Loading document...
Application No.: 25/90708/B Applicant: Mr & Mrs Stuart Keeler Proposal: Erection of portal frame stable; creation of manege Site Address: Longcroft Ramsey Road Peel Isle Of Man IM5 2AQ Senior Planning Officer: Mrs Louise Phillips Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 16.10.2025 _________________________________________________________________
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Reason: To prevent the easy conversion of the building to a dwelling in the countryside contrary to Development Plan policy.
Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the countryside and of highway safety.
N 1. The applicants are advised that allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads.
The proposed development would conflict with some policies of the Development Plan because it would introduce built development into the countryside which is not one of the permissible types. However, other policies do accept that equestrian development is likely to take place in the countryside provided that it would cause no harm to the landscape character and appearance of the area. By virtue of its attractive but still practical design and sensitive siting, the proposed development would not be harmful and the loss of the scrub would not warrant its refusal.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the following plans:
_________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisation should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE COMMIITTEE AS IT COULD BE REGARDED AS A DEPARTURE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 Longcroft is a detached house on the east side of the A4 Peel to Kirk Michael Road. It is set back from the road, accessed by a fairly long private driveway, and there are a couple of small outbuildings at the eastern end of the plot. - 1.2 To the north of the house is an open field within the applicants' ownership where the stable and sand school are proposed to be sited. The field is separated from the house and garden by a hedge and a ditch; and by a dense area of gorse and scrub. The remainder of the field is grass, divided into three paddocks.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The proposed development comprises a new stable building and an outdoor, fenced sand school for the applicants' private use. - 2.2 The stable building would be sited close to the outbuildings in the garden of Longcroft, within the field to their north-east, in an area which is presently covered by gorse/scrub. It would measure 14.9m wide x 11.1m deep x 2.75m to the eaves, inclusive of an external covered area. It would have a pitched roof with a higher central section. The building would be constructed with concrete blockwork at the base with a steel frame above. The walls would be finished in low maintenance timber or Eternit weatherboard and the roof in corrugated sheeting with translucent corrugated rooflights. There is nothing to suggest that the walls would be cavity walls. The building would provide three stable bays, a tractor store, a feed store, a tack room all around an internal corridor/circulation space. - 2.3 The sand school would be constructed close to the stable, to the north and east within the open grassed part of the field. It would measure 40m wide x 20m deep. It would be surfaced in rubber crumb, sand, geotextile membrane and hardcore and be surrounded by a timber post and wire fence 1.4m high. - 2.4 The new building and sand school would be accessed via a new driveway adjoining the driveway serving the house at the western end of the plot. It would cut through the gorse/scrub and run parallel to the boundary of the house/field. - 2.5 In addition to the necessary gorse/scrub clearance, three small trees would be removed to accommodate the stable building and, in compensation, it is proposed to plant ten new ones, close to the new building and at the roadside.
3.1 The site is not within a Conservation Area and there are no Registered Buildings in the vicinity. Registered Tree Area GM46 lies to the south of Longcroft but would not be affected by the proposal. The site is not at risk of flooding. - 3.2 The site is in a landscape characterised by "Incised Inland Slopes" (Character Area D6 in the Landscape Character Assessment 2008and is adjacent to the Grenaby Gareys Area of Special Scientific Interest (ASSI), which lies to the immediate south. 1982 Development Plan - 3.3 The site is in the countryside for planning purposes (i.e. not allocated for development), and within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. Area Plan for the North & West (adopted but not yet in force) - 3.4 The site is in the countryside but is not subject to any specific environmental designations. Strategic Plan
3.4 Strategic Policy 2 - Development will be permitted in the countryside only in exceptional circumstances set out in General Policy 3. - 3.5 Spatial Policy 5 - Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3. - 3.6 General Policy 2 - Provides various development management criteria, including the following which are relevant to this proposal:
3.7 General Policy 3 - Development outside areas zoned for development will not be permitted except for certain types. None of the specified exceptions relates to the proposed development. - 3.8 Environment Policy 1 - 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 overriding national need. - 3.9 Environment Policy 2 - Within Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance, the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or that the location for the development is essential. - 3.10 Paragraph 7.15.1 recognises that equestrian activities can generally take place only on open, rural land. To ensure that there are no adverse impacts upon the character and appearance of the countryside, sensitive siting and high standards of design, construction, and maintenance are necessary. 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.
3.11 Environment Policy 19 - Equestrian activities and buildings will only be accepted in the countryside where there will be no loss in local amenity, of high quality agricultural land (Classes 1 and 2) and where the local highway network can accommodate any increase in traffic. - 3.12 Environment Policy 20 - 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. - 3.13 Environment Policy 21 - Buildings for the stabling, shelter or care of horses 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.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 The planning history for this site, dating from 2009/10, concerns alterations and extensions to the dwelling itself. An application for permission in principle to construct a new dwelling adjacent to Longcroft was refused in 1994. - 4.2 The applicants' Supporting Statement indicates that the previous owners of Longcroft used the field for quad biking and it includes aerial photos from 2012 ad 2021 which show the tracks. Prior to that, the field had been used for grazing sheep and cattle. It is stated that the gorse/scrub has become established since the grazing ceased, and an aerial photo of a wellmanaged field in 2006 would support this.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Forestry, Amenity & Lands (DEFA) - Objection received 11/8/25:
5.2 Ecosystem Policy Team (DEFA) - Objection received 6/8/25:
"The application proposes the removal of an area dense scrub, which provides habitat for a variety of wildlife including nesting birds, in order to place a new stable building, without details of proportionate mitigation:
5.3 Highways Services (DoI) - Does not oppose 28/7/25:
5.4 Highways Drainage (DoI) - Advice received 6/8/25:
5.5 German Parish Commissioners and Manx Utilities Authority, Electricity, were consulted on 24 July 2025 but, at the time of writing this report, no comments had been received.
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 Having regard to the matters above, the main issues are:
Principle of the Development
6.2 Equestrian development does not fall into any of the categories potentially permitted in the countryside by General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan. Technically, therefore, the proposal is contrary to the Development Plan - to General Policy 3, and also Strategic Policy 2 and Spatial Policy 5. However, paragraph 7.15.1 recognises that equestrian activities can generally take place only on open, rural land, and this is very likely to be in the countryside. - 6.3 Furthermore, Environment Policies 19 and 21, which relate specifically to equestrian development, both anticipate such development in the countryside but make it dependent upon there being no loss of amenity, high quality agricultural land or highway safety; and no detriment to the character and appearance of the countryside. Consequently, the proposed development could be justified in the countryside, subject to these considerations.
6.4 The development would not be on Grade 1 or 2 agricultural land; the neighbouring property is sufficiently far away that the occupants would not suffer a loss of amenity; and Highways Services has confirmed that, subject to the facilities being only for private use, there are no highway safety issues. Its effect upon the character and appearance of the countryside is assessed below. Character and Appearance - 6.5 Starting with the development itself, the use of good quality timber/timber effect cladding, combined with an interesting roof shape, would afford the stable a traditional and attractive appearance. The enclosure for the sand school would also be made of timber, and the open wire fencing would mean it would not look too bulky despite its size. Whilst the stable would not look purely functional as might a metal shed, it would have a corrugated roof, stable doors and no windows apart from the glazed door to the tack room. These features would ensure it looked fit for purpose as required by Environment Policy 21 of the Strategic Plan; and it would not have cavity walls. - 6.6 With its internal corridor and raised central roof, the stable block is larger than it strictly needs to be to accommodate three horses. However, the applicants have explained that this internal space would allow the horses to be fed, watered and cleaned out under cover when the weather is bad in this exposed location. The space is clearly desirable for both horse and rider and, in this respect, the applicants intend for Longcroft to be their "forever" home. They want to create a durable, useable, high-quality and visually attractive environment. - 6.7 Turning to the effect of the development upon the wider area, the stable and sand school would be sited well back from the highway and near to the existing group of outbuildings to the south. The access drive would also be provided at the edge of the field, close to the existing development associated with the dwelling. - 6.8 The A4 Peel to Kirk Michael Road is at a lower level than the field and the only clear view of the site is from the electricity substation to the north of the access to Longcroft. In this location, most people passing would be in a vehicle and get only a fleeting view of the development. If they did, it would not look out of place in this rural location where other agricultural-type buildings are present and visible along the road. In any case, the plans show that new trees would be planted by the substation, as well as by the north elevation of the stable, to provide screening. The site cannot be seen from Ballabooie Road across the field to the north. - 6.9 Therefore, the proposed development would not be easily seen from the public domain and it would not be detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside in a visual sense. Whilst Environment Policy 1 seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake, the proposal would cause no significant adverse effects, and Environment Policies 19 and 21 do potentially allow for equestrian development in the countryside when this is the case. - 6.10 Environment Policy 20 presumes against large scale equestrian development in Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. The applicants argue that the proposed development is not large scale, being for their own private use, but it does include a building and external arena as referenced in the policy. The applicants have provided good reasons for why they need the proposed building in their Supporting Statement, related to care of young animals etc, but these do not necessarily amount to the "exceptional circumstances" required by the policy. There would, therefore, be some policy conflict here. - 6.11 Essentially however, the proposed development has been well designed and sensitively sited so that it would cause no significant detriment to the landscape. Whilst there would be conflict with Environment Policy 20 of the Development Plan, the proposal would comply with those policies which specifically seek to protect the character and appearance of the area,
including the Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance, namely General Policy 2(b) and (c) and Environment Policies 19 and 21 of the Strategic Plan.
Ecology and Trees
6.12 The proposal would result in the loss of three trees, but these are neither large and mature nor of high quality. The ten new trees to be planted would therefore be adequate compensation. Whilst the Tree Officer would have preferred large replacement trees, this would not seem reasonable given the size and quality of those to be removed and that the new development would not be visually intrusive while smaller ones grow. - 6.13 The need for gorse/scrub clearance is unfortunate in the sense that it now likely provides habitat for wildlife. However, the building has been sited here rather than in the open field to minimise its impact upon the landscape, and the applicants have agreed to undertake works outside the bird nesting season. Their evidence indicates that the scrub has only become established since the field stopped being used for grazing and, when viewed on site, the area comprises mainly gorse, bramble and weed. It looks overgrown and, if managed grazing were to resume, planning permission would not be required to remove it. - 6.14 Therefore, provided that clearance takes place in a manner sensitive to wildlife, the loss of the scrub would not be a reason to refuse the application. Consequently, it would not be appropriate to seek its replacement elsewhere upon the land. Other Issues - 6.15 Concerns were raised in the representations about the lack of drainage information, but the applicants have now confirmed that surface water would drain to a new soakaway to avoid overwhelming the existing ditches. - 6.16 In support of their proposal, the applicants have explained that they purchased the property in order to be able to care for and ride their horses at their home. They intend to remain there in the long term and so wish to build a high quality facility for their own use. In light of the provisions of Environment Policies 19 and 21, this carries some weight in favour of the development.
7.0 CONCLUSION - 7.1 The proposed development would conflict with some policies of the Development Plan because it would introduce built development into the countryside which is not one of the permissible types. However, other policies do accept that equestrian development is likely to take place in the countryside provided that it would cause no harm to the landscape character and appearance of the area. By virtue of its attractive but still practical design and sensitive siting, the proposed development would not be harmful and the loss of the scrub would not warrant its refusal. Consequently, it is recommended for approval subject to conditions.
8.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE - 8.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted). - 8.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to:
8.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10. - 8.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required):
8.5 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 the Right to Appeal.
Decision Made: Permitted Date: 27.10.2025 Signed : Mrs Louise Phillips Presenting Officer
Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/ customers and archive record.
Application No. : 25/90708/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs Stuart Keeler Proposal : Erection of portal frame stable; creation of manege Site Address : Longcroft
Ramsey Road Peel Isle Of Man IM5 2AQ Presenting Officer : Mrs Louise Phillips Addendum to the Officer’s Report
The Committee approved the application subject to the inclusion of an additional condition to require the removal of the development should it no longer be used for its intended purpose. This is in view of its countryside location.
Condition:
In the event that the building hereby approved is not used for equestrian or agricultural purposes for a period exceeding 12 months, the building shall be removed from the site within 18 months of its last use.
Reason: The development has been approved solely to provide accommodation and exercise space for horses and its retention if this was no longer necessary would result in an unwarranted intrusion in the countryside. _____________________________________________________________________________
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
