A MAJOR row has started in the south of the Island over the rejection of a planning application for allotment greenhouses and sheds in Port St Mary.
The decision to reject the plans has been branded “a bloody disgrace” by Port St Mary Commissioner Robbie Cooil.
The allotments - off Mount Gawne Road - have been in use since 2009 but the untidiness of the site and parking problems led Port St Mary Commissioners to make an application to erect greenhouses and sheds.
The site - containing 79 allotments - had been described by some as a “shanty town” in its current appearance and those in favour argued that if tools were kept there, it would also reduce car travel to the allotments.
The plan was approved by the planning committee, taken to appeal by residents, passed by the independent inspector and rejected by minister Eddie Teare, deputising for the Minister for Infrastructure Phil Gawne, who is an MHK for the constituency.
An angry Mr Cooil told a meeting of the Commissioners, “We are meant to be encouraging people to grow their own, because of the carbon footprint. I think it’s a bloody disgrace.”
Residents argued there had been problems with the site since 2009 with rubbish, noise, parking issues and the appearance was ‘shambolic’.
However, opponents supported the principle of allotments on a smaller scale, with around 10 sheds for communal use.
Rushen Parish Commissioners objected because “the potential for 158 structures would be over-development”. Those in favour said that the sheds would “reduce open storage and untidiness on the site” and allotment rules should deal with untidy plots.
Some sheds would be shared, said the Allotments Committee, who police the site. It was also reported that hedges will be provided for screening. The committee added that the demand for allotments was so strong that there was a waiting list.
The planning inspector, David Bushby, said it was “unlikely” that each allotment would erect a shed and greenhouse, so he assumed half would do so. There were three reasons for objection – disturbance, parking and visual. The first two would be addressed by the Allotments Committee. Regarding visual concerns, there was no right to a view meaning ‘there is no serious planning objection’ to the proposal.
However Mr Teare said such a large number of structures “would have a seriously adverse impact on the character of the area and thus the living conditions of residents in adjoining properties” and would be a “visual intrusion in open countryside” not satisfactorily mitigated by hedging.
It was stated that the Commissioners hoped the inspector would specify an upper maximum limit on the number of structures, which he did not. Alan Grace suggested the Commissioners should invite Mr Teare to speak to the board “to explain his decision”.
