Loading document...
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE
1.1 The red line refers to a parcel of land within a wider area edged blue which represents the holding of Ballavartyn Equestrian Centre. The equestrian facilities were approved recently and are under construction. The site lies on the eastern side of the A5 and is accessed via a newly created entrance opposite the B37 Sloping Road. The overall site extends to around 42 acres (17ha) and contains a dwelling and outbuildings which are sited just south of the centre of the site.
1.2 The application concerns the maneege which lies to the west of the indoor riding facility in approximately the centre of the site. The maneege is 60m by 30m.
1.3 There are a number of residential properties close to various parts of the site. The part of the site to which this application refers is in the centre of the site which is, at closest 110m from the properties to the west and 100m from Knock Froy Bungalow to the east.
2.1 Proposed is the installation of lighting in the car park. All the lights will be within the car parking area and will be of three types: one is a wall mounted light of 80 Watts luminance, pole and wall mounted lights with 67 Watts luminance and the third a light with 99 Watts luminance which are either mounted on a pole or affixed directly to a building. The pole mounted lights prevent any light escaping above the horizontal - they effectively shine downwards. There will be 20 lights in total - 13 wall mounted lights of which 5 will be the higher luminance and 7 pole mounted lights which will be the 67 Watt lights.
2.2 No conditions were attached to the original approval - PA 10/01672 to control the clientele or the hours of operation. A condition was attached which stated that "Notwithstanding the lighting indicated to serve the external arena, no approval is granted or inferred by this permission for the installation of any external lighting to serve the development. Any proposed lighting must form the basis of a separate planning application."
3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982 as High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. 3.2 As such, there is a presumption against development as set out in General Policy 2 and Environment Policies 1 and 2: 3.3 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: a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10) b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historical, or social value and interest (Housing Policy 11) c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of buildings where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environmental and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14) e) location-dependant development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services; f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative and h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage." 3.4 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 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." 3.5 Environment Policy 2: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape of Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce difference categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that: a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or b) the location for the development is essential." 3.6 A material consideration of considerable weight is the previous planning permission granted on the site (see below).
4.1 Planning permission was granted for a large new equestrian arena under PA 10/1672 including a new access, parking facilities and supporting infrastructure. Also, planning permission was granted for the conversion of existing buildings and the erection of new tourist accommodation under PAs 10/1660, 12/0027, 12/0028 and 12/0805 and the creation of access and replacement dwelling (PAs 12/0030 and 11/0451). A recent application for this site was the erection of a building for storage and the sale of horse-related items - PA 12/01386 which was approved. Approval was granted for the relocation of the horse walker
and creation of parking - PA 12/01617 and most recently applications have been submitted for further alterations and the installation of lighting - PAs 13/00324 and the change of use of the canteen to a cafe - PA 13/00474.
5.1 Manx National Heritage submit comments which relate to the impact of the lighting on the night sky, drawing attention to the Dark Skies international initiative. They commented similarly on the application for the lighting of the manege - PA 13/00324 which was approved by the Planning Committee on 13th May, 2013. MNH also refer to the current application for the change of use of the canteen to a cafe, expressing concern that an increase in traffic to and from the site may result in more frequent triggers of the lighting or extended periods in which the lighting will be illuminated. They query whether the applicant has considered alternative forms of lighting which may have less impact than 6 m high poles. 5.2 Residents of Mountfield House which lies over 200 m to the west of the area to be illuminated object to the application on the basis of potential light nuisance and indicate that there is already a wall mounted light outside the stables which causes them concern as it illuminates one of their bedrooms.
6.1 The applicant has considered the comments made and comments that the use of bollard type or lower level lighting will result in a potential for more lighting and potential for lighting to escape and bounce back upwards whereas the proposed lighting is hooded to direct lighting downward so that it will not escape above the horizontal. They explain that the light which has caused concern for the residents of Mountfield House is one situated on the end of the one of the stable blocks which is not one of the proposed lights and was a halogen light to provide temporary lighting during the winter. The addition of the cafe facilities are unlikely to add a further time for the lighting to be illuminated over and above what would be required for the operation of the stables and the approved manege. 6.2 It has always been a principle of the development that there would be non residents coming and going from the facilities and as such, it should not be a surprise that the facilities should be lit for safety and convenience. That said, such lighting should not result in adverse impact either in the form of excessive and intrusive illumination of the site or the surrounding area (including the sky above) or nuisance to those living in the vicinity. The lighting has been designed to shine generally downward to illuminate the site rather than longer distances and in the previous application for lighting the manege, the views of the Isle of Man Astronomical Society were sought and they were positive about the use of lights which cut off light spillage above the horizontal, as are being used here. The applicant also points out that they themselves will be the closest neighbours and would not want to be affected by excessive or late night illumination. 6.3 There is some distance between the proposed lighting and the nearest neighbours outside the site and it is considered that the proposed lighting, due to its position and design will not result in such an impact as to warrant refusal of the application. The light which has previously been a nuisance was fixed to a building and would quite probably not require planning permission, but was of a different type and not specifically designed to minimise the impact in the surrounding area as have those proposed in this application. 6.4 Lighting is clearly important to enable people to use the facilities after twilight and the applicant has provided information to demonstrate that the lighting has been considered such that it will not emit excessive light into the sky or surrounding area. As such, the application is recommended for approval.
7.1 The local authority, Santon Parish Commissioners are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status. 7.2 Manx National Heritage is a statutory body which raises material planning concerns and as such should be afforded party status in this case. 7.3 Mountfield House is 200 m away from the proposed area to be illuminated and as such is not considered directly affected by the proposal and should not be afforded party status in this case.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of 24.05.2013 Recommendation:
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2. This permission relates to the erection and installation of lighting as shown in drawings P / 10- 01, P/10-02, P/10-03 and all received on 10th April, 2013, and P/10-04 A which was received on 28th May 2013, and the development must be undertaken in accordance with these drawings.
C 3. Lighting may not be illuminated between 2230hrs and 0700hrs.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005 Decision Made : Committee Meeting Date : 11713
Signed : ______________________________ Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
YES/NO
24 June 2013 13/00429/B Page 5 of 5
and creation of parking - PA 12/01617 and most recently applications have been submitted for further alterations and the installation of lighting - PAs 13/00324 and the change of use of the canteen to a cafe - PA 13/00474.
5.1 Manx National Heritage submit comments which relate to the impact of the lighting on the night sky, drawing attention to the Dark Skies international initiative. They commented similarly on the application for the lighting of the manege - PA 13/00324 which was approved by the Planning Committee on 13th May, 2013. MNH also refer to the current application for the change of use of the canteen to a cafe, expressing concern that an increase in traffic to and from the site may result in more frequent triggers of the lighting or extended periods in which the lighting will be illuminated. They query whether the applicant has considered alternative forms of lighting which may have less impact than 6 m high poles. 5.2 Residents of Mountfield House which lies over 200 m to the west of the area to be illuminated object to the application on the basis of potential light nuisance and indicate that there is already a wall mounted light outside the stables which causes them concern as it illuminates one of their bedrooms.
6.1 The applicant has considered the comments made and comments that the use of bollard type or lower level lighting will result in a potential for more lighting and potential for lighting to escape and bounce back upwards whereas the proposed lighting is hooded to direct lighting downward so that it will not escape above the horizontal. They explain that the light which has caused concern for the residents of Mountfield House is one situated on the end of the one of the stable blocks which is not one of the proposed lights and was a halogen light to provide temporary lighting during the winter. The addition of the cafe facilities are unlikely to add a further time for the lighting to be illuminated over and above what would be required for the operation of the stables and the approved manege. 6.2 It has always been a principle of the development that there would be non residents coming and going from the facilities and as such, it should not be a surprise that the facilities should be lit for safety and convenience. That said, such lighting should not result in adverse impact either in the form of excessive and intrusive illumination of the site or the surrounding area (including the sky above) or nuisance to those living in the vicinity. The lighting has been designed to shine generally downward to illuminate the site rather than longer distances and in the previous application for lighting the manege, the views of the Isle of Man Astronomical Society were sought and they were positive about the use of lights which cut off light spillage above the horizontal, as are being used here. The applicant also points out that they themselves will be the closest neighbours and would not want to be affected by excessive or late night illumination. 6.3 There is some distance between the proposed lighting and the nearest neighbours outside the site and it is considered that the proposed lighting, due to its position and design will not result in such an impact as to warrant refusal of the application. The light which has previously been a nuisance was fixed to a building and would quite probably not require planning permission, but was of a different type and not specifically designed to minimise the impact in the surrounding area as have those proposed in this application. 6.4 Lighting is clearly important to enable people to use the facilities after twilight and the applicant has provided information to demonstrate that the lighting has been considered such that it will not emit excessive light into the sky or surrounding area. As such, the application is recommended for approval.
7.1 The local authority, Santon Parish Commissioners are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
7.2 Manx National Heritage is a statutory body which raises material planning concerns and as such should be afforded party status in this case.
7.3 Mountfield House is 200m away from the proposed area to be illuminated and as such is not considered directly affected by the proposal and should not be afforded party status in this case.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 24.05.2013 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
Reason: To accord with the provisions of Section 13(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005.
C 2. This permission relates to the erection and installation of lighting as shown in drawings P/10-01, P/10-02, P/10-03 and P/10-04 all received on 10th April, 2013 and the development must be undertaken in accordance with these drawings.
C 3. Lighting may not be illuminated after 2230hrs and before 0700hrs.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Decision Made : ................................. Committee Meeting Date : .................................
24 June 2013 13/00429/B Page 4 of 5
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
