DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 20/01435/B Applicant: Mr James Radcliffe Proposal: Construction of a horse manege (retrospective) Site Address: Field No. 124965 Ardonan Nurseries Ardonan Lane Regaby Ramsey IM7 3HN Senior Planning Officer: Mr Jason Singleton Site Visit: 04.03.2021 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 14.07.2021 _________________________________________________________________

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• C 1. Within 3 months of the date of this approval becoming final, a proposed landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department showing details and timing of planting to the perimeter of the menage and boundary hedging to the west and fencing / screening proposals to the west elevation of the menage.

The proposed planting shall take place in accordance with the approved details and any trees / bushes which, within a period of 5 years from their first planting, are removed, or, in the opinion of the Department, become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Department gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: In the interest of rider safety to ensure adequate screening and no line of sight between the users of the menage and the uses within the adjacent agricultural field.

• C 2. The manège and barn may only be used for the keeping and exercising of horses and associated uses connected to Ardonan Nurseries, Ardonan Lane, as the site, as defined in red and blue on the approved plans. Reason: To safeguard the surrounding amenities and highway useage.
• C 3. No lighting may be installed in connection with the stables or manege without planning approval.

Reason: to protect the amenities of the countryside and the Dark Skies and Biosphere status of the Island.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason.

This planning application has proved to be acceptable in terms of the agricultural need satisfying General Policy 3, and the proposed use, scale, siting and form of enclosure would be in accordance with Environment Policy 15 and 19, 21 with a neutral impact upon the countryside in accordance with Environmental Policy 1.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to drawings referenced; 001; 002; 010, date stamped received on 10 January 2021. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status

Additional Persons

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties 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 and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):

Ballayockey Farm, Ballayockey Lane, Regaby (noting that the owner/occupier of 18 Ballastrooan, Colby has commented as an agent for Ballayockey Farm and not in relation to their own land and as such have not been assessed seperately for IPS) Cronk Vue,Ballayocky Lane, Regaby

as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (2021).

_____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site is Field 124965 which lies to the south west of Regaby, off of Regaby West Road. The site is part of a wider farm unit (Ardonan Nurseries) that includes numerous horticultural buildings, greenhouses and polytunnels; there are several agricultural type barns and a farmhouse on the main part of the site and there are numerous agricultural fields to the north and south of the site. - 1.2 The site is approx. 270m to the south of the dwellinghouse and building, accessed from a farm track.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Proposed is the construction of a horse menage (retrospective). - 2.2 The menage enclosure would measure approx. 20.3m x 47.3m and edges with timber fencing in a post and rail appearance and a timber gate to the north west corner. The manege has been finished with a sandy base and sits approx. 1.0m higher than the track / road that it is served by.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area recognised as being an area of "white land" under the Isle of Man Development Order 1982. - 3.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this application; - 3.3 General Policy 3: (in part)

Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:

• (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry.

3.4 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.

3.5 Environmental Policy 15: Where the Department is satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building (including a dwelling), sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside, and that the impact of this development including buildings, accesses, servicing etc. is acceptable, such development must 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.

Only in exceptional circumstances will buildings be permitted in exposed or isolated areas or close to public highways and in all such cases will be subject to appropriate landscaping. The nature and materials of construction must also be appropriate to the purposes for which it is intended.

Where new agricultural buildings are proposed next to or close to existing residential properties, care must be taken to ensure that there is no unacceptable adverse impact through any activity, although it must be borne in mind that many farming activities require buildings which are best sited, in landscape terms, close to existing building groups in the rural landscape.

3.6 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). - 3.7 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.

- 4.0 PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The application site has not been the subject of any previous planning applications that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. - 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS (full representations are available online, here they are noted in brief.)

5.1 Andreas Parish Commissioners were written too on 10.02.21 seeking comments by the end of the public consultation period on 05.03.21. At the time of writing no comments had been received.

5.2 Highways Services do not object (No Highways Interest) 23.02.21 - 5.3 18 Ballastrooan, (Island Land Based Services Limited) commented (03/03/21) on behalf of the neighbouring land owner of Ballayockey Farm, Ballayockey Lane, Regaby who farm field no.124062 which adjoins the application site (124965). Their concerns relate to;

• o Site levels have been increased and built up estimated at 350m2.
• o Only 6/7m between the menage and the boundary fence.
• o Neighbouring filed grows potatoes and cereal crops in rotations.
• o Large agricultural machinery is used to 'work' land.
• o Insurance risk if machinery is operating and the menage is in use a rider could be injured.
• o Given the artificial increased levels, there is now no acoustic or visual barrier between the field and the menage.
• o Request a condition for the installation of a 2.7m high fence.
• o There should be no floodlighting of any kind (wiring is in place).
• o Application is contrary to EP1 as no national need and severed impact to the countryside.
• o Application is contrary to EP19 and loss of high quality agricultural land (class 2).

5.4 Ballayockey Farm, comments (02/03/21) to object and seek interested party status; Their concerns relate to;

• o Field was original sloping and be raised with demolition waste and overlooks their field.
• o Location of the arena is only 7m from a viable farmland and working machinery.
• o Detrimental financial impact not being able to farm the adjoining field.
• o British Horse Society recommends farm machinery should not be operational within 20m.
• o This 20m would sterile a proportion of their field.
• o Applicant runs a large scale equestrian livery business and 5 stable yards with approx. 20 horses belonging to different owners/ riders.
• o Some form of landscaping or relocation of the menage is required to remove the 'risk' away from the boundary.
• o Requests a large earth bund or acoustic fence on the boundary.

5.5 The owners of Ballayockey Farm have also submitted a report attached to their covering letter dated 02/03/21, from a equine expert who raise the following issues;

• o Proximity to the working farm boundary of 7m is unacceptable for a menage.
• o Farming this field would involve 80 visits per season with machinery and poses a safety risk to any horse riders using the menage.
• o Elevated nature if the arena causes a panoramic uninterrupted view from the horses eye line.
• o Horses respond to the wider environment differently to humans and very sensitive to motion and tend to bolt (flight response) if unsure of their surroundings.
• o No soundproofing or visual barrier proposed to mitigate the risk
• o Farm machinery noise levels can reach and exceed 120decibels.
• o Advocates the use of strong visual and acoustic barriers on the west and south of the arena.
• o A 2.7m or 9' tall fence would suffice to block the view of a jumping horse.
• o Landscaping alone is not sufficient and takes too long to mature.

5.6 Corlett Bolton & Co. on behalf of the owners of Cronk Vue, Ballayockey Lane, Regaby, have commented (04/06/21) with a two page letter in reference to their clients (Ballayockey Farm) written submission dated 02/03/21, as noted in the above paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5. Where they (Corlett Bolton Advocates) refer to the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act sub section 4 of section 10, the strategic plan, the isle of man Development Plan 1982, Strategic Plan 2016, the points raised by the Radcliffs responses; referenced Strategic Policy 2&4b, General Policy 1, 2(c),(m), General Policy 3; refers to the 'disturbance resulting from use' and

• gives wider commentary on matters where the proposals could present a significant risk to the community and public safety, disruption to the landscape and disturbance in general if approved without limiting conditions. Suggests in their final paragraphs that acoustic barriers should be included and erected or the application refused outright as contrary to the development plan.
• 5.7 The applicants agent has written (06/05/21) to address the reasons for concern cited above and provides a letter of support from a equine professional / riding instructor who details their experience and commentry on equine behaviour.

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are;

• (i) the broad principle of the proposal (GP3(F); EP15; EP19)
• (ii) the visual impact on the countryside (Ep1;EP21) the broad principle of the proposal

6.2 As an exception to General Policy 3 (f) there has been alloweces for the erection of a stables building and the provision for a riding area / ménage which would be assessed against the same policies (gp3(f) and EP15) and whilst not a building for agriculture per say, the impact would be broadly the same. Here, the use of the land for a ménage is related to the use of the fields (for grazing) and the stables for horses, and would generally be deemed a complementary use in close association. The area to be occupied would still leave a vast amount of the fields intact for grazing and would be considered to have a minimal impact on the countryside, utilising an underused part of the field. In this instance, it is considered the proposal by its proximity to the existing stables and within the land use holding would whilst remain sympathetic to the rural landscape, where it would meet the exception under General Policy 3(f) and the initial part of Environmental policy 15. - 6.3 With regard to the proposal and EP19 and the potential loss of agricultural land, the IoM soils maps gives a broad indication of the area with the site probably within an area as being (brown in colour on the map) of class of 3/4 quality. This description of the soil quality of the natural land goes some way to understand the limitations of agricultural usage. Nevertheless, the proposed menage would only occupy a small footprint on the land and where the adjoining fields are to be used for grazing in association with the use of the menage, at a later date these fields could be utilised for further agricultural use without being disadvantaged by the siting of the menage and would not prejudice EP19 and the loss of agricultural land. the visual impact on the countryside - 6.4 Considering the impact of the proposal, initially there would have been some soil excavation to level this part of the area (cut and fill of the lower parts). Albeit this application is retrospective and visible. It would not be considered this would have a detrimental impact on the wider area and given the close proximity to the stables, the two would be read in conjunction and legible for what their use and intentions area. - 6.5 The only identifying features would be the uniformity of the perimeter fence around the arena area. The flooring is made up from a number of layers of inert material and dressing of sand. The proposal would not include any illumination and would only be used in daylight hours only, minimising any impact on the surrounding area and landscape from a public perception. - 6.6 Turning to the correspondence from the neighbouring land owner and farmer of the wider enterprise of Ballayockey Farm. Their comments and those of the professionals supporting their legitimate concerns are specifically over a conflict of uses, where the scenario could arise where the adjacent land is being farmed with machinery and implements and

• conversely the menage is in use. The concern is how this would impact more on the menage users / horses and riders, where this could place riders at a degree of risk, when considering the current application as presented.
• 6.7 The comments from all stakeholders with concerns are noted above and their reference to some form of screening or acoustic fencing to delineate of the two should strive to mitigate any conflicts of use or operations leading to an element of risk to either party. At this stage, without prejudice, this could be achieved with a suitable worded condition to require a detail plan showing the position and type of fencing and landscaping to be proposed within a set period of time (if approved) to be erected and retained in perpetuity. To mitigate the appearance of the said fence, this can be softened with the planting of a hedge and if needed could be continued around the perimeter of the ménage to reduce wind blowing of the ménages' surface (sand).
• 6.8 Balancing the above and the competing demands, and potential for confliction to arise, whilst the principle of a menage is acceptable and the level of development proposed is minor (albeit retrospective) and it would not be visible from a public vantage point or highway, the proposal would have a neutral impact. The issue of rider safety and agricultural use of the neighbouring fields can be addressed through the implementation of fencing as noted by the advocates letter and conditioned as such. On the whole, the proposal is not considered to have any greater impact on the surrounding area or countryside and is deemed acceptable in accordance with Environmental policy 1 and 21.

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 For the above reasons, it is concluded that the planning application would not materially harm the surrounding countryside and would comply with aforementioned planning policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. - 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 can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status

Decision Made : Permitted Date : 01.09.2021

Determining officer

Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management

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.