Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
23/00221/B Page 1 of 8
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 23/00221/B Applicant : Ms Caroline Cardona Proposal : Change of use of land and buildings to animal sanctuary. Placement of container and hardstanding and installation of replacement drainage and septic tank (retrospective) Site Address : The Stables Greenhill Jurby Road Andreas Isle Of Man IM7 2EJ
Senior Planning Officer: Mr Jason Singleton Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 02.02.2024 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The container located on the site shall only be used for staff welfare facilities and office space associated with the animal sanctuary hereby permitted and for no other purpose(s) including no residential occupation.
Reason: In order to regulate and control development on the site, as the site lies in the open countryside.
C 2. The site shall not be open to the general public.
Reason: In order to regulate and control development on the site, as the site lies in the open countryside.
C 3. The yard and turning area as shown on two parking areas shown on drawing Yard and Field Plan dated 25 April 2023 shall be retained, kept clear and made available for use in association with the animal sanctuary hereby permitted at all times.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety and the free flow of traffic.
C 4. There shall be no more than 10 dogs accommodated on site at any one time.
==== PAGE 2 ====
23/00221/B Page 2 of 8
Reason: In the absence of a noise assessment it is considered to specify a max 10 dogs would strike the right balance between the operations of the sanctuary and would be reasonable to protect the living conditions of neighbouring residents.
C 5. If Greenhills Sanctuary leave the site the use of the site as a dog rescue and animal sanctuary shall cease and all structures on the site, including the container, shall be removed within three months of Greenhills Sanctuary leaving the site.
Reason: The application site is located in the open countryside with the proposal representing exceptional development in the countryside.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. While the keeping of animals in connection with agriculture does not involve development, it is clear that the applicant takes in stray and distressed animals and are not involved in the use of the land for agricultural purposes, however the use of the land for keeping the rescued animals is considered acceptable as it is very similar to agriculture. The site is located within the open countryside and the proposed use of the land and buildings as an animal sanctuary requires a countryside location to accommodate the animals and associated buildings. The proposal is considered to be low key and have a limited visual impact on the countryside. Planning conditions can be used to control the use and safeguard the identified limited impact on the countryside and on neighbours and would therefore broadly accord with the following policies; Strategic Policy 1, Strategic Policy 2, Strategic Policy 5, Strategic Policy 10, Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1, Environment Policy 21, and Environment Policy 22.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the following submitted documents/information and drawings;
15 February 2023
A3 Container Elevations A3 Container floor plan A3 Floor plan A3 Front elevations A3 Side and rear Elevations A3 Site plan A3 Stables Floor Plan and details1 A4 Location plan A4 Photos A4 Site Plan Correspondence Small stable Elevations
25 April 2023 A3 Yard and Field Floor Plan 25 Apr 23 Applicant response __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings:
Greenhill Jurby Road Andreas Ballacrebbin Cottage Jurby Road Andreas
==== PAGE 3 ====
23/00221/B Page 3 of 8
as they have explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. __
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN REFERRED TO PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is open countryside. The site is a former stables and paddock and is currently being used as an animal sanctuary. The site is fairly level. The existing stable on site is being used to accommodate the animals. There is also a container which is being used as an office/welfare facility with associated infrastructure (drainage and septic tank). The site is accessed through an existing access onto Jurby Road (approved as part of the stables application in 2007) and a gate onto an existing hardstanding and turning area.
1.2 There are two properties nearby one apx 90m to the north west and another apx 128m to the south east.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The current planning application seeks approval for the change of use of the land to an animal sanctuary, including the use of a container as an office/welfare facility (with associated infrastructure). This is currently on the site and is located on/near to the western boundary perpendicular to the stable buildings.
2.2 There is an existing access to the site from Jurby Road which will be utilised to serve the animal sanctuary.
2.3 It is noted that there are some other structures under construction, at the time of the site visit, which are not covered by this application. This application purely relates the use and the regularisation of the stables and the containers.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There are several applications upon the site of which the following are most relevant to the assessment of this application.
3.1.1 07/02137/B - erection of stable block was approved subject to a number of conditions including the following;
As it was considered that the proposal is a modest sized structure for the keeping of horses on the site. The siting of the stables has been chosen to reduce the visual impact of the stables upon the surrounding landscape. The stables would be well screened from public view, particularly when travelling along the Jurby Road due to the significant mature hedgerows and mature trees which line the northern and eastern boundary of the site. Additionally, the stables are a fairly low structure (max 3 meters in height) and would have a timber clad finish (shiplap finish), which will therefore blend well with the surrounding vegetation.
3.1.2 05/92166/B - erection of an agricultural building was refused on the following grounds; 1. The proposed building would by reason of its height, siting, massing and design introduce a prominent and incongruous feature into the landscape, which would cause demonstrable harm to the openness and character of the countryside and would be detrimental
==== PAGE 4 ====
23/00221/B Page 4 of 8
to the visual amenities of the locality. Furthermore, the applicant has not demonstrated that there is sufficient need to justify an excessively large building within the countryside to the detriment of the visual amenities of the locality. 2. The applicant has not provided any evidence to demonstrate why other outbuildings within Farrants Fort are unsuitable for the proposed uses and therefore it would be inappropriate to allow a new building without first considering this information.
3.1.3 04/00639/A - approval in principle for erection of an agricultural workers retirement dwelling refused on the following grounds;
4.1 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as an "Area of private woodland or parkland" and white land on the 1982 Development Plan, North Map. The property is not within a Conservation Area or a Flood Risk Zone or within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal value and scenic significance.
4.2 Given the nature of the application and the land designation the following Strategic Plan policies are considered relevant; Strategic Policy 1 - best use of resources Strategic Policy 2 - location of development; development in countryside only in exceptional circumstances (para 6.3) Strategic Policy 5 - buildings should make a positive contribution to environment Strategic Policy 10 -location of development; transport network Spatial Policy 5 - development location; development in countryside only in exceptional circumstances in accordance with General Policy 3 General Policy 3 - exceptions to development in the countryside Environment Policy 1 - protection of the open countryside Environment Policy 3 - protection of woodland areas Environment Policy 14 - protection of important and versatile agricultural land Environment Policy 21 - design of buildings for stabling, shelter or care of horses of other animals Environment Policy 22 - prevention of pollution and quality of life inc noise
While not directly relevant to the proposed use Environment Policy 15 provides design advise for siting of new agricultural buildings in the countryside where need is satisfied the development should be sited as close as is practically possible to existing building groups and be appropriate in terms of scale, materials, colour, siting and form to ensure that all new developments are sympathetic to the landscape and built environment of which they will form a part.
While the proposal is not zoned for development parts of General Policy 2 are considered relevant in relation to design, location, neighbours and traffic (b,c,g,h)
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 The following representations can be found in full online;
5.2 Highway Services have considered the proposal, including the additional information and state "Highways Development Control notes the additional information uploaded on 25 April 2023. This greatly clarifies the number of movements and parking arrangements at the site. As the amount of traffic is relatively low and expected to remain similar in the near the future, HDC is satisfied that the proposal is unlikely to cause significant impact to road safety or network functionality. The parking arrangements are adequate too. Accordingly, the proposal as indicated now overcomes the outstanding highway related concerns for no objection to be
==== PAGE 5 ====
23/00221/B Page 5 of 8
raised. A restrictive planning condition may be appropriate to apply to contain activities to current levels. Highway Drainage may comment further on the surface water drainage; although it is noted that this matter has been addressed within the additional information too." (28.04.23)
5.3 Andreas Parish Commissioners have considered the proposal and state "The Commissioners feel that to permit this installation (retrospectively) would set a precedent for other rural and/or agricultural buildings within the Parish." (09.03.21)
5.4 Highway Services drainage comment that "Allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads and the applicant should be aware off and comply with the clauses above" (05.04.23)
5.5 Owner/occupier of Ballacrebbin Cottage make a number of comments of which the following are considered to be planning considerations (16.03.24, 03.04.23 and 11.04.23);
Issues raised not considered to be a planning matter;
5.6 Owner/occupier of Greenhills Jurby Road makes the following comments;
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are:
6.2 Principle of Development 6.2.1 Change Of Use The stables were originally approved and linked to a nearby property, Farrants Fort. The land in question was purchased by the Animal Sanctuary in 2018. Some of the animals are in open and graze the land with supplementary feed when necessary. The stables are used to house mainly dogs (that are unable to remain in a normal domestic setting), and sheep at the time of the site visit. However the owner of the sanctuary does take all types of animals.
Planning Case Law: The work carried out at an animal sanctuary can amount to a very special circumstance as demonstrated in Rotherham 5/12/2005 DCS No 100-040-519. The inspector noted that the
==== PAGE 6 ====
23/00221/B Page 6 of 8
appellant kept horses, ponies, donkeys, pigs, fowl, ducks, goats and sheep on the land. Although the keeping of animals in connection with agriculture did not involve development, it was clear that the appellant rescued stray and distressed animals and kept them in various buildings on the land. They were not kept for food and were not involved in the use of the land for agricultural purposes. The inspector, in that case decided that planning permission was required for a change of use of the land.
6.2.2 It is clear that an animal sanctuary is not agriculture but that as the grazing of animals is similar to agriculture and could be tolerated. As more diversification takes place with facilities being developed for staff welfare and offices a change of use is occurring. The use of the land for keeping the rescued animals is considered acceptable as it is very similar to agriculture. The day to day operations at the sanctuary include general animal husbandry including feeding, treatment to animals, repairs to fencing, maintenance to buildings and other farm management practices.
6.2.3 The more facilities that are provided on the site the more intensive the non-agricultural element of the operation becomes; in this case there is the addition of the welfare facilities/office and associated works however it is not intended to be open to the public or open to visiting members of the public.
6.2.3 The site is located in the open countryside and this type of use requires a countryside location in order to accommodate the animals and associated buildings and equipment on the land. The proposal is considered to be a low key use and will have a limited visual impact on the open countryside. The proposal is an appropriate use in the open countryside and therefore accords with the policies set out above.
6.2.4 Planning conditions can be used to control the use to safeguard the impact the proposal will have on the open countryside and on neighbours.
6.3 Character and Appearance 6.3.1 The site is a paddock/field with the land grassed and fairly level. There is some hedgerow / sod banks screening at the boundaries which screens some of the site from view. At the time of the site visit the stables on the site accommodating the animals, with some others under construction which are not covered by this application. The stables are existing structures that were approved in 2007 and they were considered to be a low level building of a modest size and the siting reduced the visual impact on the surrounding landscape. This situation has not changed.
6.3.2 The site is quite well screened from public view, particularly when travelling along the Jurby Road due to the significant mature hedgerows and mature trees which line the northern and eastern boundary of the site. Additionally, the stables are a fairly low structure (max 3 metres in height) and would have a timber clad finish (shiplap finish), which will therefore blend well with the surrounding vegetation. The container and hardstanding are located near to the existing stables and would be screened from public view as set out above. It is noted that it is visible from an adjacent neighbouring property however that in and of itself is not considered to be a reason for refusal. While the stable buildings are considered appropriate in the countryside the container is not something that is readily encouraged, however it is sited as close as is practically possible to existing building group and is considered appropriate in terms of scale, it has been coloured to try and blend in, which can be conditioned. On this basis it is not considered that is placement and use would not harm the character or quality of the landscape.
6.4 Impact on Residential Amenity 6.4.1 The site is located close to some residential properties. The keeping of animals is an appropriate activity in the open countryside under GP 3, however there are more than farm animals kept here, such as dogs and concerns have been raised over noise from them barking.
==== PAGE 7 ====
23/00221/B Page 7 of 8
It is not clear how many dogs are kept at the premises, and is expected it is a fluid number based on need.
6.4.2 As set down in para 7.17.1 of Strategic Plan it is not the role of land use planning to duplicate controls which are the statutory responsibility of other agencies including other directorates within the Department of Local Government and the Environment. Policy EP22 is intended to prevent development which would unacceptably impact upon current and future land uses through the effects of pollution. Noise can have an adverse impact either through the noise itself or general disturbance.
6.4.3 While there are Conditions and Guidance for Dog Boarding Establishments (2019) issued by DEFA they are relatively silent on the size of accommodation that should be provided and focus more on design and construction and dog welfare.
6.4.4 There is planning case law surrounding the keeping of dogs and their number before a material change of use would occur (Wallington v SoS [1990]). The guidance coming from Wallington, which was in a domestic setting, is that it may be deduced that the keeping of more than 6 dogs may well be a material change of use, however this figure should not be used as a rule of thumb applicable in all cases. As with all applications considerations such as the character of the area and the proximity of neighbouring properties should form part of the process. It is also clear that whether an activity is for hobby/humanitarian purposes or commercial gain is not a determining criterion on its own, which would be the situation in this application.
6.4.5 This application is seeking approval for a change of use and the above case is useful in balancing between the needs of the sanctuary and to protect the living conditions of neighbouring residents. Taking into account the size of the buildings and the distance to the nearest neighbours it is considered a max 10 dogs would strike the right balance and would be reasonable to protect the living conditions of neighbouring residents.
6.5 Impact on the Highway 6.5.1 The access is already in existence and Highways are satisfied that the proposal is unlikely to cause significant impact to road safety or network functionality and that the parking arrangements are adequate too. The amount of traffic is relatively low and expected to remain similar in the near the future.
6.5.2 Planning conditions will be used to ensure that the use is not open to the general public in order to ensure vehicle movements are kept to a minimum.
6.6 Other Matters 6.6.1 The application also includes the installation of a septic tank. The proposed septic tank provides a sealed foul water disposal system commonly employed on properties which are not connected to any mains drainage system, the proposed septic tank and associated drainage field are considered to be of sufficient distance away for adequate discharge of treated waste water so not to be considered a nuisance to neighbouring residents in respect of effluent leakage or odours. With the addition of a welfare unit (the container) this would be necessary and it is considered that it would not give rise to any adverse amenity impacts in respect of the residential amenities that neighbours currently enjoy.
6.6.2 Some of the representations make reference to the retrospective nature of the application. Regardless of the emotions that can be aroused by someone carrying out development without planning permission, the decision maker must approach a retrospective application seeking to legitimise a development that has already taken place in exactly the same way as a 'normal' application for proposed development.
7.0 CONCLUSION
==== PAGE 8 ====
23/00221/B Page 8 of 8
7.1 While the keeping of animals in connection with agriculture does not involve development, it is clear that the applicant takes in stray and distressed animals and are not involved in the use of the land for agricultural purposes, however the use of the land for keeping the rescued animals is considered acceptable as it is very similar to agriculture. The site is located within the open countryside and the proposed use of the land and buildings as an animal sanctuary requires a countryside located to accommodate the animals and associated buildings. The proposal is considered to be low key and have a limited visual impact on the countryside. Planning conditions can be used to control the use and safeguard the identified limited impact on the countryside and on neighbours. On this basis the proposal is considered to comply with the relevant provisions of the Strategic Plan as set out about in section 4.0.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status __
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Permitted
Committee Meeting Date: 12.02.2024
Signed : J SINGLETON Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate 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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal