Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
23/01265/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 23/01265/B Applicant : Miss Karen Moore Proposal : Extension to existing stables (retrospective) Site Address : Stable Field 214285 Bretney Road Jurby Isle Of Man IM7 3ES
Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken : 04.12.2023 Site Visit : 04.12.2023 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 28.12.2023 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development 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.
C 2. For the avoidance of doubt, the stable extension hereby permitted shall only be used for equestrian purposes.
Reason: The countryside is protected from development and an exception is being made on the basis of equestrian need only.
C 3. The stable extension hereby approved shall be removed and the ground restored to its former condition in the event that it is no longer used or required for equestrian purposes for a period longer than 12 months.
Reason: The building has been exceptionally approved solely to meet equestrian need and its subsequent retention would result in an unwarranted intrusion in the countryside.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposals are considered to be in accordance with Strategic Policy 5, Spatial Policy 5, and Environment Policies 1, 14, 19 and 21 of the Strategic Plan (2016)
==== PAGE 2 ====
23/01265/B Page 2 of 5
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the documents and plans received 7 November 2023. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site comprises part of field number 214285, Bretney Road Jurby, situated on the northern side of Bretney Road, just northeast of the site for the new residential development for 73 dwellings along Bretney Road.
1.2 The total size of the field is approximately 10 acres and the application site comprises approximately 4.5 acres. The field is currently used to keep horses. There is a single access from Bretney Road at the eastern extremity of the field, which cuts through the mature sodbanks which lines this part of Bretney Road, leading onto a narrow gravel track. The site also has most of its western boundary comprising mature sodbanks.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for extension to existing stables (retrospective).
2.2 The proposed extension sits north of the existing stables on site and measures 7.9m by 4.1m, and is 3.9m tall (2.3m to eaves), and as such sits 1.2m taller than the previously approved building on site. The extension is finished externally in timber, while the pitch roof is finished in Decra profiled sheeting. This extension provides a foaling box for the existing stables.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 Site Specific 3.1.1 The application site is located within an area designated as "White Land" that is not zoned for development on the 1982 Development Order. The site is not within a Conservation Area, a registered tree area and there are no registered trees on site. The site is also not prone to flood risks.
3.2 National: STRATEGIC PLAN (2016) 3.2.1 The Strategic Plan stipulates a general presumption against development in areas which are not designated for a particular purpose and where the protection of the countryside is of paramount importance (EP 1 and GP3). However, there are policies and texts within the Strategic Plan which support some equestrian-related developments provided they do not conflict with the requirements of GP3 and EP1.
3.3 Relevant Strategic Plan Policies: a. General Policy 3 - Exceptions to development in the countryside. b. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations. c. Environment Policy 1 - Protection of the countryside and inherent ecology. d. Environment Policy 14- Soil quality considerations for development that would result in permanent loss of agricultural land. e. Environment Policy 19 - Local amenity, Soil quality, and highway network and traffic considerations for equestrian development.
==== PAGE 3 ====
23/01265/B Page 3 of 5
f. Environment Policy 20 - Conditions for allowing large scale equestrian developments, which includes new buildings and external arenas, in areas with High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. g. Environment Policy 21 - Development for stabling or shelter of animals in the countryside h. Strategic Policy 2 - Priority for new development to identified towns and villages. i. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact. j. Paragraph 7.15.1: "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. The use of land as grazing land falls within the definition of agriculture (section 45 of the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act), and does not therefore involve development, but the keeping of horses and the operation of equestrian activities generally do involve development and may have an adverse impact on the appearance and character of the countryside. Sensitive siting and high standards of design, construction, and maintenance are necessary to ensure that there are no such adverse impacts. Whilst horses should be well housed, it will seldom be appropriate to use cavity-wall construction for stables, since such buildings may too easily be adapted for residential uses, so thwarting other policies of this Plan. Where new buildings are necessary, they should be sited close to existing building groups, and designed not only to blend with their surroundings but also to suit their specific purpose".
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 The Department's Biodiversity Strategy is capable of being a material consideration. It seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The site has been the subject of a single application which is considered to be materially relevant to the current application.
5.2 Approval was granted in 2010 for Erection of a stable block and creation of field access under PA 10/01335/B. Since the reception of the stables, the new extension which is not the subject of a planning application has been added to the north elevation.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 DOI Highways have no interest (10 November 2023).
6.2 No comments have been received from Jurby Parish Commissioners and neighbouring properties.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The main issue to consider in the assessment of the application are: a. The Principle of the Proposed development; b. The Design and Visual Impact; c. Impacts on Local Amenity; and d. Impact on Agricultural Soils.
7.2 The Principle (GP3, EP 21, & Paragraph 7.15.1) 7.2.1 In assessing the principle of the proposed development, it is considered that General Policy 3 resists development in the countryside other than in specified circumstances, none of which is applicable in this case. However, Environment Policy 21 does explicitly allow for
==== PAGE 4 ====
23/01265/B Page 4 of 5
equestrian development in the countryside, but only where, by virtue of its siting, design, finish or size it would not be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area.
7.2.2 It is also important to note that a stable exists on site, with the proposed extension designed and positioned such that it would easily form a congruent unit with the existing stable on site. More so, the site has operated with the stables and paddock areas serving the equestrian use which would be further supported by the new extension. Hence, the principle of the proposed development would be acceptable give the existing site context and the history of the site being operated for equestrian use.
7.3 The Design and Visual Impact (STP5, EP1, & EP 21) 7.3.1 In considering the design and scale of the extension, it is of a proportionate size and form in relation to the existing stables on site. In terms of finish, the timber extension would have the appearance of a typical stable block as seen all over the Island, and would be well integrated with the existing stable on site. Also, the position of the extension at the rear (north) of the existing stable, and the thick cluster of mature sodbanks that lines the southern and western boundaries, as well as those situated along the eastern boundary of the broader site area would mean that there would be no long distance views of the proposed extension from the road, with views of the protruding section only affordable when positioned at the site access.
7.3.2 Additionally, the shallow roof sloping away from the road, combined with the proposed timber clad finish, would mean that it would not be seen as an unduly intrusive or incongruous feature in the countryside here, particularly given the presence of the existing stable on site. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed stable extension would be in keeping with the existing building, and as a result acceptable from a design standpoint.
7.4 Impact on Local Amenity (EP 19) 7.4.1 Environment Policy 19 resists equestrian buildings where there would be a loss of local amenity. In this case however, even noting that the appeal site is on higher ground, the distance to the nearest properties, combined with intervening vegetation, would be more than sufficient to ensure that there would be no material harm in this regard. Moreover, the non- commercial use of the development, would ensure that the associated traffic movements would not cause undue noise and disturbance for nearby residents.
7.4.2 Environment Policy 19 also requires that the local highway network should be able to accommodate traffic generated by a proposed development. In this case, Highway Services who are tasked with the specific responsibility for road safety have not raised any concerns with the development. As such, it is not considered that there would be any highway safety concerns or adverse impacts on the capacity of the adjoining highway network.
7.6 Impact on Agricultural Soils (EP 14 and EP 19) 7.6.1 The site in terms of soil classification is Class 3 and therefore the proposal would not result in the loss of high quality agricultural land and therefore in this respect complies with Environment Policy 19. Whilst the above is not a reason to allow development that would deplete available agricultural land on the island given that majority of the agricultural soils on the Island (80.26%) fall within Class 3 soils, the scheme does not propose to completely remove the land from agricultural production. Besides, the nature and scale of the build is such that land could still retain its agricultural potential for grazing, or restored to full agricultural use should the equestrian activities be discontinued.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The stable extension only provides the space necessary to house the foaling box, and it is also of typical stable appearance in terms of its timber construction and proportions, and could easily be removed when no longer required. Moreover, the proposal would not result in material harm to the character and appearance of the area, and there would be no harm either
==== PAGE 5 ====
23/01265/B Page 5 of 5
in terms of the living conditions for neighbouring properties or in terms of highway safety. Therefore, the proposals are considered to be in accordance with Strategic Policy 5, Spatial Policy 5, General Policies 2 and 3, and Environment Policies 1, 14, 19 and 21 of the Strategic Plan (2016), and therefore recommended for approval.
9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 9.1 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.
9.2
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 the Director of Planning and Building Control 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 : Permitted Date : 28.12.2023
Determining officer
Signed : J CHANCE
Jennifer Chance
Director of Planning and Building Control
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