Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
17/00855/B Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 17/00855/B Applicant : Mr Mike & Mrs Ann Atkinson Proposal : Creation of a manège and erection of a barn Site Address : Land adjacent to Seaview Oak Hill Port Soderick Isle of Man
Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : 23.08.2017 Site Visit : 23.08.2017 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 11.09.2017 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. The manège and barn may only be used for the keeping and exercising of horses and associated uses by the owners of the site as defined in red and blue on the approved plans and may not be used for any commercial use.
Reason: The proposal is for a private facility and the use of the site by others or for a commercial purpose may have a different and potentially harmful impact on the living conditions of those in nearby properties.
Plans/Drawings/Information:
This approval relates to drawings 170/001, 170/020, and 170/002 all received on 8th August, 2017.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
none
__
==== PAGE 2 ====
17/00855/B Page 2 of 6
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSAL INVOLVES THE ERECTION OF A BUILDING AND AN OUTDOOR ARENA WITHIN AN AREA OF HIGH LANDSCAPE VALUE AND SCENIC SIGNIFICANCE
THE SITE 1.1 The site is a field which lies between a large storage building owned by the applicants, to the south east of which is The Lodge, a residential dwelling which is not part of the applicant's land holding, and a public footpath to the north west, together with an access lane which runs to the south west of The Lodge and Ballig House and to the north east of Sea View, which is the applicant's home. The land owned by the applicant includes a large storage building which sits immediately alongside the area for development, to the south east.
1.2 The footpath to the north west links the A25 at Quine's Hill to another footpath network which runs from the A25 at Oakhill northwards to ultimately join the A5 at the top of Richmond Hill. This is separated from the site by a sod hedge approximately 2m high and self-set trees (see later).
1.3 The site slopes upwards from east to west by around 7m across a distance of 90m. The site itself is approximately 80m (w-e) by 70m (n-s). Within the site there are piles of tipped material which make the actual surface very uneven and it currently has the appearance of an industrial yard.
1.4 There are no trees within the site but many around the edges - largely self-set ash and sycamore.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the levelling of the north eastern part of the site and the creation of a manege which will have dimensions of 25m (w-e) by 42m (n-s). Alongside this to the west will be a barn which has a footprint of 15m by 24m and which will be 4.8m to the eaves and 6.2m to the ridge. The building will be finished in fair faced blockwork up to 1.8m and vertical timber boarding above stained dark green with a corrugated sheeted roof in what appears to be a light grey colour. The barn will be around 300mm taller than the ridge of the existing storage barn to the south east. This building will accommodate 6 loose boxes, a tack and feed store and an area for hay bales to be stored. A fenced off area will be created at the southern end which will be the same width as the building and 6m in length from the southern end with gates in the centre leading from a stone access way from the lane.
2.2 Attached to the building will be floodlights which shine downward at both ends to have a maximum distance of illumination of 6m from the building.
2.3 The manege will be for private use and for a small number of horses and they do not consider it to be a large scale facility as referred to in Environment Policy 20. The applicant explains that they have located the building and manege on the lowest part of the site and the barn positioned to the west of the manege to provide protection from the wind. The levels have been set to allow the development to involve cut and fill rather than importing or exporting material and any surplus material will be used to reinforce the existing sod hedges around the site
2.4 The trees around the site have been surveyed and some are recommended to be removed to ground level due to their condition. A further 15 trees are to be removed to facilitate the development, 5 of which are Category B and 10 Category C.
PLANNING POLICY
==== PAGE 3 ====
17/00855/B Page 3 of 6
3.1 The site lies within an area not designated for development on the Braddan Local Plan of 1991 and also of high landscape value and scenic significance. As such, there is a general presumption against development as set out in General Policy 3 and Environment Policies 1 and 2, but provision is made for some types of development within the Environment Section, including the following:
Environment Policy 19: Development of equestrian activities and buildings will only be accepted in the countryside where there will be as a result of such development no loss in local amenity, no loss of high quality agricultural land (Classes 1 and 2) and where the local highway network can satisfactorily accommodate any increase in traffic (see Environment Policy 14 for interpretation of Class 1 and 2).
Environment Policy 20: There will be a presumption against large scale equestrian developments, which includes new buildings and external arenas, in areas with High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance unless there are exceptional circumstances to override such a policy.
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.
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 Planning applications have been submitted for the creation of a garage with living accommodation above alongside Sea View as well as for two field shelters (02/00624/B) and agricultural buildings (00/00516/B).
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 DEFA's Senior Biodiversity Officer suggests that two of the trees to be removed may contain features which could act as a bat roost. There are records of pipistrelle and brown, long eared bats in the vicinity but none actually on the application site although this may not have been surveyed. A more detailed survey and consideration would determine whether these trees are of value and interest to bats. He considers that in the wider vicinity if bats were roosting or feeding elsewhere there are alternative routes around the other tree lines and the buildings themselves will provide topographical navigational aids and shelter from the wind. As such, the critical consideration is whether any existing bat roost would be damaged by the tree removal: if not then he is content that if there is an impact on bats, this will be relatively small. If further tree removal is required in the area then this may cumulatively result in an impact although it is not known where the observed bats roost: there is a brown-eared roost over a kilometre away at Kewaigue which is possibly just within flying distance for this species (05.09.17).
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issue here is whether the proposed arena and barn comply with the Department's policies on this sort of development, notably whether the development, including the removal of the trees, would have any adverse impact on the character of the area which is recognised as being of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance and the amenities of those in nearby dwellings, particularly The Lodge.
6.2 The removal of the trees and the erection of the barn and creation of the arena would have a limited impact due to its position some distance from the road and public vantage points, other than the footpath which runs alongside. This footpath is set lower than the application site and if the trees were to be retained, the buildings and arena would probably not be visible. The removal of the trees will enable those passing the site to see the barn. However, the stretch of footpath which would be affected by the removal of the trees is only around one
==== PAGE 4 ====
17/00855/B Page 4 of 6
tenth of the overall length of this section of the footpath and the impact of the barn and the removal of the trees are not considered significant here. The footpath is very enclosed, damp and dark, even on a day when the sun was shining brightly, and the removal of a section of trees will add welcome light and outlook with the remainder of the footpath with trees on much of its length. Trees will also remain on the other side of the path.
6.3 As such, even though the site is within an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance, the impact in this case of the work, is considered to be acceptable. In addition, the site is presently out of character with the surrounding fields due to its untidy state. The proposed works will result in a tidier site which is more sympathetic in use and appearance, to its surroundings.
6.4 The barn and arena will be some distance from existing residential property and the buildings, lighting and use are not considered to be such as to adversely affect the living conditions of those in these buildings. The Lodge is separated from the site by the applicant's large agricultural building and the nearest other house is around 200m away and separated from the site by existing mature trees.
6.5 The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions which restrict the use of both buildings to that of the owner of the site rather than a commercial use which would attract quite different levels of traffic and activity and have a potentially different impact on the occupants of The Lodge.
CONCLUSION 7.1 The application is not considered to be in conflict with the provisions of Eps 1, 2, 19, 20 or 21 and the application is supported.
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 Planning Committee must determine:
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.
__
==== PAGE 5 ====
17/00855/B Page 5 of 6
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: Permitted Committee Meeting Date: 18.09.2017
Signed Sarah Corlett Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report & condition were required
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 18.09.2017
Application No. :
17/00855/B Applicant : Mr Mike & Mrs Ann Atkinson Proposal : Creation of a manège and erection of a barn Site Address : Land adjacent to Seaview Oak Hill Port Soderick Isle of Man
Presenting Officer : Miss S E Corlett
Addendum to the Officer’s Report
The Planning Committee approved the application at its meeting of 18th September, 2017 subject to a note regarding the installation of lighting and a condition requiring a bat survey prior to the removal of any trees.
Conditions of Approval
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.
==== PAGE 6 ====
17/00855/B Page 6 of 6
C 2. The manège and barn may only be used for the keeping and exercising of horses and associated uses by the owners of the site as defined in red and blue on the approved plans and may not be used for any commercial use.
Reason: The proposal is for a private facility and the use of the site by others or for a commercial purpose may have a different and potentially harmful impact on the living conditions of those in nearby properties.
C 3. Prior to the removal of any trees, the applicant must have had approved by the Department a survey for bats in the vicinity of the trees to be removed. Such a survey, if it finds evidence of bats using the area and where they would be adversely affected by the removal of the trees, must include mitigation against any adverse impact and the development, including tree felling, must be undertaken in accordance with these details.
Reason: To accord with Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan.
N 1. For clarification, no lighting other than that shown as to be attached to the gable ends of the proposed building, may be operational within the site.
Plans/Drawings/Information
This approval relates to drawings 170/001, 170/020, and 170/002 all received on 8th August, 2017.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal