Loading document...
171 / Cronk Mooar Beaumont Road Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 2HW 172 / Lilac Cottage Smeale Road Andreas Isle Of Man IM7 4JA 174 / 1 Saint Anthony's Close Milnthorpe Cumbria LA7 7DT 175 / 27 Close Kennish Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 2HJ 178 / Mull House Bride Isle Of Man IM7 3EA 179 / Rossendale Glenview Terrace Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6HA
THE APPLICATION IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE BECAUSE:
1.1 The site forms part of the Glen Truan Golf Course (18 hole course). The Golf Course occupies 55 hectares out of some 60.7 hectares of land at Ballaskilley Farm. The site is located to the northern side of the Coast Road (A10) which runs from Bride Village to Jurby. The site is to the northwest of Bride Village and it is approximately 1 mile from the centre of Bride Village to the main group of buildings within the site.
1.2 The application site is south of the Ayres National Nature Reserve (NNR) and Central Ayres (ASSI). The boundary of these areas runs along the entire northern boundary of the golf course, while the Central Ayres also can be found to the north-east of the site. The application site is approximately 900m away from the north boundary shared with the NNR and the closest section of the ASSI (which runs to the north East of site) is approximately 580m away. To the east of the application site, approximately 500/600m away, is the Lough Cranstal Reserve.
1.3 The application site (outlined in red on the submitted plans) is approximately 5.6 hectares and is located in the southernmost section of the overall golf course, and at its closest is approximately 350 metres from the Coast Road (A10).
1.4 The application site in terms of uses and character can be split into three areas: firstly the entrance to site and access lane; secondly the existing complex of farm buildings of Ballaskilley Farm and associated golf course buildings; and thirdly part of the existing golf course.
1.5 In terms of the first area mentioned above (entrance and access lane), this includes the existing vehicular entrance to the site which is located to the northern side of the Coast Road and a private access lane which runs in a north/north-westerly direction for approximately 0.3 miles until it reaches the second area (the existing complex of buildings) and associated golf course buildings). The entrance to the site comprises a low stone wall with entrance pillars with a stone sign attached to the wall which advertises "Glen Truan Golf Links". The access lane is dark grey coloured hard-core. It has a continuous grass bank along the eastern side of the lane, while the western side of the lane is made up of a mixture of landscaping and a timber fence line which demarks the access lane with the adjacent field (110379). This access lane provides access to both the main farmhouse and the golf course/car park.
1.6 The second area (the existing complex of buildings), is located within the centre of the application site, albeit is the southern end of the overall Glen Truan Golf Course. This section
is characterised with mature trees and landscaping between the buildings noted previously. From the Coast Road, the main farmhouse, which is painted white, is the most noticeable building on the site, and appears nestled within the surrounding wooded area. This area/complex of buildings includes:
1.7 The third area (part of the existing golf course) makes up the largest part of the application site (i.e. north of existing club house/majority of buildings) is characterised as a fairly open area, broken up in parts with tree belts. Its ground level gently slopes downwards (contour lines fall from 24.5 to 19 (Douglas Datum 02) over this area of site), and there are various lengths of mowed grass forming the courses with belts of landscaping (trees) in between the courses. Along the eastern and western boundaries of the site there are a variety of heights and types (gorse, hedgerows, trees etc) of mature landscaping and in parts grass banking as well.
1.8 Surrounding the application site are agricultural fields as well as some individual residential properties, which include the following (all distances are measured from neighbouring dwellinghouse to closest part of boundary of application site – excluding access lane):
2.1 The planning application seeks approval for the erection of 55 Holiday Lodges together with site roads, conversion and extension of existing farm buildings for office/restaurant/bar/associated facilities, adjustments to golf course and works to entrance road, parking, installation of foul waste treatment system and associated landscaping works.
2.2.1 The submission proposes to retain both the existing entrance and the access lane, but alter the latter to include three inter-visible passing places and repairing/resurfacing the lane to match the existing.
2.3.1 There are a number of proposals relating to the existing complex of buildings. The conversion and extension of the existing two storey Manx stone barn which is located to the
north of the existing farmhouse is proposed. The existing barn building would accommodate toilets, offices, staff room, bar servery and kitchen. The new extension to the northern elevation of the barn would accommodate a restaurant at ground floor and a bar with an outside terrace at first floor. The proposed extension would have an almost square footprint, having a depth of 12m, a width of 15.7m and a maximum ridge height of 7m. The extension would be finished in a mixture of natural stone and render finish with a natural slate covering.
2.3.2 The existing car park to the east of the existing farmhouse would be repair/resurfaced to layout in a more formal manner with marked out parking spaces and operate a one way system within the car park;
2.3.3 The existing single storey red brick barn to the west of the farmhouse, is to be converted and would accommodate male and female changing and toilet facilities, disabled toilets/shower room and a Pro Shop.
2.3.4 The existing single storey Manx stone building which currently, does not have a roof, is to be converted into an office. This building is located to the east of the farmhouse and is located adjacent to the car park.
2.3.5 There are no changes proposed to the existing golf buggy store, telecom mast; circular water retention tank; or the modern machinery barn.
2.3.6 It should be noted no alterations are proposed to the main farmhouse, which the current occupants (former owners of the site) will still occupy as a single dwelling, independent from the golf course.
2.4.1 The third area is arguably where the most change is proposed. Holes 1 and 18 currently occupy the area in question, but these are proposed to be shortened to become Par 3's, which in turn enables the area to accommodate the proposed 55 Holiday Lodges together with site roads and individual parking spaces (finished with gravel) for each lodge, without affecting the golf course layout significantly.
2.4.2 There are four types of lodges proposed, three being 2 bedroom units and the other a 3 bedroom unit. All would have an open plan lounge, dining and kitchen area, utility room, bathroom and ensuite. Each would also have an external decking area which would be accessed via the lounge/dining area through patio/sliding doors.
2.4.3 The lodges would be similar in size, having a width of between 6 & 6.6m, a depth of between 12 and 12.8m and a roof ridge of 5.5m. The lodges would be finished with a mixture of composite cladding panels, Cedrak cladding and Canexel Ridgewood 'dutch lap' cladding. Windows and doors would be finishes in a mixture of uPVC and aluminium frames.
2.4.4 Each lodge would sit on top of approximate sixteen 600mm x 600mm concert bases, with the top 150mm being above ground level. Each unit would be constructed off site, being made up of a number of prefabricated units, which are then transported to the site and connected together and placed on the concrete bases to form one whole unit.
2.4.5 It is proposed lodges 1 to 10 would be connected to one of two new sewage treatment plants proposed within the site. Lodges 11 to 55 would be connected to the second new sewerage unit.
2.4.6 New footpaths and hawthorn hedgerows are proposed through the site and a number of the existing trees currently part of Holes 1 and 18 are proposed to be retained, as is the eastern and western landscaped boundaries.
3.1 The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the determination of this application:
3.2 The key implication of the above in relation to the consideration of the current application are that the site has been established as a golf course since the mid 1990's and has continued to operate as such since that time. Further, it is noted that a number of planning approvals have been granted for additional building/structures, associated with that golf course use, that arguably would not have gained approval if the golf course was not in existence.
3.3 These are important points as the sites designation under the IOM Development Plan Order 1982 still remains as land not designated for development (see Section 4). At the time of the Order being produced the site was used for agricultural purposes and therefore this use would have fallen in line with the current land use designation when the Order was being prepared. However, as explained above, the use of the site essentially changed to a golf course when planning approval was granted and the approval was implemented.
4.1.1 Section 10(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act states:
"In dealing with an application for planning approval... the Department shall have regard to –
4.1.2 In light of the above, it is considered that the key documents are:
4.1.3 All the documents are available on the government website, other than the Non-Serviced Accommodation Study (2017) which is available upon request from DfE.
4.2.1 The site is not within an area covered by a Local Plan or Area Plan, and so the provisions of the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982 apply. The site is shown as within an area not designated for development and within an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance on the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982.
4.2.2 The application site is not within a Conservation Area nor within an area designated as Natural Conservation Zones, Nature Reserves & Sites of Ecological Importance for Conservation. However, the northern parts of the golf course (edged in blue on the submitted plans) are within such areas, albeit no works are proposed in these areas and they fall outside the application site.
4.2.3 Please note when the application was approved for a golf course, the IOM Development Plan Order 1982 was also considered at that time (see paragraph 3.3)
4.3.1 In light of the above, it is considered the policies from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (adopted 2016) set out below are relevant in the determination of this application.
4.3.2 The Strategic Plan takes its lead from the Government aims which include the pursuit of manageable and sustainable growth based on a diversified economy which is intended to raise the standard of living of the people of the Island and to provide the resources to sustain and develop public services. It also includes the protection and improvement of the quality of the environment such that it continues to be an asset for future generations.
4.3.3 The Strategic Aim is: "To plan for the efficient and effective provision of services and infrastructure and to direct and control development and the use of land to meet the community's needs, having particular regard to the principles of sustainability whilst at the same time preserving, protecting, and improving the quality of the environment, having particular regard to our uniquely Manx natural, wildlife, cultural and built heritage."
4.3.4 The Strategic Aim is noted but not considered directly further, as the relevant aspects are unpacked by the relevant detailed policies which are identified below.
4.3.5 Strategic Policy 1 states: "Development should make the best use of resources by: (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and reusing scarce indigenous building materials;
4.3.6 The Strategic Plan definition of Previously-developed land (Appendix 1) 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: • Land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings. • 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. • 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. • 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)".
4.3.7 Strategic Policy 2 states: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions (2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3."
4.3.8 Strategic Policy 4 states: "Proposals for development must:
4.3.9 Strategic Policy 8 states: "Tourist development proposals will generally be permitted where they make use of existing built fabric of interest and quality, where they do not affect adversely environmental, agricultural, or highway interests and where they enable enjoyment of our natural and man-made attractions."
4.3.10 Strategic Policy 10 states: "New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to:
4.3.11 The Strategic Plan sets out a Spatial Strategy which includes a hierarchy of named settlements. The application site is not within a named settlement and therefore Spatial Policy 5 is relevant, which states, "New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3".
4.3.12 General Policy 2 relates to "Development which is in accordance with the land use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan" and indicates that such proposals will be supported subject to compliance with a detailed list of issues. Proposals outside of allocated areas are assessed against General Policy 2 (see below). However, because the majority of the detailed considerations set out in General Policy 3 could be seen as 'standard' planning considerations, it can be helpful to consider whether a proposal
complies with the detail of General Policy 2, even where it is not on land zoned for development. On that basis the following extracts from General Policy 2 are considered potentially relevant:
“(b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
4.3.13 General Policy 3 states: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
4.3.14 Environment Policy 1 states: "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."
4.3.15 Environment Policy 2 states: "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:
4.3.16 Environment Policy 3 states: "Development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi-natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value".
4.3.17 Environment Policy 4 states: "Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect:
Some areas to which this policy applies are identified as Areas of Ecological Importance or Interest on extant Local or Area Plans, but others, whose importance was not evident at the time of the adoption of the relevant Local or Area Plan, are not, particularly where that plan has been in place for many years. In these circumstances, the Department will seek site specific advice from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry if development proposals are brought forward."
4.3.18 Environment Policy 5 states: "In exceptional circumstances where development is allowed which could adversely affect a site recognised under Environmental Policy 4, conditions will be imposed and/or Planning Agreements sought to:
4.3.19 Environment Policy 7 states: "Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which could not be overcome by mitigation measures will not be permitted. Where development is proposed which would affect a watercourse, planning applications must comply with the following criteria:
4.3.20 Environment Policy 10 states: "Where development is proposed on any site where in the opinion of the Department of Local Government and the Environment there is a potential risk of flooding, a flood risk assessment and details of proposed mitigation measures must accompany any application for planning permission...".
4.3.21 Environment Policy 13 states: "Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted".
4.3.22 Environment Policy 16 states: "The use of existing rural buildings for new purposes such as tourist, or small-scale industrial/commercial use may be permitted where: a) it is demonstrated that the building is no longer required for its original purpose and where the building is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation; b) the reuse of the building will result in the preservation of fabric which is of historic, architectural, or social interest or is otherwise of visual attraction; c) it is demonstrated that the building could accommodate the new use without requiring extension or adverse change to appearance or character; d) there would not be unacceptable implications in terms of traffic generation; e) conversion does not lead to dispersal of activity on such a scale as to prejudice the vitality and viability of existing town and village services; and f) the use of existing buildings involves significant levels of redevelopment to accommodate the new use, the benefits secured by the proposal in terms of impact on the environment and the rural economy shall outweigh the continued impact of retaining the existing buildings on site.
Proposals to convert rural buildings to residential accommodation will be considered along with the advice given at Section 8.10 of this document."
4.3.23 Environment Policy 22 states: "Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of: i) pollution of sea, surface water or groundwater; ii) emissions of airborne pollutants; and iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution."
4.3.24 Environment Policy 24 states: "Development which is likely to have a significant effect on the environment will be required: i) to be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment in certain cases; and ii) to be accompanied by suitable supporting environmental information in all other cases."
4.3.25 Paragraph 7.18.1 states: "Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is an important procedure for ensuring that the likely effects of new development on the environment are fully understood and taken into account before the development is allowed to go ahead. It is a process by which information about the likely environmental effects of certain types of development is collected, assessed and taken into account by the developer (as part of project design) and by the planning authority (in determining the acceptability of the application). In cases where developments are likely to have significant environmental effects, whether public or private, by virtue of their nature, size or location, EIA's will be required and the general principles set out in Appendix 5 should be followed."
4.3.26 Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan states that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) will be required in all cases where the proposed development comprises a "permanent camp site and caravan site".
4.3.27 Environment Policy 40 states: "Development will not be permitted which would damage, disturb or detract from an important archaeological site or an Ancient Monument or the setting thereof".
4.3.28 Environment Policy 41 states: "The Department will require that archaeological evaluations be submitted prior to the determination of proposals affecting sites of known or potential archaeological significance..."
4.3.29 Business Policy 1 states: "The growth of employment opportunities throughout the Island will be encouraged provided that development proposals accord with the policies of this Plan."
4.3.30 Paragraph 9.5.3 states: "It is considered that the Island's primary assets to tourists and visitors alike are its unique historical landscape, culture and heritage, as well as a wide range of specialist events and attractions. Many activities and facilities providing for the Island's tourists require no permanent development: the TT Races, for example which attract by far the most significant number of tourists to the Island of any event held here, require little but the Grandstand on Glencrutchery Road and a small number of modest marshals' shelters around the Course. Tourism can, however require the erection of built structures – holiday accommodation being the most frequently requested form of new development required in association with the tourism industry. It is important that a balance be struck between the needs of tourism and the protection of these assets, and that tourism development should be sustainable in accordance with the objectives of this plan. There is no special reason why less demanding policies should be applied to tourism development than for other types of development in the countryside, and larger scale schemes may have to be the subject of an environmental impact assessment before planning permission is granted, as with any other form of large scale development."
4.3.31 Business Policy 11 states: "Tourism development must be in accordance with the sustainable development objectives of this plan; policies and designations which seek to protect the countryside from development will be applied to tourist development with as much weight as they are to other types of development. Within the rural areas there may be situations where existing rural buildings could be used for tourist use and Environment Policy 16 sets out the circumstances where this may be permitted."
4.3.32 Business Policy 12 relates to the conversion of redundant buildings in the countryside to tourist use and links these to Housing Policy 11. As the proposal includes the conversion of an existing building to an ancillary use (i.e. it will not provide accommodation) it is not considered that Business Policy 12 is relevant.
4.3.33 Business Policy 14 states: "Tourism development may be permitted in rural areas provided that it complies with the policies in the Plan. Farmhouse accommodation or quality self catering units in barn conversions and making use of rural activities will be encouraged but must comply with General Policy 3 and Business Policies 11 and 12. Other forms of quality accommodation in rural areas will be considered, including the provision of hostels and similar accommodation suitable for walkers but must comply with General Policy 3 and Business Policies 11 and 12."
4.3.34 Recreation Policy 2 states: "Development which would adversely affect, or result in the loss of Open Space or a recreation facility that is or has the potential to be, of recreational or amenity value to the community will not be permitted except in the following circumstances: (a) where alternative provision of equivalent community benefit and of equivalent or better accessibility is made available; and (b) where there would be an overall community gain from the development, and the particular loss of the open space or recreation facility would have no significant unacceptable effect on local open space or recreation provision or on the character or amenity of the area".
4.3.36 Appendix 6 states at paragraph A.6.3, "The following areas are excluded from the definition of playing space, however, they may still make a valuable contribution to the total recreational provision of communities, particularly those that are deficient in recreational space ... Golf courses ...".
4.3.37 Recreation Policy 3 states, "Where appropriate, new development should include the provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design...".
4.3.38 Community Policy 10 states, "Proposals for the layout and development of land will be permitted only where there is provided proper access for fire-fighting vehicles and adequate supplies of water for fire-fighting purposes".
4.3.39 Community Policy 11 states, "The design and use of all new buildings and of extensions to existing buildings must, as far as is reasonable and practicable, pay due regard to best practice such as to prevent the outbreak and spread of fire".
4.3.40 Transport Policy 1 states, "New development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes".
4.3.41 Transport Policy 4 states, "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan."
4.3.42 Transport Policy 6 states: "In the design of new development and transport facilities the needs of pedestrians will be given similar weight to the needs of other road users."
4.3.43 Transport Policy 7 states: "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."
4.3.44 Transport Policy 8 states: "The Department will require all applications for major development to be accompanied by a Transport Assessment."
4.3.45 Infrastructure Policy 1 states: "With the exception of individual plots or very small-scale schemes (equivalent in scale to an individual plot), development shall only take place in areas which will ultimately be connected to the IRIS system".
4.3.46 Infrastructure Policy 5 states: "Development proposals should incorporate methods for water conservation and management measures to conserve the Island's water resources".
4.4.1 The weight to be attached to that document would obviously be greater if the review promised in paragraph 26 of the "Initial Summary of Responses" had been carried out, and also if a final PPS had been laid before Tynwald and published in accordance with Section 3(3) of The Act. It is also considered that the weight to be attached to the draft PPS would be greater if paragraph 14 of that document recognised the primacy of the development plan (as required by Section 3(4) of the Act), rather than suggesting a less onerous test than is contained in General Policy 3(g) of the Strategic Plan. Nevertheless, the general thrust of draft PPS remains a material consideration, which reinforces Business Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan.
4.4.2 With the above in mind, and also noting that the PPS is quite short and therefore in some ways the entire document has a relevance to the foregoing assessment, the extracts of the Draft PPS set out below are considered particularly relevant.
economic development to the most appropriate locations. The economy should not be constrained by a shortage of land for economic development uses."
4.5.1 Programme for Government 2016 – 2021 (approved in Tynwald) states the Government’s strategic objectives for the next five years and identifies the initial priorities. One of the three main objectives being “An Island of Enterprise and Opportunity”
4.5.2 There are a number of objectives within this document which could be considered relevant to this application, as set out below.
4.5.3 In terms of policies (under heading ‘Sustainable Island’) within this document, those set out below could be considered relevant.
4.6.1 The Plan sets out five objectives, which include “Creating an exceptional visitor experience” and “Championing new investment and product development”. The Plan indicates potential growth from UK families who are responsive to amongst other things, “self-catering, including camping at all price points”.
4.6.2 The Plan also identifies a number of key points in terms of the CURRENT situation:
4.6.3 In terms of "Where we want to be" the plan identifies the following;
4.6.4 The Plan includes a chapter of "How we get there" in terms of the targets listed above, these are:
4.6.5 Within the "Product Development", the plan identifies two "Primary Target New Growth Markets" these being:
"UK Families" – children ages 12 and under, short breaks 1 to 3 days, primary from North West, travel by car/ferry. These are responsive to beaches, self-catering including camping, holiday centres offering child focused facilities e.g. swimming pools, entertainment and general activity; safe and friendly.
"Short breaks" who on average stay 4 nights, aged 50+ couples; located in UK & near Europe, travel by car/ferry or budget airline, general holiday or special interest, higher spending than families and coach trips. These are responsive to range of type of accommodation, including high end resort spa/golf resorts, quality places to eat in serviced hotels and resultants throughout the destination, special retail, arts and crafts & café culture, and broad range of cultural events, heritage attractions, natural environment and gentler activities such as walking.
4.6.6 The plan has also broken down the "Primary Growth Target Markets" into a specific set of detailed visitor profiles to gain a better understand their needs and better target our promotion and marketing. These fours are:
4.6.7 Key actions in relation to improving visitor services include, "Conduct an Accommodation Strategy to identify and direct current and future development of serviced and non-serviced accommodation" and "Work with Department of Infrastructure to review and assess the need for the development of a deep water berth for cruise ships and commercial marinas and "Work the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (DEFA) identify and assess suitable sites for the development of family orientated holiday centres".
4.6.8 The IOM Destination Management Plan is an approved strategy of the Department of Enterprise, as such it is capable of being a material consideration.
4.7.1 The Study was prepared by "Hotel Solutions" which is a hotel development consultancy, on behalf of the Department of Enterprise (formerly DED) following the recommendation so the IOM Destination Management Plan 2016-2020. The below four points outline the purpose, coverage & use of the Study:
4.7.2 The Study identifies that the IOM is lagging behind UK rural and island designations in terms of provision of most types of non-serviced visitor accommodation and it is missing out on business that could be attracted with a wider, better quality, more contemporary non-serviced accommodation product.
4.7.3 The overall conclusion for the need of Non-Serviced Accommodation of the Study states the following:
"The market research undertaken for the DMP showed that there are significant potential markets that can be attracted to the Isle of Man from the UK and Ireland in terms of the family holiday and break market, empty nesters and retired people coming for short breaks, and people that can be attracted for walking, outdoor activities, star gazing, and bird and wildlife watching. All of these markets are interested in staying in non-serviced accommodation.
Our assessment of the Island's current non-serviced accommodation offer and how it compares to UK rural destinations and other UK islands is that the Isle of Man does not currently have a sufficiently developed non-serviced accommodation offer to attract these markets and compete effectively for them. It has very little weather-proofed non-serviced accommodation, very little family-friendly accommodation, and very little activity-focused accommodation. While the Island has a good stock of generally high quality self-catering accommodation, compared to other destinations, the Isle of Man has:
4.7.4 The study finds there is the potential for a number of different types of Non-Serviced Accommodation on the IOM these being; Holiday Cottages / Holiday Apartments, Holiday Lodges, Forest Holiday Centres, Holiday Resorts, Holiday Lodge Parks and Holiday Parks, Golf Lodges, Fishing Lodges, Glamping, Campsites, Eco Camping, Camping pods, A Camping Shelter Network, Touring Caravanning, Seasonal Tourers, Motorhome Stopovers, Campervan/Motorhome Hire, Hostel and Bunkhouses, Accommodation at Attractions & Walker, Cyclist and Motorcyclist Friendly Accommodation.
4.7.5 In terms of this application, the following type of accommodation as listed above have been included in full, being likely to be most relevant when determining the current application.
"Holiday Resorts, Holiday Lodge Parks and Holiday Parks
A small number (probably up to 3 in the next 10 years) of sizeable holiday resorts, holiday lodge parks or caravan holiday home holiday parks, with accommodation units for outright ownership (with sub-letting to generate a return on investment for owners), timeshare ownership, or rental and central leisure, entertainment and catering facilities. Larger scale accommodation developments of these types would essentially act as destinations in their own right that can operate over a longer season and attract business when the weather is not so good and other elements of the Island’s visitor infrastructure have closed for the winter. They would also have the buying power to secure more favourable deals on ferry and air travel costs for their customers, and would have the marketing budgets and profile to attract new business to the Island. They will need to have a critical mass of accommodation units to make them work financially, at least 70-100 units, and possibly up to 150-200. There is interest from national operators, but they will go elsewhere if it is too difficult or costly to bring schemes forward on the Island. These are likely to be high risk investments that may need Government financial assistance to reduce investor risk. Planning is clearly also a key issue for developments of scale.”
“Golf Lodges Golf lodges on some of the Island’s golf courses, either for outright or timeshare ownership or rental.”
“Fishing Lodges Fishing lodges around some of the Island’s stocked reservoirs, along rivers that can be fished, and at popular sea fishing spots on the coast.”
4.7.6 The concluding comments of the Study state;
“• This is a time of great opportunity for the Isle of Man to grow its visitor economy. An increase in the supply of non-serviced accommodation is critical to achieving this. The Hotel Futures Study was primarily about renewing the Island’s hotel offer, rather than increasing hotel capacity. This study has shown that the opportunities for increasing the Island’s accommodation capacity, and growing staying visitor numbers, are much more about developing non-serviced accommodation.
• The analysis has shown that the Isle of Man has already fallen considerably behind other Island and rural UK destinations in terms of the supply of high quality, distinctive, contemporary non-serviced accommodation that will attract the Island’s target markets. Without intervention to accelerate investment in this sector that gap will widen, leaving the Isle of Man in an increasingly uncompetitive position as a destination, and undermining the potential for the visitor economy to play its part in the Island’s future growth strategy.
• The Isle of Man is in a strong position: the market opportunity is there, and there is developer, operator and investor interest in taking opportunities forward – including schemes that have the ability to be game-changers, and to really make a difference to the Island’s visitor economy and profile as a holiday and short break destination. The opportunities can only be realised however, if non-serviced accommodation development sites and viable schemes can be delivered, which a more flexible planning approach and Government financial assistance have a key role to play in achieving. The Government can, and we believe should, pick this up and run with it, leading the way with a positive, dynamic and enabling programme of pro-activity and support, and a ‘can do’ attitude that will ensure the non-serviced accommodation sector is given the freedom to flourish on the Island.”
4.7.8 The Study is a piece of evidence base rather than a strategy in its own right, but highlights areas of potential action/focus which could help to deliver the Destination Management Plan and has been accepted by DfE on that basis.
4.8.1 UNESCO Biosphere Isle of Man is all about keeping the Isle of Man a special place to live, work and visit. The Isle of Man is the first entire Island Nation in the world to receive this designation.
4.8.2 The UNESCO Biosphere Isle of Man project does not seek to prevent any specific actions, but to promote enjoying and celebrating the Isle of Man to the full, making it an even better place to be and promoting engagement.
4.8.3 The scope of the UNESCO Biosphere Isle of Man Pledge is deliberately broad and inclusive but the context of the Pledge principles are set out below.
4.8.4 The Biosphere Reserves are about achieving a good working balance between people and nature’ and the Accreditation reflects how the Isle of Man manages its environment, community and economy, acknowledging that all three components are necessary to achieve a sustainable situation.
4.8.5 The Biosphere related guidance, as summarised below, is not formal planning policy but the designation is capable of being a material consideration.
4.9.1 This was commissioned by the Department of Infrastructure in 2008 and has yet to be adopted other than those parts which apply to the area covered by the Area Plan for the South which was adopted and came into effect in 2013.
4.9.2 The Landscape Character Assessment describes the application site as being within an area of Undulating Lowland Plain where the landscape is characterised by:
4.9.3 It recommends that the overall strategy should be to conserve the matrix of deciduous woodland and enhance the relatively strong field pattern permeating the rest of the area and conserve the sparsely settled character of the area.
5.1.1 Bride Parish Commissioners made the following comments which can be summarised as (09.10.2017):
5.1.2 After the application was re-advertised, the Commissioners (20.01.2018), made the following summarised comments:
5.2.1 DOI Highways Services initially (29.09.2017) made the following comments:
"The application is supported by a Transport Statement which considers traffic generation and parking from the proposed development in addition to the Golf Course and proposed pub / restaurant uses.
Whilst there are some concerns over the sustainability of the site, the very nature of the development's appeal is its rural location.
Nevertheless, the statement identifies cycle track number 5 to the north of the Island and existing bus services albeit only 5-6 per day Monday to Saturday...these are worthwhile considerations that will promote some element of active travel to Ramsey and Point of Ayre.
In terms of the vehicular access, there are no details in the statement in relation to sightlines / visibility or any details of speed along the A10. This will form part of my site visit week commencing 2nd October given there is a material increase in traffic using the junction in comparison with the existing situation.
The internal access roads vary in width with passing places on the west access with a wider road serving the majority of lodges prior to the loop. It is recommended this layout be re-considered. It is important that the access roads work on a principle of a shared surface arrangement whereby pedestrians / cyclists and vehicles have equal
share. Design of the access roads MUST deter high vehicle speeds. A preference for narrower access roads with passing places will help to deter high speeds creating a sense of place where there is a likelihood of children playing and riding bikes...this requires more detailed discussion with the applicant.
Service vehicle access should also be included in this conversation as there is a clear need to cater for refuse collection / changeover / maintenance of each lodge.
In terms of parking, there appears to be adequate provision for the Golf Course and Pub / Restaurant.
With regard to the Lodges, the applicant is providing two spaces...this is acceptable. It is also recommended each lodge provides a "Sheffield" style cycle rack to accommodate a family of bikes that can be securely padlocked and left outside / overnight...this complements the sustainability of the site in terms of using bikes during the visitors stay.
Notwithstanding the above, the proposals are considered acceptable in principle, however it is recommended the agent contact Highways to discuss the proposals in more detail prior to final comments."
5.2.2 After discussions with the applicants and additional information be provided DOI Highway Services made the following comments (27.03.2018):
This response is the result of additional information provided by the applicant and subsequent discussions with particular reference to the availability of visibility at the access with the A10.
Whilst there are some concerns over the sustainability of the site, the very nature of the development's appeal is its rural location.
Nevertheless, the transport statement identifies cycle track number 5 to the north of the Island and existing bus services albeit only 5-6 per day Monday to Saturday...these are worthwhile considerations that will promote some element of active travel to Ramsey and Point of Ayre.
The application site is accessed from the A10 via an existing access road that serves Glen Truan Golf Club. The access road is approximately 3.5m wide and will be upgraded and provided with passing places along its length; there are no details of the passing places other than indicative locations. It is important that vehicles using passing places on a single track road are clearly visible to each other and that the passing places are of sufficient design to accommodate service vehicles as well as cars.
The access road is to be shared by vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians therefore the passing places should be located sufficiently close to each other that car drivers are not tempted to overtake cyclists on the single track section of the road. Verges should be provided to enable pedestrians to step off the road when faced with passing traffic.
The access road should be widened at its junction with the A10 to permit a vehicle to enter the site when another vehicle is waiting to exit.
The applicant has provided the results of a traffic survey carried out in February 2018 indicating a daily flow of between 300 and 451 vehicles; the maximum was on a Saturday. The busiest period was 12-1pm on Wednesday with a total of 55 vehicles using the road. There is sufficient capacity on the A10 to accommodate the estimated 22 vehicle movements per day that will result from the proposal.
There is limited research on the capacity of single track roads however there is a general consensus that single track roads with passing places have a capacity of between 100 and 300 vehicles per hour. If we assume that all the vehicles using the A10 also use the access road to the Golf Club then there is still sufficient capacity for the expected traffic from the proposal.
The applicant provided the results of a traffic survey carried out in February 2018 indicating 85%ile speeds of 42mph westbound and 43.4mph eastbound. Visibility splays are determined by the speed of approaching traffic and the applicant has calculated that visibility of 116m is required to the east and 120m to the west. Where it does not adversely impact road safety it is possible to reduce the required visibility to 'one step below the desirable minimum' in this case that would be 90m. This would acceptable as the access has been operating for many years with no recorded accidents.
Visibility to the east is acceptable; however the access has substandard visibility to the west, below even the reduced standard of 90m, due to the topography of the road and the height of an embankment on the opposite side of the road.
The applicant has suggested that visibility to the west could be improved by either, reducing the embankment, re-aligning the road or re-locating the access. None of these proposals are included in the application and all involve land outside of the redline boundary. Without more detail it is not possible to assess the impact of each option and its suitability.
Visibility of the access for oncoming traffic and visibility of oncoming traffic by vehicles waiting to exit the access road are important to ensure that vehicle drivers have sufficient time to make decisions regarding accessing or exiting the access road. Substandard visibility is likely to lead to drivers having insufficient time to make these decisions and may contribute to an increase in accidents.
Currently the access and the A10 are used by drivers who are familiar with the area; the introduction of visitor accommodation will increase the number of drivers who are unfamiliar with the location and will be less confident about negotiating the access again increasing the risk.
The junction appears to operate well at the moment however the proposal will be introducing additional vehicle movements and increasing the number of cyclist and pedestrians using the access road introducing additional risks.
The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 General Policy 2 requires that development should provide safe and convenient access for all road users and should not have an adverse impact on the safety of the surrounding road network. Adequate visibility is one of the tools that we use to ensure that these requirements are met.
The internal access roads vary in width with passing places on the west access with a wider road serving the majority of lodges prior to the loop. It is recommended this layout be re-considered. It is important that the access roads work on a principle of a
shared surface arrangement whereby pedestrians / cyclists and vehicles have equal share. Design of the access roads MUST deter high vehicle speeds. A preference for narrower access roads with passing places will help to deter high speeds creating a sense of place where there is a likelihood of children playing and riding bikes.
Service vehicle access should also be included as there is a clear need to cater for refuse collection / changeover / maintenance of each lodge.
As there is no detailed design of the access road or junction included within the application Highway Services cannot recommend approval for this application unless certain conditions are applied.
The conditions should require that the applicant submit a design for the access road including the location of passing places, the width of the access and the visibility splays to be approved by the Department and that any works required to bring the access and access road up to standard are to be carried out prior to the commencement of development.
These conditions are required to ensure that the development is provided with safe and convenient access for all road users and does not have an adverse impact on the safety of the surrounding road network as required by General Policy 2.
If it is not possible to add appropriate conditions to an approval then Highway Services recommends refusal of the application on the grounds that a safe and convenient access has not been provided as required by general policy 2 and strategic policy 10 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan."
5.2.3 Following amended plans being submitted in relation to the concerns raised Highway Services, including a proposal for a new access to serve the site, they have now provided the following comments (15.05.2018):
As there is no detailed design of the access road or junction included within the application Highway Services cannot recommend approval for this application unless certain conditions are applied.
The conditions should require that the applicant submit a design for the access road including the location of passing places, the width of the access and the visibility splays to be approved by the Department and that any works required to bring the access and access road up to standard are to be carried out prior to the commencement of development.
These conditions are required to ensure that the development is provided with safe and convenient access for all road users and does not have an adverse impact on the safety of the surrounding road network as required by General Policy 2.
If it is not possible to add appropriate conditions to an approval then Highway Services recommends refusal of the application on the grounds that a safe and convenient access has not been provided as required by general policy 2 and strategic policy 10 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
¹ There is no industry standard for the capacity of an existing rural local road therefore the capacity for UAP4 as stated in TA 79/99 has been used. This is the lowest road capacity available and provides the most robust test in this case."
5.3.1 Manx Nation Heritage (06.10.2017) makes the following summarised comments:
Visual impact - MNH owns land lying 180m of the present golf course (though 920m from the application site; given topography it is our view that the proposed development may have a substantial visual impact unless carefully softened by landscaping, building materials and finishes and lighting design; the potential visual intrusion caused by the glass and paintwork of parked cars should be obviated by effective screening if these are of significant numbers; and effective protection for the Dark Skies about 2.5km away to the west;
5.3.2 After the application was re-advertised (EIA submitted), Manx National Heritage (16.03.2018), made the following summarised comments:
combination of longstanding familiarity with the general area of the Ayres, previous opportunities for fieldwork, aerial photography, and existing records of archaeological discoveries and sites.
"Based on the current level of knowledge of archaeological remains in the immediate area surrounding the development site, it would be unreasonable to oppose the development on archaeological grounds, and whilst these data do not totally preclude the presence of archaeological remains on the development site, it is considered unlikely that any would be met with of sufficient significance to merit preservation in situ and preclude completion of the development. A watching and recording brief during the construction of the lodges and the excavation of services and utilities trenching may be sufficient, but the developer would be well-advised to reduce risk by undertaking an archaeological evaluation as part of an EIA process."
"4.23 Manx National Heritage (MNH) have confirmed through consultation [see Appendix 4.1] that an archaeological assessment is not a requirement, and conclude that it would be "unreasonable to oppose the development on archaeological grounds" in the absence of crop marks which might indicate the presence of archaeological remains.
4.24 On this basis the need for archaeological assessment has been scoped out. However, in line with the consultation with the consultation recommendations the developer is happy to undertake a watching brief during the construction process."
receive a licence under the terms of the Act, hence our advice to the Department referred to in the paragraph above.
5.4.1 Environmental Protection Unit (DEFA) comments that they haven't received a discharge licence or been consulted by planning on the development so currently have no information on this matter (26.09.2017).
5.4.2 Environmental Protection Unit made the following summarised comments (06.03.2018); Environmental Protection Unit have concerns regarding the discharge of effluent from the proposed sewage treatment works at Glen Truan Golf Links to the watercourse on the north eastern boundary of the site; Officers visited on the 11th October 2017 and the watercourse appears to be seasonal and does not discharge to sea.; The seasonal ditch terminates within the Ayres nature reserve and appears to disperse into the dense vegetation; The applicant will therefore need to consider different means of discharge for the effluent from: Private sewage treatment works with soak-away to land or discharge to sea; or Connecting into the mains sewer system. For each option the applicant will need to consult the relevant parties within DEFA including Biodiversity and/or Manx Utilities; The soak-away will need to be designed accordingly for the population equivalent and a percolation test will need to be carried out to ensure that the land is capable of receiving the high volumes of effluent; and Manx Utilities are able to assist with investigating the potential to connect into any existing sewage system in the area.
5.4.3 Environmental Protection Unit made the following comments following amended/additional information (15.05.2018):
"Further to the additional information supplied regarding PA 17/00956/B the Environmental Protection Unit will assess the discharge method when the detailed design has been provided.
With reference to the 'Amended Info' letter dated 03/04/2018 it mentions that the foul water will be discharged to a drainage field which is 300m away from the watercourse and lake. This will be a preferred option for the treated sewage effluent however appropriate percolation tests will need to be completed. If the percolation tests show that the land is not acceptable for the effluent then my existing comments stand regarding the discharge to controlled waters, see below.
Upon receipt of a discharge license application the Environmental Protection Unit will assess the water quality of the receiving lakes to determine its current water quality classification when a discharge license application is received. Assessment will have to be made of the effect on water quality due to the proposed discharge and a licence is only likely to be issued if this does not result in a deterioration of water quality classification. Due to concerns that the discharge may have an appreciable effect on the lake any application for a discharge licence will require to be advertised in a local newspaper for 6 weeks and any representation or objections taken into consideration.
The limiting factor with a lake is that there is no dilution flow so I would recommend you consider alternatives of discharge to sewage treatment works at Bride or sea outfall in case a discharge licence cannot be granted.
The use of a partial soak-away will reduce the quantity of effluent reaching the lakes during the summer and during the winter there will be a higher dilution factor as the
water table rises. Water samples will need to be taken to determine the water quality of the lakes, percolation tests completed on the land and assessment of resulting water quality due to proposed discharge."
5.5.1 Inland Fisheries Development Manager (DEFA) makes the following summarised comments (21.09.2017); proposal includes installation of a foul water treatment system, which would discharge to a watercourse shown extending beyond the development boundary, it is not clear which water course might be affected; and is there any more information in this respect so a initial assessment can be made on potential impact on nearby fish populations for the prosed development.
5.5.2 After discussions with the applicants the Inland Fisheries Development Manager made the following summarised comments (29.09.2017): The stream proposed to receive the treated effluent does not directly connect to the sea but appears to terminate within the Ayres nature reserve and to disperse into dense vegetation on land; The Fisheries status of the stream is not certain, Inland Fisheries will consider this further if a discharge licence is applied for.
5.6.1 Senior Biodiversity Officer (DEFA) makes the following initial comments (10.10.2017)
"The assessment of this site by the applicant appears to have been based on only the footprint of the development, assuming that as there is public access to the NNR the additional footfall will not be an issue, and on the basis that the watercourse can take sewerage effluent out to sea. There might, however, be effects on the NNR via increased levels of disturbance either directly from the site or via increased visitor levels, and possibly also via the effluent. NNR hardening requirements may also need to change as a result of such changing visitor use, putting pressure on government resources.
Under the Strategic Plan Section 7.18 and Appendix 5, A5.2(j), an EIA is expected for all of the following, which would appear to encompass this proposal:
A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal has been undertaken, but not an EIA.
The Central Ayres Area of Special Scientific Interest is only ~475m away to the north-east and the Ayres National Nature Reserve ~760m to the north.
Disturbance – there is a risk of increased disturbance on the reserve which has not been evaluated or discussed in the PEA. The NNR is there to allow the quiet enjoyment of nature and education about wildlife, whilst also protecting a number of very rare species and habitats. A new influx of activity in a specific area is likely to have an effect which has not assessed, but which the DEFA and MNH are likely to have to manage. It is known that the level of disturbance affects the nesting of birds on the NNR, as shown when the site was closed for foot and mouth risks.
Birds – the PEA states that no specially protected birds utilise the site, but there is no evidence of the bird data obtained. The island has good data for birds across the island, obtainable from Manx BirdLife. I recommend consideration of not only the footprint of
the development but the wider area that might be affected, either by noise/light, or by regular movements of people originating from the development site.
Bats – a bat survey report has been provided. A single roosting bat was identified and it is thought that a larger roost used the site previously, but no longer. To mitigate for effects on the current roost, this is fairly minor, but can be easily accounted for via suitable external roost space provision within the barn walls formed using bat bricks or gaps between stones. As a voluntary measure, a larger roost box could also be incorporated, either within the walls, if rebuilding an area or building a new wall, or externally, attached to a building, post or tree, taking account of the previous use of the site and therefore the evidenced potential to hold such a roost. Woodcrete boxes are recommended for such use. Any area designed for bats to roost, must not be lit.
Trees have not been surveyed for risk to bats. The one in the photos that appears to have bat potential is T1, though it is not possible to see from the photographs whether there are any cavities. If there are, then these should be checked for use by bats, which may affect the results of the survey for effects on bats.
Re. the External Lighting Policy statement, there is technically a bat roost there, despite what they state (see bat report), but only one bat was recorded roosting during the survey, so there was no maternity roost at the time of the survey. Other bats were found to be foraging in the area around the barn. The other general statements about bats and lighting are correct. It is noted that the Ayres is a designated dark skies site and the policy statement includes reasonable statements, but no actual design/lighting levels are stated and I ask what controls there will be, noting that many of the lodges are intended for sale on a leasehold basis.
Semi-improved neutral grassland – this is stated as B2.2, so it has been categorised as rich semi-improved neutral grassland, which is relatively rare on the IoM (634ha total on the IoM in the early 1990s, 1.12% of IoM, though that area was then categorised as poor semi-improved grassland). It is possible that the grassland has become more diverse over the 25 years between surveys (note there is only 11ha of truly unimproved neutral grassland categorised in the IoM survey). They may of course be able to retain much of it, if they do not intend returfing or large scale tree planting.
Sewerage and rainwater – the plan shows an arrow running north off the plan stating 'to watercourse'. Outfalls to the Cranstal Drain are unlikely to be acceptable as this ends in the dunes on the National Nature Reserve and this already causes nutrient enrichment in a low nutrient environment and floods damage the interest of the ASSI. A drain field would probably be acceptable, if the land can take it, but detrimental effects on the lakes should be avoided. We recommend discussions with the Environment Directorate and the MUA at an early stage to determine whether an acceptable sewerage solution is possible. If rainwater or treated sewerage effluent were to enter the Cranstal Drain then there could be an effect on the NNR/ASSI and this should then be brought out in the assessment. Sending further flood water or nutrient enriched water onto the NNR would exacerbate the current problem.
'Fishing ponds' are mentioned. I am only aware of Sticklebacks at Glen Truan Golf Course, though it is possible that other fish are present. If there is an intention to offer fishing as part of the package then the applicant should be aware that a licence would be necessary to import or move fish and there is a DEFA coarse fish policy on this, which they must take into account.
In the Planning Statement, p11, they state:
It also bears noting that this development proposal will not utilise any valuable agricultural land nor land which has been set aside for environmental or other landscape amenity purposes.
Whilst this may be true in relation to the footprint of the proposal, I suggest that the proximity of the NNR is very important to this development as an offering of accommodation in a beautiful and wildlife rich area, and that it is therefore highly likely that a lot of the people using the accommodation will in fact utilise the adjacent land set aside for the protection and enjoyment of wildlife, namely the Ayres National Nature Reserve, though that area would not be 'developed'. There is therefore some potential for an effect and discussions should then cover the significance of that effect.
If an EIA were provided, all of these matters should be covered." 5.6.2 After the application was re-advertised (EIA submitted), the Senior Biodiversity Officer (02.02.2018), made the following comments: "I have now looked at the EIA and make the following comments in addition to my email of 10th October 2017.
I have spoken to the architect, Tony Lloyd Davies, and welcome the plans to reutilise the water and use soakaways close to the chalets. He has assured me that there will be no direct connection to any lake or to the Cranstal Drain. This allays my fears regarding increased flood and nutrient effects on the NNR via the Cranstal Drain and any consent resulting should be clear about the details.
The species-rich neutral grassland has been classified as of negligible value and thereby has dropped out of the assessment. I would value it higher than this and retain it in the consideration. There may be some loss of this somewhat diverse grassland. Might this be mitigated by the creation of 0.5ha of grassland managed for ground-nesting Schedule 1 birds, if this is sited on more improved grassland of little value? This new area may provide beneficial habitat at the course and further details will be needed to determine where this will be positioned and how it will be managed to best effect. It would also be beneficial to retain those relatively diverse grassland areas where possible via a protocol that strips only the minimum area necessary, retaining such grassland around any finished development, or, if necessary, returning it afterwards by a respreading procedure rather than new seeding. I think the loss of any significant area of this habitat should be noted and given greater account, though.
The restriction on the presence of cats is welcome as this is an issue on the NNR and a settlement such as this, albeit for holidays, is a worry, so close to a site with key colonies of specially protected ground-nesting birds and lots of lizards (which can be cleared out by cats from housing developments). How will this be achieved with regard to properties sold - by covenants?
In order to protect the designated sites it is proposed that residents will not be allowed to walk their dogs onto those sites or access those sites from the golf course. We agree that this could protect the sites from high trafficking issues on the protected areas close to the development site, as there are parts of the NNR/ASSI that are utilised by birds requiring little disturbance, but I wonder whether it will be realistic to achieve this. A thorny hedge could be effective, but a fence will likely have little effect as paths would be created with a created stepover point, as commonly happens with fences at key points which people wish to traverse. If this development were to be taken further, I recommend that the developer meets with the warden covering the Ayres in order to discuss how this can be best managed. The assumed removal of the issue has been noted in the EIA as no residual effect following mitigation, but I remain to be convinced that this is realistic, as an effect may occur despite the provision of management features, but this may depend on the details of what is put into place and how it is managed and maintained.
The restriction to shielded low-level lighting is welcome with regard to the ASSI/NNR and Lough Cranstal.
The provision of 2 bat boxes is welcome with regard to the loss of roosting points and should be in place before any effects on current roosting positions. I have noted the use of the Ayres heaths by a variety of bat species on still nights but there has been little work on bats in this area, which I consider under-recorded.
Crocosmia aurea has been noted at the pond near the barns. I wonder whether this might be the hybrid from this species, known as Crocosmia x crocosmiiflora, also known as Montbretia and listed on Schedule 8 of the Wildlife Act If so, any works in that area must avoiding spreading the plant further.
As proposed in the enhancement section of chapter 8, a management plan for the whole site would be very beneficial in aiding understanding of the site and guiding future improvements for biodiversity, and perhaps some further research could be undertaken, in time, on the interest there.”
5.6.3 Following the final amendments and questions from the Department the Senior Biodiversity Officer (22.05.2018), made the following comments:
> “We have commented previously on 10/10/2017 and then 2/2/2018 following the provision of an EIA. With regard to your queries, I offer the following further comments.
You have asked, regarding queries raised, whether this proposed development could have an impact on the Biosphere status. As stated on the Biosphere Isle of Man website, ‘Biosphere Reserves are about achieving a good working balance between people and nature’ and the Accreditation reflects how we manage our environment, community and economy, acknowledging that all three components are necessary to achieve a sustainable situation. These comments are provided as general Biosphere related guidance and are NOT Planning policy.
The new Biosphere Status has not been intended to raise new restrictions additional to the usual considerations for wildlife and the countryside, though it is clear that it does bring special emphasis and an international focus on the protection of sites on the Isle of Man and sustainable forms of development in appropriate places. As stated on the website, the emphasis has not been about what we can’t do, but ‘what we CAN do to help keep our landscape, nature, culture, heritage and economy thriving. UNESCO Biosphere Isle of Man is about active management of all the things we’re proud of’. There are therefore no restrictions specific to the Biosphere status and UNESCO has not prescribed specific management measures for UNESCO Biosphere Isle of Man.
The application site is within the Care Zone, though very close to a Core Zone. The Zonation Guide for Appropriate Uses suggests that tourism and recreation are both “allowable and encouraged” in the Care Zone. The emphasis of the Biosphere status is on promoting innovative approaches to sustainable development, so the question is essentially, is the development sustainable, in terms of its positive or negative effects on the environment, society and economy, taking account of the specific proposals and the site and position. The proximity of the Core Zone is a very relevant matter though, importantly the proposed development is in the Care Zone and potential risks to the conservation of wildlife interest on and outside of the site have been noted in the Environmental Impact Assessment, with mitigation proposed.
The Biosphere website includes the zoning map and nomination paper, plus the Code of Practice for Landowners/managers lists some relevant current statutory provisions and Guidelines/Codes. Similarly, the Biosphere Zonation Guide for Appropriate Uses per Zone can be found at https://www.biosphere.im/cmsAdmin/uploads/Zone-Usage-Info.docx
The UNESCO Biosphere Isle of Man designation will be reviewed in 2026 (with a mid-term review in 2021) and we will be expected to show that we have protected our Core Zone, managed our Care Zone (buffer zone) in a way that is compatible with conservation and sustainability, and have taken steps to promote sustainable development within the Transition Zone (sustainable development zone).
Comments regarding risks to the nature conservation status of the site itself, and risks to the wildlife of the adjacent ASSI, are therefore relevant to this consideration. There are pre-existing Planning Policies relating to designated sites of nature conservation interest and to development in the countryside, within the Strategic Plan. The Biosphere Reserve is too new to have been considered within this, but the issues relating to it are essentially covered by the Planning Policies relating to the same matters, recognised previously.
With respect to specific matters, I refer to my previous comments on 10/10/17 and 2/2/18. The EIA states that in the view of the assessors, the potential issues identified can be mitigated and with all of the proposed mitigation, no residual effect will remain. As I have commented previously (2/2/18), if the mitigation works, then it will do a great deal to mitigate the effects, however, confidence in the mitigation effectiveness would be key to ensuring this proposal has no material impact on the future of our Biosphere status and the ASSI/NNR.
You have requested views on comments provided by other wildlife organisations and these follow here. Note, many of the letters were written prior to the provision of an EIA.
Re. Manx Butterfly Conservation letter of 5/10/17 – they raise the issue of flooding on the NNR and also the nutrients therein. This is indeed a concern and any development should not add any further flow to this drain. This might come from rainwater runoff or treated sewerage water. The sewerage has received a lot of discussion and I understand that there would be no direct link to the drain. The effects on the water table are a matter that I am not qualified to comment on, but percolation through the soil will dampen out surges in flow that could be caused by direct connections to the Cranstal Drain and the drains linking with it, and which can result in floods from peak flow periods. I understand that there are plans for the reuse of water on the site.
Re. Manx Ornithological Society letter of 5/10/17, I declare that I chair this society, though I have separated myself from the committee's consideration of this planning application.
Re. SPMCE letter of 27/9/17 & MWT letter of 27.9.17
Re. MNH letters of 5/10/17 and 16/3/18
Lighting
With regard to the Dark Skies designation on the NNR at Smeale, on DEFA land, I strongly recommend that advice is taken from the IoM Astronomical Society or other specialist with a knowledge of stargazing, but note the further benefits of dark skies for the conservation of some bat species that avoid lights, and of moths and a range of other invertebrates whose ecology is disrupted by lighting. The retention of dark skies status is relevant to this consideration. The dark skies designation is not mentioned in the lighting report, as far as I can see. The wildlife implications, though relate to the whole ASSI.
Access
Regarding your other email, I am looking into the Ayres (DEFA land) public access rights as a legal query."
5.7.1 Arboricultural Officer (DEFA) makes the following comments (19/04/2018):
"Pine trees (pinus) would probably fit with the character of this landscape and will stand the exposure if they pick the right species. More detail would be required to confirm the planting locations, exact species to be planted, nursery specification, planting specification, and maintenance plan for the first 3 years.
The better quality trees are away from the main site and although the main access goes through the middle of them, this is on an established driveway. The risk of damage during construction is low so I am content to proceed without asking for any additional information.
I do have one concern, however, which is that your photo (DSC1007) shows a narrow twisting lane with trees on either site. The construction of the cabins and site setup will likely involve the delivery of large prefabricated sections of building to the site on articulated lorries. I suspect there will be pressure to remove trees to improve the access if this application is approved. Wheels may also stray from the existing track as vehicles try to widen the angle of turn. If this happens there is a risk of direct root damage or ground compaction which would lead to root damage."
5.8.1 Manx Utilities (15.03.2018) confirm that they have no records of any flooding at this proposed site. Our surface water and fluvial models also show that there to be no risk of flooding here either. With regards to the disposal of sewerage, Manx Utilities has no public system in the area so the alternatives would be to install a Private Treatment Works or Septic Tank. If this were to be case, it would be noted that either of these options would not form part of the public sewerage system and would remain private at all times. Manx Utilities would also recommend that a detailed operation and maintenance programme be submitted for consideration to the Planning Committee and the Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture's Environmental Health Division.
5.8.1 Further to additional information being provided namely the type of the sewerage system being altered to be a private system on the sites, MU raise no objection although comment that any system will need to remain private (19.03.2018).
5.9.1 The Department of Enterprise makes the following comments (05.10.2017):
"The Department is working hard to further the Government's strategic aim of economic growth and diversification, supporting the Programme for Government "Our Island - a special place to live and work" and resources are focused upon attracting and developing business prospects which will benefit the Island's economy. To this end, it is vital for Government to allow new and existing businesses the opportunity to flourish and display their full potential, whilst also being mindful of the environmental impact of new development.
The applicant is an Isle of Man resident and has the means to undertake the project and has a proven track record of successfully developing and operating similar lodge accommodation and associated leisure facilities in the UK.
The Department has met the applicant and his development team on a number of occasions and has facilitated a series of meetings with relevant Government Departments and Agencies to ensure that the proposed development meets the requirements of those Government Departments and Agencies.
Important note. Please refer to the appendix for further details on points 1-4 above.
The Department’s comments are restricted to the economic and tourism benefits of encouraging this type of accommodation to develop on the Island and the economic benefits forecast to accrue from it. The Department has not commented on the site specifics, the location or planning policy matters as these will be addressed by the Planning Committee.
In conclusion, the Department fully endorses this planning application as it supports a large number of Government policies and strategies, provides significant economic benefit particularly during its operational phase and is a much needed additional facility for the Tourism sector.
The Department believes that this value should be given significant weight in determining this planning application, alongside the usual environmental and social considerations.”
5.10.1 Manx WildLife Trust (MWT) object to the application which can be summarised as (27.09.2018); there is a direct impact on a site of national interest protected under the Wildlife Act 1990 as an ASSI and National Nature Reserve; as well as potentially adverse impacts on habitat, it is likely to have a damaging impact on local bird populations and potentially other protected species in a number of ways; Deficiencies in the Preliminary Ecological Report a lack of consultation for wildlife species and records of potentially rare or uncommon spices together with wider species; there will be an impact upon the adjacent Ayres National Nature Reserve (against Strategic Objective 3.3(b), SP 4,& 8 and EP 1 & 4); impact upon important wildlife species; harmful impact on landscape character and area of scenic beauty on out coast/countryside; increase in flood risk and water pollution, Ayres has suffered from damaging floods; recreation can have a significant impact on wildlife and important sites; a EIA should be submitted; MWT remain unconvinced of the viability of the proposal in terms of the market analysis or in terms of infrastructure requirements; and as the first national territory to be a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, this certainly does not up hold two central pillars of Conservation of Biological or Sustainable Development.
5.10.2 An additional email received from the Manx Wild Life Trust (29.09.2017) seeking Interest Persons Status and also seeking whether an EIA will be submitted.
5.10.3 After the application was re-advertised (EIA submitted), the Manx WildLife Trust (02.02.2018), make the following summarised comments objecting to the application: Considerable information on the EIA but MWT believes the ecology and the environment aspects are flawed in a number of ways; the desk study search radius is clearly deficient using 0.5km when adjacent to an internationally regarded site, CIEEM guidelines states that “records for notable and/or protected species within 1-2km are usually considered to be of greatest reliance within most studies. In other cases, such as for small sites with limited ecological interest and localised effects, a smaller search area may be appropriate (such as within 500m)”; The non-technical summary is extremely selective and in danger of misrepresenting the reports own findings; There is three potential Area of Ecological Important if not extension of the ASSI adjoin the proposed site, which we discussed with the developers in July 2017 but no consideration has been given; The scoping is inadequate as it has not determined the zone
of influence (CIEEM guidelines), this scoping should also identify data gaps; The zone of influence is small and inadequate; no clear or demonstrate “national need” for this development on this site, and comprehensive appraisal of alternatives has not been completed to meet the requirements of the mitigation hierarchy; and cumulative impacts can also be considered in the zone of influence based on other current developments or other development in the area, MWT would suggest further expansion of this site is planned and therefore there is a need that the zone of influence should include the whole golf course ownership plus a buffer.
5.10.4 The Isle of Man Natural History & Antiquarian Society make the following summarised comments (15.10.2017): When original application was submitted to use site for a golf course (92/00776/A) Manx National Heritage raised concern that the proposal could lead to residential development which would be wholly inappropriate and the existing farm complex is likely to occupy the site of original Quaterland Farm; Manx Nature Conservation Trust also raise concern of contamination of water from foul sewer plant tail drain & impact on hydrology if groundwater was removed; SPMCE commented that permission would lead to development for building a hotel, resort houses and other associate leisure structures; application was initially refused by the Planning Committee due to the visible impact of the golf courses in the landscape; when the application for the Manx Telecom aerial mast was approved the application states that this site was chosen as other sites were too close to residential properties; Due to previous reasons indicated the Society considered all are still valid, and give ample reasons to refuse this application; BP 11, 12 & 14 require the same criteria will be applied to tourist accommodation as to residential accommodation in the countryside; the Strategic Plan EP 1 & 2 and GP 3 do not enable development on this scale on sites in the countryside which are not previously built on, are not proven to be redundant for their original use, are not of “national need” and will change the character of the landscape in an Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance.
5.10.5 After the application was re-advertised (EIA submitted), the The Isle of Man Natural History & Antiquarian Society (26.02.2018), make the following summarised comments: Lack of scoping report prepared in conjunction with Planning Officers has resulted in the lack of proper EIA being prepared; the information provided does not amount to a revised proposal as it was advised; The developer has only attempted to assess or have assessed those parts of the overall proposal and those subjects which may to be least detrimental to the locality; it is significant that in terms of disturbance, noise, car parking and traffic generation that only that part of the proposal relating to the construction of the lodges is assessed, not the lodges, plus the resurrected gold course plus the bar/restaurant; The visual impact of creating formal car parking areas as well as the lodges and their car parking areas is not considered; there is no visual assessment of the large extension of the barn to create the restaurant/bar; there is no structural assessment of the barn; impact of nearby mast should be considered to the proposed residential lodges; Strategic Plan Business Polices requires proposed tourism development in the countryside to undergo the same rigorous assessment as residential development; The Society does not believe the occupancy proposed, which could be for as much as 10 or 11 months of the year, should be treated any differently from permanent residential accommodation in this respect; and The Society's concerns remain with this application.
5.10.6 The Celtic League object to the proposal which can be summarised as (04.10.2017); agree with government policies against large developments in the countryside; proposal would be out of scale with area and adversely affect the ecological importance to the Ayres; would increase number of people in area which would affect nesting bird; would result in a large expense to the taxpayer because of the need to upgrade infrastructure; Preliminary Ecological Appraisal fails to identify any spices which are present in the area; further bird survey should be undertaken; not against such development but the site is so wrong in this case. After the application was re-advertised (EIA submitted), The Celtic League (24.01.2018), make the following summarised comments objecting to the application; hope Environment Policy 1 is
considered when refusing the application; EIA does not change our opinion; and very little information still on the birds in the Ayres.
5.10.7 Mec Vannin object to the proposal which can be summarised as (25.09.2017); would result in damage and degradation of the unique landscape and environment of the area, to the detriment of its nature beauty and wildlife; so close to the Ayres would affect plants & wildlife that flourish in this rare type of habitat; it has a rich variety with more than 700 spices recorded, some very rare; disturbances of a development can change the balance and fragile species can be wiped out; have we forgotten how the Mount Murray housing development was 'sold' to us as tourist accommodation to complement the Golf Club; need to learn from the past; any development will not save a failed golf course; site is unsuitable for dozens of log cabins and totally out of keeping with area. After the application was re-advertised (EIA submitted), Mec Vannin (22.01.2018), make the following summarised comments objecting to the application; the entire proposal has been made to exploit a potential loop hole which may permit this as a site for camping; the proposal is for 55 permanent buildings designed for permanent habitation; is borne out by similar developments throughout England; the proposed attempts to bring support of DfE by claiming economic benefit does not support this with any meaningful or independent facts and figures; the failure of the Groudie Glen development to sustain itself economically, despite its better location, is positive proof that they there is no particular economic benefits to be had by the proposal, much less one of "economic importance".
5.10.8 IOM Self Catering Owners Association (IOMSCOA) objects to the proposal which can be summarised as (04.10.2017); Association was formed in 2013 and has 37 members, 17 of which own small multiples of self-catering properties and the remainder 20 single units; does not meet the IOM Development Plan 1982; site is within an area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance; Environment Policy 1 seeks to protect the countryside; not designated for development; in terms of General Policy 3 we do not consider the applicant has put forward sufficient evidence to show that such a national need has been established; the Destination Management Plan 2016-2020 cannot be relied upon as providing such evidence because it does not set out any such overriding national needs in terms of the requirements of planning law; the Hotel Solutions report (HS) were not asked to identify 'overriding national need' in the context of planning law, but simply to identify a range of accommodation types on the basis of what the IOM lacked when compared to the UK; That does not mean that the inclusion of those accommodation types in the report automatically elevates them to the status of an 'overriding national need'; further, the independence of the HS report was compromised by the fact the developer was apparently consulted during the process of the work undertaken by Hotel Solutions, although was not listed as a consulted in Appendix 2 of the HS report, but this was unexpectedly confirmed by Mr Rob Callister MHK in an email to the Chair; this is akin to the new build housing 'needs' of the IOM being assessed by way of a consultation with an established house builder seeking new sites on which to build houses; No independent evidence has been submitted by the applicant setting out both the benefits and potential adverse impact this proposed development may have on the non-serviced accommodation sector, which is essential to established need; the IOM does not have mobile homes/static caravans/lodges/towed caravans and there may well be a value to the Island in having the absence of such accommodation types as a unique selling point and the impact of losing that by those development needs to be considered carefully; no evidence has been provided to show "there is no reasonable alternative"; No evidence has been submitted it support any need for privately owned second homes to be used by either local Island residents or visitors, purchased by local residents will not bring about any increase economic benefits to the IOM and may well lead to owners effectively living there on a permanent basis, with only a 4 week closure in place; no weather proof activities on the site and not particular attractive to families with children; no certainty as to the number of units that will actually appear, so there is a risk that there will only be a number of mobile self-catering units without leisure facilities; there is no significant deficiency of numbers of high quality self-catering properties available in the north or the Island as a whole; the Executive Summary of the HS report indicates that there is
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown