Loading document...
Application No.: 23/00454/B Applicant: Kat Ions Proposal: Erection of stable block on existing concrete base, construction of Equestrian Manege and change of use of field Site Address: Field Adjacent Ocean View Baltic Road Kirk Michael Isle Of Man IM6 1EF Planning Officer: Mrs Vanessa Porter Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 23.05.2023 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. The Department is not satisfied that there is sufficient justification for the proposed building to warrant setting aside the presumption against development outside areas zoned for development. Furthermore, the proposed size and isolated position within the countryside is not considered appropriate and would harm the character and quality of the landscape. As such, the proposal is concluded to represent unwarranted development that is detrimental to the amenity of the countryside contrary to the provision of General Policy 3(g) and Environment Policies 1, and 21 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons None _____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report THE SITE
1.1 The application site comprises of the property Ocean View and the adjacent field to the South/ South East of the site. The development is focused particularly to the South West of the
2.1 The current application seeks approval for two things, firstly for the erection of a building for the purposes of housing horses and secondly for the creation of a ménage for the training and exercising of horses. - 2.2 The proposed building will be sited to the North Western part of the part off field in question and measures 13.716m by 16.3m with an overall height of 5.496m. The building would be constructed with a tantalised lap boarding outer (colour unspecified), timber sliding doors measuring 3m by 3m, natural grey single skin fibre cement roof and 16 G.R.P rooflights, 8 in each roof slope. - 2.3 The information provided with the application does not provide any directional information for the barn, as such, it is difficult to ascertain which way the barn would be facing upon the land. - 2.4 To the South East of the site is a proposed manége, which is to measure 20m by 40m enclosed by a 1.1m post and rail perimeter fencing. Due to the height of the land, the ground floor level of the proposed manége is approximately 2.5m higher than the ground floor level of the proposed barn. - 2.5 The information provided within the application states the following with regards to the siting of both the barn and manége, "It is proposed to utilise the larger of the concrete hardstanding areas as a base for the proposed agricultural building and it is proposed to locate the manége to the South West of this building. This will require excavating into the sloping ground to form a level base but the material will be reused on site to create a sod hedge around the manége. This would provide some degree of wind protection from all four sides with the sod bank, sod hedge and agricultural building surrounding the exercise area. The proposed siting also helps to ensure that from a design perspective the proposal does not risk being isolated, being well grouped with the applicants property. Furthermore the location also acts to ensure that the exercise area will be highly unlikely to result in any degree of disturbance for the nearest residential neighbours, being located far enough away from these to avoid doing so." - 2.6 With regards to the justification for the proposal, the design access statement states the following, "The proposed facility is to be used instead of the applicant's current off site stabling and exercising arrangements and as such to further support their personal equine interests. The proposed facility is to be used only for the exercising and training of horses and operated purely on a personal basis as opposed to any commercial use." PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 The site has had the following applications upon it, - 3.2 PA05/00604/B - Removing existing porch and erection of a two storey extension to provide lounge with bedroom & en-suite above on same aspect - PERMITTED
3.3 PA92/01343/B - Extension to increase living accommodation - REFUSED ON REVIEW - 3.4 PA84/00789/B - Alterations and extensions to form additional living accommodation PERMITTED - 3.5 PA99/01929/B - Erection of wind turbine - PERMITTED - 3.6 There is also one pending application which was submitted at the same time as this application, PA23/00455/B which is for "Alterations and extensions of garden walls." PLANNING POLICY
4.1 The application site is designated partly as "Open Space (Agriculture)" on the Kirk Michael Local Plan 1994 map and an area "not designated for development" upon the 1982 Development Plan, North Map, the site is not within a Conservation Area nor a Flood Risk Zone. - 4.2 KIRK MICHAEL LOCAL PLAN
Spatial Policy 5 Development only in countryside in accordance with General Policy 3
General Policy
Environment Policy 1 Protection of the countryside 15 Development of agricultural buildings in the countryside 19 Equestrian development 21 Development for stabling or shelter of animals in the countryside
Transport Policy
5.1 The following representations can be found in full online, below is a short summery; - 5.2 Highway Services have considered the proposal and state, "After reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety,
6.1 The starting point with any application within land designed as "open space/ not for development," is whether the proposal would comply with the relevant planning policies in connection with the site designated. - 6.2 As stated above the site falls within an area not zoned for development on both the Kirk Michael Local Plan 1994, and the 1982 Development Plan, as such there is a general presumption against development within the countryside with development to be focussed towards defined settlements in accordance with Spatial Policy 5. - 6.3 Section 4 of this report highlights that there is provision within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan for equestrian related development as an exception to the presumption against development in the countryside. Paragraph 7.15.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states the following, "Equestrian activities are becoming increasingly popular in rural areas and on the fringes of our towns and villages. These activities can generally take place only on open, rural land and often represent a useful way of diversifying traditional farming." - 6.4 As such the starting point is Environment Policy 1 which seeks that the countryside will be protected for its own sake, and that development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms. - 6.5 This is then followed by Environment Policy 21 which states that buildings for the stabling, shelter or care of horses or other animals will not be permitted in the countryside if they would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside in terms of siting, design, size or finish. Any new buildings must be designed in form and materials to reflect their specific purpose. - 6.6 The application comprises of two distinct elements, a stable block and a ménage. With respect to the proposed stable block, whilst the design access statement states the stable block is to be used for the housing of horses and a tack room, no internal layout of the building has been provide, and in particular the proposal has not outlined clear internal demarcation of the floorspace into distinct areas for each purpose. The submitted elevations show a sliding door on one gable end and a sliding door on a side elevation, with doors on both gable ends, with none of the gable or side elevations being marked by North, South, East or West. It is unclear, therefore, how the building could be utilized practically for it's intended purpose. - 6.7 Moreover, it is noted that there is already the presence of an outbuilding within the wider holding and within close proximity to the main property. Whilst it is understood that this is a car garage/workshop, no details have been provided to substantiate this and on how this structure could not be utilized for the stabling/ tack storage. - 6.8 Turning towards the potential visual impacts upon the countryside, the proposed stable block would not be significantly apparent from public views, not only by being setback from the main road by approximately 80m but also due to the topography of the site itself. With the proposed area for the stable block being approximately 5m below the main road. - 6.9 However, Paragraph 4.3.11 of the isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states, "Merely arguing that a new building cannot be seen in public views is not a justification for the relaxation of other policies relating to the location of new development." As such just because the
7.1 Overall, it is considered for the reasons given above, the proposal would fail to comply with the relevant planning policies and would result in sizeable building which is not considered justified which would ultimately be an encroachment of built development and engineering within the countryside which would means that the proposal would be contrary to General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 21.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 26.05.2023 Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Principal Planner
Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
