Loading document...
The application site comprises of a parcel of land that runs parallel to the A15 in the Ballajora area of Maughold. The site is accessed via the D26, which is a narrow lane leading off the A15. The site basically slopes upwards from north to south and comprises of a mixture of rough grass land, gorse land and some areas of woodland.
The planning application seeks approval in principle for the erection of a stable block, dressage area, driveway and upgraded access on the application site.
The application site has been the subject of two previous planning applications that are considered to be potentially material to the assessment of this current planning application.
Planning application 88/1660 sought approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling on land to the rear of the Methodist Chapel, Ballajora, Maughold. This previous planning application was refused initially and at review with a subsequent appeal against the refusal dismissed on the 13th July 1989.
Planning application 89/0779 sought approval in principle for the construction of an agricultural building on part of fields 1474, 1476, 1477 and 1479, Ballajora, Maughold. This previous planning application was refused initially and at review, with the review refusal decision notice issued on the 27th February 1990.
Maughold Parish Commissioners object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposed development will be visually detrimental and that the level of proposed landscaping is excessive. They suggest that there are discrepancies over land ownership in relation to the application site.
The Department of Transport Highways Division do not oppose the planning application. The Disability Access Office requests that the needs of disabled access are taken into account. The Manx Electricity Authority request that an informative note be attached to any approval decision notice.
The Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment objects to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposal will require excessive earth moving and that the impact on the landscape would be unacceptable. They also cite previous planning applications made in relation to the application site.
The owners and/or occupants of Rhianfa, which is located on the opposite side of the A15 to the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that site clearance and earth moving will affect surface water drainage and potentially lead to flooding of their property. They cite previous planning applications made in relation to the application site and query the future use of the site.
The owners and/or occupants of Ballajora Chapel House, which is directly adjacent to the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the entire application site is not within the ownership of the applicant. They cite previous planning applications made in relation to the application site and highlight apparent discrepancies within the planning application submission, particularly in terms of access arrangements, foul sewage provision and works to trees. In terms of specific impact of the proposed development they express concern that site clearance, earth moving and ground conditions will affect surface water drainage leading to possible flooding of their property. They query where the excavated earth and rock will go and question the ability of the highway to cope with heavy plant required to undertake the proposed work.
The owner and/or occupant of Magher Drine Beg, which is directly adjacent to the application site, make comment on the planning application. They highlight that the entire application site is not within the ownership of the applicant, query where the excavated earth and rock will go and question the ability of the highway to cope with heavy plant required to undertake the proposed work. They also highlight apparent discrepancies within the planning application submission, particularly in terms of the current use of the site, foul sewage provision and previous planning applications. Finally, they express concern regarding the welfare of the existing and future horses on the site.
The owners and/or occupants of Magher Drine, which is directly adjacent to the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the new vehicular access would be detrimental to their amenity, that the entire application site is not within the ownership of the applicant, that the extent of the activity proposed would be detrimental to their amenity and that the proposed development is contrary to planning policy.
The owners and/or occupants of Belvedere, which is located on the opposite side of the A15 to the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the site clearance and earth moving will affect surface water drainage and potentially lead to flooding of their property. They query where the excavated earth and rock will go, express concern at the visual impact of the proposal and question the size of the proposed development.
The owners and/or occupants of Whiteside, which is located on the opposite side of the A15 to the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that site clearance and earth moving will affect surface water drainage and potentially lead to flooding. They highlight apparent
discrepancies within the planning application submission, particularly in terms of water supply, foul sewage provision and works to trees. They advise that the entire application site is not within the ownership of the applicant and cite previous planning applications. It is questioned why the proposed stable block is indicated as being built from permanent materials rather than timber.
The owners and/or occupants of Rockside, which is located on Dreemskerry Road, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern the planning application fails to mention trees contained within the application site, that the proposed development will require significant extraction and that the proposal will significantly affect drainage within the area. They also advise that they understand that applicant to own a more appropriate site elsewhere in Maughold.
Under the 1982 Development Plan Order the application site is not designated for any specific purpose and, as such, constitutes 'white land'. It is located within a wider area of land that is designated as of high landscape or coastal value and scenic significance.
The planning application seeks approval in principle for the erection of a stable block, dressage area, driveway and upgraded access on the application site. The planning application submission states that the stabling will be for 2 to 3 horses owned by the applicant, that the proposed facility would be used solely by the applicant and that it will not be used on a commercial basis.
It is clear from site visit that the proposed development will require site clearance, earth moving and possible rock excavation, to an extent that is considered to constitute engineering operations of a significant nature. The planning application does not include any form of explanation of these engineering operations, site survey drawings or explanatory section drawings. Whilst the planning application seeks approval in principle it is difficult to assess this element of the proposal without such information. Nevertheless, it is relatively apparent and considered reasonable to conclude that the visual appearance of the application would substantially change from the existing situation. There would have to be significant site work to undertake the proposed development and as the site is sloping it is reasonable to conclude that there will be an effect on surface water and land drainage through the application site and within the immediate surrounding area.
Again, whilst the planning application seeks approval in principle it does include an illustrative layout of the intended form of development and does provide some details of the proposed stabling. The stabling indicated within the planning application submission is described as being a solid construction with render and stone finish and a slate roof. The dressage area indicated within the planning application measures 40 metres by 20 metres. It has to be said that the extent of the proposed works seems somewhat excessive in terms of the intended end use. Contrary to the planning application form it would appear that existing trees would be affected by the proposed development, particularly in the vicinity of the dressage area.
For obvious reasons, stabling and associated equestrian facilities such as dressage areas are normally only found within rural locations. Whilst not justified in terms of being agriculturally required they are normally deemed acceptable where their scale is appropriate, their visual impact is suitably limited, their effect on residential amenity is restricted and where the proposal does not require significant work to the particular site to facilitate its implementation. Stabling is usually expected to be constructed in a manner that is easily removed from the site, which normally means a timber construction.
It is considered that the equestrian development proposed by the planning application is contrary to such exceptions. Firstly, based on the illustrative drawings and information within the planning application the scale of the proposed development is deemed excessive and out of keeping with the surrounding area. Secondly, due to the extent of the engineering operations and the extent of the proposed development it is concluded that the proposal would significantly alter the visual appearance of the site, to the detriment of visual amenity. Thirdly, it is considered that the extent of the engineering operations required to facilitate the proposed development would be excessive and lasting. Such excessive works would change the appearance of the site forever. Finally, the use of solid rendered stabling is not a form that could be readily removed from the site in due course, which raises some concerns regarding the possible future development of the site. It is considered that these issues form sufficient grounds for refusal of the planning application.
In terms of other issues raised within representation it is advised that the issue of land ownership is outside of the remit of the planning system and therefore not a material consideration in the assessment of a planning application. Any disputes over land ownership are civil matters between the parties concerned.
In conclusion, it is recommended that the planning application be refused.
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:
Maughold Parish Commissioners; The Department of Transport Highways Division; The Disability Access Office; The Manx Electricity Authority; The owners and/or occupants of Rhianfa; The owners and/or occupants of Ballajora Chapel House; The owner and/or occupant of Magher Drine Beg; The owners and/or occupants of Magher Drine; The owners and/or occupants of Belvedere; and The owners and/or occupants of Whiteside.
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:
The Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment; The owners and/or occupants of Rockside.
Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 28.11.2006
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1. The development proposed by the planning application is deemed to unacceptable by reason: a) that due to the extent of the engineering operations and proposed level of development the proposal will significantly alter the visual appearance of the site within the surrounding area, to the detriment of visual amenity within an area of high landscape or coastal value and scenic significance; b) that the extent of the engineering operations required to facilitate the proposed development would be excessive and lasting. Such excessive works, which would change the appearance of the site forever, are considered inappropriate and unnecessary; and c) that based on the illustrative drawings and information within the planning application the scale of the proposed development is deemed excessive and out of keeping with the surrounding area.
R 2. Notwithstanding the first reason for refusal the planning application fails to adequately demonstrate the effects of the proposed engineering operations and development on the surface water drainage.
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: 8/12/06 Signed: [Handwritten signature] M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
