Inspector's Report

Report on an Inquiry into a Planning Appeal

Inquiry: Tuesday 10 December 2024 Site Inspection: Monday 9 December 2024

Appeal made by Mr and Mrs Brian Byers against the refusal of a planning application for approval for the erection of a proposed equestrian building on land at Ballagilley Farm, Hibernia, Ramsey, Isle of Man, IM7 1EP. _________________________________________________________

Present:

Mr B Buyers – Co-Appellant Ms S Buyers – daughter of Appellants Miss S Corlett, Sarah Corlett TP Consultants Ltd – Agent for the Appellants

• Mr G Kinrade, Kinrade Associates Ltd – Agent for the Applicants
• Mr H Laird - DEFA Planning Case Officer (joined remotely) Mr T Curphey – Cabinet Office Planning (observing) Mrs L Milestone – Cabinet Office - Executive Office (observing) Description

• 1. Ballagilley Farm is located off Gooseneck Road and north of Hibernia between the A18 and the A2. The appeal site comprises part of a field located on the eastern side of an existing equestrian building and outdoor exercise arena, or manège, and north west of the original farm buildings. The site includes an access track from Gooseneck Road. The manège and modified access were part of approval Ref PA 18/01020/B which has been implemented.
• 2. The proposed building would be sited east and north of the existing farm and equestrian complex and adjacent to the manège. The development would involve earthworks to level, by cut-to-fill, an area of 40m by 75m to accommodate the building. The building itself would measure 66m by 30m, equivalent to 1,980sqm, and would be 4.5m high to the eaves and 8.69m to the ridge. The west side of the building would be set about 1m below existing ground level, whilst the eastern elevation would be raised above the existing ground by around 1.5m to 2.5m.
• 3. The steel-framed building would be clad in tanalised castle boarding under a roof of Profile 6 reinforced fibre cement sheets, Juniper Green in colour. There would be 44 rooflights and pairs of timber-clad, sliding doors in the west side and south end elevations, with a pedestrian access door in each side elevation. Galebreaker roller screens in the side elevations would admit light and air to the building in favourable weather conditions.

Planning Policy

• 4. The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IMSP) includes the following polices relevant to this appeal.

• 5. General Policy 2 (GP2) includes requirements that development (b) respect the site and surroundings in siting, scale, form, design and landscaping; and (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape.
• 6. Environment Policy 1 (EP1) protects the countryside for its own sake unless there is an overriding national need and no reasonable and acceptable alternative.
• 7. EP19 states that equestrian buildings will only be accepted in the countryside where there will be no loss of amenity, high quality agricultural land or highway safety. EP20 presumes against new large-scale equestrian buildings in areas of high landscape value and scenic significance (AHLVs) unless there are exceptional overriding circumstances. EP21 resists buildings for the stabling, shelter or care of horses if they would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside in terms of siting, design, size or finish, with any new buildings to be designed in form and materials to reflect their specific purpose.
• 8. Supporting text paragraph 7.15.1 of the IMSP notes that rural equestrian activities are increasingly popular and that sensitive siting and high standards of design, construction, and maintenance are necessary to ensure that there are no adverse impacts. 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.
• 9. These adopted policies are informed by the Isle of Man Landscape Character Assessment 2008, wherein the appeal site within the Northern Uplands Landscape Character area (LCA). The key characteristics of this LCA include its exposed moorland and peaks, largely devoid of built structures except for isolated white-washed farm houses and scattered dwellings with extensive views over the Island.

The Case for the Mr and Mrs Buyers - Appellants The material points are: Description and Views

• 10. The proposed new building is intended only for the indoor training and exercising of horses for the personal use of the Appellants. The existing facilities on site, including stables and an outdoor manège, are already used by the Appellants and there are no liveries or leasing out of facilities. There is no existing or proposed business activity on the site. The existing and proposed facilities are for the daughters of the family who, according to submitted testimonials, are talented equestriennes working at a high level of affiliated competition, including in the UK.

• 11. The Appellants live on-site in a converted barn approved for living accommodation in 2012. Ballagilley Farmhouse is separately owned and lies immediately to the south east of the converted barn. All these buildings sit beneath the dramatic backdrop of the eastern slopes of North Barrule.
• 12. Generally, within the wide views from distant points around the site, the existing buildings are not readily seen due to the topography and intervening hedges and walls. The proposed building would thus be viewed as part of the existing group and would not protrude above the other buildings or the skyline.
• 13. It is accepted that from the A2 at the northern end of School House Road the site is visible above the hedge in a couple of places but only from the eastern side of the road. It is invisible from the western side. There are no footways on this fast stretch of road and few pedestrians use it on a regular basis. The location of the proposed building is not visible from the summit of North Barrule and there are few public footpaths affording any view of the appeal site.

Planning Effects

• 14. The refusal relates solely to the visual impact of the proposed development and EP1 and EP20 of the IMSP with reference to the LCA 2008. A designated AHLV continues from the coastline to the eastern side of the Gooseneck Road but excludes the eastern slopes of North Barrule.
• 15. The Planning Authority raises no issue of the principle of equestrian development and the Appellants agree that the only pertinent policies with which the Planning Authority finds conflict are EPs 1 and 20.
• 16. It is no part of the case for the Appellants that the development is of overriding national need but that the proposed development is not harmful to the countryside and therefore complies with EP1. The equestrian policies EP19-21 do not require demonstration of need but suggest that if the development has no unacceptable environmental impact, it will be considered acceptable. The Planning Authority takes no issue with the need or justification for the proposed building in his case.
• 17. With reference to EP19: there is no loss of local amenity, the site is at the outer edge of an area of Class 3 soil, such there would be no loss of highquality agricultural land; and there is no suggestion that the development would affect highway safety.
• 18. The outdoor arena and stable buildings already have planning approval, such that there should be no presumption against large scale equestrian buildings here, as two have already been permitted. In the 2013 approval of a stable and manège it was noted that these were to be set back from the highway and screened by new planting and that the site and surroundings make an appropriate location due to natural screening by established hedgerows and the sloping landscape, along with limited public views into the site, reducing its visual impact. In the 2019 approval of the

• larger stable building it was further noted that, from a distance, the site would ultimately be perceived as a single rectangle of buildings regardless. The new materials would mimic those of an agricultural building and the location would be close to the remaining farm buildings. Therefore, on balance, the increase in size would not have a significantly greater overall impact on the character of the countryside.
• 19. It is not accepted that the building would be visible from the viewpoints identified by the Planning Authority. Along the road from Port Lewaigue to Maughold village the building would not be seen at all. Even where it could be seen, it would be at a considerable distance and within a vast landscape where the vista does not draw the gaze of the viewer to particular buildings unless they are especially noticeable, such as the white-painted cottages mentioned in the LCA, whereas this proposal is for the building to be dark green.

Planning Benefits

• 20. The proposed facility would enable the Appellant family to exercise and train their horses and coach their riders without having to travel to other facilities on the Island, the nearest suitable venue presently being at Santon, involving a 33 mile round trip. Thus, the development would reduce the number of journeys to and from the site, improving highway safety and animal welfare.

Previous Equestrian Approvals

• 21. The development of a very significant private equestrian complex at Ballavartyn in Santon demonstrates that such facilities can be considered acceptable in an AHLV if there is no harmful impact on the environment, those buildings being invisible from the public highway. Moreover, a new 20m x 60m indoor arena has been allowed at Sunnycroft in an existing farm building complex on a rural lowland site near Jurby East. And a new 20m x 60m equestrian arena and associated facilities was approved at Ballaquayle Farm Ballasalla, set down into a screened lowland site in the south of the Island. Further, private equestrian facilities at Ballamona Estate, Port Soderick, include an indoor arena, stabling and equipment stores, an outdoor manège, hay barn, field shelter, and associated landscaping, also situated on a lowland site.

Conclusion

• 22. The Appellants have chosen the least intrusive location for the building, close to existing built group and cut into the rising land. It would not be seen from Gooseneck Road due to its lower height and existing intervening hedges and vegetation and even in most longer distance views would not be seen at all, rendering the building insignificant in the landscape.
• 23. For the Appellants, it is submitted that the exceptional circumstances which would override Policy EP1 are that the building would not have an

• unacceptable or harmful impact and would be alongside other new buildings which have also been approved in this area of the Northern Uplands.
• 24. It is considered that the Planning Authority has not fully appreciated the topography of the site nor the limited views of the site available. Neither the existing nor the proposed buildings would be visible from the locations referenced by the Case Officer. The sole location from where the existing and proposed buildings would be visible, which is not referred to by the Planning Officer, this is a narrow, lightly trafficked School House Road affording limited opportunities to see the proposed building, which would be seen as part of a built group within a much wider landscape.
• 25. It is therefore submitted that the appeal proposal complies with Environment Policies 1, 2, 19, 20 and 21 and accords with the objectives of the Landscape Character Assessment and would provide the benefits of reducing travel both in terms of the use of fuel and the horse welfare, as significant factors in favour of the appeal.
• 26. For these reasons this appeal should be allowed. The Case for the Planning Authority Principle
• 27. The principle of equestrian use on this agricultural site has been accepted under previous permissions for private stable blocks and manège when the Case Officers commented that the use would be relatively low-key and appropriate to the location. In terms of EP20, a large-scale equestrian development would normally include some commercial element. The stables and manège would be set back from the highway and screened by new planting. From a distance, the built development would be perceived as a rectangle without a significantly greater overall impact on the character of the countryside.
• 28. However, the current proposal is for a particularly large structure in the countryside of the Northern Uplands LCA, visible over a wide area, particularly from the eastern slopes of North Barrule, from the A2 running past the site and from higher ground at Maughold close to the east coast.
• 29. EP1 of the IMSP protects the countryside for its own sake and resists development which would adversely affect it unless there is an overriding national need and no reasonable and acceptable alternative.
• 30. It is considered that the size and scale of the proposed building in this Northern Upland location would result in an overly large structure being sited in this visually sensitive landscape which would be visible from a number of public vantage points both near and far.

Previous Approvals

• 31. The Appellants cite three other approved equestrian developments of similar size and scale. A new 20m x 60m indoor arena at Sunnycroft is in

• an existing farm building complex on a rural lowland site near Jurby East. A new 20m x 60m equestrian arena and associated facilities at Ballaquayle Farm Ballasalla is set down into a screened lowland site in the south of the Island. Private equestrian facilities at Ballamona Estate, Port Soderick. include an indoor arena, stabling and equipment stores, an outdoor manège, hay barn, field shelter, and associated landscaping are also situated on a lowland site.
• 32. There is a clear distinction in terms of landscape setting between these three lowland examples and the present proposal in the Northern Uplands. which are all in a screened lowland setting. It is the size, scale and Upland location that is the issue here, in that the proposed development would, to an unacceptable degree, result in an overly large and visually intrusive structure. The development would fail to comply with the EP1 of the IMSP and the presumption in EP20 against large-scale equestrian developments in areas of high landscape value unless there are exceptional overriding circumstances.

Conclusion

• 33. The size and scale of the proposed building in this Upland location would result in an overly large structure being sited in a visually sensitive landscape setting. It would be visible from a wide area resulting in an unacceptable degree of harm to the character of the site and its surroundings.
• 34. There would be no other planning harm but, overall, the proposal fails to comply with the provisions of GP2bc and EP1 and EP20 of the IMSP and the LCA 2008.
• 35. The appeal should therefore be dismissed Other Representations
• 36. Garff Commissioners object in the following terms:

• a. The Commissioners believe that the evidence presented by the Planning Officer in his report for the refusal of the application is well founded.
• b. The application site is located on the lower eastern slopes of North Barrule which is an area of the highest visual importance, known for its unspoilt natural beauty and distinct character.
• c. The equestrian building is exceptionally large and would form an extremely prominent intrusion into this visually sensitive location.
• d. The Commissioners concur with the Planning Officer in his statement that the proposed development would cause an unacceptable degree of visual harm to the character of the site and its surroundings.
• e. Any approval would be contrary to the intentions of the Landscape Character Assessment 2008, which accompanies the IMSP. In the terms of the LCA, it is clear to the Commissioners the resultant development would be highly detrimental to the character, quality and

• distinctiveness of the moorland, panoramic views and sense of tranquillity and remoteness.
• f. It is the view of the Commissioners that the proposed building would dominate the landscape and would be highly intrusive when viewed from the surrounding area. The building would disrupt views from the summit and slopes of North Barrule, further emphasizing the harm it would cause to the broader landscape.
• g. The Commissioners express concern that the proposed building, due to its scale, could easily be repurposed for commercial use in the future. Rejecting the proposal would help protect the area from such potential commercial change.
• h. In conclusion, the Commissioners firmly believe that, in order to safeguard the landscape and character of the area, the decision of the Planning Committee to refuse planning permission should not be reversed.

• 37. DOI Highway Services have no objections. Assessment by the Inspector Main Issue
• 38. The main issue upon which this appeal turns is the effect the proposed equestrian building would have on the character and appearance of the site and the wider surrounding area of the Northern Uplands.

Character and Appearance

• 39. There is no dispute that the Appellants have sought in the siting and design of the proposed building to minimise its impact by partially setting it down into the existing sloping ground and choosing finishes in subdued colours and construction materials appropriate to its rural farmstead setting. The relatively low profile of the structure would avoid it rising higher than the existing buildings close by or breaking the skyline in any view of the built group of which it would form a substantial part. I am satisfied that the development has been sensitively designed to avoid harm in terms of amenity, loss of high-quality agricultural land or road safety in the terms of EP19 and EP21 of the IMSP.
• 40. However, it is inescapable that the new building would occupy a significant part of a currently open field but, at the same time, it would be seen in the context of the present farm and stable buildings immediately adjacent.
• 41. It is the more distant views of the site and the proposed building which are of the greater concern, especially due to the high landscape quality of the Northern Uplands Landscape Character Area, with its key characteristics of exposed moorland and peaks, largely devoid of built structures except for isolated white-washed farm houses and scattered dwellings.

• 42. Ballagilley Farm lies within the wide rural views available from many distant vantage points, including the eastern slopes of North Barrule, albeit not its summit. It is also visible from School House Road to the east of the A2.
• 43. Importantly, despite the openness of the moorland landscape, Ballagilley Farm and its extensive range of buildings do not appear prominently in any of these views, as compared with the characteristic and sporadic lightcoloured dwellings of the LCA.
• 44. Many views towards the appeal site from the highways are screened or obscured to some extent by trees or hedges and there are few footpaths offering public viewpoints to walkers or cyclists.
• 45. As a result, the additional built development now proposed at Ballagilley Farm would not, in my judgement give rise to any readily noticeable visual impact beyond its immediate vicinity.
• 46. I do not go as far as the Agent for the Appellants in asserting that the development would have zero visual effect on the landscape of the Northern Uplands and it must be remembered that the countryside of the Island is strategically protected for its own sake by Environment Policy 1.
• 47. Crucially, however, taking also into account that the proposed development is for private use with no commercial element, I do regard the level of potential harm to the character and appearance of the Northern Uplands landscape due to this proposal as very slight indeed.

Other Material Considerations

• 48. Moreover, the development would reduce the need to transport horses to and from the premises for schooling elsewhere on or off the Island, with a degree of benefit to highway safety and animal welfare. The development would also serve the understandable wish of the Buyers family to pursue promising equestrian careers at an evidently high level of affiliated competition.
• 49. These benefits, whilst material, amount to little more than transient personal preference on the part of the current occupiers of Ballagilley Farm and therefore also carry only slight weight in planning terms.

Planning Balance

• 50. Despite its considerable scale, the proposed building would be unusually discreet in its appearance and effects, and would broadly meet the provisions of GP2 of the IMSP in scale, form and design. However, there would be a very slight degree of permanent planning harm to the Northern Uplands landscape, leading to an equally slight degree of conflict with EP1 and also EP20 of the IMSP with respect to the protection of the countryside and the effects of equestrian development.

• 51. It is fine balance between slight harm and slight benefit. In this particular case of minimal harm from a private equestrian development with no associated commercial activity I take the view that the slight benefits available are sufficient to justify the planning approval sought in this appeal.
• 52. In forming this view, I have given due consideration to the written objections of the Garff Commissioners to the appeal proposal but I give no weight to their concern that the proposed development could be a portent for a commercial equestrian or other enterprise at Ballagilley Farm; for that would require a further planning approval, and commercial activity can be prevented by planning condition.
• 53. I have also had regard to the examples of approved equestrian development cited by the Appellants but none are in a sensitive Upland setting and so none are not directly comparable. In any event, this appeal is strictly for determination on its own individual planning merits.

Planning Conditions

• 54. Conditions are required, as suggested without prejudice by the Planning Authority, to secure appropriate landscaping, biodiversity mitigation including control of any external lighting, suitable drainage and to prohibit any commercial activity.

Recommendation

• 55. I recommend that this appeal be allowed, and planning approval granted for the erection of a proposed equestrian building on land at Ballagilley Farm, Hibernia, Ramsey, Isle of Man, IM7 1EP, subject to the conditions and the reason for approval set out on the Appendix to this Report.
• 56. If accepted, this recommendation will have the effect of overturning the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse the application.

B J Sims

Brian J Sims BSc (Hons) CEng MICE MRTPI Independent Inspector

13 December 2024

Appendix

Schedule of Recommended Planning Conditions and Reason for Approval Conditions

• 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.

• 2. The development hereby permitted shall be constructed in accordance with the submitted Drawing No SM24/614/2.

Reason: To ensure the use of materials appropriate to the development in order to safeguard the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with policy GP2 in the Adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016).

• 3. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of a landscape scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. All planting, seeding, and any earthworks comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting season following the substantial completion of the development; and any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. Thereafter, all soft and hard landscape works shall be permanently retained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development, and to safeguard the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.

• 4. Prior to the commencement of the development, hereby permitted, details of biodiversity mitigation measures in respect of Protected Species (Bats) and nesting birds shall be submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. Such details shall cover avoidance of harm to protected species, and nesting birds. The mitigation measures and biodiversity enhancement shall make provision for at least 3 bird nest boxes to be erected high up on the northern elevation of the new building, but not above windows or doors; and, that 3 boxes suitable for swifts are erected. Following written approval of the scheme by DEFA, these details shall be implemented in full prior to the first use of the private equestrian facility and shall, thereafter, be retained and maintained for the lifetime of the development.

• Reason: For the conservation and protection of legally protected species, in accordance with the requirements of the Wildlife Act 1990 and Environment Policies 4 and 5 in the Adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
• 5. Details of foul and surface water drainage to serve the development, hereby approved, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. Such approved drainage scheme shall be installed prior to the development hereby permitted being first occupied and shall thereafter be retained and maintained. Reason: To ensure that the site is adequately drained.
• 6. Prior to the construction of any of the development hereby permitted above finished ground floor level, all details of any external lighting to be applied to the building surfaces or at ground level around the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning and any external lighting to the development shall thereafter comply with the details approved.

Reason: To minimise the impact of the development on Bats, Birds and any other Protected Species and safeguard the rural character and amenities of the area including minimising the impact of the development on the rural night sky.

• 7. The development hereby permitted shall be occupied and used only as a private equestrian facility for the benefit of the occupants of Ballagilley Farm, their employees, friends and associates, and it shall not be operated as a facility open to the general public or sold or sub-let without first obtaining planning permission.

Reason: To ensure that the private equestrian facility remains as part of the planning unit comprising Ballagilley Farm. This is due to the size and scale of the development, and its close proximity to the Ballagilley Farm, and Farmhouse all of which are residential units of living accommodation located in the open countryside in an area where planning permission for a separate equestrian facility closely related to adjoining living accommodation would not be granted unless there was an identified and justified need; and, to protect the residential amenities of occupants of these adjoining buildings. This accords with the provisions of General Policy 3 b) and g); and, Environment Policies 1 and 22iii) in the Adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016).

Reason for Approval

The development would give rise to only very slight impact on the character and appearance of the Northern Uplands Landscape Character Area and would slightly benefit highway safety and animal welfare such that on balance the proposal is acceptable with respect to General Policy 2 and Environment Policies 1 and 20 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.