Change of use of two fields from agricultural to recreational and location of a portacabin

Why Was This Refused?

• ✓Proposed change of use of two fields from agricultural to recreational considered contrary to land use designation under the Onchan Local Plan Order 2000
• ✓Change of use treated as unwarranted countryside use contrary to Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007
• ✓Indicated recreational uses (including go-karting) considered potentially detrimental to surrounding amenity and residential amenity of Sunnyside and Ballakaighen House
• ✓Portcabin considered new built development in the countryside contrary to the presumption against development in the countryside
• ✓Portcabin conflict with General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007
• ✓amenity

The application (08/01403/C) proposed changing the use of two fields from agricultural to recreational use and locating a portacabin at Ballakaighen Farm, Whitebridge Road, Onchan. The land was considered to be contrary to the Onchan Local Plan Order 2000 land use designation, and the change of use was treated as an unwarranted use in the countryside. The decision also cited that the portcabin would represent new built development in the countryside, which conflicts with the presumption against development in the countryside and related strategic plan policies. The refusal further states that, based on the limited information provided, the indicated recreational uses (in particular go-karting) could harm the amenity of the surrounding area and residential amenity of Sunnyside and Ballakaighen House. The formal decision outcome was “REFUSE” (portal decision: refused) dated 2008-09-30, made by the Planning Committee.

The Planning Committee refused the application for the change of use of two fields to recreational use and the siting of a portacabin in the countryside. The refusal reasons were that the recreational change of use would be contrary to the relevant land use designation and would represent an unwarranted use in the countryside. It also found that the portacabin would amount to new built development in the countryside contrary to the presumption against development, and it concluded that the indicated recreational uses could detrimentally affect local and residential amenity. The stated decision differs from the officer recommendation only in that the officer also recommended refusal.

Planning History (5)

Documents (18)