Officer Report 11/01207/B

C2. Following the completion of the works, all land within the site disturbed by this development must be returned to its previous form, including levelling and re-seeding where necessary. N1. The applicant is advised that the proposed works are also subject to Building Regulations approval, which is a separate area of control to Planning. ### Development Plan Policies 14. The application site is located within an area designated as "White Land" not zoned for development, under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area, but it is within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. 15. Due to the location of the site and the nature of the proposal, the relevant planning policies from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 are General Policy 3, Environment Policy 2, Environment Policy 19 and Environment Policy 21. Paragraph 7.15.1 is also considered to be relevant. 16. General Policy 3: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10); (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11); (c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would 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; (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14); (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services; (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry; (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage." 17. Environment Policy 2: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that: (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential." 18. Environment Policy 19: "Development of equestrian activities and buildings will only be accepted in the countryside where there will be as a result of such development no loss in local amenity, no loss of high quality agricultural land (Classes 1 and 2) and where the local highway network can satisfactorily accommodate any increase in traffic (see Environment Policy 14 for interpretation of Class 1 and 2)." 19. Environment Policy 21: "Buildings for the stabling, shelter or care of horses or other animals will not be permitted in the countryside if they would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside in terms of siting, design, size or finish. Any new buildings must be designed in form and materials to reflect their specific purpose; in particular, cavity-wall construction should not be used." 20. Paragraph 7.15.1: "Equestrian activities are becoming increasingly popular in rural areas and on the fringes of our towns and villages. These activities can generally take place only on open, rural land, and often represent a useful way of diversifying traditional farming. The use of land as grazing land falls within the definition of agriculture (section 45 of the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act), and does not therefore involve development, but the keeping of horses and the operation of equestrian activities generally do involve development and may have an adverse impact on the appearance and character of the countryside. Sensitive siting and high standards of design, construction, and maintenance are necessary to ensure that there are no such adverse impacts. Whilst horses should be well housed, it will seldom be appropriate to use cavity-wall construction for stables, since such buildings may too easily be adapted for residential uses, so thwarting other policies of this Plan. Where new buildings are necessary, they should be sited close to existing building groups, and designed not only to blend with their surroundings but also to suit their specific purpose." ### Consultations 21. Maughold Parish Commissioners have commented on the planning application. They are concerned that the siting of the stable would result in an adverse impact on the landscape, as it would be visible from the A2 highway below and at more distant points such as Ballellin, in addition to views from Glen Mona Loop Road. They believe that the impact on the countryside could be greatly reduced if the stable was sited behind the applicant's dwelling towards the north-west corner of field no. 624472. This repositioning of the stable would bring it more into the building line of structures than run from the Glen Mona Hotel up through the hamlet of Glen Shone. The Commissioners state that they would not support any further development within the field, such as road or track ways or development and equipment associated with equestrian activities. 22. Having received the response from Maughold Commissioners, I wrote to the applicant in order to allow them the opportunity to consider moving the stables or provide further information about why the proposed site has been chosen. The applicant responded with several points defending their chosen location, which can be summarised as follows: a. The stables would be shielded from view and weather by mature trees and shrubs. b. Their immediate neighbours at Strawberry Cottage and Fuschia Cottage and happy with the design and location. c. Disabled access would be possible as the site is flat and level and also near to the house for parking. d. It would be possible to connect drainage, water and electricity. e. There would be easy access for hay lorry deliveries. f. The animals could be viewed from the house. g. They are re-cycling an existing site of spoil. 23. The applicant opposes the alternative site suggested by the Commissioners for the following reasons: a. There would be an access problem, as it is a hillside with a 40 foot slope. b. The site is directly in front of their neighbour's conservatory (Strawberry Cottage) and would block their light. c. In winter the area will be muddy and on a slope, which would endanger the health of their livestock and they will be unable to carry hay / straw bales up the slope. d. They would be disturbing virgin farmland. e. The drainage costs would be prohibitive. f. The stable would be more prominent in the landscape as it would be above their home on the hillside. 24. The Department of Infrastructure's Highways Division do not oppose this application, as it has no adverse traffic management, parking or road safety implications. ### Representations 25. The owner of Glen Mona Cottage objects to this application. They own and reside in the property and land which is directly downhill, or east of the application site. They do not object to the principle of erecting a stable block, but they do object to the proposed siting of the building and state that it would be totally out of place and a blot on the landscape. In addition to the proposed siting, they are concerned with the drainage of the building and the proposed use of rain butts. They suggest constructing a drain to join the existing one which takes storm water from the house into the nearby stream. ### Assessment 26. Although the erection of a stable block does not comply with any of the exception criteria for acceptable development in the countryside listed in General Policy 3, Environment Policies 19 and 21 have provision for such a development. As the site is located within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance, Environment Policy 2 is also relevant. ### Environment Policy 2: 27. This policy provides protection for the character of the landscape in Areas of High Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. Development should therefore not harm the character and quality of the landscape or be essential for the location. 28. Concerns have been raised by Maughold Commissioners and the owner of Glen Mona Cottage about the proposed siting of the stable and its visual impact on the surrounding area. Both parties have recommended that the proposed stable should be moved to the north-west corner of the field, where they feel its visual impact would be reduced. 29. As was stated previously in this report, the applicant has defended their chosen site and stated why they do not wish to move to the alternative site which has been suggested by the Commissioners and the owner of Glen Mona Cottage. Many of these are practical reasons which relate to the day to day usage of the stables, such as access. They also argue that they would be using an area which is currently spoil instead of disturbing farmland and that their chosen location would be better screened from public views. 30. I can understand the practical arguments for the location of the stables. However, in terms of Environment Policy 2, it is important to assess whether the proposed location would be acceptable or whether it would harm the character and quality of the landscape. 31. The proposed stable would be single storey in height and due to its location, it is my opinion that it would benefit from the existing natural screening on the eastern boundary of the field. Although public views of the part of the stable block would be possible, these would be from a significant distance. The proposal would be sited reasonably close to other buildings within the site, such as the garage and dwelling, so it would not appear to be isolated within the landscape. For these reasons, it is considered that the proposed stable would not be prominent within the landscape or harm the character of the area. ### Environment Policy 19: 32. Environment Policy 19 requires equestrian facilities to have no loss of local amenity, no loss of high quality agricultural land and for any increase in traffic to be accommodated by the local highway network. 33. The proposed development would be a private stable for the residents of Glen Shone. It would be in a field adjacent to their dwelling where their pet horse is currently kept. Therefore, the proposed stable would be accessed by the existing entrance to the dwelling and there would be no additional driveway or car parking on the site. 34. The development would not result in the loss of any high quality agricultural land of Class 1 or 2, as the soil within this area is Class 3 or unclassified uplands. 35. As was stated previously, the proposed stable would be for the private use of the dwelling within the application site. Therefore, there would be no additional traffic using the site or any increase on the local highway network. ### Environment Policy 21: 36. Environment Policy 21 ensures that the siting, design, size or finish of stable buildings is not detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside. As such, buildings must be designed in form and materials to reflect their specific purpose. 37. It is considered that the proposed stables would be an acceptable size for such a building and constructed and designed so as to be clearly identified as a stable in accordance with Environmental Policy 21. ### Recommendation 38. Overall, it is concluded that the proposed development is appropriate for the application site and suitably accords with the relevant planning policies. It is therefore recommended that the planning application be approved. ### Party Status 39. It is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, should be afforded interested party status: - Maughold Parish Commissioners. - The owner occupiers of Glen Mona Cottage own and reside in land or buildings which physically adjoin the application site, so they should be afforded interested party status in this instance. 40. It is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, should not be afforded interested party status: - The Department of Transport Highways Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance. ### Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 14.10.2011

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal

O : Notes attached to refusals

C 1.

The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

C 2.

This approval relates to the erection of stables; as shown in drawing numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, all date stamped 25 August 2011.

I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager.

Decision Made : Permitted         Date : _________________________

Signed : _________________________ Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control

OR         Signed : _________________________ Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager