Loading document...
The site represents Robin Hill Farm - land and buildings all situated to the east of the B44 and alongside the public footpath leading from Cronk-e-Dhoonee to the northern end of Colby Glen. The land associated with the buildings amounts to around 9.7ha (24 acres) and the buildings themselves include the farm house which has had a number of unfortunate extensions, brick barns in poor repair and a relatively modern sheeted building which sits to the north west of the farmhouse.
The site lies within an area of Open Space on the Arbory and East Rushen Local Plan. This is also designated as an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
There are no previous applications associated with this site although a new agricultural building was proposed as a result of part of this farm being sold off separate from the remaining land (see PA 05/92156).
Proposed here is the creation of a kennel facility for boarding dogs. The plans originally submitted show the erection of a kennel building which will be 13.7m by 22.7m including runs in a building finished in open wire and sheeting and extending up to 4.2m in height to the ridge. The building will be dug into the ground and new earth banking created to its west. As shown, only 0.5m of the roof would be higher than the top of the hedge to the north.
The building will accommodate up to 22 kennels together with their runs and kitchen, laundry, stores and office associated with the operation. An external exercise area is to be created to the east of the building alongside the new sewage treatment facility.
Following discussion with the Environmental Protection Unit regarding potential noise nuisance, the applicant has revised the plans, relocating the proposed building to the bottom of the field in which it was previously proposed. This moves the structure further from the properties from whom we have received an objection in the immediate vicinity of the application site (although marginally closer to those properties in and around Colby Glen Road). This necessitates a new access road/lane which will run along the existing bank/hedge on the southern side of the field. This will be around 3m in width: no information is provided about the finish which should be hard-cored rather than a smooth tarmacadam or concrete finish which would be more discernible in the landscape.
The building is still to be 14m wide but shorter in length - 18m and six of the previously proposed kennels and runs are now omitted.
The applicant has now also included reference to noise attenuation in the new building within the roofspace, the use of concrete blockwork and other internal changes to try to reduce noise escaping from the building. The applicant makes reference to the guidelines in "Licence Conditions and Guidance for Dog Boarding Establishments" as issued by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health.
The applicant also includes reference to landscaping – retaining existing Manx hedges and introducing new banks and a new tree planting scheme and a new woodland/conservation scheme. The building will also be finished in green sheeting.
The applicant has clarified that there will be a maximum of 16 pens, reduced from 22 in the original scheme and the pens will be located in the eastern extremity of the building. They clarify that research in the UK would suggest that the average length of stay of dogs in commercial boarding kennels is 11-12 days and that there will be an average of 75% occupancy and that a weekly rate of 14 vehicle movements would reasonably be expected.
They explain that the dogs will not have access to outside runs as they are all contained within the building. There are however what look like mesh fences forming the outer wall of the building in front of the runs. Direct line of sight of other dogs is eliminated when the dogs are in the pens. In terms of noise, the applicant suggests that the measures taken to reduce noise in terms of the specific method of design and construction and the positioning and mounding will all reduce noise levels to "within the acceptable noise level zone".
Finally, the applicant has undertaken further work to demonstrate the access and visibility are acceptable to accommodate the increase in traffic generated by the proposed development. The information relies upon the use of the northernmost access which has been modified in association with the works being undertaken to create a new barn in the field to the north of the lane. Also work has been undertaken within the lane to widen certain parts.
There are residential properties within 150m of the proposed kennels (Robin Hill Farmhouse itself, Sunnyside, Rose Cottage, Cronk y Dhooney and Highfields all of which share the same access from the B44 as those who will be travelling to the proposed kennels. There are further residential properties plus the chapel in close proximity of the site but slightly further away.
The building is to be dug into the site and will have limited visual impact. When the applicants moved into the site, there was an array of rubbish and abandoned equipment and vehicles on the site. The new owner has tidied up the site and has plans to improve the appearance of the existing buildings.
Access to the site is from the B44 which is of limited width and has limited forward visibility in places. Access from the B44 is via an unmade lane to the site via a new lane past the house to the new kennel building. There is no formal parking shown on the layout but there is opportunity for parking close to the farmhouse and along the new access to the kennels.
Kennels are seldom satisfactorily sited within built-up areas and are, on the Island, almost all located in the countryside (Begoade in Onchan, Brookfields at Cronk ny Fessag in Michael, Coach House on Bride Road in Ramsey, Cronk Aashen at Barregarrow in Michael, Greeba, Kiondhooagh at Higher Foxdale, Port Grenaugh in Santon and Rover Ritz at Lhergyvreck in Kirk Michael). Some give rise to quite considerable noise levels from quite a distance (eg. Mutlins at Ballawilleykilley in Glen Vine of which I am aware) although few have the type of building as is proposed here which, I understand is based upon that at the MSPCA facility at East Foxdale.
As such the principle of the creation of kennels in a location such as this where there has previously been agricultural activity is not in itself objectionable. There are objections from residents in the surrounding area on the basis that there should be a presumption against new building in terms of
the designation of the site as Open Space. They also suggest the adoption of the precautionary principle of resisting development in the countryside to protect it for its own sake. However, bearing in mind the general unsuitability of built up areas and the preponderance of kennels within rural rather than urban areas, I would recommend that an exception could be made to this general principle, provided that other concerns may be satisfactorily addressed: these concerns are noise nuisance, traffic and the road network and visual impact. The generally laudable suggestion that development should be located primarily in our built up areas and supporting a more sustainable travel pattern is also difficult to accommodate in this case bearing in mind the relatively isolated location required to minimise noise nuisance.
Whilst there are suggestions that the existing buildings could be used for the kennels to obviate the need for a new building, this is possible but not recommended as the existing buildings could be used but would be much closer to existing residential property and are by-passed by people visiting the site which would generate more noise as the dogs see and hear people and cars passing relatively close to them.
In order to be visually damaging to the Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance the building must be able to be seen and to stand out as an adverse element in the landscape. The site is visible from the Colby Glen Road (A27) but not from the Ballakilpheric Road. Some of the properties in the immediate vicinity - those in Sunnyside, Rose Cottage and Cronk y Dhooney Cottage will all have some views of the new building. However, the introduction of banking together with the difference in level - the new building will be lower than these properties - I do not consider that the introduction of the building will create so significant a visual impact as to warrant refusal of the application on this basis alone. The kennels may be visible from the public footpath which skirts the site from Colby Glen to Ballakilpheric however, they would not be so prominent as to warrant refusal on this basis alone.
The visual impact from the A27 will be of a new building in a landscape which is already characterised by buildings in relatively close proximity. The building will be visible but not so far removed from Sunnyside and Robin Hill Farm and outbuildings as to make a significant adverse visual impact.
The applicant has indicated that there will be on average around 14 vehicles per week visiting the premises as a result of the proposed kennels and that these vehicles will be channelled through the northernmost access along the lane past Cronk y Dhooney Cottage, Rose Cottage and Kensa before passing the applicant's residence and Sunnyside which they would pass even if they used the lower lane. This is likely to be the same amount of traffic whether the owners bring and take their dogs or whether the applicant collects and brings back the animals.
Whilst this is a relatively small number of vehicle movements, there is presently a very low amount of traffic using not only the lane but also the Ballakilpheric Road itself. It is also likely that those coming to the site will be strangers to the area and the prospect of having additional traffic driven by strangers to the area where the lane runs very close to the frontages of the properties alongside the lane could be viewed as an unneighbourly change to the existing situation and one which warrants refusal of the application.
Added to this is the fact that the lane is narrow with limited visibility in places. Whilst the applicant has shown in photographic form that it is physically possible for two vehicles to pass in the lane, this involves driving onto the verge and damaging it and the ditch alongside it. Development which would result in a regular occurrence of this should not be encouraged. Also, part of the visibility to the right of the access onto the Ballakilpheric Road is over a piece of the hedge which has been removed in order for the farmer to gain temporary access to the field where the barn is being constructed. This will require reinstatement at some point which will reduce the effectiveness of the visibility splay which is presently available.
There is nothing to prevent traffic using the southern access lane as this is a public highway/footpath and could well be the route chosen by many people who are coming to the site, despite the applicant's best efforts to persuade visitors to use the other way in. In some respects this may be preferable in terms of its length which is considerably shorter than the alternative and does not bring traffic as close to so many properties. However, the Department of Transport have recommended that the visibility available at the junction of the lane with the Ballakilpheric Road together with the narrowness of the lane make this unsuitable for satisfactorily carrying additional traffic.
The Ballakilpheric Road itself offers limited forward visibility in places and is so narrow as not to permit two vehicle traffic. Whilst not referred to specifically, any unwarranted increase in traffic using this road should not be encouraged.
The keeping of up to 16 dogs on the site will generate noise which will be heard in a number of properties and these properties do not presently experience such noise. The Environmental Protection Officer describes the existing environment as "quiet" and "rural" and goes on to suggest that the noise from dogs barking at the proposed dog kennels is likely to generate complaints from the nearest local residents within 150m of the kennels - Cronk y Dhooney and Rose Cottage during the day. He does not refer to Sunnyside which is possibly the closest property but whose occupants support the application. He goes on to recommend that the dog kennels will change the character of the area from one of quiet rural countryside to that where there is a noisy commercial dog kennels with dog barking clearly audible up to 300m away during the day. This reference to 300m brings in a greater number of properties whose occupants will be affected.
This report however goes on to advise that the applicants have gone as far as they can to mitigate the potential noise nuisance and that there is nothing further he could recommend to reduce the potential noise. He advises that even when the dogs are audible this is not likely to represent a statutory noise nuisance or cause sleep disturbance to the average person.
Whether the potential noise is loud enough to constitute a statutory noise nuisance would seem unlikely. However, there will be a noise nuisance sufficient to change the character of the area which is presently quiet and generally undisturbed and whose residents have a reasonable expectation of a continuation of this character.
Horizon House, Avistine, Arbory Cottage, Arbory House, Thie ny Chibbyr, Sandyway, the residents of Ballachrink are 0.8km from the site and are not in my view directly affected by the proposal. Kirkle Farm appears to be some distance from the site, although it is described as lying above Robin Hill Farm. As such I recommend that these parties are not afforded party status in this instance. They may be able, at some times depending upon background noise and prevailing weather conditions to hear noise from the proposed development but this is not sufficiently direct to warrant their having party status in this instance.
The owners/occupants of the following properties are close enough to be directly affected by the proposal: Cronk-y-Dhooney Cottage, Rose Cottage, Cronk Y Doonee (in support of the proposal), Cronk y Dhooney Farmhouse, Kensa all of whom have property within 100m of the proposal and should be afforded party status.
Whilst Ballachrink Farm is not directly alongside the proposed kennels, the land adjoins the land associated with the proposed kennels and as such may be affected by the proposal. I would recommend that this party is afforded status in the consideration of this application.
The occupants of Ballakilpheric Farm (who support the application), Lheeantyn Veggey, Ballavayre Cottages, Cronk Lea, Heavensgate and Highfields lie alongside the Ballakilpheric Road which will
accommodate increased traffic levels and the occupants of these properties should be afforded party status in this instance.
The occupants of Greenbank in Glen Vine, Ash Cottage in Greeba is a considerable distance from the development and whilst their experience in noise nuisance from kennels is helpful in the assessment of the application, these arties should not be afforded party status in this instance.
The occupant of The Prince Albert owns Whitecroft Cottage which uses the northern access to the site and would be affected by the increased traffic using the lane and as such should be afforded party status in this instance.
Ballarhenney and Ballarhenny Cottage are both to the north of the site are unlikely to have additional traffic passing their property. However they use the B44 Ballakilpheric Road which will be affected by additional traffic and as such should be afforded party status.
Miranda Cottage is some distance from the site and the occupants of this property should not as such be afforded party status in this instance.
The Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment, Messrs Gawne and Gill MHK are not directly affected by the proposal and should not be afforded party status in this case.
The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry represent a statutory authority and should as such be afforded party status in this instance.
Manx Electricity Authority represents a statutory authority, the points raised in correspondence relate to working practices and not planning and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
If the application is permitted, it is recommended that the following conditions are attached:
Note 1: For single connections to a water main (i.e. a single dwelling) the applicant should contact Isle of Man Water Authority Customer Services, telephone 695949.
Note 2: The applicant should submit for approval of the Department of Transport Drainage Division the proposed drainage layout and details of the engineering drawings and details of any pump to be used prior to the commencement of work on site.
The Planning Committee refused the application at their meeting of 1st December, 2006 but only for the reasons relating to noise nuisance.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 23.11.2006
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1.
Whilst the operation of boarding kennels is often an activity which takes place in a rural area, in this case the site is not considered suitable for such activities on the basis that there are in relatively close proximity a number of dwellings whose occupation would be detrimentally affected through the noise of dogs barking.
Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date : 1/12/06
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
