TUESDAY 14 MAY 2002
REPORT OF THE
STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES
TCP/01501/T
P/00158/01 Parish/Name: Newport
Registration Date:
30/01/2001 - Full Planning Permission
Officer: Mr.
S. Cornwell Tel: (01983) 823566
Change of use of land & buildings to form monkey sanctuary;outline planning permission for buildings variation of agricultural occupancy condition (revised plans)(additional information supplied in form of Development Plan)(readvertised application)
This application was considered at 18 February 2002 Development Control Committee meeting at which time Members resolved to defer the application in response to a holding request from the Environment Agency and to enable a visit to both the application site and to a facility on the mainland holding similar animals.
The report below has been updated to include the
following:
To assist Members, any additions in the report are
typed in bold.
Site and Location
Application site relates to a holding of some 2
hectares in area which is located on the north side of Staplers Road beyond the
edge of the built-up area of Newport. A
brick built bungalow lies in the northeast corner of the holding and there are
several storage buildings lying to the north of the bungalow adjacent the
eastern boundary. The open land which
is presently down to grass is bounded by a combination of post and wire fences
and tall hedges. The land generally falls away to the north. Beyond the northwestern and northeastern
boundaries is open land whilst beyond the southwest boundary are buildings
associated with a nursery. The bungalow
itself is surrounded by conifers although it can be viewed from the road but
this vegetation provides a screen to the open ground behind. A plan showing the general position of
the site within the locality is attached as appendix
A.
Relevant History
In April 1986 an agricultural worker's bungalow was
approved to support an egg producing enterprise. The standard agricultural occupancy condition was imposed.
In April 1989 a double garage and formation of
vehicular access was approved. In June
1991 the use of the land for the sale of produce not grown on site was
refused.
The erection of a detached building to provide an
agricultural implement store was approved in August 1998 but this has not been
implemented.
In September 2000 planning permission to remove the
agricultural occupancy condition was refused.
Details of Application
The proposal consists of three elements.
1. Full
planning permission for the change of use of the land and the existing
buildings to form a monkey sanctuary which would be open to the public.
2. Outline
planning permission for a range of buildings to service the facility. Applicant request that siting and access be
determined at this time with design, landscaping and external appearance
reserved for future determination.
3. A
variation to the standard agricultural occupancy condition to allow the dwelling
to be occupied by a person engaged in the operation of the sanctuary.
A plan showing the position of the various facilities
within the site is attached as Appendix B.
In October 2001 a development plan was submitted by
the applicants revising and clarifying the nature of the proposal and covering
what are anticipated to be the main issues.
The contents of the development plan are broken down into twenty
sections of which the following sections are attached as Appendix C to this report.
Suitability
of the Site
The
proposal
General
site set up
Species
details
Project
overview by Director of Primates
The following points are taken from the remaining
sections of the report.
New buildings on site
fall into two main categories namely, the entrance block encompassing shop and
tearoom, education block and toilet block and secondly animal enclosures which
are types A and B buildings.
Buildings in category
1 to have pitched roofs finished in timber cladding and dark stain
treated. All low rise single storey
being 2.5 metres to 3 metres at eaves level.
The enclosures in
category 2 specifically designed to suit the occupying species, these are of
timber construction with a wire mesh area with a living enclosure behind.
Existing access to be
improved with visibility splays to provide access for car-borne visitors to
site. Coach parking to be provided
within lay by running to north of site with a pedestrian footpath leading from
lay by into site. Also proposed to
provide number of "Sheffield" hoops for visitor bicycle storage.
Thirty-two space car
park to be provided with two designated spaces for disabled. Could accommodate a further ten to fifteen
spaces within central area if required.
Estimating within one
to three years will attract 5,000 visitors growing to 20,000 per annum for
Phase I.
Reasonable to expect
75% of visitors within the 28 week spring to summer period and over those weeks
this equals 536 visitors a week. This
represents 77 persons a day and at two to three persons a car, equates to 32
spaces.
Cafe would allow for
a maximum of 30 people with additional external area.
Assume maximum ten
staff (full and part-time).
Sanctuary would be laid
out to ensure that disabled visitors have access to all facilities.
Regarding waste and
rubbish facilities, general refuse collected by licensed refuse contractor
whilst clinical waste will be collected in approved containers for removal by
approved contractor. Animal waste to be
collected at least once and probably twice daily for removal to the disposal
area designated in northwest corner of site. All animal waste will be sealed
and stored in approved containers for regular collection and disposal by
licensed contractor. Biffa Waste
Services Ltd confirmed they could provide such a service.
Drainage - New
toilets to be served by septic tank with car parking area and surface water
from new buildings to be run to soakaways.
Monkey sanctuary will
require Zoo Operator's licence which itself requires certain standards.
In veterinary care
for sanctuary to be provided by Jackson Green and Foster Partnership and letter
confirms this.
All animals brought
to sanctuary will be fully screened and inoculated prior to relocation. If necessary have facility for quarantine to
isolate any animal.
Two supporting
letters attached, one from Twycross Zoo and second from Bristol Zoo with a
further letter setting out various health measures relating to both animals and
staff when keeping primates. The
procedures and protocols proposed for the sanctuary will follow these measures.
Letter from Gibson Phelps and Partners Accounts who
have prepared a cash flow forecast over a period of three years which they
indicate show that the sanctuary will very quickly stand on its own feet.
As a result of information submitted in Business Plan,
clarification sought from developer on a number of issues, specifically status
of birds of prey, noise levels, cage design and waste disposal. Reply is attached as Appendix
D.
The following points of information have also been
submitted by the applicants to clarify noise and waste issues further:
Howlett Wild Animal
Park Family Group Siamang Gibbons decibel reading mid song at 50 feet. Crescendo 78db estimated distance.
Highest estimated
noise on site produced would be in the region of 80 decibels.
Following responses to an enquiry with Zoos regarding
how they dispose of waste material:
Chester Zoo have a
compactor wagon but take to local landfill site treated as chemical waste.
Crickhet St. Thomas -
bagged up and skipped taken to landfill.
Cotswold Wildlife
Park - bagged up in skips, taken to landfill.
Drusillas - have
incinerator on site generates heat for other areas of Zoo.
Jersey Zoo - regular
faecal sampling to check clear of major bugs (e.g. ecoli), if all clear it is
composited on site for shrubs etc.
Treated as chemical waste and incinerated if bugs present.
Marwell Zoo - bagged
up in skips and disposed of by Onyx Waste Contractors (landfill).
Paignton Zoo -
collected by clinical waste contractor.
Used to have incinerator and regret that it is no longer in use.
Twycross Zoo - bagged
up in skips and disposed of by Leigh Environmental Contractors (landfill).
Welsh Mountain Zoo -
bagged up in skips and landfilled.
Applicants obtained letter from Mr D Chivers,
University Reader in Primate Biology and Conservation at University of
Cambridge which states the following:
"The adult Siamang
pair duets regularly, perhaps on a daily basis maybe once every few days. The duet lasts about 15 minutes. He is very noisy carrying on at least 2
kilometers in the forest but is very impressive. Unpaired male Siamang usually call much less often and for
shorter periods. It remains to be seen
how often several males together will call but it cannot really constitute a
disturbance. Calling occurs usually in
the morning.
Since the original report was prepared the following additional information has been received from the agents:
·
Confirm no breeding of monkeys in
sanctuary.
·
None of primates to be personally
owned by applicant; in effect on loan from other collections.
·
If sanctuary has to close, animals
will go back to their original owners or other centres.
·
Should any particular animal be deemed
excessively noisy, it can be returned to its owner or other facility.
·
Confirm cage size will provide good
living environment for animals.
· Enclosure design will have to conform to latest information/guidelines relative to particular species within SSSMZP.
· No present plans to relocate power line.
· Envisage initially there would be a maximum of two coaches a day most probably by appointment only. Feel these would be educational school trips.
· Certainly intention to phase development. If necessary, public facility would be integrated into initial phase.
· Relocation of bus stop would be dependent on agreement of Southern Vectis and would only take place if everyone feels it is in general public interest.
In response to views of Environment Agency proposed:
· Existing septic tank will continue to serve dwelling alone.
· Staff and visitor toilets will be served by new cesspool.
· In long-term as sanctuary develops, propose to agree suitable type of private sewage treatment.
· Will look to incorporate run-off from monkey enclosures to new foul drainage system in format to be agreed with Environment Agency.
· Will confirm precise details at approval of reserved matters stage.
· Reaffirm no waste to be incinerated on site; this to be stored in sealed containers and disposed of by registered waste carrier.
Agent also submitted letter from the Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland from which the following points are taken:
· Letter on request of applicants in response to queries raised by Monkey World letter of 12 February concerning surplus animals.
· Agree with John Ray impossible for a well managed population not to produce a surplus.
· Surplus will be predominantly male, although most zoos prefer to hold breeding groups of one male, several females and young.
· Most responsible collections acknowledge that in order to have viable population, surplus will be produced and have to be kept somewhere.
· A collection such as one proposed at Monkey Sanctuary that wishes to take on non-breeding stock is welcomed within zoo community.
Development Plan Zoning and/or Policy
Planning Policy Guidance Note 1- General Policy and
Principles.
Rural Areas.
Paragraph 28 "A number of the previous themes
come together in considering development in the countryside. Here, the planning system helps to integrate
the development necessary to sustain economic activity in rural areas with
protection of the countryside. Rural
areas can accommodate many forms of development without detriment, if the
location and design of development are handled with sensitivity. Building in the open countryside, away from
existing settlements or from areas allocated for development in development plans
should be strictly controlled."
Other Material Consideration
Paragraph 50 "In principle ...... any
consideration which relates to the use and development of land is capable of
being a planning consideration. Whether
a particular consideration falling within that broad class is material in any
given case will depend on the circumstances" (Stringer MHLG 1971).
"Material considerations must be genuine planning
considerations, i.e. they must be related to the purpose of planning
legislation, which is to regulate the development and use of land in the public
interest........"
PPG7 - The Countryside Environmental Quality and
Economic and Social Development.
The Character of the Countryside
Paragraph 2.14 "The Government's policies of the
countryside should be safeguarded for its own sake and non-renewable and
natural resources should be afforded protection.............."
Tourism, sport and recreation.
Paragraph 3.12 "Rural tourism makes a major and
growing contribution to rural economic activity and the rural labour
market. It needs to develop in a way
which draws on the character of the countryside and does not destroy the very
asset on which its popularity depends........."
Paragraph 3.21 "New house building and other new
development in the open countryside, away from established settlements or from
areas allocated for development in Development Plans should be strictly
controlled ....."
Annex I -
Agricultural and forestry dwellings.
Occupancy conditions.
i17 "Where the need to provide accommodation to
enable farm or forestry workers to live at or near their place of work has been
accepted as justifying isolated residential development in the countryside, it
will be necessary to ensure that the dwellings are kept available for meeting
this need. For this purpose planning
permission should be made subject to an occupancy condition......."
Information and Appraisals
i22 "Planning Authorities should be able to
determine most applications for agricultural or forestry dwellings in the
countryside, including cases involving the imposition or removal of occupancy
conditions, on the basis of their experience and the information provided by
the applicant and any other interested parties......"
PPG23 - Planning and Pollution Control.
Paragraph 1.3 "The planning system should not be
operated so as to duplicate controls which are the statutory responsibilities
of other bodies......"
Water Quality
1.21 The National Rivers Authority (NRA) (now
the Environment Agency) is responsible for policing and protecting the quality
of inland, coastal and underground waters, for conserving and enhancing water
resources, and for licensing water abstraction.
"Planning Authorities will need to consult
Pollution Control Authorities in order that they can take account of the scope
and requirements of the relevant pollution controls. Planning Authorities should work on the assumption that the
pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced. They should not seek to substitute their own
judgement on pollution control issues for that of the bodies with the relevant
expertise and the statutory responsibility for that control."
PPG24 -
Planning and Noise.
General Principles.
Paragraph 2 "The impact of noise can be a
material consideration in the determination of planning applications".
Development Control
Noisy development.
Paragraph 11 "Noisy characteristics and levels
can vary substantially according to their source and the type of activity
involved........ Sudden impulses, irregular noise or noise which contains a
distinguishable continuous tone will require special consideration."
Measures to mitigate the impact of noise.
Paragraph 13 "A number of measures can be
introduced to control the source of, or limited exposure to, noise. Such measures should be proportionate and
reasonable and may include one or more of the following:
1. Engineering .....
2. Layout .......
3. Administrative
.....
Unitary Development Plan
The site lies outside the development envelope and is
therefore considered to be within the open countryside.
The following Unitary Development Plan policies are
considered to apply:
Strategic Policies.
S4 - The countryside
will be protected from inappropriate development.
Detailed Policies.
G4 General Locational
Criteria for Development.
G5 Development
Outside Defined Settlements.
D1 Standards of
Design.
T2 Tourism Related
Development (other than accommodation).
C1 Protection of
Landscape Character.
P1 Pollution and
Development.
P5 Reducing the
Impact of Noise.
TR7 Highway
Considerations for New Development.
U19 Safeguarding of
Aquifers and Water Resources.
Representations
When application was first submitted and advertised in
January 2001, it attracted objection letters from 27 residents of which three
asked for their letters to be read out.
Letters of objection were also received from Amazon World, Islandwatch,
the Born Free Foundation and the Monkey Sanctuary Looe.
Fundamentally, the initial series of representations
raised concerns that the proposal was not thought through in any detail. They also raised a range of issues which
were repeated in the representations received subsequent to the revised
application.
Seven letters in support of the initial scheme were
also received.
Southern Electric made general observations on the
initial scheme.
The Environment Agency raised no objection in
principle to the original scheme and requested a condition that any proposal be
submitted and agreed.
The Environmental Health Department (Senior Licensing
Officer) made the following observation on the initial scheme:
"Spoken to Zoo
Inspector, he does not wish to comment at this stage. However, he does draw Planning's attention to the DETR Secretary
of State's Standards of Modern Zoo Practice in regard to the five principles of
animal welfare."
This is attached to the report as Appendix E.
The Planning Policy Section commented on the initial
proposal identifying the following policies as relevant:
T1 - Promotion of Tourism.
T2 - Tourist development, subject to criteria
including design, landscaping, car parking, access and environment.
House should be tied to operation of monkey park under
H9d if approved and revert back to agricultural occupancy to prevent normal
residential development.
C1 - Landscape Character.
C15 should also be considered.
Consultations and response to revised scheme
At the beginning of October 2001 the application was
revised with the submission of the Business Plan and other supporting
documents. The following
representations have been received in response to these documents and
incorporates comments received which were not included within the original
report.
Highway Engineer : requests
conditions.
Chief Environmental Protection Officer.
"Further to our meeting at Seaclose on 10 January
2002 I can confirm that I have no objection to the above proposal providing
that the following conditions are imposed on any approval. These conditions are designed to minimise
any noise, odour or smoke emission from the proposed sanctuary.
1. No more than two cages shall be allocated to
Gibbon species.
2. Any solid barriers used in cage construction
and any other freestanding solid barriers shall be incorporated or used on the
sides of each cage that are nearest to any noise sensitive premises.
3. Any waste
produced on the site must not be burnt on the site.
An additional memorandum dated 3 May 2002 has been received from the Chief Environmental Protection Officer following the site visit to Marwell Zoo. This memorandum is attached as appendix F to this report.
In addition, the following note has been received from the CEPO:
“Further to my memo dated 3 May 2002 and our conversation this morning perhaps I should try and clarify the position regarding possible noise emission from the above proposal. If there is no prospect of any realistic attenuation measures being put into place then there is potential for noise nuisance to the occupants of Sloe Cottage.”
Contaminated Land Officer comments:
· No records of any tipping at this site, historic maps do not show a hollow, pit or pond. Lack of record does not mean tipping impossible, but unlikely to have occurred in significant volume if at all.
· Cage construction would not require receptor for landfill gas.
Environment Agency: received details
on 27 February 2002 from Macaire Associates stating readiness to agree suitable
type of sewage treatment plant and works to treat and dispose of run-off from
monkey enclosures. I can confirm Agency
has no objection in principle to the proposal, but requests planning conditions
imposed.
A total of 52 letters of objection have been received from individuals, The Ramblers, CPRE, Born Free Foundation, Island Action for Animals, a solicitor acting on behalf of the local residents and a letter from Monkey World. Attached to one letter was copy of a letter from Amazon World. One of the letters included a petition with 48 signatures.
One of the letters has been submitted on behalf of
Island Action for Animal and Animal Aid. This letter is attached as Appendix G to this report.
The Born Free Foundation letter is attached to this
report as Appendix H.
Three objectors have requested that their letters
are read out and Members are asked to advise whether they wish these letters to
be read out in their entirety or whether they are content that the main points
are included below.
The following comments were taken from the letters of
objection:
Concerned over noise
made by animals which can carry for miles.
Monkeys can be easily agitated.
Already suffer
problems from people with dogs in area, concerned one set of animals will
trigger off another during vocal communications and during mating calls. Night
time will be even worse.
Concerned road
already being used beyond its capacity and will become accident prone.
Will create dangerous
access close to Blacklands Corner with cars and coaches entering and leaving
site.
Suggest you seek
Environmental Health Officer's comments.
Concerned over number
of animals which could be as high as 150.
If approved, strict
conditions on noise disturbance should be applied.
Do not support
variation to Agricultural Occupancy condition.
Concerned over smells
from monkeys.
Concerned if they run
a breeding programme.
This is not a
suitable location.
Revised details only
heighten my concerns.
Proposed cages will
be totally intrusive in open countryside.
Scheme at odds with
policy for development.
Concerned development
would in future extend beyond site in to surrounding land with need for more
buildings.
Note lay by for two
coaches, what happens if more than two arrive - doubt they will be turned away
and therefore traffic problems will result.
Surprised by
statement that animals only make noise at set times of day.
Nothing stated about
birds of prey.
Noise will upset
other livestock in area.
Object to loss of
section of hedgerow to create coach lay by.
Applicants report
says they will try to maintain disease-free facility if at all possible. Report also says calls and songs can carry
over a kilometer with vocalisations from loud booming to calls.
This will become a
tourist attraction rather than a sanctuary.
Environmental
impacts, waste, noise, odour cannot be overlooked.
Site in prominent
view from the whole of the Medina Valley.
Object to loss of
what was originally an agricultural enterprise.
If approved trust
there will be restrictions on the type of monkeys kept because of noise
concerns.
Will demonstrate on
issue of caged animals if approved.
Given layout, coaches
will have to turn in road.
Will affect my
development of barns as holiday accommodation as people will not want to stay
close to this type of facility.
Approximately 20/50
years ago gravel taken from land and subsequently infilled with rubbish and
fires broke out. Safety aspect needs
checking.
Concerned whole
situation will become another Prestwood Farm.
Concern over impact
on native wildlife if escapes occur.
Concerned if EHO
taking background noise reading is due to traffic diversions Staplers Road much
busier and noisier than normal. Can
meaningful data be produced.
I am also aware of some papers entitled Staplers Road
Residents Group dated 17 April 2002 that are addressed to the Members and I
assume have been sent directly to them.
There is one page of a letter, a petition with 58 signatures, some pages
taken off the internet and various questions.
I do not consider that these papers raise any planning considerations
not already put forward by objectors whilst the individuals who sent in
questions to be asked by the Chairman have been advised of the
deadline/procedure for them to ask the questions at the meeting.
Two letters of support have been received.
Ground used for many
years to house livestock.
Plenty of space for
car park.
This not a built up
area.
Any scheme to
safeguard wild life should be supported.
Will create
attraction for tourists.
Good alternative use
of agricultural land.
Fortunate to find
experienced person living on Island.
Evaluation
Before addressing the main elements to be considered in the determination of this application, it would be appropriate at this point to make reference to the site visits that have been undertaken following the deferment at this application at 18 February 2002 Development Control Committee meeting.
On 6 March 2002 a group consisting of officers and Members visited Marwell Zoo near Winchester. This facility was chosen as it houses a number of Siamang Gibbons which are considered to be the loudest of the animals proposed to be kept at the monkey sanctuary. Those Members in attendance at that visit will recall that because of the cold weather conditions, the animals remained within their sleeping quarters and only ventured out into the caged area on a small number of occasions and did not make any vocalizations at that time. Although the initial intent behind the visit was to listen to the animals, it did prove that they do not vocalize all the time and the visit also showed that the enclosure which the applicants propose, is of a similar size to that where the animals are presently contained at Marwell Zoo.
On 12 April 2002 the Development Control Committee visited the Staplers Road site to appraise themselves of the site itself and of the surrounding area.
On 16 April 2002 officers returned to Marwell Zoo
where the conditions were more advantageous and noise recordings were taken of
the Siamang Gibbons when vocalizing within the open enclosure. The results taken have formed the basis for
the Chief Environmental Health Officer’s additional comments which are included
in this report.
Members will note in the Representations section of
this report that this proposal has raised a great deal of interest and
comment. Various comments have been
made that were not considered relevant to the determination of the application,
accordingly, those factors such as the ethics of keeping caged animals will not
form part of the analysis of this application and should not be considered by
Members in their decision. I have
also reconsidered the grounds of objection raised against this application and
which were noted in the original report which includes the letter from Monkey
World dated 12 February 2002. Having
considered these in greater detail I believe that a number of the comments
originally reported such as whether the proposal is likely to be viable,
whether sufficient money has been set aside for insurance; and contrasting this site with Monkey World
in Dorset in terms of professionalism, are not relevant material planning
considerations to the determination of this application and consequently these
elements have been deleted from the Representation section. In addition, I have also noted a number of
issues raised by objectors which I believe are covered by other
regulations. These include whether the
animals carry fatal diseases, whether the facility itself is escape proof and
whether the Isle of Wight has necessary veterinary experience to deal with
health issues. Equally the
application of the Modern Standard of Zoo Practice are clearly aimed at the
licensing assessment and will not impinge directly on the determination of this
application.
In so far as the material planning considerations are
concerned I believe that these are as follows:
(a) Planning policy.
(b) The impact
on the locality of keeping animals on this site.
(c) The
potential visual impact of the buildings in the wider landscape.
(d) The
vehicle access arrangements.
(e) The
proposed methods for the disposal of liquid and solid waste.
(f) Whether
circumstances justify the variation of the agricultural occupancy condition.
Planning Policy
With regards to the general planning policies that
apply to development in this locality, the site lies beyond the northeastern
edge of the development envelope for Newport and is, therefore, within an area
considered to be open countryside. The
UDP obviously contains policies seeking to protect the countryside but there
are also a number of policies which indicate that development could be acceptable
in such a location subject to other criteria.
Members should also note that by its very nature this is not a
development which could be accommodated within any development area because of
the implications of its close proximity to residential properties. The issue for Members to address is
therefore where the balance should come down between protecting the countryside
and promoting a facility which would generally help the local economy.
The impact on the locality
Regarding the impact of the proposal on the
surrounding locality, this application has been the subject of detailed
discussions with the Chief Environmental Health Officer who has also attended a
meeting with the developers. Since the
application was first submitted the applicant has focused on the types of
monkey to be kept and identified ten species which are listed in the extracts
from the Business Plan attached as Appendix C. Of these, the loudest would be the Siamang
Gibbons. It has been suggested that
these will be kept in bachelor groups, thereby eliminating that part of their
'calling' in so far as it relates to attracting a mate. A different view has been expressed by the
objectors that bachelor groups will still call. It has only been at a late stage in the determination of this
application at a meeting on 10 January 2002 that information was presented with
regards to the noise levels. The
developers also offered to limit what are considered to be potentially the most
noisy animals to no more than two cages.
The ability to further control noise through the adoption of certain
measures during the construction of the cages offering solid walls in certain
elevations was also discussed.
The Chief Environmental Health Officer obtained a series of readings of the Siamang Gibbons at Marwell Zoo. Readings have also been taken at premises on Staplers Road approximately 800 and 1100 metres from the boundary of the proposed sanctuary. When these background noise levels were taken there was not considered to be any need to take into account the additional traffic levels flowing on Staplers Road due to diversion work. Based on the measurements taken at Marwell Zoo it has been calculated that the noise levels emanating from the site would be between 32 – 41 dBA. On the basis that the difference between the background level noise and the measured level (as calculated) would be less than 10 dBA, whilst the gibbons may be heard it is not considered that they would cause a disturbance sufficient to reject the proposal.
The property closest to the sanctuary is Sloe Cottage which is approximately 100 metres away. It is indicated at levels of between 50 – 56 dBA would be experienced at these premises which would appear to be readings in excess of 10 dBA above background level. Although the Environmental Health Officer has raised several methods of attenuating the noise which includes restricting the number of gibbons on site, preventing separate family groups from seeing each other and reviewing the construction of the cages I believe that these proposals would go against the principal aspects of the application. On that basis, it is not considered appropriate to impose conditions with the prospect that they could either not be complied with or they would render the development itself inoperable. Having discussed the matter with the Environmental Health Officer it has been confirmed that without such realistic attenuation measures there is a potential for noise nuisance to the occupants of Sloe Cottage. Such measures would go beyond those provisionally envisaged when the application was last considered.
The visual impact of the development on the wider
landscape
Concerning the potential visual impact of the
buildings on the wider landscape, although the application is in outline
information has been sought on this point.
It may have been considered by certain parties that the Local Planning
Authority's desire to seek further clarification on this particular point was
triggered by a concern with regards to matters of animal welfare, however, this
was not the case. Although in outline,
it was considered necessary to understand the full implications of the size of
the enclosures required. This would
ensure that the Local Planning Authority was considering the maximum height of
the cages now and would not be faced with requests at a later date, possibly
triggered by a desire to meet some other legislation, such as the Standards of
Modern Zoo Practice to increase the height of the cages.
Scheme as submitted shows seven new enclosures
consisting of two types, the type A facility being 24 metres by 16 metres with
a maximum height of 4 metres. Of this
footprint, 25% is occupied by heated internal quarters. The type B enclosure measures 12 metres by
12 metres with a maximum height of 3 metres of which approximately 20% of the
footprint is taken up by heated internal quarters. The proposal would involve other buildings and these are outlined
in the Details of Application section above.
The visit to Marwell confirmed that enclosures of these sizes appear
adequate and so the information submitted is reliable on which to make a visual
assessment
The site is presently bounded by high conifer trees
particularly on the northern, western and southern boundaries. The site has been assessed in terms of its
impact on the close and distant views.
Given the scale of the buildings proposed I believe that it will have
little impact on the wider landscape. I
acknowledge that the boundary to Staplers Road will need to be re-enforced,
particularly if the visibility splay as initially indicated by the Highway
Engineer is to be accommodated.
An objection has been raised on the degree of site
coverage by buildings quoting a figure of 2,600 square metre. Members have attached as Appendix A a plan showing the position of the
buildings within the site. My
assessment is that the site coverage by buildings is not so critical given the
site characteristics and the limited views into the site.
Vehicle access arrangements
Concerning the traffic management of the site the
scheme has been revised and now shows a lay by on Staplers Road sufficient to
accommodate two coaches. The intention
is for visitors from the coaches to then walk to the site on a footpath. Parking for at least 32 cars is provided for
within the site. The site itself will have an improved access to accommodate
car traffic with appropriate visibility splays out on to the main road. The Highway Engineer has been involved in
negotiations with the developer and has confirmed that he sees no highway
objection to the scheme but asks for conditions to be imposed.
One of the comments raised against the proposal has
indicated that demonstrations will be held against the proposal if it goes ahead. A potential for demonstrations to cause
traffic and road safety problems can be a consideration. However, I doubt that the level of activity
would be so great for it to qualify as a material planning consideration.
Waste disposal
Regarding the issue of waste disposal applicants have revised
the proposals for the method of disposal of the wash down from the cages in the
light of the Environment Agency’s concerns.
Instead of this being allowed to disperse into the surrounding ground
the wash down from the cages which includes the accommodation unit and the open
area will be directed towards the sealed cesspits that the applicant proposes
to install. Any solid waste will be
collected, stored in sealed containers and disposed of by a contractor at the
Island’s landfill site.
Following concerns raised regarding this method of disposal applicants have contacted a number of other facilities and these are outlined in the Details of Application section. There does appear to be an acceptance of disposal at landfill sites by other Zoos.
Regarding the disposal of the additional foul water generated by the staff and visitor facilities applicant has indicated that following the Environment Agency’s concerns this is also to be disposed of to the sealed cesspits with only the existing residential unit continuing to benefit from the septic tank which is presently on site.
The Environment agency has confirmed that such an
arrangement is acceptable and they raise no objection to the proposal with the
imposition of certain conditions.
Variation to agricultural occupancy condition
Turning to the question of the variation to the
Agricultural Occupancy condition Members will note that this was originally
imposed when the site operated as an egg producing enterprise. That unit ceased to function several years
ago and given the relatively small size of the holding, it is unlikely that an
alternative agricultural enterprise can be developed on this site all that
easily. It is not intended that the
Agricultural Occupancy condition be removed but that the precise wording should
be varied to encapsulate both agriculture, forestry or someone employed at this
sanctuary. Under this situation, should
the new enterprise cease to trade at some point in the future for whatever
reason then the dwelling could still revert back to its former use and serve an
agricultural operation on site or in the wider agricultural community.
Conclusion
This proposal has since first submission raised a
number of concerns within the local community on a range of issues. Some of the concerns raised questions
against the development on the ethical grounds of keeping animals in cages
whilst other objections have centred around the need for such a facility, the
professionalism of the developers and their financial capabilities to fund the
scheme. Concerns have also been raised
with regards to the ability of local services such as the veterinary practice
to deal with problems relating to the animals which are being kept. Such matters are not considered to be
material insofar as the determination of this planning application is concerned
and within the Evaluation section I have focused on what I believe to be the
core planning issue.
The deferment of the application from the 18 February 2002 Development Control Committee meeting allowed a time for additional information to be obtained from a number of outstanding consultees. Although the Highway Engineer and Environment Agency are content with the proposal and seek the imposition of conditions if the scheme is supported, the Chief Environmental Health Officer has utilized the time by taking noise level recordings of the loudest animal to be kept on the proposed site. Having assessed these levels against the background readings taken at Staplers Road the CEPO has indicated that without a series of attenuation measures a potential for noise nuisance to the occupants of the nearest residential property exists. Such attenuation measures suggested would appear to impact on a number of basic principles behind the development. Whilst I acknowledge the degree of effort and attention to detail which the applicants have made in supporting their application I believe that it is more appropriate for the application to be refused than for the Authority to seek to impose conditions which would clearly threaten the fundamental nature of the proposal.
Reason for Recommendation
In conclusion, having given due regard and appropriate
weight to all material considerations referred to above, I believe that in the
light of the additional comments from the consultees the application cannot be
supported and I therefore recommend refusal.
On the basis that the applicant is occupying the property on site which
is covered by an agricultural occupancy condition I believe a second
recommendation is necessary to investigate his compliance with that condition
and to take appropriate action if necessary.
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
In the opinion of
the Local Planning Authority the proposal would if permitted result in a
potential for noise nuisance to occur to the occupants of Sloe Cottage and
thereby affecting the amenities of that property would be contrary to policy
G10 (Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding
Uses) and policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
2. Recommendation - That the applicant be asked to clarify his position with regards to compliance with the agricultural occupancy condition at the property at Five Acres Farm. That authorisation be given for the service of an Enforcement Notice if the occupancy condition is found to be in breach with a time period for compliance of 12-months.
M J A FISHER
Strategic Director
Corporate and Environment Services