Inspector's Report

Appeal No: AP25/0005 Application No: 24/91021/B _______________________________________________________________

Report on Inquiry into Planning Appeal ________________________________________________________________ Inquiry held on: 16 April 2025 Site visit undertaken: 14 April 2025 _____________________________________________________________

Appeal by: Residents of 7 Meadow Court, Ballasalla1 Appeal against the decision of the Planning Authority to approve the

erection of stables, creation of hardstanding (part retrospective) and creation of pond (retrospective) at Field 4434087, Douglas Road, Ballasalla ________________________________________________________________ Those present and participated at the Inquiry: Mr McDonald – Advocate for the Appellants Mr & Mrs Pilling - Local residents Mr and Mrs Benham – Local residents – joined via Teams Abigail Morgan - Principal Planner DEFA – for the Planning Authority Mr Lloyd Davies – Agent for the Applicant – Brigitte’s Sanctuary ________________________________________________________________ Introduction

• 1. This report provides a brief description of the appeal site and its surroundings; the proposal which is subject to the appeal; any procedural matters and relevant policy. The cases for the appeal parties are then summarised, fuller details being available for reference in the appeal case documents. My assessment and recommendation follow.

Procedural matter

• 2. The original planning application as submitted included a detached agricultural building which was annotated as a proposed machinery store. The plans were subsequently revised to delete the machinery store, redesign the stable building to include an attached Hay Store, making for an L-shaped stable block and store. This included a proposed gravel hardstanding as a yard in front of the stables. In addition, a midden has been proposed close to the stable block on the opposite side of the gravelled access track between the main road and the top fields. Around the stable block, on three sides is

• 1 Name redacted on the planning appeal form.

proposed a Manx sod bank with a hawthorn and blackthorn hedge on top. The section drawings show the hedge and bank to take advantage of the rising levels of the site to extend up to the height of the eaves of the proposed stable building. The proposed midden would also be surrounded on three sides by another sod bank and hedge. These alterations are shown on Drawing no 001 Rev A and the discussion at the Inquiry related specifically to this amended scheme. As a result, for clarity, the reference to the erection of an agricultural building has been deleted from the description of development.

• 3. Planning permission was approved, and the decision notice issued for the proposed erection of stables, and agricultural building, creation of hardstanding (part retrospective) and creation of pond (retrospective) on 27 January 2025, subject to conditions2. This is an appeal to the Minister by the residents of 7 Meadow Court, Ballasalla against the granting of that permission. Their case is set out below within this report. The residents of The Willows, Douglas Road, Ballasalla have also made objections, and these are also summarised. In both cases the two properties back onto the appeal site. This is an appeal by local residents.
• 4. There had been some dispute over the size of the appeal site. At the Inquiry it was agreed between the parties that the appeal site was 4.46 acres, and this proposal has been considered accordingly.
• 5. A number of the matters raised by the Appellants and objectors relate to alleged factual inaccuracies in the report presented to the Planning Committee. Some of these relate to relevancy, interpretation and applicability of planning policy. I have detailed below the relevant policies to be taken into account and my assessment will set out my understanding of the relevance and applicability of those policies. Any further concerns would need to be taken up with the Department Complaints Officer. The consideration of this appeal is not the place to investigate or conclude on such matters.

Site and surroundings

• 6. The appeal site lies on the approach into the village of Ballasalla on the A5, Douglas Road. It comprises open pasture of some 4.46 acres on land rising up from the main road to a high point and dropping away firstly to the north towards the Isle of Man Railway line with the homes in the Silverburn Crescent area beyond and to the east down to the homes in Meadow Court.
• 7. The three detached houses fronting onto Douglas Road but immediately backing onto the appeal site, which includes The Willows, are set down at road level, their plots being set into the slope. Views from the first-floor windows of these homes which are level with the rear ground level, are across the appeal site looking north.
• 8. Access to the site is via a fenced sloping access passing between and immediately adjacent to The Willows which fronts onto Douglas Road and a

• 2 The decision notice specifically refers to dwg no 001 Rev A which shows the agricultural building as having been deleted and, therefore, whilst mentioned in the description of development on the decision notice that permission in no way conveyed any approval to the deleted structure. For the avoidance of doubt the reference to the agricultural building has been deleted from the description of development in relation to the consideration of this appeal.

bungalow served from Meadow Court3. The existing access is surfaced in loose road planings and gated at the top where it opens out into the field.

• 9. The field itself is in active use for the grazing of animals and at the site visit the presence of geese and sheep was observed. There were no buildings other than a rather dilapidated field shelter on site, but the field had been divided into paddocks of varying sizes using metal gates and post and wire fencing. There were also more substantial fenced enclosures, including a sheep crush. An area to the right, as the access emerges into the field, was used as open storage, including a horse box and field maintenance fencing and other incidentals. It was hardsurfaced right up to the common boundaries with the adjoining bungalows of Meadow Court.
• 10.No 7 Meadow Court is a bungalow with an open rear aspect across the appeal site looking in a westerly direction from rear windows as well as private garden space. There is an establish hedge on the common boundary which has been maintained at a height to preserve the views across the appeal site.

The proposed development

• 11.The Applicant in this case is Brigitte’s Sanctuary. This was created by the trustees of the estate of Miss Joanne Bridgette Simcocks. The last will and testament of Miss Simcocks sets out a bequest for maintenance and upkeep of her horses and other animals which includes her cat, her hens, geese and sheep until they die or for a period of 21 years from the date of her death whichever comes soonest. The trustees of Miss Simcocks will have set up a trust to undertake this function.
• 12. The appeal proposal seeks to provide horse stabling and as well as storing fodder, grain and animal medicines etc. The L-shaped stable block and midden including surfaced yard and surrounding Manx Hedge have been described above, but the proposal also includes the regularising of the construction of the pond and surfaced parking/storage areas in the southeast area of the site which, in the main, both have already been undertaken4. The pond is located into the middle of the site towards the high point of the land.
• 13. The Design and Access Statement sets out that the livestock to be kept on site would be as follows:

• • 1 x horse on site at present
• • 1 x pony out on loan to a 3rd party for carriage driving & ridden purposes
• • 2 x ponies currently stabled off site due to the lack of facilities
• • 10 sheep, and
• • 38 geese

• 3 Not No 7.
• 4 The regularising of the hardsurfaced area involves the reduction in the area covered by hardsurfacing, and its return to grassland as shown on dwg no 001 Rev A.

• 14. The sheep and geese were apparent at the site visit. The equipment, pens and the pond already provided, also indicated support for the care of these animals.
• 15. All machinery is to be kept off site. Planning history
• 16.There is no relevant planning history to be explored. Relevant policy5
• 17.The wider appeal site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South as being land not for development – Map 4 - Ballasalla6. It is accepted that the land lies outside of any recognised settlement in policy terms and so within the countryside.
• 18.The planning policies most relevant to the appeal are contained within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IMSP).
• 19.General Policy 2 (GP2) sets out the considerations required for development to be permitted and includes that proposals should not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality7, and provide satisfactory amenity standards including convenient access for all highway users, parking and manoeuvring space8. Policy compliant development should respect the size and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and should incorporate where possible landscape features, particularly trees9.
• 20. General Policy 3 (GP3) identifies a presumption against development in the countryside but includes building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry as being an exception.
• 21.Environment Policy 1 (EP1) requires that the countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding 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.
• 22. Environment Policy 15 (EP15) identifies that where the Department is satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building (including a dwelling), sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside, and that the impact of this development including buildings, accesses, servicing etc. is acceptable, such development must be sited as close as is practically possible to existing building groups and be appropriate in terms of scale, materials, colour, siting and form to ensure that all new developments are sympathetic to the landscape and built environment of which they will form a part.

• 5 Policies of most relevance.
• 6 The frontage access onto Douglas Road is zoned as being predominantly residential.
• 7 IMSP Policy GP2 (g).
• 8 IMSP Policy GP2 (h).
• 9 IMSP Policy GP2 (b).

Where new agricultural buildings are proposed next to or close to existing residential properties, care must be taken to ensure that there is no unacceptable adverse impact through any activity, although it must be borne in mind that many farming activities require buildings which are best sited, in landscape terms, close to existing building groups in the rural landscape.

• 23. Environment Policy 19 (EP19) requires that development of equestrian activities and buildings will only be accepted in the countryside where there will be as a result of such development no loss in the local amenity, no loss of high-quality agricultural land (classes 1 and 2) and where the local highway network can satisfactorily accommodate any increase in traffic.
• 24. Environment Policy 21 (EP21) sets out that stabling will not be permitted in the countryside if it would result in harm to the character and appearance of the countryside in terms of siting, design, size or finish.
• 25. Environment Policy 22 identifies that development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of odour, noise or light pollution amongst other things. Case for the Planning Authority10
• 26. The main issues to be considered are: - principle - use of land - need character and appearance - stable block - creation of pond - sod hedge highway safety.
• 27. PRINCIPLE - the starting point with any application is the land designation, which for the area in question for this application is "not for development," and whether the proposal would comply with the relevant planning policies in connection with the land designation. As the site in question falls within an area not zoned for development on the Area Plan for the South, there is a general presumption against development within the countryside with development being focused on defined settlements in accordance with Spatial Policy 5. Paragraph 7.15.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 recognises that equestrian activities are becoming increasingly popular and may have adverse impact on the character and appearance of the countryside. Among other things, sensitive siting and high standards of design, construction, and maintenance are necessary to ensure that there are no such impacts. This is followed by Environment Policy 19 which allows for the development of equestrian activities in the countryside where they would be no loss of local amenity, no loss of high-quality agricultural land and where there would be no highways issues and Environment Policy 21 which resists the construction of stables in rural areas where they would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside in terms of siting, design, size and finish. Any new building must be designed in a form and materials to reflect their specific purpose.
• 28. As identified within the IMSP, equestrian activities can only be situated within open, rural countryside, as such the general principle of equestrian is

• 10 Source the Planning Officer’s report and the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting.

acceptable. Whilst this is the case, it is necessary to assess whether the siting, scale, character is acceptable in relation to the surrounding countryside and whether there are any other impacts from the proposal.

• 29. USE OF LAND - The existing land has been used as a mixture of equestrian (horses) and sheep (agricultural) on the land, without prior Planning Permission (for the equestrian side). As stables are to be added to the site, the additional use as equestrian needs to be assessed, as the equestrian use of the land in this instance would not constitute agricultural. The proposed equestrian use of the land in this instance would provide suitable grazing area for the keeping of horses and would be without the loss of high-quality agricultural land.
• 30. The soil classification map indicates this area as being Urban, as such there is no reduction in valuable grazing land as per Environment Policy 14.
• 31. The site is still being used partly for agricultural and can revert to an agricultural use completely, which could happen at any time given agriculture use does not constitute development and can be undertaken without the need for a planning application in line with The Town and Country Planning Act 1999. For the avoidance of doubt a condition revoking any external storing of horse jumps or any other similar horse exercising equipment is necessary given the application has not sought approval for any of these within the fields.
• 32. NEED - When looking at the proposal in terms on whether the proposal is suitable for the proposed use it is necessary to note that the Applicants state they have one horse and three ponies, one of which is out on loan. The British Horse Society recommends for a pony a minimum stable space of 3.05m x 3.05m is required and for a horse a minimum stable requirement of 3.65m by 3.65m to be provided, the proposal within this application includes three stables measuring 3.67m by 3.813m, with the stable doors measuring 1.2m, as such from this point of view the stables are sized to meet the basic needs of a horse.
• 33. When noting the area of land which is approximately 4.25 acres, there is a question on whether the proposal is an overdevelopment, in terms of the proposed animals on the land. The Applicants state in addition to the one horse and two ponies they have an additional 10 sheep and 38 geese. When looking at the land available the split would be as per the British Poultry Council, 40 geese to 1 acre, six sheep to 1 acre as per the National Sheep Association and 1.5 acre for the first horse, with an acre for every subsequent horses afterwards as per The British Horse Society. Overall whilst having regard for the above, it is considered that the need for a stable of the size sought has been acceptably demonstrated in this case.
• 34. CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE - STABLE BLOCK - When looking at the character and appearance of the proposed stable block it can be seen to be a timber build which is of a scale and height of a typical stable block which can be seen all over the island. Whilst there will be views of the stable block from some areas outside of the site, these will be either fleeting or from a distance, with any views of the proposal being read in the context of its

• surrounding and as such it would not be seen as unduly intrusive or an incongruous feature in the countryside here, nor would it break the skyline or have a dominating visual impact.
• 35. CREATION OF POND - In terms of the visual impact of the pond, it is noted that the pond whilst at the top of the hill, is within a part which isn't publicly visible outside the site and noting that there are no objections from consultees regarding the pond.
• 36. SOD HEDGE - Turning towards the proposed sod hedge situated around the proposed stable block, sod hedges and banks are commonplace in the countryside as such whilst they might be noticeable from outside the site it is unlikely they will impact the countryside above and beyond the existing. DEFA Biodiversity have recommended that the sod hedge be planted as per the details provided in Drawing No. 1, as such a condition should be attached to specify this request.
• 37. HIGHWAY SERVICES - Lastly in relation to the impact of the proposal on Highway Services, a discussion was undertaken by Highway Services with the agent on behalf of the Applicant, which at the end of the discussion, the conclusion is that Highway Services do not object to the proposal. On the basis that they are the experts who deal with the egress and regress of entry onto and off a Highway, their comments hold significant weight. Given the above, whilst it is noted that the proposal is expected to generate some level of traffic relative to its scale of operations, the scale of activities on site (given the nature of the holding) and the fact that the proposal does not create a new or alters an existing access and is not having additional users entering or existing the site, the proposal is deemed to align with the principles of General Policy 2 (h & i), Transport Policy 4, and Environment Policy 19.
• 38. CONCLUSION - Overall the proposal of the erection of stable block, gravelled area and pond are considered to be acceptable, whilst the design, scale, form and layout of the proposed development is also deemed to be appropriate in the context of the site's rural location, without detriment to the character and appearance of the wider landscape, nor Highway Safety.
• 39. The application is therefore considered compliant with General Policies 2 and 3, Environment Policies 1, 19 and 21 and Transport Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. The application is therefore recommended for approval. Case for the Applicant11
• 40. The application site is mainly grassland currently used as pasture for sheep, horses and geese – this use is well established and has not caused concern for neighbours in the past. This application seeks approval for the erection of stables and a general feed store, creation of hardstanding (part retrospective) and creation of pond (retrospective). The works to the pond and existing hardstanding were started and completed in August 2022.

• 11 Source the Statement of Case of the Applicant and plans accompanying the planning application.

• 41. The new building will be used to provide horse stabling as well as storing fodder, grain and animal medicines etc.
• 42. All existing buildings on the site will be removed as part of the proposals.
• 43. At the time of the application livestock to be kept on site was: 1 x horse on site at present.

• 1 x pony out on loan to a 3rd party for carriage driving & riding purposes.
• 2 x ponies currently stabled off site due to the lack of facilities on site. 10 sheep. 38 geese.

It cannot be confirmed whether any of these have died during the extended planning process. Until the outcome of the appeal is known movement of further animals to the site is on hold.

• 44. The existing vehicular access to the site is off Douglas Road to the East of the site. In order to reduce the length of access track / hardstanding it is proposed to site the building close to the access point although spaced away from neighbouring properties in order to reduce the visual impact of the development. It is pertinent to confirm that this access has been used to enter and egress the site during the ownership of the applicant.
• 45. The site topography will also ensure that by siting the proposed buildings in this location they would be at a fairly low-lying part of the site – by siting the proposed buildings further away from the housing would mean that they would be sited on higher ground which would increase the visual impact when glimpsed/viewed from surrounding properties and public highways.
• 46. The buildings have been arranged to respect the nature of site and sit well within the existing topography with minimal cut and fill required to accommodate the development, the longer stable building also being oriented to protect the front of the proposed buildings and small apron yard from the prevailing South-westerly winds. It is not known why the duck pond has been positioned in the centre of the site. Anecdotally I am advised this was to avoid nuisance to the neighbours.
• 47. The hardstanding laid in the eastern corner of the site seeking retrospective permission contains a soakaway which was installed in order to reduce the run-off onto neighbouring properties – it is proposed to reduce the area of this as indicated on the application drawing.
• 48. The land is currently designated/zoned as agricultural land and sits below mountain skyline, is proposed to be used largely for agricultural purposes, providing pasture and grazing for the livestock living on the site, in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and seeks detailed approval for the stabling which has the effect of accepting the change of use of that part of the land on which the building will sit. The building itself will be used for the care and shelter for livestock and for the secure storage of feed and equipment used for the maintenance and

• care of the land and livestock and the detailed approval secures the change of use of this part of the land only.
• 49. This will provide a general visual improvement as the equipment currently stored outside will no longer be visible from surrounding properties and glimpsed views from highways. The existing feed store and field shelters will be removed from site.
• 50. The proposed stable block has been designed with a traditional appearance and will be clad with cedar / larch cladding which will weather to a silvery grey which will help it to blend into the landscape.
• 51. The proposal in terms of size and appearance is typical of stables present all over the island. The limited views from public vantage points are fleeting and are not unduly intrusive.
• 52. Access - The site is situated on the edge of the Service Village of Ballasalla approximately 3km Northeast of the Service Centre of Castletown. Vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle access to the site is via an existing private access track off the A5 Douglas Road. The site is on a major bus route with a bus stop approximately 150m away from the site entrance. The existing access is used for the same activities now as before the application was made. Any impact on the highway is the same as has been the case for in excess of 24 years. There is no objection from the Highway Services Division of the Department of Infrastructure.
• 53. Neighbouring residential properties have first-hand experience of the use of the land for in excess of 24 years and the use has not been questioned until now, nor is it proposed to change. The pond is not visible from outside the site and there has been no concern raised by the consultees or objectors to its existence.
• 54. The bank screening is common in circumstances where screening is required, it is traditional in nature and has been incorporated to reduce the impact of the activities from the stables on the neighbouring residential properties. This feature is common on the island.
• 55. The Trust intends to establish and operate a horse charity for public use of the land.
• 56. No recreational riding, training and horse jumping will take place on the land.
• 57. CONCLUSION - The proposed development is in compliance with the aims of the Strategic Plan 2016 as it is on land zoned appropriately for the proposed use, respects the site and surroundings, does not adversely affect the character of the surrounding landscape. The building is essential for the care and maintenance of the animals and land and have been sited close to the existing building groups in a location sympathetic to the landscape whilst also being far enough away from the residential properties to ensure there are no unacceptable adverse impacts arising from the farming activities. The

• building has been designed in form and materials reflecting their specific purpose.
• 58. The decision of the planning committee be confirmed, and the appeal be dismissed with a recommendation to the Minister that approval be granted for the works as set out in the application.

Case for the Appellants12

• 59. Approaching from the airport, the road signs for Ballasalla are sited prior to the first house on the left thus making field 434087 within the built environs of Ballasalla. This field is surrounded on three sides by development. On one side by residential houses abutting Douglas Road. A second side by properties of Meadow Court residential estate and on a third by the railway line which is also alongside the Silverbum Estate. Field 434087, which is 4.46 acres divided into paddocks, cannot be considered to be either "rural" or "countryside", yet there are a number of statements regarding "countryside" which are therefore incorrect and should not have been proposed when considering PA 24/91021/B. It is a small urban field. It is not surrounded by residential development, clearly not rural or in the countryside.
• 60. As identified within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, equestrian activities can only be situated within open, rural countryside ... This sentence alone precludes any equestrian activities (exercising) on the 4.46 urban acres of Field 434087.
• 61. Need - the applicants state they have one horse and three ponies ... In PA 24/91021/B, the applicant is stated as being "Brigitte's Sanctuary". Brigitte's Sanctuary has one horse (presently in Field 434087) and does not own any ponies. It is our contention that these ponies are in the ownership of third parties and most certainly do not come under the ethos of requiring 'sanctuary'. The statement regarding the ponies is incorrect. As two out of ten sheep have died in the last three months, it is likely that within a year or so that there will be none of Miss Simcocks' sheep still alive. Her remaining horse 'Dobbin' (the only horse) may still want care. There is no need. The applicant has stated that the ponies are stabled off site (maybe for several years as is suggested by PA22/01433/B, which was withdrawn) and has given no reason as to the need or necessity to remove them from those stables.
• 62. It is suggested there would be only fleeting views of the proposed stables. What has not been considered is that the proposed development would be very intrusive 24/7 (and for many years) to the residents of 7 Meadow Court and The Willows. There are no 'existing stables' on the site. There was a barn that could have been used for stabling but was allowed to deteriorate and it collapsed within the last two years.

• 12 Source - the Appellant’s Statement of Case. More details of the case for the appellants can be found in the full statement of case.

• 63. In relation to the proposed midden, it should not be sited within yards of residential properties. No 'conditions' regarding its construction or how its contents should be dispersed are proposed. The contents being horse manure and dirty bedding, which will heat up and make a lovely warm home for rats which breed more successfully than rabbits. Horseflies will also be attracted, and the smell will be quite appalling.
• 64. Highway Services - After 2000 when Miss Simcocks bought the field, she encouraged plants and foliage to grow along the length of the access track, placed red and white ribbons across the entrance and put a notice on the gate that this was private land. Brigitte Simcocks rarely used a vehicle to access the field but carried buckets of animal feed from her home near the Ballasalla ford. The late Miss Simcocks chose to be buried in the field with her dead horses, expecting to have peace, quiet and privacy. The access track was not altered during the late Brigitte's life-time, but considerable work was carried out within months of her death. All foliage, which had been encouraged to grow by Miss Simcocks, and which obscured the track, was cleared away. The original concrete post and wire fence (on The Willows side of the track), delineating the boundary of Meadow Court, disappeared and new wooden fencing erected. The soil base of the track was covered with hardcore/gravel; giving it the appearance of a well-used established access which had planning consent.
• 65. It should be noted that since 2000, when Field 434087 was bought by the late Brigitte Simcocks, only horses (no ponies) have been pastured in this field and were never ridden or exercised.
• 66. Conclusion - There is no need for this development. One horse and a few old sheep. All retrospective planning areas should be refused planning permission. The access/egress is unsafe and could cause a traffic accident The egress is on to a principal traffic route, with 'splays' not complying with legal requirements and should not be allowed The applicant does not own and had no right to alter the access, and it should be returned to its state as at the time of the late Brigitte's death. The applicant/Trustee has ignored planning laws, regulations, and the wishes of the benefactor of Brigitte's Sanctuary, the late Miss Brigitte Simcocks. Any development would be prejudicial to the peaceful amenity enjoyed by the present and future residents of 7 Meadow Court, nearby residents of Meadow Court and The Willows should not have to put up with the nuisance of - noise, smell, effluent, flies and any commercial activities taking place in Field 434087. It would seem that the interests of the applicant/Trustee come before that of Brigitte's Sanctuary.

Other Parties13 Summary of objections from neighbours14

• 67. The White House, Douglas Road (immediately adjacent to site including the access track) – Some of the objections of these residents reflect those of the Appellants so have not been repeated in detail. The proposed stables and

• 13 In full at Planning Officer’s report section 5.0.
• 14 Source Statement of Case of residents of The Willows, Douglas Road, Ballasalla including their earlier objections submitted to the planning application.

midden should be relocated within the field to mitigate the severe impact on residential properties. The approved site results in significant and unacceptable residential impacts including:

• • Noise and odour intrusion to nearby homes.
• • Visual intrusion and loss of privacy due to its close proximity to residential properties.
• • Light and noise pollution impacts, particularly in an otherwise rural setting.

• 68. The alternative location, which would be alongside the western boundary of the appeal site near enough in line with the pond, would reduce these impacts by moving the development further away from all residential properties, maintaining the intended use while mitigating the harm caused by the current approval.
• 69. This does not change our position that the appeal should be upheld, and approval overturned. However, if it is to be determined that some form of development should be permitted, then conditions should be imposed requiring the relocation to the alternative site and additional screening to minimize the harm to residential amenity. Other representations15
• 70.The representations received at the application stage are as follows:

• • Highway Services considered the application and concluded they do not oppose.
• • Malew Commissioners - have considered the application and consider the proposal to be an overdevelopment of the site with no agricultural justification.
• • DEFA Ecosystems Policy Officer - requested that a condition is attached that the landscaping is undertaken as per the Landscaping Drawing (Drawing No. 001 Rev A) - no objection.

Assessment by the Inspector

• 71. Section 10(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act states in dealing with an application for planning approval the Department shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as is material to the application; any relevant statement of planning policy under section 3; such other considerations as may be specified for the purpose of this subsection in a development order or a development procedure order, so far as material to the application; and all other material considerations. It is recognised that the weight which is to be given to the various elements in the balance of the decision is a matter for the decision maker.
• 72. Part of the justification of this appeal proposal is to fulfil the wishes of Miss Simcocks who obviously cared for her animals sufficient to put their well-being at the forefront of her bequests upon her passing. I heard antidotally that her wish had been to be buried next to her horses on the appeal site. From the discussion at the Inquiry, it was evident that Miss Simcocks was a generally liked local individual who tended to her animals

• 15 Source Planning Officer Report.

on a daily basis, walking from her home in the village every day with feed stuffs etc.

• 73.At first glance the appeal site appears to be in agricultural use. However, the sheep and geese kept on site, whilst grazing on the grass, are also being fed with bought in feed such as flaked micronized oats, flaked maize and flaked micronized barley. Sheep blend hard feed, and sheep nuts as well as horse feed is also intended to be stored on-site. There is clearly supplementary feeding being undertaken to the animals beyond any reliance on the grass of the field. It is likely that the supplementary feeding of the animals has been part of their associated husbandry for some time, including when Miss Simcocks cared for her animals.
• 74. In addition, the purpose of the use of the appeal site is not as part of a commercial farm but to fulfil the wishes of Miss Simcocks and look after her animals that were in her possession at the date of her death. These are detailed at paragraph 13 above. Whilst the list was not disputed in terms of numbers, there was a contention by the Appellants that some of the horses on the list may not have been those in Miss Simcocks ownership. However, no firm evidence was submitted to substantiate this claim. The list has been accepted by the Planning Authority and I have no reason to stray from it.
• 75. The keeping of horses on the land also can not be considered to be an agricultural activity. The proposed stables are specifically to accommodate the horses and much of the land will be required for the horses and ponies to graze and exercise.
• 76.Therefore, I consider in the context of the extent of the supplementary feeding of the animals, the proposed presence of up to 4 horses and ponies, this proposal is a departure from an agricultural use even in the context of the keeping of the sheep and geese on the land.
• 77.However, I am conscious that the use of the site by Brigitte’s Sanctuary, to comply with the wishes of Miss Simcocks, would essentially be a temporary use as her animals diminish in numbers, the requirement being to care, upkeep, maintain, shelter and maintain wellbeing solely for those of her animals that she owned on her death. There is no facility to bring further animals onto the site.
• 78.In the consideration of the planning application and this appeal there has been no resistance to the continuation of the use of the Field for the care of the animals of Miss Simcocks. The issue has arisen in the proposal to up grade the facilities for the animals on the appeal site.
• 79.The site is quite exposed to the elements particularly at the higher points. The existing shelters are in a dilapidated condition. It is not unreasonable for the Trust to want to provide a more substantial stable and hay store building which would improve the well-being of Miss Simcocks’ animals.
• 80. Therefore, all of the factors highlighted above in respect of the context of the use specified by Miss Simcocks go towards the assessment of this

• appeal. In these circumstances it is reasonable and necessary to impose a condition which specifies the number and type of Miss Simcocks’ animals to be accommodated on the site. This will be a diminishing number as the animals pass.
• 81.I have noted in the Applicant’s Statement of Case at Paragraph 4.7 that they consider there is an acceptance that the Trust intends to establish and operate a horse charity for public use of the land. There may be such an intention, but in the circumstances as presented there is no implied acceptance that such a use would be acceptable, and this appeal proposal does not in any way consider such an intensification or change in the nature of usage. The proposed imposition of conditions in respect of excluding public access, identifying Miss Simcocks’ specific animals and no others to be accommodated, the maintaining of a register of the animals on site to be reviewed annually and be made available to the DEFA to monitor, all serve to ensure that Brigitte’s Sanctuary can operate in the spirit of the wishes of Miss Simcocks.
• 82.A small animal sanctuary in line with the wishes of Miss Simcocks is a very different scenario to a horse charity where the public have access. This likely more intense use would present different issues in relation to use of the access and track in relation to highway safety, impact on living conditions of neighbouring residents in respect of noise and disturbance, impact on the character and appearance of the countryside and whether the site could satisfactorily support more horses/ponies. All of this would need to be assessed, and a further planning application would be required.
• 83. Therefore, and in the context of the circumstances presented in relation to Brigitte’s Sanctuary the main issues in this case are as follows:

• - The effect of the proposal on the landscape character and appearance.
• - The impact on the living conditions of neighbouring residents.
• - Whether the proposal would impact on highway safety and the flow of traffic in the immediate vicinity. Character and appearance

• 84. The appeal site lies on the edge of the small village of Ballasalla. It is bounded on three sides by residential development but its character and appearance is very much more of an open field in the wider rural landscape. Its identification in planning policy as being ‘not for development’ also confirms its open pastural nature.
• 85.The pond, which has already been dug out, sits well back into the site and at the relevant ground level. It cannot be clearly discerned from the outer boundaries of the appeal site. Other than when the geese and other animals are congregating at the pond there would be no particular awareness of its presence. Therefore, I do not consider that the pond would, in itself, have any adverse impact on character and appearance.

• 86.The hardstanding as installed is a continuation of the access track. It is reasonable that there should be some open parking manoeuvring area with open storage. Its limitation of being close to the access track confines its visual impact. The reduction of the hardsurfaced areas taking it away from the common boundary with Meadow Court would diminish the impact on character and appearance re-instating the grassed area close to nearby residents. This is to be secured by condition.
• 87.The proposed stable and attached hay store is a simple L-shaped timber building not unlike many other stable buildings found across the Island. The proposed siting has been influenced by the location of the access track as well as the sloping nature of the site. It is sited in excess of 20 metres from the south-east bounday16 and 30 metres from the eastern boundary17.
• 88.The proposed stable yard would include a midden 3.5 x 3.5 metres. This would be on the eastern side of the yard. The establishing of the stable building and the midden would, without a doubt, change the character and appearance of this currently undeveloped field merely by the introduction of buildings and associated activities.
• 89.From the main road the stables would only be glimpsed along the access track. The new yard and building would be visible from adjoining homes. Both the stables and the midden would be surrounded on three sides by the Manx sod bank and hedge. This would have the effect of screening the stable and midden from view from nearby residential property. What would be seen once the hedge reaches maturity would be the sod bank and hedge with the roof of the building above. These are common features in the wider Island countryside landscape.
• 90.A condition should be imposed preventing the permanent siting or any external storage of any horse jumps or trailers or any other associated equestrian paraphernalia. Such elements connected with the keeping of horses do in themselves have a harmful visual impact on character and appearance and in this case, it has been made clear there is no intention to exercise Miss Simcocks’ horses and ponies, by means of undertaking jumps or other mechanical means of exercise. The sloping nature of the site would limit areas available for the siting of jumps but would serve to make such elements visually dominant in the fieldscape, thus the condition is justified.
• 91.Therefore, the housing of animals in connection with Brigittes’ Sanctuary in the proposed stable building with associated midden would not unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the locality and countryside. In this way the terms of IMSP Policies GP2, GP3, EP1, EP1918 and EP21 would not be compromised in this regard.

• 16 The Willows.
• 17 Meadow Court.
• 18 I have noted that the appeal site does not benefit from a designation as agricultural land.

• 92.It was suggested by residents that an alternative site for the stables should be pursued. However, in the appeal process I am charged with considering and then recommending a decision to the Minister on the scheme as applied for and considered by the Planning Authority. The alternative site would certainly have been as far as possible from all residential property, but it would have been at a high point within the field which would have made the building more visually dominant in the landscape. Also, its siting would have required a considerable length of access track which would have traversed the field up-slope again being more visually prominent. Living conditions
• 93. Local residents are concerned about the possibility of smells and rodents being encouraged by the establishing of the midden. The effectiveness and impacts of the midden are dependent on the operation of the midden’s management and quality of general animal husbandry. Conditions requiring, firstly, the submission of a surface water management plan and then an animal husbandry management plan will be required to be submitted to the DEFA planning for approval. The agreed plan would then be implemented for the first use of the stables and midden and maintained thereafter. Should the terms of the plan not be complied with the Planning Authority could seek to address this with the Applicant. In addition, the Environmental Health Unit investigate allegations of statutory nuisance in respect of kept animals, odours and noise nuisance.
• 94.There is also concern from the residents of the White House that vehicles manoeuvring using the access track would cause disturbance. However, it has been established that the use of the appeal site for the keeping of the animals of Miss Simcocks would be low key, requiring daily visits to feed, muck out and check on the stock. The number of visits are unlikely to be greater than already exists as the number of stock should remain the same and at most as specified in the list provided by the Applicant. Therefore, I do not consider there would be a marked increase in vehicle movements and so any impact would not be unacceptable. I do appreciate the residents concern that if the nature of the operation of the appeal site did change, to become more intensive with an increase in stock or more horses introduced requiring a greater level of care, or public access, then the nature of the use of the access track could change. However, this would be a consideration for a future decision maker as these changes would go beyond what is being considered as part of this proposal.
• 95.There would be no farm machinery stored on the appeal site and any used on such a small-scale unit would be unlikely to cause serious repeated noise and disturbance to those nearby. This field has more of a character of a rural location and some associated noise with the maintenance of the land would be expected.
• 96.In respect of the installation of external lighting a condition should be imposed to control its location and type of installation.

• 97. Neighbours are concerned about the amount of noise and disturbance which could be generated by those visiting the stables as well as by the animals themselves. I heard anecdotally that the geese particularly are very noisy as dawn breaks which can be early in the summer. The geese are often penned in the part of the field next to the rear boundary of the houses on Douglas Road. This seems to be an existing issue but one that could intensify when the stables are built reducing the area of land available for the geese to roam. Therefore, the condition in respect of the animal husbandry management plan shall include a requirement for the proposed animal rotation, details of the sub-division and allocation of the fields along with the timings for the animal rotation. In this way it is hoped that a more neighbourly approach will be achieved to the location of animals in the vicinity of neighbouring residents. Noise from those visiting the site is unlikely to be greater than already exists as the number of animals remains a constant and the amount of care should not increase significantly.
• 98.Therefore, in the context of the terms of the occupation of the appeal site by the animals of Brigittes Santuary and the terms of the conditions set out below I do not consider that the appeal proposal would unacceptably harm the amenity of nearby properties in terms of odour, noise or light pollution and, therefore, IMSP Policies GP2 and EP22 would be complied with. Highway safety
• 99.Residents are concerned that traffic from the proposed stables would unacceptably add to the level of traffic already using the A5 which they describe as a busy road. It is suggested that the movements generated would interfere with road safety. However, as already described it is not anticipated that the nature of the use of the appeal site will change significantly. The existing access is long established even if it had previously just been a grassed track. The Highway Services Officer is satisfied that the required visibility splays, either side of the access, can be provided. Conflicting vehicle movements from dwellings along the main road seem to rely on good road sense, careful observation and courtesy between drivers. There would seem to be no evidence that such an arrangement which currently works for residents should not persist. Any change in the nature of the occupation and operation of the appeal site would need to be reassessed in highway terms by Highway Services.

Conclusion

• 100. Having evaluated the appeal proposal against the relevant policies of the IMSP and, in particular, EP1, EP15, EP19, EP21, EP22, GP2, GP3 and TP4, in the circumstances of the occupation of the appeal site and terms of the usage by the animals of Miss Simcocks as Brigittes Santuary, no substantive harm has been found sufficient to warrant allowing this appeal.

Recommendation

• 101. Therefore, I recommend that the appeal be dismissed, with the effect that the decision of the Planning Authority be upheld, and planning approval be granted for the erection of stables, creation of hardstanding (part retrospective) and creation of pond (retrospective) at Field 4434087, Douglas Road, Ballasalla subject to compliance with the conditions specified below at Annex A. These conditions are a further development of those presented to the Planning Committee and later set out on the original planning decision notice. The now proffered conditions were discussed by all parties at the Inquiry and amendments were subsequently made to the content and wording of the conditions to reflect the evidence submitted to the Inquiry.

Reasons for Recommendation

• 102. The proposed development is considered to be acceptable having demonstrated a functional need for new stables, pond and hardstanding and use of the land to accommodate the specific circumstances of the Applicant, Brigitte’s Sanctuary. This is subject to prescribed conditions to secure the relationship of the permitted amenities to meet the needs of the specified animals cared for at the behest of Miss Brigitte Simcocks (Brigitte’s Sanctuary). In such circumstances of low-level use, without public access, the development can be delivered without significant detriment to the visual amenities of the immediate locality and wider landscape. The proposals will not harm the amenity of residential properties in the area or highway safety and is considered to be acceptable in this regard. The proposals are therefore considered to be in accordance with Spatial Policy 5, General Policies 2 and 3, and Environment Policies 1, 19, 21, and 22 and Transport Policies 4 of the Strategic Plan (2016).

Frances Mahoney MRTPI IHBC

Independent Inspector 27th August 2025

Annex A Schedule of Conditions

In the event that the Minister is minded to up-hold Planning Approval it is recommended that the following conditions be applied:

• 1. The stables and midden enclosure hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• 2.The stables hereby approved must be used only for equestrian and associated storage purposes only and shall not be used for any commercial use or commercial purposes or open to the general public.

Reason: The application has been assessed on this private use only as requested in the application and to protect residential amenity and impact on highway network and the access.

• 3. The use of the field and stables are limited to the following animals being kept on the site, as set out in paragraph 4.1 of the Design Statement dated received on 26th November 2024; 1 x horse

• 1 x pony (out on loan)
• 2 x ponies (stabled elsewhere) 10 sheep 38 geese No other animals/birds shall be accommodated on the site.

Reason; The application has been assessed on the information submitted and to minimise the potential for noise disturbance and to prevent loss of amenity to nearby residential properties in accordance with GP2 and EP22.

• 4. Prior to the stables and midden enclosure being brought into use an animal husbandry management plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning, the plan shall include the following;

• • a list of animals to be kept on the site, including any returning and those already there (as based on condition 3);
• • sub-division and allocation of the fields; and
• • proposed animal rotation within the pattern of field division including timing of the rotation.

The approved scheme shall be implemented in full on the first commencement of the use of the stables and midden and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To minimise the potential for noise disturbance and to prevent loss of amenity to nearby residential properties in accordance with GP2 and EP22.

• 5. The owner/operator of the stables shall maintain an up-to-date register of the animals kept on the site. This register shall be submitted to DEFA Planning within one month of the stables and midden enclosure being brought into use and thereafter submitted to DEFA Planning on an annual basis made available within 1 calendar month of a written request by the DEFA Planning and, details of an annual update on the animals kept on the site, unless or until there are no animals remaining at which point the owner/operator shall inform DEFA Planning (as based on condition 3 and the point above).

Reason: The stable block and midden enclosure has been permitted solely in conjunction with the applicants existing use and its subsequent retention without that need would result in an unwarranted feature in the countryside contrary to Strategic Policy 4 and General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

• 6.The stables shall not be brought into use until the midden enclosure is available for use.

Reason: To protect the amenities of the neighbouring properties in accordance with EP22.

• 7.Prior to the midden enclosure being brought into use a surface water management plan shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, DEFA Planning. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme prior to the midden first being brought into use and maintained in a serviceable manner.

Reason: To protect the amenities of the neighbouring properties in accordance with EP22.

• 8. In the event that the stable block and midden enclosure are no longer used or required for the approved use, they shall be removed and the ground restored to its former condition within 12 months of the date the use ceased.

Reason: The stable block and midden enclosure has been permitted solely in conjunction with the applicant’s existing use and its subsequent retention without that need would result in an unwarranted feature in the countryside contrary to Strategic Policy 4 and General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

• 9. For the avoidance of doubt there shall be no permanent siting or any external storage of any horse jumps or trailers or farm machinery or any other associated equestrian paraphernalia on the land edged red on Drawing No. 001 Rev A.

• Reason: The application has been assessed on the use of the fields for general exercise and grazing only and not for any other use. In the interest of ensuring no overspill of equestrian equipment over the fields in the interest of visual amenity.
• 10. The proposed sod hedge/bank and associated planting shall be constructed in full accordance with the details shown on the approved drawings (drwg. no. 001 Rev A). The planting as approved shall be carried out in the first planting season following the completion of the sod banks and the stables and midden shall not be brought into use until the sod banks are completed. Any trees, shrubs or plants that die within a period of five years from the completion of each development phase, or are removed and/or become seriously damaged or diseased in that period, shall be replaced (and if necessary continue to be replaced) in the first available planting season with others of similar size and species.

Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality and in the interests of biodiversity.

• 11. The area of hardstanding shown on Drawing no 001 Rev A (received on 26th November 2024) marked as area to be returned to grassland shall be removed and returned to grassland before the stables are first brought into use.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of Neighbouring Amenity, as well as character and appearance of the rural landscape.

• 12. There shall be no external lighting at the site unless a full lighting plan details have been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Department, such details shall include position of lights, level of illumination and cowl details. Any external lighting shall then only be installed in full accordance with the approved lighting plan.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of Neighbouring Amenity.

• 13.The existing structures on site shall be removed from the site within one month of the new stable block being ready for use.

Reason: To ensure proper control of the development in the open countryside and to reflect the information provided in the application.

• 14.Prior to commencement, the first 6m of the existing entrance track into the field must be a consolidated/bound surface. Reason: in the interest of Highway Services and Drainage

This decision relates to the following plans and drawings, date received on 6th September 2024;

Drawing No. 101

• Drawing No. B372-LS-01

• Drawing No. B372-LS-02

This decision also relates to the following drawings dated received on 26th November 2024; Drawing No. 001 Rev A Drawing No. 100 Rev A Design Statement Site Photos

End of Schedule