Officer Report with Recommendation

It is however considered that the development of part of the site with buildings would limit the versatility of the land to be used for agriculture in the future. In terms of local amenity, an objection has been received from the owners/occupiers of Cronk Froy, a detached dwelling situated to the east of the proposed access road. Their concerns relate mainly to the impact that vehicles using the road would have upon their amenity, specifically in terms of noise and headlights shining towards their property. The boundary of Cronk Froy is set approximately 32 metres from the edge of the proposed access track. The submitted plans show embankment planting around the edge of the roadway which would act to shield Cronk Froy. It would be possible to require a plan showing additional planting between the roadway and Cronk Froy in order to further mitigate any adverse impacts. With such a condition in place, it is judged that the amenity of the property would be adequately protected. The proposal would be expected to generate traffic relative to its large scale and accordingly the development includes a new dedicated access and road leading directly from the A5. The applicant's agent has responded to a request for more information regarding traffic management. The response sets out that the use of the arena and external manege would be controlled by a booking system and will largely be used for tuition of individuals or small groups for riding classes. Accordingly it is expected that traffic generation would be relatively low. The facility would however be used for local, national and international show jumping, dressage or carriage driving competition as the internal arena is to be of an international standard. The frequency of such competitions will be varied with local competitions likely to be on a two-weekly to monthly basis, national competitions being every three to six months and international competitions being on an annual basis. During periods of heavy use, which may be anticipated during national competitions, there would be a change from the normal tranquil character of the area that the neighbouring property enjoys. However on balance it is judged that this would be acceptable given the distance of the site and access road from the house, the landscaping and the fact the road layout is capable of accommodating the vehicles likely to be generated by the development. The number of vehicles generated locally is anticipated to be similar to the Pony Club events which typically generate between 20 to 30 competitors for weekly meetings with a corresponding level of traffic. It is set out that the provision of an enclosed arena would provide an all-year round venue for competitions. The applicant's agent has undertaken a survey of the parking provision at other equestrian facilities around the Island in order to estimate the required provision of the scheme. The proposals have formal provision fro 48 cars, 7 fixed wheel horseboxes and 14 horsebox trailers. There is also a large area of undefined parking to allow for loading and unloading of horses. It is acknowledged by the applicant that the use of the arena for international competitions may generate more vehicles however the use of fields to the west of the stable blocks as temporary parking would provide an overspill facility at the busiest times. The new access would allow for two way traffic with the access road having a minimum width of 6.3 metres. The Highways Division has assessed the proposal and has concluded that the information provides sufficient justification for the level of parking provided. The Division goes on to state that as the application site is accessed from the A5, traffic for local and national events should not cause major concerns. It is not apparent what level of traffic will be generated by international events, however as the access is from a primary route and has direct links to the Sea Terminal on primary roads, the effect of the traffic is not likely to cause concern unless it coincides with peak traffic movements. As these events are likely to be on an annual basis and planned well in advance the effects are not deemed to be a traffic issue. the Highways Division requests a condition requiring the access and roadway to be constructed prior to any other works being commenced and for this route to be used by all associated vehicles. EP20 presumes against large scale equestrian developments within AHLV. It also sets out that exceptional circumstances may override such a stance. There is however no definition or guidance as to what may represent "exceptional circumstances" and as such it is for the applicant to submit their justification for a development and for the Planning Authority to judge whether this is sufficient to override the policy. A number of applications have been considered with regard to EP20 since the adoption of the Strategic Plan in 2007. Many of these have attempted to justify large scale equestrian development on the basis of a personal need of the applicant in conjunction with limited visual impact. It has generally been held at appeal that whilst the personal circumstances of an applicant may demonstrate increased convenience arising from a development, this does not constitute an exceptional circumstance to set aside the policy stance. A notable recent application is 10/00059/B which sought approval for the construction of a building to provide an indoor manege, stables and tack room. The proposal was just outside an AHLV and the development was of a large scale. The scheme included significant landscaping. The application was permitted by the Planning Committee however at appeal the appointed Inspector, whilst finding the assessment to be balanced, recommended refusal. The Minister made the following conclusion: 'The Minister has considered the report and concurs with the assessment of the appointed person (and the Planning Committee) that the issues in this case are finely balanced. It is clear that the main issue is whether the impact of the proposed development on the rural character of or appearance of the area would be acceptable. It also appears, from Paragraph 15 of the report, that whilst the upper parts of the manege building may be visible from certain view points to the west and north west of the site, the general impact on the landscape would be limited. In these circumstances and having regard to the "substantial landscape scheme" which "would help to conceal the development from view" and would "weigh in favour of the development proposal", the Minister has judged that, on balance, this development should be approved.' Another relevant case is 07/02139/B which sought approval for the erection of an indoor manege and associated storage, Field 334545, Ballanass Road, Lower Foxdale. This application was refused at appeal. At paragraph 30, the appointed Inspector remarked: 'The proposed manege is required solely for the purpose of the applicant's hobby. I accept that it may be best to break and train young horses indoors. However, the proposed development would not provide any direct public benefit, or relieve the applicant of any significant personal hardship. It would undoubtedly add to the applicant's convenience. But the fact that a development would benefit the prospective developer does not seem to me to be an exceptional circumstance." PA09/02059/B sought approval for the erection of an equestrian facility and ancillary buildings at Ballakaneen, Andreas Road, Andreas. This was permitted by the Planning Committee. The development was of a large scale, demonstrated by the facilities included, which consisted of the following: 1. Indoor arena ( )) with attached office/living accommodation ( 7 m ) and stabling ( 2. Machine Barn ( ); 3. Hay barn ( ); 4. Lunge ( 20.4 m diameter \& height 5.2 m ); 5. Walker ( 11.6 m diameter \& 3.5 m ); 6. Midden ( ). Additionally, the proposal included the creation of: 1. Outdoor arena ( ; 2. Outdoor manege ( ); and 3. A number of paddocks. Each of these case examples proposed equestrian facilities for personal use. This application is for a commercial complex that would be open to the public and would provide a very high standard of facility. GP3 may provide some insight into what could be taken as being exceptional circumstances. At part (g), reference is made to "development that is recognised to be of overriding national need in land use terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative." The term "national need" could raise an application for large scale equestrian facilities in AHLV above proposals for personal use. In this case, the application has attracted widespread support from the Island's equestrian community, many of whom have stated that the facilities proposed are of a particularly high standard which would allow it to meet the British Horse Society (BHS) standards. The application contains information which sets out the economic, sporting, community and public relation benefits of the proposal. It is set out that the equestrian centre with its international standard arena will be available to the entire population via a booking system. Whilst there are other competition standard arenas on the Island, it is stated that these are privately owned for private use and as such do not include the support facilities such as car parking, access onto a strategic highway and the capacity of this proposal. The complex would be run as a full livery supporting local suppliers and generating full and part time employment. Furthermore the development would attract tourists to the Island. In terms of sporting benefits, the statement outlines that the facility would support an international standard of competition not currently available on the Island. This would assist in raising the prominence of the Island in the equestrian world and would help to develop the abilities of local competitors. The facility would be open to local clubs and individuals and would provide a centre capable of accommodating riders of all abilities all year round, something that is said to be lacking currently. It would seem that the international standard of the development proposed and the fact that it would provide a facility available for public use, suggest that the development would fulfil a national need. This could be taken to render the application exceptional in terms of EP20. ## Environment Policy 21 EP21 sets out the requirements for the design and construction of equestrian buildings. The general objective is to ensure that such buildings are not detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside and are designed and built to reflect their specific purpose. The buildings are proposed to be sited within the natural bowl of the land which in itself would act to reduce views. This screening effect would be reinforced by the landscaping scheme that would encircle the buildings. The application sets out that the complex has been designed specifically for its purpose with the form determined by its function, whether that be stabling, horse walking or for the arena. The stables have been arranged along the natural contours of the land with landscaping around them with the intention of reducing their impact. ### Conclusions Any proposal for large scale rural development tends to bring with it inherent conflict with the provisions of the Strategic Plan. However, in some cases, the determination of such proposals is more marginal due to the specific characteristics of a site and the proposed scheme. The scale of development proposed is the main area of contention with this application. EP20 is largely unsupportive of such proposals within AHLV. The mitigating factors may be taken to be the relatively low visual impact of the scheme, assisted largely by its position away from the A5, the topography of the land and the proposed introduction of landscaping. A further positive factor of the scheme is the level of facility that it would create which would be to the benefit of the Island's equestrian community, fulfilling a need for a high quality facility capable of meeting the standards of organisations such as the British Horse Society. The assessment of this application is finely balanced and either a decision to approve or refuse could be justified. However, in taking all of the factors into account, it is judged that the proposal would bring sufficient benefits at a national level so as to mark it out as exceptional. Furthermore, there is considered to be enough mitigation to render it marginally acceptable in visual terms. RECOMMENDATION Permit. PARTY STATUS It is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, accord with the requirements of Planning Circular 1/06 and are therefore, afforded Interested Party Status: Santon Parish Commissioners The owners/occupiers of Cronk Froy, Santon D Leonard of Knock Froy Road, Santon The owner/occupier of Greenhedges, Knockfroy Road, Santon The owners/occupiers of Mountfield House, Ballavartyn Road, Santon Accordingly all other parties that have submitted comments do not meet the requirements of the Circular and are not granted Interested Party Status. 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: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 28.01.2011

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval <br> N : Notes attached to conditions <br> R : Reasons for refusal <br> O : Notes attached to refusals

C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

C 2.

This approval relates to the erection of a new equestrian arena, stabling blocks, horse walker, storage sheds, external manege, horse exercise track and creation of new vehicular access to main road and new access road, Fields 510499, 514329, 510474, 510470, 510504 and 510460 adjacent to Ballavartyn House, Ballavartyn Road, Santon as shown by K221/P/10-01, K221/P/10-02, K221/P/1003, K221/P/10-04, K221/P/10-05, K221/P/10-06, K221/P/10-07, K221/P/10-08, K221/P/10-09, K221/P/10-10, K221/P/10-11, K221/P/10-12, K221/P/10-13, K221/P/10-14, K221/P/10-15, K221/P/10-16, K221/P/10-17, K221/P/11-01, K221/P/11-02, K221/P/11-03 and K221/P/12-01 all received 9th November 2010.

C 3.

All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the use of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

C 4.

Prior to the commencement of works, there must be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority a plans which shows additional planting to protect the amenity of the property Cronk Froy. Development may only take place in accordance with the approved drawing. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the use of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

C 5.

No part of the equestrian facilities approved by this permission may be used until the access and roadway have been constructed in accordance with submitted drawings K221/P/10-05 and K221/P/10-06

C 6.

The approved development shall only be used for equestrian use.

C 7.

Construction traffic relating to the approved development shall only access the site in accordance with Paragraph 8.7 of the submitted document Combined Design Statement unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Authority in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005

Decision Made : Authority Meeting Date : Signed : Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Authority an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate

1 February 2011 10/01672/B Page 13 of 13