Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/00666/B Page 1 of 14
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. 21/00666/B Applicant : Mrs Sally Vanveen Proposal Alterations, erection of detached equestrian building to provide stables and arena and erection of detached field shelter with associated hard standings Site Address Fields 522650 & 522652 Hampton Court Quines Hill Port Soderick Isle Of Man IM4 1AZ
Case Officer :
Mr Jason Singleton Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 08.10.2021
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. The arena hereby approved must only be used for private equestrian purposes in association with the residential dwelling 'Hampton Court, Quines Hill and not for any commercial use or private livery use.
Reason: The application has been assessed on a personal basis only and not for any commercial use.
C 3. The indoor equestrian arena and stables hereby approved shall be used only in connection with Hampton Court for equestrian purposes and may not be let out separately therefrom.
Reason: The Department has assessed the impact of the proposal on the basis of the specified use and the documents submitted and to enable the Department to consider the implications of any subsequent change on the amenities of the area.
C 4. In the event that the building hereby approved is not used or required for agricultural or equestrian purposes for a period exceeding 12 months, the arena buildings hereby approved shall be removed and the ground restored to its former condition within 18 months of its last use.
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/00666/B Page 2 of 14
Reason: The building has been exceptionally approved solely to meet equestrian need and its subsequent retention would result in an unwarranted intrusion in the countryside.
C 5. There shall be no external storage of plant, machinery, materials or vehicles outside of the building identified on the approved drawings, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Department.
Reason: To protect the character of the area and agricultural use of the land.
C 6. The external roof on the new arena building must be a dark green colour and retained thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
C 7. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a tree protection plan for retained trees in accordance with BS5837:2012 showing construction exclusion zones, the precise location and specification of protection fencing/ground protection measures, and places where signage will be erected shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and shall be fully installed and implemented and retained for the duration of the construction process, unless stated otherwise.
Reason: to ensure that all trees to be retained are adequately protected from damage throughout the construction period to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality.
C 8. No site clearance, preparatory work or development shall take place until a tree planting plan is submitted to and agreed in writing by the Department. Where applicable the plan shall adhere to the recommendations of BS8545:2014 (Trees: from nursery to independence in the landscape - recommendations) and in all cases shall include the following details: (a) the exact location, species, nursery specification and planting specification of each tree (or group of trees) to be planted. Where groups or larger areas are to be planted please state the area and planting density. (b) the approximate date when they are to be planted (c) how they will be maintained until successfully established.
The tree planting shall take place as agreed and any trees 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: to ensure an appropriate standard of visual amenity in the local area and that the development is appropriately landscaped to sit comfortably and acceptably in its location.
C 9. For the avoidance of doubt no approval is hereby given for any external lighting to be installed to or on the arena.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenities of the landscape/countryside.
N 1. The applicant is encouraged to utilise energy efficient lighting for the internal illumination of the building.
N 2. The applicant is advised that there are Overhead Lines present in the area indicated in the planning application. Please contact Anthony Kinrade or Ian Horsey, Operations and Maintenance Department, Network Services, Manx Electricity Authority, (Tel. 687687) to discuss working practices around Cables and Overhead Lines which may need to be diverted before any work can be carried out on site.
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/00666/B Page 3 of 14
The applicant is also advised to contact the Manx Electricity Authority for Electrical Site Safety 5 documents, (Tel. 687766), before any work is carried out on site. All work to be carried out with reference to Health and Safety Executive Guidance Notes HS(G)47 and GS6.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. It is considered that the planning application is in accordance with General Policy 3, Environment Policies 1, 21 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to drawings received on 21 July 2021, referenced; Proposed Plans and Elevations of new barn - 426-02 RevA. Proposed Rear and Side Elevations of new barn - 426-02 RevC.
and amended drawings received on 2 September, referenced; Revised Field Shelter and site plan - 426-01 RevB. Revised Arena Site and Location Plan - 426-03 RevB.
Revised Site Location Plan - 426-04 received on 3 September, 2021.
Proposed Section - 426-05 RevA. received on 26 August, 2021.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not 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 6(4):
Claremount, Old Castletown Road. Port Soderick Ballachrink, Richmond Hill. Braddan Beconsfield Farm, Richmond Hill. Braddan Manx National Heritage
as they are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy. __
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSAL COULD BE SEEN AS CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site identified in red are the fields referenced (3.28 Acres) & 522652 (0.91 Acre) located to the rear (North West) of a dwelling house Hampton Court, Quines Hill, Port Soderick (Old Castletown Road). At the end of the existing tree lined driveway is a detached substantial house that sits to the north of the highway as it passes between Quine's Hill and Ballaveare. The house is an imposing Queen Anne Georgian Mansion that has seen a number of extensions. The property sits centrally to its land holding with a coppice of mature trees and ponds to the rear of the dwellinghouse. Beyond this wooded area is the application site.
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/00666/B Page 4 of 14
1.2 The topography of the site (522652) is broadly level but then falls away to the North West to the end of field 522650. The applicant owns further land / fields (approx. 20 acres) to the north and south of the dwellinghouse.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the erection of an equestrian arena building with integrated stables (field522652) and a detached timber framed field shelter (field522650).
2.2 The proposed stables and area building would measure a footprint of 30m x 40m, the building would be subdivided into two areas, the larger area 30m x 33m (1000m2) as an indoor arena and smaller section showing three stables, general store area, washing area, tack room w/c and kitchenette measuring 30m x 6.2m (186m2). The building would feature a low pitched roof (20deg) with 612 GRP roof lights and light grey 10mm thick composite roof sheeting. The building would be constructed from a metal 'portal frame' construction with the walls single leaf blockwork up to 2.0m high with vertical timber larch cladding above up to eaves level on the side and up to the ridge on the gables. The siting would be approx. 70m from the rear elevation of the dwellinghouse and accessed from the same driveway that serves the house.
2.3 The field shelter would measure a footprint of 14.6m long and 7.4m wide, half of the building would be constructed from single leaf blockwork and the external finishes soft grey vertical composite cladding with a trussed timber roof with natural grey slate. The layout plans shows the other half being open sides and front with the roof canopy above providing an element of shelter. The location of the shelter would be to the northern corner of field 522650 at the lowest part of the field.
2.4 The applicant has provided a supporting statement that notes that the arena and stables are for their sole personal use to provide a safe environment for their horses and the rider (their self). At present there are two thorough bred horses that are used for competitions. Also they are seeking to add another horse in the near future from the London mounted police horses.
3.0 PLANNING POLICIES
3.1 LOCAL PLAN POLICY In terms of land use designation, the application site is within an area of white land or not zoned for development on Map 3 of the Area Plan for the East. The broader area is also recognised an area of incised slopes on Map 2, where the character of which is to be conserved and enhanced.
3.2 Within the written statement for the Area Plan for the East, under Landscape Strategy it notes the following; Conserve and enhance: a) the character, quality and distinctiveness of the area, with its open and panoramic views over large rectilinear fields; b) its steep winding small lanes enclosed by grassed Manx hedges; c) its scattered hill farms fringed by trees. Key Views Open and expansive views from most of the area out to sea, along the coast, over Douglas Bay and inland over the incised inland plateau up to the northern Uplands.
3.2 The site is not within a Conservation Area or within an area identified as flood risk. There are no defined registered trees areas on the Govt maps but there are mature trees to the south of the application site.
3.3 STRATEGIC PLAN Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application:
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/00666/B Page 5 of 14
3.4 Strategic Policy 4: (in part)
(b) protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations.
3.5 Strategic Policy 5: New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies.
3.6 Spatial Policy 5: New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3.
3.7 Whilst the land is not zoned for development, the general principles contained with GP2 offer guidance that specifically addresses those issues affecting building on site that would be general development control principles;
General Policy 2: (in part) Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption.
3.8 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;
3.9 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 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.
3.10 Environment Policy 2:
==== PAGE 6 ====
21/00666/B Page 6 of 14
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.
3.11 Environment Policy 3: Development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi-natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value.
3.12 Environment 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."
3.13 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).
3.14 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.
3.15 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.
3.16 It is also important to read paragraph 7.15.1 in the Strategic Plan which states;
7.15.1 Equestrian activities are becoming increasingly popular in rural areas and on the fringes of our towns and villages. These activities can generally take place only on open, rural land, and often represent a useful way of diversifying traditional farming. The use of land as grazing
==== PAGE 7 ====
21/00666/B Page 7 of 14
land falls within the definition of agriculture (section 45 of the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act), and does not therefore involve development, but the keeping of horses and the operation of equestrian activities generally do involve development and may have an adverse impact on the appearance and character of the countryside. Sensitive siting and high standards of design, construction, and maintenance are necessary to ensure that there are no such adverse impacts. Whilst horses should be well housed, it will seldom be appropriate to use cavity-wall construction for stables, since such buildings may too easily be adapted for residential uses, so thwarting other policies of this Plan. Where new buildings are necessary, they should be sited close to existing building groups, and designed not only to blend with their surroundings but also to suit their specific purpose.
3.17 Infrastructure Policy 5: Development proposals should incorporate methods for water conservation and management measures to conserve the Island's water resources.
3.18 Energy Policy 5: The Department will prepare a Planning Policy Statement on Energy Efficiency. Pending the preparation and adoption of that PPS the Department will require proposals for more than 5 dwellings or 100 square metres of other development to be accompanied by an Energy Impact Assessment.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 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 (in brief, full reps can be read on line) Statutory Consultees
5.1 Braddan Commissioners (14/09/21) commented with no objection.
5.2 Highways Services have commented (03/09/21) do not object.
5.3 DEFA Arboricultural Officer provides comments (29/07/21) objecting on the initial plans that indicated further tree removal and add comments on the history of trees; "The 2016 aerial photograph shows a large area of trees immediately to the north-west of the property. In 2017 the Directorate approved a licence under the Tree Preservation Act 1993 to remove a large number of trees. The objective of this tree work was to create space between the house and the trees, and to improve the setting of this historic building. You can see the area of trees approved for removal in the 2018 aerial photograph". But could not support further tree removal. IF approved they suggest two conditions seeking a tree protection plan and a replacement tree plan to replace those trees lost circa 200m2.
Again, (06/09/21) commented on the quality of information on the amended plans regarding the level of detail and tree protection measures proposed and suggests a planning condition if approved; "1. A tree protection plan for retained trees, prepared in accordance with BS5837:2012 showing construction exclusion zones, the precise location and specification of protection fencing/ground protection measures, and places where signage will be erected".
5.4 DEFA Biodiversity Officer commented (12/07/21) on tree removal (no trees are to be removed). No further comments received on the amended plans having been invited on 03/09/21.
5.5 Manx National Heritage commented (30/06/21) comments on tree removal (no trees are to be removed) No further comments received on the amended plans having been invited on 03/09/21.
==== PAGE 8 ====
21/00666/B Page 8 of 14
Neighbouring Properties 5.6 The owners of Beconsfield Farm, Richmond Hill, (Approx 450m North of the site across the valley) Commented on (16/07/21) OBJECTING on the existing level of tree loss, proposed potential tree loss, siting in proximity to the dwelling house, plans inaccurate as they don't reflect the topography.
5.7 The owners of Claremont, Old Castletown Road, (Approx 670m South of the site, fronts onto Old Castletown Road) Commented on (12/07/21 & 22/07/21) OBJECTING; No tree survey, impact assessment or protection plan; conflicts with the MUA power lines and could be a safety issue. Over development (1500m2) and out of scale for three horses.
5.8 The owners of Ballachrink, Richmond Hill, (Approx 350m North of the site across the valley) Commented on (11/07/21 & 23/07/21) OBJECTING as they live adjacent to the fields and would overlook their property, comments on the history of the property, out of keeping and disproportionate, siting at the top of Crogga valley and close proximity to the dwelling house, may not be solely for private use, would be evident on the landscape, existing tree loss, impact on bio-diversity and wildlife in the area. References Environmental Policy 20 and AHLSV and contrary to EP1,2,15,20,21.
5.9 Manx Utilities Authority were contacted seeking comment on the high voltage power lines that are in close proximity to the northern elevation of the proposed arena building. At the time of writing no comment has been received.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are whether there is any adverse impact or harm from the proposal. The following topics are thematically identified below with the corresponding policies;
(i) Principle; (SP5; GP3f; GP2k) (ii) Design (STP5; EP21;Gp2b&j; Ep15) (iii) visual impact (Ep1; EP2;Ep20; GP2c&f) (iv) Loss of agricultural land (EP19;) (v) Neighbouring amenities (Gp2g) (vi) Trees and Bio Diversity (EP3; GP2d;SP4b) (vii) Highway Safety (GP2h&i) (viii) Water conservation and management (IP5; GP2l) (ix) Sustainable Construction (GP2n; EnP5) (x) Any other matters arising
(i) Principle 6.2 The starting point for any development within the countryside (i.e. not zoned for development) is directed through Sp5 and only in exceptions when assessed against GP 3. In this instance, part f allows exemption for the erection of agricultural buildings. EP 15 requires in the first paragraph, that the Planning Authority is to be satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building, sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside. Here the most notable aspect of the proposal is the equestrian arena / stabling building and the stables in the lower field which directs us to EP21 which echoes the principles of Ep15 and as the area plan for the East is adopted and the surrounding lands are rural / agricultural, the principle would not prejudice the adjoining land according to GP2k.
6.3 The broad principle of equestrian building in the countryside and also those for agricultural buildings for the sheltering and care of animals is broadly supported by the Strategic plan for exceptions to allow for development in the countryside, but this is subject to further material tests against the competing planning policies as noted below.
==== PAGE 9 ====
21/00666/B Page 9 of 14
6.4 From the information submitted, the history of the site, and from visiting the area it was evident that the reasons for the building in this location could appear justified.
(ii) Design 6.5 The starting point here is EP21 which is echoed through EP15 and Gp2b which note the important aspects as being (but not limited too) siting, design, size and finish. Turning to the proposed siting of the building has been chosen to accord to planning policy, (noted above) in that it should be sited as close to existing buildings. The siting of the arena building would be approx.70m to the north of the house and adjacent to an existing coppice of trees and woodland (to the south) and adjacent to the agricultural fields. This location does not prejudice the setting of the dwelling house (this buildings is not registered) and would sit just outside of the residential curtilage on agricultural land.
6.6 The design approach taken for the proposed building is a "portal frame" metal structural building that allows for low pitches and is also utilised for agricultural buildings across the island and is not uncommon in rural areas. The building would occupy a footprint of 30m x 40m for the arena and stabling, which is only slightly comparable to the average size of a covered arena throughout the UK which is 25m by 50m (The British Horse Society - BHS), with additional area provided for stabling and tack areas/service corridors and as such is considered to meet the required standards for indoor arenas.
6.7 The size as noted by the neighbouring properties as being over development and out of scale for the site. When considering arena buildings dimensions, whilst they do vary in size, it is important to consider recently approved, comparable indoor arena buildings in rural locations and what they have measured:
21/00550/B - Ballaquayle Farm, St.Marks = 68mx x47m 21/00380/B - Cronk Vane, Stoney Mountain Road = 36m x 15m 19/01426/B - Sunnycroft, Rhendhoo Road=60m x 20m 19/00217/B - Scollag Road, Abbeylands = 40m x 20m
6.8 The finish material of the building would see the upper proportions clad with natural vertical timber (similar to Yorkshire boarding) and masonry to the lower proportions and a profiled roof. A condition can be applied to any approval that seeks samples and colours of those materials to be submitted prior to construction. This serves two fold, it ensures the palette of colours and material types are fitting and in keeping for the building and also in the current economic climate those materials area readily available and if not can seek for a variation through planning.
6.9 Noting all the above, the building is of a size that would be comparable with the intended use for the stabling of animals and for an indoor arena area for horse riding. It is further noted this is not for competing use and is only for private use. The siting is appropriate and the overall finish can be controlled to reflect its specific purpose. On balance this aspect of the proposal would accord with those specific aspect of Ep21 which echoes Ep15 and GP2b.
(iii) Visual impact 6.10 The presumption against development of large scale equestrian building in AHLV as noted in Ep20 and the level of greater protection of these areas through Ep2 is a consideration. However the area plan for the East does not designate this area as an AHLV but classes them as incised slopes. Whilst those two policies are not necessary strictly applicable here protection of the countryside is still relevant through EP1 and Gp2c,g but also through those parts of Ep15 and 21.
6.11 The siting and location of the building would not allow significant views from the highway, either from Richmond Hill to the north or from the Old Castletown Road to the South. Whilst there would be views from those residential properties to the north across the valley,
==== PAGE 10 ====
21/00666/B Page 10 of 14
they sit approx. 350m-450m 'as the crow flies' to the nearest residential dwelling. Those views would be of the building and with the backdrop of the mature trees within a wider landscape.
6.12 Considering those views and their limited impact, the building is sited in an area that balances the topography of the land and some natural screening at the lower level through existing hedgerows, which would help to mitigate any distant views.
6.13 EP15 allows for buildings in isolation in exceptional circumstances that are accompanied with landscaping. Whilst some is proposed, this can be further bolstered through an appropriately worded condition and is further addressed in the preceding section on Trees and Biodiversity.
6.14 The proposed levels on site and the existing topography whilst on the higher part of the land, would be no higher than the existing trees with the building having a ridge height of approx. 5m which would be lower than the height of the telegraph poles. The existing area is broadly level and the levels shown would not be exceeding this other than for the installation of the concrete base.
6.15 The light weight design of the buildings, its low profile height, chosen cladding materials can all help to ensure any visual impact from distance views are mitigated. Those aspects ensure the proposed building would have a limited visual impact when viewed from a public highway and within this rural setting the impact on the countryside is kept to a minimum thus limiting any adverse visual impact and according to EP1. In this instance is not considered to have such a detrimental impact that would be considered to adversely affect the character or quality of the landscape to such an extent to warrant a refusal.
6.16 As such, it is considered that the proposal also manages to satisfy the key tests of Environment Policy 15 and 21, however a condition requiring the building's removal and the land returned to its current condition should the building cease to be used for the approved use would, in this case, be appropriate.
6.17 In terms of the scale, materials, colour, siting and form it is considered this application would be in accordance with EP1, 21 and GP2c&f for the reasons stated above.
(iv) Loss of Agricultural Land 6.18 With regard to the proposal and EP19 and the potential loss of agricultural land, the IoM soils maps (Figure 4) gives a broad indication of the areas and soil classification. The application site is defined within an area as being (light brown in colour on the map) and referred to as A3 and of a class of 3/4 quality. Within the written statement accompanying the maps, the references of A3 is noted in the Summary of Manx agricultural Types on page 17 as; "A3 - Shallower stoney loams (Port Soderick):- These loams typically overlie flagstones and are usually pale-coloured and nutrient deficient. They are most extensive around Port Soderick and Santon. Natural drainage is variable, but often poor over grey, silty clay. The soil has the reputation of being the poorest Manx agricultural soil but, when properly managed, it can support good dairy herds and even arable crops. For instance, one large farm has grown barley continuously on A3 soil for over 30 years".
6.19 This description of the soil quality of the natural land goes some way to understand the limitations of agricultural usage. Nevertheless, the proposed building would only occupy a small footprint on the land and whether the adjoining fields are to be used for grazing in association with the stabling of horses or for planted crops, the land is to some degree still being utilised for agricultural use without being disadvantaged by the siting of the building and would not prejudice EP19 and the loss of agricultural land.
(v) Neighbouring amenities
==== PAGE 11 ====
21/00666/B Page 11 of 14
6.20 With regard to impact on existing properties, it is noted that the nearest properties that have commented are to the north of the site across the valley and approx. 350-450m away. Given the distances the building is from any neighbouring property and landscaping, topography, and wider rural setting between; it is not considered the proposals would adversely or significantly affect the amenities of any neighbouring property to warrant a refusal. In this case the proposal would accord to GP2g.
(vi) Trees and Bio Diversity 6.21 To the east of the arena building are a number of mature trees that surround the existing pond. This coppice of trees are mainly made up from broad leaf trees. On the plans it is noted that existing trees are to be retained and undamaged. Having visited the site and noting the amended plans, it is now proposed to move the building further away from the existing trees, the general footprint is outside the "drip canopy" of those trees. Further details are provided by an annotation on the drawings to note the protected zones, to eliminate any damage during construction, compaction or contamination of soil.
6.21 The comments from the statutory consultees (para 5.3; 5.4; 5.5) are helpful but greater weight is given to those comments from the Senior Arboricultural officer, who has concerns over the generalisation of the drawing but is confident that a full Arboricultural Impact assessment is not warranted in this instance but could be achieved through a suitable worded condition as noted in para 5.3. This can be further supported with other conditions to ensure the protection measures are submitted and implemented on site for the duration of the works and remedial action and afterwards.
6.23 It would also be prevalent to accompany these conditions with a further landscaping condition that proposes further planting on site to offset loss of grassland accommodated by the footprint of the building and hard standing. Also a condition preventing any external lighting that could impact on any nocturnal wildlife. This will ensure the rural landscape quality is enhanced and the nature conservation value to help local wildlife and locally important habitats, which would be seen as a net gain for biodiversity and would ensure the proposal would broadly be in compliance with EP3; GP2d;SP4b
(vii) Highway Safety 6.24 Highway Services have considered the merits of the access to and from the application site from the highway and access to the proposed arena building. As the transport professionals their comments are heavily relied upon and it is noted they do not object to this application. Having considered the highways safety aspect and the use of the proposed entrance in a safe and appropriate manner, it would not be considered to have any adverse impact on the existing highway or upon those users entering and exiting the site. As such the proposal would be considered to align with the principles of Gp2 h&i.
(viii) Water conservation and management 6.25 The application proposes to introduce built elements on site where there is currently none. This will introduce an area of no-permeable surfacing (roofs) and inadvertently increasing the amount of runoff water on the site. With regard to drainage from these non- permeable surfaces, the application form notes the runoff water is to be disposed of through soak-aways. This is identified on the drawings, and given the topography and setting of the land it is understood from the site visit and discussing with the applicant, the run-off water will naturally percolate downhill to the north and eventually make its way to the lowest part of the site to the north of field 522650 where there is a current ditch / stream. On balance the conservation of run-off water and management of the water course would be in accordance with IP5 and would not be seen as detrimental to the countryside.
(ix) Sustainable Construction, Energy efficiency (GP2n; EnP5) 6.26 Whilst the proposal is more akin to agricultural / equestrian use there are no such matters where an energy assessment would be required in this instance to account for energy
==== PAGE 12 ====
21/00666/B Page 12 of 14
efficiency measures for heating or insulating the building. However it could be considered that internal illumination should utilise energy efficient lighting. In this instance a note on any approval can be included to encourage energy efficient lighting to be adopted for the internal lighting. Furthermore there is to be no external lighting in the area or on the building.
(x) Any Other Matters arising 6.27 Whilst the above assessment is mainly focused on the larger arena building and other pertinent issues arising, they also have taken into consideration the second part of the application which is for the horse field's stables to the lower part of field 522652. Here, the siting, design, size and finish (to be conditioned) of the field shelter are deemed appropriate for the size of the field / land holding and for providing a degree of shelter for the horses would be appropriate in this rural setting with minimal impact on the countryside. This aspect is deemed to comply with EP1 & 21.
6.28 Within the application drawings, details indicate that soil created from the digging out of the proposed building so as to provide a level base will be used to form a sod bank. The relocation and re-use of the soil is not expected to result in any environmental harm or to have an unacceptable impact on the overall rural landscape, the sod bank may also help to contribute towards local habitat and ecology overtime and screen the lower proportions of the building.
CONCLUSION 7.1 On balance, the competing issues identified in the above report would indicate that an exception for development in the countryside can be supported through Gp3 and the proposal would be in compliance with the identified planning policies and more notably EP21 and recommended for approval with a number of planning conditions.
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 Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to the it 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: 18.10.2021
==== PAGE 13 ====
21/00666/B Page 13 of 14
Signed : C BALMER 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.
==== PAGE 14 ====
21/00666/B Page 14 of 14
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 18.10.2021
Application No. : 21/00666/B Applicant : Mrs Sally Vanveen Proposal : Alterations, erection of detached equestrian building to provide stables and arena and erection of detached field shelter with associated hard standings Site Address : Fields 522650 & 522652 Hampton Court Quines Hill Port Soderick Isle Of Man IM4 1AZ
Senior Planning Officer : Mr Jason Singleton
Presenting Officer Mr Chris Balmer
Addendum to the Officer’s Report
The Planning Committee approved the application subject to amendment of Condition 8:
C 8. No site clearance, preparatory work or development shall take place until a tree planting plan, which also includes details of planting/banking to northwest of the equestrian building - taking the overhead cables into account, is submitted to and agreed in writing by the Department. Where applicable the plan shall adhere to the recommendations of BS8545:2014 (Trees: from nursery to independence in the landscape - recommendations) and in all cases shall include the following details: (a) the exact location, species, nursery specification and planting specification of each tree (or group of trees) to be planted. Where groups or larger areas are to be planted please state the area and planting density. (b) the approximate date when they are to be planted (c) how they will be maintained until successfully established.
The tree planting shall take place as agreed and any trees 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: to ensure an appropriate standard of visual amenity in the local area, that the development is appropriately landscaped to sit comfortably and acceptably in its location and to ensure appropriate landscaping in relation to the overhead cables.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal