Inspector's Report

Appeal No. AP14/0061 Application No. 14/00713/B REPORT ON AN APPEAL BY PORT ST MARY \& DISTRICT ALLOTMENT SOCIETY AGAINST REFUSAL OF PLANNING APPROVAL FOR THE ERECTION OF SHEDS/GREENHOUSES ON INDIVIDUAL PLOTS ON ALLOTMENT SITE AT SAND FIELD (FORMERLY FIELD 1540), MOUNT GAWNE ROAD, PORT ST. MARY, ISLE OF MAN

1. Appearances at the inquiry into this appeal on 15 October 2014, after a site visit on 13 October, were:

For the Appellant: For the Planning Authority: Interested parties:

Miss N Merritt Mr S Hulbert Miss S Corlett Mr R \& Mrs J Collister Mrs M Rodgers Mr A \& Mrs C Heath

The Appeal Site And The Proposed Development

1. The site is already used as allotments and is a roughly triangular area between Mount Gawne Road and the Castletown Road civic amenities site. The apex is at the Mount Gawne Road end, where there is a gateway, from where the site broadens out westwards. The car park is located to the south west, outside the red line of the site boundary. The plans indicate that the site has been divided into 79 plots, but some are not currently used as allotments but are planted with fruit trees/bushes and wildflowers/herbs. There are dwellings on the frontage of Mount Gawne Road. Highfield is a 2-storey dwelling to the south of the allotment entrance; Carrick Bay View is a bungalow to the north of the entrance; Seafield is a chalet bungalow with 1st floor rooms within the roof to the north of Carrick Bay View.
2. Approval is sought for the erection of either a shed or a greenhouse on each plot. The application included photographs of a shed and a greenhouse, but these were annotated as being for illustrative purposes only. The submitted layout shows the sheds/greenhouses in the north east corners of the plots.

The Case For The Appellant

The main points are:

1. The reason for refusal does not give adequate justification for going against the Planning Officer's recommendation. The Planning Authority did not understand the nature and use of the site and the difficulties for the allotment holders if they do not have a shed or greenhouse.
2. With respect to the reason for refusal, :

• the Planning Committee ignored the rule established by case law that there is no right to a view; amenity should refer only to overlooking and overshadowing;
• the topography and available lines of sight do not support the Committee's allegation that there would be a detrimental visual impact;
• there would be no real outlook from Carrick Bay View over the sheds/greenhouses; the view from there would be of the newly planted apple trees and wildlife area;
• the site is not visible from the ground floor or garden of Highfield; the sheds/greenhouses would only be seen from its 1st floor and such views would only be of the upper quarter of the site;
• the site is not visible from Mount Gawne Road except at the site entrance; that view is screened by the area planted as orchard; there are no more distant views from other roads;
• allotments and sheds are symbiotic; many other allotments have sheds, including those at Arbory;
• the Society's rules allow the erection of sheds; the rules were approved by DOLGE in 2009;

• there would be no conflict with Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, ("the Strategic Plan") as the site is no longer open countryside;
• the sheds and greenhouses would have a minimal environmental impact as they are not permanent buildings; no concrete will be permitted in their construction.

1. Points made in response to the objections of the Interested Parties include:

• a shed or greenhouse is proposed on each plot, not a shed and a greenhouse; there would not be 158 structures as suggested as there are only 69 plots and 62 allotment holders in total (Inspector's Note: these figures do not tally with the submitted plans which show the siting of 75 sheds or greenhouses - that is the layout that would be approved if the appeal is allowed);
• based on a previous survey, it is unlikely that all plot holders would erect a shed or greenhouse;
• it is not intended that sheds should be built from waste materials;
• each structure would be no larger than 7 feet by 5 feet (Inspector's Note: these figures are from the appeal statement - the application stated 7 feet by 6 feet) and would have a pitched roof; they would be "no higher than a row of runner beans"; the sizes of windows in sheds and the colour of the sheds could be controlled by condition;
• with respect to the contention that persons other than allotment holders use the site, some people have used it as a short cut since before the allotments were established - signs have been erected stating that it is private property, but the Society cannot police this;
• as a courtesy to local residents most allotment holders use the car park and do not park on Mount Gawne Road, but there are no parking restrictions on that road;
• the allotments have been established for 5 years;
• the objections have not taken into account that the number of allotments has been reduced and planting has taken place; 3 allotments at the Mount Gawne end and 2 on the boundary have been taken out of use and allocated for planting orchards as screens and wind-breaks;
• the objectors from Seafield became residents only after the allotments were established and have erected a recent extension with a large window facing the allotments;
• it is disappointing that the resident of Carrick Bay View has objected as the Society has consulted her regarding screening and placed much of the new planting at her suggestion;
• a year's income for the Society (c. £2200) has been spent on planting on the boundaries with Highfield and Carrick Bay View and on developing the orchard and wildlife areas as screening;
• there are 2 structures in the grounds of Highfield which must be more visible from that property;
• the allegations that the Society's Committee do not exercise proper control/responsibility over the allotments are refuted (examples are given of reasons relating to ill-health/family circumstances why some of the plots photographed had become untidy); regular site inspections are made; since a yellow and red flag system was introduced in January 2013, 4 people have been evicted and 15 have given up their plots after being encouraged to do so;
• most plots near the houses are well-kept; one has been awarded a Port St Mary in Bloom prize;
• the plots would be tidier with sheds than with the plastic storage boxes currently on some plots.

1. With the context of the Planning Charter (June 2014) the effects on the amenity of neighbours have been given undue precedence over the quality of life of many more people, the allotment holders. Their needs have not been adequately considered. The sheds/greenhouses are needed to store/protect tools, to give security for equipment and to provide shelter from the weather, given that many allotment holders are retired and/or have medical conditions. The allotments give social and educational benefits.

1. Since the previous appeal decision (AP11/0031 - PA10/01815/B) tree screening has been provided in excess of that which was suggested in the Inspector's report. A communal mixed apple orchard area, a communal fruit shrub and vegetable area and an ornamental wild flower garden have been planted.

Damson trees have been planted down the hedgerow behind Highfield. The trees will grow to 14 feet in 5 years. The application is different from that refused under PA10/0468/B (see paragraph 12 below). That proposal referred to sheds of wood, metal or plastic. There are examples in the countryside of sheds and poly-tunnels having been approved, which set precedents for the appeal proposal.

1. It is requested that the appeal be allowed and that planning approval be granted.

1. In response to Inspector's questions the following material points were made:

• of the specific plots referred to by the Inspector in appeal AP11/0031, plots 13, 40 and 51 are still used as allotments, plot 14 has been planted with fruit bushes, plot 27 with wildflowers/herbs and plot 28 with apple trees. In addition, Plots 60 and part of plot 68 have been planted with apple trees;
• the only detail of the sheds/greenhouses given is the floor-plan dimensions; there is nothing in the application that would stop the sheds being built from waste materials, a condition could be attached to prevent this and to ensure the provision of pitched roofs;
• since the previous appeals the site's appearance has improved; the paths are now tended and the Society's Committee takes a more proactive approach to the state of the plots;
• it is accepted that the proposal constitutes development for which planning approval is required;
• it would not be practical to provide shelter from the weather by erecting communal shelters.

THE CASE FOR THE PLANNING AUTHORITY

The main points are:

1. The proposal was recommended for approval but the Planning Committee unanimously refused it. The benefit of having sheds/greenhouses was understood, but having so many, especially on the high part of the site, would have a harmful impact on the outlook from dwellings on Mount Gawne Road and a detrimental effect on their amenities. That would be contrary to Environment Policies 1 and 15 of the Strategic Plan, which aim to protect the countryside for its own sake and to discourage development which is unsympathetic to the environment of which it will form part.

1. Other relevant points from the Planning Officer's report include:

• the area is not designated for any particular purpose on the Area Plan for the South (2013);
• General Policy 3 and Environment Policies 3, 15 and 17 of the Strategic Plan are relevant;
• the planning history includes:

PA09/1112 - approval of a car park on adjacent land; PA10/0468 - a proposal for a shed and/or greenhouse on each of 79 plots; this was permitted by the Planning Committee, recommended for approval by an Inspector, but refused by the Minister because the visual impact would have "a seriously adverse impact on the character of the area and thus on the living conditions of residents in adjoining properties"; PA10/01815 - a proposal for 25 sheds which was refused as it would have an unacceptable impact on the appearance and rural character of the area and cause unacceptable harm to the residential amenity of adjoining dwellings;

• the Inspector who considered an appeal against the decision in PA10/01815 referred to possible mitigation measures to overcome the main objections - he suggested plots 13, 14, 27, 28, 40 and 51 should be taken out of allotment use and planted as native broadleaf woodland to provide substantial screening/physical separation of Highfield and Carrick Bay View from the allotments;
• the allotments actually taken out of use have been planted with fruit trees not native broadleaf trees, but the mitigation effect required would be achieved by this planting and the rearrangement of plots which has been implemented;

• the planting undertaken constitutes a change from the previous applications and refusals; other changes include that the application now specifies a size for the proposed structures.

1. It is requested that the appeal be dismissed and the refusal of planning approval be upheld.
2. In response to Inspector's questions the following material points were made:

• the changes from the scheme in PA10/0468 include that a shed or greenhouse are now proposed on each plot, not a shed and greenhouse; there are slightly fewer allotment plots now in the critical parts of the site; and planting has been undertaken on some areas;
• PA10/01815/B included more detailed information regarding the materials and form of the sheds then proposed than is included in the current application;
• the allotments were created under permitted development rights, but there are no such rights for any of the paraphernalia on the site, such as the storage boxes; the Planning Authority has not considered whether these items constitute development for which planning approval is needed;
• with the context that only illustrative details had been submitted of the sheds/greenhouses, the Planning Officer knew of no other instance where approval would be granted for a building without knowing exactly what it would look like.

The Main Points From The Cases For The Interested Parties

1. Mr \& Mrs Collister (Highfield) have concerns about the impact of such a large number of structures on such a small site in the countryside, which was formerly a picturesque green field. Even with a shed or greenhouse on each plot there could be 75 structures, of which 40-45 would be seen from the 1st floor of Highfield. That would be a significant overdevelopment. Nothing has changed since the previous applications were refused. The proposal would have a substantial and detrimental impact on the visual appearance of what is already an over-developed site, maintained to widely differing standards. It would be unsympathetic to the landscape. The undulating nature of the land would make it difficult to undertake the development in a coordinated way. The planting undertaken has improved the appearance of the entrance but does not address the visual impact from Highfield or how the plots are maintained. It is impossible to reconcile the erection of up to 75 structures with the Strategic Plan policies by which the countryside is protected for its own sake. No justification has been provided in terms of demonstration of a sufficient agricultural need or an over-riding national need.
2. The context for assessment of the proposal is that this is a quiet residential area with only 9 houses. The quiet amenity has been changed by the intensity of the allotment use, constant comings and goings and parking in Mount Gawne Road. There is noise from the site when the weather is good, with people present from 0630 up to 2200 hours. The allotments are of an inappropriately large scale. It is doubted that the Society would be able to control the type, quality, uniformity and maintenance of the sheds and greenhouses, given the widely different standards to which the plots are maintained and the fact that the removal of some sheds erected without approval has not been required. Those sheds are not as shown in the application in appearance and siting. This area of countryside should be protected and the appeal should be dismissed. One or 2 larger sheds on the lower part of the site would be more acceptable.
3. Mrs Rodgers (Carrick Bay View) considers that the Committee's decision was correct. The large number of sheds and greenhouses would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of surrounding properties and the character of the area. The previous decisions to turn down proposals for 79 sheds and/or 79 greenhouses and for 25 sheds were correct and referred to the same impacts. The site has too many plots. It is overcrowded and overdeveloped with an array of fencing, poles, netting and plastic sheeting. The proposal would exacerbate this, and be detrimental to the countryside. It would reduce privacy at Carrick Bay View.

1. It is feared that the sheds/greenhouses would not take the form shown and that they would not be uniform in appearance. Evidence for that is the 3 sheds erected in breach of planning. Sheds on allotments are often built from scrap materials. Whilst efforts have been made to improve the site's appearance with tree planting, this does little to improve the maintenance, condition, upkeep and appearance of the plots visible from Carrick Bay View. Some plots are not well maintained. Hedging has not been planted as was suggested to provide screening. The allotments have changed the character of the site from being a lush green field. There are many comings and goings, and activity and noise levels are high on nice days. Many people park on Mount Gawne Road. It is impossible to determine which people should or should not be on the site, which is a concern in what should be a quiet residential area. The site is being used as a short cut by other people. The allotments should not have been created on this scale on such a small field. The appeal should be dismissed.
2. Mr and Mrs Heath (Seafield) have owned their property for 2 years although they moved in more recently. The allotments are clearly seen from Seafield. The issue is one of scale. The decision to refuse the proposal was correct. The sheds would have a significant impact on the area which is supposed to be countryside, contrary to relevant Environment Policies. The planting undertaken is all deciduous, would give limited protection in summer and virtually none in winter. The buildings would encroach into an area detailed in the Area Plan for the South as part of the green gaps between Port Erin, Port St Mary, Ballagawne/ Ballakillowey and Ballafesson which are important to maintain the identities of these communities.
3. It is unclear from the application exactly what would be built. There are worries about the control and responsibility of the Society as some allotment holders have broken planning regulations by erecting sheds and no action has been taken against them. Although the sheds would be useful to the allotment holders, the erection of so many would be detrimental to the area. The appeal should be dismissed.

Inspector'S Assessment And Conclusions

1. The main issues concern visual impact and effects on the amenities of nearby residents, and these are linked as they both relate to visual concerns. With respect to other potential effects on residential amenities, the nearby residents would not be affected by any loss of light, overshadowing or overlooking, as the proposed structures would not be close enough to have those effects. Insofar as it has been suggested that residents would be affected by disturbance/noise and loss of privacy, there is no evidence that adding sheds/greenhouses would have any such implications. Any effects there might be on privacy or by disturbance/noise already exist by virtue of the use as allotments. This use relies on permitted development rights. Whatever decision is made on the appeal the use as allotments would remain, unless the Society decides to end it. There is no substantial evidence to show that the addition of sheds/greenhouses would materially intensify the numbers of persons using the site or change the noise generating potential of the on-site activities. Consequently, the contentions of loss of privacy and increased noise/disturbance do not merit any significant weight. In any event, the taking out of allotment use of some of the plots closest to Highfield and Carrick Bay View is likely to have reduced the effect of any noise on those properties to some extent.
2. In assessing the visual implications the previous appeals on this site are highly material. The most recent (AP11/0031) related to the erection of just 25 sheds. The Inspector noted that public views of the site are limited. That remains the case today. He also noted that Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan requires the countryside to be protected for its own sake. That is still a relevant policy. Reflecting what was stated in that Inspector's report, there is still considerable visual evidence that the allotments have already had a seriously adverse impact on the appearance and character of this area of countryside.

That impact arises from the paraphernalia on the site, including fences, netting, storage boxes, water butts and bins, wooden frames, tools and other items. Some of these elements would be likely to be stored out of sight in the sheds/greenhouses if the appeal were to be allowed, but many would remain outside. Nevertheless, the last Inspector's concerns that in a wider landscape perspective the erection of sheds would add to the built-up and disorderly appearance of the site, with consequent harm to the appearance and character of the area, are more valid now than they were at that time. That is because the plans now show the erection of up to 75 structures (sheds or greenhouses) rather than the 25 sheds in the last appeal. The last Inspector was concerned that approval of 25 sheds could make it more difficult to resist further requests for sheds which could lead to further visual harm. In proposing up to 75 sheds, the current appeal scheme would be likely to cause that greater visual harm.

1. It is also relevant that the Minister who decided another appeal (AP10/0081) judged that "such large numbers of sheds and greenhouses, sited as proposed in an intensive and regimented array, would have a seriously adverse impact on the character of the area and thus the living conditions of residents of adjoining properties". While that proposal involved more structures, up to 79 sheds and 76 greenhouses, the plans for the current proposal also show a relatively intensive and regimented layout. In my view, a similar assessment of the impact on the character of the area is justified.
2. I have concluded that significant and unacceptable harm would be caused to the character and appearance of this area, which lies outside settlement boundaries and so is in the countryside for the purposes of planning policy despite the creation of the allotments. In reaching this conclusion, I have taken into account that some plots have been taken out of allotment use and that some planting has taken place since the decision on AP11/0031, but that planting does not fully reflect the mitigation suggested by the Inspector and mentioned in the Minister's decision. The planting has been mainly of fruit trees/bushes, not "native broad woodland". The latter could have been expected to have greater screening effects. Not all of the plots referred to by that Inspector have been planted with trees. In addition, the mitigation suggested was in the context of a proposal for 25 sheds. I am not convinced that the visual impact of up 75 sheds or greenhouses in the current case could be successfully mitigated by planting, even if this took the form of the type of woodland the previous Inspector had in mind.
3. On the second issue, there is no right to a view in planning terms, but visual impact can still be a material matter as impact on outlook, and consequent effects on residential amenities, are legitimate planning concerns. I visited the properties of the Interested Parties. The impact of the proposal on the outlook from Seafield would not be so substantial as to justify refusal. That dwelling backs onto a field and does not have a common boundary with the allotments. Views of the allotments from that dwelling are gained at a significant angle and across the intervening field. Carrick Bay View has a common boundary with the allotments, and parts of the appeal site are visible from that property and its garden. A large part of the allotment site forms the main outlook from the rear facing 1st floor windows of Highfield. Due to the close proximity of that house to the boundary with the allotments, and having regard to the fact that the angle between the house and that boundary results in the direct outlook from the 1st floor windows being across the allotments, I consider that the number of sheds/greenhouses proposed would have a seriously intrusive impact on the outlook from Highfield. I have concluded that the proposal would have a significant adverse impact on the living conditions of nearby residents in terms of impact on outlook.
4. My assessment in that regard is consistent with the conclusion of the Minister who decided AP10/0081, which I have quoted in paragraph 23, although I have taken into account that the scheme in that case was for a greater number of sheds/greenhouses. My assessment is also consistent with the views of the Inspector and of the Minister in the case of AP11/0031, which involved a proposal for only 25 sheds.

The Minister in that case agreed with the Inspector who stated that the allotments were prominent from Carrick Bay View and Highfield, and that by "adding to the built-up and disorderly appearance of the allotments the sheds would harm the amenity of these residential properties". The planting undertaken since then does not represent a change of circumstances sufficient to invalidate those conclusions.

1. In the light of the harm I have identified on the 2 main issues, the proposal is contrary to Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan, and its aim of protecting the countryside for its own sake, and also to the intention of part (g) of General Policy 2, that the amenity of local residents should not be adversely affected by development. It is unclear whether the latter policy strictly applies, as the site is not zoned for development, but the protection of residential amenity is a sound planning principle in any event, and so it is at least a weighty material consideration. As the allotments have been established on the basis that the change from agricultural use did not require specific planning approval, Environment Policy 15 is also relevant. The proposal conflicts with the requirements in that policy that the impact of new buildings should be acceptable, and that they should be appropriate in terms of matters including scale, siting and form, to ensure that new developments are sympathetic to the landscape and built environment of which they will form part. In the absence of specific policies relating to buildings on allotments, and given that allotments are akin to market gardens/nurseries, the intentions of Environment Policy 17 are also relevant. The proposal does not accord with those intentions as it would not be in keeping with the character of the surroundings in scale and form, would unacceptably affect residential amenity and would have an adverse impact on the character or appearance of the area.

1. I have taken account of the arguments regarding the need for sheds/greenhouses on allotments, and the suggested symbiosis of allotments and sheds. However, the fact that the allotments were established using permitted development rights, and that there are no similar rights to erect sheds/greenhouses on allotments, is indicative that allotment operators cannot assume that sheds/greenhouses will be approved on all such sites. It is legitimate for the Planning Authority to consider all the planning implications of such structures when an application is made. The approval of the Allotment Society's rules by a Government Department in 2009 is of no planning significance. I have taken account of all other matters drawn to my attention, but I have found nothing of overriding significance. The harm I have identified with respect to the character and appearance of the area and the amenities of nearby residents must be the determining considerations. I intend to recommend that the appeal be dismissed.

1. If the proposal is approved contrary to my recommendation, the 2 conditions suggested in the Planning Authority's statement would be reasonable and necessary requirements. Given that no designs for the sheds or greenhouses have been submitted, other than illustrative drawings, a further condition would be required to state:

"Prior to the erection of each shed or greenhouse, full details of the design, external materials and external appearance of the structure shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority and the structure shall thereafter be erected in accordance with the approved details. The details to be submitted shall include the provision of a pitched roof to each shed or greenhouse."

RECOMMENDATION

1. I recommend that the appeal be dismissed, with the effect and that the Planning Authority's decision to refuse planning approval should be upheld.

Stephen Amos MA (Cantab) MCD MRTPI Independent Inspector

Appeal No. AP14/0061

Page 7

.