Loading document...
Office of the Minister and Chief Executive
Telephone (01624)685859 Fax (01624)685945 Email: [email protected] Contact: Margaret Clague Our Ref: ITT/MC Your ref: Date: \quad 18^{\text {th }} January 2011.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I refer to the recent appeal hearing 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 hear 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 refusal of the application under Article 6 of the Town & Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005 should be confirmed.
Yours faithfully,
Please see over for circulation list/......
Sea Terminal Building, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2RF
Report of an Inquiry, held on the 11^{\text {th }} November 2010, into an appeal by Mr Gary Walker against the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse full planning approval to erect a kennel block containing 10 kennels at Melrose Cottage, St. Judes Road, Andreas, Isle of Man, IM7 3HF.
For the Planning Authority: Mr Chris Balmer, Planning Officer. For the Appellant: Ms Patricia S Newton, Planning Consultant; and Mr Gary M Walker, Appellant.
For Highways Division: Mrs Hazel Fletcher, Highway Engineer. Individual Objectors: Mr & Mrs Peter Evans, Jemmy Dans, St. Judes Road, Andreas, IM7 3HF.
PA 02/02370/B was approved for a replacement dwelling on the site. A detached garage was approved under PA 04/01820/B
PA 05 / 01948 / B was refused for the erection of dog kennels, creation of a pedestrian path and hard standing for car parking and the alteration of an agricultural access to form a vehicular access. No appeal was lodged.
Andreas Parish Commissioners was opposed to the proposal because there was insufficient space to allow on-site car parking and cars could not turn round within the site so as to enter the highway in a forward manner.
Highways Division objected to the proposal as sight visibility splays of 2.4 m by 160 m were not shown on the plans.
The Environmental Protection Officer of the Department of the Environment, Food and Agriculture made comments about the impacts to be expected from dog kennels.
Mr & Mrs P Evans objected on a number of grounds.
The site is within an area of "White Land" in the 1982 Development Plan. It is not within a Conservation Area, nor within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
Under the Strategic Plan 2007: General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 22 were relevant.
The main issues are: the impact of the development on the surrounding area; the impact on the neighbouring residential property; the impact on the visual amenities of the countryside and the access/parking provision.
There are no specific planning policies for catteries/kennels, but it is recognised that the use is unlikely to be able to be accommodated in a built-up area. Previous decisions show a consistent approach to regarding the use as inappropriate within residential areas due to the potential for noise and disturbance that is likely to result from the use. However, this approach must be balanced against the presumption against development in the countryside.
The proposal would be sited in the northwest corner of the site, about 25 m from Melrose Cottage. It would be visible from the elevated St Judes Road travelling in a southerly direction. It would be about 53 m from the road. The appearance would be reduced by the grass bank along the northern and southern site boundaries. It is considered that the visual impact would not result in visual detriment of the countryside.
The nearest residence is Jemmy Dans, about 100 m to the southeast of the proposed kennels. The Environmental Protection Officer of the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture has commented that the barking noise from a dog kennel could cause noise nuisance to any local residents within 150 m and the barking would be clearly audible at 300 m during the day. If the kennels were well sound insulated and the doors were kept closed then the noise could be made acceptable at 150 m from the premises for residents. However, there is concern in this case as the occupiers of Jemmy Dans are only 100 m from the proposed kennels. The proposed kennel block and runs comprise exterior panels with 1 / 4 of the panel in mesh and therefore there would be considerable noise breakout. A 'hit and miss' fence on the southern boundary would reduce the potential for noise disturbance but was probably too low to be effective. Whilst working dogs may be better behaved than pets, it would be unreasonable to limit the type of dogs housed by means of a planning condition.
The site is within a quiet rural area and therefore the noise and increase in activity would have an impact on the area. It is considered that the proposal would be contrary to Environment Policy 22.
The required visibility splays of 2.4 \mathrm{~m} \times 160 \mathrm{~m} cannot be obtained because they impinge on land outside the control of the Appellants. The southern splay is the most important because it is on the nearside of approaching traffic; only 2.4 \mathrm{~m} \times 64 \mathrm{~m} can be achieved in this direction, where 2.4 \mathrm{~m} \times 60 \mathrm{~m} was considered acceptable for the replacement dwelling. It is not considered possible to obtain 2.4 \times 95 \mathrm{~m} as claimed by the Appellant. The new commercial use would require visibility splays to the higher, unachievable standard. The standards were contained in "Policy regarding Access to the Highway" dated 30 June 2004, where stopping distances were used which are more favourable than the standards in Manx Roads 1. The parking within the site comprises 2 garage spaces and 4 other spaces. There had been no reported accidents along this road in the last 5 years.
Other matters relating to flooding and pollution control are matters to be considered under the Building Regulations. The new siting of the block compared with the previously refused proposal would probably be acceptable.
the alleged noise problems interfering with the residents of Jemmy Dans. The access and parking has been improved since the previous application was refused. 26. The traffic generated would not increase much as the proposal is for boarding kennels. There is already traffic associated with the plastering business and exercising the Appellant's own dogs. There would be few visitors to the site. Some dog exercising may take place on adjoining fields to the north and west. The property could be used for B&B, which would not required planning permission and would give rise to more traffic generation than this proposed use. The 2.4 \mathrm{~m} \times 160 \mathrm{~m} visibility splays would seem to be excessive compared to other accesses along this road. Lesser standards have been approved elsewhere (an example was submitted for a cattery at Sulby). Splays of 2.4 \mathrm{~m} \times 120 \mathrm{~m} can be provided to the north and 2.4 \mathrm{~m} \times 95 \mathrm{~m} to the south. 27. It is proposed to kennel working dogs which are generally quieter than pet dogs as they are used to the communal living of a kennel. There have been no complaints about the noise from the Appellant's own dogs. Apart from when the dogs are undergoing training or exercise there is no inter-visibility between the dogs and therefore there should not be barking. 28. The suggested planning conditions would be acceptable and a personal planning condition to the Appellant would be acceptable, together with a condition requiring the removal of the kennels if they were not used for a stated period. This would mean that the use would not be permanent.
I inspected the site and its surroundings on the 8^{\text {th }} November 2010. In my consideration of all the submissions and representations made, it seems to me that the main issues are the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of nearby residents and the effect on road safety. I do not consider that the proposal falls within one of the exceptions in General Policy 3.
First, the effect on the living conditions of the southerly neighbours has to be assessed. The limited factual evidence on noise indicates that there would be unacceptable noise nuisance for dwellings within 300 m of a commercial kennel. The precise effects are difficult to quantify because it would depend on the noise insulation of the kennel block and the effectiveness of any intervening barrier at noise reduction. From my experience a fence only 1.7 m tall would be ineffective as a noise barrier as noise would come over it. Solid mass planting has some beneficial effects but does not exist in this situation and would take years to mature. Noise barriers are normally placed around the noise source rather than at some distance. No evidence was given on the noise insulation of the dog cabins, as the technical information on the kennels appeared to relate to heat insulation. The main kennel block has to have adequate ventilation for the dogs and therefore there is bound to be opportunity for noise escape. When the dogs are in the runs and particularly being exercised in the larger run and wider area, there would normally be an expectation of barking. These locations are closer to Jemmy Dans than the kennel block.
Secondly, the required visibility splays are 2.4 \times 160 \mathrm{~m} and only 2.4 . \times 60 \mathrm{~m} is obtainable. I do not believe that the claimed 2.4 \times 95 \mathrm{~m} visibility splay is assured because so much is outside the control of the Appellant. I acknowledge the splay of 2.4 \times 60 \mathrm{~m} was satisfactory for the new dwelling, but I consider that there is potentially more traffic to and from the dog kennels and the higher, new, standard is required. The fact that the Appellant has engaged in his plastering business from his home is not relevant to this proposal because any resident is entitled to carryout his business from their home, providing no other persons are involved at the house.
There is more than adequate parking and manoeuvring area for the existing house for residential purposes. On balance, I believe that there could be a slight shortage for a business.
I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed because of the unacceptable noise, nuisance and disturbance to the neighbouring residents which would be contrary to Environment Policy 22; and the inadequacy of the road sight visibility splays.
If the Minister is minded to allow the appeal, then the planning conditions listed in Part 4 of the Department's Statement should be imposed, plus a personal condition to the Appellant and a time limited condition requiring the removal of the kennels and all ancillary fencing if the business ceases for 9 months, within a further one month.
I have considered all the other matters raised at the Inquiry and in the submissions but they are not such as to affect my recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION
John S Turner
6th December 2010
Independent Inspector
Page 5
.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
