**Document:** DEC Officer Report
**Application:** 21/00644/B — Erection of replacement building to provide 5 industrial units and creation of associated parking, service road and vehicular access
**Decision:** Permitted
**Decision Date:** 2021-09-07
**Parish:** Michael
**Document Type:** report / officer_report
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/7640-michael-pennybridge-barn-former-riding-school-access-replacement/documents/934120

---

# DEC Officer Report

## PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

**Application No.:** 21/00644/B
**Applicant:** PennyBridge Investments Ltd
**Proposal:** Erection of replacement building to provide 5 industrial units and creation of associated parking, service road and vehicular access
**Site Address:** Pennybridge Barn (former Riding School) & Field 234228 Main Road Kirk Michael Isle Of Man
**Planning Officer:** Mr Paul Visigah
**Expected Decision Level:** Planning Committee
**Recommended Decision:** Permitted
**Date of Recommendation:** 13.08.2021 _________________________________________________________________

## 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. Notwithstanding the meaning of development in Section 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 or any act revoking or re-enacting that Act, no mezzanine floor shall be constructed without a further application for planning approval being submitted and approved.

Reason: the parking provision is considered acceptable on the basis of the floor area of the proposed units as shown in the submitted plans and on only one floor of accommodation per unit.

- C 3. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the access, visibility, and internal layout (including parking) have been provided in accordance with drawing no 1500.11 received 3 June 2021. Such areas shall remain free from obstruction thereafter and remain available to the users of the corresponding industrial unit.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles, and safe vehicular entry and exit from the site in the interests of highway safety.

- C 4. Prior to the implementation of the planting scheme shown on drawing 1500.11, the details of the type and planting (height) of the particular species that would constitute the approved landscaping indicated shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried

out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the units, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: The landscaping of the site is an integral part of the scheme and must be implemented as approved.

- C 5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2019 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), the units hereby approved shall only be used for Light industry and Research & Development (Class 2.2) and for no other purpose at any time.

Reason: The Department has assessed the impact of the proposal on the basis of the specific use and any alternative uses within the same Use Class will require further consideration.

- C 6. Prior to the occupation of the units hereby approved, a scheme for the integration of bat and bird boxes on the external elevations of the development hereby approved shall be submitted to the Department for approval. The works to form the bat and bird boxes shall take place strictly in accordance with the approved details and shall be permanently retained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To safeguard a statutorily protected species.

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

The development is considered to broadly comply with General Policy 3, Strategic Policy 1, Environment Policy 2, 3, 23 and 36, Business Policy 1, Transport Policy 7, and Strategic Policy 10 of the Strategic Plan, and the Kirk Michael Local Plan.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This decision relates to the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit, Planning Access Statement, Road Safety Audit - Designers response, Planning Statement, Location Plan, Site Plan, and Drawing Nos. 1500.1, 1500.11, and 1500.10, all received on 3 June 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 mentioned in Article 4(2):

The Old Vicarage, Main Road, Kirk Michael as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status.

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 4(2):

Ballarhenny, Orrisdale Road, Rhen Cullen, Kirk Michael, Sartfell House, Sartfell, Kirk Michael, Bon Accord, Rhencullen, Kirk Michael,

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

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE SITE IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR DEVELOPMENT AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site is a piece of land which is currently occupied by a large equestrian building which is situated behind the fuel filling station at the northern end of Kirk Michael village. The existing building is 48.9m long and 24.7m wide and is served by a lane from the public highway (A3). The lane runs past the shed to the farm yard where there are two farm dwellings and stables. The former railway line runs North West of the site separated by a timber camping shed. The access in to the site is to the south of the filling station and there is also an access off the Orrisdale Road, some 230m to the north east of the main access. - 1.2 The equestrian-related operation appears to be no longer viable as there appears to be no activity currently taking pace on the site. There is a gravel covered parking area directly in front of the property which is connected to the access via two entry and exit points. This parking area is also served by the rear access connected to Orrisdale Road. - 1.3 Immediately to the south west of the site is The Old Vicarage, a residential property set in its own grounds. To the rear of this are two holiday cottages which are accessed through the access serving the application site. A small sign at the entrance to the site off the A3 identifies the cottages as graded tourist accommodation. There is a large turfed field to the rear which is currently not used for a particular purpose. This field has a large cluster of trees running along large sections of its north east boundary.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The planning application seeks planning approval for the erection of replacement building to provide 5 industrial units and creation of associated parking, service road and vehicular access. - 2.2 The development would comprise an industrial block housing 5 industrial units of varying sizes, with the layout set out such that three units would measure 5.7m x 24.6m, one unit measuring 11.4m x 24.6m, while the other large unit would measure 11.2m x 24.6m. All the units would integrate a W.C measuring 1.6m x 2.2m, situated to the rear. This mono-pitch roofed building would be 6.5m high (1.7m lower than existing building) and 4.5m to the eaves (600mm lower than the existing building). The overall length of the building would be 41.1m (7.8m narrower than existing) and 24.6m wide (100mm narrower than existing). The proposed building will serve light industrial use. - 2.3 42 rooflights would be installed on the entire roof plane (six serving each of the smaller industrial units, with 12 serving each of the larger units). The front elevation of each unit would have a roller shutter door 3m wide and 4m high, as well as a pedestrian access door in dark colour by the side. There would be a pedestrian escape door to the units on the rear elevation. None of the units is shown as having a mezzanine level.

2.3 The units would be constructed with steel portal frame with low height masonry walls to the perimeter and to segregated units. The roof would be finished in green colour kingspan KS 1000 RW trapezoidal or comparable roof panels. The external walls of the building would be finished in vertical timber boardings.

2.4 A total of 21 vehicle car parking spaces are to the provided. 18 are for cars with five spaces to be provided with electric vehicle charging points at bays 2, 4, and 12-14. Three spaces are to be provided for larger commercial vehicles, such as vans at bays 1, 2 and 21. - 2.5 The development would include the planting of additional trees along the entire rear elevation of the building, along the entire length of both sides of the new access and along the entire boundary with the filling station. No details have been provided on the type of trees to be used for the landscaping. - 2.6 The works would also include:

- i. The provision a refuse area for 5 commercial bins 1280 x 780mm (1 per unit) at the boundary with the filling station.
- ii. The creation of a new access that would be 6m wide.
- iii. Construction of a new foul drainage to klargester bio-disc septic tank with tail drains subject to onsite percolation test by structural engineer.
- iv. The retention of existing vehicular access for the use of Glebe Farm & associated properties.
- v. Excavation of bank on boundary with existing access and formation of low height retaining wall with security fence along boundary of site with lane to enclose application site from lane.

2.7 Hours of Business:

- - Monday - Friday: 8am to 5.30pm
- - Saturday: 8am to 2pm
- - Sunday: 10am to 1pm

2.8 The applicants have provided additional information in the form of a Planning Access Statement and Planning statement which states how the new proposal addresses the reasons for refusal of the previous application, and articulates the justifications for the scheme, as well

- as the sensitive design choice and material selection to ensure the scheme does not impacts on neighbours or have detrimental visual impacts on the application site and area.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The land which is proposed to be redeveloped, within the footprint of the existing indoor arena, as well as the land to the southeast which would serve the new access is designated on the Kirk Michael Local Plan of 1994 as 'Open Space (Agriculture)'. This land is part of the much wider area of Open Space which was identified on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 which preceded the local plan, as of high landscape value and scenic significance. - 3.2 Part of the land currently serving as the parking area (Measuring 56.8sqm) is designated as 'Residential'. The residential section stretches from the village to the site, ending along the northern side of the access lane from the A3 with a belt of Woodland identifying and protecting the trees around the periphery of the Old Vicarage. This section of the land also falls within the Kirk Michael Conservation area. However, the land concerned is so small that the site cannot be classified as being within a Conservation Area or of any Conservation interest. - 3.3 The surrounding land as well as the application site is identified on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance although this is not transferred into the Kirk Michael Local Plan which relates only to the built up part of the village and a small area surrounding it. As such, there is a presumption against development as set out in Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan, General Policy 3, Spatial Policy 5 and Housing Policy 4. The Kirk Michael Local Plan also recommends that "with the exception of areas already proposed for development use, no areas of open space should be released for development" (Paragraph 12.4).

3.4 There is, however, provision (exemption) made for the redevelopment of previously developed land as stipulated in General Policy 3 and Strategic Policy 1.

- 3.4.1 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:

c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of buildings; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environmental and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment

- 3.4.2 It is also worth mentioning the definition of 'Previously Developed Land' as contained in Appendix 1 of the Strategic Plan. 'Previously-developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure.' The definition includes defence buildings, but excludes:

- o Land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings.
- o Land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill purposes where provision for restoration has been made through development control procedures.
- o Land in built-up areas such as parks, recreation grounds and allotments, which, although it may feature paths, pavilions and other buildings, has not been previously developed.
- o Land that was previously-developed but where the remains of the permanent structure
- or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape in the process of time (to the extent that it can reasonably be considered as part of the natural surroundings). There is no presumption that land that is previously-developed is necessarily suitable for housing development nor that the whole of the curtilage should be developed.

- 3.5.3 Strategic Policy 1: Development should make the best use of resources by:

- (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and underused land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials;
- (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space(1) and amenity standards; and
- (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services.

3.5 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". - 3.6 Environment Policy 2: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape of 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".

3.7 Environment Policy 23: When considering alterations and improvements to existing facilities the Department will require that consideration be given to the potential adverse impact of the proposed changes to existing neighbours. - 3.8 Environment Policy 36: Where development is proposed outside of, but close to, the boundary of a Conservation Area, this will only be permitted where it will not detrimentally affect important views into and out of the Conservation Area. - 3.9 Section 7.4 of the Strategic Plan 2016: Landscape Protection

7.4.1 Development which is permitted in 'Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance' or in important landscape and coastal areas as recognised by any new landscape classification, will be subject to higher design standards than would normally be required. Development must be properly integrated into the landscape in terms of scale, materials, architectural style, engineering works and landscaping. Landscape features such as trees, hedgerows, sod banks or traditional stone walls which are important to landscape character should be retained. In cases where development is not capable of being sensitively and unobtrusively integrated into the landscape, permission will not be granted.

3.10 Due the nature of the existing use and the proposed use, there are further policies relevant within the Strategic Plan.

- 3.10.1 Business Policy 1: The growth of employment opportunities throughout the Island will be encouraged provided that development proposals accord with the policies of this Plan.
- 3.10.2 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.
- 3.10.3 Strategic Policy 6: Major employment-generating development should be located in existing centres on land zoned for such purposes and identified as such in existing Local or new Area Plans.
- 3.10.4 Paragraph 9.2.3 of the Strategic Plan defines light industrial building. It states: "light industrial building" means an industrial building (not being a special industrial building) in which the processes carried on or the machinery installed are such as could be carried on or installed in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit, or undue generation of traffic or parking of vehicles; the use of light industrial buildings for research and development of products or processes is permitted by the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005.
- 3.10.5 Transport Policy 7 The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. The current standards are set out in Appendix 7.

* Light industrial, research and development - 1 space per 30 square metres nett floor space.* These standards may be relaxed where development:

- (a) would secure the re-use of a Registered Building or a building of architectural or historic interest; or
- (b) would result in the preservation of a sensitive streetscape; or

- (c) is otherwise of benefit to the character of a Conservation Area.
- (d) is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality.

- 3.10.6 Strategic Policy 10: New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to:

- (a) minimise journeys, especially by private car;
- (b) make best use of public transport;
- (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and
- (d) encourage pedestrian movement

3.11 The Kirk Michael Local Plan Written Statement will also provide valuable insight that will guide the assessment of the application. Policy 6.5, 6.6, 6.7 and 6.8 are particularly relevant.

- 3.11.1 Policy 6.5 'Kelly Bros. Industrial Estate is seen to be the logical area for any additional industrial development appropriate to the scale of the village. This should be encouraged'.
- 3.11.2 Policy 6.6 Consideration should be given to the development of small scale industry such as small workshops or appropriate High tech. Research and Development undertakings of a specialized nature, craft workshops, traditional skills and activities which can be satisfactorily integrated with the fabric of the village.
- 3.11.3 Policy 6.7 No additional industrial developments other than those which fall into the preceding categories are envisaged in the Michael Area.
- 3.11.4 Policy 6.8 The potential of the Beach field farm area for light industrial/craft workshop should be examined.

3.12 The character appraisal for the Kirk Michael Conservation Area notes the steel portal frame indoor riding school of the Pennybridge Stables, at the northern end of the village, clad in corrugated panels with a matching corrugated roof. The appraisal comments that, from the northern entrance to the village, the blank, flat, rear elevation is particularly dominant and unsightly with the gable wall also visible adjacent to the filling station. The appraisal continues that this building is out of scale and proportion with anything else within its vicinity, and dominates the vista to the west of the road when entering the village but concedes that a triangular area of coppice directly in front of the rear wall should soften its impact as the trees mature. - 3.13 It will also be vital to consider the Inspectors Report for PA 19/00873/B which recommended refusal for a scheme to convert the existing equestrian riding school to provide eight light industrial (Class 5) units.

- 3.13.1 "Principle

- 53. Having regard to the adverse reference to the appeal building in the CA character appraisal, there is no question that, if the proposal were for a new light industrial building of the same scale, it would be objectionable in principle and contrary to the aims of EP1-2 and GP3 of the IMSP to protect the countryside within the AHLV.
- 54. However, the site comprises previously developed land accommodating a significant building with established equestrian use and approval for redevelopment for two dwellings. Under the exceptional provisions of GP3, the development now proposed could be acceptable if

- the existing building is redundant or its redevelopment would reduce landscape impact and improve the environment.
- 55. The riding school ceased operation some time ago due to the ill-health of its operators. There is no documentary proof of any attempt to market the property in its established equestrian use. However there is anecdotal evidence, essentially unchallenged by the Planning Authority, that there is no longer a demand for the building as a riding school due to competition from other more recently established equestrian facilities now operating on the Island.
- 56. In the circumstances, I consider it reasonable to regard the existing building as redundant for its original purpose and, to that extent, it would qualify for redevelopment under GP3 and StP1 of the IMSP.
- 57. Moreover, there is evidence of commercial interest in the proposed light industrial units, compared with the existing Kelly Brothers Industrial Site, within the town, which appears not to offer modern accommodation and to be substantially occupied. This factor weighs in favour of the appeal proposal, given that BP1 of the IMSP and the KMLP broadly favour light industrial employment units in Kirk Michael.
- 58. Crucially however, it would also be necessary for the proposed industrial use to reduce landscape impact and improve the environment and otherwise to comply with the adopted policies relevant to the other identified issues, when compared with the potential residential redevelopment already approved."

3.13.2 "Appearance and Character

- 59. It would be possible to improve the appearance of the site by simply removing the existing redundant building but that does not appear to be a realistic prospect. I have no doubt that the proposed refurbishment would improve the appearance of the building in itself.
- 60. In terms of character, however, the building would thus acquire an industrial character at variance with both the surrounding rural AHLV and in visual conflict with the nearby group of residential properties that share the same access. This effect would also be apparent in and detrimental to important views of the appeal site and the countryside of the AHLV beyond, from within the adjacent CA.
- 61. I recognise that the building stands behind a commercial garage in a location relatively unfavourable to the approved residential development and that there have been no objections to the appeal but support for the proposal from neighbouring residents.
- 62. On balance, however, even though some screen planting could be introduced, and finishing materials chosen to soften the appearance of the building, I consider that the proposed development would be unacceptably harmful to the appearance and character of the site and the AHLV, contrary to EP1-2 and GP2(b) and (c) as well to the important view from the CA, in conflict with EP36 of the IMSP."

- 3.13.3 "Access and Traffic

- 64. Again, given the riding school building is to be regarded as redundant it would not generate traffic movements along the access to the main road. Vehicle movements from the two houses approved would necessarily be far fewer that those generated by eight light industrial units. Even in comparison with the former riding school, I consider, in the absence of any countervailing technical traffic evidence to the contrary, that the development now proposed would give rise to a substantial number additional car and commercial vehicle movements using the access.

- 65. The access is acknowledged to be substandard in both width and visibility. Despite there being no history of accidents at the junction of the access I consider, on balance, that the development would be likely to result in unacceptably dangerous traffic movements, potentially also conflicting with vehicles entering and leaving the filling station forecourt. For this reason, the development would be contrary to GP2 (h) and TP4 of the IMSP."

## - 4.0 PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 A recent application for the conversion of existing equestrian riding school to provide eight light industrial (Class 5) units under PA 19/00873/B was refused on 3 October 2019. This decision was upheld by the Planning Inspector and ratified by the Minister on 3 September

- 2020.

- 4.1.1 The Reasons for Refusal include:

- R1: The visibility available to drivers emerging from the site onto Main Road is not adequate for the proposed use which is likely to result in an increase in traffic using the access and as such would be detrimental to highway safety to all road users and therefore fails Transport Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
- R2: General Policy 3 and the definition of previously-developed land as set out in the Definitions and Glossary of Terms, requires development of such sites to "reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment." The proposed use would at the very least perpetuate the large scale of the building and most likely increase the frequency of traffic to and from the site and possibly the scale and amount of traffic.
- R3: The neighbouring residential properties would share the same access with the eight industrial units. The impacts of the proposed change of use on the amenities of the properties are likely to be adverse - the increased level of traffic, the likelihood of frequents comings and goings and an increased level of activity are considered to be unneighbourly and unacceptable for this reason.
- R4: The proposed development would be contrary to Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the Kirk Michael Local Plan 1994 in that:

- i) the site is not zoned for light industrial purposes and there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant a departure from the land use zoning and established planning policies within the adopted development plans (Kelly Bros. Industrial Estate is the designated area while Beach field farm area is considered to be the potential site for future light industrial/craft workshop locations); and
- ii) the development would be in an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance' or in important landscape and coastal areas as recognised by any new landscape classification, without the capacity of being sensitively and unobtrusively integrated into the landscape. This will adversely affect the visual amenities of the locality when viewed from the Main Road as you approach from Ballaugh.

- R5: The proposed development would be contrary to Strategic Policies 1(c) and 6 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 in that the proposed would be located within an area not zoned for research and development/light industrial or office developments and would be contrary to the land use designation of the Kirk Michael Local Plan 1994.

4.2 The site has also been subject to a number of applications for alterations and changes of use on this site, including the Approval in principle for the erection of two detached dwellings with associated parking on site of existing riding arena, addressing siting and means of access (15/00539/A) which is particularly relevant to the current application as the application ignores the previous approval in principle for residential use of the site (now extant) and seeks approval to provide light industrial units on the site.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.

5.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that the proposal meets highway requirements for no opposition to be raised subject to conditions for access, visibility, and internal layout to accord with drawing no 1500.11 in a letter dated 2 July 2021.

5.2 DEFA's Biodiversity Officer has stated that the Ecosystem Policy Team are generally supportive of the plans for additional planting around the new building. However, given the lack of landscaping details to support the landscaping scheme, the team requests that all tree planting is undertaken with Manx native species, and no invasive plant species listed on Schedule 8 Part II of the Wildlife Act 1990 should be included in the planting plans (e.g. griselinia). The new planting will mitigate for the gorse scrub that is to be lost to facilitate the new access. They further provided a list of some native species that could be used. As well, they suggest that the applicant consider integrating enhancements for wildlife on the site via the installation of bat and bird boxes on the new building with recommendation on how and where the bat boxes and bird boxes should be installed on the site (9 July 2021). - 5.3 Michael Commissioners have stated that they object to the application as they feel the previous planning (19/00873/B) Planning Officer, Appeal Officer and previous Board of Commissioners comments are still relevant. There are concerns around the access and egress and visibility to the property and the land that this application is on is still agricultural land and with new road design which is under construction at the moment in Kirk Michael will create further issues as a new bus shelter and crossing is being constructed in the area (5 August

2021).

5.4 The Owners/occupiers of Ballarhenny, Orrisdale Road, Rhen Cullen, Kirk Michael, object to the application on the following grounds (1 July 2021):

- 1. Impact on highway safety due to the nature of the section of the A3 (Main Road) that the proposed new access would feed into, which supports heavy traffic into the busy EVF garage and convenience store, the traffic speeds heading towards Ramsey, and proximity to the concealed entrance to the Orrisdale Loop Road.
- 2. The filed area beyond the EVF station is zoned for agricultural use only on the 1994 Local Plan which has not been updated. There is no indication of the type of industrial units envisaged.

5.5 The Owners/occupiers of Sartfell House, Sartfell, Kirk Michael, object to the application on the following grounds (9 July 2021):

- 1. the new access road is too near the Garage and does not have the required splays for oncoming vehicles on the A3 to see outgoing vehicles.
- 2. It is too near the exit of the southern end of the Orrisdale Loop, which will not have the splay necessary to see outgoing vehicles from the site.
- 3. It is a busy area with customers using the garage and traffic will significantly increase due to the nature of the site buildings.
- 4. The land further north from the new access road, is agricultural and deemed so by the present local strategy document, and therefore is not available for road development.
- 5. The septic tank option for the site is inadequate as the site now offers industrial units and not holiday cottage lets, as the site was originally used for. Any effluent from these units will need special treatment, and the surrounding area of agricultural land will require protection from this effluent.
- 6. The area designated for the access road has already been cleared of natural flora, without planning consent, and all the earth bunds will be removed that contain a varied and

- full selection of natural flora. The rest of the earth bunds are at risk in order to satisfy the May 2021 Road Safety audit.
- 7. This site has had previous applications refused at appeal and by the current Minister for DEFA. Whichever way it is presented, it still remains a development in an agricultural zoned area.

5.6 The Owners/occupiers of The Old vicarage, Main Road, Kirk Michael, object to the application on the following grounds (8 July 2021):

- 1. Road traffic at the proposed entrance being caught up with vehicles leaving a very busy garage petrol station.
- 2. 5 industrial units attracting HGV traffic at all times of the day.
- 3. No restricted timings as to when units can be open, description of use, and no noise restrictions.

5.7 The Owners/occupiers of Bon Accord, Rhencullen, Kirk Michael, object to the application on the following grounds (12 July 2021):

- 1. This site is on the edge of land which is of high landscape value within an area of scenic significance as you exit residential area which is also a conservation area.
- 2. The proposed development would be located very close to the adjacent fuel station forecourts Northern access: The close proximity of the two accesses to each other could lead to driver confusion and a heightened likelihood of conflicts if multiple vehicles simultaneously manoeuvred at each.

5.8 The Agent has provided a Designers Response to the Road Safety Audit that has been referred to at section 5.5 above with the following comments (19 May 2021):

The intended access position has been carefully considered and located within land under control of the applicant - with the intention of maintaining a maximum safe distance between the adjacent petrol filling station access and allowing for the improvement of sight lines within the application site. This location being discussed at the outset with DOI transport management.

## - 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 In establishing the key issues with the current application, regard must be given to the Inspectors report for the previous application for light industrial development on the site under PA 19/00873/B which set out the key issues; such as the principle, visual appearance, impact on neighbouring dwellings, and highway safety impact. This (Inspectors') report established the acceptability and unacceptably of elements of the scheme, as well as the issues that if addressed, would make the proposal acceptable. Therefore, given the precedence already established with the previous application, the key issues to consider with the current scheme are as follows:

### 6.2 Principle (GP 3, BP1, SP 1)

- 6.2.1 As has been previously established under PA 19/00873/B, the definition of a 'light industrial building' as an industrial building (not being a special industrial building) in which 'the processes carried on or the machinery installed are such as could be carried on or installed in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit, or undue generation of traffic or parking of vehicles', implies that the proposed light industrial uses for the site are compatible with nearby residential uses and as such can be situated in facility within close proximity to residential areas.
- 6.2.2 Granting the development would involve a change of use of site from 'Open Space Agriculture' (equestrian-related operation) on a site designated to be of 'high landscape value

- and scenic significance', which the land zoning does support to light industrial, it has already been established within the Inspectors report for the previous application that the site comprises previously developed land accommodating a significant building with established equestrian use which under the exceptional provisions of General Policy 3, the light industrial development on the site could be acceptable given the existing building is now redundant for its original purpose and, to that extent, would qualify for redevelopment under General Policy 3 and Strategic Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan.
- 6.2.3 As well, the Inspector noted that there is evidence of commercial interest in the proposed light industrial units, compared with the existing Kelly Brothers Industrial Site, within the town, which appears not to offer modern accommodation and to be substantially occupied; a factor which was considered to weigh in favour of the proposed use, given that Business Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan and the Kirk Michael Local Plan (Policy 6.7 and 6.8) broadly favour light industrial employment units in Kirk Michael. Besides, the fact that there is established commercial interest in the proposed light industrial units favours employment generation which is a key thrust for the Strategic Plan, considering there are limited opportunities for employment within Kirk Michael.

- 6.3.4 However, it would be necessary for the proposed industrial use to reduce landscape impact and improve the environment and otherwise to comply with the adopted policies relevant to the other identified issues. On balance then, it is felt that there is no objection to the principle of development based on the arguments in favour; established in paragraphs

- 6.2.1 to 6.2.3 above. Whether the development is acceptable would therefore rest on the impacts of the development, such as weather the redevelopment would reduce landscape impact and improve the environment (General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and 2), impacts related to traffic generation and highway safety, as well as the other matters identified in section 6.1 above.

6.3 Character and appearance (EP2 (a), EP 36, Paragraph 7.4.1 of Strategic Plan)

- 6.3.1 In assessing the impacts on the character and appearance of the area, it would be vital to consider the requirements of Environment Policy 2 that developments in AHLV would not harm the character and quality of the landscape. This is further reinforced in Paragraph 7.4.1 of the Strategic Plan which stipulates that developments in 'Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance' or in important landscape and coastal areas must be properly integrated into the landscape in terms of scale, materials, architectural style, engineering works and landscaping.

- 6.3.2 With the current scheme, it is considered that the footprint of the new building would be significantly reduced when compared with the existing as it would be reduced from 1,207.83sqm to 1,011.06sqm, which would result in a 196.77sqm reduction in footprint (and a
- 7.8m reduction in length). It is also noted that the new building would have a ridge height set

- at 6.5m (1.7m lower than the existing at 8.2m) and eaves height at 4.5m (600mm lower than the existing at 5.1m). This would ensure that the scale is significantly reduced when viewed from the surrounding area, with reduced impacts on the landscape, when compared with the existing building.

- 6.3.3 In terms of the architectural style and materials used, the new building would reflect the style of agricultural buildings common on the Island, with its external walls clad in vertical timber boardings with no areas of glazing introduced to ensure the building is in keeping with the character of the area (which is predominantly agricultural). It is also considered that the timber finish would be an improvement on other agricultural buildings on the fringes of the Conservation Area (which are predominantly of profile corrugated sheeting), with the timber finish ensuring it blends seamlessly with the surrounding countryside.
- 6.3.4 With regard to landscaping, the scheme proposes significant levels of landscaping around the building and site to soften the impact of the development on the area. These

- landscaping works would from a congruous link with the existing wooded areas around the site which form significant views into the Kirk Michael Conservation area when approaching from the north, thus complying with Environment Policy 36 which requires developments proposed close to conservation Areas to not have detrimentally effects on important views into and out of Conservation Areas.
- 6.3.5 Based on the foregoing, and given that the development would result in improvements to the landscape and wider environment (when assessed against the current situation), it is considered that the proposed development would comply with the requirements stipulated in GP3 (c) for previously developed land, Environment Policy 2 and Paragraph 7.4.1 of the Strategic Plan.

6.4 Impact to neighbours (EP 23)

- 6.4.1 In assessing impacts on neighbouring residential amenity, it is noted that Environment Policy 23 requires that the proposed changes should not have adverse impacts on existing neighbours. It is, however, worth noting that the new scheme proposes to segregate vehicular access to the development from the existing single lane access to the abutting dwellings which would address a key reason for refusal of the previous scheme; as it was noted under PA 19/00873/B that the increased vehicular use of the single lane into the area had the potential to intensify the nuisance associated with vehicle use in this residential neighbourhood.

- 6.4.2 It is also important to reiterate the fact that the proposed use of the site is light industrial, which is by definition acceptable in residential areas as it wouldn't detrimentally impact the amenity of that area. Whilst it is noted that the light industrial use of the site could have a greater potential for noise (when compared with the adjoining residential uses), the new scheme proposes to have five industrial units which is a significant reduction on the previous scheme which proposed eight industrial units; not minding the fact that the Strategic Plan considers light industrial use to be compatible with residential uses.

- 6.4.3 The comments made by the owners of the Old Vicarage regarding impacts on amenity are noted; however, the issues they have highlighted regarding times of operation and description of use have been addressed in the application documents as there is a stipulated operational timing and description of use which is light industrial. The issue of noise restrictions is not considered as an issue given that it has already been established previously that light industrial use can 'be carried out on or installed in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area by reason of noise'.
- 6.4.4 Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development would not result in impacts on the living conditions of those in nearby dwellings sufficient to warrant refusal of the scheme, and as such the scheme would comply with Environment Policy 23.
- 6.5 Impact on Highways and Parking

- 6.5.1 With regard to highway impacts, the comments from Highways services are heavily relied upon and in this instance, they have stated that the proposal meets highway requirements for no opposition to be raised subject to conditions for access, visibility, and internal layout to accord with drawing no 1500.11 in a letter dated 2 July 2021. Whilst the comments made by the Michael Commissioners and others opposed to the scheme regarding visibility, proximity to the garage and the southern end of the Orrisdale Loop to the proposed access, increase in volume of traffic feeding into Main Road, and the new bus shelter and crossing being constructed in the area are noted, it is considered that the Highways Officers have given due consideration to these factors before indicating support for the scheme; given that their advice was sought throughout the process of conceiving a revised scheme that would be acceptable in highway safety terms. Moreover, a swept path analysis and stage 1 Road Safety Audit provided by the applicants have been reviewed by Highways Officers who have assessed it and considered acceptable. Therefore, it is considered that there would be no detrimental impacts on highways safety.

- 6.5.2 From review of the submitted documents, it is also considered that the proposed parking provisions would be sufficient for the number of units proposed for the site. This is based on the fact that the units would serve light industrial purposes, with the Strategic Plan standard of 1 parking space per 30 square metres gross floor space for such use. In evaluating the parking need for the 1,011sqm of floor area proposed, 34 parking spaces would have been required for light industrial use (21 provided); which amounts to a shortfall of 13 parking spaces. Albeit, given that the units would be located along a major public transport corridor, these standards can be relaxed as stipulated in Section A.7.6 (Parking Standards) of the Strategic Plan. As such, it is considered that the parking provided would meet the requirements of Transport Policy 7; given the exemptions provided in Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan.

- 6.5.3 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the development is considered to be compliant with Transport Policy 7 and Strategic Policy 10.

6.6 Potential Impacts upon Biodiversity

- 6.6.1 In evaluating the impacts on the existing biodiversity on site, the Department gives significant weight to the comments of the Biodiversity Officer who raise no objection to the current scheme, subject to the inclusion of conditions that all tree planting is undertaken with Manx native species, with no invasive plant species listed on Schedule 8 Part II of the Wildlife Act 1990 included. They further noted that the new planting will mitigate for the gorse scrub that is to be lost to facilitate the new access, which addresses the concern raised by the owners/occupiers of Sartfell House, Sartfell, Kirk Michael that the area designated for the access road has already been cleared of a varied and full selection natural flora. The other comments made by the Biodiversity Officer borders on the inclusion of bat and bird boxes which was suggested by the applicant for integrating enhancements for wildlife. Based on the foregoing, it is not considered that there would be unacceptable impacts on biodiversity.

## 6.7 OTHER MATTERS

- 6.7.1 The comments made by one of the objectors regarding effluents is not considered relevant given that light industrial processes do not generally involve the production of effluents given their activities should be such that would be acceptable in residential areas.

- 6.7.2 The comments related to the inadequacy of the proposed septic tank option for the site is also not considered relevant in this case as the suitability of septic tanks and Biodiscs is not a matter for planning control as they are the subject of other regulatory controls such as the 'Building Control Regulations'. As such, this would be better addressed via the appropriate instruments under the remits of Building Control.

## - 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.2 In conclusion; on balance, for the reasons indicated within this report, it is concluded that the proposals complies with the relevant planning policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and the relevant guidelines stipulated in the Kirk Michael Local Plan. - 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 in Article 4(2) who should be given Interested Person Status.

8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.

Decision Made : …Permitted……….... Committee Meeting Date:…06.09.2021

Signed :………J SINGLETON………….. Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.

---

*Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).*
*Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/7640-michael-pennybridge-barn-former-riding-school-access-replacement/documents/934120*