the visual amenities of the site. 19. Other issues raised include impact upon the trees within the site and highway safety concerns. 20. The Local Authority therefore sought views from the Forestry Division. They have indicated that as long as any excavations around the root systems of the trees are kept to a minimum, then they believe that the proposals should be acceptable. They do highlight the large mature Beech tree at the entrance to the plot, which they indicate should be protected from root disturbance as much as possible as it is a fine specimen. With regard to further planting within the location, they state that this may be undertaken but there will be limited species choice available given the fact that when the trees are in leaf there will be considerable shading from them. 21. The issues regarding highway safety concerns, the Highway Division have indicated they have no objection subject to a condition stating that "nothing must be planted, erected or allowed to remain within the visibility splay that exceeds or may exceed one metre in height above the level of the adjacent carriageway." There is an issue with this condition in that the land forward of the boundary wall does not appear to be included within the red line (ownership) of the application site and therefore a condition could not be attached as the land fall outside the applicant's control. Notwithstanding this, it is not considered the traffic generated by the site would result in a significant impact upon highways safety. RECOMMENDATION 22. In conclusion, the justification for the proposed built development in the countryside is insufficient to outweigh general planning policy which seeks to restrict inappropriate development in the countryside. It is considered the proposals would be contrary to General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and 15 of the Isle Of Man Strategic Plan and therefore it is recommended that the application be refused. ### Party Status 23. It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status: Braddan Commissioners The owners/occupants of Kilkenny Cottage, Colooneys Lane, Cooil The owner/occupant of Kilkenny Bungalow, Colooneys Lane, Cooil The owner/occupant of Kilkenny Farm, Colooneys Lane, Cooil 24. The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance. ### Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 12.11.2012
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals
R 1. The Planning Authority is not persuaded that there is sufficient justification for the proposed works to warrant setting aside the presumption against development outside of areas zoned for development. As such, the proposal is concluded to represent unwarranted development that is detrimental to the visual amenities and character of the countryside contrary to the provisions of General Policy 3 and Environmental Policy 1& 15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
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 : 13/11/12
12 November 2012 12/01247/B Page 5 of 6
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
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown