229339

==== PAGE 1 ====

27 October 2014 14/01135/B Page 1 of 7 PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 14/01135/B Applicant : Ian George Beresford Sims & Mary Jane Sims Proposal : Variation of condition 1 of approved PA 12/01254/B (retention of existing marquee) to extend period of permission Site Address : Barroose House Barroose Road Baldrine Isle Of Man IM4 6AR

Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 11.10.2014 Site Visit : 11.10.2014 Expected Decision Level :

Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS BEFORE PLANNING COMMITTEE BECAUSE THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS OBJECTED WHILE THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION IS FOR APPROVAL.

1.0 THE SITE

1.1 The application site is the curtilage of Barroose House, which is a large detached dwelling located on Barroose Road, around 500 metres to the west of the of the built up area of Baldrine. The site includes outbuildings extending from the house towards the neighbouring bungalow and the complex of barns to the northeast. To the west is a large marquee used for dog agility training, which has temporary planning approval. Barroose House is set on a hillside overlooking Baldrine Road and the Manx Electric Railway; the site is quite visible from the A2 highway.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL AND PLANNING HISTORY

2.1 Given that the proposal is so closely linked to the planning history of the site, these two elements are covered in the same section of this report.

2.2 In the first instance, it is worth noting that planning approval was granted in 2012 for "Retention of existing marquee" on the site. This approval, issued to PA 12/01254/B on 19th November 2012, carried five conditions:

C 1 "This approval relates to the retention of existing marquee, Barroose House, Barroose Road, Baldrine, Lonan as shown by 1, 2, 3 and support letter all received 11th September 2012 and shall inure for the sole benefit of the applicants, Mr and Mrs Sims, for a period of 2 years from the date of this permission, on expiry of which period the structure shall be dismantled and the frame, cladding and all other constituent materials shall be removed permanently from the site."

C 2 "The structure hereby approved shall be used only by the applicants, Mr and Mrs I Sims, and solely for agility training for dogs. Other uses of whatever kind are not permitted, including the use of the structure by or on behalf of other persons for training or competition events."

==== PAGE 2 ====

27 October 2014 14/01135/B Page 2 of 7

C 3 "The building must only remain while Mr and Mrs I Sims (the applicants) are resident at Barroose House. Within 1 day of the applicants no longer residing at the site, the use shall cease and the structure shall be dismantled and the frame, cladding and all other constituent materials shall be removed permanently from the site."

C 4 "All of the panels which form the roof of the marquee structure must be white in colour. The existing green panel must be replaced with a white panel by the 1st December 2012 and retained as such thereafter until the entire structure is removed."

C 5 "The storage container labelled 3 on submitted drawing 1 must be removed from the site by the 1st December 2012."

2.3 The container referred to in Condition 5 has been removed, and this is shown as such on the plans submitted in respect of the current application.

2.4 Planning approval is now sought for the variation of a condition relating to the temporary approval of the marquee. That condition gave temporary approval for a period of two years from the date of the approval notice. As such, that approval expires on 18th November 2014, at which point the marquee must be dismantled. The marquee was originally granted approval for a temporary period of 5 years in 2006. The application form for the current application is clear that a temporary five-year period is sought via a variation of condition 1 to PA 12/01254/B.

2.5 The marquee is used by the applicant for dog agility training (not for commercial use). The marquee is 24m long by 16m wide; it is 3m to the eaves and 6m to the ridge. Although information in respect of construction details have not been provided as part of this application, they were known at the time of the previous application and, given approval is sought for the retention of the same marquee as previously, it is logical to conclude that the construction today is identical. It consists of a metal frame, the rectangular base of which rests on a wooden frame supported in places by concrete blocks. The frame is pinned into the ground at the base of the vertical stanchions and secured to sunken blocks at the corners by a bolt passed through a metal hinge. The walls consist of white rectangular panels and the roof is a white translucent canvas like material. The building is entered via a double door in the south western elevation.

2.6 The application includes supporting information as follows:

"This is an application for the extension of Condition 1 of an existing planning approval"

2.7 It is perhaps worth noting that the previous application included a supporting letter, the first three paragraphs of which were outlined by the case officer assessing PA 12/01254/B:

"The current application is to obtain approval to retain the marquee for a further limited period of time (preferably a further 5 years) but to be determined and agreed by the planning authorities. The applicants are prepared to accept similar conditions to those included on the original planning permission, in particular, the condition relating to the personal use of the marquee.

"It is relevant that the applicants have "Barroose House" on the market at the moment and have been trying to sell the property for some time without success. Had the property been sold the marquee would have been removed from site by now. In the event that a purchaser

==== PAGE 3 ====

27 October 2014 14/01135/B Page 3 of 7 was to be found within any new approval period, the applicants would be prepared to demolish and remove the marquee from site on completion of that sale. We would suggest that a planning condition pertaining to this effect could be included within an approval, if required by the planning department."

The case officer went on to summarise the remainder of the letter as follows:

"The statement goes on to set out that an existing container numbered 3 on the plans is to be removed as part of this application. It is also stated that the applicants are keen dog enthusiasts and compete in dog agility trials at National level both within and off the island throughout the year. It is for this reason, the statement sets out, that the current covered training facility is essential to them for dog training purposes during winter periods, especially during dark evenings and extreme weather conditions."

2.8 There is other relevant planning history. PA 05/02025/R carried the description "Retrospective application for the erection of a marquee". This was approved on appeal, with the following three conditions attached:

C 1 "This approval relates to drawing no. 001 date stamped 21 October 2005 and shall inure for the sole benefit of the applicant, Mr and Mrs Sims, for a period of 5 years from the date of this permission, on expiry of which period the structure shall be removed permanently from the site."

C 2 "The structure hereby approved shall be used only by the applicants, Mr and Mr I Sims, and solely for agility training for their own dogs. Other uses of whatever kind are not permitted, including the use of the structure by or on behalf of other persons for training or competition events."

2.9 A Certificate of Lawful Development was also issued for a 'Portakabin' and two storage containers located close to the marquee building. The application for these buildings was submitted concurrently with the 2012 application discussed at length above, and concluded that "Taking all of the evidence into account, it is judged that the balance of probability would suggest that the Portakabin and containers have been in situ for more than 4 years and as such successful enforcement action by the Department would not be possible".

3.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

3.1 The application site is located within an area that is recognised as being Open Space/Agricultural Use by the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan 2005. Such land is not designated for development.

3.2 Within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, two policies are considered relevant.

3.3 Environment Policy 1 states as follows: "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."

3.4 Environment Policy 21 states as follows: "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.

==== PAGE 4 ====

27 October 2014 14/01135/B Page 4 of 7 Any new buildings must be designed in form and materials to reflect their specific purpose; in particular, cavity-wall construction should not be used."

4.0 REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Highway Services do not oppose the application.

4.2 Lonan Parish Commissioners recommend that the application be refused for almost identical reasons to those set out by the Commissioners in their letter to the 2012 planning application. In correspondence received 24th October 2014, they consider that "absolutely nothing has changed since the original retrospective application was approved and that the conditions to refuse this are as valid now as they were when the matter was taken to appeal on 6th September 2006". They add concerns about the lifetime of the marquee, which was originally stated as five years, and state the following three reasons as their principle objections:

o "It lacks justification, o "It dominates the existing dwelling and is a visual scar on the surrounding countryside when viewed from the main road, and beyond, o "Approval of a temporary structure could allow the applicants to argue the case for a permanent structure as originally applied for and refused".

5.0 ASSESSMENT

5.1 The key issues to be assessed in the determination of this application are the effects of the development on the character and appearance of the area. Established planning policy seeks to protect the countryside from development. However there is scope for development which relates to the stabling, shelter or care of horses or other animals (Environment Policy 21), provided that unacceptable harm is not caused.

5.2 The key starting point is the previous assessment made by the Department in respect of the still-extant planning approval issued to PA 12/01254/B. In the first instance, it was noted in 2012 that the Inspector presiding over the 2005 application made a number of comments which are judged to be applicable to that application. The following three paragraphs are quoted directly from the Inspector's report, which was accepted by the Minister.

5.3 "16. I am satisfied from the submitted evidence that training dogs for dog agility competitions at national level is a land use with unusual requirements. In particular, the need for a large covered area of grass enclosed from the elements predetermines a structure with an area of ground cover, overall height, and specification of materials that would be difficult to accommodate in a suburban residential area. Whilst it may be hard to argue that dog agility training is an essential land use in a rural area, it is however a use with special needs that is unlikely to be facilitated otherwise than in the countryside. In this regard it may be likened in some limited respects to equestrianism. On the other hand dogs are not grazing animals and unlike equestrian activities dog agility competitions are not generally confined to taking place on open, rural land. On balance, however, I conclude, in broad agreement with the applicants, that theirs is a use with special needs that are not easily accommodated other than in the countryside and with this in mind I turn to assess the specific proposal to retain the current structure for a period of five years."

5.4 "17. In addition to the difficulty of finding a location for the proposed structure otherwise than in the countryside, I attach significance to the following considerations:

o The site is in an areas that is not designated as being of high landscape value

==== PAGE 5 ====

27 October 2014 14/01135/B Page 5 of 7 o Whilst visible from public viewpoints, despite its size and whiteness of canvas cladding, the structure is not [an] obtrusive feature in the landscape. This is because it is rather distant, lies within a group of buildings, has a backdrop of mature trees and matches the predominant white colour of the external finishes of Barroose House. o The photographs on file show that even in winter the enclosure provided by the mature trees within the application site contributes significantly to the visual integration of the structure into the landscape. The applicants are proposing to retain these trees and are willing to accept a condition to this effect."

5.5 "19. Given the 5-year anticipated need to retain the structure and the limited life of the cladding materials I agree with the applicants' suggestion that a condition limiting the life of the approval to five years should be attached if permission is granted. At the Inquiry the applicants suggested that the canvas covering might be painted dark green. However, given the translucence required to ensure a healthy sward of grass this could prove impractical and, in any case, I am not convinced for the reasons outlined at paragraph 17 that it is necessary."

5.6 The case officer to the 2012 application noted that, since the consideration of the 2005 application, little has changed to the landscape or the proposed development. The adoption of the Strategic Plan between the 2005 and 2012 applications outlined various exceptions to the countryside protection policies. Since the proposal has, in effect, already been assessed against Environment Policy 21 and there has been no change to the policy landscape since 2012, a similar conclusion to that reached in respect of the 2012 application is somewhat inescapable at this point 18 months later.

5.7 The temporary period for which planning permission was granted would seem to have stemmed from the fact that the structure itself was expected to have a limited life span. (No reference was made in the 2005 Inspector's report to a lack of certainty in his mind with respect to visual impact of the proposal.) However, the structure still stands and is in working order. Given that the building was previously accepted as being required to serve a use which has special needs and that visual impact was deemed to be acceptable, it would seem appropriate allow the building to remain until the applicants no longer reside at the site, and also with a specific time horizon.

5.8 In considering the 2012 application, Planning Committee were concerned that the condition of the marquee may deteriorate further and become unsightly; as such, permission was granted for a period of two years only.

5.9 The current application is clear that a period of 5 years is sought. Were full planning approval for the retention of the marquee sought, it would be possible to recommend that a temporary period of approval could be issued. While the Planning Committee's concern in respect of visual impact 18 months ago is noted, it is judged that a 5 year period is not unacceptable. There has been no evidence of significant deterioration in the physical condition of the marquee, and in any case its white colour is such that any "bedding in" would be somewhat welcome, albeit that Barroose House is also white. Moreover, views of the site are from such long distances that any deterioration resulting from natural weathering would not be readily visible in any case.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION

6.1 It is recommended that the application be approved but subject to a condition that it may only be used by the applicant and as and when the applicant no longer resides at Barroose House, the structure must be removed. Conditions 2 and 3 applied to the 2012 approval should also be attached to any approval notice that may be forthcoming. Conditions 4 and 5 related to the replacement of a green roof panel and the removal of a container from the site respectively; both these separate works have already been carried out. While

==== PAGE 6 ====

27 October 2014 14/01135/B Page 6 of 7 condition 5 is therefore not necessary on this occasion, a condition in respect of the retention of the roof in white is recommended.

6.2 It should be noted that, since the applicant has made clear that they are seeking an approval for a five year period via a variation of condition (rather than via a detailed application), it is not possible to vary the time period as has been done previously.

7.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

7.1 In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application; Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted

Date of Recommendation:

27.10.2014

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals

C 1. This approval shall inure for the sole benefit of the applicants, Mr and Mrs Sims, for a period of 5 years from the date of this permission, on expiry of which period the structure shall be dismantled and the frame, cladding and all other constituent materials shall be removed permanently from the site.

Reason: The building has been exceptionally approved solely to meet a specific need and its subsequent retention would result in an unwarranted intrusion in the countryside.

C 2. The structure hereby approved shall be used only by the applicants, Mr and Mrs I Sims, and solely for agility training for dogs. Other uses of any kind are not permitted, including the use of the structure by or on behalf of other persons for training or competition events.

Reason: The building has been exceptionally approved solely to meet a specific need and its subsequent retention would result in an unwarranted intrusion in the countryside.

C 3. The building must only remain while Mr and Mrs I Sims (the applicants) are resident at Barroose House. Within 1 day of the applicants no longer residing at the site, the use shall

==== PAGE 7 ====

27 October 2014 14/01135/B Page 7 of 7 cease and the structure shall be dismantled and the frame, cladding and all other constituent materials shall be removed permanently from the site.

Reason: The building has been exceptionally approved solely to meet a specific need and its subsequent retention would result in an unwarranted intrusion in the countryside.

C 4. All of the panels which form the roof of the marquee structure shall be white in colour.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside.

--

This approval relates to the following plans, date-stamped as having been received 30th September 2014: HLK/12/0124 1, HLK/12/0124 2 and HLK/12/0124 3.

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 : 10th November 2014

Signed : Mr Riley Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate

NO