Officer Report

Application No.: 18/00338/C Applicant: Amanda Jane Kermode Proposal: Use of agricultural building as dog day care and training facility (retrospective) Site Address: The Barn Strenaby Farm Abbeylands Isle of Man Planning Officer: Mr Owen Gore Photo Taken: 10.07.2018 Site Visit: 10.07.2018 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 31.08.2018 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1.The application site is located within the open countryside, not zoned for development and proposed change of use does not fall within any of the exceptions contained within General Policy 3; in turn it also does not meet the requirements of Environmental Policy 16 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. The intensification of use within the site as a result of the proposal will also have an unacceptable impact on the local highway. The principle for the proposed change of use is therefore considered not to be acceptable.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons None _____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report THE SITE

1.1 The site is part of the wider Strenaby Farm, which is towards the northern end of Abbeylands; the application building is to the north of the re-built farm dwelling and other buildings associated with the farm. Other buildings on the site and close by include a farm bungalow which has permission for use as tourist accommodation, and agricultural buildings all concentrated in a group between Lower Strenaby Farm to the south west and Ballacashin to the north east. THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The proposal is for the change of use of an agricultural style building as dog day care and training facility; the proposal is retrospective.

• PLANNING POLICY
• 3.1 The site is designated as 'Open Space' on the Onchan Local Plan Order 2000 map No.2. The strategic plan includes several policies applicable to the proposal which have been included below.

3.2 General Policy 3 is applicable to Development outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan the policy states that proposals will not be permitted outside of the list of exceptions provided. The exceptions are as follows: -

'(a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10);

• (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11);
• (c) previously developed land(1) which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment;
• (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14);
• (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services;
• (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry;
• (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and
• (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage'.

3.3 With regard to the principle, Environment Policy 16 applies to the use of existing rural buildings for new purposes such as small-scale industrial/commercial use. It states that these may be permitted where: -

'a) it is demonstrated that the building is no longer required for its original purpose and where the building is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation;

• b) the reuse of the building will result in the preservation of fabric which is of historic, architectural, or social interest or is otherwise of visual attraction;
• c) it is demonstrated that the building could accommodate the new use without requiring extension or adverse change to appearance or character;
• d) there would not be unacceptable implications in terms of traffic generation; a) conversion does not lead to dispersal of activity on such a scale as to prejudice the vitality and viability of existing town and village services; and f) the use of existing buildings involves significant levels of redevelopment to accommodate the new use, the benefits secured by the proposal in terms of impact on the environment and the rural economy shall outweigh the continued impact of retaining the existing buildings on site'.

3.4 Environment Policy 1 states that 'The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake… Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative'.

3.6 Environment Policy 22 states that 'Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of:

• i) pollution of sea, surface water or groundwater;

• ii) emissions of airborne pollutants; and
• iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution'.

PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The previous planning permission 07/00064/B for the erection of an agricultural style shed for use as a covered manège area and agricultural storage was approved 02 March 2007. This permission is considered to be specifically material in the assessment of the current application. REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division stated that they wished the application be deferred to enable Highway Services to be able to properly assess the proposal and for a site visit to be undertaken, in the comments dated 25 April 2018. The comments continue: -

Access to the site is via a farm track approximately 2m to 3m wide that can only accommodate single file traffic and is too narrow for 2 vehicles to pass each other. Highway visibility is also limited at the site access junction onto Abbeylands that it connects into which is also too narrow for 2 vehicles to pass along the majority of its length. Whilst it is not a through route, it does serve numerous properties. It connects into the junction of Ballaoates Road/Scollag Road.

The site access arrangements are considered to be inappropriate for a business of this type in such a location as the proposals would intensify the use of the site and create additional vehicle movements. This would result in vehicles having to reverse along the farm track and along Abbeylands, sometimes for a considerably long distance, until a passing place is reached and this is unsafe. Whilst it is acknowledged that this can already happen due to the presence of existing premises along Abbeylands, the proposal would increase the likelihood and frequency of this happening.

Further comments discuss the nature of existing parking and turning areas on the site and the impact of the increase.

5.2 Onchan District Commissioners have commented on this application and stated that they 'recommend that the application be approved for planning purposes only', in the letter dated 24 April 2018.

ASSESSMENT The principle of development

6.1 The existing building appears to have been constructed under planning permission 07/00064/B for the erection of an agricultural style shed for use as a covered manège area and agricultural storage that was approved 02 March 2007. This planning permission includes a condition stating that the building may be used only for agricultural or equestrian purposes.

6.2 General Policy 3 allows for development in the countryside in specific circumstances; parts a, d, e, f and h are considered not to be relevant in this instance because they relate to other types of development i.e. essential housing, replacement dwellings, minerals or necessary services, building essential for agriculture or forestry, or buildings for wildlife or heritage.

6.3 Parts b, c and g allow for other instances where a change of use or other development could be acceptable in principle. The application site, although a rural building is considered not to be of architectural, historic, or social value and interest, as per part c; also it has not been demonstrated that the proposed use is of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative site or use thereof. Indeed there are examples of similar businesses operating within settlements, in Onchan and Douglas. - 6.4 Part C allows the development of previously developed land as defined in Appendix 1 of the Strategic Plan 'Definitions and Glossary of Terms' which states 'Previously-developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure'. The definition excludes - 'Land

• that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings'. Under this part it must be demonstrated that the continued use is redundant; that redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and that the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment.
• 6.5 The building was intentionally designed to appear as an agricultural style shed and included agricultural storage, but also partly for use as a covered manège area. The initial planning permission allowed for part of the building to be used for non-agricultural (equestrian) but the condition that restricts the use the proposed arrangement as the mixed use was deemed acceptable or use of the whole building for agriculture. Therefore the site is part of the wider agricultural use and the site and building are considered not to fall within the definition of 'previously developed land'. The proposed use therefore does not conform to General Policy 3.
• 6.6 Paragraph 7.13.2 of the strategic plan identifies that there may be some circumstances where diversification of farms and farm buildings to include small scale enterprises, may be appropriate. This paragraph provides the potentially acceptable types of proposal, which include commercial, industrial, tourism, sport or recreation uses. The paragraph continues by stating 'There is, however, a general presumption against the introduction of new uses into the countryside (including industrial or office uses)'.
• 6.7 Environment Policy 16 provides the criteria for changes of use of existing rural buildings for new purposes such as small-scale industrial/commercial use. The applicant has not demonstrated that the building is no longer required for its original purpose; this being either a mixed use of equestrian and agriculture or use of the building for entirely agriculture. The applicant has stated in their application form that 'During lambing season the shed still may be used in poor weather'; this suggests that there is still an agricultural use on the farm and that this building will a benefit to that use.
• 6.8 Whilst it appeared that building is substantially intact as per part a, this is more a consideration for changes of use that result in some degree of habitable space i.e. tourist accommodation. As previously stated, the building is considered not to be of architectural, historic, or social value and interest and therefore the reuse of the building will not result in the preservation of such fabric, as per part b.
• 6.9 as previously stated there are other examples of similar businesses within towns and villages on the island, but considering the niche type of business it is unlikely that the proposal lead to dispersal of activity on such a scale as to prejudice the vitality and viability of existing town and village services.
• 6.10 The principle for the proposed change of use is therefore considered not to be acceptable. Further considerations have also been identified below. Character and appearance
• 6.11 Environment Policy 16 provides appropriate criteria for the potential impacts of changes of use, stating that such proposed uses should be able to accommodate the new use without requiring extension or adverse change to appearance or character.
• 6.12 This proposal is retrospective; the agricultural building itself doesn't appear to have been significantly altered, apart from the erection of signage on the front of the main door. However an external 'play' area has been created to the side of the agricultural building; it is enclosed using trellis type fencing and contains a number of movable pieces of play equipment.
• 6.13 Due to the topography of the wider area and the general seclusion of the site, this external area cannot be reasonably viewed from outside of the site and is considered not to have a significantly harmful impact on the character of the area or the wider landscape, enough to warrant refusal in this basis. However, part f of the Environmental Policy 16 states

• 'the benefits secured by the proposal in terms of impact on the environment and the rural economy shall outweigh the continued impact of retaining the existing buildings on site'
• 6.14 Although the proposed external area is considered to have a relatively minimal impact, the benefits secured by the proposal are not considered to outweigh the continued impact of retaining the existing agricultural building on site, unaffected. Impact on neighbours
• 6.15 Environment Policy 22 considers the impact of the proposal on neighbouring occupants in terms of odour or noise. The agricultural building is part of Strenaby Farm, which appears to comprise of the re-built farm dwelling, a farm bungalow which has permission for use as tourist accommodation called 'Strenaby Holiday Bungalow' and another property called 'Bluebell Cottage'.
• 6.16 To the north east of the agricultural building is Ballachashin Farmhouse approx. 135m away; to the east is Southfields, which is approx. 285m away; and to the south is 'The Bungalow' on Lower Strenaby Farm, which is approx. 163m away.
• 6.17 The applicant has stated in their application form that proposed use will contain up to 50 dogs and will operate between 8am and 6pm. There are properties close to the application site but odour is unlikely to have a significant impact, given the rural location and the surrounding agricultural uses. The potential noise impact from the dogs would not fit within the rural location, but excluding Strenaby Farm who are understood to be the owners of the application site, the neighbouring properties all appear to be over 130m away; also considering that the business will only operate during the daytime the impact is reduced.
• 6.18 It is understood from previous applications on other sites that mitigation measures can be implemented to reduce barking and as such had a recommendation for approval been given, conditions restricting the hours of operation and a noise management plan could be prepared. The proposed development would not result in a significant adverse impact upon the living conditions of neighbouring residents, subject to controls. Parking and highway safety
• 6.19 Part d of Environment Policy 22 requires that there be no unacceptable implications in terms of traffic generation as a result of the change of use. The access to the site is via a farm track approximately 2m to 3m wide that can only accommodate single file traffic and is too narrow for 2 vehicles to pass each other. Highway visibility is also limited at the site access junction onto Abbeylands that it connects into which is also too narrow for 2 vehicles to pass along the majority of its length. Whilst it is not a through route, it does serve numerous properties. It connects into the junction of Ballaoates Road/Scollag Road.
• 6.20 the DoI highways team have reviewed the proposal and have stated that 'The site access arrangements are considered to be inappropriate for a business of this type in such a location as the proposals would intensify the use of the site and create additional vehicle movements'. Due to the above mentioned, narrow access, the intensification of the use would increase the likelihood and frequency of conflicting vehicles meeting on this narrow track, both on the Strenaby Farm site and on the highway leading up to the site. This would result in vehicles having to reverse along the farm track and along Abbeylands, sometimes for a considerably long distance, until a passing place is reached and this is considered to be unsafe.
• 6.21 It was witnessed onsite that there would be area enough to allow for some parking adjacent to the proposed use and it is understood that the nature of the business would be for a day care facility and therefore the customers would drop off dogs and collect them later the same day. CONCLUSION

7.1 The proposal does not fall within any of the exceptions contained within General Policy 3 and does not meet the requirements of Environmental Policy 16. The principle for the proposed change of use is therefore considered not to be acceptable. The intensification of use within the site as a result of the proposal will also have an unacceptable impact on the local highway. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
• (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material
• (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and
• (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 The decision maker must determine:

• o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
• o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Refused Date : 05.09.2018 Determining officer

Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management

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.