Loading document...
are exceptional circumstances and do not permit buildings for the housing of animals where harm would be caused to the character and appearance of the countryside. In this instance there are no exceptional circumstances sufficient to justify approval of the proposal in the face of the harm that would be caused and the policy conflict." A subsequent appeal request was later withdrawn. ## Representations The Department of Transport Highways Division does not object to this application subject to there being no commercial use of the equestrian facility. Marown Parish Commissioners object to this application. Their reasons for objecting may be summarised as concerns that the proposed development is within an area recognised as being of High Landscape Value and there is a presumption against large scale equestrian developments in the countryside. Similarities to the refused application are noted and it is considered that whilst the proposed building would have a different siting there would be an adverse visual impact. ### The Proposal This application seeks approval for the construction of a building to provide an indoor manège, 6 stables and tack room. The main manège building would be approximately 10 metres high to the ridge with the attached stables having a maximum height of approximately 6 metres. The footprint of the building would be approximately 993 sq .m . The building would be finished in dark green coloured metal cladding with the lower sections of the stables and tack room being finished in brick work. Each stable would have a window. The building would be served by a block paved parking/turning area and the lane leading to the building would be concreted and altered to form a vehicle over-run to aid turning. There would also be an area laid with Ecoblock providing overflow parking. The site would be the subject of a landscaping scheme which would consist of native hedge planting, woodland thicket planting and woodland edge thicket planting. The building would also be set into the landscape having a finished floor level of 154.550 with the bank behind rising to 156.50 . ### Assessment The main issues to be assessed in the consideration of this application are the impact upon local amenity, any potential loss of high quality agricultural land, impacts upon local highway network and impact upon the character and amenity of the countryside in terms of siting, design, size and finish. The two main strands running through the adopted Development Plan are sustainability and the need to protect the quality and character of the Island's countryside. The later of these considerations explains why the Environment chapter of the Strategic Plan contains such a breadth of policies each aimed at ensuring that inappropriate development within the countryside is resisted. Environmental Policy 1 sets down that the most important consideration when assessing applications for development in the countryside is the protection of the countryside for its own sake. It goes on to support this stance by stating that development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use terms which outweighs other considerations. The Strategic Plan contains three policies relating directly to equestrian development; EP19, EP 20 and EP21. The previous application for a similar development to that now proposed was refused on the grounds that it would harm the character of the countryside and that there were no exceptional circumstances to override this policy objection as required by EP20. The applicant's agent sets out that the current proposal is an improvement over the previous application for a number of reasons. Firstly, the proposed siting has been moved westwards to an adjacent field and as a result, the siting now falls outside of the High Landscape Value designation. Secondly, the building has been lowered by approximately 1.5 metres and the excavation of the land would further reduce the perceived height of the structure. Finally, the proposal is now supported by a scheme of landscaping aimed at providing screening to the building in an attempt to overcome the visual impact of the proposed development. It is accepted that the changes made to this application are an improvement over the previously refused application. The building would be less prominent due to the reduction in height and the inclusion of landscaping. However, it remains that the proposed building would be very large in scale and would be sited within open countryside. The argument put forward by the applicant's agent that the building is no longer to be sited within an area of High Landscape Value is not disputed, and it is accepted that on this basis EP20 does not apply here. However this does not automatically render the proposal acceptable, after all, EP21 presumes against buildings for the stabling, shelter or care of horses if they would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside. Furthermore, the final sentence of Paragraph 4.3.11states that "Merely arguing that a new building cannot be seen in public views is not a justification for the relaxation of other policies relating to the location of new development." The proposal must be assessed in terms of visual impact and the effects of the development upon the landscape and the amenities of the surrounding area. From visiting the site and viewing the landscape from various vantage points, it is clear that whilst the field in question may not be within an area of High Landscape Value, the landscape is of a very high quality. It should be noted that the 1982 Development Plan is drawn at a scale of 1:25000 and as such the High Landscape Value designation is unlikely to be field specific. An assessment of potential visual impact was undertaken which involved walking the public footpaths to the east and west of the site along with the Top Road to the south. This revealed that the main vantage point is the footpath to the west of the site which provides views across to the site. The views from the Top Road would be largely screened by planting and existing development and views from the footpath to the east would be largely screened by the topography of the land. It was noted that distant views of The Nab are available from the stretch of the A1 between Glen Vine and the entrance to Glenlough Farm. It is likely that the form of the proposed development would be appreciated from this location. ## Conclusion There is an inherent conflict between large scale development and areas not zoned for development. Whilst landscaping schemes can provide mitigation to such development by reducing visibility, this does not remove the harm to the openness and tranquillity of the countryside. Whilst the current proposal represents an improvement over the previously refused application, it remains that the development would be of a large scale which would be visible from public vantage points, despite the proposed landscaping scheme, to the detriment of the openness and character of the landscape. ### Recommendation Refuse. ### Party Status It is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, accord with the requirements of Planning Circular 1/06 and are therefore, afforded Interested Party Status: Marown Parish Commissioners. The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance. ## Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 13.04.2010
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1 . The proposal, due to its scale, would be visible in the wider area, despite the proposed landscaping scheme to the detriment of the openness and character of the landscape contrary to EP1 and EP21 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Authority in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Decision Made : Authority Meeting Date :
Signed : Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Authority an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
