DEC Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Applicant: Ms Pamela Kelly And Ms Karen Jane Westcott Proposal Change of use of land for recreation (personal dog walking)(retrospective) Site Address Fields 414487 And 410223 Ballakillowey Road Colby Isle Of Man Case Officer : Toby Cowell Site Visit: Expected Decision Level Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 22.08.2024

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• C 1. The field may only be used for the purposes of dog walking, together with the existing agricultural use. The field shall only be used on a personal basis by the owner for the purposes of dog walking, and shall at no point be used on a commercial basis. Upon the cessation of the field for provision of private dog walking, the use hereby permitted shall cease.

Reason: The Department has assessed the impact of the proposal on the basis of the specific use and the documents submitted, and any alternative uses for the field other than the approved use or agricultural use will require further consideration.

• C 2. The approval does not in any way permit the creation of permanent dog care facilities on the site or the erection of structures on the site.

Reason: The Department has assessed the impact of the proposal on the basis of the specific use and the documents submitted.

N 1. The applicant is strongly advised to ensure that the Public Right of Way (No. 286A) which crosses the site from Ballakillowey Road to Ballakilpheric Road, be kept open and unobstructed at all times as required by the Highways Act 1986.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. It is considered that the use of the field for the purposes of dog walking is appropriate in this location, without detriment to the character and appearance of the wider landscape, the amenities of nearby residential properties or the safety and convenience of the highway network. The development is therefore deemed compliant with Spatial Policy 5, General Policies 2 and 3, Environment Policy 1 and Transport Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan (2016).

Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the following drawings and documents: Location plan Supporting information document Received 07.03.24

Interested Person Status

Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following 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 4(2):

Fern Villa, Ballakillowey Road, Colby

as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. ________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR DETERMINATION DUE TO THE POTENTIAL CONFLICT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHILST HAVING BEEN RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY OFFICERS

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site comprises Fields 414487 and 410223, situated on the eastern side of Ballakillowey Road with the northern field abutting Ballakilpheric Road. - 1.2 The existing fields are separated by a vegetated stone wall, with an existing vehicular access located in the south-western corner of the northern field off the main road which includes a parking and turning area, with the access controlled by a 6 bar field gate. - 1.3 The fields are bounded by mid-level hedging on all sides with stock fencing noted along the site's western and northern boundaries adjacent to the highways. Upon visit to the site it was noted that both fields had been recently mowed, with a picnic bench, small locked up garden storage units, a covered ride-on mower and 2 small gardens benches having been sited along the western edge of the southern field.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for change of use of the fields for recreational purposes, specifically for the use of personal dog walking (retrospective). The scheme does not involve the erection of any structures on site or changes to the physical appearance of the site area, however the presence of benches and the recent mowing of the fields was noted during the site visit. - 2.2 The applicant has clarified that the fields would be used for dog walking on a purely personal basis and would not be used for commercial purposes (i.e. professional dog walking for clients).

- 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 The application property has not been the subject of any previous planning applications. However, there have been a number of dog day care facilities approved in recent times, most of which have been within existing Industrial Estates although there have been a number across the Islands countryside. These include:

• o 17/00364/B - Conversion of agricultural store to day care facility for dogs, including improvements to existing access road and junction from main road, Ballablack Farm, Arbory. Approved subject to 3 conditions.

• o 21/01050/C - Change of use of land from agricultural to dog walking field, Field 321821 Ballanicholas, Garth, Crosby. Approved subject to 6 conditions.

3.2 There have also been a number of refused dog day care facilities including:

• o 19/00646/C - Lapwings, East Foxdale Road, Eairy - Whilst the location was considered suitable, the access and visibility was of concern and the proposed operation would result in the harmful impact on highway safety.
• o 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. Note: These applications were refused mainly on highway safety grounds and noise nuisance.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY

4.1 The site lies within an area designated as not being for any particular use or purpose on the Area Plan for the South. The site is not within a Conservation Area, or prone to flood risks, although a portion of the southern field is susceptible to high surface water flood risks. The site is not within a Registered Tree Area, and there are no protected trees on site. - 4.2 Given the above, there is a general presumption against development here as set out within the IOM Strategic Plan (Environment Policy 1 and General Policy 3). However the same plan also makes provisions for development which would are required for the interpretation of the countryside, its wild life or heritage. - 4.3 General Policy 3: Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage. - 4.4 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 overriding 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.

4.5 The general development principles within General Policy 2, particularly those relating to visual impacts, highway impacts or impacts on neighbouring amenity would be relevant. - 4.6 Environment Policy 22: Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of: iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution.

- 5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 In addition to the policy situation set out in section 3 above, the care of animals is generally an activity 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 given in 3.0 above illustrate the range and types of locations where this type of facility can be considered acceptable. - 6.0 REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 Arbory and Rushen Parish Commissioners - No objection to this application provided that no additional works are undertaken that would alter the appearance of these fields which are designated for agricultural use. (27.03.24)

6.2 Highway Services - The development would have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking, due to the low traffic low flow rural nature of the local network, subject to the proposals being restricted to non-business i.e. personal use via a condition. (18.03.24)

It has been brought to my attention that there may be a lawful PROW through the application site boundary. The applicant should be providing details how they will be maintaining any lawful PROW through the site. (17.05.24)

6.3 DEFA Fisheries - No objections (08.04.24) - 6.4 The owners/occupies of Fern Villa have provided comments objecting to the scheme, with a summary of their comments being as follows:

• - That the application is not a true and accurate representation of the applicant's use of the fields since their purchase, nor therefore probable intended use of the site given the history and the aforementioned points, which provide little doubt that the fields are bring used for commercial dog walking, as well as personal.
• - The public right of way across the land, from the main gateway to the Ballakilpheric Road is inaccessible.
• - That noise pollution is significant in comparison to that of an agricultural field.
• - The use of fields in a rural setting for commercial dog walking is not a suitable activity given livestock occupying nearby fields.
• - That no provisions have been made for visibility splays to cater for increased traffic flow to and from the fields.

- 7.0 ASSESSMENT

7.1 The site is not designated for development, as such, the main issue in this case is whether the proposal complies with the provisions of General Policy 3 and if not, whether there are any material considerations which would justify a departure from the policy which presumes against development in the countryside.

7.2 In determining whether to permit the use of the agricultural field as a dog walking field, there is a requirement to balance the need to protect rural areas for their own sake (EP1) whilst also having regard to the importance that the Manx countryside has as a recreational asset (GP3). In some exceptional cases the countryside may be able to accommodate low impact uses which provide the opportunity for members of the public to experience the Island without adversely affecting its character. - 7.3 General Policy 3 sets out the exceptions to the presumption against development in the countryside and the pertinent section which may give rise to support for this application is GP3 (h) which deals with buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage. In the case of the current scheme, no buildings or permanent structures would be or have been introduced on site, however it is noted that a picnic bench and an additional bench is in situ. These could easily be removed from the site without creating noticeable physical changes to the site area. - 7.4 Likewise, the existing use would enable significant levels of interaction with the natural environment via dog walks and runs which would offer opportunities to explore the natural environment. These interactions are not considered to be significantly different from hiking and sightseeing which are key forms of tourism on the island, although in this case, it relates to dogs. It would, however, be vital to note here that dog walking is also an established leisure

• activity on the Island; particularly along hiking trails, footpaths and sites in the countryside. Besides, the scheme would provide opportunities for the dogs and their carers to better understand and enjoy the countryside around them.
• 7.5 Additionally, the nature of the use is such that requires space and a degree of isolation to ensure the care of the animals and to limit harm to residential amenity; conditions which the proposed use would facilitate, given that the dogs and carers would have access to about 4.6acres acres of field.
• 7.6 Based on the forgoing, it is considered that the broad principle of the use is acceptable, and the additional use would not be unsuitable for the site or the wider rural area.
• 7.7 In terms of impacts on landscape, it is not considered that there has been an adverse impact in that no new structures or buildings would be erected on site to enable the use. Besides, the picnic bench and additional bench are not features that would materially alter the character of the site area given their scale and number on the field. More so, dogs walking on the field would be no different from sheep or goats walking within the field when assessed visually.
• 7.8 Environment Policy 22 requires that development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties. In this case, noise and dog fouling are likely to be the main concern, as the other issues identified in EP 22 would not be applicable to the proposal.
• 7.9 With regard to noise generated by the dogs, it is considered that this would and likely has resulted in an increase within the site area. Albeit, any barking or noise associated with dog walking would not be unusual or unsuitable for this countryside location, given the issues that have already been assessed above regarding dog walking activities now common in countryside locations. Whilst a neighbouring residential property is located within relative close proximity to the site on the other side of the road, it is not considered that the impact on their amenity has been or would continue to be demonstrably harmful, particularly noting that the field would be used purely on a personal basis for the applicant's dogs as opposed to a more intensified commercial nature.
• 7.10 In terms of fouling from the dogs, it is noted that agricultural fields are usually associated with animal fouling as this is common in grazing fields. However, in this case, it is understood that the fouling would be placed in receptacles and later removed from site.
• 7.11 Overall, it is considered that the proposal would not adversely impact on the residential amenity currently enjoyed by the occupants of the neighbouring properties, as required by EP22 of the IOMSP.
• 7.12 In terms of impacts on highway safety, it is considered that there would be no alterations to the existing visibility at the junction between the field track and the main highway which is considered appropriate for the limited number of vehicles that would be using the area on a daily basis.
• 7.13 Additionally, DOI Highways have indicated that they do not oppose the application which is a clear indication that the scheme is acceptable in highway safety terms, however they have requested that the proposals be restricted to non-business use given the potential implications of site and traffic intensification which would likely be associated with the field being use on a commercial basis.
• 7.14 Moreover, it has been correctly pointed out by Highways that a Public Right of Way (PROW) (no.286A) crosses the northern field from Ballakillowey Road to Ballakilpheric Road. Following correspondence between the applicant and the Highways and PROW Manager, it has

been confirmed that the field has not been blocked off by the applicants and that the PROW team will seek to install stiles and self-closing gates at each end of the PROW.

- 8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 Overall, it is considered that the use of the field for the purposes of dog walking is appropriate in this location, without detriment to the character and appearance of the wider landscape, the amenities of nearby residential properties or the safety and convenience of the highway network. The development is therefore deemed compliant with Spatial Policy 5, General Policies 2 and 3, Environment Policy 1 and Transport Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan

(2016). The application is therefore recommended for approval.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
• (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
• (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
• (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

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.

8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to the it by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.

Decision Made : …Permitted……….... Committee Meeting Date:…16.09.2024 Signed :…………TOBY COWELL……….. Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report). Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

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.

PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 16.09.2024 Application No 24/00296/C Applicant Ms Pamela Kelly And Ms Karen Jane Westcott Proposal Change of use of land for recreation (personal dog walking)(retrospective) Site Address Fields 414487 And 410223 Ballakillowey Road Colby Isle Of Man Planning Officer Toby Cowell Presenting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer Report

The Committee endorsed the Case Officer recommendation with slight amendment to condition 1, and to extend interested party status to the resident of Fern Villa.