3 October 2019 · Delegated - Principal Planner Sarah Corlett
Pennybridge Stables, Main Road, Kirk Michael, Isle Of Man, IM6 2hd
The proposal involved subdividing the large existing indoor arena building (25m x 50m footprint) into eight light industrial units for small businesses/start-ups, with external changes including dark grey roller shutter doors, grey Kingspan pedestrian doors, WC facilities, and reorganisation of the gravel parking area …
Click a button above to find applications similar to this one.
See how this application compares to similar ones — policies, conditions, and outcomes side by side.
The officer concluded the proposal would harm highway safety due to the narrow access with poor visibility to the right (south) for emerging vehicles, likely intensified by increased commercial traffi…
General Policy 3
Requires development outside zoned areas only on previously-developed land where redundant and redevelopment reduces landscape/environmental impact and improves it. Officer assessed site as agricultural/equestrian building excluded from PDL definition; proposal perpetuates large scale and increases traffic without improvements, failing test c).
Environment Policy 1
Protects countryside outside settlements/zones unless overriding national need and no alternative. Site in countryside/high landscape value; industrial use lacks justification to outweigh protection.
Environment Policy 2
Protects Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value unless no harm or essential location. Proposal in AHLV; large building with modern cladding cannot be sensitively integrated, harms views from Main Road.
Transport Policy 4
Requires safe access. Poor visibility splays and narrow lane inadequate for intensified industrial traffic.
Strategic Policy 1
Requires location utilising infrastructure; subsection c) failed as site not zoned and away from centres.
Strategic Policy 6 - Major employment-generating development
Major employment development in zoned centres. Site unzoned; local plan directs to Kelly Bros./Beach Field.
Environment Policy 23
Requires no adverse neighbour impacts from changes. Increased traffic/activity on shared access harms residential amenity.
General Policy 2
Subsections b/c (appearance/amenity) and g (neighbours), h (access) failed due to visual harm, neighbour disturbance, highway safety.
Highways Division objects due to poor access visibility and lack of traffic justification; Michael Commissioners object on agricultural land use and increased heavy traffic; a private individual raises concerns on prematurity, incompatibility, and defective entrances.
Key concern: poor visibility and unsafe access contrary to policy GP2 (h)
Michael Commissioners
ObjectionThe Commissioners object to this planning application due to the land being agriculture and not zoned for industrial units; it is also serviced by a narrow lane, leading to a restricted exit onto the Main Road. We think it would lead to more heavy traffic going through the village.
Highways Division
ObjectionRefusal is therefore recommended; Recommendation: OBJECT
Dawn Foster
ObjectionI wish to lodge an application to the above application on the grounds on prematurely, non compatible use and defective entrances to the site.; If it is minded to approve the application no valid conditions can be applied as they would be out with the site boundaries as submitted.
Conditions requested: applicant is required to submit revised plans within the planning area site together with visibility areas are marked on the plan
The original application to convert an existing indoor equestrian arena in an Area of High Landscape Value to eight light industrial units was refused for reasons including highway safety, failure to meet previously developed land criteria under GP3, adverse impacts on neighbouring amenities, conflict with Environment Policies 1 and 2, and Strategic Policies 1(c) and 6. The appellant argued the building is redundant, there is proven demand for small industrial units, the access has safely served prior intensive use, and the proposal would improve the site's appearance and support local employment under Business Policy 1 and Strategic Policy 1. The council defended the refusal citing countryside protection, visual harm to the adjacent Conservation Area, intensified traffic on substandard access, and conflict with local plan designations directing industry to Kelly Brothers Estate. The inspector accepted redundancy of the equestrian use and some employment benefits but found the proposal would harm landscape character, residential amenity, and highway safety compared to the approved residential redevelopment, recommending dismissal.
Precedent Value
Reinforces strict countryside/AHLV protection; redundant agricultural buildings do not automatically qualify for intensified non-agricultural uses without proven landscape benefits and highway justification. Applicants must provide traffic evidence and compare against approved schemes; employment need alone insufficient if policy conflicts.
Inspector: Brian J Sims