Loading document...
{{table:134210}} ### Considerations {{table:134211}} ### Written Representations {{table:134212}} {{table:134213}} ### Consultations {{table:134214}} {{table:134215}}
The application site comprises of land within the rural part of Onchan. The site, which is accessed via Whitebridge Road, contains a number of existing buildings that were formerly in agricultural use and are now in leisure use. The site is commonly referred to as 'Laserblast'.
As described within the application form the proposed development comprises of alterations to an existing sludge pit to be used for activities including remote control boats and the erection of a steel framed building for activities including karting.
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 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
| Application No.: | 06/00866/B |
| Applicant: | Mr A Clague |
| Proposal: | Alterations to existing sludge pit and erection of a building to incorporate leisure activities |
| Site Address: | Ballakaighen Farm Whitebridge Road Onchan Isle Of Man IM4 6AD |
| Case Officer: | Mr A Holmes |
| Photo Taken: | 24.08.2006 |
| Site Visit: | 24.08.2006 |
| Expected Decision Level: | Delegation |
| Sunnyside Laxey Road Onchan Isle Of Man | Objects to the proposal |
planning application was initially considered and approved on the 21st November 2003, with the initial approval decision notice issued on the 28th November 2003.
Planning application 05/00326/B sought 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 considered and approved on the 24th June 2005, with the initial approval decision notice issued on the 6th July 2005.
Onchan District Commissioners recommend that the planning application be approved subject to the Department of Transport being satisfied that access arrangements are acceptable and a condition that limits the permitted noise levels that can be emitted from the site.
The Department of Transport Highways Division objects to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the planning application does not provide a transport assessment to establish parking provision and junction requirement needed to serve an expansion of the leisure facilities provided within the application site.
The Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service recommend that the applicant discusses the provision of appropriate fire precaution measures with them.
The Disability Access Office recommends that the needs of disabled access are taken into account.
The owner and/or occupant of Sunnyside, which is located directly opposite the entrance to the application site, objects to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern regarding the increase in traffic, highway safety, noise nuisance, loss of privacy, light pollution and the overall impact on a rural location.
The owner and/or occupant of Seacliffe, which is located in Braddan, make general supportive comments regarding the planning application.
The Minister of Tourism and Leisure, as was prior to the formation of the new Government, wrote to express their support of the planning application.
Under the Onchan Local Plan Order 2000 the application site is located within a wider area of land that is designated as open space. 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.
Basically there are two elements to the development proposed by the planning application. Firstly, the alterations to the existing sludge pit and, secondly, the erection of a steel framed building. As described within the application form the proposed development comprises of alterations to an existing sludge pit to be used for 'activities' including remote control boats and the erection of a steel framed building for 'activities' including karting. Given that the planning application proposes the erection of a new building rather than the re-use of existing redundant buildings, as previously approved, it is considered necessary to examine the principle of development and then the specifics of what is proposed.
In terms of principle, there is a well established presumption against development in the countryside unless it can be demonstrated that such development is justified. The building proposed by the planning application is not related to agriculture and therefore represents the erection of a large building for leisure purposes within the countryside. Whilst the site is acknowledged as being in leisure use it has to be recognised that until now the leisure uses have made use of redundant buildings. The principle behind the erection of a purpose built building rather the use of a redundant one is not acceptable. Furthermore, in respect of this it is considered pertinent that a note was attached to the approval decision notice for previous planning application 03/00729/C that stated:
"The Planning Committee understands that the building is redundant for agricultural purposes. As such it would not expect any further applications for further agricultural buildings to replace that lost to the new uses."
Overall, in terms of principle it is necessary for the applicant to provide justification to demonstrate sufficient reason to set aside the general presumption against development in the countryside. The planning application does not do this.
Notwithstanding the issue of principle, in terms of the specifics of the development proposed by the planning application it became apparent after an initial examination of the planning application that the level of information contained within it was somewhat limited in relation to the type of development it proposed. Additional information and clarification was sought by letter on the 26th July 2006, which was followed by a site meeting with the applicant on the 24th August 2006. Additional information was subsequently received from the applicant on the 14th November 2006.
The most recent submission from the applicant states that whilst the new building would be used for karting and the sludge pit for remote control boating they would like to reserve the right to add other specific activities in the future. This does not provide an appropriate understanding of the intended operation of the proposed development and the request lacks the necessary control needed to ensure the use does not adversely harm the amenity of the surrounding area. It would not be possible to devise a condition that was precise enough to be appropriate whilst also managing to meet the applicant's aspirations.
The applicant states their belief that the development would be a welcome facility for the public without having any impact on the area. With regards to this, whilst the level of information contained within the planning application is limited it is considered that the proposed development and its use have to have an impact on the area. Firstly, there has to be visual impact as the proposed building is larger, in all dimensions, than any of the existing buildings that are contained and in use within the application site. Secondly, an increase in the level of facilities within the application site has to have a consequential increase in the amount of traffic coming and going to the application site, which in turn impacts on highway safety and the amenity of the Sunnyside.
With their additional submission the proposed hours of operation are set out by the applicant as 10:30 till 21:30 Monday to Saturday (inclusive). They expect 30 visitors per day during the week and 80 visitors on a Saturday. The planning application drawings show 56 defined car parking spaces within the application site. The applicant's submission states that extra provision would be made in an existing field, although it is not clear whether this reference to the car parking shown on the planning application drawings or whether it is additional space outside of the defined application site. Again, it has to be concluded that an increase in activity on site and an increase in traffic movements will impact on highway safety and the amenity of Sunnyside.
Leading on from this the applicant states that considerable changes have been made to the vehicular access to the site and that the planning application proposes further alterations to the access arrangements. It has to be concluded that the planning application does not satisfactorily address the issue of access arrangements and highway safety. Specifically, the objection from the Department of Transport Highways Division have not been addressed, the submitted drawings do not demonstrate that the proposed sight lines can be achieved and no suitable response to issue regarding the setting of the access in accordance with condition no. 3 of previous planning application 03/00729/C.
Generally, in terms of the specifics of the proposed development the submitted planning application contains insufficient or inadequate information to allow a full and proper assessment of the development it proposes. There remain a number of issues from the letter of the 26th July 2006 that have not been addressed, the objection from the Department of Transport Highways Division has not been addressed, the drawings are incomplete and there remain unknowns within the proposed operation. The planning application contains limited information to assess the impact of the karting, potential noise nuisance from which needs to be properly examined in order to assess the effect of the use of the amenity of the area and surrounding residents. In simple terms, it is reasonable to say that a number of karts operating in a non-soundproofed steel clad building are likely to be noisy.
In terms of the assessment of the planning application it is considered that there are two different reasons for refusal. Firstly, the principle behind the erection of a purpose built building rather the use of a redundant one is not acceptable. Secondly, even if the issue of principle is set aside it remains that despite discussions with the applicant and attempts (the application has been the subject of two deemed withdrawal letters relating to requests for additional information and clarification) to seek further clarification the planning application is lacking in sufficient detail to properly consider some aspects of the proposal and remains too vague in other aspects. Both of these issues are considered to be reason for refusal of the planning application.
Therefore, it is recommended that the planning application be refused on the grounds that the principle of new build development in the countryside for non-justified non-farming uses is unacceptable and on the basis of the lack of adequate information to properly assess the specifics of the proposed development.
It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded interested party status:
Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 23.01.2007
R 1. By reason that the proposed development represents the erection of a new building 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 planning application contains insufficient information and justification to warrant the setting aside of this well established presumption.
R 2. Notwithstanding the first reason for refusal, and the issue of principle of development, the planning application is insufficiently detailed to allow a proper assessment of the impacts of the proposal. Specifically, the planning application fails to adequately define the proposed use and contains insufficient information to assess the impact of the proposed development on highway safety and the effect on the residential amenity of properties within the surrounding area.
I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular Nos 44/05 (Delegation of Functions to Director of Planning and Building Control) and 47/05 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer)
Decision Made : Refused Date : Signed : M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
