217515

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      25/90127/B                                     Page  1  of  5

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Application No. : 25/90127/B Applicant : Ballacosnahan Farm Ltd Proposal : Creation of wildlife ponds/dubs (retrospective) Site Address : Field 334952 Patrick Road Patrick Village Isle Of Man IM5 3AW Planning Officer: Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 27.03.2025 __ Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The application is considered to have an acceptable visual impact both on the immediate rural area and on the wider countryside landscape and AHLV in line with General Policy 2 (b, c, d, f, l) and Environment Policies 1 and 2. The proposal is not considered to result in any new or increased flood risk impact beyond the existing situation and is not considered to result in any loss of high quality agricultural land in line with Environment Policies 7, 10, 13 and 14, and those parts of the Climate Change Action Plan 2022-27 towards reducing flood risk. The proposed works are expected to positively contribute to species, habitats and biodiversity and may positively affect surrounding use of agricultural fields in line with Strategic Policies 4 and 5, General Policy 3 (f), Environment Policies 4 and IOM Biodiversity Strategy 2015-2025. The proposal is not expected to result in any new impacts to the high voltage cables nor to result in any new pollution impacts in accordance with Energy Policy 2 and Environment Policy 22 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016. Plans/Drawings/Information; The approval relates to the following all date published online 3rd Feb 2025: o Location plan o Aerial photo o Flood map o Field gazetteer o Site plan existing o Site plan proposed o Proposed sections o MWT Report o Planning Statement

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      25/90127/B                                     Page  2  of  5

__ Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: o Department of Infrastructure - No objections __ Officer’s Report 1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application relates to Field 334952, sitting south of the River Neb just outside of Peel and eastward beyond the Raggatt. 2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the retrospective creation of 6 wildlife ponds/dubs of various sizes within the field and varying depths but no deeper than approx. 1m. 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There is no previous application considered materially relevant to this application. 3.2 There has been a similar pond application under 22/01390/B for the creation of three ponds in Field 324639, Trollaby Farm, Trollaby Lane, Union Mills. The case officer for that application concluded the following and applied one condition regarding its proposed overflow pipes: "PA 22/01390/B 7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The key consideration of this application is its impact on the character and streetscene of the area and on the environment. 7.3 The proposal is not readily visible to the public. Therefore, it will not have an impact on the character or streetscene of the area. 7.4 The ponds will have a positive impact on the environment by promoting biodiversity. 8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposal is considered to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan. Therefore, it is recommended for an approval." 4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 Site Specific 4.1.1 Not designated for development and within an AHLV on the 1982 Development Plan. The site sits within an area of high flood risk (river and tidal) and high voltage power lines run through the site. 4.2 Relevant policies of Area Plan/Local Plan 4.2.1 None 4.3 Relevant policies of Strategic Plan. o Strategic Policy 1 - best and efficient use of sites o Strategic Policy 2 - development to existing centres and in countryside in line with GP3 o Strategic Policy 4(b) - protect and enhance landscape and nature conservation value o Strategic Policy 5 - new development (including individual buildings) should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment (and in some cases a Design Statement will be required) o General Policy 2 (b, c, d, f, l) - general standards towards acceptable development visual amenity, landscape quality no risk of erosion or flooding

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      25/90127/B                                     Page  3  of  5

o General Policy 3 (f and h) - development exceptions in countryside including agricultural and works for interpretation of countryside including its wildlife and heritage o Environment Policy 1 - protection of countryside o Environment Policy 2 - protection of AHLV o Environment Policy 4 - protection of species and habitats o Environment Policy 7 - harm to watercourses o Environment Policy 10 - flood risk and need for FRA o Environment Policy 13 - flood risk on or off site not permitted o Environment Policy 14 - loss of agricultural land o Environment Policy 22 - no harm to environment from pollution o Energy Policy 2 - 9m either side of high voltage power lines protected 4.4 Reference any relevant PPS or NPD 4.4.1 None 5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 Legislation o Section 68 of the Flood Risk Management Act (2013) indicates that any published Flood Risk Management Plan and the extent to which the proposed development creates an additional flood risk are material considerations. o Climate Change Act 2021 5.2 Policy/Strategy/Guidance o Isle of Man Agricultural Strategy 2024 - includes an aim to "ensure agriculture's role in flood risk mitigation is fully understood and considered" o Landscape Character Appraisal 2008 - D7 The Neb o IOM Biodiversity Strategy 2015-2025 o Climate Change Action Plan 2022-27 o Soil Classification Map - Class 3/2 6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only. 6.1 DEFA Ecosystems Policy - in support. Proposal creates valuable wetland habitat. No requests for conditions. 6.2 Department of Infrastructure Flood Risk Management - do not oppose (28/02/2025) - the wildlife ponds are in a flood zone, but FRM do not consider that the ponds will increase the flood risk. FRM request that the ponds are not bunded as the failure of a bund would cause a surge retained water in to the Neb. 6.3 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - no highways interest (11/02/2025). 6.4 The following were consulted but not response received at the time of writing the report 27/03/2025: o Patrick Commissioners o DEFA Forestry, Amenity and Lands, o Inland Fisheries Development Manager o Manx National Heritage o Manx Utilities Authority 7.0 ASSESSMENT Visual Impact and Biodiversity 7.1 Not too dissimilar from the officer for 22/01390/B the proposal is not readily visible to the public and the ponds would have a positive impact on the environment by promoting

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      25/90127/B                                     Page  4  of  5

biodiversity and wetland habitat. If views were achievable, the open nature of the site would likely be engulfed with the general rural surrounds and riverside landscape to not result in any adverse visual harm to the countryside or AHLV. Flood Risk 7.2 In terms of flood risk, the land is already subject to significant river and tidal flood risk and the proposal is not considered to make this worse. It may be that the creation of the natural holding areas benefits the site and surrounding area by capturing larger volumes of water before its natural flowing release into the Neb. DOI FRM do not oppose. Agricultural Land 7.3 The site is indicated to be a lower quality Class 3/2 soil. Wetter winter months already impact on use of the field and the proposal will be no different, the fields will still be available for agricultural use although still likely to be in the drier summer months. The catchment of more water in this field may improve usability of surrounding fields. Process of Application via Delegated Powers 7.4 General Policy 3 allows for (f) works essential for agriculture and (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage. Environment Policy 1 indicates development which would adversely affect the countryside would not be permitted, and Environment Policy 2 indicates in AHLV development must not harm the character and quality of that landscape. It has already been concluded above that the proposal does not adversely affect the countryside or AHLV in this case. While perhaps not necessarily essential for agricultural operations, the location of the works in this specific field and in this specific case by naturally holding more water, is likely to bring some agricultural benefit to other surrounding fields and their agricultural use. The works are also considered to work towards enhancing wildlife and biodiversity at the site and the interpretation and appreciation of such. The recommendation for approval is not considered contrary to the Development Plan policies and so not required to go before the Planning Committee. 8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The application is considered to have an acceptable visual impact both on the immediate rural area and on the wider countryside landscape and AHLV in line with General Policy 2 (b, c, d, f, l) and Environment Policies 1 and 2. The proposal is not considered to result in any new or increased flood risk impact beyond the existing situation and is not considered to result in any loss of high quality agricultural land in line with Environment Policies 7, 10, 13 and 14, and those parts of the Climate Change Action Plan 2022-27 towards reducing flood risk. The proposed works are expected to positively contribute to species, habitats and biodiversity and may positively affect surrounding use of agricultural fields in line with Strategic Policies 4 and 5, General Policy 3 (f), Environment Policies 4 and IOM Biodiversity Strategy 2015-2025. The proposal is not expected to result in any new impacts to the high voltage cables nor to result in any new pollution impacts in accordance with Energy Policy 2 and Environment Policy 22.

9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 9.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted). 9.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to: o applicant (in all cases); o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                      25/90127/B                                     Page  5  of  5

9.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10. 9.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required): o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant); o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area; o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and o in the case of a petition, a single representative. 9.5 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given the Right to Appeal. __

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status, and/or rights to appeal. Decision Made : Permitted Date : 28.03.2025 Determining Officer Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management

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.