144288

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                                 15/00812/B
                                 Page  1  of  13

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 15/00812/B Applicant : Mr Andrew Clague Proposal : Demolition of two existing stone barns, erection of a multi-purpose building for entertainment and leisure activates and creation of an overflow car park Site Address : Ballakaighen Farm Whitebridge Road Onchan Isle Of Man IM4 6AD

Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 27.08.2015 Site Visit : 27.08.2015 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OWING TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE.

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE

1.1 The application site is a parcel of land that includes an access track and a pair of stone barns associated with Ballakaighen Farm, Whitebridge Road, and which sits within the rural part of Onchan. The two barns measure roughly 110sqm and 105sqm. The farm is now primarily in leisure use, and is commonly referred to as 'Laserblast' although there are a number of other activities that take place here. The land edged blue in association with Ballakaighen Farm is significantly larger and includes various other buildings, one of which is a temporary marquee, used in connection with 'Laserblast' and the 'Fun Barn'.

1.2 The applicant also owns the residential property Ballakaighen House which is directly to the north of the application site.

1.3 Directly opposite the entrance to the site is the residential property known as "Sunnyside".

2.0 PROPOSAL

2.1 Full planning approval is sought for demolition of the pair of stone buildings and their replacement with another building for 'multipurpose' use as well as an overflow car park to provide 20 parking spaces. The multipurpose use would be the primary use, but the proposed floor plan also identifies an equipment store, an entrance lobby and a spectator area and café at a mezzanine level.

2.2 The new building's footprint would measure 24.3m by 22.7m (just under 550sqm), with eaves 4.9m above ground level and the apex of the roof 7.3m above ground level. The proposed mezzanine area would measure just over 125sqm. It would be finished in a mixture of materials: smooth render at the lower part of the building, with timber boarding above and some fairly large areas of stone reclaimed from the loss of the stone buildings. The roof would be finished in dark

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                                 15/00812/B
                                 Page  2  of  13

green insulated metal panels. There would be some windows and doors providing access, along with a number of rooflights in both roof planes.

2.3 The new building is intended to provide space for storage of existing equipment, while the multipurpose element of the building would be to provide the services currently provided for by the marquee (which can only be erected during summer months) as well as 'bouncy castle' area, to include an inflatable slide, rodeo bull, inflatable assault course. These uses are indicated in a letter provided by the applicants.

2.4 The proposed overflow car park as well as the access road to it would be finished in a 'reinforced grass system (Grassguard 180 or similar)'. This would enable grass to grow through what is essentially permeable paving. Some trees are also shown for planting in and around the parking area. The car park would be immediately north of the proposed building with the access road further north again.

2.5 A four-page Planning Statement has been provided with the application by way of explaining the proposal and in support of it. It explains that the barns are structurally unsafe, with one being recommended for emergency demolition and the other being deemed beyond economic repair due to a defect in the foundations that, to repair, would require substantial demolition of the barn.

2.6 The Statement goes on to explain that the steel portal frame construction with green profiled steel, insulated roof cladding, stained timber cladding, reclaimed Manx stone from the existing barns and rendered blockwork to the lower section would match the appearance of the adjacent 'Fun Barn' and 'Laserblast' buildings. They identify that the proposal will provide a large open space suitable for a number of leisure and recreational activities, along with toilet facilities and a function area, all accessible by people with disabilities. A large storage area for leisure and play equipment has also been provided.

2.7 The Statement addresses the merits of the proposal. The applicant believes it is "unfair and inconsistent of the Planning Officer to be reluctant to support the application, saying the area is not zoned under the Local Plan, as the Local Plan was issued in 2000, some time ago, and since then, significant areas of the site land have, through various planning approvals been re-designated for leisure use. This application should be considered in the same context." The Statement then explains why the re-use of the barn is not practical for reasons of both structural stability and also, "more importantly, the applicant requires reasonably large open space for the activities he plans to offer to the public... The more open the space the more flexibility its use".

2.8 Another point in favour of the application is that an agricultural barn was approved on the site in April 2001. The barn was "9.15m wide and 18.29m long. This is similar to what is being proposed now. In the Planning Officer's Report the existing barn carried little if no weight in the decision making. The Report says 'The barn is prominent, a little run down and surrounded by modern plain buildings. As such the retention of the stone barn seems a little pointless'. The Applicant believes the planning system should be consistent. If, when the site was a farm use, a new building was granted approval, when the site use has changed to leisure, that same system should support a new building too. The multi-purpose building [now sought] is just as important for the Applicant's leisure business now, as the farm building was, when his family operated the farm on the site".

2.9 Further: "The Applicant believes there are exceptional circumstances surrounding the current land uses for leisure purposes, and believes his application should be dealt with in a manner that is consistent with the other applications which were granted approval, and that the Strategic Plan General Policy 3 be set aside, and the application considered as if the land was zoned for development."

2.10 The applicant included a covering letter with the application indicating that the marquee that have approval for enables them to operate a number of different services ("birthdays, wedding

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                                 15/00812/B
                                 Page  3  of  13

receptions, anniversary parties, charity family fun days, bouncy castle parties, disco dancing, people's private work functions, etc.") but the remaining seven months of the year are not able to offer these services as the marquee has to be put away. They note that the new building would help them offer those services, particularly stressing the opportunity in respect of bouncy castle and roller skating parties that could result, none of which are not found on the Island during winter months.

2.11 In response to concern raised by Highway Services in respect of the proposal, a Road Traffic Congestion Survey was provided, outlining that the proposal would likely result in a 10% increase in "business" initially. It was concluded that the site could adequately cater for this presumed increase. This survey was circulated for information, with a view to having comments received by 28th January 2016; any additional comments received beyond those already received at the time of writing (25th January 2016) will be provided to the Planning Committee via a verbal update.

2.12 The application also includes a 'Condition and Dilapidation Survey', which assesses the structural condition of the two barns. Barn 1, which appears to be the northernmost of the two, is judged to be in structural distress, is unsafe, and it has been recommended that it be demolished. Barn 2 could be repaired but it is judged to be uneconomical to do so.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, some of which have been approved and others that have not. In view of the nature of the history, it is considered that a brief summary of each application is worth noting, as while some are individually specifically material to the assessment of the current application, the planning history as a whole is also material since it indicates the move away from the use of the site from agricultural to leisure uses. The applications listed are those submitted on the wider site, and are listed in date order.

o 15/00036/C - "Erection of a temporary camping area with associated parking, fencing and welfare facilities to operate during the TT Festival fortnight (May/June 2015 and 2016) and Festival of Motorcycling fortnight (August/September 2015 and 2016) only". APPROVED at Planning Committee subject to various conditions relating to the use of the car park, provision of fencing, removal of temporary signage and the number of tents permissible. o 14/00242/C - "Erection of a temporary camping area with associated parking, fencing and welfare facilities to operate during the TT Festival fortnight (May/June 2014 and 2015) and Festival of Motorcycling fortnight (August/September 2014 and 2015)". APPROVED at Planning Committee. o 14/00223/C - "Variation of conditions 4 and 5 of PA 10/00838/B concerning the hours and frequency of use of seasonal marquee". APPROVED at Planning Committee. o 11/00459/C - "Additional use of agricultural land for recreational activities, extension to car park and formation of zorbing tracks". APPROVED at Planning Committee subject to conditions relating to hours of use and preventing lighting. o 10/00838/B - "The seasonal erection of a marquee and portable toilet block to accommodate corporate functions and events (1st May to 30th September)". APPROVED following an appeal against the Department's issued refusal. This application was refused by the Planning Department and recommended for refusal by the Planning Inspector, but was subsequently approved by the Deputy Minister. He concluded that "having regard to the fact that it, the marquee, would be in place for only part of the year, that it would have the appearance of a temporary structure, and that it would form part of a compact group of buildings set some distance from the roads...the effect on the countryside would not be so adverse as to warrant a refusal". The Deputy Minister acknowledged that the Planning Inspector concluded the exiting traffic late at night would have an adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupants of 'Sunnyside' opposite the entrance to the site, but concluded it was acceptable. o 10/01728/D - "Erection of entrance signage". APPROVED under delegated authority. o 08/00456/D - "Installation of illuminated signage". REFUSED under delegated authority: "By reason of its design and positioning the proposed signage would cause undesirable escape of light

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                                 15/00812/B
                                 Page  4  of  13

and adversely affect visibility for vehicles emerging from Ballakaighan Farm onto Whitebridge Road. As such the proposal does not accord with criteria (d) and (e) of General Policy 8 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007." No appeal was lodged. o 08/00454/B - "Extension of existing car park". APPROVED under delegated authority. This extended car park is located to the south of the central collection of buildings, unrelated to the proposal site. o 08/01403/C - "Change of use of two fields from agricultural to recreational and location of a portacabin". REFUSED under delegated authority for two reasons:

Reason 1 "The proposed change of use of the two fields to recreational is contrary to the land use designation of the land under the Onchan Local Plan Order 2000. Such change of use represents an unwarranted use within the countryside, contrary to the provisions of Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. Whilst information regarding the intended use of the two fields is limited within the planning application it is concluded that the indicated uses, and in particular go- karting, have the potential to cause detrimental harm to the amenity of the surrounding area and the residential amenity of Sunnyside and Ballakaighen House."

Reason 2 "The siting of the portcabin represents the erection of a new built development in the countryside. Such development is contrary to the presumption against development in the countryside and the provisions of General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007."

o 08/01134/R - "Change of use of two fields from agricultural to recreational and location of a portacabin". REFUSED under delegated authority, for one reason: "By reason that the proposed development represents the erection of a new built development in the countryside, as opposed to the previous re-use of existing redundant buildings, the proposal is contrary to the presumption against development in the countryside. As such the proposed development is contrary to the provisions of General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007." o 09/01320/R - "Creation of a toilet block". DECLINED TO BE CONSIDERED by Planning Committee. o 05/00326/B - "Conversion of barns to an activity centre with car parking, drive widening and entrance alterations". APPROVED at Planning Committee subject to conditions relating to hours of use and the finishing material for the car park. This car park was, again, located nearer to the then-existing collection of buildings than the current proposal. o 06/00866/B - "Alterations to existing sludge pit and erection of a building to incorporate leisure activities". REFUSED under delegated authority, for two reasons:

Reason 1 "By reason that the proposed development represents the erection of a new building in the countryside, as opposed to the previous re-use of existing redundant buildings, the proposal is contrary to the presumption against development in the countryside. The planning application contains insufficient information and justification to warrant the setting aside of this well established presumption."

Reason 2 "Notwithstanding the first reason for refusal, and the issue of principle of development, the planning application is insufficiently detailed to allow a proper assessment of the impacts of the proposal. Specifically, the planning application fails to adequately define the proposed use and contains insufficient information to assess the impact of the proposed development on highway safety and the effect on the residential amenity of properties within the surrounding area."

o 03/00729/C - "Change of use of agricultural land and barn for paintball games and indoor laser games". APPROVED at Planning Committee.

The applications prior to those set out above relate to agricultural uses or buildings.

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                                 15/00812/B
                                 Page  5  of  13

4.0 PLANNING POLICY

4.1 The application site is located within a wider area of land that is designated as 'open space' under the Onchan Local Plan Order 2000. There are no policies within Planning Circular 1/2000, which constitutes the written statement to be read in conjunction with the Local Plan, that are considered material to the assessment of the planning application.

4.2 The Strategic Plan contains several policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of the planning application.

4.3 Strategic Policy 2 states in full: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3" [see General Policy 3, below].

4.4 Strategic Policy 5 states in part: "New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island."

4.5 Strategic Policy 8 might not be directly applicable, but it remains important for consideration: "Tourist development proposals will generally be permitted where they make use of existing built fabric of interest and quality, where they do not affect adversely environmental, agricultural, or highway interests and where they enable enjoyment of our natural and man-made attractions."

4.6 General Policy 3 states: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:

(a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10); (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11); (c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment; (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14); (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services; (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry; (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage."

4.7 Environment Policy 1 states: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative."

4.8 Environment Policy 4 states in full: "Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect:

"(a) species and habitats of international importance: (i) protected species of international importance or their habitats; or

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                                 15/00812/B
                                 Page  6  of  13

(ii) proposed or designated Ramsar and Emerald Sites or other internationally important sites.

"(b) species and habitats of national importance: (i) protected species of national importance or their habitats; (ii) proposed or designated National Nature Reserves, or Areas of Special Scientific Interest; or (iii) Marine Nature Reserves; or (iv) National Trust Land.

"(c) species and habitats of local importance such as Wildlife Sites, local nature reserves, priority habitats or species identified in any Manx Biodiversity Action Plan which do not already benefit from statutory protection, Areas of Special Protection and Bird Sanctuaries and landscape features of importance to wild flora and fauna by reason of their continuous nature or function as a corridor between habitats.

"Some areas to which this policy applies are identified as Areas of Ecological Importance or Interest on extant Local or Area Plans, but others, whose importance was not evident at the time of the adoption of the relevant Local or Area Plan, are not, particularly where that plan has been in place for many years. In these circumstances, the Department will seek site specific advice from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry if development proposals are brought forward."

4.9 Environment Policy 16 states in part: "The use of existing rural buildings for new purposes such as tourist, or small-scale industrial/commercial use may be permitted where:

(a) it is demonstrated that the building is no longer required for its original purpose and where the building is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation; (b) the reuse of the building will result in the preservation of fabric which is of historic, architectural, or social interest or is otherwise of visual attraction; (c) it is demonstrated that the building could accommodate the new use without requiring extension or adverse change to appearance or character; (d) there would not be unacceptable implications in terms of traffic generation; (e) conversion does not lead to dispersal of activity on such a scale as to prejudice the vitality and viability of existing town and village services; and (f) the use of existing buildings involves significant levels of redevelopment to accommodate the new use, the benefits secured by the proposal in terms of impact on the environment and the rural economy shall outweigh the continued impact of retaining the existing buildings on site".

4.10 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."

4.11 Business Policy 11 states: "Tourism development must be in accordance with the sustainable development objectives of this plan; policies and designations which seek to protect the countryside from development will be applied to tourist development with as much weight as they are to other types of development. Within the rural areas there may be situations where existing rural buildings could be used for tourist use and Environment Policy 16 sets out the circumstances where this may be permitted."

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Highway Services within the Department of Infrastructure initially commented (on 12th August 2015) as follows:

==== PAGE 7 ====

                                                 15/00812/B
                                 Page  7  of  13

"This application proposes yet another intensification of use of the site. As stated previously, particularly during PA 11/00459/C, highways are concerned that additional traffic movements at the access may have a negative impact on through traffic movement on the main road.

"Presently the site is self limiting in terms of the number of activities available at any time, however this proposal could conceivably lead to several activities being used at the same time- paintball/zorbing, fun barn, laser blast, Maize maze, marquee, karting and leisure facility. This will generate significant levels of traffic and that impact has not been assessed.

"Please defer the decision on this application until a robust assessment of traffic generation and it's impact has been provided."

Following receipt of the traffic survey as outlined at paragraph 2.11 of this report, which was provided to them prior to its being received by Planning & Building Control, they commented (on 24th December 2015) as follows:

"The applicant has provided a transport statement that satisfies Highways concerns. The access can accommodate the additional traffic."

5.2 Onchan District Commissioners recommended on 20th August 2015 that the application be approved.

5.3 The owner / occupier of "Sunnyside", which is located on Whitebridge Road and immediately opposite the access to the site, objected to the application in commented received 13th August 2015. Their comments can be summarised as concern with:

o The plans appear on first impressions to represent an industrial warehouse and not an agricultural building; o No specific details as to what the proposed building is for have been provided, so what is the reasoning behind the proposed size? More details would allow for a better reasoned assessment as to whether or not the size is adequate or excessive; o The overflow car park position means the recreational buildings will be encroaching even closer towards Sunnyside; o While efforts have been made to disguise the car park but once filled it would still look like an ugly eyesore with no place in the countryside. This could also result in additional light pollution; o Reassurance is sought regarding restraining the proposed building's use to during the current opening times, with noise insulation of sufficient quality being required and also an 11pm curfew. They would also like prior notice when fireworks are set off, which has not happened in the past and has caused local pet animals in great distress, and o If the building is approved, it is queried as to whether or not there is a need for both it and the marquee.

6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 It is evident from the planning history on the site that Ballakaighen Farm is no longer in use for agriculture and, moreover, offers a number of leisure uses instead, some of which are all-year round and others of which are temporary, both in respect of structures (the marquee) and use (the campsite). This should not be ignored in the assessment of the proposal. Equally important to reflect on, however, is the fact that there seems to be a fairly clear trend towards support for changes of use of the land and of buildings, whereas the erection of new buildings (even where these would be temporary) has been far more strictly controlled, with the refusal issued to PA 06/00866/B being particularly noteworthy. However, notwithstanding this, it remains a fundamental principle that every planning application should be assessed on its own merits.

6.2 The existing barns are clearly in a poor state of repair to varying degrees. Stone barns in rural areas are often proposed for re-use in some form or another (usually dwellings), even where

==== PAGE 8 ====

                                                 15/00812/B
                                 Page  8  of  13

they are in poor repair, since this accords with the policies designed to retain buildings of social, architectural or historic interest that contribute to the character and appearance of the countryside. Against this context, the proposal is somewhat unusual. Equally, the demolition of the barns does not constitute 'development' and could therefore be undertaken at any time without submitting a planning application.

6.3 General Policy 3 outlines the exceptions to the presumption against new development outside those areas zoned for development: none of those exceptions apply to the current proposal, the substantive element of which seeks the erection of a new building for leisure uses. Therefore, it must be considered as to whether or not there are any reasons to set aside that presumption. The agents' Planning Statement is helpful to consider.

6.4 The Statement indicates that the significant number of approvals for leisure use and activities indicate that there is an acceptance within the Planning Division and the Planning Committee that the site is now a leisure complex, and so further development on these lines would be consistent with those recent planning approvals. They also believe that it would be unfair and inconsistent to say that the Department would struggle to support the proposal on the basis that the Onchan Local Plan was adopted in 2000 as, since then, the land has been re-designated for leisure use. (It should be noted that there has been no re-zoning of the land, which can only be addressed as part of the preparation of the Area Plan for the East.) They then go on to indicate that planning approval was granted for a replacement barn in the place of the northernmost barn in 2000. The Statement also indicates that the proposal represents an opportunity "to promote the principles set out in the draft 'Planning and the Economy'", suggesting that the year-round use enabled by the proposed building would help support the sustainability of the applicant's business.

6.5 In consideration of the planning history and the status of the Onchan Local Plan, any argument that the Onchan Local Plan should carry no or little weight but, by contrast, the decision relating to an application from the year after the Plan's adoption should carry weight seems somewhat self-defeating. In any case, there is no reason to not attach weight to the Onchan Local Plan since it remains part of the Development Plan and, while it may have no directly applicable written policies, the adopted zoning for the land remains a significant material consideration. The Onchan Local Plan, as part of the Development Plan, remains the starting point for decision-making and there must be very good reason to set aside its provisions, even if the existing use of the land should not be set aside.

6.6 It is also to be noted that the planning application referred to sought approval for a replacement agricultural barn that was to be related to the agricultural business operating from the site at that time. Such a proposal today would also be acceptable assessed against current policies, though the loss of the existing barns would still be unfortunate. However, it is not considered that a parallel can be drawn between a replacement barn for agricultural purposes and a replacement building for non-agricultural purposes: the latter has no support in policy while the former clearly does.

6.7 Turning to the proposed new building, one problematic element, in the context of the above, is its permanence. The evolution of the site from an agricultural business to a site offering a variety of leisure uses has, as noted, primarily come about through the re-use of existing buildings, through the approval of temporary buildings, and through the approval of temporary uses. None of these has a permanent impact on the visual impression offered by Ballakaighen Farm. It therefore retains the appearance of a farm and, crucially, could be returned to such a use fairly easily.

6.8 In terms of the additional visual impact that would result from the proposed building's construction, it is noted that the temporary marquee, which sits within the site, is only erected for part of the year and has an evidently temporary appearance. Indeed, this limited visual impact was a primary reason the Deputy Minister overturned the Inspector's recommendation to refuse the application for that marquee. While the proposed building does include natural materials such as are found in rural locations, and this is certainly welcome, its size and solidity - along with its

==== PAGE 9 ====

                                                 15/00812/B
                                 Page  9  of  13

windows - are such that it could not be considered to have the appearance of an agricultural building. While there are some barns of a similar size to that proposed in agricultural use, these are generally open-sided on some - if not all - sides and their visual impact is reduced, and the appearance agricultural, as a result. The proposed building has four walls, windows, and doors, and would not offer an agricultural appearance to reflect its surroundings.

6.9 The building proposed would face Whitebridge Road, and would be prominent from this well- used highway, and the elevation facing that highway would in many ways - given the number of windows proposed for it - be its least 'agricultural' elevation. It would therefore not sit comfortably amongst the existing buildings and would certainly have a more harmful visual impact than the existing barns. Were the barns not present, the visual impact would be even greater since the proposal would result in a new piece of built environment. On this basis, it is not considered that the proposal could be viewed as having a positive visual impact on the site or on the countryside within which it sits contrary to Strategic Policy 5. The argument that the proposed new building would have an improved visual impact relative to the existing situation is therefore not accepted.

6.10 In any case, the visual impact from new development outside areas zoned for development is not the only reason planning policies direct new development to established built-up areas: the Strategic Plan as a whole is intended to guide sustainable patterns of development to ensure as many services are retained within established settlements as possible and thereby reduce the need to travel using public car. While it is noted that the site benefits from a nearby bus stop, only limited weight can really be given to this in support of the application - otherwise, it would be difficult in future for the Department to resist other forms of development outside of established settlement boundaries where these have public transport links.

6.11 It is perhaps helpful at this stage to reflect on the officer comments in respect of PA 10/00838/B, which reflect on both the principle and the detail of that proposal. While it is noted that the application was eventually approved after an appeal, the following extract from the officer's report is highly relevant to the current application:

"In this instance the proposed development does not fall within any of the eight exception criteria set out by General Policy 3 and it is not considered that there is national need to outweigh the protection set out by Environment Policy 1.

"Whilst adjacent land, and the buildings contained within it, that is owned by the applicant is acknowledged as being in leisure use through previously approved planning applications the development proposed by the current planning application is fundamentally different in that the previously approved development made use of redundant buildings. The principle behind purpose built development rather than the use of redundant buildings is not acceptable in terms of planning policy. This view is supported by the conclusion of the appointed Planning Inspector for the appeal against the refusal of previous planning application 06/00866/B, who stated at paragraph 19 of their report that:

"'The erection of some buildings in the countryside may be justified - examples might include buildings needed for the purposes of agriculture, or forestry, or mineral extraction. However, I can see no particular reason why buildings to house indoor leisure pursuits (or other commercial activities) should be built on unallocated land in the open countryside, rather than in an urban area. The argument that farmers need to supplement the income they receive from agriculture could be repeated. If the present appeal is allowed, it seems to me that the Planning Authority might find it difficult to resist the erection of large recreational or commercial buildings on other rural sites. The open character of parts of the Island might quickly change.'

"Whilst acknowledging that the previous planning application sought planning approval for a different development these conclusions remain relevant to the assessment of the current planning application. The principle of new development within the countryside is contrary to planning policies designed to protect the countryside from unwarranted development."

==== PAGE 10 ====

                                                 15/00812/B                                      Page  10  of  13

6.12 The current proposal represents such an application for a "large recreational" building that so concerned the Inspector who assessed PA 10/00838/B. The argument of the agent to the application that the footprint of the proposed building is similar to the existing barns is not accepted since the new building would be roughly 550sqm in size, compared to the 215sqm of the existing barns.

6.13 Although the agent's argument with respect to the established use of the site as being leisure is accepted, it does not follow that this makes proposals for new leisure buildings automatically acceptable. The re-use of the existing barns might be judged impractical because they are structurally unsound and do not suit the intended activities the applicant intends to offer to the public, but this is not considered reason enough to set aside the established principle restricting new development in the countryside.

6.14 It is noted that Highway Services do not have any concerns with the proposal. The traffic survey relies on estimations of traffic generation and in many ways such surveys are always bound to rely on such estimations. The survey does appear to have taken account of the concerns, and traffic counts are clearly important to the applicants since data for traffic counts is provided from dates prior to Highway Services even asking for the survey. This attention to traffic movements within the site is welcome. There is no objection raised on this ground.

6.15 No bat survey has been undertaken, which is unfortunate in the context of Environment Policy 4.

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

7.1 As indicated, the refurbishment and re-use of the existing barns for the use now proposed would almost certainly be acceptable, and would be welcomed in bringing back into use traditional buildings of historic and visual interest. The use of the site for leisure purposes has been established, but as a general exception to policy and the development that takes place remains strictly controlled. There has been insufficient evidence provided to demonstrate that the general presumption against new development in the countryside should be set aside in this instance, and it is concluded that the proposal is contrary to Strategic Policy 2, Environment Policy 1 and General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan. There is provision for such proposals where these accord with Environment Policy 16 and Business Policy 11, but the proposal could in no way be said to comply with these two policies.

7.2 It is therefore concluded that the application should be refused.

7.3 Should the Planning Committee arrive at a contrary view, it is recommended that conditions relating to operating hours and frequency, and also another relating to the need for a bat survey to be carried out. Suggested wording for these conditions is set out in paragraphs 7.3.1 to 7.3.3 inclusive, below; the latter two conditions were attached to the approval notice for the application for the marquee.

7.3.1 No development shall commence until a bat survey has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The bat survey shall identify impacts on bat species together with mitigation, where appropriate, including a timetable for its implementation. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the bats.

7.3.2 Events on Sundays to Thursdays inclusive shall finish by 22:00. Events on Fridays or Saturdays shall finish by midnight.

Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for neighbouring residential amenity.

==== PAGE 11 ====

                                                 15/00812/B                                      Page  11  of  13

7.3.3 Events finishing after 22:00 may occur no more frequently than twice in each calendar month.

Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for neighbouring residential amenity.

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; 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.

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.

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 owner / occupier of "Sunnyside", Whitebridge Road, Onchan, which is opposite the access to the application site.

9.0 POST-PLANNING COMMITTEE UPDATE

9.1 The Planning Committee concluded that the established use of the site should take precedence over the land use zoning. They also considered that the design and siting of the proposed building was appropriate relative to the existing situation. They also considered that the highway situation was satisfactory, and that the applicant's business should be given support. It was therefore agreed that the proposal, though not complying with the Local Plan zoning, is appropriately reflective of the nature of the existing land use and that to constrain the site on this basis would be inappropriate.

9.2 In view of their favourable conclusions as a majority, the application was approved. The three conditions outlined above, in addtion to one stipulating the time limit within which the proposal must be commenced, were agreed. It was also agreed that a planting scheme be sought, with specific reference to that part of the site closest to the highway.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Refused Date of Recommendation: 25.01.2016

Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

==== PAGE 12 ====

                                                 15/00812/B                                      Page  12  of  13

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. No development shall commence until a bat survey has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The bat survey shall identify impacts on bat species together with mitigation, where appropriate, including a timetable for its implementation. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the bats.

C 3. Events on Sundays to Thursdays inclusive shall finish by 22:00. Events on Fridays or Saturdays shall finish by midnight.

Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for neighbouring residential amenity.

C 4. Events taking place within the land edged red and blue on Drawing P01 (date-stamped as having been received 20th July 2015), and finishing after 22:00, may occur no more frequently than twice in each calendar month.

Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for neighbouring residential amenity.

C 5. Prior to the commencement of works, a landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Department.

Such a scheme shall have particular regard with respect to the northwestern side of the proposed car park.

Such a scheme shall include details of all walls, fences, trees, hedgerows and other planting which are to be retained; details of all new walls, fences and other boundary treatment and finished ground levels; a planting specification as appropriate; the location of grassed areas; details of the hard surface treatment of the open parts of the site, and a programme of implementation.

All hard and/or soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing with the Department. Any trees or plants indicated on the approved scheme, which, within a period of five years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced during the next planting season with other trees or plants of a species and size to be first approved in writing by the Department. All hard landscape works shall be permanently retained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development in view of its prominence from the Whitebridge Road.

==== PAGE 13 ====

                                                 15/00812/B                                      Page  13  of  13

The development hereby approved relates to Drawings P01, P02 E and P03, all date-stamped as having been received 20th July 2015.

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 : ...PER... Committee Meeting Date:...01.02.2016

Signed :...E RILEY... 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

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.