Loading document...
Application No.: 21/01428/B Applicant: Mr Joseph Wood Proposal: Erection of a stable block with associated hard standing and landscaping works Site Address: Field 124817 Ballacullum Red Gates The Lhen Andreas IM7 3EH Planning Officer: Mr Peiran Shen Photo Taken: 23.05.2022 Site Visit: 09.02.2022 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 11.08.2022 _________________________________________________________________ R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons Reasons for Refusal - R 1. The proposal fails to justify the similarity of the structure compared to the previous refusal. Despite the change in the purpose of the proposed structure, there is no material evidence to support the need for a stable or the necessity of placing the stable within the site contrary to General Policy 3, Environment Policy 20 and Environment Policy 21 of the Strategic Plan 2016. - R 2. The size and appearance of the proposal would result in a detrimental visual impact and harm to the character and quality of the landscape contrary to General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1, Environment Policy 2, Environment Policy 20 and Environment Policy 21 of the Strategic Plan 2016.
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
None _____________________________________________________________________________
1.1 The application site is the land of Ballacullum Red Gates, the Lhen, Andreas. It is north of Coast Road and east of the junction of Coast Road and Kiondroghad Road. - 1.2 The application site is part of field 124817 (2.5 acres) and forms part of the land associated with the dwellinghouse called, 'Ballacallum Red gate', The Lhen Andreas. It is on the edge of the west coast. There is a long driveway leading to a group of buildings north of Coast Road. The site level gradually reduces from the road towards the cliff that forms part of the west coast. - 1.3 The land holding extends acres and on site and contains the principal dwellinghouse, a single-storey barn in Manx stone and a large steel framed shed to the east of the dwellinghouse. - 1.4 There is a section of hardstand southwest of the buildings. It is currently surrounded by a sod bank on the north and east side.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a stable. - 2.2 The stable will be located just east of the steel framed shed and on the north of the existing hardstanding. The stable is south-facing. The stable is approx. 10.2m wide and 20m deep. It will have a pitched roof. The height of the eave is approx. 4m and the height to the ridge is approx. 5m. - 2.3 The stable is a steel structure. It will have vertical larch boarding around all elevations and dark green steel panels as the roof. There will be a double door on the south and north elevation. Three will also be three rooflights on each side of the roof. - 2.4 The proposal also includes the removal of the existing sod bank north of the hardstanding and extending the existing sod bank east of the hardstanding further north to further surrounds the proposed building. The proposal also includes additional vegetation planting. - 2.5 The proposal also includes the creation of a concrete hardstanding in front of the stable.
3.1 Erection of an agricultural building was REFUSED under PA 20/01103/B. The reason for refusal was: the proposed building, given the lack of agricultural need, and its size within the countryside would result in a detrimental visual impact and harm to the character and quality of the landscape contrary to General Policy 3; Environment Policy 1,2, & 15 of the IOM Strategic Plan and recommended for refusal." The size and appearance of this and the current application are very similar. - 4.0 PLANNING POLICY Site Specific
4.1 The site is not within an area with a specific land use designation in the 1982 Development Plan, meaning it is considered to be part of the countryside.
4.2 The site is within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV). The site is not within a flood risk area. Strategic Policy - 4.3 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:
4.5 General Policy 3, which provides an overall requirement for all development proposed outside areas zoned for development, states: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: (f) Building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry; - 4.6 Energy Policy 2 states: "Land within 9m either side of an overhead High Tension power cable will be safeguarded from development." Design - 4.7 Strategic Policy 3 focuses on the visual design of developments, they state that the design should take account of the local materials, character and identity of its immediate locality, in terms of buildings and landscape features. Focused on landscaping. - 4.8 Strategic Policy 5 states: "New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island." Environment and Agriculture - 4.9 Environment Policy 1 states: "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 overriding 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." - 4.10 Environment Policy 2 states that within Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's), "the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:
4.11 Paragraph 7.15.1 states: "… the keeping of horses and the operation of equestrian activities generally do involve development and may have an adverse impact on the appearance and character of the countryside. Sensitive siting and high standards of design, construction, and maintenance are necessary to ensure that there are no such adverse impacts. … Where new buildings are necessary, they should be sited close to existing building groups, and designed not only to blend with their surroundings but also to suit their specific purpose."
4.12 Environment Policy 20 states: "There will be a presumption against large scale equestrian developments, which includes new buildings and external arenas, in areas with High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance unless there are exceptional circumstances to override such a policy." - 4.13 Environment Policy 21 states: "Buildings for the stabling, shelter or care of horses or other animals will not be permitted in the countryside if they would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside in terms of siting, design, size or finish. Any new buildings must be designed in form and materials to reflect their specific purpose; in particular, cavity-wall construction should not be used." Other - 4.14 Community Policy 7 and 10 state that the design of new development must, as far as is reasonable and practicable, pay due regard to existing best practise such as to prevent criminal and anti-social behaviour and outbreak and spread of fire. - 4.15 Infrastructure Policy 5 states that "Development proposals should incorporate methods for water conservation and management measures to conserve the Island's water resources." PPS and NPD
4.17 No Planning Policy Statement or National Policy Directive is applicable to this application. - 5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Strategy and Guidance
5.1 There is no strategy or guidance relevant to this application. 6.0 REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 Andreas Parish Commissioners has not commented at the time of the report (11.05.2022).
6.2 Highway Services does not object to this application (13.12.2021). The comment states that there is no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking. - 7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.1 The main considerations for this application are the principle of the proposal and whether the proposal would adversely affect the countryside, in particular, the visual impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the countryside in terms of siting, design, size or finish.
7.2 There aforementioned policies would indicate there is a general presumption against new development in the countryside, as indicated in General Policy 3 and then reiterated in Environment Policy 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan, There are exceptions to this presumption (GP3 (f)) with respect to the shelter and care of horses and other animals for buildings which are set out in EP21.
7.3 Phone call with the agent (11.05.2022) has confirmed that there are four horses being raised on the land while it was located off the land at the time of the site visit (03.2022) for alternative shelters. The agent has stated that as the site is in close proximity to the coast, a shelter is necessary for the well-being of the horse, especially during the winter period. This is considered to be a justified reason for wanting a stable at the site. - 7.4 While section 7.3 is typically sufficient to justify a stable in the countryside, there is already a refusal on a similar structure as mentioned in section 3.1. As the internal layout of a
building is generally not able to be conditioned in the event of an approval, both due to section
7.5 The Department is not convinced there is a justified need for a stable in the countryside, it is considered that the proposal fails to comply with General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan in meeting any one of the exception criteria. - 7.6 Since the proposal are of similar size and appearance, it is considered that the assessment regarding the visual impact on the countryside made in PA 20/01103/B remains valid and no further assessment will be made in this case. - 7.7 While the current proposal does include sod banks and trees as mitigating measures for potential visual impacts, this would only be able to be assessed when the principle of the building is acceptable. As mentioned in section 7.4, it fails General Policy 3 and these measures are not assessed as part of this report.
8.1 The proposal fails to justify the similarity of the structure compared to the previous refusal. Despite the change in the purpose of the proposed structure, there is no material evidence to support the need for a stable or the necessity of placing the stable within the site.
8.2 The size and appearance of the proposal would result in a detrimental visual impact and harm to the character and quality of the landscape.
8.2 This proposal is considered to fail to comply with General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1, Environment Policy 2, Environment Policy 20 and Environment Policy 21 of the Strategic Plan. Therefore, it is recommended for a refusal. - 9.0 INTEREST PERSON STATUS
9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
9.2 The decision-maker must determine:
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 12.08.2022 Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Principal Planner
Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/ customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
