Loading document...
The application site comprises of land within the rural part of Onchan that is accessed off Whitebridge Road. The site contains Ballakaighen Farm, which is now primarily in leisure use, and is commonly referred to as 'Laserblast'.
The proposed development comprises the erection of a marquee and portable toilet block for corporate functions and events on a seasonal basis. It is proposed that the development will be in place from the 1st May to the 30th September in any one year.
The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, the following of which are considered to be material to the assessment of the current planning application.
Planning application 03/00729/C sought planning approval for the change of use of agricultural land and barn for paintball games and indoor laser games at Ballakaighen Farm, Whitebridge Road, Onchan. This previous planning application was initially approved on the 28th November 2003.
Planning application 05/00326/B sought planning approval for the conversion of barns to an activity centre with car parking, drive widening and entrance alterations at Ballakaighen Farm, Whitebridge Road, Onchan. This previous planning application was initially approved on the 6th July 2005.
Planning application 06/00866/B sought planning approval for alterations to existing sludge pit and erection of a building to incorporate leisure facilities at Ballakaighen Farm, Whitebridge Road, Onchan. This previous planning application was refused on the 8th February 2007. A subsequent appeal against the refusal was dismissed by the Minister, in accordance with the recommendation of the appointed Planning Inspector, with the appeal refusal decision issued on the 24th July 2007.
Planning application 08/00454/B sought planning approval for the extension of the existing car park at Ballakaighen Farm, Whitebridge Road, Onchan. This previous planning application was approved on the 15th July 2008.
Planning application 08/01134/B sought planning approval for the erection of a marquee, toilet blocks and creation of decking at Ballakaighen Farm, Whitebridge Road, Onchan. This previous planning application was refused on the 30th September 2008.
Planning application 08/01403/C sought planning approval for the change of use of two fields from agricultural to recreational and location of a portacabin at Ballakaighen Farm, Whitebridge Road, Onchan. This previous planning application was refused on the 30th September 2008.
Planning application 09/01320/R sought planning approval for the creation of a toilet block at Ballakaighen Farm, Whitebridge Road, Onchan. The Planning Committee declined to consider the planning application on the grounds it was substantially the same as one (08/01134/B) refused in the previous five years.
Onchan District Commissioners recommend that the planning application be approved. They believe that the exit from the site being addressed to make it clearer for motorists.
The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division objects to the planning application. They highlight that previous planning applications at this site have been opposed due to inadequate visibility and that visibility is still substandard. This stretch of road is derestricted and has a double white line system in place to prevent overtaking due to the forward visibility approaching the brow of the hill and there was one recorded serious accident involving the access in 2006. It is their view that a vehicle leaving the site has to creep forward into the carriageway in order to see far enough down the road to see approaching traffic and due to the alignment of the road if a vehicle is sitting partly on the carriageway, an approaching vehicle will have to move towards, or even over, the centre line without being able to see oncoming traffic.
They also highlight that despite previous requests the planning application does not include a Transport Assessment to assess the impact of the development on the existing highway. The steady increase in activities at the site has resulted in a steady increase in traffic using the substandard access. Had the applicant applied for all the activities at once then a transport assessment would have been required, the final impact on the network is the same regardless of whether the site is developed in stages or all at once and the needs to be assessed. It is acknowledged that this particular application will not necessarily have a major impact on the highway, however the Division is concerned that the full effect of these developments and the restricted visibility have not been addressed.
The owner and/or occupant of Sunnyside, which is located opposite the entrance to the application site object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposed development will increase noise and traffic to the detriment of their private amenity. They believe that the proposed development is out of keeping with the countryside location.
In terms of land use planning, the application site is located within a wider area of land that is designated as open space under the Onchan Local Plan Order 2000. There are no policies within Planning Circular 1/2000, which constitutes the written statement to be read in conjunction with the local plan, that are considered specifically material to the assessment of the planning application.
In terms of strategic planning policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains two policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of the planning application:
General Policy 3 states: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
Environment Policy 1 states: "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."
The planning application seeks planning approval for the erection of a marquee and portable toilet block for corporate functions and events on a seasonal basis. It is proposed that the development will be in place from the 1st May to the 30th September in any one year. The application follows on from previous planning applications seeking planning approval for the erection of a marquee and toilet block, as well as enforcement action for their unauthorised erection.
The proposed development raises very similar issues to that examined by previous planning application 08/01134/B, albeit that previous planning application sought planning approval for the erection of a marquee, toilet blocks and creation of decking on a permanent basis. The actual form of development is essentially the same. As before, given that the planning application proposes the erection of a new facilities rather than the reuse of existing redundant buildings it is considered necessary to examine the principle of development. In terms of this there is a presumption against development in the countryside unless it can be demonstrated that such development is justified, which is borne out by General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. In this instance the proposed development does not fall within any of the eight exception criteria set out by General Policy 3 and it is not considered that there is national need to outweigh the protection set out by Environment Policy 1. The proposed siting of the proposed development on a temporary basis from the 1st May to 30th September in any one year does not reduce its visual impact and detrimental harm to the countryside.
Whilst adjacent land, and the buildings contained within it, that is owned by the applicant is acknowledged as being in leisure use through previously approved planning applications the development proposed by the current planning application is fundamentally different in that the previously approved development made use of redundant buildings. The principle behind purpose built development rather than the use of redundant buildings is not acceptable in terms of planning policy. This view is supported by the conclusion of the appointed Planning Inspector for the appeal against the refusal of previous planning application 06/00866/B, who stated at paragraph 19 of their report that: "The erection of some buildings in the countryside may be justified - examples might include buildings needed for the purposes of agriculture, or forestry, or mineral extraction. However, I can see no particular reason why buildings to house indoor leisure pursuits (or other commercial activities) should be built on unallocated land in the open countryside, rather than in an urban area. The argument that farmers need to supplement the income they receive from agriculture could be repeated. If the present appeal is allowed, it seems to me that the Planning Authority might find it difficult to resist the erection of large recreational or commercial buildings on other rural sites. The open character of parts of the Island might quickly change." Whilst acknowledging that the previous planning application sought planning approval for a different development these conclusions remain relevant to the assessment of the current planning application. The principle of new development within the countryside is contrary to planning policies designed to protect the countryside from unwarranted development.
Notwithstanding the above, the concerns of the Department of Infrastructure Highways Division is an issue that needs to be taken into account, as there are implications for highway safety arising from the intensification in use that would arise from the proposed development. Given the professional opinion that the access onto the
public highway is substandard in terms of visibility and the known accident record it is logical to conclude that an increase in traffic levels is inappropriate.
It is recommended that the planning application be refused.
It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should be afforded interested party status;
Onchan District Commissioners; and The owner and/or occupant of Sunnyside. It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should not be afforded interested party status:
The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division (same department as Planning Authority).
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal 0 : Notes attached to refusals R 1. By reason that the proposed development represents the erection of a new built development in the countryside, as opposed to the previous re-use of existing redundant buildings, the proposal is contrary to the presumption against development in the countryside. The proposed development represents unwarranted development in the countryside that is detrimental to the amenity of the area, which is contrary to the provisions of General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
R 2. The proposed development will increase the level of traffic using the access onto Whitebridge Road. As this access is substandard in terms of visibility it is concluded that an increase in usage will be detrimental to highway safety.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made : Permitted Date : Signed : Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
