Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
15/01373/B
Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 15/01373/B Applicant : Mr Jason Elliot Proposal : Erection of stables with yard, creation of an access track and formation of an entrance with associated landscaping Site Address : Field 510279 Mullinaragher Road Santon Isle Of Man
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 06.01.2016 Site Visit : 06.01.2016 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is a rectangular parcel of land bounded to the south by Mullinaragher Road, roughly equidistant as the crow flies between Ballacorris House to the west, Ballagick Farm to the south and the Broogh Fort ancient monument to the east. It is an open field at present and is associated with a much larger land ownership that is shown edged blue on the submitted plans. The land within control of the applicant is peculiarly long and narrow - roughly 625m at its longest but never wider than roughly 120m. The entirety of the land but for an existing access at the southeastern corner is bounded by what appears to be a traditional Manx hedgerow - albeit one that has not had particularly regular maintenance in recent times. The site itself is set noticeably lower than the highway and cannot be readily seen from it.
1.2 The nearest settlement is Newtown, roughly 500m southeast. There are isolated dwellings in the area as well as the nearby Broogh Fort Clay Pigeon Shooting Range, in addition to the Broogh Fort itself. The area is, though, very much characterised by its countryside location albeit that the field boundaries and undulating landscape are such that those long-distance views that do exist are either quite narrow in scope or otherwise not readily available from many locations.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of an L-shaped stable block and associated hardstanding in addition to a new highway access off Mullinaragher Road. The stable block would provide four stables as well as a tack room and store, and would have two soakaways. The stable's eaves would sit 2.2m above ground level, which would be levelled slightly, with a ridge height of 3.2m. The building would be 14.94m and 8.98m along is longer sides. The building would be formed of timber boarding, stained green, with profiled metal cladding for the roof (also green). The access track would be curved to account for the change in level and be roughly 20m in length from the new access and, along with a yard area extending slightly beyond the footprint of the stable, would be laid with woodchip-style permeable surfacing. A 1.2m-high post-and-rail fence is shown around the hardstanding and stable block with the exception of a pair of gates providing vehicular and field access. The fence itself is of a size and style to benefit from permitted development rights.
2.2 A two metre-stretch of the access lane, back from the highway, would be finished in tarmacadam. Visibility of 145m to the east and 300m to the west can be achieved from this access. There is no indication as to whether there would be a gate here or not.
==== PAGE 2 ====
15/01373/B
Page 2 of 6
2.3 The proposed site plan shows eight trees being planted on the site but no further details are provided.
2.4 The application originally sought approval for the erection of an identically sized stable to the east of the applicant's landholding but this was subject to objection from Manx National Heritage, the Broogh Fort Clay Pigeon Shooting Club and the Commissioners and, in view of these and also concerns raised by the case officer, the scheme was amended to that described above. The application was formally re-advertised following receipt of the amended plans.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 Neither the site nor the land adjacent has been the subject of any applications considered materially relevant.
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4.1 The site falls within an area of 'white land' as zoned on the 1982 Development Plan; as such, there is a general presumption against new development here as set out in Environment Policy 1 and General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan. However, exceptions to this presumption with respect to equestrian buildings are set out in Environment Policies 15 and 21, with the latter being the most relevant in this case. (EP15 is less relevant since it makes reference to agricultural and horticultural buildings only, but it does provide useful points for consideration in assessing applications for development on land not zoned therefor.)
4.2 Environment Policy 21: "Buildings for the stabling, shelter or care of horses or other animals will not be permitted in the countryside if they would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside in terms of siting, design, size or finish. Any new buildings must be designed in form and materials to reflect their specific purpose; in particular, cavity-wall construction should not be used."
4.3 Environment Policy 15: "Where the Department is satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building (including a dwelling), sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside, and that the impact of this development including buildings, accesses, servicing etc. is acceptable, such development must be sited as close as is practically possible to existing building groups and be appropriate in terms of scale, materials, colour, siting and form to ensure that all new developments are sympathetic to the landscape and built environment of which they will form a part. Only in exceptional circumstances will buildings be permitted in exposed or isolated areas or close to public highways and in all such cases will be subject to appropriate landscaping. The nature and materials of construction must also be appropriate to the purposes for which it is intended."
4.3 Also relevant is Environment Policy 40 (though less so given the amendments outlined), which relates to development near Schedule Monuments: "Development will not be permitted which would damage, disturb or detract from an important archaeological site or an Ancient Monument or the setting thereof."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure sought a condition requiring the access to be provided prior to any construction on site and also limiting obstructions within the visibility splay to below 1.05m. These comments were received on 1st April 2016 following the application's re-advertisement, and added to those received on 24th December 2015 and which had only made reference to obstruction within the visibility splay.
5.2 Manx National Heritage was contacted with respect to the proposal in view of its proximity to the Scheduled Monument known as the Brough Fort. They discuss the history of the Fort and the reasoning behind its designation, commenting that the proposed building so near to the siting of the Fort and without archaeological evidence to the contrary, the proposal is directly at odds with Environment Policy 40. Separately, they also considered the positioning of the stable building so
==== PAGE 3 ====
15/01373/B
Page 3 of 6
close to the Fort would also reflect an unwarranted intrusion into the countryside, contrary to Environment Policies 15 and 21. They identify the other nearest buildings to be 90m to 160m distant, request a condition in respect of an archaeological investigation were the application to be approved, and further suggest that a site further along the Mullinaragher Road would be better screened and would "greatly alleviate our concerns". These comments were received 5th February 2016; no further comment was received following the application's re-advertisement.
5.3 Santon Commissioners note the concern of the operator of the nearby Country Gun Shop and Clay Shooting Range [see below], specifically with respect to the effect of the proposal on horses and handlers. They also are concerned about the proposed stable's proximity to the Broogh Fort and also suggest a site on Mullinaragher Road would be more appropriate. These comments were received 13th January 2016; no further comment was received following the application's re- advertisement.
5.4 The proprietor of the Country Gunshop Ltd., identified concerns with the application in comments received 13th January 2016. He identified the closeness of the site to the shooting range and states that "horses and shooting don't mix". He comments at length on the visual impact of the proposal on the Fort and he was minded to help protect this when he set up his business nearly 20 years ago; he also notes that MNH are keen on respecting the site of the monument, and is the third correspondent to suggest re-siting the stable further along Mullinaragher Road. No further comment was received following the application's re-advertisement. On 22nd April 2016, the Department received further comment from the proprietor of the Country Gunshop Ltd., noting his appreciation for the building being moved away from his shooting range. However, he remains concerned by the elaborate size and detail of the building, which would be isolated in the countryside, while also noting concern with respect to an increased number of horses using the lane in the area and which could result in complaints in future, which, he feels, will be unjustified by his continued objection. He also raises concern about further future development of the site.
5.5 The owner & occupier of The Old Mill, which is located roughly 500m west of the application site (but the access to which immediately abuts the land edged blue on the submitted drawings), objected to the application in comments received 20th April 2016. He raises 10 separate concerns, summarised as: (1) the application site notice was displayed on different roads to the address of the property; (2) the "similar stables" shown on the plans are different in scale to those proposed; (3) it is, at best, "rather hopeful" that the new location for the stables will be better hidden; (4) the dimensions for the proposed stables are not shown; (5) the applicant has opened up a new entrance, and also the visibility shown as being 300m is not possible as after only 137m there is a bend in the highway; (6) where is visibility measured from? The road is only 3m narrow and a car towing a horsebox would have difficulty turning onto the road; (7) how many horses does the applicant have, and "I can only assume" the proposal is "on a commercial basis" - "I doubt if there is" sufficient space on the site for this; (8) do Planners want to encourage multiple occupancy livery on such a small road; cars and horses do not mix; (9) it is not possible for two cars to pass on this road - will the Highway Authority be prepared to keep repairing the verges?, and (10) questions are raised about the personal interest the applicant has in the land, given that it has been sold off in parcels and also there has been a tree nursery idea turned down.
The correspondent states that "I am a daily user of the road and know exactly what use it has and the limitations there are."
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 Environment Policy 21 allows for equestrian-related buildings to be supported where there is an essential need for such buildings, and where the visual impact from the proposal would be acceptable.
6.2 The wider land in question "is to be used for private equestrian activities", according to the agent, though no details regarding the number of horses have been provided. Although EP15 expects an essential need for a new building, this specifically relates to agricultural or horticultural
==== PAGE 4 ====
15/01373/B
Page 4 of 6
buildings, and reference to that policy is probably best restricted in this assessment to consideration of the scale, materials, form and general siting of the building proposed. As such, there is a general presumption in favour of new equestrian-related buildings where it can be demonstrated that it would not be detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside in terms of siting, design, size or finish, with an expectation that the materials used are reflect the specific purpose for the stable.
6.3 The agent has provided some helpful drawings with the application, identifying contour lines and also how visible the building would be relative to those and also relative to the views into the site. The proposed stable would have been visible from the existing field access, though it is noted that a screen of deciduous trees would be planted here. This would have satisfactorily obscured views of the building from Mullinaragher Road, which it is considered would sit comfortably against the scrub backdrop and banking beyond to the northwest. However, it would have been far more visible from the adjacent, unnamed road (apparently called both Rheast Road and Ballacorris Road, according to representations received) and especially so from the Broogh Fort.
6.4 In view of the concerns raised by MNH, the proposal as originally submitted would very likely have carried a recommendation to refuse in terms of both its visual impact but also in terms of its impact on potential archaeological remains. While the latter concern could possibly have been addressed by way of the condition recommended by MNH, the visual impact of a building so close to, and apparent from and against, the Fort would have been impossible to address. The re-siting of the building is therefore welcome, but does not in itself make the application acceptable.
6.5 While the proposal represents a new building in the countryside, its visual impact would be suitably limited relative to its surroundings. It is welcome that there would be hedgerow retention along the highway. The stable building itself would be entirely green in colour and of metal roofing and timber walls, again appropriate to this countryside location. Moreover, the building itself would only be visible from nearby via glimpses as one passes the proposed entrance. While the stable would probably still be visible from the Fort, it would be from a distance of roughly 350m and the topography here is such that the stable would be set down but also potentially behind some of the wider land's natural curvature. It would certainly not represent 'skyline' development and would be
6.6 The use of woodchip-style hardstanding or a similar surface, which is usually coloured appropriate to a countryside location, is also welcome, and would also help water percolate more naturally.
6.7 As such, it is considered that the proposal manages to satisfy the key tests of Environment Policy 21, even if it does represent an 'isolated' building as presumed against by EP15. With this in mind, a condition requiring the building's removal and the land returned to its current condition should the building cease to be used for the approved use would, in this case, be appropriate. Moreover, the impact of the proposal on the ancient monument in both visual and physical terms would be very limited to the point of de minimis, and therefore the proposal also complies with EP40.
6.8 A condition requiring the site be used solely for private use would be appropriate.
6.9 The access onto the highway and its use as well has caused some concern for a correspondent. The lane is indeed narrow but the amount of visibility that can be achieved is far in excess of what would normally be sought in a location such as this and for a use such as this, and so any vehicle exiting the site would be able to safely do so in a forward gear. The additional use of the lane resulting from the site is not considered reason enough to object to the application even if the lane is indeed narrow. The other matters raised by the correspondent have either been covered in the report to this point or are not material to the assessment of the application.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
==== PAGE 5 ====
15/01373/B
Page 5 of 6
7.1 The application is considered to meet the key tests of EP21 and, subject to the conditions as discussed, it is therefore recommended that it be approved.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; o 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; o Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material, which in this case includes Manx National Heritage; o The Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; and o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.
8.2 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.
8.2.1 In this instance, it is considered that the following persons have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person:
o The proprietor of the Country Gunshop Ltd., the running of whose business could be said to be materially affected by the proposed use proposed on this site.
8.2.2 In this instance, it is considered that the following persons do not have sufficient interest and therefore should not be awarded the status of an Interested Person:
o The owner & occupier of The Old Mill.
Although the access to The Old Mill (rather than its landholding) bounds the land within the control of the applicant (rather than the application site itself), it is not considered that the activity on the landholding arising from the approval of the application could be considered as so significant as to "substantially affect" the privacy, outlook or enjoyment of the landholding associated with The Old Mill.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 20.04.2016
Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
==== PAGE 6 ====
15/01373/B
Page 6 of 6
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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. The stable hereby approved shall be for private use only and not for any commercial or private livery use.
Reason: In view of the location of the site in the open countryside and also the nature of the access to the site, the Department would need further details in order to assess whether or not the site would be suitable for anything other than private use.
C 3. Prior to the stable hereby approved coming into use, the access shown on Drawing 835/004 (date-stamped as having been received 24th March 2016) shall be constructed and retained and the visibility splays shall thereafter be kept permanently clear of any obstruction exceeding 1050mm in height above adjoining carriageway level.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
C 4. The building 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.
Reason: The building has been exceptionally approved and its subsequent retention would result in an unwarranted intrusion in the countryside.
The development hereby approved relates to the Planning Statement and Measured Survey 1510N 01, both date-stamped as having been received 18th December 2015, and also Drawing Numbers 835/001 Rev A, 835/003 Rev A and 835/004, all three date-stamped as having been received 24th March 2016.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Permitted
Date: 04.08.2016
Determining officer
Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett
Senior Planning Officer
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