DEC Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Applicant: Mrs Madeline Simpson Proposal Additional use of gardens as a wedding venue Site Address Kielthusthag Lodge Smeale Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 3EB Case Officer : Mr S Butler Photo Taken: 27.01.2022 Site Visit: 27.01.2022 Expected Decision Level Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 11.02.2022

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• C 1. The use hereby permitted shall cease by the 01.04.2024

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.

• C 2. 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.
• C 3. 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.
• C 4. No more than 6 wedding reception events shall take place in any one calendar year, and no more than 1 event shall take place in any 4 week period. Reason: in the interest of local amenity and wider ecology.
• C 5. Marquees and temporary toilets may not be in place more than 1 day prior to and 1 day after an event. Reason: in the interest of local amenity and wider landscape.
• C 6. 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.
• C 7. No guests shall be permitted to remain on the property after 23:59 on the day of an event. Reason: in the interest of local amenity.

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

Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the following plans/drawings/information:

• - Application Form
• - Letter date stamped as having been received 06/12/21
• - Photo sheet date stamped as having been received 06/12/21
• - Applicant's response to representations stamped as having been received 24/01/22
• - Additional letter date stamped as having been received 24/01/22
• - Additional letter date stamped as having been received 09/02/22
• - Site and Location Plans (date stamped as having been received 24/01/22) _______________________________________________________________

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 not mentioned in Article 4(2):

• - Mull House
• - Smeale Beg 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):

• - Croit-ny-Bane Farm
• - West Keilthustag Farm (Location Plan indicates adjoins blue line but more than 20m from redline boundary) is 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

THE APPLICATION IS 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

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 the additional use of gardens as a wedding venue. The site and location plans show main house and Northern half of garden excluded from red-line boundary, driveway included. Marquee located to South West part of site, to North-East of drive way). - 2.2 Application form indicates that:

• - No Operational Development
• - Use of Gardens between 6 and 12 times a year as wedding venue
• - Current use is residential
• - No changes to utilities, utilise etc. or removal of trees. Foul sewage to be disposed of via portaloos

2.3 Letter date stamped as having been received 06/12/21 indicates that:

• - Surprise/concern over planning process - predominantly residential use will continue, no structures altered. Site is enclosed and not visible from road, with significant landscaping to boundaries shared with neighbouring residential properties and remaining boundary to fields
• - Noted discussions with registry and may apply case by case for licences
• - Care/pride taken in garden, visited wedding fair, suggestion not enough venues, given Covid more desire for outside venues - potential to support wider businesses
• - 6-12 wedding per year, 2pm-midnight
• - Marquee (erected day before and removed day after) providers maintain a presence to control noise levels/orderly passage to taxis/minibuses and adhere to time limits for finishing Had discussions re: insurance - lights reinstated down driveway and ponds
• - Had also considered romantic place for proposals - tailored to each couple (3-4 hours, coupled with photo shoot)

2.4 Applicant's response to representations stamped as having been received 24/01/22 indicates that:

• - No issues raised by some neighbours;
• - Some concerns relate to drainage
• - Willing to notify neighbours of planned events
• - Some concerns not from immediate neighbours

2.5 Additional letter date stamped as having been received 24/01/22

• - Additional detail on background to how the application came about;
• - Indication that 30-120 guests are expected (have previously had parties with over 100 people)

• - Condition will be that all guests arrive/depart by taxi or minibus, buses would come up driveway with lights on
• - There is parking within the grounds on a two acre field (N.B. this appears to be outside the planning application boundary and so not applied for) or for about 40 cars within the redline boundary but for so few events do not wish to offer parking
• - Accept there will be extra noise but does not consider that music and conversation from 100 people, 6 times in a six month period is an unreasonable intrusion (notes potential for DJ or live music in evening and some music during day e.g. harpist or saxophonist)
• - Details about potential for inclement weather
• - Does not feel impact on wildlife - several miles from Ayres and noise levels not greater than private party
• - Pollution - all waste contained in portaloos and rubbish removed by caterers/marquee owners
• - Have visited neighbours to try to deal with any concerns

2.6 Additional letter date stamped as having been received 09/02/22 provides further responses to issues raised and proposes provision of security staff, notes variety of vehicles available to move guests (including double-decker buses), contact with fire services and provides example of proposed booking form.

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.

• o Strategic Policy 2 directs developments to existing towns and villages, together with the Settlement Hierarchy set out in Spatial Policies 1-5. Spatial Policy 5 and General Policy 3 seek to prevent development in the countryside other than in exceptional circumstances, none of which apply to the current proposal.
• o Paragraph 4.3.11 of the Strategic Plan states, "Merely arguing that a new building cannot be seen in public views is not a justification for the relaxation of other policies relating to the location of new development".
• o Strategic Policy 4 - protect landscape quality and nature conservation, no unacceptable disturbance. Environment Policy 1 seeks to protect the countryside and its ecology. Environment Policy 2 indicates that in Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) this will be the most important consideration. Environment Policies 4 - 6 protect ecology.
• o Strategic Policy 10 - minimise journeys, especially by private car and make best use of public transport and encourage pedestrian movement
• o Business Policy 1 seeks to promote the growth of employment opportunities throughout the Island
• o Environment Policy 22 seeks to protect the environment and amenity of nearby properties in terms of various issues including noise and light pollution
• o Transport Policy 1 directs new development to be, "located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes".
• o Transport 7 requires parking standards to be met in accordance with appendix 7, which sets out standards for various types of development and also circumstances in which standards may be relaxed (for example in town centres)
• o Community Policy 7 relates to designing out crime and Community Policy 11 to the prevention of outbreak and spread of fire

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;

• (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;
• (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
• (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
• (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
• (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
• (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;
• (j) can be provided with all necessary services; …

• (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
• (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption".

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 There are no previous planning applications for the application site that are considered materially relevant. It is noted that there have been a number of previous applications for people running businesses from residential properties, but these have been for minimal numbers of people and within existing settlements and are so quite different from what is proposed here. However the following application are noted. - 4.2 20/00227/B was for, "Use of fields for equestrian purposes including the erection of temporary marquee annually from 1st April to 30th September at Ballacooiley, Dollagh, Ballaugh" and was approved subject to the following conditions: "1. The marquee may be erected no earlier than 1st April in any year and retained until no later than 30th September in any year. Reason: to clarify the extent of the approval in relation to the content of the application.

• 2. The marquee may be used only for catering and hospitality associated with the holding of polo events on the site as defined in red on plan reference 02. The site may not be used for these purposes for more than twelve days in total in any calendar year, of which no more than three days may be consecutive at any time. Reason: to clarify the extent of the approval having regard to the application and to the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development)(Temporary Uses) Order 2015.
• 3. If the marquee is no longer required or used for its approved purpose it must be removed from the site. Reason: in the interests of the character and appearance of the site and to prevent unwarranted structures remaining in areas not designated for development.
• 4. Prior to the erection of the marquee, an Event Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and the development shall be undertaken in accordance with this Plan. The Plan shall provide details of how events will be managed - specifically how vehicles will enter, park and leave the site and how this will be marshalled. The applicant is encouraged to include information to welcome car sharing and sustainable methods of travelling to the site. Reason: to ensure free and safe use of the highway and to protect the living conditions of those in neighbouring properties".

4.3 The officer report stated,

• "6.4 Given the distance between the polo field and the nearest house - Pear Tree Cottage - and the established vegetation between them, it is not considered that the polo will have any adverse impact on the living conditions of those in this property. Other dwellings are much further away. However, all of the dwellings in the immediate vicinity - Pear Tree Cottage, Riverside Cottage, Brookside, Thie Dollagh and Ballacooiley Cottage will all be affected by the additional traffic which will be generated by the proposed use. It is interesting to note that the polo has been carried out here for a season and there have been no complaints to the Planning and Building Control Directorate in respect of any breach of planning control nor, according to the applicant, any complaints directly to them. It is not recommended that conditions are attached to constrain the hours of operation as the applicant could undertake the events without permission under the TUPDO. Also, it would be inappropriate for planning to seek to control noise levels as any amplified music or speaker systems would require approval through the Licensing system and a planning condition would duplicate this".
• 4.4 14/01308/B was for, "Creation of a working country estate involving the erection of a dwelling, new vehicular access, refurbishment and extension of existing buildings to provide tourist accommodation units, landscaping and creation of a destination venue with associated parking at Ardonan Farm, Ardonan Lane, Regaby, Ramsey". It was refused, in part due to,

"It has not been established by convincing evidence that nearby residents would be adequately protected from harm to their living conditions due to potential noise and general disturbance from activities associated with the destination venue. Consequently, that element of the proposed development is in potential conflict with Environment Policy 22 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan which, amongst other matters, seeks to avoid unacceptable harm to the amenity of nearby properties in terms of matters including noise".

14/00223/C Variation of conditions 4 and 5 of PA 10/00838/B concerning the hours and frequency of use of seasonal marquee at Ballakaighen Farm, Onchan

Whitebridge Road officer report concluded, "7.1 Overall, it is considered the application is a very finely based decision. It is sometimes difficult to determine how a use would have an impact upon neighbouring amenities, when there are two sides to the argument. However, based on the evidence provided, especially the additional information in response to initial concerns, it is recommended for an approval, but only on the basis of a temporary two year period"

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 The below sets out a summary, the full representations can be viewed on-line. The latest information from the applicant (including corrected site/location plans to move the driveway from the blue to red boundary) have been consulted on until the 18.02.2022 and so any representations received after the date of writing will be verbally updated to the committee meeting on the 21.02.22. - 5.2 Andreas Commissioners commented (06/01/22) seeking more time to comment and (12/01/22) raising issues in relation to noise and disruption (for both neighbouring properties and the Ayres National Nature Reserve), lack of parking provision and potential for obstructions to the road (concern proposed control measures are idealistic) and potential for people to be walking along the unlit main road and also lack of contingency measures for bad weather. - 5.3 DOI Highways asked for additional information (20/12/21)and then commented (28/01/22) that "Highways Development Control notes the amendments and additions uploaded on 25 and 26 January 2022. Given that the intention is for six weddings per year with guests bussed to site and on proviso that this can be restricted by condition to such, HDC raises no opposition. Should this not be the case please re-consult".

5.4 The owner/occupier of Mull House commented (05/01/22) and raised concerns in relation to parking/road safety, noise (up to midnight), potential impact of set up/put down days, waiting space for taxis/mini buses and road safety. They further comment (25/01/22) noting intention for 100 guests and expanding on their concerns, also indicating they do not recall notice being given before a family wedding in 2015. - 5.5 The owner/occupier of Smeale Beg commented (06/01/22) raising concerns about noise and disruption (noting potential for helicopters), impact on wildlife (including nesting birds during summer months), noting previous experience with live bands and impact, road safety (especially when dark) and lack of parking/potential for road-side parking - 5.6 The owner/occupier of Croit-ny-Bane Farm (South West of application site on other side of road - extent of land holding not clarified) commented (06/01/22) raising concerns in relation to impact on grazing cattle (in particular impact of helicopter), noise and impact (noting more likely to happen mainly in middle of year when warmer lighter and not be spread out across the year), lack of parking and clarity on how movement by bus would be enforced. They further commented (08/02/22) to confirm that their original objection remained unchanged.

The owner/occupier of West Keilthustag Farm (which adjoins garden) commented (11/01/22) that seems a good idea but concerned about direct/indirect impact on their lifestyle from that amount of activity - noise, litter, traffic/parking and drainage (from toilets)

7.0 ASSESSMENT - 7.1 The key issues are considered to be:

• - Principal of development;
• - Impact on Residential Amenity (Noise and Traffic);
• - Impact on Highway Safety
• - Impact on the wider Environment (ecology and landscape)

7.2 Principle of development

• 7.2.1 The development is not on land allocated for development and not an exception allowed for in the countryside. Although it is within a residential curtilage, it is nor a residential use. The site is located outside of a settlement named within the settlement hierarchy and in a relatively remote part of the Island. It is considered that the development does not comply with the land use and spatial strategy elements of the plan.
• 7.2.2 However, given the relatively small scale/frequency of the proposal, that no built development is involved, that it is within a residential curtilage (and on a site with existing properties on both sides - and so arguably not in the open countryside), the potential for it to support other local businesses and the fact that the nature of the proposal necessitates a more rural local it is considered that on balance the location and land designation weigh against the proposal but are not sufficient in themselves to warrant refusal.
• 7.3 Impact on Residential Amenity (Noise and Traffic)

• 7.3.1 It is difficult to see how a gather of 100 people which runs to midnight and involves amplified music and then vehicular pick-up by multiple vehicles (potentially buses) could not have an impact on nearby residential amenity, even if the safeguards proposed are successful (and there are questions about the feasibility of these and, in planning terms, whether they could be enforced).
• 7.3.2 On the other hand, the baseline is residential curtilage where (within the bounds of not creating a statutory nuisance) private parties could be held. The question is therefore the extent to which the intensity of individual events and/or frequency of events would be increased by the proposal, and whether that net increase is unacceptable.

• 7.3.3 Certainly, conditions could be attached which restricted the total number of events in a year (e.g. no more than 6), the frequency of events (no more than 1 a month), the duration of events (no guests permitted to remain past midnight) and some of the impacts (no helicopters permitted to land and lighting in accordance with a lighting plan). Furthermore it may be appropriate to allow a temporary approval to allow the impact of the use to be more accurately gauged.
• 7.4 Impact on Highway Safety

• 7.4.1 The concerns from the neighbouring properties are noted however the comments from DOI highways are also noted and relied upon.

7.5 Impact on the wider Environment (ecology and landscape)

• 7.5.1 The policy context and concerns raised are noted. Given the lack of built development, proposal for set/up and removal of portaloos/marquees the day before/after events, limited lighting and limited frequency and the limited visibility of the site (especially noting that in spring/summer, when events are most likely, vegetation is likely to be most established) it is not considered that there are concerns sufficient to justify a refusal.

Other Issues No other concerns or impacts are identified with regards to other material considerations which would justify refusal.

8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 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.

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 above who should be given Interested Person Status

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to the it 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: 21.02.2022

Signed : S BUTLER 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.

PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 21.02.2022

Application No. : 21/01503/C Applicant : Mrs Madeline Simpson Proposal : Additional use of gardens as a wedding venue Site Address : Kielthusthag Lodge Smeale Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 3EB

Head of Development Management : Mr S Butler Presenting Officer As above

Addendum to the Officer’s Report

The Case Officer noted additional comments from the DEFA (Ecology) Officer, an objector and the applicant (in relation to conditions) and amended the recommendation in relation to conditions 4 (events per year) and 5 (time period for put up/take down). The committee overturned this recommendation and instead voted to approve the application with additional amendments to condition 1 (duration of approval) and 7 (hours of operation).