Planning Statement

Planning Statement in support of application Introduction

• 1. The site is part of a field immediately adjacent to the rear of the applicants’ garage, which itself is across the private driveway from the applicants’ dwelling Ballacallin Cottage, to the south of the A24 Foxdale Road. It is bounded on one side by the A24 and on the other three sides by grazing fields also owned by the applicants. The site slopes slightly from a higher level at the south boundary towards the garage.
• 2. It is laid to grass, although there is also a wooden temporary field shelter on the site measuring 16 feet by 10 feet. There are three established non native conifers within the site. The boundary with the A24 is finished with stock proof fence, with a mix of native and non native bushes and trees screening the site from the road. To the south west boundary, there is an established hawthorn hedge approximately 8 feet tall and the remaining two boundaries are post and wire fencing.
• 3. The site is accessed from the applicants’ driveway through one of the grazing fields. Planning policy

• 4. The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan as not for a particular purpose. It is not within an area of High Landscape Value or Coastal Value, as laid out in the 1982 Development Plan.
• 5. The appropriate Landscape Character Assessment for the area is D10 (Braaid), which provides:
• 6. There are no Registered Trees, Registered Tree Areas or other buildings on the site and it is not within a proposed or adopted Conservation Area. Nor are there any other specific constraints affecting the site.
• 7. The intention would be to remove the three conifers on the site along with two evergreen trees adjoining the site, subject to the appropriate licences from DEFA. It is not considered that this would be a detriment, as there is a real concern with their current situation that they may in the near future need removal in any event and with their height and location if they were to fall, they could fall onto the A24. Their removal would be mitigated by supplementary planting with hawthorn along the boundary with the A24 and the two other boundaries currently fenced with post and wire fencing. The applicants have also recently planted in excess of 500 hawthorn hedging plants on their land on the other side of the A24 and will be planting a further approximately 150 metres of hawthorn hedging along a new boundary fence during the next planting season. The applicants accordingly consider that the removal of these conifers would be an acceptable compromise given the replacement and supplementary planting which is taking place.

• 8. The applicants have taken advice and have been advised the trees to be removed are all Category 3 tree specimens that would be suitable for removal and their removal would not conflict with established DEFA policy.
• 9. It is accepted there is a presumption against development outside of designated areas, as outlined within Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan. However, there are policies which allow for the development of equestrian facilities:

• 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) andwhere the local highway network can satisfactorily accommodate any increase in traffic (see Environment Policy 14 for interpretation of Class 1 and 2).

Environment Policy 14: Development which would result in the permanent loss of important and versatile agricultural land (Classes 1-2) will not be permitted except where there is an overriding need for the development, and land of a lower quality is not available and other policies in this plan are complied with. This policy will be applied to (a) land annotated as Classes 1/2 on the Agricultural Land Use Capability Map; and (b) Class 2 soils falling within areas annotated as Class 2/3 and Class 3/2 on theAgricultural Land Use Capability Map.

The site is Class 3 agricultural land and there is not therefore any loss of high quality agricultural land.

• 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.

EP20 does not apply to this application as the site is not within an area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.

• 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, cavitywall construction should not be used.

• 10. In summary, there is a presumption against development, but this can be overturned if there is no loss of high quality agricultural land, no detriment to the local highway network and no loss of amenity and the proposed development is not detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside in terms of siting, design, size or finish.

The Proposal

• 11. It is proposed that the applicants remove the existing field shelter and construct on the site an equestrian stable block incorporating a tack room, a hay/machinery store, three stables and a wash bay which would be 18m long at its longest, 9.6m wide at its widest and 2.9m at its tallest. The building would be an L shape, with the longest side situated alongside the A24 boundary and the short side alongside the other boundary fence. To its eaves, the building would measure 2.36m.
• 12. It would be finished in timber and have either a black bitumen shingle roof or a green box profile roof, with inset clear panels to maximise natural light in the building. However, in the event the clear panels were to be considered determinative of the outcome of the application, the applicants would agree not to include such rooflights in the final design for the building. There would be an extra wide 1.8m overhang to protect the stable fronts from the extremes of weather experienced in the area, which would be supported by wooden or steel support pillars, and there would be a small concrete apron on which the building would stand.

• 13. Drainage would be provided in the form of soakaways to the rear corners of the building. Relevant planning applications

• 14. There has been a previous unsuccessful application and appeal on the applicants’ other land across the A24 (21/00682/B) (the “first application”). The applicants have absorbed the helpful guidance provided in both the first application and the appeal and have applied it to this revised scheme and have also sought pre-application advice on this proposal.
• 15. There have been a number of other similar applications in the local area since May 2020, resulting in planning approval being granted for five other similar schemes in the local area. The applicants consider that the granting of these other applications, whilst not determinative, is strongly indicative that the introduction of equestrian buildings to the countryside in this general location is not per se considered to harm the character of the local area and raises the suggestion that the site is suitable for this type of development in principle. Context for the Application

• 16. One of the main objections to the first application was that it was immediately adjacent to the Millenium Way, creating an unacceptable loss of amenity to users of the Millenium Way. Within the first application, a number of the objectors commented that they considered the appropriate site for the stable building to be alongside the applicants’ dwelling on the other side of the A24:

• (i) The owners of Fairview stated they believed they could support an application made in the field alongside the house in their letter of 18 July 2021;
• (ii) The Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside stated that the appropriate site would be adjacent to our house “grouped as if a stable yard around the existing buildings” in their letter of 6 September 2021;
• (iii) At 6.4 of the Planning Officer’s Report; - “ideally, a building should be located where the existing field shelter is located”.

• 17. At the time, as outlined at length in submissions in the first application and the appeal, the applicants were unable to consider this option as there was insufficient field space behind the house for the two (possibly three) horses for the period when they would need regular access to stables. Therefore, it was not a viable option; the applicants had received a strong indication from the adjacent landowner that it would not be possible to purchase additional land on that side of the road.
• 18. Since the appeal, the adjoining landowner’s position has altered and it has offered for sale to the applicants a further 1.5 acres of land, which have now been purchased. This now makes it viable for the applicants to consider an application on the preferred parcel of land from the planning department and the objectors’ perspectives. Need for the structure

• 19. In the recent appeal from the first application, the Planning Inspector concluded that the size of the building sought therein was greater than strictly required for the applicants’ needs and this was considered to be highly determinative of the Inspector’s ultimate decision to refuse the appeal. Therefore, the applicants have taken this into account and have shrunk the proposed building’s square footage by around half, reducing available space from around 190m2 to around 86.4m2.
• 20. This would allow the applicants to store the core materials and equipment needed for essential field maintenance and horse management on the same site and protected from the elements. It is anticipated that the storage at the stables will be used for the presently open bale of haylage, bedding, feed, rugs, some items of tack, a portable mounting block, electric fencing materials, wheelbarrow and mucking out tools and other field maintenance equipment. It is considered that the proposed storage area is reasonable for the items needing to be stored.

• 21. In the recent application 20/00503/B, just along the A24 from our site, the Planning Officer determined that a traditional L-shaped stable block with a longest length of 16.2m and a widest width of 10.2m accommodating two stables, a tack room, agricultural store and hay barn was appropriate for the applicant’s needs for two horses, which are similar to the applicants’ requirements here. This amounted to a square footage of approximately 82.1m2. Therefore, the applicants’ requested square footage seems within the limits considered acceptable by the Planning Department.
• 22. The applicants also submit that their need for the structure has materially changed since the first application was finally determined. As was mentioned in the first application, there was a long standing proposition that Mrs Johnson’s mother’s horse would ultimately retire to the Isle of Man from her parents’ farm in the UK. Unfortunately, Mrs Johnson’s father has suddenly and unexpectedly passed away, resulting in her mother being unable to retain their farm. It is currently advertised for sale. Mrs Johnson’s mother has also suffered serious ill health in recent months and is currently having to utilise professional assistance for her horse on a daily basis, which is not sustainable long term.
• 23. Once the farm has sold, Mrs Johnson’s mother will have nowhere to keep her horse and it is her intention to gift her horse to the applicants’ son as his first horse. Therefore, there will be a need to accommodate a third horse at the site in the near future.
• 24. The Planning Inspector in the first application also somewhat imperfectly concluded that the fact that the applicants had coped for a couple of years with their current arrangements meant there was insufficient need for the building. Whilst it is considered that this falls away somewhat by consequence of the circumstances outlined in the preceding paragraphs, the applicants consider this is misconceived given the evidence placed before the Inspector as to their elder horse’s health conditions as a consequence of current conditions. Even those resident at Fair View who objected strongly to the first application accepted in their submissions in that application that the current arrangements were not fit for purpose in the long term.
• 25. Additionally, the applicants’ younger horse has subsequently sustained a partially ruptured tendon. This is a potentially life altering injury for him; he has had to be subject to restricted grazing conditions since diagnosis, he is unable to be ridden for a minimum of 18 months, probably more like 2 years, there is a risk the injury may never properly repair so he can be properly exercised and significant vet’s fees have been incurred. The proposed scheme would allow the applicants to better manage his needs in the longer term and avoid exacerbating the injury.
• 26. If the planning officer dealing with the application has any specific queries regarding any aspect of this application, including need, they are urged to contact the applicants directly to discuss these queries prior to finalising their report. Impact on the local highway network

• 27. The planning officer has the benefit of the views of the DOI Highways team in the first application, wherein it was determined that there were no highway safety issues occasioned by the application. Given that this application will mitigate use of that entrance and will make use of a pre-existing road entrance with no intensification of use, it seems unlikely there could be any objection to the application due to its impact on the local highway network. Loss of amenity

• 28. In the recent appeal, the Inspector ultimately concluded that the building was larger than needed for the applicants’ specific circumstances and that coupled with the style of the building created an unacceptable loss of amenity to the local area. Therefore, with this application the applicants have endeavoured to address these concerns.
• 29. The dimensions can be seen on the plans, but in summary the building would be situate with the longer span along the A24 boundary currently planted with native and non native shrubs and intended to be subject to further supplementary planting. The stable door openings would be facing the 8/9ft high boundary hedge, with the storage pointing down

• the hill and hidden from view from the road by the garage. Very little of the building would be visible due to the established planting and it is intended that the remaining two boundaries would also be planted with hedgerow once the building was complete, mitigating any remote glimpses of the building from other directions.
• 30. The location is only fleetingly visible when travelling along the road from the Douglas direction towards Foxdale. The building would not affect short, mid or long range views of the countryside on approach to the site from that direction.
• 31. Similarly, the existing buildings limit the site’s short, mid and long range impact from the Foxdale direction. Any remaining visual impact of the building on the area is mitigated by the use of timber for the stable structure and the use of sympathetically coloured roofing panels which will blend with the colours of the local landscape. Given the area is a predominantly equestrian one, it is considered that any views of the building would be entirely consistent with the character of the local area and will be fleeting in nature.
• 32. Approaching the site from the St Marks direction along the B35, there would be no long, mid or short range views affected as the sod banks at the roadside and the 8/9ft hedge on the applicants’ land substantially obscure the area where it is intended the building would be constructed. Approaching along the minor road from the Crosby direction, the site is not visible due to the existing garage and supplementary planting.
• 33. For these reasons, the applicants consider that the structure would not create a loss of amenity to the local area and more particularly to the users of the Millenium Way, as the factors creating a loss of amenity in the previous refusal have been adequately addressed and mitigated.
• 34. The applicants’ position in this regard seems to be supported by the comments of the owners of Fairview in their submissions on the previous applications, wherein a large proportion of their objections were predicated upon the fact that the development faced the gable wall of their property (it will no longer do so). Likewise, the Commissioners at the planning appeal hearing on the first application made representations to the effect that they could support a smaller development at a slightly different location. Siting, design, size and finish

• 35. Given the lack of adverse impact on the local area (as outlined above), it is considered that the scheme accords with EP21 due to its sympathetic siting. The site chosen will have no impact on or detriment to users of the Millenium Way or local road users more generally, being barely visible from the roadside in an area well known for its equestrian development.
• 36. Likewise, it is considered that the design of the structure is sympathetic to its surroundings, in that it looks like traditional conventional stables built across a footprint which is designed to minimise its impact on the area. The use of timber construction also aids in managing the structure’s long term impact on the local environment, as it will be readily capable of being removed in the event it is no longer required.
• 37. The size of the structure is also considered to be reasonable and appropriate, for all of the reasons outlined above.
• 38. The finish of the building has been carefully considered; the use of a timber finish adds to the “temporary” impression it will leave and the placement of the timber finish immediately adjacent to the mixed planting will cause the timber finish, once weathered, to blend with the vegetation, such that it appears absorbed into the existing landscape. Likewise, green box profile roofing or black bitumen shingles will both blend with the varied colours. This will be further mitigated by planting the stable yard boundary with native hedgerow, which will reduce the amount of the stable structure visible to passers by.

• 39. Finally, by keeping areas of concrete hardstanding to a minimum (just underneath the building and a very small apron along the front of the stable block), the applicants will also reduce the impact of the building on the local area and make it compatible with EP21. Summary

• 40. In summary, therefore, it is submitted that this application should be approved as the applicants have proved a need for the structure, there is no loss in local amenity, there is no loss of high quality agricultural land (Classes 1 and 2) and there would be no consequential increase in traffic so there is no issue with the development’s impact on the local highway network.
• 41. The proposal would also create no detriment to the local area, as it is sited in a manner to mitigate any impact and is designed so as to be in keeping with the local area and similar such developments approved recently.