Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
23/00454/B Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 23/00454/B Applicant : Kat Ions Proposal : Erection of stable block on existing concrete base, construction of Equestrian Manege and change of use of field Site Address : Field Adjacent Ocean View Baltic Road Kirk Michael Isle Of Man IM6 1EF
Planning Officer: Mrs Vanessa Porter Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 23.05.2023 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The Department is not satisfied that there is sufficient justification for the proposed building to warrant setting aside the presumption against development outside areas zoned for development. Furthermore, the proposed size and isolated position within the countryside is not considered appropriate and would harm the character and quality of the landscape. As such, the proposal is concluded to represent unwarranted development that is detrimental to the amenity of the countryside contrary to the provision of General Policy 3(g) and Environment Policies 1, and 21 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
THE SITE
1.1 The application site comprises of the property Ocean View and the adjacent field to the South/ South East of the site. The development is focused particularly to the South West of the
==== PAGE 2 ====
23/00454/B Page 2 of 6
site within the adjacent field. Ocean View as a whole is situated on the Western side of Baltic Road within Kirk Michael.
1.2 The field in question is irregular in shape and bounded by field to the South East and South West, a road to the North East and to the North West, a long barn in connection with the dwelling and an orchard.
1.3 The site overall site ranges from South to North from 124.43m above sea level to 129.91m above sea level.
THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The current application seeks approval for two things, firstly for the erection of a building for the purposes of housing horses and secondly for the creation of a ménage for the training and exercising of horses.
2.2 The proposed building will be sited to the North Western part of the part off field in question and measures 13.716m by 16.3m with an overall height of 5.496m. The building would be constructed with a tantalised lap boarding outer (colour unspecified), timber sliding doors measuring 3m by 3m, natural grey single skin fibre cement roof and 16 G.R.P rooflights, 8 in each roof slope.
2.3 The information provided with the application does not provide any directional information for the barn, as such, it is difficult to ascertain which way the barn would be facing upon the land.
2.4 To the South East of the site is a proposed manége, which is to measure 20m by 40m enclosed by a 1.1m post and rail perimeter fencing. Due to the height of the land, the ground floor level of the proposed manége is approximately 2.5m higher than the ground floor level of the proposed barn.
2.5 The information provided within the application states the following with regards to the siting of both the barn and manége, "It is proposed to utilise the larger of the concrete hardstanding areas as a base for the proposed agricultural building and it is proposed to locate the manége to the South West of this building. This will require excavating into the sloping ground to form a level base but the material will be reused on site to create a sod hedge around the manége. This would provide some degree of wind protection from all four sides with the sod bank, sod hedge and agricultural building surrounding the exercise area. The proposed siting also helps to ensure that from a design perspective the proposal does not risk being isolated, being well grouped with the applicants property. Furthermore the location also acts to ensure that the exercise area will be highly unlikely to result in any degree of disturbance for the nearest residential neighbours, being located far enough away from these to avoid doing so."
2.6 With regards to the justification for the proposal, the design access statement states the following, "The proposed facility is to be used instead of the applicant's current off site stabling and exercising arrangements and as such to further support their personal equine interests. The proposed facility is to be used only for the exercising and training of horses and operated purely on a personal basis as opposed to any commercial use."
PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 The site has had the following applications upon it,
3.2 PA05/00604/B - Removing existing porch and erection of a two storey extension to provide lounge with bedroom & en-suite above on same aspect - PERMITTED
==== PAGE 3 ====
23/00454/B Page 3 of 6
3.3 PA92/01343/B - Extension to increase living accommodation - REFUSED ON REVIEW
3.4 PA84/00789/B - Alterations and extensions to form additional living accommodation - PERMITTED
3.5 PA99/01929/B - Erection of wind turbine - PERMITTED
3.6 There is also one pending application which was submitted at the same time as this application, PA23/00455/B which is for "Alterations and extensions of garden walls."
PLANNING POLICY
4.1 The application site is designated partly as "Open Space (Agriculture)" on the Kirk Michael Local Plan 1994 map and an area "not designated for development" upon the 1982 Development Plan, North Map, the site is not within a Conservation Area nor a Flood Risk Zone.
4.2 KIRK MICHAEL LOCAL PLAN
4.2.1 Due to the development works being within the area designated upon the Kirk Michael Local Plan, Policy No. 12.4 is relevant and states, "With the exception of areas already proposed for development use, no areas of open space should be released for development."
4.3 ISLE OF MAN STRATEGIC PLAN
4.3.1 The following policies from the Strategic Plan are relevant to the assessment of this application.
Strategic Policy 1 Efficient use of land and resources 2 Priority for new development to identified towns and villages 5 Design and visual impact
Spatial Policy 5 Development only in countryside in accordance with General Policy 3
General Policy 2 General Development Considerations 3 Exceptions to development in the countryside
Environment Policy 1 Protection of the countryside 15 Development of agricultural buildings in the countryside 19 Equestrian development 21 Development for stabling or shelter of animals in the countryside
Transport Policy 4 Highways safety
REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 The following representations can be found in full online, below is a short summery;
5.2 Highway Services have considered the proposal and state, "After reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety,
==== PAGE 4 ====
23/00454/B Page 4 of 6
network functionality and /or parking on the facility being restricted to personal use." (28.04.23)
5.3 No comments have been received by Michael Commissioners at the time of writing this report.
ASSESSMENT
6.1 The starting point with any application within land designed as "open space/ not for development," is whether the proposal would comply with the relevant planning policies in connection with the site designated.
6.2 As stated above the site falls within an area not zoned for development on both the Kirk Michael Local Plan 1994, and the 1982 Development Plan, as such there is a general presumption against development within the countryside with development to be focussed towards defined settlements in accordance with Spatial Policy 5.
6.3 Section 4 of this report highlights that there is provision within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan for equestrian related development as an exception to the presumption against development in the countryside. Paragraph 7.15.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states the following, "Equestrian activities are becoming increasingly popular in rural areas and on the fringes of our towns and villages. These activities can generally take place only on open, rural land and often represent a useful way of diversifying traditional farming."
6.4 As such the starting point is Environment Policy 1 which seeks that the countryside will be protected for its own sake, and that development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms.
6.5 This is then followed by Environment Policy 21 which states that 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.
6.6 The application comprises of two distinct elements, a stable block and a ménage. With respect to the proposed stable block, whilst the design access statement states the stable block is to be used for the housing of horses and a tack room, no internal layout of the building has been provide, and in particular the proposal has not outlined clear internal demarcation of the floorspace into distinct areas for each purpose. The submitted elevations show a sliding door on one gable end and a sliding door on a side elevation, with doors on both gable ends, with none of the gable or side elevations being marked by North, South, East or West. It is unclear, therefore, how the building could be utilized practically for it's intended purpose.
6.7 Moreover, it is noted that there is already the presence of an outbuilding within the wider holding and within close proximity to the main property. Whilst it is understood that this is a car garage/workshop, no details have been provided to substantiate this and on how this structure could not be utilized for the stabling/ tack storage.
6.8 Turning towards the potential visual impacts upon the countryside, the proposed stable block would not be significantly apparent from public views, not only by being setback from the main road by approximately 80m but also due to the topography of the site itself. With the proposed area for the stable block being approximately 5m below the main road.
6.9 However, Paragraph 4.3.11 of the isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states, "Merely arguing that a new building cannot be seen in public views is not a justification for the relaxation of other policies relating to the location of new development." As such just because the
==== PAGE 5 ====
23/00454/B Page 5 of 6
development cannot be seen from a public view does not make it acceptable. Allowing such development would set a significant adverse precedent that just because development cannot be seen it is acceptable, with such an approach leading to a substantial amount of unacceptable development within the Manx countryside.
6.10 As outlined in the relevant policies there has to be an accepted justification for the building and also the size of the building, with this being where there are significant concerns. The application has not provided the Department with any justification for the proposal apart from that they currently stable and exercise their horses off site and that the site is to be used on a personal basis. The red line provided within the application goes around the property in question, a garden with a mature orchard and the field in question, which when measured comes out at approximately 2.5 acres. Whilst a blue line has been provided with the application, this is a non-descriptive blue box around the site encompassing part of fields and a main road, as such it cannot be taken on board in the context of this application.
6.11 According to the British Horse Society the general guidance for grazing land for a horse is 1-1.5 acres per horse, as such with an acreage of 2.5 acres available to this site, as per the application. This would be enough space for two horses. When accounting for the proposed stable block, ménage and earth works, this falls down to 1.5 acres of land available for the grazing of horses, which would only be suitable for on horse. This is on the basis that no information has been provided with the application and as such the assumption is made that the proposal is for horses and not ponies.
6.12 The proposed stable block has an internal floor area of approximately 223.57sq m, in terms of stables (of which none have been shown on the plans) 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. Whilst the proposed land after the works would only equate to the available grazing of one horse, for the benefit of doubt if there applicants had two horses this would equate to a stable of 26.6sqm when the grater figure is used. Add on a tack room of the same size, a total of 39.9sqm would be used within the proposed stable block. This would leave a total usable floor area of 183.67sqm. Whilst not stated in the application, even if hay and feed was included within the floor area, overall its considered the building size for the proposed need would seem excessive in size and the Department is not satisfied that the agricultural need or equestrian need are satisfied and therefore would not meet the requirements of General Policy 1, Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 21.
6.13 Notwithstanding the above, the question also needs to be raised regarding the proposed design and finish of the stable block. The proposal is more akin to an agricultural barn than a stable block, with there being no information provided for ventilation, with the British Horse Society stating that ventilation of stables is essential all year round.
6.14 Turning towards the proposed ménage, when accounting for the land available to the site and given the amount of land that is being taken up by the proposed stable block and ménage which equates to approximately a 1/3rd of the land, such development would clearly result in a degree of visual harm upon the wider landscape resulting in further encroachment of built development and engineering into the countryside, which would be contrary to Environment Policy 1.
CONCLUSION
7.1 Overall, it is considered for the reasons given above, the proposal would fail to comply with the relevant planning policies and would result in sizeable building which is not considered justified which would ultimately be an encroachment of built development and engineering within the countryside which would means that the proposal would be contrary to General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 21.
==== PAGE 6 ====
23/00454/B Page 6 of 6
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
8.2
The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. __
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: 26.05.2023
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