Officer Report

Application No.: 17/01024/B Applicant: Joanna Mia Crookall/Grenaby Estates Limited Proposal: Creation of clay pigeon shooting facility, including erection of three field shelters, all with alternative use for agricultural purposes Site Address: Field 434773 Grenaby Road Ballasalla Isle Of Man Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 20.09.2017 Site Visit: 20.09.2017 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 22.06.2018 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R .1 The proposal to operate a clay pigeon shooting facility on this site would, by virtue of the noise levels together with irregularity and frequency of shooting times, have a detrimental impact on the living conditions of those living in nearby properties, contrary to Environment Policy 22. - R .2 The proposed clay pigeon shooting facility would adversely affect the enjoyment of the public footpath which runs through the site, through the sound of shooting and the experience of walking through a clay pigeon shooting range, contrary to Recreation Policy 5 and the general protection of the countryside in Environment Policies 1 and 2. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:

Department for Enterprise Department of Home Affairs

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject

matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4): Balladuggan Ballajimoara Silverburn Farm Ballakewin Old Farmhouse Regaby Veg, Andreas (farmer at Ballaglonney)

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):

Garey Rhennie, Ballamodha 7, Balthane Square, Ballasalla

• 15, Selborne Drive, Douglas 55, Larivane Meadows, Andreas Shearwater, Derbyhaven 1, Athol Street Port St. Mary 35, Horsefair Close, Suffolk Sadler Agricultural Supplies Limited Kerrowmoar House, Sulby Orchid House, Foxdale Colby Beg

3, Willow Terrace, Port St. Mary Gorse Lea, German 53, King Orry Road, Glen Vine 9, Douglas Street, Castletown Old Vicarage, Braddan 37, Vicarage Road, London

• 16 Knock Rushen. _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIONS AND THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSAL

THE SITE

1.1 The site is part of an agricultural and equestrian holding situated on both sides of the Grenaby Road (B41). The buildings serving the holding are situated on the western side of the road and comprise a range of stone and more modern agricultural buildings and stables, buildings which have been converted to tourist accommodation and a large house. There are two driveway accesses into this site, one serving the tourist accommodation and stables and the other serving the house. There are various areas for car parking around the site. The site also currently hosts a polo club and liveries. - 1.2 The land around the site is, on the western side of the road, fairly flat and used for grazing. On the eastern side of the road the land is less managed, with grazing fields closest to the road then the land slopes downward towards the Silver Burn with a stone lane which leads down to the lower plateau. Three timber shelters have been erected within this area. The purpose for

• them is to provide shelter for sheep and animals which graze there and also to provide shelter for people who are using the area for clay pigeon shooting which is a recently commenced activity on the site. Horses graze in the fields above the site.

1.3 A public footpath runs through the site. THE PROPOSAL

2.1 Permission is sought for the additional use of the land for the recreational activity of clay pigeon shooting and also for the erection of three wooden shelters for a dual use for animal shelters and also to accommodate those engaging in the clay pigeon shooting. All of these elements are retrospective. - 2.2 The buildings are basic timber open fronted shelters which are 2.9m high to the apex of the monopitched roof and 2.4m to the eaves and 3.7m by 3.1m in area. - 2.3 The applicant explains that the clay pigeon shooting is provided as a leisure experience as well as by way of lessons from someone who is a clay shooting coach and who has represented Great Britain in the sport. They believe that the shots can barely be heard from 200m away and point out that horses are kept much closer to the site than this and have no issue with the shooting. The lessons being offered, particularly those to children are not available anywhere else on the Island and they have received interest from children attending King William's College to attend courses which can count towards their Duke of Edinburgh Award qualifications. They hope that other participants may progress to established clubs on the Island. They would also like to cater for hen and stag parties who are travelling to the Island to participate in different activities. They hope to host an event for young shooters in 2018 and when a similar event was run a few years ago this attracted 54 young people. - 2.4 During the summer the interest resulted in the shooting being undertaken for 12 hours in June, 23 hours in July and 28 hours in August. They would organise it on an 'on demand' basis but would like to be able to have it available between 0800 and 2000hrs or dawn to dusk, whichever is the shorter. - 2.5 They advise that they have had full police safety checks by the Firearms Division and are mindful of the public footpath which runs immediately alongside the riverbank and the site and have cut back the gorse alongside so that they can see anyone entering the property. Shooting ceases if anyone enters the property even if shooting is well away from the path and there is only a narrow part of the site where there is a change of any clay bits getting near the path. There is also a sign on the gate alongside the path advising people that there is shooting ongoing on the site with contact details. - 2.6 Following the submission of objections and further discussions with the planning officer, further information has been submitted and the application was re-advertised, clarifying that the proposal involves a change of use of the site to a clay pigeon shooting range. The applicant confirms that they understand the issues which have been raised and hope that they can overcome them with changes in the way in which the facility is run. They suggest that a PIR sensor system which alerts the coach to the presence and location of anyone approaching and shooting is then stopped, the walkers are allowed to pass through before shooting recommences. They consider this to be completely safe and shooting will never occur when people are using the path. They also propose additional signage at the very start of the footpath on both sides of the site. - 2.7 They confirm that they only use eco-clays which are made of wood/resin so have no adverse environmental impact and they confirm that they periodically check and clear any stray pieces. - 2.8 They describe the site as affording topographical advantages for noise nuisance and where there is no direct line of sight from the site to any of the residential properties in the area. They would be prepared to plant more trees towards the northern border of the site in order to create an additional natural boundary in the direction of the nearest neighbours. Purpose built noise barriers may be a more effective solution if planning approval allowed.

2.9 Most of the shooting activity comprises large parties and corporate groups and at these times they propose to use only special Hush Power cartridges which are virtually silent. More advanced tutoring will involve the use of normal cartridges which are one person or small groups with the tutor. A party may involve 2 hours of shooting using 350 shots and a half hour session's tutoring would involve 50 shots. The intensity and duration of advanced lessons is far less than a party or corporate shoot. - 2.10 They propose that shooting would not take place on more than two consecutive days and not before 0900hrs or after 2000hrs on any day. Whilst they would be prepared to suspend shooting during lambing times, they are concerned that unreasonable impositions may be introduced, not normal for Manx agriculture which would make the venture unworkable. - 2.11 The shelters which are part of this application are intended for the dual purpose of shelter for those using the range and when not in use for this purpose, the shelters will be used for animals - primarily sheep and the applicant has provided photographs of sheep close to and within the building. PLANNING POLICY

3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South (2013) as not identified for any particular purpose and also the field is marked as a draft area of ecological importance. - 3.2 As the site is not designated for development, there is a presumption against development

• as set out in Environment Policies 1 and 2 (as the site lies within an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order

1982) and General Policy 3. There is provision for development which responds to agricultural need as set out in GP3f and Environment Policy 15.

3.3 The site is within an area designated on the draft Landscape Character Appraisal as Incised Slopes and describes the area variously, but particularly "There is a settled but semi-rural character. There is a relatively strong sense of tranquillity that pervades much of the area. Wooded horizons are common in most places, creating an intimate contained and continuous character. The steep sided Glens break what would otherwise be a relatively monotonous landscape to create active and dramatic elements that one can descend down into from the surrounding fields." - 3.4 The Landscape Strategy for this area is as follows:

"The overall strategy for the area should be to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of this farmed landscape with various field patterns defined by different hedges, a scattered settlement pattern of traditional hamlets, farmsteads and nucleated settlements fringed by trees, a varied road network enclosed by grassed Manx hedges and roadside vegetation, and numerous wooded valleys and glens. In addition to the conservation of archaeological sites, measures should also be adopted to conserve and enhance the physical structure and setting of upstanding heritage features such as the Silverdale watermill."

3.5 The Strategic Plan provides guidance on what approach should be taken to development in the countryside:

"7.13.2 One of the prime considerations in the determination of development proposals in the countryside will continue to be the conservation and enhancement of the landscape. In terms of the diversification of farms and farm buildings, there may be some circumstances where this may be appropriate and it is acknowledged that small scale enterprises can promote healthy economic activity in rural areas whether this be for commercial, industrial, tourism, sport or

recreation uses. There is, however, a general presumption against the introduction of new uses into the countryside (including industrial or office uses):

• (a) for which there is no local need;
• (b) which would materially affect the rural character of an area;
• (c) which would necessitate the creation of new buildings; and
• (d) which would be more appropriate in industrial zones, business parks or within urban centres."

3.6 A policy is included to provide specific protection from the impacts of such development:

Environment Policy 22: "Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of:

• i) pollution of sea, surface water or groundwater;
• ii) emissions of airborne pollutants; and
• iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution."

3.7 Whilst the site is not designated for development, General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan sets out standars which development is expected to achieve and the following are considered relevant to the current application:

General Policy 2: Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:

• (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
• (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;
• (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan and (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them.

3.8 The Strategic Plan recognises the importance of sport and recreation at Chapter 10:

"10.1.1 The quality of life on the Island and the quality of our environment are improved by attractive open space and by facilities for recreation and other community purposes" and "10.5.3 It is one of Government's general policies to promote equity and equality of access to education, health, community and recreation facilities, services and the wider environment for all sectors of the community."

3.9 It goes on:

"10.3.2 Open Space forms part of our heritage as well as being an attractive and usable asset, and, in the wider context, provides visual and spiritual relief from the developed urban settlements on the Island. In addition, it provides recreational enjoyment in respect of various active and some less active forms of sporting activity. Open Spaces also provide a means of improving the health and fitness of the Island's population. Open Space is defined in this context as land used for recreational purposes, both formal and informal, including amenity space whether privately or publicly owned."

3.10 Paragraph 10.3.3 states that "The Strategic Plan needs to facilitate sport and recreation opportunities and to ensure that areas of open space are retained, and provided to meet local needs. The Strategic Plan will facilitate this by a three pronged approach:

• a) protecting existing assets;
• b) making good deficiencies in existing provision; and
• c) providing adequate provision within new development."

3.11 Paragraph 10.3.4 states:

"To ensure that suitable provision is made for sport and recreation development across the Island it is proposed that Area Plans should incorporate an assessment of sport and recreation need and provisions. This should include, where appropriate water-based sport and recreation. Such assessments should recognise that sport and recreation facilities may benefit local communities across defined Area Plan boundaries."

3.12 There is a policy which sets out how Area Plans should provide for recreation needs:

Recreation Policy 1: "Area Plans should incorporate an assessment of the indoor and outdoor sport and recreation needs of the plan area, and the wider context and include proposals to:

retain existing sporting facilities and open space provision unless alternative provision of equivalent community benefit and of equivalent or better accessibility is made available; identify suitable sites to make good any deficiency in provision both for existing and future residents of the area; and ensure appropriate provision is made as part of any proposed residential development, in accordance with the Open Space Standards set out in Appendix 6 to the Plan, related to the needs generated by the development, unless the specific housing provision within the development justifies a reduced provision in relation to specific types of open space requirement."

3.13 The Strategic Plan also highlights the importance of the footpath network in the following policy:

Recreation Policy 5: "Area Plans will identify areas where improvements to informal access to the countryside can be made and to the public footpath network. Existing public rights of way should be retained and any development which affects these will be permitted only if it provides diversions which are no less direct or attractive than existing routes."

3.14 In the absence of any apparent published Isle of Man regulations or legislation relating specifically to firing ranges, regard has been had to training material provided by the Clay Pigeon Shooting Association Ltd (UK) and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health Clay Target Shooting - Guidance on the Control of Noise publication dated January, 2003 which does not appear to have been superseded. These are referred to later in the report. - 3.15 Government, more widely has a number of strategies and initiatives which are relevant to the proposal. Department of Children, Culture and Sport have the Isle of Man Strategy for Sport 2014-2024 whose strapline is "more people - more active - more often" and Embedded within this is a commitment to ensuring that children and families have more accessible opportunities to participate in sport and physical activity to help improve their quality of life. It acknowledges that Involvement in sport is vital in preventing and tackling anti-social behaviour. it suggests that where young people are bored and have nothing to do, the likelihood of becoming involved in crime and anti-social behaviour becomes greater and consequently so do the costs of dealing with it. It also suggestst that such facilities, landscapes and access can also contribute to attracting high net worth individuals and skilled workers to the Isle of Man,

• as families seek good quality sports provision for their children.

3.16 The Department for Enterprise, Tourism Division promotes the Isle of Man Destination Management Plan 2016 - 2020 which acknowledges the importance of tourism to the Island and encourages the promotion and development of new visitor experiences and expanding the range of things for people to do, as well as protecting the rural countryside and footpaths which attract visitors to the Island. - 3.17 Finally, Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture has introduced Food Matters - A Food Business Development Strategy for the Isle of Man 2015-2025 which refers to "Food security - access to a safe, nutritious and affordable diet is a basic quality of life, an issue that we take for granted in the Isle of Man. The ability to produce food in the Isle of Man will become of increasing importance as world demand for food increases and climate change results in more extreme weather events, impacting on global food production. On another level, food is an increasingly important part of the lifestyle and culture of an affluent society. People actively seek out quality and artisanal produce with assured provenance credentials. Providing quality local produce adds to the quality of life of the resident population and is an important part of the visitor experience which can, in turn, promote the Island as a visitor destination, as well as encouraging prospective residents and businesses to relocate." It also refers to the importance of local food production as better for the environment with fewer food miles, less packaging and longer shelf life ensures less food waste, a smaller carbon footprint and a better quality of life for us all. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 Whilst the main site which accommodates the buildings on the western side of the road has been the subject of a number of applications, there has been none on this side of the road.

REPRESENTATIONS Statutory consultees

5.1 Malew Parish Commissioners have no objection (04.10.18, 06.04.18). Government departments

• 5.2.1 Highway Services state the following:

"The proposal is to erect 3 field shelters that will have multiple uses including occasional use as weather shelter in respect of recreation - specifically clay shooting. Contact with the applicant indicates that this is a new activity that is being offered and is open to the public rather than just to tourists who are already resident on site.

The proposed activity will attract new vehicle movements; the location of the proposed huts is remote from the main estate buildings across the road leading to possible pedestrian crossing movements.

Further information is required and the applicant has been requested to provide the following:

• 1. The number of shoots per week and the number of attendees per shoot.
• 2. Details of how parties travel from the estate office to the site of the shoot and a copy of the health and safety plan for any interaction with the highway.
• 3. Details of parking facilities available for all site uses" (17.10.17).

• 5.2.3 DEFA Environment, Safety and Health Division were consulted but have provided no formal response.
• 5.2.4 Department for Enterprise Tourism Division write in full support of the proposal, noting that the development of a clay pigeon shooting facility would provide the Island with an additional attraction for its visitors with the intention being to provide a quality experience with tuition and facilities for beginners and children, with online booking available. This is felt to fit within the Destination Management Plan 2016 - 2020 where the family market has been

• identified as the primary growth opportunity for the Island. They describe the site as already offering quality visitor accommodation with several five star Gold self- catering properties, and the proposed clay pigeon shooting facility will enhance the opportunities available to its guests (20.12.17).
• 5.2.5 Department of Home Affairs Tactical Firearms Unit was consulted in respect of the acceptability of the operation alongside the footpath. They refer to the Petty Sessions and Summary Jurisdiction Act 1927 which includes provisions for nuisances on public roads including firearms. This states that any person who shall...discharge any firearms on any public road or within thirty feet of the centre thereof...or who shall fire any gun on any Sunday shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £200. They advise that they do not believe that the shooting takes place within thirty feet from the footpath although they did not measure this". Further comments were received in response to the Silverburn Farm e-mail of 29.03.18, indicating that the broken clays seen on the officer's visit were more than thiry feet from the path. In respect of noise nuisance, the officer advises that he has recently visited a neighbour to issue a firearms certificate and this is closer to Silverburn Farm than the application site and presumably causes no concern (20.12.18).
• 5.2.6 DHA have sought further advice from their own consultant on firearms ranges and have confirmed that they have no concerns with the range as operated (14.05.18).
• 5.2.7 DEFA Inland Fisheries Manager comments on points raised to her about potential pollution of the watercourse through lead and the remains of cartridges in the aquatic ecology of the Silver Burn. She has discussed this with the Senior Biodiversity Officer and Environmental Protection Officer of the Department and the response is a joint one from all of these parties. Lead in the river would cause concern, the greatest risk being from birds ingesting the shot. Under the Ramsar Convention the Island is expected to promote the conservation of wetlands and waterfowl and under the Bonn Convention in the Afro-European Waterbirds Agreement Ction Plan the Island is expected to phase out the use of lead shot for hunting in wetlands and DEFA is working towards preventing lead shot of a size that could be picked up by birds, from entering wetland systems. Lead could also dissolve into the water and be taken up by aquatic plants and invertebrates and therefore, fish. An officer visited the site in February and witnessed some clay fragments in the river. This is an offence under the Water Pollution Act 1993 Part 1. They recommend that precautions need to be taken to ensure that clays and/or lead does not enter the river. Another Officer visited the site later that month and was assured by the operator that eco clay targets are used and the setup of the activity is that although there is a possibility that the clay fragments could be flung into the river due to breakage leaving the trap, lead shot would not as they are shooting away from the river. They conclude by recommending that if clays and/or lead shop cannot be prevented from ever entering the water, they would have to object to the application (28.02.18). Local residents and others opposed to the application

• 5.3.1The owners of Balladuggan, Grenaby, which lies around 460m to the north, with its associated farmland coming as close as 290m to the site, object to the noise which has resulted from the operation of the clay pigeon shooting, both in terms of their own enjoyment of their property and the health and safety of their sheep flock, particularly during lambing (16.10.17). They write in further on 16.12.17 to confirm that at no point has anyone approached them about the proposal, that the footpath is well used in summer and winter and that the gun shots can be heard loud and clear at their property. Further correspondence was received, dated 24.03.18, confirming that the welfare of their animals is of utmost priority all year round and they will not stand by and see their livelihood put in jeopardy because it would interfere with a shooting facility. They consider it unacceptable to have to tolerate shooting from 0900hr to 2000hrs up to five days a week and they assure the reader that they can hear constant gunfire clearly from their property which has made the quality of their home life unbearable. If there is benefit of another range, it should be where it causes no issue for

existing residents. They do not think that the measures proposed will adequately safeguard the footpath and have recently had to tolerate shooting until 2000hrs and are finding this unbearable and would like some quality of life (31.05.18).

• 5.3.2 The owner of Ballajimoara which lies to the north of the site, around 300m from the site, expresses concern that the site notice has only recently been erected and he objects to the application on the basis that the noise resulting from the operation, is audible from his property and to have shooting permissible between 0800hrs and 2000hrs is contrary to any rules and regulations published by National Shooting Associations that he has read. He is concerned about the safety of the use of the footpath and he is concerned about the devaluation of his property and the fact that the applicant has not approached any of the neighbours about the operation. He is aware of shrapnel left on the footpath. Any operation of this type should be specific in its control of every operational requirement. (20.10.17, 23.10.17, 19.12.17). He notes that the scheme has been modified to address concerns raised by some parties (Triskelion Polo Club) but which will worsen the impact for others. He considers that the line of fire is more important than the spread of the noise and that the fire of the high velocity cartridges could be heard from over a mile away. The frequency of the discharges is unacceptable. He refers to nuisance from peacocks which has not been addressed by the erection of fencing and the erection of a similar barrier to address noise would be visually unacceptable in this area of countryside. In his view, the planting of trees would not be a satisfactory solution. He refers to the submission from Kerrowmoar House which includes reference to a university portfolio and he suggests that this includes the fact that the shooting is unlawful and is next to a footpath. He considers that there are other sites in the south which should be considered for this use and he takes exception to the fact that this use has been continuing without prevention despite planning approval not having been granted ((undated). He refers to policies and standards which surely must apply to this operation but has not seen any reference to this to date (04.05.18). He provides details of Government's regulations on silencers for shotguns. He suggests that "many of use wish to pursue our recreational activities but when it verges on a lack of respect for neighbours or pollution of a quiet countryside, on an increasing scale, then an effective shotgun silencer may benefit everyone" (14.05.18).
• 5.3.3 The owner of Garey Rhennie is concerned about the safety of the users of the footpath and is also concerned that their living conditions are affected by the shooting, their dog being demonstrably affected by the noise. She is concerned about clays falling on users of the path which is well used (23.10.17). She writes in further on 16.12.17, taking issue with comments made by the applicant, clarifying that her dog was affected by the shooting on the day of the applicant's visit and whilst she could not hear shooting on the day in question, in the summer time it is much louder. She clarifies that she asked, rather than the applicant offering, to be informed of the days and times of shooting. She states that the footpath is used all year round, particularly in the summer and whilst the footpath is in less than good condition in places, this adds to the character of it. She has been almost at the site when shooting has been continuing and has witnessed intact and broken clays on the footpath. She is still unable to understand how having stags, hens and children with guns next to a public footpath is safe and acceptable. Further correspondence was received on 26.03.18, indicating that the area has been cleared of clays but wonders how this will be monitored. She advises that being notified prior to shooting taking place has made a positive difference to their living conditions and welcomes the use of Hush cartridges, adding that if she cannot hear the shooting from her home then she would have no objection on this basis, but is not yet aware whether her dog will be aware of it, and she remains concerned about the safety of the site itself. She has read the correspondence from Triskelion Polo Club, noting that they confirm that fragments are flung widely as they are entering the horse field which is above the valley. Whilst there should be Freedom to Flourish, surely safety is paramount in all aspects. She welcomes the use of a sensor but queries where this will be as having it at the gate is too late as the runner/walker will be at the shooting range before anyone can acknowledge their presence. Whilst signage

• at the starts and finishes of the path will help with the safety, it might put people off using the path. At their most recent visit to the path and the site, there were clays ten and fourteen feet

from each side of the site, not leaving much time for preventative action. Despite the applicant denying that the clays do not get onto the path, she and others have seen them on the path and in the river and on the far bank. Even with a "first class shooter", they cannot control where the broken clays will land and most of the people shooting here are not of such a high standard. Whilst constraining the hours of operation, there should not be continuous shooting within these times (26.03.18). She visited the site on 28.04.18 and, wearing bright clothing walked through the site on the footpath whilst the shooting continued for over five minutes until they were seen and the shooting stopped (29.04.18).

• 5.3.4 The occupant of 7, Balthane Square confirms that he has used the path when shooting has been taking place and he is aware that the shooting was taking place prior to the submission of the application. He notes that there is no signage to indicate that shooting is taking place and has noticed that it seems to be taking place at most times of the day, including Sundays. He queries whether there is a minimum age for those taking part and whether there is full public liability insurance in place and is concerned about this activity so close to a public footpath (22.10.17). This objector has provided a copy of a letter dated 19.12.17, sent to the applicant in response to additional information submitted by them in December, 2017. This letter confirms that he is not affected by the noise and his sole concern is the safety of the footpath, as a user of it. He queries whether the noise levels measured were done so professionally and from where they were taken and doubts that the footpath is "treacherous" although it is slippery in places. Despite the line of fire being away from the footpath, clays have been seen on the path and in the river and on the far river bank and thus pose a risk for anyone or anything there (04.04.18.
• 5.3.5 The owner of Silverburn Farm, whose buildings lie approximately 360m from the site but whose land is around 300m from it, to the north east, contacted the Inland Fisheries Division of DEFA to ask whether the shooting range would pose a threat to the fish populations

• (01.02.18). No response has been provided. Further correspondence between the planning office and the owner of Silverburn Farm is documented, 05.02.18, 06.02.18, 12.02.18 and 15.02.18 where the owner expresses concern about the impact of the operation on the safety of the use of the footpath and noise nuisance, pointing out that there are great varieties of cartridges and there will be differences in the numbers of people shooting, the frequency and longevity of the shooting compared with that experienced at one individual site visit. He also wonders about the practicality of stopping the shooting when people are approaching on the footpath, if the path were frequently used by large numbers of people. On 29.03.18 this correspondent commented on the submission from the Police, suggesting that due diligence has not been exercised in assessing whether there is a nuisance and maintains that there is a health and safety issue. Further objections have been received along with photographs of the site, including images of complete and broken clays (05.04.18, 09.04.18, 23.04.18

• 5.3.6 The owner of Ballakewin Old Farmhouse objects to the application, being concerned about noise levels. They advise that in 2017 the shots were infrequent but the prospect of large parties and corporate groups is unacceptable. They consider that the statement that the noise does not become significant until down to 100m and that the noise is somehow contained in the valley are somewhat optimistic. They consider the shooting a nuisance (05.04.18).
• 5.3.7 The owners of Regaby Veg Farm in Andreas are opposed to the application due to the impact of the shooting on their beef cattle at Ballaglonney Farm which is close to the range

• (02.04.18).

Other residents and organisations

• 5.4.1 Sadler Agricultural Supplies Limited writes in support of the application, suggesting that the range is very valuable to shooting and farming diversity. He considers that is provides an excellent facility for shooters of all ages and is in the perfect location. He considers from a personal point of view that it has a very low impact on the environment and supports the land

owner and the operator of the range as excellent ambassadors for the sport and that the operation also provides a living for him (12.12.17).

• 5.4.2 The owner of Kerrowmoar House in Sulby supports the application, noting that her grandson has been shooting there as part of his IB CAS Portfolio for University and has found it very enjoyable and this is an added amenity for the south of the Island (27.10.18).
• 5.4.3 The owner of Orchid House in Foxdale supports the application, noting that any suggestions they have made following shot falling in the field where their horses were, have been addressed and suggest that this accords with the Government's Freedom to Flourish which encourages people to lead a healthy outdoor life as well as boosting the tourist economy. The proposal will also allow someone as responsible and well qualified as the shooting instructor to make a living and look after his family (16.03.18).
• 5.4.4 The owners of Colby Beg, Glen Road in Colby are users of the footpath and consider that there is sufficient space between the shooting and the path to enable the shooting to take place safely. As there is often livestock in the field, their dogs is on a lead and it would be a shame to lose this facility and an employment opportunity and this is a wonderful addition to the facilities for the south of the Island (12.03.18).
• 5.4.5 The owner of 3, Willow Terrace, Port St. Mary supports the application, considering that noise is not an issue and adds that she lived very close to a clay pigeon shooting facility previously and the proposed facility would complement tourist attractions and accommodation in the south of the Island. She considers that it would have no negative environmental impact and that young people would benefit by having an activity different from what is currently available (10.03.18).
• 5.4.6 The owner of Gorse Lea in Greeba advises that they have attended the site for clay pigeons shooting instruction. They recommend that the Island has a rich history of clay shooting and facilities such as this in an area not covered by clay shooting clubs is to be welcomed (05.03.18).
• 5.4.7 The owner of 53, King Orry Road comments that she attended the clay pigeon shooting and felt that it was very safe and well presented with excelled safety handling instruction. She considers this an excellent use of agricultural land and diversification and notes that the Isle of Man has just gained a silver medal in the Commonwealth Games and that it is good to see businesses flourishing outside of Douglas in a site which is easily accessible and with no traffic management concerns (28.04.18).
• 5.4.8 The owner of 16, Knock Rushen, Castletown supports the application, consideration that the range would be an excellent recreational facility and a useful addition to the Island's tourism industry. He has just started a tour business and is interested in any attraction that could promote tourism and attract business. He considers there to be few opportunities for clay pigeon shooting and notes that this operation will be conducted by an experienced clay shooting coach and an Olympic competitor and that shooting can become a life skill in general, particularly for children. He too refers to the Island's CG silver medal. Safety is of prime importance and provided that the traps and firing points are laid out in accordance with advice from the sport's governing body, the site is approved by the police and the shooting is conducted and supervised by a qualified and competent coach, he could be content to see the application approved (04.05.18).
• 5.4.9 The owner of 9, Douglas Street, Castletown, considers that the proposed facility will be a welcome addition to the sporting facilities on the Island and that any environmental or other concerns can be addressed by means of appropriate planning conditions (12.05.18).

• 5.4.10 The owner of The Old Vicarage, Braddan have used Grenaby Mooar for several years for pony lessons, pony club, polo and clay pigeon shooting. The suggest that the addition of the clay pigeon shooting to the repertoire of country events has undoubtedly been considered as carefully and will be delivered as professional as all else that the site has to offer. They note that complementary activities and balancing the needs of people - adults and children - and the highest levels of animal welfare with Mr. Keeling as the coach - is a very promising development. This offers an involvement in sport for young people which they consider difficult to find although there are other places to do this. They refer to the location, including "the serenity of the location" and suggest that the applicant has considered noise impact and any anticipated or perceived local disruption very carefully. She supports the application wholeheartedly and looks forward to booking sessions at the range (30.05.18).
• 5.4.11 The owner of 37, Vicarage Road, London supports the application as it would provide an additional recreation activity to the Island which would be beneficial for their family (30.05.18).
• 5.4.12 The owner of 35, Horsefair Close, Suffolk supports the application, as a regular visitor to the Island and they consider that the facility would be a further boost to the local community and for tourism in the south of the island for experts and those looking to try out this, Olympic, sport (30.05.18).
• 5.4.13 The occupant of 1, Athol Street, Port St. Mary considers the facility to be a positive one which would benefit the south of the Island and the Island as a whole and he feels it would be well supported (31.05.18).
• 5.4.14 The owner of Shearwater, Derbyhaven supports the application as a shooter and previous user of Broogh Fort range and considers the Island needs a facility for public use and the superb facilities at Grenaby Mooar would be ideal for this (30.05.18).
• 5.4.15 The owner of 55, Larivane Meadows, Andreas supports the application, considering a shooting range valuable to the south of the Island, in a perfect location and is very well run, the writer and her granddaughter having regular lessons and priority is always his priority. The applicant should be applauded for their efforts (01.06.18).
• 5.4.16 A county councillor for Norham and Islandshire in the County of Northumberland who sits of their planning committee comments that in the UK they have the highest number of number of clay pigeon shooting grounds and when he asked his Head of Planning, he was advised that there were no grounds to refuse permission and that it should never have come before planning as there are no restrictions over shooting over agricultural land in the Isle of Man. Planning should only be concerned with planning permission and land use and local authorities with their environmental health departments will be able to advise and determine on all matters relating to noise control and health and safety.
• 5.4.17 He suggests that there is little evidence of significant levels of annoyance at any site where noise levels are below the mid 50s dB(A) and where levels in the mid to high 70s dB(A), significant annoyance is engendered and EH would refuse permission to shoot. In between the extent of annoyance varies considerably and there may be natural sound barriers. He believes that the sound levels measured do not contitute anything that do not fall within allowable guidelines and note that some levels were taken in the garden of a preoperty. He states, "at this level you would need to open windows or conservatory doors to hear the faint sound of shooting". He recommends that prominent signs are displayed to advise the general public that shooting is taking place and he understands that prominent signs have been erected and that high tech sensors have been installed to detect movement on the footpath. He believes the applicant has taken public safety way beyond what is current required by law. He notes further evidence of the organiser's consideration of others is their willingness to inform those in the closest houses when and for how long the shooting will take place. He suggests that there is currently only one commercial clay shooting ground on the Island and due to this prices are

very high, he suggests deterring young and old from enjoying this country sport. He believes the current ground is in considerable disrepair and the authorities are allegedly worried by the age of the elderly gentleman running it. He concludes that a second commercial shooting ground is essential to the Island shooting community and there is no legal precedent let alone refuse permission and he finds it hard to understand why it has come before the planning committee (21.06.18).

Other representations

• 5.5.1 The owner of the Broogh Fort Clay Pigeon Shooting range at Ballagick, Santon, was contacted following suggestions that this range was no longer operational. He confirms that this is not the case and that he has proposals for the development and use of the range such that it will be fully utilised for its present purpose and has immediate plans for the summer months which would mean more use of the range in the later afternoon and mornings (04.05.18).

• 5.5.2 The owner of 15, Selborne Drive, Douglas writes neither in support of or objecting to the application but refers to guidance provided by the Clay Pigeon Shooting Association Ltd and who has attended and passed a CPSA Safety Officers Course and draws attention to the various references to the safety and arrangement of ranges. This refers to the following:

"The work done by Dr. D. Allsopp of Cranfield University confirmed the CPSA's belief that the absolute minimum safe shot fallout distance should be 275m in every direction from the stand(s)...even allowing a 275m distance exclusion zone, with the right angle and a tailwind of 10m/sec (22mph), 69m can be added to theses distances; larger shot could fall outside the exclusion zone. A side wind can cause the shot to drift as much as 56m". It goes on: "Public footpaths, bridleways, etc have no place within a shooting ground. The right of public access must be checked and, where they exist, layouts should be arranged so that they are outside the exclusion zone, ie a minimum of 275m from the stand, Legally no shooting may take place within 15.5m of a public right of way". This reference to legality applies to the UK.

• 5.5.3 The document advises to take account of lead shot and the clays falling from heights and they refer to enclosures which can restrict the shooter if there are particular hazards in one direction, to ensure that fallout is contained within the exclusion zone. Reference is also made to ensuring that the exclusion zone is clearly marked out to ensure that the approach to the stands is not certain and people can wander into the exclusion zone or the line of fire.

Applicants' response

• 5.6.1 The applicant has responded to various points raised, by way of correspondence dated 11.12.18 and 15.01.18 and an undated statement, explaining that noise testing has been carried out, using a machine used for motor sports noise levels which is straightforward to use,

• at five locations including the objector's houses (Garey Rhennie, Ballajimoara and Balladuggan) and that the shots were not registered. In her view the shooting does not become significant until around 100m away. She notes that photographs of the path show it green and untrodden, suggesting that it is not well used and that there is a system in place to notify the operators if anyone is approaching the site. She clarifies that the direction of fire is away from the footpath and as the path is on private land, there is no obligation for them to pick up any debris there. She confirms that the appropriate insurance is in place for the business. She considers that the facility accords with Government's proposal for an island of enterprise and opportunity. Whilst comment has been made that signage was not displayed, this was at a time when there was no shooting. The activity has been modified such that shot cannot find its way into the river or onto the path. ASSESSMENT

6.1 The site is not designated for development and as such, the issues in this case are whether there are sufficient reasons to set aside these policy objections and if there are, whether there are any environmental impacts which would justify refusal of the application. It has been

queried by one supporter of the application, who does not clarify whether he has been to the site or experienced the shooting from any of the nearby houses, that there should not need to be planning approval sought for this use. He is perhaps unfamiliar with the concept of a material change of use of land and in this case, there has been such a change, from agricultural open space to a recreation facility which has actual and potential impacts on the environment. He is also unfamiliar with the organisation of the Island's Government which vests Environmental Health responsibilities in a Government department (DEFA) rather than a local authority. Malew Parish Commissioners do not have an Environmental Health Department although, interestingly, they have the Malew Parish General Byelaws 2008 which contain the following provision: 3. Noise. No person shall _&É (a) sound or play upon any musical or noisy instrument, or (b) sing or shout, or (c) otherwise make any loud noise, in any street or public place so as to cause disturbance or annoyance to residents of the area, "street" includes any bridge, road, lane, footway, subway, square, court, alley or passage, whether a thoroughfare or not, which is open to the public; and the doorways and entrances of premises abutting on, and any land adjoining and open to, a street shall be treated as forming part of the street". Legal precedent is irrelevant as each application needs to be considered on its own merits. It is also suggested that there is no evidence of annoyance where noise levels are below the mid 50s: the objections which have been received demonstrate that this is not the case. Whether those allegations of annoyance are reasonable is another question, but there is clearly evidence that some local residents are annoyed and distrubed by noises which may well fall below the mid 50s dB(A). It should not noted that there were on the occasions of the site visits, one sign displayed on the entrance to the field in which the range sits rather than signs plural as suggested by the County Councillor of Norham and Islandshire.

6.2 Whilst the site is not designated for development, the Strategic Plan (paragraph 7.13.2 as referred to in paragraph 3.5 above) makes it clear that there may be cases where development is justified, and this includes recreation-related activities and associated development. It is clear from the Strategic Plan that recreation is an important part of residents' and visitors' quality of life and from the submissions made in support of the application, it is also clear that the facility is considered to be well run and beneficial to the Island, from the users' points of view. It is also undeniable that from an elite sporting perspective, shooting, and particularly clay target shooting is a discipline in which the Island achieves at a very high level, Tim Kneale having won a bronze medal at the 2010 Commonwealth Games and a silver medal at the 2018 Commonwealth Games as well as various world record and world championship titles. In addition, at the biennial Island Games, the Island consistently wins multiple medals, the Island being the most successful competing nation in this discipline over the history of the Games. It is therefore in the Island's interest to promote and develop its facilities to try to maintain participation and hopefully, achievement in this sport. - 6.3 It is also relevant that clay pigeon shooting is unlikely to be an activity which can been undertaken in built up or developed areas and is almost certainly going to be undertaken in the countryside. The Island's three existing ranges are located at Blue Point, Meary Veg and Broogh Fort and all of which have the benefit of planning approval. There is therefore no objection to the principle of the use of undesignated land for clay pigeon shooting. - 6.4 The proposal will provide shelter for the animals on the site. This is a use which can clearly only be undertaken in the countryside and in this respect, it is not considered that there is an issue with this aspect of the proposal which could be considered to accord with EP 15 although only limited information has been provided to support the agricultural need for the mobile shelters. - 6.5 Whilst the principle of use may be acceptable, the environmental impact of the use must be considered. This covers the following potential impacts:

• - noise impact on local residents
• - noise impact on users of the footpath

• - the safety and convenience of the use of the footpath
• - the impact on the river and wildlife through potential pollution
• - the impact on local agriculture
• - the visual impact of the development and
• - highway safety. Noise impact on local residents

• 6.5.1 There are ten residential properties within 2km of the range: Balladuggan, Ballajimoara, Silverburn Farm, Ballakewin Old Farm, Garey Rhennie from which there have been objections, and Grenaby Mooar (the applicant's premises), Ballabeg Cottage (just behind Grenaby Mooar), Lower Ballachrink, The Rheast and Ballachrink Cottage - all off the Foxdale Road (A1), none of which have generated objections. The objectors have outlined the nature of their experiences and concern in their submissions which have been summarised above. In order to try to experience the conditions referred to, three site visits were undertaken on days when the shooting was undertaken - 16th January, 2018, 28th April, 2018 and 16th May, 2018. The noise levels witnessed were very different on each of the occasions. The premises visited between these visits included Garey Rhennie, Silverburn Farm, Old Ballakewin Farm, Ballajimoara and Balladuggan as well as the footpath and the site itself. The factors involved in the different experiences related to the presence of and direction of any prevailing wind and the type of cartridge used. On all visits the shooting could be heard at the premises visited. In the case of Silverburn Farm and Ballajimoara there was also within the visit a discernible change in the volume and type of noise, this, it was assumed was on the basis of a different type of cartridge being used. Even when the quieter, "hush" cartridges were being used, they were audibly discernible from Silverburn Farm, Ballajimoara, Balladuggan and Old Ballakewin Farm.
• 6.5.2 The disturbance created is in some ways dependent upon individual perception. Some people, such as, perhaps the contributor from 3, Willow Terrace in Port St. Mary, may not find the noise of shooting particularly bothersome. In this case, the neighbours who have objected clearly do find the noise intrusive. The volume levels were measured during one of the visits and the shooting was discernible against the background noise which is generally low and disturbed only by natural sounds such as the flow of the river, pheasants, peacocks, dogs and even the weather (it hailed on one of the visits which resulted in considerable volume levels on the meter). Manmade sounds such as chainsaws and hammering were also discernible throughout the visits but for relatively short periods and with the listener able to calculate the source of the noise with, in most cases, the source of the noise being something expected in the countryside - tractors, chainsaws, lawn mowers etc.
• 6.5.3 As well as the nature and volume of the noise, the impact on neighbours will be affected by the regularity and frequency of the noise and whether it is anticipated or unexpected. The application seeks permission for the operation of the range not before 0900hrs or after 2000hrs on any day and where it would not take place on more than two consecutive days. This will not provide the neighbours with any surety on when shooting may be expected and it could take place on five days out of seven, effectively the norm could become the sound of shooting between 0900hrs and 2000hrs in any week with two days' respite. Within the periods of shooting, the shots are not regularly heard - ie there are not repeated shots at the same intervals. Also, the nature of the noise will differ depending upon who is shooting (experienced shooters tending to use louder cartridges) and the amount of shooting will depend upon the number of people in the group.
• 6.5.4 The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health guidance recommends that if the shoot is located where there are no noise sensitive premises within approximately 2km and/or complaints have not been received and are not anticipated, then constraints on shooting times are not necessary. They suggest that where justified complaints of noise have been received or are anticipated or where noise levels are measured or predicted to exceed the levels given in the document then constraints such as Mon-Fri 0900hrs to 1800hrs with maximum duration of

• 4 hours, Saturdays 10-00 to 1800hrs with a maximum cumulative duration of 3 hours and Sundays 1000hrs to 1400hrs with a maximum cumulative duration of 3 hours. They also state on those sites where shooting occurs on more than 28 days within any calendar year it may be appropriate to further restrict the times of operation and/or the number of days per week and/or weeks per year. They recommend that in instances where noise levels are lower than 55dB(A) nuisance is unlikely and it is likely where the noise levels are higher than 65dB(A) although experiences will differ from site to site. They distinguish between nuisance and annoyance, the test for the former being higher than that for the latter.

• 6.5.5 As was witnessed on site with the assistance of the noise meter, the volume of the noise at the neighbouring properties did not exceed 55 dB(A) although at Ballajimoara, this was up to 15 dB(A) louder than the ambient noise levels before the shooting started. On a later site visit in May, the noise levels were considerably louder at this point but were not recorded. It is considered that the noise impact on those in local dwellings is sufficiently detrimental to justify refusal of the application given the frequency of the proposed shooting times and the uncertainty of the level of noise through the type of cartridge and the times at which the shooting will take place.
• 6.5.6 Given the rural nature of the area, it is reasonable for those living there to expect a relatively undisturbed environment. What is proposed will not achieve this and the proposal is therefore considered to be unacceptable. If the proposed use were significantly reduced in frequency - for example then the proposed use may be acceptable, however, this is not what is proposed. Noise impact on users of the footpath

• 6.6.1 The site visits illustrate that the noise of the shooting can be heard from the footpath and that at some points, that noise level is considerable. Signage will assist the experience of those using the footpath, particularly if signs were displayed at the very start and end of the path - ie on the A3 - so that those hearing shots before they reach the gate at the immediate are of the range will know what the noise is. Again people's tolerance and experience of shooting will vary considerably although it is reasonable to assume that most people would not expect to hear the sound of shooting whilst on a public footpath. Those approaching the site with no knowledge of how the range is arranged and run will have no idea of whether it is safe and the noise impact is considered to have a detrimental impact on the enjoyment of the footpath sufficient to justify refusal of the application. The safety and convenience of the use of the footpath
• 6.7.1 It is not for the determination of the planning application to decide whether the operation of the range is safe in itself. There are clearly conflicting views from the DHA and from local residents as to whether it is and varying experiences of the efficacy of the measures taken to make the range safe. Even the guidance provided, whilst indicating that a public footpath crossing a site is generally unacceptable and significantly greater exclusion zones than what are provided here, are required, could be viewed with some flexibility given other security features built in -the CPSA talks of flags and sirens, bunds and fencing indicating where people should not enter. The experience of the writer is that when approaching the site from the south, the shooting certainly ceased and the surveillance appeared to work effectively. However, there was no such surveillance at the northern end and the shooting resumed before the walker had left the site. This could be addressed by additional security measures.

• 6.7.2 General Policy 2 makes it clear that the planning consideration is in respect of the impact of the proposal on "the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan" and that it "takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them", essentially in this case, the convenience of the use of the footpath and the perceived security of those using it. It could be that the suggestion that the footpath crosses through a shooting range may discourage people from using the path. Some people passing through the site may feel uncomfortable knowing

that the shooting had ceased whilst they passed through and may be concerned at the sight of people with guns. Whilst some people may not be concerned with the range at all, it is clear from those who have written in, that at least some people are concerned that the range has a detrimental impact on the enjoyment of the path and for this reason the application is considered to be unacceptable.

The impact on the river and wildlife through potential pollution

• 6.8.1 The DEFA has made it clear that any risk of lead or other pollutants entering the watercourse will result in an objection and sufficient adverse impact to justify refusal of the application. It is understood that the clays are not environmentally damaging in terms of pollution and that the direction of shooting makes it very unlikely that lead would find its way into a position to pollute the river. The site is used for grazing when not for shooting so it is in the applicant's interest to ensure that there is no lead deposited in the application site. It is possible that a scheme for clearing the site of clays is implemented, leading to no clays being left on the footpath. For these reasons it is not considered that the application is unacceptable from the perspective of the protection of the environment and its wildlife. The impact on local agriculture
• 6.9.1 There are two local objections which suggest that the shooting has an adverse impact on their agricultural activity, notably through the impact on their animals which are disturbed by the noise. One has sheep the other cattle. This contrasts with the impact of the shooting on the loaghtan sheep which graze right alongside the site and the horses which graze in the fields above it, all of which were seen at the two site visits. The timing of the operation was discussed with the applicant such that there would be no shooting at critical times of the agricultural year and whilst this could address the concerns about pregnancy, gestation and actual delivery, the applicant has indicated that they would be concerned about significant and unjustified disruption of their operation on this basis and in any case, would not address the concerns of those at Ballaglonney who would appear to be concerned about the impact on their cattle all year round.

• 6.9.2 The impact on the local agriculture clearly depends upon the type of animal involved although the evidence to support this impact is currently anecdotal. If the legitimate use of the countryside as a place which provides for the Island's food, is compromised then whatever compromises it cannot be considered to be acceptable. Visual impact

6.10 The proposal also includes three structures which double up as shelters for those engaging in the shooting as well as animal shelters. The shelters are modest and clearly not on a permanent footing and are not considered to have a sufficiently detrimental impact on the countryside as to justify a refusal. There is therefore no objection to them. Otherwise, there is limited visual impact of the proposal. Access and highway safety - 6.11 The curtilage of Grenaby Mooar has ample parking to accommodate those engaged in the

• shooting as well as those using that site for the various agricultural, tourism and equestrian purposes. Whilst the operation involves people either crossing the road on foot or being transported by the operator's vehicle, the nature of the main road and the lightness of traffic levels leads to the conclusion that there is no adverse impact on highway safety as a result of the proposal.

CONCLUSION

7.1 The benefit to the Island of the creation of a recreational facility which is clearly enjoyed by many and which supports the local leisure and tourist industry, where the use has no adverse visual impact in itself and no adverse impact on highway safety, needs to be balanced against the environmental impact on those who live in the vicinity and those who use the footpath. For the reasons set out above, it is considered that the noise impact to local residents and the

impact on the convenience, enjoyment and perceived safety of the footpath are so adverse as to warrant refusal of the application.

7.2 Some of the issues raised could be satisfactorily addressed by additional measures, for example, the introduction of additional security provisions at the northern end of the range and perhaps noises or flags as recommended by the CPSA. These could be required by planning condition. However, some thing would be difficult or impossible to effectively enforce: if the operation were restricted to times not exceeding a certain number or time within the day, if the activity did breach this then it would require immediate reaction by the enforcement team which may not be realistically achievable. Similarly, controls over the type of cartridges could require significant on-site presence which again, is not necessarily practicable. From the very limited experience on site, it is clear that even the same cartridges can produce very different noise impacts depending upon the prevailing weather conditions. Whilst the applicant has indicated that they would be prepared to consider cessation of the operations when certain agricultural activities are undertaken, it is clear that these are not a period fixed or at the same times every year and there is a difference in the view of the applicant and the objector on what is reasonable in terms of when the activity should reasonably cease. As such, it is not considered that the outstanding concerns which have led to the recommendation for refusal, could be satisfactorily overcome by the imposition of conditions. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
• (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material
• (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and
• (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

8.2 The decision-maker must determine:

• * whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
• * whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

SITE VISIT NOTES FOR 17/01024/B Two site visits were undertaken on Saturday 28th April, 2018

The events were to take place from 1000hrs when I was advised that there would be a party of ten or possibly fourteen booked for coaching. In the morning there was to be 150 quiet cartridges and in the afternoon from 1430hrs there will be 200 normal cartridges.

The visit commenced at Silverburn Farm in order to hear the shooting from that objector's property. Mr. Osborne, the site owner, offered the use of a brand new sound meter (Mercury TSL01 Multitester).

I drove to Athol Bridge and parked my car to the southern side of the A3 and proceeded to walk along the public footpath. The path is undulating with steep sections and boardwalks with a generally soil structure which was muddy in places.

At that time the weather was warm and bright and there was no wind. The noises within the glen were of the river and birdsong with ambient noise levels measured on the meter, of 4950dB. This rose to 57dB when someone was working with sheets of timber on the northern side of the river. The first sounds of shooting were heard around 150m away from the shooters, directly to the south. At this point the meter recorded levels of 66dB.

On the approach to the range, before the gate, shooting ceased, the remote camera on the tree before the gate having alerted Mr. Keeling to my presence. I continued along the path to the shooters, stopping to advise Mr. Keeling of my presence and him confirming that he was using the subsonic cartridges and that he would be using the louder ones in the afternoon after 1430hrs. I proceeded north, to hear shooting which registered as 76dB at a distance of around 60m and on turning around, could see that the shooting has resumed with all of the shooters and the instructor looking south at the targets.

I followed the path north, the shooting quickly becoming inaudible due to the topography and vegetation. The path had collapsed at a point parallel with Balladuggan.

I called in at both Balladuggan Farm and Ballajimoara at which time shooting had ceased and I advised all property owners that I would return in the afternoon when there may be louder cartridges fired.

I continued along the road, to the entrance to the site, where there were two horses grazing. The noise of shooting resumed and was audible from the road at levels of 54dB compared with the ambient levels of around 48 dB. The noise of peacocks was similar to the noise level of the

• shooting at this point and the noise of dogs barking at Grenaby Mooar was around 57dB.

The weather changed very suddenly to very heavy hail. I continued to Ballakewin Old Farmhouse and spoke with Mr. Barrs. No shooting was to be heard at that point.

I returned at 1425hrs and sat in the rear garden of Ballajimoara where the ambient noise levels were 37-40dB with increases in noise level from the occasional passing car and distance chainsaws, sheep, pheasants and nearer peacocks. The traffic on the A3 could be heard at a distance. From there, near to 1500hrs shooting could be heard at levels of around 52 dB. I

• then moved to Balladuggan and had a similar experience of audible shooting. Both Mrs. Gotrel and Mr. Garrett confirmed that the noise I could hear was not as loud as they had experienced, noting that prior to the Commonwealth Games there had been three days of long periods of loud shooting. I then went to Ballakewin Old Farmhouse and went to the top paddock area where noise levels were around 40dB, rising to 46dB during the shooting.

I then went back to Silverburn Farm and sat in the property with the conservatory doors open and could hear shooting, with at least one discernibly louder gunshot sound. I left that property at around 1620hrs.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Decision Made : …Refused……….... Committee Meeting Date:…02.07.2018

Signed :………S CORLETT…….. Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

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.

Planning Committee Decision 02.07.2018

Application No. : 17/01024/B Applicant : Joanna Mia Crookall/Grenaby Estates Limited Proposal : Creation of clay pigeon shooting facility, including erection of

three field shelters, all with alternative use for agricultural purposes Site Address : Field 434773 Grenaby Road Ballasalla Isle Of Man Principal Planner : Miss S E Corlett Presenting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer’s Report

The Planning Committee refused the application at its meeting of 2nd July, 2018, amending the two reasons recommended by the Planning Officer and adding a further three reasons, relating

• to the actual safety of those using the footpath, the risk of pollutants entering the watercourse and the lack of agricultural need for the shelters.

The members were also appraised of additional letters of support from the owners of Great Meadow Mansion House and Kerrowgarrow House, additional information from the operator of the Broogh Fort range to demonstrate that his range is indeed operational and an apology from the owner of Ballajimoara for his absence from the meeting. The new correspondents live some distance from the site and should not be afforded interested person status.

Finally, the reporting officer amended her recommendation to include for interested person status, the owner of Garey Rhennie.

Revised Reasons for Refusal

• R 1. It has not been demonstrated that there are sufficient measures in place to prevent risk of danger to those using the public footpath, contrary to General Policy 2m of the Strategic Plan.
• R 2. It has not been demonstrated that there are sufficient measures in place to ensure that polluting material does not enter the watercourse through residue from the operation directly or indirectly passing into the river, contrary to Environment Policies 4, 7 and 22.
• R 3. It has not been demonstrated that there is agricultural need, as provided for in Environment Policy 15, for the three shelters to overcome the general presumption against development as set out in General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan.

• R 4. The proposal to operate a clay pigeon shooting facility on this site would, by virtue of the noise levels together with irregularity and frequency of shooting times as well as the times in which the proposed activities are proposed to take place have a detrimental impact on the living conditions of those living in nearby properties, contrary to Environment Policy 22.
• R 5. The proposed clay pigeon shooting facility would adversely affect the enjoyment of the public footpath which runs through the site, through the sound of shooting and the experience of walking through a clay pigeon shooting range and the perception of being at risk of danger, all contrary to Recreation Policy 5 and the general protection of the countryside in Environment Policies 1 and 2.