Loading document...
{{table:119838}} ### Considerations {{table:119839}} ### Written Representations Mr P A Evans ### Consultations {{table:119840}} {{table:119841}} ### Policy {{table:119835}} {{table:119836}} {{table:119837}}
The application site is a field adjacent to Melrose Cottage, St Judes Road. The site is located within an area not zoned for development. To the south of the application site is a stream. On the opposite side of the stream is a property called Jemmy Dans. To the north of the application site is the property of Melrose Cottage. This property belongs to the applicant. The rest of the surrounding area is open countryside.
In respect of the impact on Jemmy Dans, the proposed building and exercise yard is situated 100mm to the north west of the neighbouring property. The kennels will at a minimum provide 20 dogs at full occupancy. There will potentially be 10 dog located on the east side of the building which will have access to a fenced off outside area for the pen. The southern boundary of the application site has no substantial landscaping to act as a noise barrier. I therefore consider the proposal is too close to the neighbouring property and it would impact on the enjoyment of their residential amenity due to increased noise which would be generated from the occupancy of the building by dogs. I also consider the perception of the noise nuisance will be exacerbated by the fact the proposed building will be visible from the neighbouring property.
Furthermore, the proposal incorporates a parking area which will be located 38m from the neighbouring property. This proposal will generate more traffic to the site. I feel the noise from traffic movements would be a further nuisance to the occupiers of the neighbouring property. I therefore consider the proposal is not compatible with the surrounding locality and would be inappropriate to grant planning permission for this development.
The proposed development is located within 8.5m of a stream. The application lacks any drainage detail or any risk assessment to demonstrate the proposed development would not adversely affect the water quality of the stream. Furthermore, the application does not include any pollution and alleviation measures. Due to the insufficient detail of the application to demonstrate the stream will not be adversely affected, I consider the proposed development to be too close to a watercourse without any measure to prevent animal waste/effluent entering the watercourse to be unacceptable and would reduce the water quality of the stream.
Evidence submitted by an objector shows the site is prone to flooding. The applicant has not included any flood risk assessment or details of any proposed mitigation measures. If the site where developed and became flooded without any measure in place. I consider the proposal would result in animal waste/effluent entering the watercourse and pollute the stream. Furthermore, Environment Policy 16 (EP16) of the draft strategic plan states that development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding either on or off-site, will not be permitted. I therefore consider this development in this location would be contrary to EP16.
In respect of the visual amenities of the countryside, the site is relatively open in character. The front boundary has low level landscaping which does not provide sufficient screening from the public highway. The proposed car parking area and pedestrian path will be visible from the public highway. Furthermore, depending on the proposed landscaping, the kennels could potentially be highly visible. The design of the building is unimaginative and excessively large. I therefore feel the proposed development would impact on the open character of the area and cause demonstrable harm to the visual amenities of the locality.
The DoT have objected to the proposal in that the visibility from the proposed access driveway onto the A17 is inadequate to serve the needs of the development and therefore would be prejudicial to highway safety.
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1. The proposed building and hardstanding for car parking would be contrary to the 1982 Development Plan Order and EP27 of the emerging Isle of Man Strategic Plan by reason of their siting and design and orientation which would impact on the occupiers of Jemmy Dans from increased and general disturbance generated from the accommodation of dogs on site and the increase number of traffic movements to the application site.
R 2. The proposed kennels would be contrary to the 1982 Development Plan Order and Policies EP8, EP13, EP16 and EP27 of the emerging Isle of Man Strategic Plan in that:
i) the proposed development is in close proximity to a watercourse and insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the works will not cause any long term deterioration in water quality or provided any details on pollution and alleviation measures to protect the environment of the watercourse; and ii) the application site is prone to flooding and insufficient information has been submitted in the form of a flood risk assessment along with any details of proposed mitigation measure to prevent the nearby watercourse from being polluted by animal waste/effluent.
R 3. The proposed development would be contrary to the 1982 Development Plan Order and EP18 of the emerging Isle of Man Strategic Plan by reason of its high, design, massing, layout and siting would introduce a prominent and incongruous feature into the street scene and landscape, disrupting the rhythm of development and would cause demonstrable harm to the visual amenities of the locality.
R 4. The visibility from the proposed access driveway onto the A17 is inadequate to serve the needs of the development and therefore would be prejudicial to highway safety.
Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
