Loading document...
Application No.: 22/00425/B Applicant: Mrs Madeline Simpson Proposal: Variation of condition 4 of PA 21/01503/C to allow two weddings, 24th June 2023 and 8th July 2023, in addition to what has been approved Site Address: Kielthusthag Lodge Smeale Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 3EB Head of Development Management: Mr S Butler Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 03.05.2022
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: the development has been approved on a temporary basis to allow the impact on amenity and success of proposed mitigation measures to be gauged in light of events.
The approved details must be implemented in full at any time the wedding reception is in operation.
Reason: in the interests of local amenity and highway safety.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The previous analysis in terms of economic benefits and potential impacts as set out in the Case Officer Report and Planning Committee minutes for 21/01503/C is noted. The application proposed a one-off minor amendment to a condition to allow for two weddings to be held 2 rather than 3 weeks apart. It is not considered that this would have an impact on residential amenity that would justify refusal. Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to the following information: Application Form, Site/Location Plan and Email correspondence received 28.03.2022. _______________________________________________________________
Additional Persons
The previous application included the recommendation that Mull House and Smeale Beg should receive IPS and Croit-ny-Bane Farm and West Keilthustag Farm should not (for the latter Location Plan indicates adjoins blue line but more than 20m from redline boundary) as 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.
It is recommended in relation to the current application that:
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site is within the residential curtilage of Kielthusthag Lodge. - 1.2 The surrounding area is characterised by detached dwellings set back from the highway with landscaped areas. There is a mix of boundary treatments in the area comprising small low rise walls, areas of hedging and large belts of trees. - 1.3 To the East of the site is Mull House (shared boundary which redline goes up to building itself c10m from redline boundary). To the West of the site is Keilthustag Bungalow (small area of shared boundary to North but for the most part red line boundary separated from this by Kielthusthag Lodge itself and immediate garden, which are excluded from red-lie boundary). To the South of the site is the road and to the other side of this Kielthustag. To the North of the redline boundary is the remainder of the garden of Kielthustag Lodge and, which borders what appears to be agricultural land
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Proposed is a variation to a condition attached to the additional use of gardens as a wedding venue as approved under 21/01503/C. - 2.2 The form indicates that the application is requesting a one off variation of condition 4, for 2 weddings to be held on the 24/06/23 and 08/07/23 (2 weeks apart) these were booked before the approval and can't be held earlier or later. - 2.3 The location and site plan is as previously approved.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The site lies within an area not zoned for development but as an, "Area of private woodland or parkland" and within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance and close to an area identified as being of Archaeological Interest on the 1982 Development Plan, North Map. The site is not within a Conservation Area nor a Flood Risk Zone.
3.1 The following Strategic Plan policies ae considered relevant.
3.2 As General Policy 2 sets out general 'Development Control' criteria it is considered capable of being applied to this proposal. It states development will be supported if it is in accordance with the land use zoning provided that the development (in part)… … "(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;
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 PA 21/01503/C for, "Additional use of gardens as a wedding venue" was approved on 25.02.2022 and was not appealed. It was subject to the following conditions:
C1. The use hereby permitted shall cease by the 01.04.2025 Reason: the development has been approved on a temporary basis to allow the impact on amenity and success of proposed mitigation measures to be gauged in light of events. C2. The measures to prevent on-street parking as set out in the approved details must be implemented in full at any time the wedding reception is in operation. Reason: in the interests of local amenity and highway safety. C3. No helicopters, associated with the wedding venue, shall be permitted to land on the site, or elsewhere within the property (land edged in blue on the approved site plan). Reason: in the interests of local amenity and the wellbeing of nearby livestock. C4. No more than 8 wedding reception events shall take place in any one calendar year, and no more than 1 event shall take place in any 3 week period. Reason: in the interest of local amenity and wider ecology. C5. Marquees and temporary toilets may not be in place more than 3 days prior to and 3 days after an event. Reason: in the interest of local amenity and wider landscape. C6. No lighting, associated with the use as wedding venue, shall be installed at the site unless in accordance with details which have first been approved in writing by the Department Reason: in the interest of local amenity, wider landscape and ecology. C7. Each wedding event shall cease by midnight and no guests shall be permitted to remain on the property for more than 30 minutes following the event ceasing. Reason: in the interest of local amenity.
4.2 The approval related to the following plans/drawings/information (which, other than the site/location plan has not been resubmitted as part of the current application):
4.3 The reason for the approval was, "This decision has been made for the following reasons(s) Although the proposal is not in accordance with policies in relation to land use or the pattern of development, it could provide a welcome additional wedding venue to the island and provide some level of support to other local businesses. There are concerns about impact on amenity and the potential for some level of control via conditions. DOI Highway services have not objected in terms of highway safety. Concerns in relation to the wider environment are not considered sufficient to warrant refusal". - 4.4 The Planning Committee minutes include the following, "The Members discussed the proposed conditions with a view to the case officer amending their recommendation in certain respects. The Members suggested that conditions be varied in order to aid the successful running of the proposed business. The proposed variations were -
The Senior Planner advised that parties who may have had no objection the proposed cessation and site clearing time which had been available for the public to view, may have objection to the later times as proposed by the Members, which had not been publically available. The case officer confirmed that C7 as written referred to guests leaving the site rather than including any staff who may be on site for the event. He further confirmed that any environmental disturbance issues should be referred to Environmental Health to deal with under their legislation. The Case Officer explained the rationale behind the conditions and that he was therefore unwilling to amend the recommendation in relation to conditions 1 and 7. The Case Officer amended the recommendation in relation to conditions 4 (events per year) and 5 (time period for put up/take down). The Members unanimously overturned this recommendation and instead voted to approve the application with additional amendments to condition 1 (duration of approval) and 7 (hours of operation). In doing so they noted the need to facilitate business, avoid unnecessary controls and also noted the presence of other controls outside the planning system in terms of event licensing. The members unanimously approved the application subject to the following amended conditions".
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 DOI Highways (14.04.22) - After reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and /or parking. - 5.2 Owner/Occupier of Keilthustag, Smeale Road stated that, "I would be grateful if you could consider granting myself as Interested Party Status Our house is similar distance to the Wedding Venue to that of 'Mull House' & 'Smeale Beg' whom have been granted Interested Party Status We are also within 20m from the red-line boundary Let me know if you require site-plans to illustrate our position".
5.3 Owner/Occupier of Ballakesh Farm, Lhen Road stated that, "I object purely because of the noise of music and the increase in traffic noise late in the evenings. Smeale and the Lhen Road are quiet areas and should be free from loud late evening music. Relationship to site: Close to the site".
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The previous analysis in terms of economic benefits and potential impacts as set out in the Case Officer Report and Planning Committee minutes for 21/01503/C is noted. The application proposed a one-off minor amendment to a condition to allow for two weddings to be held 2 rather than 3 weeks apart. It is not considered that this would have an impact on residential amenity that would justify refusal. - 6.2 Much of the supporting information for the previous application has not been resubmitted, however the wording of the conditions did not rely on this and so can be repeated, other than C2 which related back to the parking/traffic management and so wording is amended accordingly. - 6.3 The previous application was referred to the planning committee as, "IT IS A DEPARTURE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THERE IS AN OBJECTION FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BUT IT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL". The current application is considered to be similar in nature to a previously approved application to which there are no more than relatively minor differences and hence need not be referred.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The previous analysis in terms of economic benefits and potential impacts as set out in the Case Officer Report and Planning Committee minutes for 21/01503/C is noted. The application proposed a one-off minor amendment to a condition to allow for two weddings to be held 2 rather than 3 weeks apart. It is not considered that this would have an impact on residential amenity that would justify refusal
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:
8.2 The decision maker must determine:
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner 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: 04.05.2022 Determining officer
Signed : A MORGAN Abigail Morgan Principal Planner
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
View as Markdown