Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/00734/C Page 1 of 17
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 24/00734/C Applicant : Manx Wildlife Trust Proposal : Creation of nature reserve via the planting of trees. Site Address : Creg Y Cowin Farm East Baldwin Isle Of Man IM4 5ER
Senior Planning Officer: Jason Singleton Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 14.10.2024 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. All proposed planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details in the available planting and seeding seasons. Any tree or shrub which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the landscaping works, is removed, or becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with another similar size and species, unless the Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.
Reason: To enhance the character and biodiversity of the area.
C 3. Prior to any wild camping taking place on site as defined by the red line on plan referenced "Location Plan and labelled Boundary Map from Isle of Man Land Registry", detailed information shall be submitted in writing to the Department for approval which shows a map of the areas to be used, the dates of camping on site, approximate numbers of attendees camping and mitigation measures to prevent any adverse damage to the area.
Reason: In the interest of protecting the countryside and landscape quality.
C 4. No permission is hereby granted for any planting of trees within the riparian areas adjacent to the river.
Reason : to ensure no blocking of light to the river that may alter aquatic biodiversity.
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/00734/C Page 2 of 17
C 5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development shall be undertaken under the following classes of Schedule 1 of the Order at any time: Class 39 - Fences, walls and gates
C 6. No permission is hereby granted for the importation of any fill material for the creation of any hardstanding areas or the creation of any vehicle tracks across the site.
Reason: To prevent any harm to the countryside.
C 7. Prior to the commencement of works on site, a 'development within 9 meters of a watercourse form' detailing appropriate sediment protection measures should be submitted to the Department and approved in writing. All works in the vicinity of the river shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason; To ensure adequate protection of the Rivers water quality, associated bio-diversity and fish within the river.
C 8. No permission is hereby granted for any tree planting within the Glade area 16 located to the south of the site.
Reason: To prevent any obstruction on site for drainage
C 9. No permission is here by granted for development or planting within the immediate vicinity of the raw water pipe, weir and the intake, unless agreed in writing by the Department.
Reason: To protect the upstream water intake and its infrastructure.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The application is finely balanced given the proposals would see a loss of agricultural land (EP14) and would equally be contrary to GP3(f) as there is no essential agricultural need and the proposed Land Management Plan has not been published.
However, material weight is given to the Governments Island Plan and the Climate Change Act to demonstrate an overriding national need (GP3g) to make an exception contrary to the land use designation (agriculture). The application has demonstrated that the proposals (afforestation) with native species could be seen to be an appropriate form of development in this part of countryside given its topography and valley setting and long term management plan to ensure the success and longevity of the proposals.
In this instance it is concluded that creation of a nature reserve does not harm the use and enjoyment of landscape (Ep1,2) and in time would offer a net increase in biodiversity value (EP4,Ep5) in accordance with some of the aforementioned planning policies from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to drawings and supporting information received on 26th June 2024, referenced;
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/00734/C Page 3 of 17
7. Creg-y-Cowin Rainforest Vision and Design V1.0 8. MWT Nature Reserves Location Plan - Braddan area __
Interested Person Status
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
Manx National Farmers Union
as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy; are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy; as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. __
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AS THE APPLICAITON IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AND IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
THE SITE 1.1 The application site is identified in red are a series of agricultural fields as part of Creg Y Cowin Farm, East Baldwin. The area would encompass approx. 105 acres of agricultural uplands and historically used for sheep grazing. The site is accessed from the northern end of the East Baldwin Road and connects to a farm track that extends some 850m before reaching the south tip of the site identified in red.
1.2 The site is bounded to west and north by the Baldwin River and to the south by the Creg-y-Cowin River. Part of the site also includes a Public right of way No.138 that extends from Baldwin to Windy Corner.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning permission is being sought for the creation of a native woodland with 25 species of native shrub and tree will be planted over 75 acres of the 105 acre site. Proposed are 30,000 native trees to be planted by 2029. The planting would be laid out with glades, thickets, open woodland corridors, Matric woodland, Plantations and promote rare woodland species such as lichens.
2.2 There are no physical 'built' aspects of development being proposed as part of this application.
2.3 The applicant Manx Wild Life Trust notes; "The plan for the site is to create a woodland pasture habitat with varied density plantings and glades to create a mosaic of habitat types from dense scrub to widely spaced park-like woodland... The purpose of the site is to provide carbon credits to the investor and biodiversity gain to the community (represented by MWT). As an early example of ESG led Nature Based Solution, it is also an example of how such a project can work. Within the Isle of Man it will highlight temperate (Celtic) rainforests as a habitat, and agroforestry as a commercial land-use option".
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/00734/C Page 4 of 17
2.4 To demonstrate the proposals the plans are supported with; o Planning statement o Ecological Site Description o Ecological impact assessment o Rainforest vision and Design
2.5 The EIA "has been prepared by a suitably experienced ecologist at Manx Wildlife Trust who has over 20 years professional ecological consultancy experience" and covers; 1. Introduction 2. Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria 3. Planning Policy, Guidance and Legislative Context 4. Ecological Features 5. Potential Impacts and mitigation 6. Residual Effects
2.6 The applicants as part of the submission following consultation period have provided additional commentary (dated 07/09/24) on the merits of the application and providing clarity on a number of issues raised from third parties.
PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The application site has not been subject to any relevant planning history considered pertinent in this instance.
PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The application site is identified on the Area Plan for the East on; Map 2 (Landscape Assessment) as B6, Narrow Upland Glens. Map 3 (Proposals) as rural or agricultural land / land not zoned for development.
4.2 Within the written statement accompanying the Area Plan, the site is noted at; o 4.7.4 Landscape Character Area East Baldwin (B6) generally refers to the overall protection of the countryside, its rural character, quality of such and distinctiveness of the valley with its dense deciduous woodland in valley bottom;. o 1.8.2 The Planning Scheme, often referred to as the 1982 Development Plan is still operational as an 'area plan' in a number of rural areas on the Isle of Man and will remain so until replaced.
4.3 The 1982 Development plan notes the land as not zoned for development and within and area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance.
4.4 The site is not within a designated Conservation Area or within an area identified as being at floor risk from surface water flooding. There are no registered trees / tree areas identified on / adjacent to the application site. The site is defined on DEFA's map as MWT Reserve 27 - 43.24 Hectares (or 106.8 Acres).
4.5 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this application; Strategic Policy o 4(b) - protection of landscape and biodiversity
Spatial Policy o 5 - Building in defined settlements or GP3
General Policy 3 Exceptions for Development in the countryside; o (f) - for agriculture o (g) - Overriding National Need
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/00734/C Page 5 of 17
Environment Policy o 1 - protection of the countryside o 2- protection of the character of AHLV o 3 - Protection of Trees in woodland o 4 - Wildlife and Nature Conservation o 7 - Protection of existing watercourses o 14 - Loss of agricultural soils o 22 - Protection from environmental nuisances o 24 - Requirement for an EIA
Infrastructure Policy o 4 - Protection of public water supply o 5 - Water conservation and management
Recreational Policy o 5 - Protection of existing PROW
Transport Policy o 4 - Highway Safety
Business Policy o 1 - Growth of employment opportunities
4.6 Afforestation In terms of forestry (including afforestation - establishing a forest in an area where there was no previous tree cover) this is defied under Section 6 of thy TCPA 1999, Part 2, Section 6 (c) and noted "the afforestation of land involves a material change in its use".
4.7 The Town and Country Planning (change of use) (development) (no. 2) order 2019, allows under Class 8 for Afforestation of any land and notes; "A change of use within this class is not approved if the area of the land, together with any adjoining land being afforested at or about the same time, exceeds 0.5ha".
4.8 Definition of Agriculture The Town and Country Planning Act 1999, Section 45, defines; "agriculture" includes horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming, the breeding and keeping of livestock (including any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skins or fur, or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land), the use of land as grazing land, meadow land, market gardens and nursery grounds, and the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for other agricultural purposes, and "agricultural" shall be construed accordingly".
OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.9 Our Island Plan (updated 2024) sets out the direction and commitment to the Climate change action plan, through the strategic Programme of "an environment we can be proud of" (page 7) this is further expanded at section 17 (page 31-33) which promotes broader programmes to be achieved and also interlinks with other strategic objectives.
Benefit of Change; - Additional and improved habitats for biodiversity".
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/00734/C Page 6 of 17
4.11 Climate Change Act 2021 - The Climate Change Act 2021 sets the legislative framework for achieving net zero carbon emissions on the Isle of Man by 2050, and ensures that there is a Climate Change Plan in place.
4.12 IoM Biodiversity Strategy (2015-2025) sets out 7 strategic objectives and 46 action points to help drive positive strategic change "by 2025 Manx biodiversity will be conserved and managed in a positive way, including restoration where possible and desirable". This biodiversity strategy also links towards the climate change challenges in biodiversity management and protection through renewable energy development, energy efficiency, protecting natural carbon stores and reducing the carbon footprint of the Island.
REPRESENTATIONS - (summaries only - full reps can be read online)
STATUTORY CONSULTEES 5.1 DoI: Highways Services (12/07/24) commented; " After reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking, as the site is in a remote location and unlikely to attract vehicular traffic and visitors".
5.2 Braddan Commissioners commented (18/07/24) with No objection.
5.3 DEFA: Inland Fisheries (23/07/24) commented with no objection but added; "I would add that trees do not cover riparian areas, shading out all light reaching the watercourse as this may alter aquatic biodiversity. I recommend that trees within riparian areas, are grown at intermitted groves enabling areas of shrubs and/or wetland habitat to grow which will allow more sunlight to enter the water".
5.4 DEFA: EPU commented (23/07/24) commented with no objection but added; "With regard to protection of the nearby watercourses depending on how the planting or other work is undertaken sediment protection measures may be required to reduce run off from the land. In the Rainforest Vision and Design document it states that some of the glades are next to watercourses so consideration into how to protect the water quality during the work is necessary and if grazing occurs in these areas measures to reduce poaching of the land from animals accessing the streams may be required. If planning approval is granted we request that the applicants contact DEFA EPU and Fisheries to discuss how the work is undertaken so an assessment can be made into whether additional water protection measures are necessary".
5.5 MUA: Drainage commented (24/07/24) with; "Manx Utilities have a Raw Water intake main in the proposed site location that feeds into West Baldwin Impounding Reservoir. This is protected by Easement 2015/022021. Please add a condition regards no planting of trees in the area of #16 in the plan/photo 2 below".
5.6 MUA: Water Quality commented (29/07/24) with; "Regarding the planning application, in principle MUA do not have any objections. Positive aspect of the proposed development on water quality and resilience of raw water is mentioned in the application and it cannot be argued. Our only comment is that while planting trees, MWT must retain a tree-free wayleave corridor over the existing raw water pipe as well as the access to the weir and the intake. The corridor will allow for access to the existing pipe for any maintenance and repairs and must be wide enough for any future pipe replacement. The access to the infrastructure at the location should already be protected by the deeds however there may be some discrepancies in terms of the location of the pipeline between the deeds and actual site layout therefore MUA must be consulted with by MWT regarding any planting in that area. Furthermore, MUA would like to reserve the right to maintain the access and the pipe wayleave corridor tree and vegetation free through regular ground maintenance activities such as grass cutting/streaming".
==== PAGE 7 ====
24/00734/C Page 7 of 17
5.7 DEFA: Biodiversity commented (01/08/24) in support of the application; "The proposals are well thought-out and explained, and we consider that suitable mitigation for features of ecological interest has been incorporated into the site's design".
5.7.1 Additional comments (03/09/21) ; "The Ecosystem Policy Team can confirm that the Manx Wildlife Trust's (MWT) Ecological Site Description, Ecological Impact Assessment and Rainforest Vision and Design for Creg-y-Cowin Woodland Creation, dated June 2024, is all in order and that a suitable level of assessment has been undertaken. The MWT concluded that there could be potential adverse impacts via loss of semi-natural grassland, butterfly habitat, grassland fungi, bird and bat feeding areas and low density lizard areas. However, the avoidance measures which include: avoidance of tree planting on deep peat areas; the retention of woodland glades suitable for small birds, lizards, feeding bats and fungi; retention of hedges, and walls, and the mitigation and compensation measures which include: creation of 73 acres of broadleaved woodland including scrub and wood pasture (with the ecosystem services these provide); planting of wildflowers and reduced grazing pressure, will provide permanent long-term mitigation for any negative impacts. In time, recognising that trees and habitats need time to grow and mature, this application should result in biodiversity net gain. The Ecosystem Policy Team have thoroughly considered the information provided, and are not requesting conditions on approval because as we believe that adequate avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures are incorporated into the site's design".
5.8 DEFA: Climate change team commented (06/09/24) in support of the application, noting; "The Climate Change Transformation Team are in support of this application as it will directly contribute to increasing carbon sequestration through tree planting in line with Isle of Man Government's commitments in the Climate Change Plan 2022 - 2027 ("CCP"). While an improved grassland habitat can be expected to have an annual carbon gain of 0.36t CO2e/ha, mixed native broadleaved woodland (30years) is expected to provide a carbon gain of 14.St CO2e/ha per year.
While this cannot be applied broadly across the whole site due to the pockets of different existing and proposed habitat types, it gives an indication of the benefits this change in habitat will provide in terms of carbon sequestration. In addition to this, the application has carefully considered tree planting in appropriate areas, protecting ecologically important areas on site and existing carbon stores in peat (as deep peat sites will not be planted).
We are in support of the site proposal and design in terms of long-term management of the site for agroforestry, as this form of multifunctional land use will provide benefits for food production, support farming livelihoods, provide ecological benefits in terms of effective grazing for vegetation management (e.g. preventing overgrowth of non-native invasive species), and allowing growth of a biodiverse habitat providing food and shelter for many macro and micro- organisms.
We note that carbon credits are to be provided to the investor in this project. Carbon credits are a means by which private sector funding can be attracted to support nature-based solutions, to mitigate and adapt to climate change and improve biodiversity, whilst enabling businesses to offset unavoidable greenhouse gas emissions.
To be effective, such schemes need to have high integrity which means that the land use changes designed to sequester carbon need to be long lasting (i.e. they have permanence), they wouldn't have happened without the investment (i.e. there is additionally) and the credits need to be robustly measured in accordance with a recognised scientific methodology. In addition, the investor must have an emissions reduction plan to ensure that they are using offsetting against unavoidable emissions only.
Provided these features are in place, we are supportive of carbon credits as an effective mechanism to attract funding into local nature projects which is consistent with two of the
==== PAGE 8 ====
24/00734/C Page 8 of 17
deliverables of the CCP, namely 5.5 (Develop a scheme enabling businesses to support local carbon sequestration projects, as part of their Environmental, Sustainability and Governance (ESG) initiatives) and D.4 (Maximise private sector contribution by providing opportunities which align with ESG criteria).
It is noted that the Land Management Plan and Strategy is currently in development, and will inform future proposals for nature-based sequestration including tree-planting and land use change".
5.9 DEFA: Agriculture commented (24/09/24) have provided a summary of the pertinent observations of the application with respect to agriculture and offering their views on the loss of agricultural land, agroforestry general principle of the proposals, noting; o The proposal will see the site change from what is currently, predominantly agricultural use to predominantly woodland with some agriculture. Although this will not be a commercial forestry operation, but a nature and conservation area based around woodland.
o The current Environmental assessment has identified several species that are present because of the previous farming practices. The change in use and management will likely see the variety of species found on the site change. This may result in the loss of some species and the gain of others.
o There is no clarity on the scale of the agricultural operation that is proposed other than sheep initially and probably cattle later once the trees have matured sufficiently. o The purpose of the site is defined as being to provide carbon credits and biodiversity gain to the community. The proposed land use changes, presumably, are intended to fulfil these objectives with the proposed grazing intended to enhance the biodiversity of the site.
o From the documents submitted, there is little information on the current or proposed carbon balance. There is currently no carbon credit scheme that is Government supported/approved on the Island, which is reinforced by a legal framework. However, there is nothing to prevent a business from selling or buying carbon credits on the Island either. This would be a commercial agreement between the two parties (vendor and purchaser of credits)".
REPRESENTATIONS (in brief) 5.10 Manx National Farmers' Union commented at length (28/08/24) to include a four page report to OBJECT. Their full objection is available on line and is summarised for this report noting the pertinent issues below;
o Work has already commenced on site. o Change of use is for carbon credit offset not agriculture as per the form o Application is premature o Carbon credit is uncertain and risk to farm land o No IoM regulation in place to protect the Islands interest and lands o Use for financial gain from the projects o Danger of setting a precedence if approved. o Island at risk of large scale land purchasing for carbon credits o Loss of viable farm land to corporate enteritis to offset emissions
==== PAGE 9 ====
24/00734/C Page 9 of 17
o Once change to forestry, impossible to return to agriculture o Need to protect agricultural land on Iom o The EIA is light on research, evidence and mitigation o EIA could be biased given its been written in-house and not subjective o EIA is conflicted and not assessed the current grazing use and wrongly labels this o Not enough information on Carbon Sequestration or emission potentials o Existing use as farming is not damaging and the soils are not poor quality o Applicant not accurate on the existing grassland type and historic management o Some of the EIA statements are questionable o MWT class the land as "Nature reserve" but its use is Agricultural land o Questions the validity view from Ecosystem policy team and their lack of assessment o Water quality is not poor and is excellent according to DEFA water quality report. o Intensive tree planting could affect ground water levels and that of the rivers levels o Wrong use of the uplands for mass tree planting o Proposals for rain forest, agroforestry and agriculture are at conflict and non-compatible given tree planting densities/ management o Return of animal grazing is not compatible with the proposed uses and had not been demonstrated o Grade 3 land or soils is still capable of being farmed (livestock and grazing) o Refute claims there is a surplus of agricultural land on IoM o The loss of agricultural land on IoM is a growing concern for food production and security and seeing a loss of new entrants to the industry o Carbon credit use of land is a threat to agricultural production o Corporate purchasing power will outbid any competing local interest o Applicant has a conflict of interest and is claiming ADS and AES funding while managing the AES funds for DEFA. o Increased recreational use will put negative pressure on necessary infrastructure not already identified on the plans and negate any future agricultural use. o Footpath access to the site has not been adequately assessed and will have a knock on impact o The area will be irreversibly changed from a traditional open upland habitat to o an area of forestry "To summarise, it would appear, with the lack of any prior planning approval being sought, that the commitment of the MWT to AVIVA on delivering their required carbon credits must now 'deliver at all costs'. Generalised concepts around wider benefits need some substantial definition, clarity, and evidence. We reiterate concerns that, without relevant legislation, this application is premature, and its approval will set a precedent that will be difficult to manage or control".
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The pertinent issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are whether there is any adverse impact upon: i. Principle of Development (Sp5) ii. Essential Agricultural need (GP3f) iii. Overriding National Need (GP3g) iv. Environmental Impact Assessment (EP24) v. Visual Impact on the countryside (Ep1, EP2) vi. Loss of Agricultural land (EP14) vii. Impact on landscape and biodiversity (SP4b & Ep4, EP5) viii. Trees (EP3) ix. Water courses (EP7, EP22 & IP4,5) x. Public Access to the Countryside (RP5) xi. Highway Safety (TP4) xii. Economic opportunity (BP1) xiii. Legal Agreements (GP4) xiv. Other - Camping
==== PAGE 10 ====
24/00734/C Page 10 of 17
(i) Principle 6.1 The proposals are in an area that sits outside of any defined residential settlement boundary when looking on Map 3 Proposals of TAPE, the nearest (as the crow flies) being Laxey or Baldrine to the east of the site or Onchan to the south.
6.2 There is allowance in Sp5 for development outside of those identified settlements that are within the countryside that cross references to GP3 and in this instance part (f): "building and engineering operation which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry" could be applicable or (g) "development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative".
6.3 If an exception can be found under GP3 and cross referencing with Stp4 to ensure the protection or enhancement of the landscape quality and nature conservation vale, all while EP1 seek to protect the countryside and its ecology for its own sake then the principle could be acceptable.
ii. Essential Agricultural need (GP3f) 6.4 The starting point here is essentially whether the proposals are deemed as agriculture and whether there is a change of use on the land. The use of land for 'agriculture' is set out in section 45 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 at para 3.8, which lists the type of activities and uses.
6.5 However, of particular note is the concluding wording where it states; "the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for other agricultural purposes". In this instance the use of the land for the planting of trees for its majority (75 acres over 105 acre site) would preclude agricultural grazing of animals for many years, here the applicant notes; "Sheep will probably be allowed back in after 7-10 years, but eventually replacement with cattle will happen at 12-15 years... Stocking will be lower than in the previous commercial grazing and will start low and build up to a sustainable level over a period of years as the trees become more robust." Essentially there is no guarantees the land will return to grazing until the trees would not be at risk from damage by those grazing animals and in the future may not be viable for livestock.
6.6 As such the proposal could not strictly be ancillary to the "farming of the land" nor classed as agriculture by the very planning definition and in turn would be non-compliant with GP3f for 'essential for the conduct of agriculture' and more akin to a commercial business enterprise utilising the land.
6.7 The second aspect of GP3f is forestry and whether this proposal is essential for the conduct of forestry noting that the changing of use of land in to forestry is a permanent change that cannot easily be reversed. Forestry by its nature is the growing and felling of tree to harvest the timber for an alternative use.
6.8 The proposal for carbon sequestrations is more aligned with afforestation and the long term retention for the tree for the storage of carbon. It is also noted (para 4.6 above) in the TCPA 'afforestation' is deemed a change of use. Whilst the applicant talks about the use being a form of agroforestry, this is more a land management for sustainable agricultural uses that combines trees and shrubs with crop and livestock farming systems.
6.9 The comments from the National Farmers Union are helpful in the assessment of this application and material weight is given to their comments and it is further noted in the concluding comments from the Agricultural Directorate note; "There are likely to be benefits from enhanced biodiversity and potentially increased carbon storage from the planting of trees on the site. The proposal will result in a loss of agricultural land although the reduced volume of agricultural produce from this site will not be significant".
==== PAGE 11 ====
24/00734/C Page 11 of 17
6.10 As such in planning use terms, the change of use of the land use from agriculture (crops and grazing livestock) to afforestation (planting of trees, where none currently exist) for its majority in terms of land use would be non-compliant with GP3f.
iii. Overriding National Need (GP3g) 6.11 In terms of trying to find an exemption to development in the countryside, we can look towards GP3g to establish whether there is any pending "national need" to allow for the principle of development in the countryside.
6.12 Of topical importance is part of the Governments Island Plan, which promotes and seeks to deliver the climate change action plan to achieve our climate change goals and carbon sequestration could form part of the overall agenda. "carbon sequestration" (definition from the 2021 Climate Change Act) means "the long-term storage of carbon which acts to prevent it from being emitted or remaining in the atmosphere".
6.13 The Climate change Act sets the legislative framework for achieving net zero carbon emissions and there is guidance within the Climate Change Plan 2022 -2027 (June 2022) that refers to the need for a dedicated land management plan and Strategy, essentially ; "to increase carbon sequestration by 10% by 2027, linking in with the Agricultural Strategy". Within Appendix 1 of this document further guidance is given where it states; "The Land Management Plan will provide the guidelines for land use and land use change across the Isle of Man, outlining a strategic approach to maximise carbon sequestration and maintain and restore biodiversity and wider ecosystem services". (Page 3/38).
6.14 Furthermore within Appendix 4 (page 22/38) of the above document, it notes; "The strategic Land Management Plan (4.2) is critical to avoid the unintended ecological and climate consequences resulting from poorly considered sequestration projects (e.g. planting trees on peatland or other valuable carbon stores). Such consequences can be devastating in terms of emissions but can also be extremely difficult and costly (or even impossible) to rectify. The work that is planned as part of the development of the Land Management Plan will ensure that future land use decisions maximise carbon sequestration, minimise the emissions associated with habitat loss and protect and enhance biodiversity, ecosystems, and ecosystem function. A comprehensive integrated Land Management Plan would provide the best assurance against the risk of ecosystems and biodiversity failing to be protected as the pressures of land use for climate action (e.g biomass cultivation, solar farms etc.) impact on natural habitats. The commitment to develop a five-year funding plan for ecosystems and biodiversity implementation which enables tree planting, peat restoration and wetlands enhancement, to ensure sequestration is on track to achieve the required carbon removals by 2050, as part of the Climate Change Funding Strategy will mobilise investment in protection and restoration of ecosystems and to work to align agricultural policy will contribute to the protection of Biodiversity". (Page 25 of the climate change 5 yr plan document).
6.15 The above narrative is helpful to understand the broad direction the IOM Govt is progressing regarding carbon sequestration and protection of agricultural lands and helps understand the level of national need and its importance in terms of future land use. The climate change team within DEFA have the responsibility for this project and have advised they; "are working with consultants to develop a Land Management Framework and Carbon Sequestration Plan for the Island as part of our Net Zero commitments. The project commenced in May 2024 with appointment of specialist consultants to assist in developing this work, with a large focus on co-working with stakeholders to ensure that the project outcome is IOM specific and incorporates priorities and needs across multiple land use sectors. We aim to complete the project within 2 years, approximately June 2026".
6.16 As there is no plan in place, there is the risk of making ad hoc decisions in the interim and these proposals could be seen to be premature to the release of this plan. Further guidance was sought from the Climate Change team and their narrative in para 5.8 of this
==== PAGE 12 ====
24/00734/C Page 12 of 17
report provides clarity noting their support for the proposals for carbon sequestration and the credits that follow to facilitate the scheme.
6.17 The Agricultural directorate also confirms that; "There is currently no carbon credit scheme that is Government supported/approved on the Island, which is reinforced by a legal framework". Furthermore, we are still awaiting the outcome and publication of the Land Management Framework and Carbon Sequestration Plan for the Island as part of our Net Zero commitments that will inform the future proposals for nature based sequestration including tree planting and land use change.
6.18 The danger here as noted from the MNFU in terms of setting a precedent and addressing those concerns, noting each application is considered on its own merits and the robustness of the application. It is likely in the future more applications may be forthcoming but in this instance a balance has to be struck weighing up the material planning considerations from the Strategic Plan and the Government Objectives to prevent a negative impact upon the countryside.
6.19 The strategic plan is somewhat silent on this matter carbon sequestration since initial release in 2007, and equally the written statement with the area plan for the East (2020) offers little in the way of guidance. However the general presumption is the protection of the countryside from unwarranted development.
6.20 The general principle of carbon sequestration is supported through the Climate Change Act and Plan, which has gone through public consultation and adopted by Tynwald carries a degree of material weight in understanding the overall national need to which there is currently no reasonable and acceptable alternative at the time of writing.
6.21 However there is a degree of comfort sough in the closing statement from the Agricultural Directorate; "In conclusion, the proposed actions appear to be with the intention of providing carbon credits to an investor via ESG funding. There appears to be little agricultural activity being proposed across the site and under the current Agricultural Directorate schemes and scheme guidance the proposed actions would likely result in the site receiving less financial support payments due to the reduction in agricultural activity and eligible land".
6.22 Greater consideration (below) needs to be given to the wider protection of the lands against the risk of damage to ecosystems and biodiversity failing from the proposals but on balance the Islands national need for carbon sequestration could be aligned with GP3g. However others parties may disagree with this approach at this stage but given the policy narrative is the protection of the countryside, and there is no definitive plan (still in production) available. The ad-hoc decision making here could be beneficial in balancing on the loss of agricultural land over the benefits from increase biodiversity and the Isle of Man Governments commitments in the Climate Change Plan 2022-2027.
iv. Environmental Impact Assessment (EP24) 6.23 The application is accompanied with and Ecological Impact assessment and details the; Assessment Methodology and significance criteria; Planning policy guidance; Ecological Features; Potential Impacts and mitigation and habitat loss. This is read in conjunction with the ecological site description document and the vision and design statement. The first document describes the site ecologically and the second site describes the plan for this site. This report similarly considers the likely significance of the proposed development upon the environment.
6.24 This process has also influenced the design of the proposals and modified to take into account the various surveys and assessments undertaken. These design approaches also included mitigation measures to avoid or reduce potentially significant adverse effects arising from the proposed woodland creation.
==== PAGE 13 ====
24/00734/C Page 13 of 17
6.25 In terms of the submitted documentation and those comments from Ecology and climate change, it is further noted their overall support for the proposals and overall they consider the proposals should not have any significant environmental effects and the proposals for mitigating and those methods of enhancing the natural environment are seen as positives and acceptable in principle.
6.26 The EIA as submitted as part of the application provides an appropriate level of detail in assessing the significance of potential environmental effects of the proposed development, however further assessment on the ecology and biodiversity is explored below. As such this aspect would comply with Ep24.
v Visual impact on the countryside (Ep1, EP2) 6.27 The planting of trees and utilising the natural topography here with its valley sides leading down to the river would echo the appearance lower downstream of trees either side of the river and ensures that any visual impact in the long term is not seen out of character. The proposal would not necessarily been seen from any immediate public vantage point for a number of years until the maturity of the trees started to show, and they begin to outgrow their protected tubes. Then the trees would be read in conjunction with the rural open countryside. Any views from the Highway namely the Mountain Road would be limited if achievable at all given the intervening topography falling away from the road level.
6.28 EP1 essentially is for the protection of the countryside and specifically if development should happen that there is no adverse effect with a caveat that unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms and striking a balance on the competing issues. The site also sits within an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. Therefore greater protection of the site is afforded.
6.29 The proposed planting will have a natural appearance with a variety of trees without looking artificial on the landscape helps to preserve the rural character of the open countryside and as an exception (Gp3g) has been found for overriding national need in land use terms, the proposal could present an enhancement on the landscape with no adverse visual impact or would be considered to result in material harm to the character and quality of the wider landscape.
6.30 The existing woodlands present on the west side of the river, in a valley would appear to be protected naturally from the weather given their size and age. This topography further promotes that the conditions for additional tree planting would be appropriate for the site and environment ensuring the site selection and the proposals are aligned. The lack of objection from the different DEFA departments can be seen to be encouraging for the application.
6.31 The report from MWT notes that the plan for the site is to create a woodland pasture habitat with varied density plantings (approx.30k native trees) and glades to create a mosaic of habitat types from dense scrub to widely spaced park-like woodland. This would give an overall gradual change from in natural setting from open fields to more woodland that would be considered to have a neutral visual impact upon the countryside without adversely affecting the wider countryside (EP1) or its general openness and would continue to offer protection of the character and quality of the countryside as sought through EP2.
vi Loss of Agricultural land (EP14) 6.32 With regard to the proposal and EP14 and the potential loss of agricultural land (class 1-2), the IoM soils maps (Figure 4) gives a broad indication of the areas and soil classification. The application site is defined within an area as being (brown in colour on the map) and referred to as A1 and of a class 3 soil quality. Within the written statement accompanying the maps, the references of A3 is noted in the Summary of Manx agricultural Soil Types on page 17 as; "A1 - Upland Stony Silty Loams Shallow Stoney Loams.
==== PAGE 14 ====
24/00734/C Page 14 of 17
6.33 The site is one of typical upland fringe, former sheep pasture that has been largely unimproved for agriculture over the past 70 years. It is mostly acid and neutral grassland, with smaller areas of flush, fen woodland, heath and riparian habitat. It is further noted in the planning statement submitted as part of the proposals, from the Manx Wildlife Trust notes; "the agriculturally poor soils formerly used exclusively for sheep grazing... and while the site will undergo a pause in its agricultural use, MWT will bring the site back into low intensity food production use, via conservation grazing with cattle, after initial tree establishment." This is disputed by MNFU as noted above and further clarity is offered by the applicants in their correspondence.
6.34 This description of the soil quality (class 3) of the natural land goes some way to understand the limitations of agricultural usage. Nevertheless, the comments from the NFU are helpful as a difference of opinion and note the poor land use is not a barrier to or justification for alternative land uses. The proposed planting areas would only occupy a small footprint on the land and whether the remaining proportions of the fields are to be used for grazing in association with the overall masterplan, whilst the applicant notes that the land is to some degree still capable of being utilised for agricultural use without being disadvantaged by the proposals, the MNFU disagree with this and feel the proposals would result in a permeant loss of agricultural lands and would prejudice EP19 and the overall loss of agricultural land.
6.35 The comments from the Agricultural directorate are helpful in understanding the loss of useable land and it noted in their response, "The proposal will result in a loss of agricultural land although the reduced volume of agricultural produce from this site will not be significant". A balance needs to be struck here weighing up the competing planning policy factors. As such the proposals would accord with EP14.
vii. Impact on landscape and biodiversity (SP4b & Ep4, EP5) 6.36 The purpose of the this application would help towards achieving the wider goals as noted in the Island plan and the Climate Change plan as such the principle is welcomed. However, this must be carried out in accordance with a 'strategic Land Management Plan' to which none is currently available and ad-hoc decisions taken in isolation could inadvertently be damaging to the wider environment and its ecology.
6.37 The applicant notes; "Creg-y-Cowin is a typical upland fringe former sheep pasture that has been largely unimproved for agriculture over the past 70 years. It is mostly acid and neutral grassland, with smaller areas of flush, fen woodland, heath and riparian habitat. There are no outstanding features or species of ecological interest, nor are there issues of environmental concern. The archaeology and deep peat features are of moderate interest".
6.38 Comments from Ecology / biodiversity (para 5.3) are helpful in understanding the extents of the submitted documentation and the wider ramifications of the proposals and note they are in full support of the proposals. This is further echoed by the Agricultural directorate and the uplands manager from DEFA is currently working closely with the applicants to ensure the protection, restoration and promotion of peatland habitats and they are; "confident that their intended woodland scheme will not negatively impact any areas of deep peat".
6.39 As such the benefit of the proposals would not be considered to have any adverse effect on the species and their habitats and the proposals by their very nature seek to protect, maintain and enhance the rural environment here in accordance with SP4b & EP4.
viii. Trees (EP3) 6.40 The creation of a woodland / pasture habitat would work towards encouraging a greater natural ecology on site. The areas of the site will be broken-down into different planting areas referred to as glades, thickets, open woodland corridors, Matrix woodland and Plantations. The proposals will see 25 species of native shrub and tree planting over 75 acres of the site (approx. 71%) and managed accordingly for natural regeneration.
==== PAGE 15 ====
24/00734/C Page 15 of 17
6.41 The existing trees on site and those identified in the defined woodland areas to the north west of the site are to be retained and managed accordingly, with some thinning and under canopy management. The 2.5 acres of conifer plantation will be retained and the 1.3 acre Sitka stand will be thinned, (under DEFA licence - already issued). As such the existing woodland will be expanded considerably over the coming decades.
6.42 On balance it is not considered that there is any detrimental impact upon the existing trees and woodland and the planting of additional trees would be acceptable and would therefore be in accordance with Ep3.
ix. Water courses (EP7, EP22 & IP4,5) 6.43 The site forms part of the West Baldwin Impounding Reservoir drinking water catchment via a pair of easement pipes linking the Creg y Cowin and Baldwin Rivers to the West Baldwin Reservoir. The site is located at the headwaters of the River Glass and River Douglas, and defined on the 1982 Development plan (North) as within an area of "land unsuitable for development owing to a danger of pollution of an existing or future water supply". In this instance IP4 seeks to protect any impact upon surface or ground water quality for public consumption. However given the nature of the proposals (essentially tree planting) and noting there are no general developments or built aspects being proposed within this application.
6.44 Equally EP7, seeks to protect the river further to prevent any demonstrable harm to the rivers. On this issue the applicant notes; "There will be not detrimental impact to any watercourses, and the project will result in Cleaner River and drinking water, along with natural flood management downstream".
6.45 MUA with responsibility for the water treatment works (drinking water) draws water from the West Baldwin catchment area that combines the River Glass and Baldwin River before being treated in Douglas (Glencrutchery Road). Their comments are helpful to understand the rights of way or wayleaves in place and their need for un-restricted access to the weirs, pipes and intake. As such a condition can be included to ensure the proposals do not inhibit their aces to the lower part of the site.
6.46 The comments from MUA and EPU and Inland fisheries are helpful in being certain there would not be any adverse impact here and the lack of objection to the proposals in encouraging. Their issues mainly revolve around the protection of the water course and the inherent biodiversity within the river and seek appropriate mitigation measures to ensure no contamination of the river / streams. As such the proposals would not be considered to have any detrimental upon the establish rivers as part of the Islands water supply nor be seen to be detrimental to the river or its water quality and would be compliant with IP4 and EP7.
x. Public Access to the Countryside (RP5) 6.47 Part of the site also includes an existing Public right of way No.138 that extends from Baldwin valley up to Windy Corner. The proposals do not intent to inhibit access to the PROW and the proposals would offer an opportunity for greater engagement in nature. As such the proposals would comply with latter part of RP5.
xi. Highway Safety (TP4) 6.48 The application site was considered for the highway safety aspects and Highway Services are noted as having considered the merits of the proposal, access to and from the site from the highway noting the proposed visibility splays, as well as highway safety.
6.49 The parking layby is a small grass verge suitable for one car. Access by normal cars is not possible due to the poor track access. The entrance to the site is via a ford that is only accessible via an off-road suitable 4wd. There is a reasonable consolidated track with access from the ford to the farm buildings (750m), with a further track extending beyond the buildings
==== PAGE 16 ====
24/00734/C Page 16 of 17
another 100m. There is an upper access to the site for pedestrians only via parking at Windy Corner and a short (1km) walk across moorland leads to the upper entrance to site.
6.50 As the transport professionals their comments are heavily relied upon and as they do not object, and the application proposes to utilise the existing entrances and does not proposes any modifications or installation or any parking area or tracks (this can be conditioned) the proposal would be considered to align with the principles of TP4 in terms of highways safety.
xii. Economic opportunity (BP1) 6.51 The use of the site is predominately to provide carbon credits as a form of income generation with the by-product being the whole scale planting of trees in a managed format to offset carbon sequestration with an aim to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and aim to mitigate climate change. BP1 is relevant as it seeks to support employment opportunities so long as they conform to the policies of the strategic plan, in this instance and given the nature of the proposals and reliance on volunteers, limited material weight is given to the employment aspects here.
xiii. Legal Agreements (GP4) 6.52 It is not considered the need for any Section 13 legal agreements in this case.
xiv Other - Camping 6.53 Part of the application proposes to allow for (non-commercial) camping by task volunteers within a Glade area 4 approx. 0.56 acres that is located to immediate east of the river towards the northern part of the site. As such it would be appropriate to ensure this "wild camping" does not encroach into other areas of the site or intensifies to such a situation that could become detrimental in years to come and avoid any pollution of the river from any such activities.
6.54 As no further details have been provided to detail the full extents of any camping, it has to be assumed this is very much on an ad-hoc basis and in similar instances the department has limited any camping to 28 days in total in any calendar year, of which no more than 3 or 4 continuous days. No permission will be granted for the siting of any motorhome, campervans, camping pods, shepherd's hut, gypsy caravans, caravans or any motor vehicle adapted for human habitation.
6.55 In this case an appropriate worded condition that seeks the applicant must provide a copy of the site plan which includes details of the wild camping area, as well as the dates on which the camp will be in use, the level of intensity and type of camping to ensure this is proportionate and does not evolve into any commercial use and generate an adverse impact from any associated use and in the wider interest of protecting the countryside and landscape quality.
6.56 Such uses of the site for the siting of any motorhome, campervans, camping pods, shepherd's hut, gypsy caravans, caravans or any motor vehicle adapted for human habitation would not be acceptable in this protected rural setting.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 For the above reasons, it is concluded that creation of a nature reserve does not harm the use and enjoyment of landscape (Ep1,2) and in time would offer a net increase in biodiversity value (EP4,Ep5) in accordance with some of the aforementioned planning policies from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
==== PAGE 17 ====
24/00734/C Page 17 of 17
(b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status.
__
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made : Permitted
Committee Meeting Date: 28.10.2024
Signed : J SINGLETON Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal