Loading document...
Application No.: 19/00646/C Applicant: Ms Sandra Russi Proposal: Change of use of horse livery yard to a dog day care centre Site Address: Lapwings East Foxdale Road Eairy Isle Of Man IM4 3HL Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 14.08.2019 Site Visit: 14.08.2019 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 25.09.2019 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. Whilst the location is considered suitable for the proposed use, the deficiencies in the existing accesses in terms of the visibility available in both directions given the speed of passing traffic on a public highway where the speed of vehicles is derestricted, lead to a conclusion that the material increase in traffic from the proposed operation of a dog day care facility would result in a harmful impact on highway safety, contrary to Strategic Policy 10. _______________________________________________________________
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
Ridings is not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy. _____________________________________________________________________________
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
19/00646/C Page 1 of 7
1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling, Lapwings which sits on the southern side of the A24 highway between the Eairy Dam and Foxdale Village and almost opposite the Manx Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals facilities (Ard Jerkyll). - 1.2 Lapwings is a sizeable dwelling which has been created through the expansion of what was formerly a traditional dwelling and which has been extended to the east. Also, a stable complex has been erected, approved under 95/01153/B and extended under 99/00892/B. This sits to the east of the dwelling. All are visible from the road. The 1999 application described the site as private house and stable block and a condition of the approval for the extension was that the development be used for the purposes described in the application. Whilst the current application describes the stables as a horse livery yard, there is no indication from the approvals that the stables are to be used other than for the accommodation of horses owned by the residents of the dwelling on site. - 1.3 The nearest residential property from the site is The Ridings which lies just over 80m to the south east. Gorsty Knoll lies opposite this and Ard Jerkyll contains a bungalow which sits over 150m to the north west of the stable building. - 1.4 There are two accesses into the site, the eastern one leading to the stables and the western one leading to the house and hard standing in front. THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Proposed is the conversion of the stable building to a dog day care facility with associated office. The application is for a change of use although the plans suggest that the building works associated with the conversion include the blocking up of two existing apertures with windows or doors - these are not shown in detail on the drawings and have not therefore been considered as part of this application. Internally walls are to be removed which would not require planning approval. - 2.2 The buildings will be used for indoor areas of doors with the corner room being an office. - 2.3 The site extends southwards 120m and this land will be used for the exercising of the dogs. - 2.4 The facility will be operational Monday to Friday between 0730 and 1800hrs with some flexibility as the applicant will be living on site. She explains that there are 5 dedicated parking spaces for customers and staff who will be employed if there are more than ten dogs in attendance. There will be no deliveries and she aims to cater for up to 30 dogs depending upon their size. She confirms that fencing will be erected to secure the dogs on the site along with an entrance and exit arrangement for customers with dedicated car parking. PLANNING POLICY
3.1 The site is within an area not designated for a particular purpose on the Area Plan for the South (2013) and there are no particular constraints noted on the Constraints Map. - 3.2 There is therefore a presumption against development here. However, it is noted that no built development is proposed and no significant physical changes are proposed to the building. - 3.3 The proposed use for the car of dogs is considered to be sui generis, that is, not falling within any of the Department's Use Classes. - 3.4 As such, there is no policy guidance on the conversion of modern buildings and it is therefore considered relevant to consider whether the existing use is redundant and whether the proposed use is acceptable, taking into account other Strategic Plan policies (below) and any impact on the surrounding area. In this respect, the Strategic Plan urges that development should make the best use of resources through the optimisation of the use of previously-
19/00646/C Page 2 of 7
developed land, redundant buildings and unused and under-used land and buildings (Strategic Policy 1). It also requires that development is primarily within our towns, villages and settlements (Strategic Policy 2) and new development should be located and designed such as to promoted an integrated transport network and to minimise journeys by private car, make the best use of public transport, not adversely affect highway safety for all users and encourage pedestrian movement (Strategic Policy 10).
3.3 General Policy 3 provides for the redevelopment of previously developed land as one opportunity for development in undesignated areas: this is subject to the use being redundant, where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current use on the landscape or the wider environment and where the development would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment. However, excluded are buildings required for agricultural or forestry buildings. - 3.4 It is relevant in the consideration of the policy situation that the care of animals is generally something that may need to happen away from built up areas due not only to the noise nuisance which could arise but also due to the size of premises required and ideally some outdoor exercise space. Examples of recent approvals and their locations are given below, illustrating the range of types of location where this type of facility can be considered acceptable. It is also relevant that the Island's SPCA premises are almost opposite the site. PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 The site has been the subject of various applications for alterations and extensions of the house and for the creation and extension of the stabling. None of these is considered particularly relevant to the consideration of the current application. - 4.2 There have been a number of dog day care facilities approved in recent times, these being 19/00533/C - Douglas Head Industrial estate 18/01299/C - Hills Meadow industrial estate 18/00799/B and 18/00127/B Balthane Industrial estate 18/00338/C - Strenaby, Onchan 18/00011/B - industrial unit, Demesne Road, Douglas 17/00842/C - Viking Works industrial area, Peel 17/00364/B - Ballablack Farm, Arbory 16/00911/C - Snugborough industrial estate 16/00817/C - Main Road, Onchan 16/00381/C proposed the change of use from forestry buildings to a dog day care facility at The Tanyard in Santon and this was refused for reasons relating to the poor visibility for and of those emerging from the site and also for the considerable noise nuisance which could be experienced by the dwelling on the other side of the road. 12/01096/B proposed an indoor dog training area at Ard Jerkyll and was approved. REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Malew Parish Commissioners have no objection to the application (03.07.19). - 5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services object to the application on the basis that the existing use of the site as a horse livery yard (see above) will generate low levels of traffic compared with the dog day care proposed and as such there will be a material increase in traffic as a result of the development. The site access is considered to be substandard in terms of visibility, particularly to the right and the resulting increase in traffic is therefore considered to be unacceptable. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that five car parking spaces will be sufficient for either peak period demand and a congested car parking area is likely to result in vehicles being parked indiscriminately and/or delaying a vehicle turning into the site which in turn would lead to obstruction on the main road (02.07.19).
19/00646/C Page 3 of 7
5.3 The owners of The Ridings object to the application (11.07.19 and 12.07.19), suggesting that the plans do not clearly indicate what is proposed and how customer parking will work. They express concern about the security of animals on site -citing previous incidents with escaped dogs from the MSPCA which went on to kill some of their hens and ducks and frightened their ponies as well as highway safety, citing several crashes off the bends from the MSPCA/Lapwings with a noticeable increase in traffic, particularly at peak times. They ask about lighting, hours of operation and alarms and express concern about potential noise nuisance. They suggest that the deeds may prevent the running of a business here. ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The site is not designated for development and the proposal relates to a modern building. The conversion could therefore not be supported by any of the policies which allow conversion of old and interesting buildings (Environment Policy 16), and as there is no evidence to suggest that the buildings are redundant for their original use, they could not be supported by policies which require this (General Policy 3c or EP16). It is therefore necessary to determine whether there are any other factors which would lend support to the proposal and if so, whether there are any adverse environmental impacts arising from the proposal and whether there are any mitigating factors which would override these concerns.
6.2 The care of dogs is becoming a desirable facility for those owners who may work during the day and who wish to have their animals cared for in their absence. Whilst there is no planning policy support for such uses, it is accepted that this is something which the local population desire and is generally in the interests of animal welfare: indeed the applications cited above demonstrate this. There would therefore be a benefit from this form of facility and the location would be suitable for those travelling past the site to and from work - from Foxdale and the south to the east where the major concentration of employment may be found. - 6.3 The potential for noise nuisance necessitates that dog day care is either carried out in buildings which are well insulated or where the site itself is well away from noise sensitive premises, particularly residential properties. It is therefore considered acceptable in principle that a rural property such as this could be acceptable for this type of use. - 6.4 The site is some distance from adjacent residential properties with The Ridings being the closest at around 80m from the site to the neighbour's garden. There is already some noise emanating from the dogs kept at the MSPCA: the addition of up to 30 additional dogs with outside recreation could add to this. The distance between the dog day care facility at Ballablack and the nearest residence was 245m. In the case of Strenaby, the inspector noted that "the occupants at Strenaby Farm are the owners of the site and other properties all appear to be over 130m away and that any impact will also be reduced due to the daytime only operation." That proposal was for up to 50 dogs which was controlled by condition as well as other restrictions on the times of operation - 0800 - 1800hrs Monday to Saturday. Given this decision with a property around the same distance as between the site and Lapwings, it is considered that the proposal would not result in an impact from noise nuisance to warrant refusal of the application. - 6.5 Whilst concerns have been raised about the security and welfare of dogs on the site, these are matters for the operation and insurance of the business rather than planning control but it is accepted that it will be possible to secure the dogs whilst on site and it is in the interests of the operator of the business to run the business well with the dogs well cared for and happy, or repeat business will fail and the business will be unsuccessful. - 6.6 In terms of highway safety, however, the existing egresses from the site afford very limited visibility in both directions considering the speed of traffic using the A24. On the site visit, it was difficult to see any distance to the right and traffic approaching from the left did so at such a speed as to make safe egress difficult from that direction. It was possible to see as far as
19/00646/C Page 4 of 7
the entrance sign to the MSPCA to the left (around 85m) to the far side carriageway but perhaps half of that to the nearside to the left: to the right it was not possible to see much past the other entrance into the property (around 15m).
6.7 The approved use of the stables does not appear to extend to commercial use therefore the amount of traffic generated by them is likely to be low in terms of numbers and frequency of vehicle movements to and from the site. Even if the stables were used commercially it is not likely that 50 horses would be accommodated here or that their owners would be arriving and departing every day at the same time as will be the case with a dog day care facility. The inspector reporting on the Strenaby proposal considered the fall back position in that case of an indoor manege and livery yard and considered that the proposed dog day care would result in a better situation than that with the added, albeit unlawful use of that building being hired out to football clubs. In this case there is no indoor menage and the building is significantly smaller, resulting in a less intense fall back position. - 6.8 There is space to the east of the house to accommodate a number of vehicles, more than the five suggested in the application with space behind the house available for staff parking if required. Again, if customers are unable to pull off the road and park to drop off and pick up their dogs safely and conveniently, it is unlikely that they will continue using the facility so it is in the interests of the operator to provide sufficient car parking. Given the 0730hrs start time, it is likely that customers dropping off their animals would be sufficiently staggered so as not to fully occupy the parking spaces at any one time. This could not, however, be controlled if and when the facility is operational. CONCLUSION
7.1 Whilst the location is considered suitable for the proposed use, the deficiencies in the existing accesses in terms of the visibility available in both directions given the speed of passing traffic on a public highway where the speed of vehicles is derestricted, lead to a conclusion that the material increase in traffic from the proposed operation of a dog day care facility would result in a harmful impact on highway safety, contrary to Strategic Policy 10. 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:
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
19/00646/C Page 5 of 7
Signed :………S CORLETT.. Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officerreport).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
Other than to correct reference to an address in her assessment of the party status in her report. – EJC
19/00646/C Page 6 of 7
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
