Cornerstone Architects Appeal Statement on Behalf of the Applicant

Planning Appeal Statement of Case – Appeal Ref AP25/0005

In support of the erection of stables and agricultural storage building, creation of hardstanding (part retrospective) and creation of pond (retrospective).

Field 434087, Douglas Road, Ballasalla Isle of Man

Prepared By

Cornerstone Architects Ltd 79 Parliament Street Ramsey Isle of Man IM8 1AQ

On behalf of the applicant in support of the planning committee’s decision to approval the planning application 24/91021/B with conditions.

1.0 This appeals statement should be read in conjunction with the submitted documents which were considered by the planning committee in their meeting of 13th January 2025.

1.1 It should be noted that in the opening address to the committee the planning officer corrected two errors in her original report and assessment these being that the relevant commissioners should be Malew and that the area under consideration was as stated by the applicant (4.46 Acres) and not the ‘approximately 6 Acres’ referred to in her assessment statement with these corrections having no effect on her assessment or recommendations. Both points being acknowledged by the Committee.

1.2 The applicant relies on their previous submissions and the well documented iterative amendment process which saw changes between the supporting documents with the initial application replaced by an amended design statement dated 25/11/2024 and amended proposals as developed and amended to address the initial concerns of the planning officer. The relevant drawings are referred to in the amended Design and Access statement (25/11/2024).

1.3 I submit that the amendment process has been transparent and open and wish to thank the planning officer for her application of professional judgement in considering the facts pertinent to the application.

1.4 I attach at Appendix 1 a copy of my statement to the planning committee which can be seen as a summary of the applicant’s submission.

1.5 The applicant, Brigittes Sanctuary, was created by the trustees of the estate of Miss Joanne Bridgette Simcocks. Under the terms of the trust there is a requirement to care for her animals until their death. Brigittes Sanctuary also have a long-term commitment to maintain the green space in the future and provide sanctuary for needy animals. The new building will be used to provide horse stabling and in-wintering of sheep and night security for geese as well as storing fodder, grain and animal medicines etc.

1.6 The terms on which the Trust operates are not matters for the planning decision and I rely on the matters before you being considered in respect of material planning considerations only.

• 2.0 Planning History: 22/01433/B - Erection of a replacement agricultural building - Application Withdrawn. I am not aware of the reasons why this application was withdrawn.
• 3.0 The application.

3.1 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.

3.2 This application seeks approval for the erection of stables and a general feed store. (The agricultural storage building was omitted during communications with the planning department. To my knowledge the description of the application was not changed). 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.

3.3 The new building will be used to provide horse stabling and in-wintering of sheep and night security for geese as well as storing fodder (big bales), grain and animal medicines etc. It will also “downer” stock with a suitable covered area to receive veterinary attention and recovery facilities, as well as an area for attending to stock and for animal welfare.

3.4 All existing buildings on the site will be removed as part of the proposals.

3.5 The application sought 147 sq m of accommodation which the planning officer raised concerns about in terms of scale and need and following an iterative process amended proposals were submitted reducing the area to 102 sq m and altering the barn to ensure farm machinery is not stored on site. Whilst inconvenient this is accepted by the applicant.

3.6 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. I cannot confirm 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.

3.7 Feed and medicines to be kept on site: 20 - 30 x 1200mm round bales of hay – economy of scale for delivery. Metal IAE feed bins containing flaked micronised oats, flaked maize and flaked micronised barley. Sheep mix blend hard feed, sheep nuts (25kg bags x 10 of each every 4 weeks delivered to site) Mollichaff horse feed. Prescribed veterinary medication for horses/ponies for COPD, Sweet itch. Sheep wormers, Fly drenches, Vitamins, Mineral blocks, hoof care & general welfare products. List provided by applicant and relied upon in my evidence.

3.8 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.

3.9 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.

3.10 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 Southwesterly winds.

3.11 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.

3.12 The hardstanding layed 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.

3.13 The layout as approved by the committee is as Figure 1

Figure 1 -Single L-shaped traditionally styled stable building with open fronted hay store and separate feed / medicine store.

3.14 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.

3.15 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.

3.16 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.

3.17 The existing feed store and field shelters will be removed from site.

3.18 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.

3.19 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 of the A5 Douglas Road. The site is on a major bus route with a bus stop approximately 150m away from the site entrance.

3.20 Planning Policy and Considerations - Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. The policies referred to by the planning officer in her report are accepted as being appropriate to the consideration of this application. I will not repeat them here.

3.21 The officers explanation and reasoning behind the justification of the proposals within an area not designated for development are agreed with and endorsed, as are the conclusions reached following assessment. The principle of the proposed development is acceptable.

3.22 The site use consideration as equestrian is also supported in the context of the stabling and feed storage.

3.23 Need – the need is demonstrated and this is accepted in the planning assessment by the officer.

3.24 Character and appearance – The proposal in terms of size and appearance is typical of stables present all over the island. The limited views from public vanatge points are fleeting and are not unduly intrusive.

3.25 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.

3.26 The pond is not visible from outside the site and there has been no concern raised by the consultees or objectors to its existence.

3.27 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 activies from the stables on the neighbouring residential properties. This feature is common on the island.

3.28 Highways – safety and access. There is no objection from the Highway Services Division of the Department of Infrastructure.

• 3.28.1 The access is existing and the lower 6m of the surface will be closely bound to avoid gravel migrating onto the highway.
• 3.28.2 The existing access is used for the same activites 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.

3.29 The applicant accepts that the works were carried out without permission and acknowledges that retrospective approval is required. At the time of the works they were unaware of the requirement for planning thinking this was acceptable as a farm track and hard surface – the application confirms the extent of this will be reduced.

3.30 Conclusion- The proposal for the erection of the stable block gravelled area and pond has been fully assessed, reported on and considered by the planning committee and detremined to be acceptable.

• 4.0 Interested party comments:

4.1 Acceptance that the land is used to accommodate the animals as set out in the description of the application. 4.2 Acceptance that the land use is no different now than it has been for the last 24 years. 4.3 Acceptance that there are two existing field shelters in poor repair on the field. 4.4 Acceptance that the field is split into several paddocks. 4.5 Acceptance that the pond is causing no harm and its being is not questioned. 4.6 Acceptance that associated field maintenance fencing and other incidental maintenance items are stored on site. 4.7 Acceptance that the Trust intends to establish and operate a horse charity for public use of the land. 4.8 Objections to the development of a single stable and food store which replace the existing shelters and structures are summarised:

• a) Motive of the Trust towards this development.
• b) Over intensification of the land (use).
• c) Need is not demonstrated.

• d) Access is unsafe.
• e) Concerns that retrospective approval is sought for unauthorised works.
• f) Spurious claims as to the motive for the application.
• g) Loss of greenfield.
• h) Implication that the access is major building works.
• i) Land ownership is challenged without providing evidence to the contrary.
• j) Midden proposals are not necessary.
• k) Challenge the use of electricity and lighting.
• l) Location of proposal is not appropriate in respect of proximity to residences.
• m) Adverse effect on neighbours/impact on residential amenity.
• n) Increased traffic.
• o) Principle of change of use.
• p) Suggest recreational riding, training and horse jumping will take place on the land.
• q) Use of feed barn is questioned.
• r) Suggest the proposal will be a busy stables yard.
• s) Visual impact
• t) Contravention of EP21.
• u) Parking requirements.

• 5.0 Responses to objections – shown in italics (taken in the same order):

• a) Motive of the Trust towards this development. The Trust has made an application to the planning department for development of the land of which they are custodians. The matter is considered on its planning merits only.
• b) Over intensification of the land (use). The land use is generally unchanged. The application seeks the approval for stabling and retrospective surfacing.
• c) Need is not demonstrated. As set out in the planning officers assessment need has been justified in this case.
• d) Access is unsafe. There is no amendment to the access – this is a field access and should not be considered as averred in the context of a new domestic access for two properties. The high services section do not oppose the application.

• e) Concerns that retrospective approval is sought for unauthorised works. This is acknowledged and the correct procedures have been followed to regularise unauthorised works.
• f) Claims as to the motive for the application. The Trust has made an application to the planning department for development of the land of which they are custodians. The matter is considered on its planning merits only.
• g) Loss of greenfield. There is a negligible loss of the greenfield, part of which will be reclaimed by returning the hardstanding to paddock as previously described.
• h) Implication that the access is major building works. This is simply not the case. It is a spurious attempt to influence the planning decision.
• i) Land ownership is challenged without providing evidence to the contrary. The applicant is unaware of any challenge regarding ownership.
• j) Midden proposals are not necessary. The applicant is aware of additional management requirements associated with the provision of a midden. The small scale requirement for midden storage is applied for the ensure the bedding and stable effluent is managed properly.
• k) Challenge the use of electricity and lighting. No approval is required for an electrical service to the site. Any lighting will be restricted to the building and be such that it does not shine out into the field.
• l) Location of proposal is not appropriate in respect of proximity to residences. The location is wholly appropriate as the access hardstanding length is shortened across the field and the building is not seen as being remote from the existing buildings as is the case on farms etc in the countryside.
• m) Adverse effect on neighbours/impact on residential amenity. There will be no adverse effect such as to warrant refusal.
• n) Increased traffic. There will be no increase in traffic – we could argue that with the feed stored on site there will be less traffic movements.
• o) Principle of change of use. As set out in the planning officers assessment the use is justified in this case.

• p) Suggest recreational riding, training and horse jumping will take place on the land. This is simply not the case. It is a spurious attempt to influence the planning decision.
• q) Use of feed barn is questioned. The application is clear on the use of the feed store.
• r) Suggest the proposal will be a busy stables yard. This is simply not the case. It is a spurious attempt to influence the planning decision.
• s) Visual impact. For the reasons set out in the officers reprot, the applicants design statement and the physical size of the proposed building I do not agree that the visual impact is such as to warrant refusal. It is accepted that there will be a different view from the properties.
• t) Contravention of EP21. EnvironmentPolicy 21: 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. I submit that the intent of EP21 has been assessed in the officer’s statement and the proposal addresses the matter of design and materials. The requirements have been adressed and adhered to with the proposals
• u) Parking requirements. There are no parking requeirements over and above daily usage of the site.

• 6.0 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.

• 7.0 Recommendation. I respectfully request that 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.