Loading document...
Mr & Mrs A K Corlett Bailadhoo Farm Baldrine Road Baldrine IM4 6EG
Office of the Minister and Chief Executive
Telephone: (01624) 720904 Fax: (01624) 686915 Email: [email protected] Contact: Kevin Gillespie Our Ref: ITT/3C Your ref: ITT/3C Date: 11 March 2013
Dear Mr & Mrs Corlett
ON APPEAL
Application No: 12/01160/B Proposal: Installation of flood lighting to riding arena, Field number 614732, Baldrine Farm, Baldrine Road, Baldrine Applicant: Mr Adrian Kermeen Corlett & Suzanne Jayne Corlett Applicant: Mr Adrian Kermeen Corlett & Suzanne Jayne Corlett
I refer to the recent appeal in respect of the above planning application.
In accordance with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, I am enclosing herewith a copy of the report of the person appointed to consider this appeal.
The Minister has considered the report, concurs with the appointed person's conclusions, and accepts the recommendation that the appeal should be dismissed. Accordingly, he has directed that the Planning Authority's Refusal of the application under Article 6 of the Town & Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005 should be confirmed. Formal notice of this decision is attached.
Yours sincerely
I T Thompson Chief Executive
Circulation List
Clerk to Lonan Parish Commissioners Mr N Gibbs Mr J M Atkinson Secretary, Planning Committee
Department of Infrastructure Sea Terminal Building, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2RF
Mr & Mrs A K Corlett Balladhoo Farm Baldrine Road Baldrine IM4 6EG
In pursuance of his powers under the above Act and Order, the Minister for Infrastructure, does hereby REFUSE planning application 12/01160/B by Mr Adrian Kermeen Corlett & Suzanne Jayne Corlett for Installation of flood lighting to riding arena, Field number 614732, Baldrine Farm, Baldrine Road, Baldrine for the following reason(s):
Date of issue: 11 March 2013
By Order of the Minister
IT Thompson Chief Executive
Note 1: A copy of the report of the appointed person is appended hereto.
| Appeal No. | AP12/00127 | | --- | --- | | Application No. | 12/01160/B |
| For the Appellants: | Mr A K Corlett | | --- | --- | | | Mrs S J Corlett | | For the Planning Authority: | Mr A Holmes | | Interested Party: | Mr J M Atkinson |
The main points are: 5. Some of the clients of the stables are working people who wish to exercise their horses in the evening. Other clients are school children. During the parts of the year when it gets dark early lights are needed for health and safety reasons. An electrical engineer has confirmed that at least six 400 W sodium halide floodlights would be needed to meet the health and safety requirements, and that a height of not less than 5 m is required to ensure no shadows or glare which might otherwise spook the horses. The existing lights on the building only light the area adjacent to the stables. The proposed lights could be angled down onto the arena to avoid infringing on other areas and to cause less light spillage. The 3 on the top side would be angled down to a greater extent and the 3 at the bottom would shine more across the arena. Cowls would reduce any glare. It is not intended to light upwards, as this would waste
energy and money. The lights would only be used for a few hours each day at times of the year when the clocks change. They would be switched off by 2100 hours. It would be possible to switch the lights on in pairs, so that less could be used depending on what exercising was being undertaken at the time. 6. With respect to Environment Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan ("the Strategic Plan"), the proposal is considered to be essential. It has been necessary to diversify due to falling farm income from milking cows. The appellants have 3 daughters, and one has been provided with a job in the equestrian business which also employs Mrs Corlett. The stables are an asset to the community. They have educational benefits for schools that have visited. The Lieutenant Governor was impressed when he visited. If the lights are not installed the customers may take their business elsewhere. 7. Many telegraph poles have been replaced on the farm. These are about 10 m high and so are taller than the proposed light columns. The visual impact will be kept to a minimum. The site is at least a mile from the sea. There are other arenas in the area with lights, and also other properties with many lights. The residents of Struie & Glenlea in Highfield Drive, who have made representations, would not be able to see the proposed lights from their properties. The appeal should be allowed.
The main points are: 8. The site is designated as open space/agricultural, and as being of high landscape value and scenic significance, under the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan Order 2005. That Order provides in Policy L/OSNC/PR/1 a general presumption against development in areas with this designation. However, the Strategic Plan provides for equestrian related development to be an exception to the presumption against development in the countryside in some circumstances. At the time of the approval of the stables and arena it was judged that these would provide stabling for the applicants' own horses and some stabling for commercial liveries. The officer report concluded that the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape and would accord with Environment Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan, but the report specifically stated that this conclusion was reached on the basis that the development would not be illuminated by floodlighting. The floodlighting that was included in that application when submitted was removed following discussion with the applicants, and a condition was attached to the approval to confirm that no permission was being granted for the floodlighting. 9. In the case of proposals for floodlighting it is for the applicants to demonstrate through information such as lighting diagrams exactly what impact would result from proposed lights. Very little information has been provided in this case. On the basis of the available information, and having regard to the elevated position of the site and the number, height and type of lighting proposed, it is considered that the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. As the site is within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance ("AHLV") the harm that would be caused is in conflict with Environment Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan. 10. It is not relevant that the proposed lighting could be controlled in a manner that would be an improvement over the existing floodlighting attached to the stable building. That is because those existing floodlights do not have the benefit of planning approval. The appeal should be dismissed.
proposed floodlights should be subject to conditions relating to the shielding/direction of the lights to ensure road uses are not put at risk and to reduce light pollution. 12. Lonan Parish Commissioners recommended refusal. The main points made are that there is no indication in the application to show that measures will be taken to strictly confine the direction and source of the light to the manège to reduce or prevent the unacceptable glare and illumination across the area below, and the halo effect over Baldrine, which already arises from floodlights on the side of the stable building. Those problems have an adverse impact on the night time enjoyment and amenity of local residents. Other points made, including a query whether the building erected on the site accords with the planning approval granted, are not relevant to the current appeal. 13. Mr N Gibbs of Struie, Highfield Drive, who has interested party status, states in writing that he supports the proposal provided efforts are made to minimise light overspill. Providing the lighting is directed downwards, he considers that it would be better than the current lights mounted on the side of the stable, which are very intrusive and pose a hazard to traffic.
arena will be limited to acceptable levels and that intrusive lighting of the night sky and glare to adjacent properties and highways will be avoided. In this case, the absence of any detailed evidence of that kind makes it impossible to judge the exact implications of this proposal for local amenity and the character and quality of the landscape. The general assurances of the appellants that the lights would be directed downwards and would have cowls cannot satisfactorily address the concerns that exist. Given the elevated nature of the site relative to the adjacent and nearby residential properties and the public highway, the avoidance of significant light spillage and consequent visual harm will in my assessment be technically challenging in this location. So too will the achievement of a satisfactory level of illumination while maintaining the darkness of the night sky appropriate to this countryside location. In these circumstances and in the absence of any substantial evidence to the contrary, I am bound to conclude that the proposed floodlighting would cause unacceptable harm to local amenity and the character and appearance of this area within the AHLV, in conflict with the intentions of Environment Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan. 18. Having taken account of all other matters drawn to my attention, I have found nothing that outweighs my consideration of the main issue. Consequently, I have arrived at the overall conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed. In the event that my recommendation is not agreed, and planning approval is granted, conditions would be necessary. These would include the usual standard conditions to impose a 4 year period for the commencement of development, and to specify in words the exact nature of the development permitted and to list the drawings and photographs to which the approval relates. As no detailed drawings of the lighting columns and the light fittings have been provided, a condition would also be needed to require these details to be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development, and to also require adherence to those details in implementing the proposal. In addition, a restriction that the lights should only be lit between the hours of 1600 and 2100 should be attached. This provision was discussed at the inquiry, and agreed as being appropriate by the Planning Authority and the appellants for the eventuality that the proposal is approved, although the Planning Authority maintained its position that the proposal was unacceptable even with such a condition.
Stephen Amos MA(Cantab) MCD MRTPI Independent Inspector
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
