Loading document...
Application No.: 19/00529/B Applicant: Mr Nicholas & Mrs Carole Ennett Proposal: Erection of an agricultural building and creation of an outdoor all weather riding arena Site Address: Ballakillowey Farm Ballakillowey Road Colby Isle Of Man IM9 4BN Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 05.08.2019 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. The application fails to provide sufficient evidence or justification to demonstrate agricultural need for the proposed outbuilding to outweigh the tests of General Policy 3 (f) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. - R 2. The siting, size and design of the proposed outbuilding results in an unacceptable visual impact on the countryside and an unwarranted spread of development across the landscape contrary to Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. The visual impact of the outbuilding also contrary to the landscape character strategies set out for this site in the Area Plan for the South 2013. - R 3. While there are policies in the Strategic Plan that support equestrian development this must not result in any adverse visual impacts on the countryside or result in an unacceptable loss of high quality agricultural land. The current application fails to provide sufficient information for the proposed menage in order to determine its full impact and therefore fails to meet the tests of Environment Policy 1, Environment Policy 19 and Environment Policy 20 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are 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):
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):
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 Ballakillowey Farmhouse and associated outbuildings is located on the western side of the A36 Ballakillowey Road and around 500m north of the roundabout junction to Port Erin and Port St Mary. The farmhouse and two outbuildings are access via a small shared access lane with neighbouring dwelling 'The Cottage'. The existing outbuilding sit to the west of the main farmhouse between 15m - 20m away. These buildings were approved under PA 01/01446/B and PA 92/00468/B (planning history for which is included in 3.0 of this report). - 1.2 The information submitted for the application (red line land ownership) indicates that the landholding extends to around 20acres.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Proposed is the erection of an agricultural building 20m x 10m for the storage of hay and machinery. The proposed building is to be located just 13m south west of the existing buildings and is to have a central ridge height of 6m and to have a large opening on one gable end. The building is to be finished in grey metal roof and cladding. - 2.2 The application also includes the creation of a 20m x 40m all-weather riding arena menage just north-west of the existing outbuildings and around a similar 13m distance away. No details other than the size have been provided for this arena.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The site has been subject to two previous applications PA 01/01446/B and PA 92/00468/B for the erection of the two existing agricultural buildings both which were approved subject to condition restricting the use to agricultural only. - 3.2 There is a contemporaneous application submitted for the site PA 19/00638/B for the conversion of the existing southernmost agricultural building to provide additional tourist living accommodation.
4.1 The site lies in an area not designated for a particular purpose on the Area Plan for the South 2013. The area lay within a wider area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 which was replaced in the APS by the Landscape Character Assessment which provided a more detailed assessment of the landscape character and recommendations for its preservation and enhancement. The site lies on the cusp of two landscape character areas - Southern Uplands and Incised Slopes where the following advice is provided: - 4.2 "Southern Uplands (A2)
The overall strategy for the area is to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the open and exposed character of the moorland, its uninterrupted skyline and
panoramic views, its sense of tranquillity and remoteness and its wealth of cultural heritage features.
Key Views Open and expansive panoramic views out to sea and over the southern portion of the Island. Distant views in some areas enclosed by the surrounding peaks."
4.3 The Strategic Plan 2016 contains several policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application: - 4.4 General Policy 3 states (in part)
Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
4.5 Environment Policy 1:
"The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. 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."
4.6 Environment Policy 15:
"Where the Department is satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building (including a dwelling), sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside, and that the impact of this development including buildings, accesses, servicing etc. is acceptable, such development must be sited as close as is practically possible to existing building groups and be appropriate in terms of scale, materials, colour, siting and form to ensure that all new developments are sympathetic to the landscape and built environment of which they will form a part.
Only in exceptional circumstances will buildings be permitted in exposed or isolated areas or close to public highways and in all such cases will be subject to appropriate landscaping. The nature and materials of construction must also be appropriate to the purposes for which it is intended. Where new agricultural buildings are proposed next to or close to existing residential properties, care must be taken to ensure that there is no unacceptable adverse impact through any activity, although it must be borne in mind that many farming activities require buildings which are best sited, in landscape terms, close to existing building groups in the rural landscape."
"7.15.1 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. The use of land as grazing land falls within the definition of agriculture (section 45 of the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act), and does not therefore involve development, but the keeping of horses and the operation of equestrian activities generally do involve development and may have an adverse impact on the appearance and character of the countryside. Sensitive siting and high standards of design, construction, and maintenance are necessary to ensure that there are no such adverse impacts. Whilst horses should be well housed, it will seldom be appropriate to use cavity-wall construction for stables, since such buildings may too easily be adapted for residential uses, so thwarting other policies of this Plan. Where new buildings are necessary, they should be sited close to existing building groups, and designed not only to blend with their surroundings but also to suit their specific purpose."
4.8 Environment Policy 19:
"Development of equestrian activities and buildings will only be accepted in the countryside where there will be as a result of such development no loss in local amenity, no loss of high quality agricultural land (Classes 1 and 2) and where the local highway network can satisfactorily accommodate any increase in traffic (see Environment Policy 14 for interpretation of Class 1 and 2)."
4.9 Environment Policy 20:
"There will be a presumption against large scale equestrian developments, which includes new buildings and external arenas, in areas with High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance unless there are exceptional circumstances to override such a policy."
4.10 Environment Policy 21:
"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; in particular, cavity-wall construction should not be used."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Rushen Parish Commissions - in support (09/07/2019). - 5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - DNOC Do not Oppose subject to Condition (12/06/2019) The application does not state that the menage would be for business purposes and as such has been assessed for private use only. Highway Services does not oppose subject to a conditions stating that there must be no commercial use of the development in the interest of safeguarding traffic and parking demand. Neighbours views - 5.3 The owners of High View Cottage - COMMENTS (12/06/2019) They note an inconsistency in the information for the proposed agricultural building, with the written information stating that the building is to be clad in dark green sheeting, but the annotation on the drawing referring to dark grey metal roof and cladding. They hope that the former green colour is the intention of the applicant as this would be less visually intrusive within this rural area of high landscape and scenic significance. - 5.4 The owners of The Cottage - Comments (12/06/2019) Their property and the application site share a drive that is used for light vehicle access by both property owners, they note that the proposal would not increase traffic generated by the development, and that it would not result in a significant adverse impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring residents. Applicant Response - 5.5 The applicant sought to clarify in an email dated 11/06/2019 that the proposed building is to be clad in dark green metal cladding in order to minimise visual impact.
6.0 ASSESSMENT There are two matters for consideration in the case of this application the proposal for a new agricultural building for the storage of hay and machinery and the creation of a new equestrian menage. Each will be addressed under its own heading below:
6.1 AGRICULTURAL BUILDING The principle of development
7.1 The application fails to demonstrate that the agricultural need for a new building here is sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside and therefore contrary to General Policy 3.The principle is not accepted. The siting, size and design of the building
is also not considered to be acceptable failing the tests of EP 1 and EP 15 and not being in the spirit of the landscape strategy for this area as set out in the Area Plan for the South 2013.
7.2 The lack of information available for the proposed menage makes it difficult to consider fully, however it's likely that such a large development across the landscape would not only result in the unacceptable spread of development and loss of agricultural land but would likely bring with it associated paraphernalia which when combined would likely have an unacceptable and inappropriate impact on this prominent landscape location and on the wider countryside in its own right. The proposal in this respect is considered to fail EP1, EP19 and EP20. - 8.0 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:
8.2 The Planning Committee must determine:
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 : 06.08.2019 Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
