Planning Officer Delegated Report

Statement Of The Planning Authority ### Isle of Man Government *Bulltys Ellan Vanu #### Planning statement on behalf of Department of Infrastructure Planning and Building Control Erection of timber stables block with tack/feed and hay shed Pine View Sulby Glen Sulby Isle Of Man IM7 2AZ PA Reference 14/00479/B Statement prepared on behalf of DOI Planning and Building Control by Planning Officer: Mr Edward Baker ## The Application Site 1. The application site is Pine View, Sulby Glen, Sulby. The site is one of a small group of dwellings situated to the east side of Sulby Glen Road, just to the south of the village school and Sulby Chapel. The property is a large detached dwelling with a garden to the rear. It has a direct frontage with Sulby Glen Road. It is accessed via a lane to the north which also serves four dwellings to the rear and would appear to also serve the two adjacent houses to the south. Sulby Primary School is situated to the north. To the other side of the road to the west are open fields. It is understood that the applicant rents these fields for the keeping of their horses. ## The Proposal 2. The application seeks planning approval for the erection of private stables in the rear garden of the house. The stables would measure approximately 11 metres by 10 metres. They would be clad in timber with a black Onduline roof. The layout of the stables shows four loose boxes, a hay store and tack/feed room. ## Planning History 3. The site has the following relevant history: 85/00177/B - approval granted for erection of double garage. 08/00181/B - approval granted for replacement windows and doors. 09/00942/B - approval granted for erection of extension. ## Planning Policy 4. The site is situated with an area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance according to the Isle of Man Development Scheme Order 1982. 5. The following policies in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 are considered relevant: ### General Policy 1: 'The determination of matters under Part 2 (Development Control) and Part 3 (Special Controls) of the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan and all other material considerations.' ### General Policy 3: '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(1) 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. ### Environment Policy 1: '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 overriding 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.' ### Environment Policy 2: 'The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that: (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential.' ### 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.' ### 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.' ### Representations 6. Lezayre Parish Commissioners - recommends refusal. The stables are too large for the site. They have concerns about horse manure in close proximity to the school. They also have safety concerns regarding the transfer of horses to and from the field. They suggest that the stables are built on the field site. 7. Environmental Health Officer, DEFA - they have no professional experience in this area as they have never experienced complaints about stables or are unaware of any guidance. Recommends that the matter is deferred to the planning officer. The applicant was advised before they submitted the application to gather any evidence about other stables within 100 metres of neighbouring houses with any evidence that this was not causing a nuisance to neighbours. The EHO's own personal experience is that their parents had stables within 20-30 metres of them and never experienced any odour or noise sufficient to cause a nuisance. They suggest that for there to be annoyance you would need to be within 10 to 20 metres when mucking out takes place, which although is daily does not normally last long. ### Assessment The control of development in the countryside 8. The site is situated in countryside where development is strictly controlled. However, the Strategic Plan makes provision for equestrian development in the countryside subject to certain criteria including assessment of the visual impact of the development, the effect on local amenity and loss of quality agricultural land. The proposal is for small scale private stables and does not raise any significant strategic issues. The acceptability of the proposal should therefore depend on the consideration of the issues below. The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area 9. The proposal is somewhat unusual because approval is being sought for private stables within the garden of a dwelling. It is normally the case that stables are situated within the field or paddock where the horses are kept. 10. The site is within a small group of dwellings next to the Sulby Glen Road. The stables would be reasonably large in comparison with the footprint of the main dwelling and the size of the rear garden. They would be located to the rear of the house and would probably not be prominent or intrusive when viewed from the road (being situated approximately 30 metres from the roadside and partially screened by the existing house). However, they would be very visible from the lane which serves the four dwellings to the rear (and possibly the two dwellings to the side). It is unclear as to whether the lane is an adopted highway, but it is certainly not a main public thoroughfare and serves a small residential cul-de-sac of private houses. 11. Nevertheless, the stables would be very visible from the lane and other residential properties. It is considered that the stables, by reason of their location and size, would have the appearance of being cramped and squeezed in. Some existing small trees and vegetation within the garden garden would have to be removed to make way for the stables. This will likely expose the stables even more when seen from the lane and other properties. It is felt that the stables would appear intrusive, cramped and in a sense overdevelopment of the site. Whilst the impact on principal public views is likely to be limited, the impact on the character and appearance of the area when seen from the lane and other private residential properties, will be sufficiently changed and harmed to warrant refusal of the application. This view is shared by the Parish Commissioners. The wider landscape would not be harmed. ### The effect of the proposal on neighbour amenity 12. The second main issue is the effect of the stables on the amenities of local people, including the residents to the rear and side of the site, and to the primary school to the north. The Environmental Health Officer (EHO) at DEFA has been asked to comment on the application. However, he has no specific professional experience in this field, suggesting that the matter be deferred to the planning officer, although their own personal experience suggests that the stables might have limited impact on neighbours. 13. The planning officer's experience at previous local planning authorities in England raises not insignificant concerns about the proximity of the stables to the residential neighbours next to the site. Normally a separation distance of around 100 metres is required. The keeping of horses can result in noise and odour issues. The proposed stables are less than 10 metres to the boundary of the nearest residential neighbour, Thie Aym, to the immediate east, and less than 20 metres to the house itself. It is felt that the stables will likely be far too close to the residential neighbours with the result that there will likely be adverse noise and odour impacts experienced by the neighbours. The EHO's comments add doubts to these concerns; however, they are only based on their own personal experience. 14. It is considered that there would be a too greater risk in granting planning approval for the stables because of the potential adverse environmental impacts. The applicant has given a number of examples of other existing stables close to houses and this information has not been corroborated by the planning officer. In any event, the examples do not provide demonstration in themselves that the relationship of the proposed stables will in this case be satisfactory. The applicant states that they will only use the stables occasionally for sheltering the horses in bad weather. They will also be disposing the manure regularly and will not keep a manure heap on the site. It would not be possible for the Planning Authority to enforce these two points and so they can only be given limited weight. Furthermore, circumstances can change. 15. It is felt that planning approval should be refused because of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the use of the stables on nearby neighbours. ### Access 16. The Highways Service has not responded to the application and in the absence of any comments it is assumed that they have no objection to the proposal. The stables are unlikely to result in any substantial increase in traffic movements. Horses will need to be taken from the site to the other side of the field for exercise (the applicant currently rents the field) opposite, however, there is no evidence that this would cause an unacceptable highway issue. ### Recommendation 17. It is recommended that the application is refused. ### Party Status

1. The following parties should be afforded interested person status:

The local authority, Lezayre Parish Commissioners, is by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2013, paragraph 6 (4) (e), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.

The Highway Service is granted interested party status under the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2013 paragraph 6 (4) d.

Environmental Health Officer, DEFA - provided comments on environmental issues.

The reasons and notes (if any) related to the Department's original refusal

R 1.

The proposed stables would be proportionally large compared to the footprint of the main house and size of its rear garden. Although the stables would not be particularly prominent from Sulby Glen Road, they would be very visible from the lane to the immediate north and east (rear) which serves the adjacent houses. It is considered that the stables, by reason of their location and size, would have the appearance of being cramped and squeezed in. Some existing small trees and vegetation within the garden would have to be removed to make way for the stables, which will likely further expose the stables when seen from the lane and other properties. The proposed stables would be visually intrusive and would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal is thus contrary to Environment Policies 1, 19 and 21 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.

R 2.

The proposed stables, by reason of their very close proximity to residential neighbours, will likely give rise to unacceptable noise and odour impacts to the detriment of the amenities of local residents. The use of the stables would therefore be in environmental conflict with adjacent residential properties and the proposal fails to accord with Environmental Policies 19 and 22 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.