Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
22/00679/B Page 1 of 76
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. 22/00679/B Applicant : Blythe Church Investments Holdings Ltd Proposal Combined approval in principle and full approval for a residential development seeking planning permission for the erection of 66 dwellinghouses and 12 flats, site access, Spine Road through the site, drainage, car parking and associated landscaping (Phase 1). Outline Planning permission for development of up to 127 new residential units in the form of dwellinghouses and flats, flexible commercial space, a new public house and new retail space with all matters reserved save for access Site Address Land At Poylldooey Fields And Part Fields 134271, 134253, 134270, 134272, 131273, 131276, 132274 & 134274 Ramsey Isle Of Man
Case Officer :
Mr Hamish Laird Photo Taken :
14.12.2023 Site Visit :
14.12.2023 Expected Decision Level Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Approve subject to Legal Agreement Date of Recommendation 04.01.2024
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development within the land outlined in red on drawing numbers 296-300-101 Rev. C and 296-100-302 Rev. C, hereby permitted, shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this permission.
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. The development of the Spine Road within the land outlined in red on drawing numbers 296-300-101 Rev. C and 296-300-102 Rev. C, hereby permitted, shall be completed up to base course level for the entirety of its length including ironwork, the footways on the highway frontage; visibility splays; and, a site compound and car park have been constructed in accordance with the Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) required by Condition No. 14 prior to the first building of any residential units permitted by this planning permission.
Reason: In the interests of the proper development of the application site by providing a road connection between Auldyn Walk and Poyll Dooey Road at the earliest opportunity; and, to act as a flood defence barrier to the development proposed located on the south side of the Spine Road.
C 3. Prior to the commencement of development on Phase 1 of the site area, samples and details of the materials proposed to be used for the main walls and roofs of the dwellings,
==== PAGE 2 ====
22/00679/B Page 2 of 76
hereby permitted, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. For all other construction materials for the external surfaces of the dwellings such as rendering; window and door frames; guttering and downpipes; the details outlined on the approved drawings for each dwelling type shall be adhered to.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to secure a high quality form of development that would readily assimilate into its surroundings.
C 4. No excavated materials, building materials, plant or machinery associated with the Phase 1 development shall be stored on any part of the site area located to the north of the line of the Spine Road.
Reason: To safeguard components of habitats and wider ecological networks located to the north of the site including areas of Saltmarsh along the Sulby River; and, to protect priority species.
C 5. Before any part of the development hereby permitted is begun within the land outlined in red on drawing number 296-100-302 Rev. C, application for approval of the Reserved Matters of the layout, scale and appearance of the buildings and the landscaping of the site shall be made to the Department before the expiration of two years from the date of this approval and thereafter the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details as approved.
Reason: This part of the application was submitted in outline with access approved and all other matters of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping reserved for future consideration (the Reserved Matters) in accordance with the provisions of Part 3 (1) (2) and (4) of Schedule 1, Part 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order.
C 6. No tree removal, site or vegetation clearance may take place until the ecological surveys requested in Condition 8 have been submitted to DEFA Planning and approved in writing and the mitigation recommendations signed off as part of the Landscape and Ecology Mitigation Plan (LEMP) required by condition 7 of this planning permission.
Reason: To ensure that adequate time is allowed for the site to be assessed in respect of its ecological, landscape and biodiversity value to be assessed by the ecological surveys required by condition 8 of this planning permission are evaluated and able to inform the preparation of the LEMP required by condition 7 of this planning permission.
C 7. Prior to the commencement of development on Phase 1, and to the submission of any Reserved Matters application, a Landscape and Ecology Mitigation Plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. This information shall include:
A. An annotated, visual and ecological constraints and opportunities plan highlighting visually sensitive areas, distinctive trees, hedges, sod banks, buildings, and view corridors out to the surroundings to the north incorporating the Poyll Dooey Nature Reserve up to the Sulby River where it runs to the north and east of the site between the White Bridge and the Spine Road access onto Poyll Dooey Road.
B. An annotated landscape and ecological impacts plan that provides details of the physical impacts of the proposals on the landscape and ecological features detailed in A above; and
C. Avoidance/mitigation/compensation/enhancement measures.
D. Timescale for implementation and ongoing management (minimum 10 years required). The plan should demonstrate how existing landscape and ecological value is being conserved as far
==== PAGE 3 ====
22/00679/B Page 3 of 76
as possible, how impacts have been minimised, and what opportunities for enhancement have been taken; and, include an ecological habitat balance sheet that sets out losses and gains as well as the likely time lag between loss and effective habitat gain.
E. The submitted details shall include all details of street lighting and how it would interface with the other requirements of the LEMP.
The LEMP shall apply to both the Full and Outline elements of the site (Phases 1 and 2) and any Reserved Matters applications for the site shall incorporate the approved Landscape and Ecology Mitigation Plan (LEMP). The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To identify, map and safeguard components of habitats and wider ecological networks and to protect priority species, and identify and pursue opportunities for securing measurable net gains for biodiversity in accordance with the provisions of General Policy 2, and Environment Policies 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 13, 22, 24 and 42 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
C 8. Prior to the commencement of development on Phase 1, and to the submission of any Reserved Matters application, in addition and supplemental to the requirements of condition 6 of this planning permission, the following schedule of survey work shall be carried out and shall inform and be incorporated into the LEMP by way of mitigation as and where necessary. Such survey work shall include:
Breeding and wintering bird surveys; Fungi surveys; Bat roost and activity surveys Invertebrate surveys; Schedule 7 and rare plant surveys; Common frog surveys; Common lizard surveys; Schedule 8 plant surveys.
All of which need to be undertaken following UK best practise guidelines, in the right seasons and by a suitably qualified ecology consultancy.
Reason: To identify, map and safeguard components of habitats and wider ecological networks and to protect priority species, and identify and pursue opportunities for securing measurable net gains for biodiversity in accordance with the provisions of General Policy 2, and Environment Policies 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 13, 22, 24 and 42 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
C 9. The detailed drawings required to be submitted by Condition 5 (reserved matters) shall include the following information: boundary treatments, existing and proposed site levels, finished floor levels and materials, details of all public open space and green infrastructure, arboricultural method statement and tree protection plan to BS 2012:5387 to include any engineering details required for no-dig construction and thereafter the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details as approved.
Reason: To enable DEFA Planning to consider whether adequate provision is being made for the matters referred to in the condition in the interests of visual amenity and to secure a high quality form of development that would readily assimilate into its surroundings.
C 10. Prior to the commencement of any development across the application site (both Phases), for Phase 1 and the first Reserved Matters application to be submitted a strategy for the management and maintenance of all green infrastructure across the application site (including, for the avoidance of doubt, all areas of public open space). The strategy document shall set out the funding, management, maintenance, access and use arrangements for each area of the
==== PAGE 4 ====
22/00679/B Page 4 of 76
site, and a delivery plan identifying a trigger date for the completion of each of the relevant green infrastructure and public open space areas. The Reserved Matters application for the site shall incorporate the approved details and thereafter the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details as approved.
Reason: To ensure that green infrastructure and public open space is delivered for the amenity of future residents in a timely manner in accordance with the approved Masterplan drawing number 296-300-100 Rev. F for the site.
C 11. As part of any application for Reserved Matters, the applicant shall provide a detailed schedule of all measures to be put in place for the protection of the Saltmarsh Area and the Sulby River. Such details shall include any required drawings to show how and where surface water is to be taken off site. This should not go through the Saltmarsh Area.
Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the protection of the Saltmarsh habitat area on the Sulby River arising from the development. This is due to the Saltmarsh Area being the largest Blue Carbon sequestration site on the Island.
C 12. The application(s) for Reserved Matters to be submitted shall include details of a package of proposals to enhance public understanding and enjoyment of the areas of public open space to be created throughout the site in relation to the Sulby River and the adjoining Poyll Dooey Nature Reserve and the nearby saltmarsh environment. Such proposals shall include interpretation materials. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To provide public benefits in the form of interpretation and understanding of the site and surroundings with emphasis on the relations of the site to the Sulby Riverside, saltmarsh and Poyll Dooey Nature Reserve.
C 13. The first occupation of any dwelling in both Phase 1, and as part of any Reserved Matters submission(s) for Phase 2 shall not take place until the following works have been approved in writing by DEFA Planning and constructed and made available for use:
A. The street lighting for the spine road and cul-de-sacs and footpaths has been erected and is operational;
B. The car parking and other vehicle access facilities required for the dwellings by this permission has/have been completed;
C. The verge and service margins and vehicle crossing on the road frontage of any dwelling have been competed with the highway properly defined; and,
D. The street name-plates for the spine road and cul-de-sacs have been provided and erected.
Reason: To ensure that adequate access and associated facilities are available for traffic attracted to the site.
C 14. Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 1, Class A, of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) (Temporary Use or Development) Order 2015, the provision on land of buildings, moveable structures, works, plant or machinery required temporarily in connection with and for the duration of operations being or to be carried out on, in, under or over that land or on land adjoining that land where planning approval has previously been granted following an application, is expressly prohibited by this condition.
==== PAGE 5 ====
22/00679/B Page 5 of 76
Reason: The erection of any such building or creation of a compound for the storage of plant, machinery, construction materials etc. shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Conditions 2; and, 11, parts d, e, and f, of this permission owing to the ecologically sensitive nature of the site and surroundings.
C 15. No retained tree, hedge or bank shall be cut down, uprooted, destroyed, pruned, cut or damaged in any manner during the development phase and thereafter within 5 years from the date of occupation of the building for its permitted use, other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars as outlined in the submitted R007 Tree Survey by Manx Roots Tree Management Ref: 'Preliminary arboricultural impact assessment', dated 16th November, 2021. In the event that retained trees become damaged or otherwise defective during the construction phase due to events outside of the applicant's control the Department shall be notified as soon as reasonably practicable and remedial action agreed and implemented.
Reason: To ensure that trees marked for retention are not removed, in the interests maintaining the amenities of the area and to ensure the visual impact of the development is mitigated.
C 16. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a tree protection scheme, arboricultural method statement and an arboricultural monitoring schedule shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. Tree protection measures shall be shown on a layout plan accompanied by descriptive text which includes but is not limited to details of:
a) The location of the trees to be retained and their canopy spreads; b) The location of a 'construction exclusion zone' c) The position of protective fencing and/or other protective measures required to prevent damage to retained trees. d) An appropriate specification for the protective measures proposed. e) A schedule of arboricultural monitoring.
The development must be carried out in accordance with the approved details. No alterations or variations to the approved tree protection scheme or working methods shall be made without prior written consent of the Department.
Reason: required prior to commencement to ensure that all trees to be retained are adequately protected from damage to health and stability throughout the construction period to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality.
C 17. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. Thereafter, all soft and hard landscape works shall be permanently retained in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to secure a high quality form of development that would readily assimilate into its surroundings.
C 18. Prior to the commencement of any works on site, precise details of a finalised surface water management scheme for the site, based upon the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning for both the Phase 1 (full element) and Phase 2 (outline element) of the scheme. The detailed surface water drainage scheme with calculations must be provided showing the position of attenuation tanks/ponds behind the spine road and not within the flood area. The surface water system is to be designed to not surcharge in a 1 in 50 year event and the storage must be for a 1 in 100 year plus climate change event.
==== PAGE 6 ====
22/00679/B Page 6 of 76
The surface water scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the submitted details before the development is used for the first time.
Reason: To prevent increased risk of flooding and to improve and protect water quality and ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system and to prevent increased risk of flooding
C 19. Prior to the commencement of any works on site, details of maintenance and management of the surface water sustainable drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning for both the Phase 1 (full element) and Phase 2 (outline element) of the scheme. Such details shall include a plan for the lifetime of the development, the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the surface water drainage scheme throughout its lifetime.
Reason: To ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system and to prevent increased risk of flooding.
C 20. Prior to the commencement of any works on site, precise details of foul water drainage provision to serve the development, hereby approved, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. Such approved drainage scheme shall be installed prior to the development hereby permitted being first occupied and shall thereafter be retained and maintained at all times.
Reason: To ensure that the site is adequately drained and does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.
C 21. Details of the flood embankment to be provided prior to starting any works on site are to be designed to current industry standards and best practice.
Reason: To minimise the potential impact of flooding and flood risk arising from the development both on-site and up and downstream of the site along the Sulby River.
C 22. The Culvert design under the flood embankment shall be designed to CIRIA guide C786 (Culvert Screen and Outfall Manual). This is subject to consent under the Flood Risk Management Act 2013, section 20.
Reason: To minimise the potential impact of flooding and flood risk arising from the development both on-site and up and downstream of the site along the Sulby River.
C 23. The detailed application for phase 2 must include a flood risk assessment that shows rate of flood water rise both tidal and fluvial, flood water velocity and depth. This area contains children's play areas, light industrial units, pub/community area and it must be demonstrated how in time of flood, especially a fluvial flood, where there is no flood warning how people will evacuated.
Reason: To ensure that the site is adequately drained and that the area can be evacuated safely before and during a flood.
C 24. The siting of the Public House/Community Facility as shown on drawing number 296-300- 100 Rev. F - Masterplan for the site (stamped received and dated 20 March, 2023) is specifically excluded from this planning permission. The proposed siting of the Public House/Community Facility shall be submitted as part of an application(s) for Reserved Matters following agreement on its siting with DEFA Planning prior to submission.
==== PAGE 7 ====
22/00679/B Page 7 of 76
Reason: In the interests of protecting neighbours residential amenities from visual intrusion and noise and light pollution arising from the operation of the facility.
C 25. Prior to the occupation of any dwellings, details of the addition of bat, bird and bee bricks to be installed as part of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning prior to works commencing and the that development then carried out in accordance with these details. Thereafter, these features shall be permanently retained and maintained. Details should include the number, type and location of the bricks. Bat bricks should include types suitable for cavity and crevice dwelling species and in locations which facilitate the lifecycle of bats (locations to facilitate breeding and hibernating). Bird bricks should include types suitable for swift and house martin.
Reason: To ensure that the development has an acceptable impact on the environment.
C 26. No external lighting within any area of new or retained Public Open Space (other than in connection with any area of formal playspace such as the LAP, LEAP or NEAP) shall be installed except in accordance with a detailed external low level lighting scheme which complies with the recommendations outlined in the BCT and ILP Guidance Note 8 Bats and Artificial Lighting (2023), which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Department.
Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the ecological species existing on the site. (See Manx Bat Group Bat Activity Survey).
C 27. In respect of the highways layout, and design details, the development, hereby approved, shall be carried out in accordance with:
a) Access and layout to accord with Drawing Nos. 296-300-100 rev F, 296-300-101 rev c; and, 296-300-102 rev c; Tetra Tech Drawing Site Access Option 2: Ghost Island General Arrangement and Visibility Splays 002 Rev P02. b) Bike and bin stores to accord with drawing for all dwelling house types. c) Travel Plan - no part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied prior to the implementation of the Tetra Tech Travel Plan 784-B030691 rev 03 May 2022 or those parts capable of being implemented prior to occupation and thereafter implemented to timetable contained therein and shall continue to be implemented for five years / as long as any part of the development is occupied.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
C 28. Prior to the commencement of development on any Phase of the development, hereby permitted, On any part of the area of land located to the south of the Spine Road where topsoil, subsoil or overburden from the site is to be stored, measures to prevent such stored material and any pollutants or particulates arising therefrom, from washing into the Sulby River along with any runoff waters from the site, and the methods employed to control such run-off, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. Such measures shall be put in place prior to any storage of topsoil, subsoil or overburden first occurring, and shall thereafter be retained and maintained for the lifetime of the construction period of the development.
Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the protection of the Saltmarsh habitat area; the marine environment of the Sulby River; and, the downstream Ramsey Bay Marine Nature Reserve, arising from the development from any material contained in suspension in the form of runoff from the site. This is due to the sensitive nature of the Saltmarsh Area which is the largest Blue Carbon sequestration site on the Island, and river bed being contaminated with waterborne pollutants, fines or particles in suspension from the site contained within any runoff waters.
==== PAGE 8 ====
22/00679/B Page 8 of 76
C 29. In accordance with the requirements of conditions 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16 and 28, of this planning permission, the applicant shall provide the name(s) and details of a suitably qualified Ecological Clerk of Works who shall be employed to ensure that the required protection measures and survey work have all been undertaken, implemented and subsequently maintained at both the pre-development stages and subsequently for the lifetime of the construction phase of the development.
Reason: To ensure that the provisions of conditions 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16 and 28, of this planning permission, are adequately managed and monitored.
N 1. The Applicant is advised that new street adoption and works in the highway would require separate agreement with Highways under a s4 and s109(A) Highway Agreement after grant of any planning consent. On construction of the vehicular access, the existing road drainage must either be retained or an effective alternative scheme provided at the Applicant's / Developer's expense on a satisfactory arrangement being drawn up and agreed with the Highway Services' Drainage team. Other highway licences and / or temporary traffic management or road closures may be necessary on construction.
N 2. FOR YOUR INFORMATION Please be aware that a ban on the installation of fossil fuel heating systems in any new building(s) and or extension(s), will come into force on 1st January 2025.
You therefore are encouraged to ensure that your proposed development includes alternatives to fossil fuel heating systems if you believe that such works will not be completed by that date.
To this end, if you propose an alternative, such as air source or ground source heat pump(s), or any other heating system that would require planning approval, the details of this should be addressed now. This may require you to resubmit your planning application to accommodate the alternative permitted heating system proposed.
N 3. Informative Note: Post development, the applicant is advised that there should be no pumping or diversion of any water flows from the site into any adjoining watercourse without first obtaining permission from the DEFA Environmental Protection Unit. To do so would constitute an offence under the Water Pollution Act 1993.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. Overall, the application is considered to be acceptable as the benefits offered by the proposed development are considered to outweigh the dis-benefits. The application accords with the provisions of the following relevant Policies in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, which are:
Chapter 4 - Strategic Objectives: STRP1, STRP2, STRP3, STRP4, STRP10, STRP11; Chapter 5 - Island Spatial Strategy: SPP2, SPP3; Chapter 6 - General Development Considerations: GEN2, GEN3, GEN4; Chapter 7 - The Environment: ENV1, ENV3, ENV4, ENV5, ENV7, ENV10, ENV13, ENV22, ENV24, ENV28, ENV42; Chapter 8 - Housing: H1, H2, H5; Chapter 10 - Sport, Recreation, Open Space and Community Facilities: RP1, RP4, RP5; and, CP1, CP2, CP11; Chapter 11 - Transport, Infrastructure and Utilities: TP1, TP2, TP3, TP4, TP5, TP6 and TP7.
and the advice contained in the Ramsey Local Plan (RLP) 1998; and, West Ramsey Development Framework (WRDF) 2004; and, is recommended for approval subject to the prior signing of a Section 13 Agreement.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
==== PAGE 9 ====
22/00679/B Page 9 of 76
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and documents stamped received and dated 7 June, 2022, unless otherwise indicated below:
Drawing number 296-300-P1 Rev. C - Parameter Plan 1 Hybrid Planning Application Boundary; Drawing number 296-300-P2 Rev. C - Parameter Plan 2 Outline and Detailed Planning Application Areas; Drawing number 296-300-P6 Rev. C - Parameter Plan 6 Building Heights and Footprints;
Drawing number 296-300-101 Rev. C - Detailed Site Plan - Tile 1 (Full Plans) Drawing number 296-300-102 Rev. C - Detailed Site Plan - Tile 2 (Full Plans) Drawing number 296-300-100 Rev. F - Masterplan for the site (stamped received and dated 20 March, 2023); Drawing number 296-300-103 Rev. C - Detailed Ground Floor Plan (Full Plans); Drawing number 296-300-104 Rev. C - Detailed First Floor Plan (Full Plans); Drawing number 296-300-105 Rev. C - Detailed Second Floor Plan (Full Plans); Drawing number 296-300-107 Rev. C - Detailed Site Plan Lighting Plan;
Drawing number 296-300-110 Rev C - Proposed Site Section A-A (Outline); Drawing number 296-300-111 Rev C - Proposed Site Section A-A (Detailed); Drawing number 296-300-112 Rev C - Proposed Site Section B-B (Detailed); Drawing number 296-300-113 Rev C - Proposed Site Section C-C (Detailed); Drawing number 296-300-114 Rev C - Proposed Site Section D-D (Detailed); Drawing number 296-300-115 Rev C - Proposed Site Section D-D (Outline); Drawing number 296-300-116 Rev C - Proposed Site Section E-E (Detailed); Drawing number 296-300-117 Rev C - Proposed Site Section F-F and G-G (Outline);
Drawing number 296-300-120 Rev. B - House Type A 3-bed Detached Plans and Elevations; Drawing number 296-300-121 Rev. A - House Type B Corner Apartments Plans and Elevations; Drawing number 296-300-122 Rev. A - House Type C 3-bed Semi-detached Plans and Elevations; Drawing number 296-300-123 Rev. A - House Type D 3-bed detached Plans and Elevations; Drawing number 296-300-124 Rev. A - House Type E1 Flood resilient House Plans and Elevations; Drawing number 296-300-125 Rev. A - House Type E2 Flood resilient House Plans and Elevations;
Access and layout to accord with 296-300-100 rev F, 296-300-101 rev c; and, 296-300-102 rev c; Tetra Tech Drawing Site Access Option 2: Ghost Island General Arrangement and Visibility Splays 002 Rev P02; Tetra Tech Travel Plan 784-B030691 rev 03 May 2022; R007 Tree Survey by Manx Roots Tree Management Ref: 'Preliminary arboricultural impact assessment', dated 16th November, 2021;
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are mentioned in Article 4.2:
Pooildhooie Limited, Dandara Group Head Office, Isle of Man Business Park, Cooil Road, Braddan, Isle of Man, IM2 2SA
==== PAGE 10 ====
22/00679/B Page 10 of 76
as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2021).
It is recommended that none of the owners/occupiers of the following properties are given Interested Person Status as they are considered not to meet the requirement of being located within 20.om of the site boundary; and, as such do not have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings mentioned in Article 4.2: Watersmeet, Westfield Drive, Ramsey, IM8 3ER 2 Belmont Villas, Jurby Road, Ramsey, IM8 3PF West View, Westfield Drive, Ramsey, IM8 3ER Pine View, Westfield Drive, Ramsey, IM8 3ER River House, Riverside, Ramsey, IM8 3DA 47 Lezayre Park, Ramsey, IM8 2PT 26 Greenlands Avenue, Ramsey, IM8 2PE 6 Dreeym Ollay, Ramsey, IM8 2QA 16 Fairway Drive, Ramsey, IM8 2BB Port Natal, Riverside, Ramsey, IM8 3DA Wildlife Trust
The above persons, therefore, do not satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2021).
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions that relate to planning considerations: Flood Management Division (DOI) Manx Utilities Drainage Public Estates and Housing (DOI) Manx National Heritage
__
Officer’s Report
22/00679/B - THE PLANNING APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE BECAUSE IT PROPOSES A MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AN ALLOCATED SITE AND A SECTION 13 LEGAL AGREEMENT IS PROPOSED
REVISED REPORT UPDATED 18th FEBRUARY, 2024
00.1 OFFICER SUMMARY ON CHANGES ON CHANGES TO SCHEME SINCE INITIALLY PRESENTED ON 15.01.24
It is confirmed that the following changes to the application put forward by the applicants since the 15/1/24 Meeting and subsequent 18/1/24 Members Site Visit, as previously reported are:
o "Re-siting of the PH/CF to a position approx. 50.0m to the south of its previous location on land not forming part of any area of POS, and maintaining a line of mature trees to its rear between it and the river bank. The siting of the PH/CF can be covered by a condition.
o The proposals now involve the provision of 5 x 3-bed Affordable Housing Units as part of Phase 1 (Full element of the application) subject to inclusion in any S13 Agreement.
0.02 OFFICER SUMMARY OF CONSULTEE RESPONSES AS PRESENTED VERBALLY AT PLANNING COMMITTEE 12.02.24
==== PAGE 11 ====
22/00679/B Page 11 of 76
The updates presented at the Meeting are outlined in the published (as yet un-agreed) Minutes of the 12/2/24 Meeting. These are listed as follows:
Statutory Consultees: o Highways Drainage - (9/2/24) comments requested by the Case Officer following a meeting with the Highways Drainage Officer on 8/2/24; o DoI FMD (9/2/24) confirmed its objection to the development as reported in its comments on the application received (1/2/24). o Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service submitted via FMD (9/2/24) confirmed that Pinzgauer Fire appliances no longer form part of their fleet of emergency vehicles; o The Climate Change Team (received 9/2/24) - objection maintained; o The Senior Marine Environment Officer (8/2/24) - DEFA Fisheries - objection maintained. The Fisheries response was from both Marine and Inland Fisheries.
Third parties: o The Case Officer reported verbally that a resident (name given) who wishes all her previous letters of objection be taken into account, stating: "this is a nature reserve and wetland which by name should not be built upon".
Responses by the applicant to Consultee comments: o In their submission dated 6/02/2024 Baca Architects believe that a Pinzgauer fire appliance would be able to access the site via either end of the spine road- since countered by response received from Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service (9/2/24);
o Rebuttal of DoI FMD (1/2/24) comments by the applicants Specialist Flood Risk Advisors
o Comments received from the applicants on 9/2/24 in response to the Fire and Rescue Service's advice that Pinzgauer Fire Appliances no longer form part of the Service's fleet of emergency vehicles, are outlined as follows:
"It was good to check regarding the vehicle's availability. When we submitted our proposals, these vehicles were part of the fleet!
Notwithstanding, the proposal was never dependent on the need for vehicles to access the site from Poyll Dooey Road. Please can you make the evacuation route available to Members.
The flood event that FMD refer to is very rare. A dry means of access and egress is provided in such circumstances. To reiterate all floor levels of the properties are located above the 1:200- year flood event and all bed spaces a further floor above. The road / flood defence also provides an additional level of protection.
Please can you ensure that members are aware of the measures taken to mitigate the effects of extreme flood events and that residents will be safe. This is all set out in detail in the FRA." o Separately the applicant provided the following link (9/2/24) to a BBC News report from November, 2022, relating to Emergency Vehicles currently used by the IoM Fire and Rescue service: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-63795924
0.03 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED FROM APPLICANTS AS AT 16.02.24
These can be found online in full below provides a summary of applicant's responses to issues raised;
==== PAGE 12 ====
22/00679/B Page 12 of 76
Affordable Housing
Following a review of the proposals, the applicants have provided five affordable homes in phase 1 (detailed portion of the application). It was concluded in the committee report on 15th January 2024, that the applicant had been able to prove in viability terms that the provision of no affordable housing was considered acceptable by the planning department and Brett Woods, the Head of Commercial Public Estates and Housing Division.
Despite this through negotiations with the applicant, they have decided to provide five three bedroom homes in phase 1. This is being taken at a cost to the developer. We believe that the provision of affordable housing for phase two should be agreed at the Reserved Matters stage, though it is the clients intention to provide affordable housing subject to a viability exercise for that phase.
Relocation of the Pub/Community Hub
The applicant has proposed to remove the pub from the suggested riverside location, closer to the proposed commercial aspects of the site. This is to address the concerns raised by the owner of River House in regards to the impact on their amenity, but also to remove it from the designated Public Open Space. This ensures that there is a reduced level of impact on residents amenity, but also removes it from the designated public open space.
Highways
In terms of the vertical curves, the proposals have been reviewed by the highways design team and they are happy with the safety of the design. We furthermore have had an independent road safety audit carried out on the scheme and the proposals have been considered acceptable by the independent road safety audit as well as the Highway Department. The highways officer who has sat in both committees has not raised any concerns regarding the design of the road. The suggestion that the road would need to be extended by 160m is unreasonable.
The gradient of the highway at the junction with the development to the west of the site is roughly 3.4% and to the east the site descends from 6.50m to 4.75m over roughly 145m. This is the a better gradient permissible for a wheelchair. The gradient was considered safe in the Road Safety Audit and the suggestion that this could be dangerous is misleading members purposefully.
Flood Risk
It has been accepted that the site has issues with flooding from the start and an expert design team has been formed for the application.
The site is accessible. Dry access is provided at all times. Even in a 1 in 200 flood event. These are shown in our plans. These events are extremely but the design anticipates this could happen and has planned for the resident's safety.
To reiterate all floor levels of the properties are located above the 1:200-year flood event and all bed spaces a further floor above. 2. The road / flood defence also provides an additional level of protection. 3. In a 1 in 200 year event the flood depth a Poyll Dooey Road would be 0.680mm. Whilst is has been indicated that the preference of the fire department would not be to gain access here. They have dry access to the east of the site via the old tramway cycle path and have a new fleet of Iveco all-terrain vehicles (since Nov 2022) that could access the city centre and our site during a flood.
==== PAGE 13 ====
22/00679/B Page 13 of 76
Drainage
Proposed systems have been with the authority since December 2022 and despite this, the authority has never given a preferred option. To ensure that the systems are acceptable, a condition has been placed on the decision to provide details. Both systems proposed will work in regards to surface water drainage alongside the rest of the drainage and flooding strategy.
Road adoption
In terms of adoption, we will formally engage with the department following the granting of permission. As discussed in our committee meeting on 12th Feb 2024, this is not necessarily a concern for the planning committee. There is an element of commercial risk associated with this, but this is not a material planning consideration.
CEMP Condition Issue
As set out in the planning officer’s report, the CEMP condition has had to be removed from the decision notice at the request of the Planning Department, not the applicant. This is due to the fact that the condition would have been unenforceable. This has been set out by the case officer and the Head of Development Management at Committee on 12th February. Due to the inability to enforce the condition, a requirement for all conditions, the CEMP has been removed by the planning officer.
We would like to remind members that when it was originally placed on the draft decision in January, we the applicant did not have any issues with its inclusion, but upon review agree with the justification for its removal.
Ecology
As set out in the Committee Report presented to Planning Committee on 15th January 2024, the baseline for assessing the impact of Ecology has to consider the lawful use of the site. The site is currently agricultural fields and though they are not in active use, they could easily default back to agricultural land without a planning application and could result in harm to the ecological position of the site.
We have had a list of surveys conditioned by the draft planning permission which will provide a detailed description of the ecological position of the site prior to works being undertaken. We have also committed to the provision of an Ecological Clerk to oversee the works.
Biodiversity Net Gain
As set out in the Manx National Heritage response, Biodiversity Net Gain is not a requirement for applications on the Isle of Man, only in England. Furthermore this requirement has only become statutory for Major Schemes submitted after 12 February 2024 in England.
Emergency Services The applicant has supplied a plan showing how the safe evacuation of residents can occur in extreme flood events. This plan shows that emergency vehicles would be able to access the site and that the residents within the site will not have their homes flooded. We accept that some flooding may occur in gardens, but residents will be able to leave the site via the existing old railway public right of way to the south of the site. Furthermore, if the entrances to the spine road are flooded, the chances are that the fire station would be flooded as well. Residents in an extreme flood event will be safe on the site and able to evacuate."
==== PAGE 14 ====
22/00679/B Page 14 of 76
0.04 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/REPRESENTATIONS RECIEVED AFTER 12.02.24 BUT BEFORE 19.02.24
These have been replicated in their entirety.
MANX WILDLIFE TRUST (14/2/24) - comments as follows: "I have noted that Manx Wildlife Trust have been missed off the IPS list in relation to your Planning Officers' report concerning PA22/00679/B Land At Poylldooey Fields etc, which is disappointing given our numerous written objections over several years.
Also, MNH are incorrectly listed as non-IPS, however as a Statutory Consultee who has provided written evidence, they should be an IPS.
Please can you also confirm that the next iteration of your report for the Planning Committee on 26 Feb will no longer make reference to the incorrect assertion that the land, as designated agricultural land, is able to be cleared, ploughed and drained etc., as this is factually incorrect. The ploughing, draining or improvement of any habitat area would be a breach of Agricultural Cross Compliance as set by your own Department (reference: Statutory Management Conditions and Standards of Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions). I note that Sophie Costain has provided a similar clarification, which is included within the latest iteration, however owing to the numerous changes, including the original wording still being present in the original, unedited part of your report, it would be possible for Members of the Planning Committee to read the original part of this lengthy report and come to the wrong conclusion."
The occupants of River House, Riverside, Ramsey (15/2/24) comment as follows:
"FOURTH OBJECTION ON BEHALF OF THE OWNERS OF RIVER HOUSE, RIVERSIDE, RAMSEY 1.0 Introduction 1.1 This submission is made on behalf of the owners of River House who have already made a submission on 30th June, 2022. Following the publication of the officer's report, we made a further representation on 12th January, 2024 to be considered at the planning committee meeting of 15th January, 2024. A further objection was made by us on 17th January, 2024.
1.2 Having attended the planning committee meeting on 12th February, 2024, we wish to make further representations following the additional information presented and comments made at the meeting. It is with regret that we find ourselves having to submit further comments, and fully appreciate that this is additional work for both the planning officer and the planning committee, who already have huge volumes of information to consider and process but feel that we have no alternative.
1.3 Part of the reason for the submission of continued comments on our part is that at each planning committee meeting, there is a further, amended officer's report and verbal amendments made which correct or change what is written in each report. The officer's report still contains errors and omissions which have not been corrected despite us raising them previously. We have not been notified of amended plans (showing the public house relocated) although this plan was shown to the Planning Committee at the meeting of 12.02.24 and we have not been able to see this online. This, together with the verbal changes in the officer's report has made it difficult to remain aware of what is being considered, not helped by the omission in the report of a list of plans and documents that are being approved, despite us having pointed this out after the issue of the first officer report. This all puts those with an interest in the application at a considerable disadvantage.
2.0 The proposed conditions 2.1 It has been difficult to follow the conditions which are being proposed as there were verbal updates at the meeting of 12.02.24 where we understand there were two conditions added
==== PAGE 15 ====
22/00679/B Page 15 of 76
which do not appear in the officer's report to the planning committee. No-one therefore had the opportunity to consider and comment on them.
2.2 The conditions require attention: as we have pointed out previously, the plan reference in C1 is incorrect.
2.3 C2 refers to the requirement for a CEMP in C14 but this condition has been removed and C14 relates to something else.
2.4 C7 requires ecological information: we would submit that this information is essential prior to the determination of the application. If the application is approved subject to this condition, how can the reserved matters application properly manage or control any adverse impact on ecology. If the applicant, and the decision maker do not know where the visually sensitive areas, distinctive trees, hedges, sod banks, building, corridors out onto the surrounding area, the ecological impacts and the physical impacts of the proposals on the landscape and ecological features identified - all of which are required to be shown on a plan after the application has been permitted, how can they possibly conclude that the development satisfies Environment Policies 4 and 7? This is further demonstrated by C8 which requires all manner of surveys which have clearly not been undertaken so the decision makers are not in possession of all of the facts they need to be confident that the development is in accordance with all of the relevant Strategic Plan policies.
2.5 C11 - again we are of the view that this information should be provided now, to ensure that a means of the protection of the salt marsh area will be physically possible and environmentally acceptable.
2.6 C24 in principle is welcome insofar as it precludes approval to the public house as shown but simply says that it should be shown on the reserved matters application details. This could mean that the public house is close to where it is currently shown. We consider that an amended drawing (which may well have been submitted as it was shown at the planning committee but we have not been able to locate this nor have been informed about it) should be prepared, circulated and available for comment so that all are confident that they know what is proposed and being approved.
2.7 We understand that the officer is recommending a condition requiring the submission of the name of the Ecological Clerk of Works to the Department as this was read out at the meeting of 12.02.24. With respect, such a condition would be meaningless and fail the test of necessity and relevance to planning as the Department knowing the name of the ecologist, without any control over the acceptability of such a person or any requirement for that person to be retained during the course of the construction, or indeed with any specified purpose, has no benefit to anyone.
3.0 The Planning Officer's report 3.1 The updated report refers in two places to the Flood Risk Management Team having withdrawn their objection (paragraphs 0.10 and 0.19). This was partly addressed verbally by the officer on 12.02.24 who accepted this was an error, but remains a serious oversight or misunderstanding by the Officer which requires more than just an update and correction. The officer states at paragraph 0.19 that "Given that the above surface and foul water strategy conditions area acceptable to MUA; and, that FMD has withdrawn its objection subject to its recommended conditions being imposed, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable in land drainage and flood risk terms". If the perceived withdrawal of objection by FRM is such an important consideration as to persuade the officer that the development is acceptable, surely its actual maintained objection should carry equal weight and merit influence over his conclusion.
==== PAGE 16 ====
22/00679/B Page 16 of 76
3.2 The first issue we raised in the previous representations was the land use designation of the site and the incorrect statements throughout the officer's report and repeated in the meeting, that the site was "allocated" and "allocated for mixed use". We would repeat that the site is not designated for development in its entirety and where it is, the development proposes residential and retail development on land designated for light industry. The continued statement that this is an "allocated site" and omission of any reference to the fact that residential development is proposed on land designated for light industry is misleading the Planning Committee and will undermine the credibility of any approval of this application. These errors, despite having been pointed out in previous correspondence, have not been corrected. The site is not designated for Mixed Use: it is designated on the Ramsey Local Plan as Residential and Light Industry.
3.3 The West Ramsey Development Framework is not considered to carry the same weight as the Ramsey Local Plan which was adopted by Tynwald. The WRDF we understand to be a statement of Departmental policy which aims to guide the development of a particular part of the Local Plan area. It does not supersede or replace the Local Plan but is supplementary guidance. It contains no Planning Circular reference nor any confirmation that it was approved by Tynwald as do the Ramsey Local Plan Written Statement and the Ramsey Local Plan Maps respectively.
3.4 If the WRDF is to be taken as the overriding policy guide for this site, then we would wonder why it has not been raised that the Framework requires the following which does not appear to have been completely addressed within the application:
o All planning application should be accompanied by accurate tree surveys and there will be a presumption in favour of retaining and protecting all existing trees. o The area of salt marsh should not be disturbed and drainage arrangement should not adversely affect the hydrological context of either the salt marsh or the other areas of ecological interest adjoining the riders within the West Ramsey area o There should not be direct individual accesses onto this distributor road and it should be designed to restrict vehicle speeds in what will become a predominantly residential area o Other new development including the new distributor road should also be protected from tidal flooding o All flood protection measures will need to take account of the potential impact of surface water run off and drainage
4.0 Interested Person Status 4.1 Despite having originally been recommended for IPS, the officer stated at the meeting of 15th January, 2024 that he had changed his mind, having considered the provisions of the Department's Operational Policy and now recommends that none of the private individuals who submitted views should be entitled to it as none is within 20m of the site.
4.2 We fully accept that the Operational Policy refers only to those developments for which an Environmental Impact Assessment is automatically required which allows those not within 20m of the site to be considered for IPS, which was the case when the officer made his initial recommendation. However, in order for an Environmental Impact Assessment to be required, EP24 has to be triggered and this automatically means that the development is one of which will have a significant impact. We consider it unreasonable that people living close to the site but not within 20m should not be afforded IPS for a development of such significance and which is not in accordance with the development plan. River House is 40m from the site and close enough, we say to be materially affected by the development - in particular from the potential additional flood risk brought by the development.
4.3 It is also considered relevant that the site falls outside the settlement boundary on the draft Area Plan for the North and West.
5.0 Summary
==== PAGE 17 ====
22/00679/B Page 17 of 76
5.1 We, and no doubt others, are very surprised and disappointed that the Department's recommendation is for this application to be permitted given the amount of legitimate objection to the proposal from statutory consultees and particularly on the basis of the incorrect statements and omissions from the officer's report. This approach is vastly different to the scrutiny being given by the Department to other current applications.
5.2 In addition, seldom is a contribution of less than the required 25% of affordable housing accepted by the Department and in current applications of scale elsewhere on the Island, the acceptability of those developments in relation to the relevant planning policies is being scrutinised in almost forensic detail whereas in this case, without what we would consider is essential information and in the face of objections from at least six Government departments, this application is still recommended for approval.
5.3 In my professional experience of being involved in planning on the Isle of Man, I have never witnessed so many statutory consultees objecting so strenuously to an application and it still being recommended for approval. The statutory consultees have no direct interest in the application itself, only the repercussions from it and their position is one which represents the public interest and adherence to national policy, obligations and legislation in their various areas of expertise and responsibility.
5.4 The officer's report still contains errors that have not been corrected or acknowledged which suggests that our previous representations have not even been read. There is an incorrect plan reference in C1, the report still refers to the Milntown application as on unallocated land, the site is not "allocated" as is referred to consistently throughout the report and it is not designated for Mixed Use. There is no list of approved plans and documents so no- one can be confident of what is actually being approved. The conditions change each time the application is presented to Planning Committee with further changes being made at each meeting.
5.5 Elsewhere and not far from this site, developments of a much smaller scale have been refused due to the perceived impact from flooding. There is opposition to the application from the Flood Risk Team as well as from Highway Drainage who indicate that the much welcomed spine road will not be publicly adopted, and yet the application is recommended for approval. It was commented at the meeting that the objection from FRM was on the basis of a policy which was not a planning policy however, the officer did not go on to confirm that Environment Policies 10 and 13 presume against developments which would be at or increase unacceptable risk of flooding and that these are material planning policies which are relevant to the application.
5.6 Increased flood risk is of particular concern to the owners of River House as they already experience flooding in unusually high tides and they remain concerned that the development will exacerbate this. Below is a photograph of the river only this week and it should be noted that this is not as high as it can be.
5.6 In terms of the impact of the development on ecology, there is opposition to the application from the Climate Change Team, from Ecosystems Policy Team and from Inland Fisheries Directorate and outwith Government, from Manx Wildlife Trust, all of whom have stated that there is insufficient information provided to demonstrate that the development will not have a harmful effect on the ecology of the area and yet the application is recommended for approval. If the professionals involved in each of these organisations is not satisfied that there is sufficient information provided, how can a decision be reached that the development is acceptable? Conditions have been suggested which will require this information but once the approval is granted it will be too late if the required surveys do unearth protected or sensitive habitats or species which cannot be protected from harm as a result of the proposed and approved development. Planning decisions should not, in the words of the late Stephen Crow
==== PAGE 18 ====
22/00679/B Page 18 of 76
CB MA FRTPI FRICS FRGS, one of the Planning Inspectors for the Island at the time, give with one hand and take away with the other.
5.7 The statutory consultees have been criticised by the Planning Committee for submitting further comments late in the day. However it should be remembered that the planning officer's report is only published late on the Tuesday before the Planning Committee meeting the following Monday, leaving only a few days for the report to be digested, a response prepared and authorised and then submitted. If the officer's report acknowledged, properly reported and fully responded to the concerns which had been raised then perhaps these further responses would not have been deemed necessary. Certainly in our case, we feel that points we have raised have not been acknowledged or addressed and fundamental errors are still contained in the officer's report which we feel undermine his recommendation that this application should be approved.
5.8 It was noted that other than the representative of the Highway Services Division of Department for Infrastructure, none of the statutory consultees who attended the Planning Committee meeting on 12.02.24 was questioned by the members: the only question which was asked on the matter of ecology was about the submission of the name of the ecologist to the Department, a question directed at the applicant, no questions were put to the Government's ecological adviser.
5.9 We maintain the belief that this development should not be permitted and what is proposed would have a harmful impact on the environment and on the privacy and enjoyment of River House and would increase its risk of flooding. We would also ask that the Planning Committee grant Interested Person Status to the owners of River House who will be materially affected by this significant development, a good part of which is contrary to the land use designation of the development plan and the policies of the Strategic Plan."
0.05 OFFICER SUMMARY OF ISSUES SINCE 12.02.24
The issues outlined in the 12/2/24 report were discussed by Members at that Meeting, and updates (where relevant) are added below:
FLOODING
DoI FMD maintains its objection. The applicant has responded accordingly dated 16.02.24, these are online in full and a summary is provided above at 0.03.
HIGHWAY DESIGN, SAFETY AND THE QUESTION OF ADOPTION The Highways Drainage Team advise that the existing roads either end of the Spine Road (SR) are predicted to flood now and even more in the future, this is not a valid reason to construct new ones which will increase the existing risk to road users, residents and emergency services. Officers note that the applicant has no control over the land to the east and west of the SR running across the site. To the east is the Audlyn Meadow residential development, the eastern arm of which the SR is intended to link up to; to the west, is Poyll Dooey Road which is Public Highway.
The applicant has advised of the Finished Floor Level's to the south of the SR (Phase 1) and that these would be above the level of the SR carriageway. They reiterate that all floor levels of the properties are located above the 1:200-year flood event and all bed spaces a further floor above. It is only where the SR level drops from its proposed height of 6.5m AOD in the area heading eastwards across the site towards Poyll Dooey Road where the carriageway level drops to 5.5m AOD, and then 4.5m AOD which is the height of the Poyll Dooey Road carriageway opposite the Pumping Station, that it is more likely to be subject to future flooding, which is outside of the red line.
==== PAGE 19 ====
22/00679/B Page 19 of 76
When questioned by Members at the 12/2/24 Meeting, the applicant acknowledged that the DoI Highways Drainage Team may decide not to adopt the SR drainage arrangements. In that case, a Management Company would be formed which would be funded by fees levied on occupants of the new dwellings; business premises and PH/CF to ensure that the SR and its attendant/incorporated flood attenuation measures would be maintained for the lifetime of the development. It would in effect be a private road/flood defence structure, although it would be constructed to an adoptable standard.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION The applicant's offer of 5 x 3-bedroomed Affordable Housing Units (AHU's) as part of Phase 1, with any AHU's provided on Phase 2, to be subject of a Housing Viability Assessment, all of which would be secured by a S13 Agreement, is noted. Given the importance of securing the SR to facilitate the proposed development in terms of both access and flood risk mitigation, this offer, whilst not Policy H5 compliant (25% rate of AH provision) is acceptable in these particular circumstances. A Policy H5 compliant rate of 25% AHU provision for Phase 2 would be sought with any AHU's provided, secured by a S13 Agreement.
THE SITING OF THE PUBLIC HOUSE/COMMUNITY FACILITY (PH/CF) The siting of the PH/CF has been revised as notified to Members at the 12/2/24 Meeting. This is considered to be acceptable as it would alleviate any potential for undue harm to the amenities of occupants of River House; and, Port Natal, Riverside, Ramsey, without causing undue harm to the amenities of occupants of the new dwellings on site, or existing nearby dwellings off-site. This has been agreed bearing in mind it is in the approval in principle element, which will be the subject of a reserved matters application. However there is a proposed condition (C24) taking out the originally proposed location and requiring the siting to be agreed as part of the reserved matters.
THE IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE AND HABITAT The points raised by the MWT in their 14/2/24 comments are noted. The Case Officer's assertion that ploughing, draining, and hedge removal etc. of the site without consent at paragraph 7.11 of the 15/1/24 Report; and, paragraph 0.35 of the 12/2/24, was made in the context of planning legislation in that as per Section 6 (3) (c) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 'the use of land for purposes of agriculture' shall not be taken for the purpose of this Act to involve development. However it is acknowledged there are other consenting regimes that any landowner may need to comply with.
The various impacts as advised in the objections by the Ecoystems Policy Team (EPT); DEFA Forestry - the Arboricultural Officer (AO); DEFA Fisheries - Inland and Marine, are noted. They maintain their objections to the proposal, as do the Climate Change Team (CCT). Notwithstanding these objections, Officers have discussed conditions with these Teams (not CCT - their concerns were covered by Fisheries and the EPT) which, in the event of an approval being granted could be applied to the planning permission. These are proposed condition numbers: 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 26, 27 and 29.
The employment of an Ecological Clerk of Works (see C.29) to cover the requirements, implementation and monitoring of conditions 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16 and 27, of this planning permission reflects the concerns highlighted by the EPT, AO; Fisheries and CCT. It is considered that the conditions proposed in terms of biodiversity, tree retention, landscaping and landscape management of the site as it develops, meet the six tests relating to conditions in that they are reasonable; necessary; relevant to the development proposed; relevant to planning; precise; and, enforceable. The applicant is agreeable to them. It is considered that the development proposed can be accommodated and the impacts of it in respect of biodiversity, can be successfully mitigated against.
==== PAGE 20 ====
22/00679/B Page 20 of 76
IMPACT ON PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY (PROW) There are no changes to report in respect of the comments made at paragraphs 0.48 and 0.49 of the 12/2/24 Report and as advised in the published minutes.
0.06 INTERESTED PARTY STATUS There are no changes to report to the comments made at paragraphs 0.51 to 0.55 of the 12/2/24 Report and as advised in the published minutes.
0.07 RECOMMENDATION The recommendation remains as one of approval in that overall, the application is considered to be acceptable as the benefits offered by the proposed development are considered to outweigh the dis-benefits. The application is recommended for approval subject to the prior signing of a Section 13 Agreement to secure:
In the Full element: o The provision of the Spine Road; o Off-Site Highway Improvement Works; Open Space and Estate Management comprising: o The provision of the LAP and LEAP with their relevant play equipment; o The provision of a commuted sum for the maintenance costs for the LAP and LEAP; o The employment of an Ecological Clerk of Works as required by condition;
In the outline element: o That the Spine Road shall be completed prior to the implementation of the first of any approval of Reserved matters for the development of the outline element of the site; o A clause/mechanism to secure the provision of some on-site Affordable Housing; o The provision of the Commercial Units o The provision of the Public House/Community Facility including picnic area; o The provision of the shop/kiosks Open Space and Estate Management comprising: o The provision of the NEAP with its relevant fully equipped play areas/courts/pitches /fencing and associated equipment; o Waymarking, signage and landscape interpretation boards along the Sulby Riverfront from the access onto Poyll Dooey Road in the east linking in with the Poyll Dooey Nature Reserve to the west; o The employment of an Ecological Clerk of Works as required by condition;
And subject to the a number of conditions, which having been updated in line with the various recommendations as advised in the Minutes of the 12/2/24, Meeting and in this Report, are outlined below but can be found in full at the beginning of this report:
CONDITIONS
==== PAGE 21 ====
22/00679/B Page 21 of 76
14. Remove PD for Construction compounds 15. Replacement trees and plants 16. Arboricultural method statement and an arboricultural monitoring schedule 17. Replace plants - standard 5 year condition 18. Surface water drainage strategy 19. Surface water management and maintenance scheme 20. Foul water drainage strategy 21. Details of the flood embankment 22. Culvert design 23. Phase 2 FRA 24 Exclude siting of the Public House/Community Facility 25. Bat, bird and bee bricks 26. Details of external lighting in open space 27. Highway layout and design 28. Construction condition 29. Ecological Clerk of Works condition
Informative Note: Post development, the applicant is advised that there should be no pumping or diversion of any water flows from the site into any adjoining watercourse without first obtaining permission from the DEFA Environmental Protection Unit. To do so would constitute an offence under the Water Pollution Act 1993. Informative Note: Boiler Ban Alert Informative Note: Street adoption under s4 and s109(A)
THE FOLLOWING REPORTS REMAIN UNCHANGED SINCE ORIGINAL PUBLICATION
23/00679/B - THE PLANNING APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE BECAUSE IT PROPOSES A MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ON AN ALLOCATED SITE AND A SECTION 13 LEGAL AGREEMENT IS PROPOSED
REVISED REPORT UPDATED 2nd FEBRUARY, 2024
Members of the Planning Committee will recall that this item was originally presented to the Committee for consideration as Agenda Item 5.1 at the Meeting on 15th January, 2024. (Referred to hereon as the 15/1/24 Meeting). At the 15/1/24 Meeting, and as outlined in the Draft minutes of the Meeting, consideration of the application was deferred to enable Committee Members to conduct a Site Visit, which convened on Site at 10:00 on Thursday 18th January, 2023. The notification of the Site Meeting was advised at the end of the Committee Meeting immediately prior to its closure by the Committee Chairman.
Those in attendance considered that the main issues were: o Drainage o Affordable Housing provision o The siting of the PH/CF on a recognised area of Public Open Space; and, its relationship to the dwelling at River House, Riverside located on the opposite bank of the Sulby River o The extent of tree and hedgerow removal; and, o The impacts on wildlife; o Impact on Public Rights of Way; o Interested Party Status;
CONSULTATION RESPONSES
Following the publication of the Agenda and subsequent to the 15/1/24 Planning Committee Meeting, further consultation responses were and have been received from:
==== PAGE 22 ====
22/00679/B Page 22 of 76
Ramsey Town Commissioners: Manx Utilities Authority: DoI Highways Drainage: DoI Highways (Footpaths) Public of Way Manager: DEFA Ecosystems Policy Officer: DEFA Arboricultural Officer - Forestry, Amenity and Lands Directorate: DEFA Inland Fisheries: DoI Flood Risk Management Division (FMD): DoI Public Estates and Housing Division:
These are in addition to those previously advised in précised form at Section 5 in the Officer Report to Planning Committee Meeting on 15/1/2024, and read as follows:
Ramsey Town Commissioners (9/1/2024) - Comments:
"Ramsey Town Commissioners have no objection to the amended plans/additional information."
Manx Utilities Authority (12/1/2024) - Comments:
"Please pass on my comments onto the applicant as they do need to be actioned especially ensuring the pump main is protected or diverted. Both of the conditions below for surface water infrastructure appear fine with me as long as they are can enforceable before development work commences - although the development of a surface water strategy for phases 1 & 2 could be contradicted by the flood risk assessment. What is the situation if the applicant cannot develop such a workable scheme that meets with all MU, FMD & DOI Highways requirements, does this mean the development cannot commence? From a MU perspective, the public adoption of the foul and/or surface water infrastructure will not be considered until we are totally satisfied that the proposals meet with our requirements."
DoI Highways Drainage (12/1/2024) - Comments:
"Surface Water Drainage Paragraph 11.8.1 of the Strategic Plan states that: "all new development must be capable of being drained of foul and surface water in a safe, convenient and environmentally acceptable manner." The drawings do not include any surface water drainage details so the Applicant has not demonstrated how surface water runoff from the estate roads will be drained in a safe manner. Developing the site will undoubtedly increase the risk of flooding due to the introduction of impermeable areas and we cannot assess the risk without a detailed drainage design and supporting calculations. The Applicant has produced a Preliminary Drainage Assessment report No. FWM8791-RT002 R01-00, which does not appear to have been included with the planning application submission (see attached). Section 6.5 of the report "Next steps" states that:
"This report provides two options for stormwater drainage of the protected area and an approach for the unprotected area. The next step is for these approaches to be reviewed by the relevant stakeholders including Manx Utilities, the Department of Infrastructure and DEFA Fisheries Division. Once the approaches for the protected area and the unprotected area are agreed, modelling should be carried out to develop the designs and provide information on flow rates, storage volumes and flow velocities. This information would then be used to prepare detailed designs for the drainage systems."
The Applicant has never approached us to discuss the options and as far as we are aware, no option has been agreed. Where the estate roads are to be offered for adoption under Section 4
==== PAGE 23 ====
22/00679/B Page 23 of 76
of the Highway Act 1986, the DOI have determined that a detailed highway drainage design and calculations should be supplied for all developments at the detailed planning application stage so that the flood risk can be adequately assessed in line with the Strategic Plan. The Applicant has not mentioned the surface water drainage system that serves Greenlands Avenue and Lezayre Park that discharges into a watercourse within the development site (see plan attached).
Flood Risk Assessment and Applicant's Response to floodplain objection
Section 3 of the Response to floodplain objection "Site Location" states that:
"Planning Application 03/00790/B covers most of Zones 2 and 3 in the West Ramsey Development Framework. This is the area to the west of the site, outlined in yellow on Figure 3.1. Part of this site is in the floodplain of the Sulby River and includes a flood defence, indicated on Figure 3.1. The Planning Application has been approved and development is in progress. Development in Zone 2 including the spine road is complete. The design crest level of the flood defence is 6.35 m AD02. This level is above the maximum flood level including an allowance for climate change." Planning Application 03/00790/B was approved in April 2006 and whilst the development has started, the flood defence bund has not been constructed and there is no guarantee that it will be. It is our understanding that flood modelling undertaken after the planning application was approved indicates that if the flood defence bund is constructed it would increase fluvial flooding around Auldyn Walk and the property Greenlands off Gardeners Lane.
Section 5.2 of the Response to floodplain objection "Approach to managing the flood risk" states that:
"The spine road connects with the raised defence in the development to the west of the site to provide a continuous line of flood protection." As above, the raised defence has not been constructed and at present there will not be a continuous line of flood protection. To provide a continuous line of flood protection at a level of 6.50m AD02, the spine road would have to be extended westward for about 170m to a point where it met Auldyn Meadow Drive. The existing road levels either side of the proposed spine road are 4.50m ADO2 to the east and around 5.30m AD02 to the west. During future extreme tidal events it is predicted that these sections of road would be 1.50m AD02 and 0.70m AD02 below the tidal level of 6.01m AD02 and emergency access to the development would not be possible. The estate road to the north of the spine road would by nearly 2.0m below the extreme tidal level. We would not advocate adopting new estate roads that are predicted to flood to these levels.
Section 4.1 of Flood Risk Assessment "Introduction" states that:
"The development itself including buildings and access routes is safe from flooding in present and future conditions (with climate change)." The access routes are not safe from flooding (see above).
Recommendation: Due to the lack of surface water drainage details and calculations together with the extent of flooding predicted during extreme tidal events to parts of the estate roads, we recommend that our Highway Asset Management Division do not enter into a Section 4 adoption agreement if the application is approved."
DoI Highways (Footpaths) Public Rights of Way Manager (16/1/2024) Comments:
"I am writing to inform you that the Department has been made aware of a series of potential footpaths which would affect this planning application. I apologise I have not contacted you sooner as I mistakenly believed once the consultation period had finished I could not make
==== PAGE 24 ====
22/00679/B Page 24 of 76
representations. We received a request for several footpaths across Poyll Dooey fields to be dedicated under Section 88 of the Highways Act (presumed dedication) which would affect some areas of the proposed development. Any member of the public can request a route, if it has had unimpeded access for a period of 21 years, to become dedicated as a public right of way (PROW), and from consulting with past aerial imaging I am satisfied the routes proposed have been used since at least 2001. As a PROW the routes would not be able to be obstructed and a diversion would need to be applied for in conjunction with a planning application in order to have the routes moved.
I believe from consulting the application several sections of these paths will affect the areas to be built on. I have attached a rough mark-up of the locations. I must stress these have not been measured and have been plotted quickly over the plans to ensure there was something put forward to give the committee an idea of the locations, I am satisfied that while they may not be mm accurate, they reflect the extent to which the proposals interact with the application. Alongside this I have attached the accurate paths on our mapping background which will be used for the Orders. We are in the process of drafting Orders for this which the landowners and local authority have been informed of. Once these are drafted they will go out for public consultation for a period of 28 days, if any objections are received from notified parties then a public inquiry must be held, as such there may be a considerable period of time before these are dedicated. If work had started and these became PROW the work would need removing at the landowners expense. As such there are implications to the development to be considered."
DEFA Ecosystems Policy Officer (22/1/2024):
The Ecosystem Policy Team have gone through your report to the Planning Committee now in detail and have concerns about its apparent omissions and therefore its conclusions and recommendations. The concerns are listed below, as are our recommendations for the updating of the conditions. Given the complexity and sensitivity of the area, and taking into account the pressure that Planning is under to make decisions, we feel in this case, it requires further consideration and engagement to ensure that this high profile development has been adequately and appropriately assessed.
Concerns regarding the Officer's report: o The Ecosystem Policy Team's objection appears to have been missed from the 'Representation Section' (Section 5) of your report, though certain limited elements of our objection are mentioned later on. As such, this appears to be selective, and is of general concern, as it presents a formal Departmental submission in an inaccurate way. This should be rectified.
o The 'Benefits section' (7.1) of the report says that significant levels of ecological mitigation and landscaping have been proposed, but one element of the Ecosystem Policy objection (which, as noted, is not actually included in the report) is the lack of mitigation - The project ecological consultants, JBA, has recommended tree retention (which has not been done) and a CEMP, and the applicants are to undertake some replanting and other landscaping, but there are no details in the documentation on the planning portal of what this significant level of ecological mitigation would be or where it is to take place.
o For example the applicants have provided no information about how they are going to mitigate their impacts upon the two red listed plant species of highest conservation concern which are also legally protected via inclusion on Schedule 7 of the Wildlife Act 1990. They don't seem to be intending to avoid building in the area where they are present which would be our definite preference (though details of exactly where the plants are located hasn't been provided) so therefore translocation will need to be considered, but where are they going to translocate to? It will have to be on site in an area that is to be protected and managed accordingly, unless they intend on doing this offsite in which case a S13 agreement will be required.
==== PAGE 25 ====
22/00679/B Page 25 of 76
In addition, the Ecosystem Policy Team has provided detailed comments in its submission (also reproduced below) about the overall lack of survey effort to inform the mitigation requirements.
As such, it is difficult to see how the current levels of ecological mitigation can be considered as a benefit.
o Development in some areas of the site is not in accordance with the land zonation but this is not acknowledged in the Report and therefore may not be adequately taken into account in the decision making process.
o Section 7.16 states that "Officers have consulted with the Ecosystem Policy Officer with a view to formulating conditions that should be applied in the event of an approval being granted which would limit the impacts of the development on the site and surroundings." As discussed, this is not accurate, since we have not been consulted with in regards to conditions. However, we are taking the opportunity below to consult with you on the draft conditions.
o Section 7.17 states that "It is considered that on balance, the proposed development is acceptable in terms of its potential for adverse impacts on the existing ecology and habitat of this statutorily unprotected, allocated site". The Ecosystem Policy Team would be interested in understanding how this was balance was determined, especially considering that the Ecosystem Policy Team do not believe that the correct balance has been struck, noting the other issues specified within this email. Is there a methodology for determining if and how economic benefits outweigh other issues?
o Section 8.02 indicates "There is a lot of pressure on environmental grounds from various bodies both within and outside Government for no development to take place and for the site to remain as a 'wild area' which may flood occasionally, and over time, it is likely to increase in its biodiversity offering. It is noted that the site could also be farmed (cattle/sheep grazing) as of now which would diminish its biodiversity value." We will make a couple of comments in response to this statement: Firstly, a well-managed sheep or cattle grazing regime would be of benefit to parts of this site, so this point appears invalid. Secondly, The Ecosystem Policy Team has never indicated a position for no development to take place, or that it would object in order for it to remain as a wild site. The Department tries to works cooperatively with developers to achieve balanced outcomes, based on appropriate survey, and in line with relevant legislative and policy requirements for environmental protection. As such, the basis for the objection was not the development in principle, apart from in the areas not zoned for residential development, but rather the specific issues noted in the submission, founded upon a professional assessment of the available information. Specifically;
o the lack of appropriate ecological survey; o the largescale removal of habitat; o the impacts on protected and rare species; o the lack of ecological impact avoidance and mitigation; o the potential impact on the saltmarsh o lack of adherence to various policies within the Strategic Plan and the Isle of Man's Biodiversity Strategy.
The report therefore should be updated to accurately reflect the basis and arguments for our object.
o Further, and as previously discussed, DEFA Forestry's submission and objection appears to have been missed from the 'Representation Section' (Section 5) of your report and nowhere in the report is there mention of Forestry comments or tree removal at all; though Forestry have since sent in an additional response since the Committee sat on the 15th January. This is a major omission since the application includes 100% removal of 15 tree groups (of 26 surveyed on site, i.e. significantly more than half), including 100% removal of two category B tree groups. There is also to proposed to be 13% removal of a category A tree group and a total of 13,772m2 of canopy loss. Forestry Division policy indicates that this would constitute an
==== PAGE 26 ====
22/00679/B Page 26 of 76
objection on multiple bases, and noting again Forestry's objection has been omitted from the Planning portal.
o Tree removal is not listed as a dis-benefit of the scheme (Section 7.1) within the report, but new landscaping is listed as a benefit, although the level of landscaping, at least in terms of ecology (though arguably not from an amenity perspective), does not mitigate for the loss of the large areas of relatively undisturbed mature/maturing trees and dead wood, which are proven to have much higher ecological benefits then newly planted trees, as well as the removal of scrub, hedges and grassland.
Additionally, with the site plan as presented, and without reduction in the number of properties, there is simply no space on site in which to undertake more mitigation tree planting and habitat creation.
As such, it is not ecologically valid to present new landscaping as a benefit on this basis. Tree removal should also be listed as a dis-benefit within the report, with details of the level of tree removal proposed.
o In regards to Section 7.12 of the report, Environment Policy 7 would apply, since saltmarshes are a type of wetland, supported by Strategic Objective 3.3 (a).
o Section 7.26 states- "No development would benefit wildlife and the immediate environment but would offer no economic and social benefits to the people of Ramsey and the surrounding area." - We would argue that the area already brings great social benefits to the people of Ramsey, since it is located in easy walking distance of the centre, and therefore gives people easy access to a 'wild' natural space where they can walk alongside, appreciate and learn about the natural world. Access to nature has proven and important health and wellbeing benefits. This is an important point considering that the social benefits of developing the site seem to have been used as a basis for approving the application.
Amendments to Conditions:
C6 - The wording of draft C6 for a Landscape and Ecology Plan (not withstanding our earlier comments about lack of mitigation planting) appears appropriate and the 'balance sheet' concept seems valid. However, the applicants have not undertaken sufficient ecological survey work in order to inform an appropriate ecological mitigation plan and there is no condition requiring them to do this further survey work. This is a significant failing of the proposal. An additional condition is required to secure the following survey work, and for the outcome of this survey work to inform the Ecology Plan: o Breeding and wintering bird surveys; o Fungi surveys; o Bat roost and activity surveys o Invertebrate surveys; o Schedule 7 and rare plant surveys; o Common frog surveys; o Common lizard surveys; o Schedule 8 plant surveys.
All of which need to be undertaken following UK best practise guidelines, in the right seasons and by a suitably qualified ecological consultancy. This survey work would also need to be undertaken and the survey reports submitted to Planning for written approval prior to construction and enabling works taking place and should apply to the areas identified for full and outline approval. It should also be stipulated that if development has not commenced within 3 years of the date of these surveys, then the surveys will need to be repeated and the updated mitigation measures incorporated into the Ecology mitigation plan and CEMP.
==== PAGE 27 ====
22/00679/B Page 27 of 76
However, the Ecosystem Policy Team has significant concerns with the principle of conditioning these ecological surveys rather than obtaining them prior to determination. The following summarises our concerns:
o The surveys are likely to identify areas of habitat that should be retained because it contains protected or red list species; e.g. we know that the JBA found two species of legally protected (listed on Schedule 7 of the Wildlife Act 1990) and red listed plants on site, but they did not indicate where. Listing on Schedule 7 of the Wildlife Act 1990 means that the plants are protected from being intentionally or recklessly picked, uprooted or destroyed, their red listing means they are of highest conservation concern and at high risk of extinction on the Isle of Man, they are therefore of national importance (see Environment Policy 4) and priority needs to be given to their retention in-situ as translocations often fail. However, if the application is approved, the applicant would not then be able to modify the layout of the site in order to take the ecological mitigation recommendations into account, unless they submitted a new Planning application for a variation to what has been approved? Another example would be if the roost surveys found a significant bat roost, or the breeding bird survey found barns owls breeding in a tree that is to be removed to place a house, they would not be able to move the house to retain the roost or nest site.
As a secondary question. If that example actually came up and a significant bat roost or red listed nesting species were found, would Planning find it reasonable for us to request an alteration to the layout, requiring a new Planning application?
o Though we can request that these surveys are undertaken prior to construction and enabling works (which would include prior to hedge and vegetation removal), we question the enforceability of this as a planning condition, because vegetation clearance does not constitute development. Surveys need to be undertaken before permission is granted, so that specific protection measures can be secured via condition. Surveys would also provide a basis for opening up a enforcement case against illegal activities, such as destruction of bat roots, or lizards and their habitats, should the need arise.
o Can you include a condition which says that no tree removal, site or vegetation clearance may take place until the ecological surveys requested in Condition X have been submitted to Planning and approved in writing and the mitigation recommendations signed off as part of the Ecology Plan in C6?
This would need to apply to the area identified for full and outline approval.
o It is apparent that Environment Policies 4 and 5 cannot be applied if we don't know if and where species of international, national or local importance are found. The Ecosystem Policy Team therefore seeks clarification as to whether and how the application of these policies has been considered in this assessment, given that two Wildlife Act 1990 Schedule 7 plants which are also red listed plants of conservation concern, have been found on site. Environment Policy 4 therefore applies in this case but no mitigation proposals have been put forward for their protection.
As such, this approval is already contrary to Environment Policy 4 & 5 which state that no development will be permitted unless planning conditions or agreements sought to (a) minimise disturbance; (b) conserve and manage its ecological interest as far as possible; and (c) where damage is unavoidable, provide new or replacement habitats.
o Taking into account that the Ecosystem Policy Team do not agree with the JBAs Preliminary Ecological Appraisal because of a lack of survey effort and a lack of mitigation recommendations, one recommendation that they did make was - "following bat roost surveys, it may be necessary to draw up some mitigation measures, such as enhancing the adjacent nature reserve or nearby areas." - this must be decided on prior to determination because
==== PAGE 28 ====
22/00679/B Page 28 of 76
offsite mitigation would need to be secured via a condition for a S13 Planning Agreement. We do not believe this can be retrospectively applied.
o In response to the various ecological concerns raised during the consultation, it is stated multiple times in the Planning Committee report that "it (the land) remains as agricultural land and it could be ploughed or grazed, with hedgerows trimmed, scrub removed, and trees cut back or felled, without any recourse to DEFA Planning". However, this does not accurately represent the situation on site or wider protections that are in place -tree felling licences would need to be obtained in order to fell the trees that make up the majority of the hedges, there are protections in place for habitats on agricultural land, and a grazing regime could be beneficial.
In particular, the above is stated in S7.10 of the report as an argument against getting further ecological survey, after which it states "The main benefit of surveys would be to inform the Reserved Matters development where the layout has not yet been fixed." However, this misses the point that the layout for the full approval is not yet fixed and only will be when Planning permission is granted. So the layout can and should be influenced now by the presence of species and habitats of conservation value, and impacts avoided as a priority. This all needs to be informed by appropriate surveys.
There have been multiple examples of developers changing proposed layouts of full applications to take into account the results of ecological surveys, even applications for single dwellings where the impact on trees is much smaller, so I don't see why this wasn't even considered for this application.
Condition 9 is appropriate but it needs to go further, or an additional condition applied which requires the applicant to provide details with the reserved matters application of the measures to be put in place for the protection of the saltmarsh area and the river. Are there any drawings to show how and where surface water is to be taken off site? This should not go through the saltmarsh area.
C11 - This needs to be updated to include measures for the protection of biodiversity, such as:
o Details of a suitably qualified Ecological Clerk of Works who will be appointed for duration of construction and enabling works. This should include the individual/companies name and details of exactly what their role will entail. o Incorporation of Precautionary Working Method Statements for breeding birds, roosting, commuting and feeding bats, protected and rare plants, rare invertebrates, common lizards, common frogs and fungi. o Measures to be put in place for the protection of the saltmarsh, Sulby River and the downstream Douglas Bay Marine Nature Reserve - prevention of pollution and sedimentation etc. - this must include phased soil stripping and vegetation clearance, as and when development progresses throughout the site, no wholescale removal. o Soft felling methodologies. o Construction exclusion areas and use of protective fencing. o Low level construction lighting regimes. o Responsible avoidance and eradication plans for Schedule 8 plants. o Details of compliance monitoring including who will be undertaking monitoring for compliance with the CEMP, how often inspections will take place, who they will report to, who will be responsible for undertaking corrective action and how soon after non-compliance is found will corrective action be taken.
C14 - The wording of this needs updating
o Our preference is for the use of integrated bird, bat and bee bricks which can be substituted for normal building bricks, because they will last for the length of time that the
==== PAGE 29 ====
22/00679/B Page 29 of 76
building is standing and don't require upkeep. In comparison, external boxes won't last that long, will need upkeep and replacing. So it's not applicable to request details of this prior to occupation of dwellings, since by that point the bricks should already be installed. Additionally, swallow cups would need to located inside of buildings so aren't really appropriate and bat bricks have been missed out of this condition but are required mitigation, in line with the recommendations made in the Manx Bat Group's Bat Activity Survey report. o The condition needs to be reworded to say that details of bat, bird and bee bricks to be installed as part of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning prior to works commencing and the that development then carried out in accordance with these details. Thereafter, these features shall be permanently retained and maintained. Details should include the number, type and location of the bricks. Bat bricks should include types suitable for cavity and crevice dwelling species and in locations which facilitate the lifecycle of bats (locations to facilitate breeding and hibernating). Bird bricks should include types suitable for swift and house martin.
Additional Conditions:
o I don't know if a specific condition is required for an Ecological Clerk of Works if the CEMP is specific in saying that one is to be appointed, but it may be advisable to emphasis the requirement for one.
o No external lighting shall be installed except in accordance with a detailed external low level lighting scheme which complies with the recommendations outlined in the BCT and ILP Guidance Note 8 Bats and Artificial Lighting (2023), which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Department.
Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the ecological species existing on the site. (see Manx Bat Group Bat Activity Survey)
o No retained tree, hedge or bank shall be cut down, uprooted, destroyed, pruned, cut or damaged in any manner during the development phase and thereafter within 5 years from the date of occupation of the building for its permitted use, other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars. In the event that retained trees become damaged or otherwise defective during the construction phase due to events outside of the applicant's control the Department shall be notified as soon as reasonably practicable and remedial action agreed and implemented.
Reason: To ensure that trees marked for retention are not removed, in the interests maintaining the amenities of the area and to ensure the visual impact of the development is mitigated.
o Prior to the commencement of the development details of all tree protection monitoring and site supervision by a suitably qualified tree specialist (where arboricultural expertise is required) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The details should make provision for the regular reporting of continued compliance or any departure there from to the Department. The development thereafter shall be supervised in strict accordance with the approved details.
Reason: Required prior to the commencement of development in order that the Department may be satisfied that the trees to be retained will not be damaged during development works and to ensure that, as far as is possible, the work is carried out in accordance with the approved details.
o The standard tree condition should be applied - any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of
==== PAGE 30 ====
22/00679/B Page 30 of 76
similar size and species. Thereafter, all soft and hard landscape works shall be permanently retained in accordance with the approved details.
We would finish by noting that in December 2022, members of Tynwald unanimously voted in agreement with the following motion: That Tynwald acknowledges the global biodiversity and ecological crisis and recommits its support of the Island's 2015 Biodiversity Strategy, which aims to: o manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats; o maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity; and o involve society in understanding, appreciating and safeguarding biodiversity.
The presentation of this application appears inconsistent with both established Planning Policy and the recent statements by Tynwald in relation to how the Island should be managing and protecting its biodiversity. It's up to us as Officers to ensure that the interpretation and balance of our policies and legislation is fully considered and reflects the will of Tynwald and the people of the Isle of Man.
DEFA Arboricultural Officer - Forestry, Amenity and Lands Directorate (17/1/24) - Comments:
The DEFA Arboricultural Officer raises an objection to the proposed development, on the grounds that: The proposals involve the removal of multiple tree groups including 14 category C groups 2 large category B groups and the removal of 1 category A group. In total this results in a canopy cove loss of 13,772m2.
In making Additional Comments, the Arboricultural Officer advises:
o The proposal includes the removal of 1 Category A group (286m2) and the removal of 2 large category B groups (5574m2). o It is noted due to ash dieback, the site will naturally reduce it's over all canopy cover. o The proposal includes a landscape plan which includes approximate location/numbers for replacement trees. Although there would be a net canopy loss in the short term, the mitigation planting would, if properly maintained, would likely equal the current canopy cover. o A tree protection plan, arboricultural method statement and arboricultural monitoring schedule, could be requested as a pre commencement condition. o The proposal shows the properties sited away from some of the large tree groups that could cause future conflicts to the potential residents. o
In the event that the application is approved, the Arboricultural Officer advises that the following condition be added to any permission that may be granted:
"Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a tree protection scheme, arboricultural method statement and an arboricultural monitoring schedule shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. Tree protection measures shall be shown on a layout plan accompanied by descriptive text which includes but is not limited to details of:
a) The location of the trees to be retained and their canopy spreads; b) The location of a 'construction exclusion zone' c) The position of protective fencing and/or other protective measures required to prevent damage to retained trees. d) An appropriate specification for the protective measures proposed. e) A schedule of arboricultural monitoring.
The development must be carried out in accordance with the approved details. No alterations or variations to the approved tree protection scheme or working methods shall be made without prior written consent of the Department.
==== PAGE 31 ====
22/00679/B Page 31 of 76
Reason: required prior to commencement to ensure that all trees to be retained are adequately protected from damage to health and stability throughout the construction period to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality."
DEFA Inland Fisheries (15/1/2024) comments as follows:
"Although this response may be too late, I can advise that the two options on preliminary surface water drainage assessment has been reviewed.
We have doubts about the ability of these systems coping with a 1:50 year flood event, which would pose a risk to the nearby fishery environment.
Due to tidal range and groundwater levels, the performance of SuDS towards the dilution of pollutants is likely to become compromised. This is evident within the drainage report as storage is described as complex and must take into account rainfall and tidal events making this impossible to predict without models being carried out.
As such, DEFA Fisheries object to this proposal until modelling can provide clear results demonstrating no risk to the fishery environment, including from sediment loading."
DoI Flood Risk Management Division (FMD) 1/2/2024 - Comments: Oppose
"Suggested conditions:
The detailed surface water drainage with calculations must be provided showing the position of attenuation tanks/ponds behind the spine road and not within the flood area. The surface water system is to be design to not surcharge in a 1 in 50 year event and the storage must be for a 1 in 100 plus climate change event. This information to be provide and approved prior commencement on site.
Details of the flood embankment to be provided prior to starting on site to be design to current industry standards and best practice.
Culvert design under the flood embankment to be designed to CIRIA guide C786 (Culvert Screen and Outfall Manual). This is subject to consent under the Flood Risk Management Act 2013, section 20.
The detailed application for phase 2 must include a flood risk assessment that shows rate of flood water rise both tidal and fluvial, flood water velocity and depth. This area contains children's play areas, light industrial units, pub/community area it must be demonstration how in time of flood especial fluvial where there is no flood warning how people will evacuate.
Please note that the content of this memo has been completed by Officers from DOI Flood Risk Management in relation to the detailed planning application for the benefit of Officers of DEFA P&BC
Detailed comments
The flood management division objects to the proposed development on this site because development should not continue to be allowed on green field sites in areas of known flood risk. There should be no residential development on this greenfield site as the site is largely in a high risk flood zone (fluvial and tidal) no development other than water compatible should take place in this area.
The building on green field sites which flood or potential could flood is leaving a legacy for future generations to deal with. Defences can be constructed to standards set out and
==== PAGE 32 ====
22/00679/B Page 32 of 76
freeboard added however these will be overtopped at some point. This will mean more property and more lives at risk. For example Brechin in Scotland had new flood defence constructed in 2016 to a 1 in 200 fluvial standard these were breached in October 2023 when Storm Babet hit.
This site was originally zoned in 1980's policy and opinion in other jurisdictions has moved on. English planning policy in the National Planning Policy Framework advises development should be directed away from areas at greatest risk of flooding. This is same in other jurisdictions and is the position the Island is looking to move towards with policy and strategy documents currently being developed. The proposed development goes against the policy position of the leading independent chartered professional body for water and environmental professionals. The Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management policy position statement states "stronger policies are need to avoid new development in places that are currently or will become at high risk of flooding or coastal erosion" The Flood Planning Strategy and policy being developed for the Island will seek to follow this guidance to prevent flooding on greenfield land in flood zone or area that will become flood zones.
There are two culverts that will pass through the embankment. There is a no information on the culverts which should include detailed drawings showing long section, cross section, inlet and outlet details, etc. The culvert needs to be designed to CIRIA guide C786 (Culvert Screen and Outfall Manual). There are no flow calculations to support the application and demonstrate the capacity of the culvert. Generally we would ask to demonstrate the culvert can pass the 1 in 100 plus Climate change flow there must also be blockage scenarios and measures put in place encase of blockage.
The flood embankment will be critical infrastructure there has been no ground investigation and no design only trial pits undertaken in August 2021. What standard will the flood embankment be designed too, who will own the embankment and what will be the maintenance regime?
The drainage in the spine road is proposed to be laid under permeable paving and the invert level of the drainage system is 5.1mD02 (Page 17 of The HR Wallingford, Sulby Riverside Development Preliminary drainage assessment). This is 0.9m below the high tide level that has been provided how will the water be prevented from passing through the spine road into the site?
Appendix 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 sets out the requirements for the flood risk assessment. Under other information (c) (snip below) it states the hydraulics of any drain or sewers existing or proposed on the site (during a flood event). This information has not been supplied and therefore the flood risk assessment is not complete. It is a great concern what will happen during a flood event with the surface water (sewers and watercourse) as the properties could be flooded from surface water which is tide locked during a flood event.
(f) A cross-section of the site indicating finished floor levels or road levels or other relevant levels relative to the source of flooding and to anticipated water levels and associated probabilities. Other information A.4.4 The following additional information may also be required:
(a) The probabilities and any observed trends and the extent and depth of floods for the location and, if appropriate, routes and speed of water flow. The effect of climate change on such probabilities should be examined. (b) The likely rate or speed with which flooding might occur, the order in which various parts of the location or site might flood, the likely duration of flood events and the economic, social and environmental consequences of flooding. (c) The hydraulics of any drain or sewers existing or proposed on the site (during flood events). (d) An estimate of the volume of water which would be displaced from the site for various flood level following development of the site.
==== PAGE 33 ====
22/00679/B Page 33 of 76
(e) The potential impact of any displaced water on neighbouring or other locations which might be affected subsequent to development. (f) The potential impact of any development on fluvial or coastal morphology and the likely longer-term stability and sustainability.
Mitigation Measures
A.4.5 Details of flood defence arrangements proposed must be provided and also an assessment of their behaviour in extreme events.
A.4.5.1 Any work on a watercourse, stream or a designated main river (and normally including the banks for a distance of 9m either side) requires the permission of the Department of Transport's Land Drainage Engineer in accordance with the Land Drainage Acts 1934.
The HR Wallingford, Sulby Riverside Development Preliminary drainage assessment does not use the Isle of Man standards for drainage design. In Manx sewers for adoption the sewers must be self-cleansing and must not surcharge for a 1 in 50 year event. The storage during a flood event should have the capacity for a 1 in 100 plus climate change event.
I have been in contact with the emergency services with regard to access during a flood event and have stated the depth of water could be up to 1 metre deep. The flood risk assessment should provide information on depth and velocity of flood water as this will also affect access in emergency situations.
a) The police state that "From a police perspective I can confirm we would have no ability to access in a flooding event through water - our vehicles being 'standard' and as such would be unable to pass water. In respect of the secondary entrance through a cycle path this would need to be looked at in more detail prior to being able to confirm"
b) The Fire and rescue service have said that a standard fire appliance would not have the ability to travel through flood waters of up to 1m in height.
c) The Ambulance service stated "From the ambulance side we wouldn't enter flood water due to the risks we can't see underneath. But if they did it would only be to the height of the sills of the vehicles which is less than 1ft of water "
The Emergency Services asked for more information on the cycle route to check suitability and if there would be chance to comment further on the application."
DoI Public Estates and Housing Division (1/2/2024) - Comments:
"Bearing in mind that both Phases fall within this application, then we would like to see a commitment for 25% in Phase 2 and that would temper the loss of a large proportion of AHU's in Phase 1 due to the viability issue. We would like to see 37 units overall, or more if possible, which would equate to 18% AHU delivery across phases 1 and 2."
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
At the revised report drafting stage, further neighbour representations (which are précised below) were received from the occupants of:
47 Lezayre Park, Ramsey, (received 17/1/2024) pointing out that they have walked the site area daily on the 3 rather cold days preceding the Committee Site Visit. There are several species of plants already starting to bloom again and birds are now starting to become more active; and, that there is a stream running down this area which I had never seen before. This is on the nature reserve side hidden by grass and branches.
==== PAGE 34 ====
22/00679/B Page 34 of 76
River House, Riverside, Ramsey (12/1/2024 received 17/1/2024) pointing out that:
o The land designation on which the PH/CF is proposed to be sited lies in an area of Public Open Space which lies outside the land allocation area shown in the Ramsey Local Plan; o There is no justification for such a departure from the Development Plan discussed in the Officer's Report. This is contrary to Business Policy 5 and Recreation Policy 2 in the Strategic Plan; o There is no assessment in the officer's report on the amount of the different types of Public Open Space which is required by the development and how much is being provided on site and if there is any shortfall, how this will be provided. o Despite having originally been recommended for IPS, the officer stated at the meeting of 15th January, 2024 that he had changed his mind, having considered the provisions of the Department's Operational Policy and now recommends that none of the private individuals who submitted views should be entitled to it as none is within 20m of the site. We consider it unreasonable that people living close to the site but not within 20m should not be afforded IPS for a development of such significance and which is not in accordance with the development plan. o There is no reference to any specific assessment of EP 24 in the officer's report although it is referred to. o The site falls outside the settlement boundary on the draft Area Plan for the North and West; o There is inaccuracy in Drawings listed in proposed conditions 1 and 5; o The matters required by proposed condition 6 should have been provided prior to any decision being taken. o The information required by proposed condition 7 should be provided prior to the taking of any decision.
Watersmeet, Westfield Drive, Ramsey (20/1/2024)
I believe
Pooildhooie Limited, a company in the Dandara Group, is the owner of land which directly adjoins the site of the above planning application. (22/1/2024)
o Our objection satisfies the relevant provisions of the DEFA Operational Policy in respect of Interested Person Status and accordingly we wish to be afforded IPS.
o The development as proposed will have an unacceptable adverse impact upon our land because the dwellings proposed at the north west boundary of the application site are immediately adjacent to our land, which is allocated for residential development but is yet to be developed (see approved application PA 03/00790/B). The dwellings as now proposed are positioned too close to the site boundary, resulting in back gardens with a depth of as little as 6 metres. This is contrary to the Residential Design Guide's general requirement for a minimum of
==== PAGE 35 ====
22/00679/B Page 35 of 76
20 metres between habitable rooms which face one another. This will prejudice the development of Pooildhooie Limited's site.
o Our land (PA 03/00790/B) is allocated for residential development in the Ramsey Local Plan (and the emerging APNW) and benefits from an extant planning approval for roads, plots, drainage and the flood defence bund, but there is currently no certainty over when the site might be developed and therefore when the flood defence bund might be put in place.
o The scheme proposes to develop new dwellings on land which is zoned for Light Industrial use. Strategic Policy 7 of the IoMSP;
o The proposal is therefore contrary to SP7 and BP5 in the IoMSP;
o The application fails to demonstrate how there is a need for housing in the North which is sufficient to outweigh the objectives of SP7 and BP5;
o The application also proposes to locate a public house within an area which is designated as Public Open Space contrary to Recreation Policy 2 of the IoMSP;
o The application includes a Feasibility Report which concludes that it is not viable to provide affordable housing. We do not wish to comment upon the detail of the report at this stage, but would point out that the applicant would be aware of the construction and infrastructure needs of the site when purchasing the land. We note that the Dandara scheme in Ballasalla has been referenced by other parties; that development includes a multi-million pound by-pass road with raised embankments, a bridge over the railway line and a large roundabout as well as affordable housing on-site and a financial contribution of over £1 million in lieu of affordable housing;
West View, Westfield Drive, Ramsey (23/1/2024)
In neither the RLP or the WRDF, is field 131273, where the new Public House is proposed to be sited, part of land zoned for development of any type. It is clear it is to be retained as public open space.
Part of the proposed residential development is on land zoned for light industrial use according to the RLP and the WRDF. Surely if land is zoned for a specific purpose it should not be used for another?
The issue of affordable housing has not been given appropriate weight. The Chief Minister advised Manx Radio that affordable housing was a priority for his administration given the current housing crisis on the Island. To allow the Developer not to build the requisite number of affordable homes in phase one, on the purported promise of doing something in phase two (which may never happen), gives the wrong impression, given the Islands, and particularly Ramsey's needs for more affordable housing now.
We still have concerns that any development may affect the flow of the Sulby river and the possible risk of damage to the riverbanks, gabions and garden walls on the opposite side. These issues previously raised have not been dealt with effectively, and if damage occurs to our property, who is liable, the Developer, the Government, or us?
The issues about wildlife, biodiversity and nature have been well argued by others including Manx Wildlife Trust, however we would like to reiterate our strong feelings about the potential risk to flora and fauna on the development site. We are a UN Biosphere after all.
Whilst the planning officer gives no weight to the DAPNW, as it is not a publically agreed document it obviously outlined the direction of travel and the thinking of those responsible for it
==== PAGE 36 ====
22/00679/B Page 36 of 76
two years ago. That document showed that the area in question should remain as a public open space. The fact that it has not been ratified by now is in our opinion just a snapshot of the malaise within Government in general.
Pine View, Westfield Drive, Ramsey (24/1/2024)
I live opposite to Poylldooey and see the tide movement everyday. It seems amazing to me that anyone would even think of building on those fields as there are increasing risks of flooding. We have had be very high rainfall this winter and as the largest river on the Island, inevitably the Sulby River will carry even more water. These weather patterns are predicted to increase the temperature in the NW of Great Britain so it will only get worse with even greater flooding.
It is also amazing that permission to build is even considered so close to the nature reserve ASSI. There are few enough of these on the Island, which boasts a commitment to UNESCO Biosphere on the Isle of Man. I beg you to refuse the permission to build on these fields, which would lead to more people, bikes, dogs etc. disturbing the natural wildlife.
Port Natal, Riverside, Ramsey (28/1/2024)
The application will cause the loss or irreversible harm to priority habitats such as the saltmarsh and tree cover and result in the loss of protected and rare species that inhabit this.
Public Open Space.
Loss of significant social benefits of walking on a daily basis around this rare island habitat with its staggering biodiversity on display in this vital green space so close to an urban setting.
The proposed development will likely cause harm to the Manx Marine Nature Reserve during construction and forevermore following completion.
The application has been evaluated by the many professional consultees to the Planning Department on multiple occasions and found to be an unsustainable development contrary to the Strategic Plan.
The development will cause irreparable damage to one of the islands most important areas for biodiversity and therefore contrary to the aims of the Isle of Man 2015 Biodiversity Strategy?
The loss or damage of the saltmarsh would be in direct contravention of the Isle of Man Climate Change Action Plan 2022-23 which identifies the Saltmarsh as a priority carbon sequestering habitat.
The potential flooding issues that will be created by constructing the development with its many hard, impervious surfaces and the increased run-off that will no doubt be caused to the intertidal area and flood plain. No reassurances can be given by the developer that the overburdening of the floodplain with run-off will not cause future flooding of long established residential areas next to the river and harbour area.
This unique area should be given the utmost protection for the natural flood defence that it provides rather than causing its loss or irreparable harm.
Would any insurance underwriter be willing to provide protection for the new homes and businesses proposed when existing ones are either not able to get cover or it has become so cost prohibitive that it makes such cover unviable?
==== PAGE 37 ====
22/00679/B Page 37 of 76
While this may not be a planning reason for objection, it is a very real reason that will be left for the existing residents of Ramsey, if the development is granted consent and therefore should form part of any deliberation over the proposal.
The proposed development with its increase in traffic and movement of people will spoil the quiet enjoyment of my property and no substantive mitigation can be provided to alter this fact.
The beautiful verdant outlook enjoyed from this property will also largely be destroyed, further exacerbating the adverse impact upon me as a direct neighbour and the unique character of the area.
The proposal to construct a public house in close proximity to my house would also have a lasting detrimental impact to the quiet enjoyment of my property.
There is quite clearly no need for such an establishment given the number of boarded up and derelict public houses presently in Ramsey.
The full contents of the representations received are available to view on the DEFA Planning website PA 22/00679/B. Any further representation received will be reported.
The following Sections of the Report have not changed from that Reported at the 15/1/24 Meeting. They are:
1.00 THE SITE 2.00 THE APPLICATION 3.00 PLANNING POLICIES 4.00 PLANNING HISTORY 5.00 REPRESENTATIONS - FROM STATUTORY CONSULTEES 6.00 REPRESENTATIONS FROM THIRD PARTIES (NEIGHBOURS)
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO A LEGAL AGREEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND DUE TO THE OBJECTIONS TO THE APPLICATION INCLUDING THAT FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY
0.0 PREAMBLE
0.1 This application was considered by the Committee on 15th January 2024 and deferred for a site visit.
0.2 The Site visit was carried out on Thursday 18th January 2024.
0.3 During the site visit the location of the site's principal access for the Spine Road onto Poyll Dooey Road to the east; and, Audlyn Walk to the west were viewed by Members. Members toured the site and parts of the surrounding area viewing it from:
Poyll Dooey House and Barn - in relation to the 6 units in Phase 1 to be sited to the north of the Spine Road and adjoining the sites western boundary in this particular area;
==== PAGE 38 ====
22/00679/B Page 38 of 76
The site was also viewed from the grounds of River House, Riverside, Ramsey which is located on the north bank of the Sulby River and to the east of the site of the proposed Public House, with the occupant of River House in attendance;
0.4 During the site visit, Members observed the access points at the eastern and western ends of the proposed Spine Road which had been laid out by the applicant prior to the Site Meeting. Members queried:
The relationship of the site and development proposed thereon with both industrial and residential units on the southern side of the site boundary (old railway line - cycleway/footpath); and, the Dandara Homes development at Audlyn Walk immediately to the west and south-west of the new dwellings and Spine Road proposed for Phase 1 of the development;
0.5 Finally, Members were directed to view the site and the location of the PH/CF from the grounds of River House, Riverside, where the occupant pointed out the position and proximity of River House and the site of the PH/CF. In addition, the occupant pointed out the relative location of the 4-storey residential units, and commercial units, which would be located on the north side of the Spine Road. The occupant expressed concerns regarding the proximity of the PH/CF; the potential for noise and disturbance arising from activities carried on in and around the PH/CF; loss of outlook; and overlooking from the upper floors of the 4-storey housing units facing the site. Concerns were also expressed regarding the loss of trees and shrubs on site and whether the gorse hedge on the opposite riverbank would be retained.
0.6 Subsequent to the Committee Site Visit, the applicant has proposed the following by way of variation to the application:
==== PAGE 39 ====
22/00679/B Page 39 of 76
o Re-siting of the PH/CF to a position approx. 50.0m to the south of its previous location on land not forming part of any area of POS, and maintaining a line of mature trees to its rear between it and the river bank. The siting of the PH/CF can be covered by a condition.
o The applicant has clarified that the proposals now involve the provision of 5 x 3-bed Affordable Housing Units (not 5 x 2-bed units) as part of Phase 1 (Full element of the application) subject to inclusion in any S13 Agreement. The applicant advises: "Though we appreciate that this is below the 25% requirement, we know that this is the absolute limit we can provide in phase 1."
0.7 The applicant has clarified the following points: o The Preliminary Drainage Assessment report No. FWM8791-RT002 R01-00 as referred to by DoI Highways Drainage in their consultee response was not originally submitted with the bulk of the application in May 2022, but it was submitted in December 22 and resubmitted in May 23, and forms part of the application. o Apart from the above document and those already submitted, there are no other flood related documents that form part of the application;
o In response to the latest comments received from the Ecosystems Policy Officer - 22/1/24, the applicant advises that "our comments are being finalised, but the comments are similar to Ms Costain's previous comments so I believe our position is largely the same as previously."
o In terms of open space provision in respect of what is required by Policy and what is proposed to be provided, the applicants advise:
Formal space required = 8,613m2 Formal space provided = 5,798m2
Children's Play Space required = 2,871 m2 Children's Play space provided =1,500 m2
Amenity Space required = 3,828m2 Amenity Space provided = 21,093m2
Total Space required = 15,312 m2 Total Space provided= 28,391m2
o With regard to the proposed commercial units, these are annotated on plan as flexible employment space, and amount to a floor-space of approx. 2,580m2. The shop kiosks on the north side and fronting onto the Spine Road amount to 56m2. The applicant has been advised that 'Commercial' Use is not a formal land-use on the Island. The applicant responded: "These uses will complement the offerings found in Ramsey town centre and will not harm the vitality of the Ramsey town centre. The offering is unlikely to provide a large amount of retail space, as the focus of the non-residential development is focused on uses falling under Part 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2019. However, the kiosks measuring roughly 56m2 are not considered to affect the retail provision in Ramsey Town Centre. The provisions non-residential development within this site will provide a 21st century offering of workspace and commercial space with the detailed design forming part of the reserved matters application in future. This has been in the description of development since the start."
0.8 In a letter dated 2/2/2024, the applicant advises of the updates as follows:
" Sulby Riverside - Update to Council
Following the planning committee meeting on the 15th January and the subsequent site visit on the 18th January, we would like to formally submit updates to the proposed development at Sulby Riverside.
==== PAGE 40 ====
22/00679/B Page 40 of 76
The amendments include the following:
o We will provide five affordable three bedroom houses in phase one o We proposed to relocate the public house to the southern portion of the site outside of the designated public open space area as set out in the West Ramsey Development Framework.
We believe that these amendments improve the planning justification for the application and address key concerns which members of the planning committee and members of the public have had regarding the proposal.
We also wish to respond to specific comments raised by various consultees and committee members at this time. In terms of affordable housing, the phase one elements include 78 new units of which 12 are 1- bedroom apartments.
Under the original submission a viability assessment had been carried out to show that due to the provision of Spine Road in Phase One that the provision of affordable housing in this phase was not deemed viable.
However during the committee meeting on the 15th January it was made clear by members that the provision of affordable housing was an essential need for residents of the north of the island.
As such we have proposed provide 5 affordable homes in phase one. These will be two- bedroom homes being sold at a fixed price of £185,000. (Subsequently clarified by the Case Officer with the applicant that these are 3-bedroom homes).
These will be provided for first time buyers who are on the register.
The total percentage of this is around 6.5% of the total number of homes in phase one being affordable. We have provided an updated viability assessment to prove the impact on viability. The fact is the provision of the public infrastructure in the form of the Spine Road will affect delivery of affordable housing in phase one this position has been agreed with Brett Woods, the head of affordable housing delivery on the Isle of Man.
We would like to remind members that further affordable housing is possible in the later phases of development however these will be subject to their own viability review closer to the time.
We hope that the provision move affordable homes on site alongside the much needed public infrastructure over the Spine Road will be viewed favourably by members.
Public House Relocation
We also have proposed to relocate the pub in the outline portion of the development.
As discussed on site we recognise that the location of the pub is within designated public open space. Though the provision of this community facility is not necessarily inconsistent with the aims of public open space, we respect the concerns of residents and members about the delivery of this in this designated area.
Though the location of the pub is within the outline application where sighting is yet to be fixed, we want members to know that we are committed to having the pub located outside this designated area.
We would happily agree to a planning condition which would ensure that the public open space designation will remain undeveloped as part of this permission.
==== PAGE 41 ====
22/00679/B Page 41 of 76
In terms of road safety concerns were raised at the previous planning committee about whether or not the spine road and the existing estate road at the Dandara scheme would be safe.
Comments provided by the Highways Department show that relevant road safety reviews and road safety audits were carried out by an independent party during the course of the determination on that amendment were made particularly with the western side of the Spine Road where it connects with the existing estate road.
We agreed in March 2023 with Shelia Henley that the proposed development would provide dropped kerbs and tactile paving within the length of full height kerbs, taking care to avoid the hardstanding access and provide tactile paving only on the raised table between Plots 1 and 73 and that the road material between the Dandara Estate Road and the Spine Road wearing courses on the new sections of carriageway have a similar wet skid resistance to ensure that drivers in wet conditions will have the same level of grip.
These recommendations were made by an independent road safety expert and have been incorporated into our design for nearly a year.
Appropriate speed limits speed humps and traffic calming measures have been proposed as well as improved pedestrian crossings and footways to ensure easy access for wheelchair users and those suffering with sight issues is incorporated into the proposed design. The design of the road is also complied with the Manx Road design guidance. This has been confirmed by Richard Webster.
Flooding and Drainage
Concerns regarding the flooding position were raised during the meeting and subsequently from members.
We are clear in the fact that we know the site has flooding issues, and we have hired industry leading experts on this.
There were concerns regarding the bund which Dandara have failed to build, there could be a route for floodwater to enter the west side of the site south of the spine road during the most extreme events (1 in 200 years). A small amount of landscaping along the site boundary would mitigate this impact to our development.
The existing roads to which the Spine Road connects to the west and east of the site already flood. The development provides a level of flood protection that is greater than the level of protection to the east and west.
In terms of surface water drainage, three options were proposed which fit into the wider drainage scheme for the site. They were designed to facilitate adoption by Manx Utilities and DoI Highways.
The next steps should be to reach agreement on the approach and then provide the detailed highway drainage design and calculations that are required. The drainage options should be discussed and the preferred option should be selected including the adoption strategy. The drainage details and calculations would then be provided. The adoption strategy should take account of the fact that proposed roads serving housing areas are above flood level and existing roads including Poyll Dooey Road are already at risk of flooding. Furthermore, in terms of foul drainage concerns have been raised specifically regarding adoption and this will be done post permission. We will complete the required Section8 adoption agreements with Manx Utilities upon the granting of planning permission.
==== PAGE 42 ====
22/00679/B Page 42 of 76
To summarise:
Affordable Housing: o Proposal: five affordable three-bedroom homes (as confirmed by the applicant 2/2/2024) at £185,000 for first-time buyers. o Updated viability assessment provided. o We are committed to viability reviews for later phases.
Public House Relocation: o Commitment to relocating pub outside designated public open space.
Road Safety: o Completed independent road safety reviews and audits. o Implemented recommended safety measures in compliance with Manx Road design.
Flooding and Drainage: o Engaged industry experts to address flooding. o Mitigated flood impact through landscaping. o Proposed three drainage options for wider scheme. o Intent to finalize drainage details post-agreement.
We appreciate your attention to these updates and remain open to further discussion. Thank you for your consideration."
0.9 As indicated at the beginning of this updated Report, Members considered that that subsequent to the site visit, the following points remained for further consideration:
SUMMARY OF ISSUES o Drainage; o Highway design, safety and the question of adoption; o Affordable Housing provision; o The siting of the PH/CF on a recognised area of Public Open Space; o The extent of tree and hedgerow removal; and, o The impacts on wildlife; o Impact on Public Rights of Way; o Interested Party Status;
DRAINAGE
0.10 Officers have discussed the application at some length with the representatives of the DoI Flood Risk Management Division (FMD). Subsequent to these discussion, FMD has raised no objection to the proposed development subject to the imposition of conditions as part of any planning permission that may be granted.
0.11 The conditions require:
o The submission of a detailed surface water drainage scheme with calculations must be provided showing the position of attenuation tanks/ponds behind the spine road and not within the flood area. The surface water system is to be design to not surcharge in a 1 in 50 year event and the storage must be for a 1 in 100 plus climate change event;
o Details of the flood embankment to be provided prior to starting on site to be design to current industry standards and best practice.
==== PAGE 43 ====
22/00679/B Page 43 of 76
o Culvert design under the flood embankment to be designed to CIRIA guide C786 (Culvert Screen and Outfall Manual). This is subject to consent under the Flood Risk Management Act 2013, section 20; and,
o The detailed application for phase 2 must include a flood risk assessment that shows rate of flood water rise both tidal and fluvial, flood water velocity and depth. This area contains children's play areas, light industrial units, pub/community area it must be demonstration how in time of flood especial fluvial where there is no flood warning how people will evacuate."
Reason: To minimise the potential impact of flooding and flood risk arising from the development both on-site and up and downstream of the site along the Sulby River.
0.12 It is considered that these suggested conditions are acceptable and meet the tests for conditions which are that they should be necessary, relevant to the development, relevant to planning, reasonable, precise, and enforceable. On these grounds it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable and accords with the provisions of Strategic Plan Policies ENV5, ENV10, ENV22 and ENV28.
0.13 The DoI Highways Drainage Team has commented on the proposals and has recommended that: "Due to the lack of surface water drainage details and calculations together with the extent of flooding predicted during extreme tidal events to parts of the estate roads, we recommend that our Highway Asset Management Division do not enter into a Section 4 adoption agreement if the application is approved." This stance is noted.
0.14 The applicant has commented (2/2/24) that:
"The next steps should be to reach agreement on the approach and then provide the detailed highway drainage design and calculations that are required. The drainage options should be discussed and the preferred option should be selected including the adoption strategy.
The drainage details and calculations would then be provided. The adoption strategy should take account of the fact that proposed roads serving housing areas are above flood level and existing roads including Poyll Dooey Road are already at risk of flooding.
Furthermore, in terms of foul drainage concerns have been raised specifically regarding adoption and this will be done post permission. We will complete the required Section8 adoption agreements with Manx Utilities upon the granting of planning permission.
0.15 It is noted that Manx Utilities Authority (MUA) considered that conditions advised by the Case Officer in an email dated 12/1/24 and which read:
Surface water drainage strategy
Prior to the commencement of any works on site, precise details of a finalised surface water management scheme for the site, based upon the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning for both the Phase 1 (full element) and Phase 2 (outline element) of the scheme. The surface water scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the submitted details before the development is used for the first time.
Reason: To prevent increased risk of flooding and to improve and protect water quality and ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system and to prevent increased risk of flooding.
Surface water management and maintenance scheme
==== PAGE 44 ====
22/00679/B Page 44 of 76
Prior to the commencement of any works on site, details of maintenance and management of the surface water sustainable drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning for both the Phase 1 (full element) and Phase 2 (outline element) of the scheme. Such details shall include a plan for the lifetime of the development, the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the surface water drainage scheme throughout its lifetime.
Reason: To ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system and to prevent increased risk of flooding.
Foul water drainage strategy
Prior to the commencement of any works on site, precise details of foul water drainage provision to serve the development, hereby approved, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. Such approved drainage scheme shall be installed prior to the development hereby permitted being first occupied and shall thereafter be retained and maintained at all times.
Reason: To ensure that the site is adequately drained and does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.
should be applied to any planning permission that may be granted that requires
0.16 MUA advised that from their perspective: "the public adoption of the foul and/or surface water infrastructure will not be considered until we are totally satisfied that the proposals meet with our requirements.
0.17 MUA also advised that: "Both of the conditions below for surface water infrastructure appear fine with me as long as they are can enforceable before development work commences
0.18 This is a possibility. However, it may be that the road and drainage system is not adopted, and would remain the responsibility of the developer, and/or any management company that it appointed and to which residents and businesses on the site of their scheme contributed to. The applicant considers that such details can be worked out and is willing to work with MUA and Highways Drainage to resolve such matters.
0.19 There is inevitably some uncertainty when precise drainage details are not offered as part of a scheme , nor would they be expected where part of the application is in outline, with access fixed at this stage (the Spine Road), and all other matters reserved for later consideration. Given that the above surface and foul water strategy conditions are acceptable to MUA; and, that FMD has withdrawn its objection subject to its recommended conditions being imposed, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable in land drainage and flood risk terms. On balance, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable in respect of land drainage.
HIGHWAY DESIGN, SAFETY AND THE QUESTION OF ADOPTION
0.20 The published minutes of the 15/1/24 Planning Committee Meeting, "in response to a question from the Members, the Case Officer confirmed that rescue vehicles should be able to access the area during periods of flooding." Furthermore, "In response to a question from the Members regarding the design of the spine road the DOI Highways representative confirmed that the design was in accordance with Manual for Manx Roads and at this current time they
==== PAGE 45 ====
22/00679/B Page 45 of 76
were satisfied with the proposed design but there would be a need for a road safety audit which could lead to amendments if necessary. Members commented that this design element would be better addressed at this stage rather than further design changes later, the Highways representative confirmed that it was not a high risk design likely to be changed significantly."
0.21 No further details have as yet been received in relation to the proposed highway design. The applicant has advised (in the letter dated 2/2/24) "that comments provided by the Highways Department show that relevant road safety reviews and road safety audits were carried out by an independent party during the course of the determination on that amendment were made particularly with the western side of the Spine Road where it connects with the existing estate road."
0.22 The applicant also confirmed that: "We agreed in March 2023 with Shelia Henley that the proposed development would provide dropped kerbs and tactile paving within the length of full height kerbs, taking care to avoid the hardstanding access and provide tactile paving only on the raised table between Plots 1 and 73 and that the road material between the Dandara Estate Road and the Spine Road wearing courses on the new sections of carriageway have a similar wet skid resistance to ensure that drivers in wet conditions will have the same level of grip.
These recommendations were made by an independent road safety expert and have been incorporated into our design for nearly a year.
Appropriate speed limits speed humps and traffic calming measures have been proposed as well as improved pedestrian crossings and footways to ensure easy access for wheelchair users and those suffering with sight issues is incorporated into the proposed design. The design of the road is also complied with the Manx Road design guidance. This has been confirmed by Richard Webster."
0.23 Given the comments made by the Highways Representative made at the Committee Meeting, and the above assertions of the applicant, it is considered that any issues relating to highway design and safety - including pavements, walkways and cycleways - can be resolved at the final design stage. It is noted that the layout of the Spine Road, and roads emanating therefrom are not considered to be not a high risk design that would change significantly from that submitted. It is considered that further details can be agreed by the imposition of a condition(s) as part of any planning permission that may be granted. This accords with the provisions of Policies GEN2; T2, T4, T5, T6 and T8 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION
0.24 The applicant has reconsidered the subject of Affordable Housing (AH) provision in respect of the Full element of the proposals (Phase 1) and has offered to provide 5 x 3-bedroomed AH units on Phase 1. These would be secured via a S13 Agreement. Previously, the applicant had argued that the provision of any AH Units on Phase 1 would make the development unviable and had submitted an AH Viability Assessment to that effect. Recognising that AH provision is a significant issue, the applicant has decided to offer the above 5 AHU's. An updated AH Viability Assessment is to be provided, and the applicant advises that: "We are committed to viability reviews for later phases."
0.25 In response to this offer, DoI Public Estates and Housing Division (1/2/2024) has commented that they would like to see a commitment for 25% in Phase 2 which would temper the loss of a large proportion of AHU's in Phase 1 due to the viability issue. They further comment: "We would like to see 37 units overall, or more if possible, which would equate to 18% AHU delivery across phases 1 and 2."
==== PAGE 46 ====
22/00679/B Page 46 of 76
0.26 Officers note that the provision of AHU's falls below the Strategic Plan Policy H5 requirement of 25% AHU's provision on developments of 8 units or more. Nevertheless, Officer's had previously accepted in their recommendation that the lack of any AHU's on Phase 1 was acceptable given the costs of installing the SR as an up-front requirement to enable the development to occur with the SR being installed in its entirety up to at least base course level as part of Phase 1 of the development. 78 dwellings are proposed in Phase 1 and 25% of that figure would amount to 19.5 AHU's. Whilst the provision of 5 AHU's means a deficit of 14.5AHU's across Phase 1 is not Policy H5 compliant, it is better than the previous position of a complete lack of Phase 1 AHU provision. Officers consider that on balance, an under-provision of AHU's versus achieving the installation of the SR on which the entire development is presaged, is acceptable.
THE SITING OF THE PUBLIC HOUSE/COMMUNITY FACILITY ON A RECOGNISED AREA OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE
0.27 The siting of the PH/CF on a recognised area of Public Open Space; and, its relationship to the dwelling at River House, Riverside located approx. 70.0m from the PH/CF site on the opposite bank of the Sulby River was discussed at the Member's Site Visit, where Members viewed the proposed site from the land in question itself, from the adjoining bank of the Sulby River; and, from the grounds of River House on the opposite riverbank to the site. Subsequently, Officers have had discussions with the applicant who has revised the location of the PH/CF site to an area on the site, which lies within the site allocation in the Ramsey Local Plan 1998 (See Map No. 2 (South)) in the published Local Plan to a location now shown as being outside the area of POS. It would now be approx. 150.0m from the nearest point with River House.
0.28 It is considered that this re-siting, albeit it is indicative as the PH/CF is located within the Outline (Phase 2) area of the plan, would improve the relationship between River House and the revised PH/CF site in that it would be screened from the Sulby River by a line of mature trees. It is also noted that that occupants of Port Natal, which is located approx. 180.0m from the original PH/CF site on the opposite bank of the Sulby to the south of River House in Riverside, Ramsey, have raised similar concerns regarding the impact of the PH/CF on their outlook, view and residential amenities. The approx. distance between Port Natal and the revised PH/CF site would be 230.0m. It is considered that the relationship of Port Natal with the original site of the PH/CF would also be improved as a result of its re-location. Whilst the relocation would take the PH/CF closer to the new residential properties on the development, it is considered that there would be sufficient distance between any of the dwellings on the site and the PH/CF for the residential amenities of their occupants to be largely unaffected by activities carried on and around the PH/CF.
0.29 It is considered that the site of the re-located PH/CF is, in principle, acceptable. Whilst it would not accord with the provisions of Business Policy 5 in the Strategic Plan, it would accord with General Policy 2, Environment Policies 4 and 5, and Recreation Policy 2, and would be acceptable in this revised location. The siting of the PH/CF can be controlled by a condition.
THE EXTENT OF TREE AND HEDGEROW REMOVAL AND THE IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE
0.30 As advised previously comments had been received from the Manx Wildlife Trust and from neighbours regarding these impacts objecting to the level of tree and hedgerow removal and the consequent impacts it would have on the character of the site and its relationship to the surrounding area; and, on wildlife. Since the 15/1/2024. Committee Meeting and the subsequent Committee Members Site Visit, further representations have been received from neighbours, the DEFA Arboricultural Officer (AO); and, the Ecosystems Policy Officer.
0.31 Neighbours concerns remain as previously expressed. The AO objects to the proposals on the grounds that it would involve the removal of multiple tree groups including 14 category
==== PAGE 47 ====
22/00679/B Page 47 of 76
C groups 2 large category B groups (5574m2), and the removal of 1 Category A group (286m2). In total this results in a canopy cove loss of 13,772m2. However, the AO notes that there are exceptional circumstances which mean that this should not result in an objection to the application, and raises no objection to the proposals whilst further noting that due to ash dieback, the site will naturally reduce it's over all canopy cover. The AO recommends that a condition requiring a tree protection plan, arboricultural method statement and arboricultural monitoring schedule, should be requested as a pre commencement condition to be attached to any permission that may be granted.
0.32 The Ecosystems Policy Officer (EPO) attended the Members Site Visit and was able to show Members an overlay of the site plans indicating the position on site and % coverage of hedgerow and tree removal that is likely to arise as a result of the proposed development. The EPO points out that the Ecosystems Policy Team's (EPT) objection to these proposals appears to have been mossed from the 'Representations Section' of the 15/1/24, Officer Report to Planning Committee. This is correct and apologies are extended by the Case Officer for this error. The EPO points out that although certain limited elements of the EPT's objection are mentioned, this appears to be selective, and is of general concern, as it presents a formal Departmental submission in an inaccurate way. In drafting the original Committee Report the Case Officer took into account the EPT's concerns (along with those of others) at the "IMPACT ON BIODIVERSITY" section of the Report at paragraphs 7.11 - 7.18.
0.33 The EPO's latest comments received on 22/1/2024 are reported in full in this updated Report.
0.34 The EPT raises concerns that: o "The project ecological consultants, JBA, has recommended tree retention (which has not been done) and a CEMP, and the applicants are to undertake some replanting and other landscaping, but there are no details in the documentation on the planning portal of what this significant level of ecological mitigation would be or where it is to take place." o "the applicants have provided no information about how they are going to mitigate their impacts upon the two red listed plant species of highest conservation concern which are also legally protected via inclusion on Schedule 7 of the Wildlife Act 1990." o The EPT had not been consulted on draft conditions, and are taking such an opportunity to do so now; o The EPT does not believe that as advised in Section 7.17 of the original Report that "It is considered that on balance, the proposed development is acceptable in terms of its potential for adverse impacts on the existing ecology and habitat of this statutorily unprotected, allocated site", and whether there is there a methodology for determining if and how economic benefits outweigh other issues? o The EPT also advises that it "has never indicated a position for no development to take place, or that it would object in order for it to remain as a wild site." o "As such, the basis for the objection was not the development in principle, apart from in the areas not zoned for residential development, but rather the specific issues noted in the submission, founded upon a professional assessment of the available information. Specifically; o o the lack of appropriate ecological survey; o o the largescale removal of habitat; o o the impacts on protected and rare species; o o the lack of ecological impact avoidance and mitigation; o o the potential impact on the saltmarsh o lack of adherence to various policies within the Strategic Plan and the Isle of Man's Biodiversity Strategy.
The report therefore should be updated to accurately reflect the basis and arguments for our object.
0.35 At Section 8.02 the Report advised that: "There is a lot of pressure on environmental grounds from various bodies both within and outside Government for no development to take
==== PAGE 48 ====
22/00679/B Page 48 of 76
place and for the site to remain as a 'wild area' which may flood occasionally, and over time, it is likely to increase in its biodiversity offering. It is noted that the site could also be farmed (cattle/sheep grazing) as of now which would diminish its biodiversity value." The EPT point out that "well-managed sheep or cattle grazing regime would be of benefit to parts of this site, so this point appears invalid"; and, that they have never indicated a position for no development to take place. As agriculture is the default land-use on the Island, it should be noted that this also includes ploughing, harrowing; planting and seeding of crops; draining (inserting mole-drains); maintaining ditches and channels, cutting back and removing hedges/hedgerows; removing trees (subject to a felling license being granted where necessary). In such an event, existing habitat on unprotected agricultural land would be lost.
0.36 The EPT With reference to tree removal, the EPT advises that this is a dis-benefit of the scheme, and further comments: "(Section 7.1) within the report, but new landscaping is listed as a benefit, although the level of landscaping, at least in terms of ecology (though arguably not from an amenity perspective), does not mitigate for the loss of the large areas of relatively undisturbed mature/maturing trees and dead wood, which are proven to have much higher ecological benefits then newly planted trees, as well as the removal of scrub, hedges and grassland. Additionally, with the site plan as presented, and without reduction in the number of properties, there is simply no space on site in which to undertake more mitigation tree planting and habitat creation. As such, it is not ecologically valid to present new landscaping as a benefit on this basis. Tree removal should also be listed as a dis-benefit within the report, with details of the level of tree removal proposed."
0.37 It is noted that the AO's comments were not received until 17/1/2024. Whilst they may have been sent in 2022, they were not received, and as a result were not recorded. Those that have been received have been noted and reported in full, and it is noted that the AO has in effect, raised no objection subject to a condition as advised in paragraph 0.32 above. It is also noted that the AO considers that: "Although there would be a net canopy loss in the short term, the mitigation planting would, if properly maintained, would likely equal the current canopy cover."
0.38 In all the above, the concerns raised by the EPT, Arboricultural Officer (AO), and earlier those of the Manx Wildlife Trust; the Climate Change Team; and, others, are noted and appreciated. It remains that the site could be grazed, ploughed over or otherwise improved for agricultural practises without recourse to DEFA Planning. The EPT's objection to the proposed development is again, noted and appreciated. Notwithstanding these and their earlier comments, the EPT has recommended a revisions to proposed conditions, plus a number of further conditions. It has again, emphasised that it has significant concerns with the principle of conditioning ecological surveys rather than obtaining them prior to determination. Nevertheless, the EPT recommends amendments to condition 6 for the Landscape and (Mitigation) Ecology Plan. An additional condition to "secure survey work, and for the outcome of this survey work to inform the Ecology Plan:
Breeding and wintering bird surveys; Fungi surveys; Bat roost and activity surveys Invertebrate surveys; Schedule 7 and rare plant surveys; Common frog surveys; Common lizard surveys; Schedule 8 plant surveys.
All of which need to be undertaken following UK best practise guidelines, in the right seasons and by a suitably qualified ecological consultancy.
==== PAGE 49 ====
22/00679/B Page 49 of 76
0.39 These requirements are covered in the wording of a new condition 8. This would inform the Landscape Ecology Mitigation Plan - LEMP, which is covered in the wording of proposed condition 7. Condition 6 requires that no tree removal, site or vegetation clearance may take place until the ecological surveys requested in Condition 8; and, the mitigation recommendations required by the Landscape and Ecology Mitigation Plan (LEMP) - condition 7 - have been signed off as part of this planning permission.
0.40 The EPT's requirement for a condition to protect the Salt Marsh area to show how and where surface water is to be taken off site, with the proviso that his should not go through the Saltmarsh Area, is rehearsed in condition 11.
0.41 The EPT's advice that a CEMP be conditioned (Construction Environment Management Plan) is noted, however, such conditions are difficult to enforce and it is considered that other conditions as well as existing powers which lie outside planning exist sufficient to ensure that the EPT's requirements are met as far as they reasonably can be. These include the following:
o Incorporation of Precautionary Working Method Statements for breeding birds, roosting, commuting and feeding bats, protected and rare plants, rare invertebrates, common lizards, common frogs and fungi. o Measures to be put in place for the protection of the saltmarsh, Sulby River and the downstream Douglas Bay Marine Nature Reserve - prevention of pollution and sedimentation etc. - this must include phased soil stripping and vegetation clearance, as and when development progresses throughout the site, no wholescale removal. o Soft felling methodologies. o Construction exclusion areas and use of protective fencing. o Low level construction lighting regimes. o Responsible avoidance and eradication plans for Schedule 8 plants.
0.42 The requirements of the EPT in respect of the use of integrated bird, bat and bee bricks have been incorporated into condition 25.
0.43 In respect of additional conditions that the EPT advised in relation to: o No external lighting shall be installed except in accordance with a detailed external low level lighting scheme in order to safeguard Ecological Species; o That tree protection measures (such as those specified by the AO) be required with a detailed schedule of regular reporting to ensure compliance; o That the standard tree condition be applied requiring any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. With all hard and soft landscaping works thereafter being permanently maintained.
0.44 These have been incorporated into o condition 15 - standard tree condition o condition 16 requiring a tree protection scheme, arboricultural method statement and an arboricultural monitoring schedule; o condition 26 external lighting controls - this would only be applied to any area of new or retained Public Open Space (other than in connection with any area of formal playspace such as the LAP, LEAP or NEAP) otherwise it would preclude street lighting;
0.45 What has not been conditioned is the EPT's request for an Ecological Clerk of Works. This is considered to be unnecessary as there should be sufficient safeguards built into the requirements of the other conditions as mentioned above.
0.46 The EPT has further pointed out that in December, 2022, Tynwald unanimously voted to support the Islands Bio-diversity Strategy. However, it should also be noted that this application
==== PAGE 50 ====
22/00679/B Page 50 of 76
proposes development on an allocated site in the 1998 Ramsey Local Plan as advised in the WRDA Development Brief 2004.
0.47 There is clearly a conflict between the development proposed and the biodiversity character and natural balance of the sites flora and fauna. On balance, with regard to the implications that development would have for the biodiversity of the site, it is considered that the conditions proposed in terms of biodiversity, tree retention, landscaping and landscape management of the site as it develops, meet the six tests relating to conditions in that they are reasonable; necessary; relevant to the development proposed; relevant to planning; precise; and, enforceable. It is considered that the development proposed can be accommodated and the impacts of it in respect of biodiversity, can be successfully mitigated against.
PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY (PROW)
0.48 The comments received from the PROW Team are noted. There is a process ongoing under S.88 of the Highways Act to confirm established rights of way across the site. The PROW Team advise: "Any member of the public can request a route, if it has had unimpeded access for a period of 21 years, to become dedicated as a public right of way (PROW), and from consulting with past aerial imaging I am satisfied the routes proposed have been used since at least 2001. As a PROW the routes would not be able to be obstructed and a diversion would need to be applied for in conjunction with a planning application in order to have the routes moved."
0.49 The applicant has provided an indicative overlay of the footpath routes that the PROW Team is considering and overlain it onto the Masterplan layout for the development of the site, which indicates that such future footpath routes as those proposed could eb accommodated. It is considered that such routes that may be approved by the PROW, subject to the statutory process, can be incorporated into the Masterplan layout and/or any subsequent approved layout for the site.
IPS - INTERESTED PARTY STATUS
0.45 At the 15/1/2024 Planning Committee Meeting, the Case Officer recommended that all those third parties who had written in on then application should be awarded third Interested Person Status (IPS). This was an error. Whilst those who had written in had expressed valid objections on planning grounds, owing to their location, they did not comply with the requirements of The Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2021). The relevant part of this document reads:
1.0 DEFA OPERATIONAL POLICY - INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
0.51 In relation to the requirements if the document relating to: "Operational Policy on Interested Person Status July 2021", which outlines the criteria identifying Interested Person Status, the document describes Interested Person Status as:
"Interested Person Status will only be afforded to those persons who submit a written representation(s) which complies with ALL the criteria set out below.
A. Representations must clearly identify the land which the person making the representation owns or occupies and which they consider would be impacted on by the proposed development.
B. The land referred to in (A) above must be within 20 metres of the red line boundary of the application site, unless the proposed development exceeds the criteria set out in Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan (2016) to automatically require an Environmental Impact Assessment. (See Section 4.2 Proximity to the Proposed Development (Criteria B)).
==== PAGE 51 ====
22/00679/B Page 51 of 76
C. Representations must relate to the relevant issues set out below.
C1. For Planning Applications the relevant issues are: o living conditions (including outlook, privacy, traffic, noise, light, dust and smell);
o land contamination, flood risk, highway safety and/or risk of crime; and/or
o prejudicing the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan."
"4.2 Proximity to the Proposed Development (Criteria B)
4.2.1 Applications for planning consent must include a site plan which shows the site edged in red (the red line boundary). It is accepted that a smaller development on a larger site may mean the actual works are some distance from neighbouring properties even if the red line boundary is not, and such issues should be considered in the application of Criteria D.
4.2.2 It is accepted that sometimes properties are only separated from the application site by a narrow strip of land, footpath or road. Although not set out in policy, 20 metres is often used as a general guide when assessing the potential for overlooking. The 20 metres referred to in the policy is intended to respond to these two issues. Further away than this it is anticipated that persons, groups or organisations will be deemed to have insufficient interest to be afforded Interested Person Status in relation to most applications.
4.2.3 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016) sets out the circumstances in which an Environmental Impact Assessment is required as part of a planning application (Environment Policy 24 and Appendix 5)."
0.45 In relation to the requirements of an Environmental impact Assessment (EIA) as submitted with this application, Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan 2016 reads as follows:
"The Need for EIA
A.5.2 It is proposed that the following types of development would require EIA in every case:
(j) Other projects
o Residential development of more than 30 homes and commercial development of more than 500sq metres outside identified settlements."
0.52 In this case, the site lies, apart from the originally proposed site for the PH/CF - which was to be on land comprising POS outside the allocated land area in the RLP - is to be sited on allocated land contained within the settlement boundary for Ramsey. The indicative site for the PH/CF is now proposed to be sited on land within the allocated land area in the RLP.
0.53 Given the above it is recommended that the owners/occupiers of none of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered not to meet the requirement of being located within 20.om of the site boundary; and, as such do not have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings mentioned in Article 4.2:
Watersmeet, Westfield Drive, Ramsey, IM8 3ER 2 Belmont Villas, Jurby Road, Ramsey, IM8 3PF West View, Westfield Drive, Ramsey, IM8 3ER Pine View, Westfield Drive, Ramsey, IM8 3ER
==== PAGE 52 ====
22/00679/B Page 52 of 76
River House, Riverside, Ramsey, IM8 3DA 47 Lezayre Park, Ramsey, IM8 2PT 26 Greenlands Avenue, Ramsey, IM8 2PE 6 Dreeym Ollay, Ramsey, IM8 2QA 16 Fairway Drive, Ramsey, IM8 2BB
and do not satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2021). The Case Officer apologises to all third parties mistakenly listed previously as having IPS and for any inconvenience this may have caused.
0.54 A representation was received following the Committee Meeting from Pooildhooie Limited, (22/1/2024) a company in the Dandara Group, which is the owner of land which directly adjoins the site of the above planning application. The relationship of the land meets the 20.0m distance requirement outlined in Article 4.2: and Pooildhooie Limited should be granted Interested Person Status.
0.55 The recommendation remains as one of approval in that overall, the application is considered to be acceptable as the benefits offered by the proposed development are considered to outweigh the dis-benefits. The application is recommended for approval subject to the prior signing of a Section 13 Agreement to secure:
In the Full element: o The provision of the Spine Road; o Off-Site Highway Improvement Works; Open Space and Estate Management comprising: o The provision of the LAP and LEAP with their relevant play equipment; o The provision of a commuted sum for the maintenance costs for the LAP and LEAP;
In the outline element: o That the Spine Road shall be completed prior to the implementation of the first of any approval of Reserved matters for the development of the outline element of the site; o A clause/mechanism to secure the provision of some on-site Affordable Housing; o The provision of the Commercial Units o The provision of the Public House/Community Facility including picnic area; o The provision of the shop/kiosks Open Space and Estate Management comprising: o The provision of the NEAP with its relevant fully equipped play areas/courts/pitches /fencing and associated equipment; o Waymarking, signage and landscape interpretation boards along the Sulby Riverfront from the access onto Poyll Dooey Road in the east linking in with the Poyll Dooey Nature Reserve to the west;
And subject to the following conditions, which having been updated in line with the various recommendations in this Report, are outlined in full:
CONDITIONS
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.
Spine Road implementation 2. The development of the Spine Road within the land outlined in red on drawing numbers 296- 300-101 Rev. C and 296-300-102 Rev. C, hereby permitted, shall be completed up to base
==== PAGE 53 ====
22/00679/B Page 53 of 76
course level for the entirety of its length including ironwork, the footways on the highway frontage; visibility splays; and, a site compound and car park have been constructed in accordance with the Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) required by Condition No. 11 prior to the first building of any residential units permitted by this planning permission.
Reason: In the interests of the proper development of the application site by providing a road connection between Auldyn Walk and Poyll Dooey Road at the earliest opportunity; and, to act as a flood defence barrier to the development proposed located on the south side of the Spine Road.
Samples and details of materials to be submitted 3. Prior to the commencement of development on Phase 1 of the site area, samples and details of the materials proposed to be used for the main walls and roofs of the dwellings, hereby permitted, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. For all other construction materials for the external surfaces of the dwellings such as rendering; window and door frames; guttering and downpipes; the details outlined on the approved drawings for each dwelling type shall be adhered to.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to secure a high quality form of development that would readily assimilate into its surroundings.
No materials to be stored North of the Spine Rd 4. No excavated materials, building materials, plant or machinery associated with the Phase 1 development shall be stored on any part of the site area located to the north of the line of the Spine Road.
Reason: To safeguard components of habitats and wider ecological networks located to the north of the site including areas of salt marsh along the Sulby River; and, to protect priority species.
Submission of Reserved Matters for Phase 2 5. Before any part of the development hereby permitted is begun within the land outlined in red on drawing number 296-100-302 Rev. C, application for approval of the Reserved Matters of the layout, scale and appearance of the buildings and the landscaping of the site shall be made to the Department before the expiration of two years from the date of this approval and thereafter the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details as approved.
Reason: This part of the application was submitted in outline with access approved and all other matters of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping reserved for future consideration (the Reserved Matters) in accordance with the provisions of Part 3 (1) (2) and (4) of Schedule 1, Part 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order.
No tree removal or site clearance 6. No tree removal, site or vegetation clearance may take place until the ecological surveys requested in Condition 8 have been submitted to DEFA Planning and approved in writing and the mitigation recommendations signed off as part of the Landscape and Ecology Mitigation Plan (LEMP) required by condition 7 of this planning permission.
Reason: To ensure that adequate time is allowed for the site to be assessed in respect of its ecological, landscape and biodiversity value to be assessed by the ecological surveys required by condition 8 of this planning permission are evaluated and able to inform the preparation of the LEMP required by condition 7 of this planning permission.
Landscape Ecology Mitigation Plan - LEMP
==== PAGE 54 ====
22/00679/B Page 54 of 76
7. Prior to the commencement of development on Phase 1, and to the submission of any Reserved Matters application, a Landscape and Ecology Mitigation Plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. This information shall include:
A. An annotated, visual and ecological constraints and opportunities plan highlighting visually sensitive areas, distinctive trees, hedges, sod banks, buildings, and view corridors out to the surroundings to the north incorporating the Poyll Dooey Nature Reserve up to the Sulby River where it runs to the north and east of the site between the White Bridge and the Spine Road access onto Poyll Dooey Road.
B. An annotated landscape and ecological impacts plan that provides details of the physical impacts of the proposals on the landscape and ecological features detailed in A above; and
C. Avoidance/mitigation/compensation/enhancement measures.
D. Timescale for implementation and ongoing management (minimum 10 years required).
The plan should demonstrate how existing landscape and ecological value is being conserved as far as possible, how impacts have been minimised, and what opportunities for enhancement have been taken; and, include an ecological habitat balance sheet that sets out losses and gains as well as the likely time lag between loss and effective habitat gain. The LEMP shall apply to both the Full and Outline elements of the site (Phases 1 and 2) and any Reserved Matters applications for the site shall incorporate the approved Landscape and Ecology Mitigation Plan (LEMP). The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To identify, map and safeguard components of habitats and wider ecological networks and to protect priority species, and identify and pursue opportunities for securing measurable net gains for biodiversity in accordance with the provisions of General Policy 2, and Environment Policies 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 13, 22, 24 and 42 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
Surveys required for the LEMP 8. Prior to the commencement of development on Phase 1, and to the submission of any Reserved Matters application, in addition and supplemental to the requirements of condition 6 of this planning permission, the following schedule of survey work shall be carried out and shall inform and be incorporated into the LEMP by way of mitigation as and where necessary. Such survey work shall include: Breeding and wintering bird surveys; Fungi surveys; Bat roost and activity surveys Invertebrate surveys; Schedule 7 and rare plant surveys; Common frog surveys; Common lizard surveys; Schedule 8 plant surveys. All of which need to be undertaken following UK best practise guidelines, in the right seasons and by a suitably qualified ecological consultancy.
Reason: To identify, map and safeguard components of habitats and wider ecological networks and to protect priority species, and identify and pursue opportunities for securing measurable net gains for biodiversity in accordance with the provisions of General Policy 2, and Environment Policies 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 13, 22, 24 and 42 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
Additional details 9. The detailed drawings required to be submitted by Condition 5 (reserved matters) shall include the following information: boundary treatments, existing and proposed site levels, finished floor levels and materials, details of all public open space and green infrastructure,
==== PAGE 55 ====
22/00679/B Page 55 of 76
arboricultural method statement and tree protection plan to BS 2012:5387 to include any engineering details required for no-dig construction and thereafter the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details as approved.
Reason: To enable DEFA Planning to consider whether adequate provision is being made for the matters referred to in the condition in the interests of visual amenity and to secure a high quality form of development that would readily assimilate into its surroundings.
Strategy to maintain GI and POS 10. Prior to the commencement of any development across the application site (both Phases), for Phase 1 and the first Reserved Matters application to be submitted a strategy for the management and maintenance of all green infrastructure across the application site (including, for the avoidance of doubt, all areas of public open space). The strategy document shall set out the funding, management, maintenance, access and use arrangements for each area of the site, and a delivery plan identifying a trigger date for the completion of each of the relevant green infrastructure and public open space areas. The Reserved Matters application for the site shall incorporate the approved details and thereafter the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details as approved.
Reason: To ensure that green infrastructure and public open space is delivered for the amenity of future residents in a timely manner in accordance with the approved Masterplan drawing number 296-300-100 Rev. F for the site.
Protection of Saltmarsh Area 11. As part of any application for Reserved Matters, the applicant shall provide a detailed schedule of all measures to be put in place for the protection of the Saltmarsh Area and the Sulby River. Such details shall include any required drawings to show how and where surface water is to be taken off site. This should not go through the Saltmarsh Area. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the protection of the Saltmarsh habitat area on the Sulby River arising from the development. This is due to the Saltmarsh Area being the largest Blue Carbon sequestration site on the Island.
Landscape interpretation 12. The application(s) for Reserved Matters to be submitted shall include details of a package of proposals to enhance public understanding and enjoyment of the areas of public open space to be created throughout the site in relation to the Sulby River and the adjoining Poyll Dooey Nature Reserve and the nearby salt marsh environment. Such proposals shall include interpretation materials. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To provide public benefits in the form of interpretation and understanding of the site and surroundings with emphasis on the relations of the site to the Sulby Riverside, saltmarsh and Poyll Dooey Nature Reserve.
Street lights, car parks and street names 13. The first occupation of any dwelling in both Phase 1, and as part of any Reserved Matters submission(s) for Phase 2 shall not take place until the following works have been approved in writing by DEFA Planning and constructed and made available for use:
A. The street lighting for the spine road and cul-de-sacs and footpaths has been erected and is operational;
B. The car parking and other vehicle access facilities required for the dwellings by this permission has/have been completed;
==== PAGE 56 ====
22/00679/B Page 56 of 76
C. The verge and service margins and vehicle crossing on the road frontage of any dwelling have been competed with the highway properly defined; and,
D. The street name-plates for the spine road and cul-de-sacs have been provided and erected.
Reason: To ensure that adequate access and associated facilities are available for traffic attracted to the site.
Construction Environment Management Plan 14. No development on any Phase of the Full and Outline elements of this permission shall take place until a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. The CEMP, which shall apply to the whole of the site, shall include:
a. The timetable of the works b. Details of any road closure; c. The compound/location where all building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials, and waste will be stored during the demolition and construction phases; d. Areas on site where delivery vehicles and construction traffic will unload building materials, finished or unfinished products; parts, crates, packing materials, and waste with confirmation that no construction traffic or delivery vehicles will park on the highway for loading or unloading purposes, unless prior written agreement has been given by DEFA Planning; e. The means of enclosure of the site during construction works; f. Details of wheel washing facilities and obligations, and measures to be employed to prevent egress of mud, water and other detritus onto the public and any non-adopted highways; g. Photographic evidence of the condition of the adjacent public highway prior to commencement of any work; h. The steps and procedures to be implemented to minimise the creation of noise, vibration, dust and waste disposal resulting from the site preparation, groundwork and construction phases of the development to include the recommended mitigation measures identified in Chapter 6 'Noise and Vibration' and Chapter 7 'Air Quality' of the submitted Environmental Statement. i. The employment of an Ecological Clerk of Works to ensure that the construction and enabling works outlined in the CEMP is carried out in accordance with the provisions of the LEMP as required by condition 6 of this permission for the period of construction for both Phases 1 and 2. j. Incorporation of Precautionary Working Method Statements for breeding birds, roosting, commuting and feeding bats, protected and rare plants, rare invertebrates, common lizards, common frogs and fungi. k. Measures to be put in place for the protection of the saltmarsh, Sulby River and the downstream Douglas Bay Marine Nature Reserve - prevention of pollution and sedimentation etc. - this must include phased soil stripping and vegetation clearance, as and when development progresses throughout the site, no wholescale removal. l. Soft felling methodologies. m. Construction exclusion areas and use of protective fencing. n. Low level construction lighting regimes. o. Responsible avoidance and eradication plans for Schedule 8 plants. q. Details of compliance monitoring including who will be undertaking monitoring for compliance with the CEMP, how often inspections will take place, who they will report to, who will be responsible for undertaking corrective action and how soon after non-compliance is found will corrective action be taken.
==== PAGE 57 ====
22/00679/B Page 57 of 76
All construction works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved CEMP. Reason: To minimise the impact on the highway network, nearby residential properties, the Sulby Riverside environment; the Poyll Dooey Nature Reserve; and, to ensure that the requirements of the LEMP accord with the implementation of the CEMP.
Remove PD for Construction compounds 15. Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 1, Class A, of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) (Temporary Use or Development) Order 2015, the provision on land of buildings, moveable structures, works, plant or machinery required temporarily in connection with and for the duration of operations being or to be carried out on, in, under or over that land or on land adjoining that land where planning approval has previously been granted following an application, is expressly prohibited by this condition.
Reason: The erection of any such building or creation of a compound for the storage of plant, machinery, construction materials etc. shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Conditions 2; and, 11, parts d, e, and f, of this permission owing to the ecologically sensitive nature of the site and surroundings.
Replacement trees and plants 16. No retained tree, hedge or bank shall be cut down, uprooted, destroyed, pruned, cut or damaged in any manner during the development phase and thereafter within 5 years from the date of occupation of the building for its permitted use, other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars. In the event that retained trees become damaged or otherwise defective during the construction phase due to events outside of the applicant's control the Department shall be notified as soon as reasonably practicable and remedial action agreed and implemented.
Reason: To ensure that trees marked for retention are not removed, in the interests maintaining the amenities of the area and to ensure the visual impact of the development is mitigated.
Arboricultural method statement and an arboricultural monitoring schedule 17. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a tree protection scheme, arboricultural method statement and an arboricultural monitoring schedule shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. Tree protection measures shall be shown on a layout plan accompanied by descriptive text which includes but is not limited to details of:
a) The location of the trees to be retained and their canopy spreads; b) The location of a 'construction exclusion zone' c) The position of protective fencing and/or other protective measures required to prevent damage to retained trees. d) An appropriate specification for the protective measures proposed. e) A schedule of arboricultural monitoring.
The development must be carried out in accordance with the approved details. No alterations or variations to the approved tree protection scheme or working methods shall be made without prior written consent of the Department.
Reason: required prior to commencement to ensure that all trees to be retained are adequately protected from damage to health and stability throughout the construction period to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality.
Replace plants - standard 5 year condition 18. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in
==== PAGE 58 ====
22/00679/B Page 58 of 76
the next planting season with others of similar size and species. Thereafter, all soft and hard landscape works shall be permanently retained in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to secure a high quality form of development that would readily assimilate into its surroundings.
Surface water drainage strategy 19. Prior to the commencement of any works on site, precise details of a finalised surface water management scheme for the site, based upon the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning for both the Phase 1 (full element) and Phase 2 (outline element) of the scheme. The detailed surface water drainage scheme with calculations must be provided showing the position of attenuation tanks/ponds behind the spine road and not within the flood area. The surface water system is to be designed to not surcharge in a 1 in 50 year event and the storage must be for a 1 in 100 year plus climate change event. The surface water scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the submitted details before the development is used for the first time. Reason: To prevent increased risk of flooding and to improve and protect water quality and ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system and to prevent increased risk of flooding.
Surface water management and maintenance scheme 20. Prior to the commencement of any works on site, details of maintenance and management of the surface water sustainable drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning for both the Phase 1 (full element) and Phase 2 (outline element) of the scheme. Such details shall include a plan for the lifetime of the development, the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the surface water drainage scheme throughout its lifetime. Reason: To ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system and to prevent increased risk of flooding.
Foul water drainage strategy 21. Prior to the commencement of any works on site, precise details of foul water drainage provision to serve the development, hereby approved, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. Such approved drainage scheme shall be installed prior to the development hereby permitted being first occupied and shall thereafter be retained and maintained at all times. Reason: To ensure that the site is adequately drained and does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.
Details of the flood embankment
Reason: To minimise the potential impact of flooding and flood risk arising from the development both on-site and up and downstream of the site along the Sulby River.
Culvert design
==== PAGE 59 ====
22/00679/B Page 59 of 76
Reason: To minimise the potential impact of flooding and flood risk arising from the development both on-site and up and downstream of the site along the Sulby River.
Phase 2 FRA
Exclude siting of the Public House/Community Facility 25. The siting of the Public House/Community Facility as shown on drawing number 296-300- 100 Rev. F - Masterplan for the site (stamped received and dated 20 March, 2023) is specifically excluded from this planning permission. The proposed siting of the Public House/Community Facility shall be submitted as part of an application(s) for Reserved Matters following agreement on its siting with DEFA Planning prior to submission.
Reason: In the interests of protecting neighbours residential amenities from visual intrusion and noise and light pollution arising from the operation of the facility.
Bat, bird and bee bricks 26. Prior to the occupation of any dwellings, details of the addition of bat, bird and bee bricks to be installed as part of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning prior to works commencing and the that development then carried out in accordance with these details. Thereafter, these features shall be permanently retained and maintained. Details should include the number, type and location of the bricks. Bat bricks should include types suitable for cavity and crevice dwelling species and in locations which facilitate the lifecycle of bats (locations to facilitate breeding and hibernating). Bird bricks should include types suitable for swift and house martin.
Reason: To ensure that the development has an acceptable impact on the environment.
No external lighting to be installed without permission 27. No external lighting shall be installed except in accordance with a detailed external low level lighting scheme which complies with the recommendations outlined in the BCT and ILP Guidance Note 8 Bats and Artificial Lighting (2023), which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Department.
Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the ecological species existing on the site. (See Manx Bat Group Bat Activity Survey).
Highway layout and design
In respect of the highways layout, and design details, the development, hereby approved, shall be carried out in accordance with:
a) Access and layout to accord with 296-300-100 rev F, 101 rev c and 102 rev, Tetra Tech Drawing Site Access Option 2: Ghost Island General Arrangement and Visibility Splays 002 Rev P02. b) Bike and bin stores to accord with drawing for all dwelling house types. c) Travel Plan not part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied prior to the implementation of the Tetra Tech Travel Plan 784-B030691 rev 03 May 2022 or those parts capable of being implemented prior to occupation and thereafter implemented to timetable
==== PAGE 60 ====
22/00679/B Page 60 of 76
contained therein and shall continue to be implemented for five years / as long as any part of the development is occupied.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
ORIGINAL OFFICER REPORT AS PRESENTED TO THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON 15/1/2024 (see Agenda Item 5.1)
1.00 THE SITE 1.1 The application site comprises an area of approx. 8.55 ha of agricultural land interspersed with wooded areas, sod banks, hedgerows, a pond and grassland and is located to the south and west of the Sulby River where the river in running to the east curves in an arc northwards away from the site. The site is bounded to the south by the former Ramsey - Peel railway line, now a footpath/cycleway which bounds an area to the south of industrial units and some housing at Greenlands Avenue. To the north east is Poyll Dooey House and Barn, whilst to the north between the site and the Sulby River is the non-statutory designated Poyll Dooey Nature Reserve. The land to the west of the site comprises the recently built Auldyn Meadow Housing development (Dandara Homes) where there is road access provision made up to the sites western boundary. Footpath access along the river frontage and to the footpath cycleway is derived from Poyll Dooey Road to the west, where there is a pedestrian crossing across the road. The western edge of the site lies within 500m of Ramsey Town Centre and the harbour side. A Public Right of Way runs across the site.
2.00 THE APPLICATION 2.1 The hybrid application (part full/part outline) seeks permission for the following: Combined approval in principle and full approval for a residential development seeking planning permission for the erection of 66 dwellinghouses and 12 flats, site access, Spine Road through the site, drainage, car parking and associated landscaping (Phase 1). Outline Planning permission for development of up to 127 new residential units in the form of dwellinghouses and flats, flexible commercial space, a new public house and new retail space with all matters reserved save for access
2.2 The site area comprises: "Land at Poylldooey, Fields And Part Fields 134271, 134253, 134270, 134272, 131273, 131276, 132274 & 134274, Ramsey, Isle Of Man".
2.3 The application is accompanied by full plans for the 'full' element of the application, a Masterplan (covering both the full and outline elements), and a range of documents indicating how the site is proposed to be developed. These documents also include an Environmental Impact Assessment which introduces the development proposals and addresses: o Alternatives and Design Evolution; o Methodology and Approach of the EIA; o Transport; o Noise and Vibration; o Air Quality; o Flood Risk; o Water Resources and Water Quality; o Socio-Economic Issues; o Greenhouse Gas Emissions; o Cumulative and Interactive Effects; and, o Residuals effects and Conclusions;
2.4 Other submitted documents include a Flood Risk Assessment and Management Plan containing proposed mitigation measures; and, Biodiversity and Protected Species Surveys comprising a preliminary Field Ecological Assessment; Bat Activity Survey; Greenhouse Gas Calculation; and Climate Change Resilience Risk Assessment. These details and documents
==== PAGE 61 ====
22/00679/B Page 61 of 76
propose mitigation measures including provisions for further survey work to inform the Reserved Matters stages of the outline element of the application.
3.00 PLANNING POLICIES 3.1 The site, as part of larger area, was first allocated for mixed use development in the Ramsey Local Plan 1982. In the Ramsey Local Plan (RLP) 1998, it was allocated for a mixture of light industrial development (mostly the eastern part) and residential on the western part of the application site and the site immediately to the west built on by Dandara at Auldyn Meadows. The site to the north of Auldyn Meadows, and west of the application site was consented for residential development on a plot by plot basis subject to it being protected by a 4.0m high bund from flooding from the Sulby River. This area has not been developed. In the West Ramsey Development Framework (WRDF) 2004, a public house/community facility was included in this document. The content, land allocations and Policies contained in the RLP; and, the WRDF are afforded substantial weight.
3.2 The Policies outlined in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 are of relevance and are listed below. The SP is the main development plan covering the island. It seeks to promote sustainable development such as that proposed on allocated sites taking into account access, appearance, landscaping layout, and scale siting, with policies relating to impacts on the character of the area and surroundings, flood risk, ecology, affordable housing community facilities and to constrain and protect areas of the Island which have visual, historic, landscape, and wildlife value and/or are constrained by flood risks issues. The Plan was first adopted in 2007, with the 2016 version being an update with minor changes. The Policies contained in the IOM SP 2016 are afforded full weight.
The relevant Policies in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 are:
Chapter 4 - Strategic Objectives: STRP1, STRP2, STRP3, STRP4, STRP10, STRP11; Chapter 5 - Island Spatial Strategy: SPP2, SPP3; Chapter 6 - General Development Considerations: GEN2, GEN3, GEN4; Chapter 7 - The Environment: ENV1, ENV3, ENV4, ENV5, ENV7, ENV10, ENV13, ENV22, ENV24, ENV28, ENV42; Chapter 8 - Housing: H1, H2, H5; Chapter 10 - Sport, Recreation, Open Space and Community Facilities: RP1, RP4, RP5; and, CP1, CP2, CP11; Chapter 11 - Transport, Infrastructure and Utilities: TP1, TP2, TP3, TP4, TP5, TP6 and TP7.
3.3 In June, 2022, a Draft Area Plan for the North and West (DAP) of the Island was published and comments on it sought. The plan promoted the deletion of the application site as an allocated site for development, with it being put forward as an area of 'Proposed Open Space'. No further work has been carried out on the DAP since publication and given that the proposed policies and allocations contained therein have not been the subject of public scrutiny, it is effectively for information only, and as a consequence, holds no weight.
3.4 In terms of Flood Risk, in 2017 the Isle of Man Government produced Indicative Flood Risk Maps for the Island which show parts of the northern and western areas of the site being at risk from River and Tidal flooding, where in the case of river flooding the extent of a flood with a 1% (1 in 100) chance of happening in any year is shown; and, in the case of flooding from the sea, the extent of a flood with a 0.5% (1 in 200) chance of happening in any year, is shown. In respect of the risk from surface water flooding, the site and immediate surroundings are shown as not being at risk from such events.
4.00 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 In terms of planning history, the site was the subject of the following applications:
==== PAGE 62 ====
22/00679/B Page 62 of 76
91/01487/A - Approval in principle for mixed residential scheme, business/industrial park & landscaping land at Poylldooey - 91/01487/A - APPROVED at Appeal -1.1.94.
91/00575/A - Approval in principle for mixed residential scheme, business/industrial park & landscaping, land at Poylldooey, Ramsey (amended) - 91/00575/A - REFUSED -1.1.94.
00/02041/A - Approval in principle for change of use of land for mixed purposes including, residential, commercial/retail, business park, industrial and car parking on Land off Gardeners Lane Poylldooey Ramsey - REFUSED -13.6.2001.
PA Refs: 01/01462/A for Approval in principle for residential and business park development; and 05/01191/A for Approval in principle for the erection of a manufacturing plant for the processing and packaging of medical foods including R & D and administration facilities - both on Land off Gardeners Lane Poylldooey Ramsey, were respectively Withdrawn on 8/2/2005 and 19/12/2005.
DEVELOPMENT ON ADJOINING LAND 4.2 Adjoining the site to the west, the Dandara scheme at Auldyn Meadows PA 11/00990/B for 45 dwellings was consented in May, 2012. This site formed part of an originally larger area of land which extended to the north of Auldyn Meadows and was covered by PA 03/00790/B for "Residential estate development comprising of roads, plots, sewers, flood protection measures, drainage, public open space and layout for 26 semi-detached dwellings, 69 terraced dwellings, 42 apartments and 38 self-build plots. This was approved in April, 2006, however, the area of the site consented for residential development on a plot by plot basis was subject to it being protected by a 4.0m high bund from flooding from the Sulby River. As the applicant did not own all the land covered by the site area, this element of the proposals was not implemented.
5.00 REPRESENTATIONS - These are available to view in full on the DEFA Planning website under Ref: 22/00679/B.
5.1 Representations have been received from a number of Government bodies and from Manx Natural Heritage. DOI Highways and Ramsey Town Commissioners have both raised NO OBJECTION to the proposed development. DEFA Minerals has no comments to make. The Inland Fisheries manager requested more information which was received, however, no further comments were made. The Environmental Health Unit requests conditions restricting time limits for noisy operations and standard hours of work on the site.
5.2 The following raise objections to the proposals: DEFA - Climate Change Transformation Team - strongly objects due to the impact on the Poyll Dooey saltmarsh - approximately 2.630 hectares - arising from its proximity to the development site. "Even though mitigation measures might be in place for flood prevention to the housing, this does not extend to protection of the river system from increased sedimentation and surface water flow rates (especially during the site clearing and construction phases). Given that this is an important habitat and so close to the site, a development of this sort would be detrimental to the ecosystem health of the saltmarsh and its ability to function as an important carbon store."
DoI Public Estates and Housing initially advised that 25% Affordable Housing provision should be secured via a S13 Agreement. DoI Housing was subsequently asked to comment on the submitted Affordable Housing Viability Assessment. Following discussions with the Public Estates and Housing Team, the following comments were received on 3/1/24:
"It is clear from the application that the cost of the Spine Road and much of the extraordinary costs for the infrastructure will be incurred during the currency of Phase 1, and if we are to consider any relaxation in the provision of affordable housing then even for cashflow purposes it would be during this phase that the Department may agree to a reduction in the 25%
==== PAGE 63 ====
22/00679/B Page 63 of 76
provision. As you state, once the phase 1 works are complete then it would be easier for the applicant to provide an acceptable number of affordable homes in Phase 2; accordingly, the Department would agree to flexibility in the timing of delivery of affordable homes but in view of the current FTB Register numbers and the waiting list for homes for rent in Ramsey and the North we see it as imperative that a site such as this should be capable of yielding at least a substantial proportion of the stipulated number of affordable homes.
Clause 5.4 in the Operational Policy on Section 13 Agreements states in the third para that 'It is important not to lose the opportunities to deliver affordable housing due to the timing of developments and consequently if a development proposal suggests affordable housing is not viable at the current time, then consideration should be (given) to refusing the application and waiting until such time as it is viable'. It appears that this application, in part at least, is unviable but that the later phase when seen as a development entity in isolation will likely be viable. It would be better if the Section 13 could include a fixed number of dwellings for production after Phase 1 completion rather than on review in order that there is a degree of certainty. There is evident need in the region for affordable housing and that is this Department's principal concern when considering Section 13 Agreements."
DoI Flood Risk Management Division: The FRM Team do not support any construction on a greenfield site within a flood plain, a comment it re-iterates in subsequent correspondence. FMD are still waiting for the Draft FMD Policy Document to be approved as well as the completion of the new Flood Risk Maps (due February 2024) to support their Objection.
DoI Public Rights of Way (PROW): "I have received a request for several public rights of way to be presumed dedicated through uninterrupted use. We are processing the order to add them on the definitive map. But it may not be released before the planning committee meet. I have attached the map for your reference."
MNH - Has concerns about the loss of woodland habitat, wetland and hedgerows; the potential for flooding on and adjacent to an intertidal area and floodplain. Despite receipt of Ecology, Final report, October, 2022, MNH remain concerned about sediment entering the water course and potentially being deposited further downstream or across the saltmarsh, which is in the IOM Climate Change Action Plan 2022-23 identifies as priority carbon sequestering habitat. MNH "do not feel that the significant loss of the ecology as a result of this development CAN be addressed given that part of the application site supports habitat which is significant enough to have already met the criteria of an Area of Special Scientific Interest." Any further comments received will be reported.
MUA - 29/7/22 - commented: Manx Utilities will not be able to support this application as the applicant has failed to demonstrate how the development will be adequately drained with both foul and surface water. MUA has since been re-consulted - 15/12/23, and 8/1/24, and has raised no objection to the condition relating to the proposed foul and surface water drainage schemes.
6.00 REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 15 letters of representation have been received from local residents - all raise concerns regarding the proposals. 3 letters are from one local address; and, 3 representations are from the Manx Wildlife Trust. Concerns raised are summarised as:
o Loss of wildlife area; o Adverse impact on animals, birdlife, wild plants and flowers from human and vehicular traffic movements; o Development would compromise the IoM's unique UNESCO Biosphere status; o Development would ruin the landscape; o Do not build on the flood plain - it will surely flood;
==== PAGE 64 ====
22/00679/B Page 64 of 76
o None of the land is designated as 'residential'. It is unacceptable to build on a Nature Reserve; o Poor design of new houses which are ugly, and out of character with their surroundings; o This area is becoming congested and will most certainly be a huge problem for traffic at the exit; o All new developments should be forced to build properties with solar panels, heat pumps etc. thereby making them as carbon neutral as possible; o Noise disturbance and light pollution from both the development and from events at the PH; o The use of the PH would adversely impact on wildlife from dog walkers and visitors frequenting the PH; o Disturbance from construction works; o Existing riverside residents have concerns about flooding as river overflows in to rear garden areas and existing river retaining walls need to be maintained; o Sending water back up river will inevitably lead to more flooding further up the Sulby river to landowners fields and houses; o A café would be more appropriate than a Public House; o Three pubs in Ramsey have recently closed is there a need for another one; o This application should be refused as the Government has designated the land in question as 'open space, or 'proposed open space', and none of the proposed development site falls within an area zoned for commercial or residential usage; o The pictures make this area look like a Spanish island but the reality is it is wet, cold Isle of Man where the rainfall is above the average and drainage is extremely poor; o There are over 5000 houses on this beautiful island that are not lived in, run down properties and brown field spaces which are more in keeping with small developments; o Coastal erosion is now a threat to our island, especially along the northern coast. Bad news for those in Laxey (given) the news about the landslide recently; o Local residents cannot afford to buy the houses on offer and there is no option of renting affordable housing; o Manx Wildlife Trust consider the site to be of national importance for biodiversity; o MWT object to the above planning application as the proposal will cause irreparable damage to one of our Island's most important areas for biodiversity, home to key species & priority habitats and a vital green space in an urban setting. The proposal does not constitute sustainable development as outlined in the Strategic Aim of the Strategic Plan. Furthermore, it will undoubtedly lead to net biodiversity loss, contrary to legislation and Government policy; o MWT considers that the proposal will cause irreparable damage to one of our Island's most important areas for biodiversity, home to key species & priority habitats and a vital green space in an urban setting. Furthermore, it will undoubtedly lead to net biodiversity loss, contrary to legislation and Government policy.
7.00 SUMMARY OF ISSUES
7.1 The section below highlights the benefits and dis-benefits of the proposed development:
Benefits of the scheme
Development of an allocated Site in the Local Plan providing 205 dwellings, commercial and retail development; and, a PH/Community Facility for the benefit of Ramsey.
Closest developable site to Ramsey Town Centre - easy walking/cycling distance of 500- 600m.
Provision of new Spine Road linking Poyll Dooey Road with Auldyn Walk and Gardeners Lane - allows link to the town centre without involving the A3. Also serves the Greenlands Ave and Lezayre Park residential developments.
==== PAGE 65 ====
22/00679/B Page 65 of 76
- New Spine Road set at a level of between 5.0m and 6.5m AOD acting as a flood barrier for the residential development to the south of it and to existing development around the site to the south.
New Spine Road set at a level of between 5.0m and 6.5m AOD acting as a flood barrier for the residential development to the south of it and to existing development around the site to the south.
5.4 Ha of Open space provision including a LAP, (Local Area for Play) LEAP (Local Equipped Area for Play) a NEAP (Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play) and informal POS - secured via a S13 Agreement.
Significant measures of biodiversity mitigation and landscaping are proposed and can be conditioned via a LEMP - Landscape Environment Management Plan.
The staging and nature of how the development would be undertaken with priority given to the installation of the Spine Road would not result in a significant amount of increased sedimentation and surface water flow rates (particularly during the site clearing and construction phases).
No highway safety concerns subject to conditions. New Bus Stop provided on Spine Road.
The site and development can be delivered within a reasonable time-frame - 136 months.
In addition to construction jobs, the development would create approx. 156 new jobs when complete and operational.
Possibility of Affordable Housing provision at the Reserved Matters stage for the outline element with dwellings secured via a S13 Agreement.
Dis-benefits of the scheme
Visual impacts - change to the character of the area. The development will appear as an extension of Ramsey into the open countryside.
Flood risk issues - objection from DoI Flood Risk Team in respect of development in the floodplain being contrary to adopted Policy. Although, no comments on the FRA to substantiate their objection have been provided.
Impact on Protected Species - objection from MNH and DEFA Ecosystems Policy Officer through loss of trees and habitat, and lack of submission of habitat and species surveys.
Impact on the Sulby River and marine life in both the river and the sea - Objection from MNH, DEFA Ecosystems Policy Officer and DEFA Climate Change Team.
No Affordable Housing Provision for Phase 1 as per Policy H5 - 25% of 78 dwellings = 19.5 AH units.
The development would result in a significant amount of increased sedimentation and surface water flow rates (especially during the site clearing and construction phases).
==== PAGE 66 ====
22/00679/B Page 66 of 76
- The development would be counter to several public rights of way to be presumed dedicated through uninterrupted use across the site. The PROW Team is processing an Order to add them on the definitive map.
Impact on adjoining Poyll Dooey Nature Reserve from increased usage - dog walking etc.
7.2 The main issues are whether the development of the site in the manner proposed is acceptable in principle; the harm that would arise from the visual impact of the development; and, whether it would lead to an unacceptable increase in flood risk - both on site and downstream; whether the impact on biodiversity through loss of wildlife habitat, and impact on the river environment and marine life out in the Ramsey Bay would be acceptable. A further issue is whether the provision of no Affordable Housing, at least in the first Phase, would also be acceptable.
PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
7.3 The site was allocated for mixed use development in the Ramsey Local Plan 1982, and in the Local Plan update of 1998. Map No. 2 (South) in the 1998 LP shows the majority of the site extending west as being allocated for Light Industrial Uses; and, the eastern part of the site to the south of Poyll Dooey House, allocated for residential uses. It is also shown on the Key Diagram in the West Ramsey Development Framework (WRDF) 2004 as comprising:
1 - The Ballachrink Mixed Industrial and Business Use Area (undeveloped); 2 - Medium/High Density Housing Area (Partly built out by the Dandara Audlyn Meadow Housing Scheme); and, 3 - Low Density Housing (Partly on the site of the PA 03/00790/B to the north of the Dandara site)
7.4 The Ramsey Local Plan 1998 remains in force as the development plan for the area and the land allocations within it remain relevant and pertinent. It has not been superseded. It sits under the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 as the planning policy document guiding development for the Island - its policies are relevant and pertinent to the development proposed. The site, and the Poyll Dooey Nature Reserve to the north are shown in the June, 2022, Draft Area Plan (DAP) for the North and West of the Island as 'Open Space for Particular Purposes'. This document is a published draft which has not been tested publically, let alone adopted as planning policy by the Minister. Its content is 'aspirational' and holds little weight in the planning balance.
7.5 The application site comprises a number of agricultural fields separated by hedgerows and sod banks that have not been used for agricultural purposes (grazing or cropping) for a number of years. The site has benefitted from an ecological secondary succession whereby it has become a relatively diverse area and habitat for wildlife (flora and fauna). It does, however, remain as agricultural land and it could be ploughed or grazed, with hedgerows trimmed, scrub removed, and trees cut back or felled, tomorrow without any recourse to DEFA Planning. The fact that on the ground it has benefitted wildlife does not diminish its agricultural status or that it is allocated for development as outlined in the RLP 1998, and as per the contents of the WRDF. Given the above, the principle of development for the development as proposed is accepted. (See IoM Strategic Plan 2016 Policies STRP1, STRP2, STRP10, STRP11, SPP 2, SPP3, HP1, HP2, RP4, RP5, TP2, TP3, TP4, TP5)
QUANTUM OF DEVELOPMENT RELATIVE TO ITS STATUS AS AN ALLOCATED SITE
7.6 Please see paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4 above. In favour of the application, the development would bring 205 new dwellings to the Ramsey area in a sustainable location within 500-600m of Ramsey Town Centre; it would be constructed over a period of approx. 136 months; and, would
==== PAGE 67 ====
22/00679/B Page 67 of 76
provide employment opportunities, both during the construction phase, and 156 jobs post development in the Industrial Units, Shop Kiosks; and, new Public House/Community Facility. It would provide open and recreational space that would promote Sulby riverside in this area which in conjunction with the PH would provide improved access and opportunities to enjoy the Riverside, Poyll Dooey Nature Reserve and to improve connectivity to the White Bridge (footbridge) over the Sulby River at the head of Gardeners Lane. This links the area with existing residential development on and around Jurby Road in the northern part of Ramsey. (See IoM Strategic Plan 2016 Policies STRP1, STRP2, STRP3, STRP4, STRP11, SPP2, ENV28, HP1, HP2, RP4, RP5, TP2, TP3, TP4, TP5) THE SPINE ROAD
7.7 It would also provide a Spine Road that would link Poyll Dooey Road to the east of the site with Audlyn Walk to the west where access to this adjoining development is facilitated and expected. The Spine Road would provide a link for the development; Auldyn Walk, and existing dwellings at Greenlands Avenue and Lezayre Park to the south of Auldyn Walk. There are no ransom strips affecting connectivity of the Spine Road. This would provide an alternative through route between these areas and Poyll Dooey Road by the Post Office Depot offering a direct link to Ramsey Town Centre that avoids the A3 Lezayre Road and Parliament Square. This would be most effective during periods of road closure on the A3 (TT fortnight and Manx GP etc.). (See IoM Strategic Plan 2016 Policies STRP10, RP5, TP2, TP5)
FLOOD MITIGATION MEASURES
7.8 The second aspect of implementing the new Spine Road is that it would be set at a level of between 5.0m and 6.5m AOD2 (Douglas) acting as a flood barrier for the new residential and commercial development to the south of it and to existing development around the site to the south. The applicants have provided an EIA and Flood Risk Assessment which indicates that despite part of the site being in a Flood Risk Area in respect of river and tidal flooding, the measures outlined in the FRA indicate that the 1% (1 in 100) chance of a case of river flooding any year; and, in the 0.5% (1 in 200) case of flooding from the sea, with a chance of happening in any year, would be avoided as a result of the flood protection measures that the scheme would provide. This would have the further benefit of adding protection from flooding for existing development to the south. This is shown in the Masterplan and such resilience to flooding is aided by the bulk of the new development being sited behind (to the south) of the Spine Road with the flats to the north of the Spine Road, being flood resilient with their living accommodation being raised on stilts. The same principle would apply to the new Public House/Community Facility whilst the Industrial Units located between the PH site and the Spine Road would be flood resilient, in that they would be designed to withstand flood events.
The flood mitigation measures proposed included in the design to ensure that the development is safe from flooding and there is no increase in flood risk, are:
o A protected area in the south-west part of the site that contains most of the residential properties. The area is protected by the spine road and a road that connects to the developed area south of the site. The level of these roads is 6.50 m AD02, about 0.5 metres higher than the projected 0.5% flood level in the year 2120 of 6.01 m AD02;
o Flood resilient residential and non-residential buildings outside the protected area with a typical minimum Finished Floor Levels of 6.65 m AD02, about 0.65 higher than the projected 0.5% flood level in the year 2120;
o High level access to all residential properties with a minimum level of 6.50 m AD02, about 0.5 metres higher than the projected 0.5% flood level in the year 2120;
o A landscaped floodplain flow path to improve fluvial flood flows across the floodplain north of the spine road and reduce fluvial flood levels.
==== PAGE 68 ====
22/00679/B Page 68 of 76
7.9 DoI FMD has objected to the proposals on the grounds that it represents development in the floodplain. The FMD Team has commented that it has general areas of concern but is waiting for the Draft FMD Policy Document to be approved as well as the completion of their new Flood Risk Maps (due February 2024) to support their Objection. The FMD Team has raised no specific objection to the proposals other than the objection that that the scheme lies within the floodplain. In response to the floodplain objection from FMD, the applicants specialist advisers HR Wallingford produced a further document (dated 1/12/2022) outlining the threats proposed by the identified sources of flood risk - rivers and the sea - the approach to managing flood risk; and, the flood mitigation measures as part of a comprehensive Flood Risk Assessment received on 10/2/2023. This expands on the findings of the Flood Risk; and, Water Resources and Water Quality sections of the Environmental Statement; and the hydraulic modelling report (2022) produced by JBA Consulting, working in tandem with HR Wallingford. Both HR Wallingford and JBA Consulting are well regarded as Flood Risk Management experts who are leading practitioners in their respective fields in the UK, and abroad.
7.10 The evidence presented by both is considered to be reliable, acceptable, and the measures proposed, achievable in minimising the flood risk implications arising from the development. Further correspondence between the Case officer and FMD has garnered no constructive response. It is considered that the Flood Risk Measures prepared and proposed by both HR Wallingford and JBA Consulting in support of the application are acceptable, deliverable and when implemented should not lead to undue flood risk to the development, or to the increased risk of flooding beyond the site along the Sulby River, or in the Ramsey Harbour area. In this regard, the proposed development is policy compliant. (See IoM Strategic Plan 2016 Policies ENV5, ENV10, ENV22 and ENV28).
IMPACT ON BIODIVERSITY
7.11 As indicated in paragraph 7.5 above, the site comprises a number of agricultural fields separated by hedgerows and sod banks that have not been used for agricultural purposes (grazing or cropping) for a number of years. The site has benefitted from an ecological secondary succession whereby it has become a relatively diverse area and habitat for wildlife (flora and fauna). It does, however, remain as agricultural land and it could be ploughed or grazed, with hedgerows trimmed, scrub removed, and trees cut back or felled, tomorrow without any recourse to DEFA Planning. The fact that the current ground conditions have benefitted wildlife does not diminish its agricultural status or that it is allocated for development as outlined in the RLP 1998, and as per the contents of the WRDF. The site, adjoins the Poyll Dooey Nature Reserve to the north, and its wildlife and biodiversity qualities have benefitted from this proximity and by it not having been actively farmed or otherwise developed for a considerable number of years.
7.12 The comments received from the Flood Risk Team - which are silent on any biodiversity implications arising from the development - the Climate Change Team; the Ecosystems Policy Officer, Manx Natural Heritage; the Manx Wildlife Trust, and third parties, are all noted. The Climate Change Team and MNH have advised that the development would result in harm to the Sulby Riverside; River bed; and, to the bay beyond the harbour, particularly through the deposition of fines, sediment, and erosion, and from other material arising from on-site excavations, and storage of material which may then be subject to wind and rain erosion, weathering, and to run-off entering the river system with consequent harm to the riverbank/salt-marsh environment, with such material covering over the river bed and breeding areas for invertebrates, fish a, molluscs and shellfish. It is appreciated that as per the Climate Change Act 2011 Schedule, Section 6, the maximisation of carbon sequestration must be taken into account in the forthcoming amendments to the national policy directive or a development plan (i.e. Strategic Plan) by 2025, with this section of the Act expected to be commenced in 2024. However, it is noted that none of the approx. 2.63 Hectares of salt marsh or other protected habitat is contained within, or forms part of the site.
==== PAGE 69 ====
22/00679/B Page 69 of 76
7.13 The Ecosystem Policy Officer has advised on 20th July, 2023, that "because of how sensitive the site and its surroundings are we really believe that pretty much all of the surveys really need to be done prior to determination, because there is no point approving something with set number of buildings, layout etc., or even approving something in principle, if development cannot be accommodated on site without extremely detrimental impacts to the ecology. The outcomes of the surveys are required to inform the layout of the site. Also the surveys will help to determine if development is appropriate on the site full-stop, which at the moment we do not believe it is."
7.14 Whilst the above comments are acknowledged, it is noted at both paragraphs 7.5 and 7.10 that whilst the site has become a relatively diverse area and habitat for wildlife (flora and fauna), it remains as agricultural land and it could be ploughed or grazed, with hedgerows trimmed, scrub removed, and trees cut back or felled, without any recourse to DEFA Planning. The main benefit of surveys would be to inform the Reserved Matters development where the layout has not yet been fixed. The habitat comprising the site area covered by the full element of the application and SR would, anecdotally, appear to be at less risk from disruption through development, as they are closer to existing development, and further from the River, where the more ecologically sensitive areas lie. This is a balancing act. Does the ecology and habitat protection take precedence on a statutorily unprotected site, or does the development of the site in the manner proposed prevail on this allocated site within easy walking distance of Ramsey Town Centre, with as much environmental mitigation as possible secured by way of conditions to minimise the environmental impact, whilst being for the social and economic benefit of Ramsey. And, if refused, where would a development of this variety and scale go for the benefit of Ramsey and the northern part of the Island offering what it does to the populace in general, when an alternative development on unallocated land to the west has been ruled out, and another alternative development some distance away to the north of Ramsey has yet to be considered?
7.15 The main areas of excavation and construction on site would be the Spine Road itself, and on land to the south of the Spine Road. Development would occur in phases with the SR being the main objective of the first phase of the development - covered by the Full element of the application (Phase 1) - and it is considered that any storage or deposition of excavated material would be located to the south of the SR. The application is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which - inter alia - covers aspects of the development such as those raised in the CCTT's and others concerns. The development of the site would occur in at least two phases with the first phase being the SR installation and the development of the Full element (Phase 1). It is unlikely that any excavation or storage of excavated material would occur north of the SR until the Phase 1 of the development has been completed. It is also considered that a CEMP - Construction Environment Management Plan should be conditioned which would cover both the Full and Outline elements of the development with possible revision at the Reserved Matters stage which would identify all measures to be taken to minimise any adverse impacts arising from deposition of fines, sediments, and erosion from material arising from on-site excavations, and its storage on the site. In addition, a LEMP - Landscape Environment Management Plan in conjunction with conditions requiring landscaping; the implementation of landscaping; and, biodiversity mitigation measures - should assist in minimising such impacts in respect of the development of the site; the impact of the development on adjoining land; the Poyll Dooey Nature Reserve; and, the salt marsh environment and river/marine environment beyond.
7.16 Officers have consulted with the Ecosystem Policy Officer with a view to formulating conditions that should be applied in the event of an approval being granted which would limit the impacts of the development on the site and surroundings. Clearly, the development of this allocated site in the manner proposed offers an imperfect solution. However, what solution would be perfect? No development would benefit wildlife and the immediate environment but would offer no economic and social benefits to the people of Ramsey and the surrounding area.
==== PAGE 70 ====
22/00679/B Page 70 of 76
7.17 It is considered that on balance, the proposed development is acceptable in terms of its potential for adverse impacts on the existing ecology and habitat of this statutorily unprotected, allocated located site within easy walking distance of Ramsey Town Centre, with as much environmental mitigation as possible secured by way of conditions, including securing a CEMP; a LEMP; A Landscaping Scheme; Implementation of Landscaping, securing the addition of bee bricks and swallow cups to dwellings (on favourable elevations of dwellings away from opening windows) to minimise the environmental impact of the development.
7.18 This would accord with the allocation of the site in the Ramsey Local Plan 1998, as informed by the WRDA Development Brief 2004; and, the provisions of Policies STR2, STR4, STR5, GEN2, ENV3, ENV4, ENV5, ENV7, ENV13, ENV22, ENV24 and ENV42.
PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY
7.19 The DEFA Public Rights of Way Team (PROW) has advised that they have received a request for several public rights of way to be presumed dedicated through uninterrupted use across the site and is processing an Order to add them on the definitive map. The Order has yet to be confirmed. Rights of Way could be maintained across the site where they do not conflict with the proposed layout of the development, particularly in phase 1, and could be adjusted and incorporated into the outline layout at the Reserved Matters Stage. It is considered that the proposals by the PROW Team to confirm the Rights of Way would not preclude the development of the site.
LOCATION, DESIGN AND SCALE OF THE PROPOSED DWELLINGS - FULL ELEMENT
7.20 With regard to the design and visual impact of the proposed development, the submitted masterplan Drawing No. 296-300-100 (Rev. F) outlines how the site would be developed with the Spine Road running across the site in an east-west direction. The bulk of the built form of development would be to the south of the Spine Road, where it would relate to existing development on the south side of the former railway line and to the west at Audlyn Meadow. In respect of design features, the proposed dwellings for Phase 1 of the development, where Full PP is sought, are a mix of:
o House Type A x 10 - 2-Storey Town House; 3B/5P - Terraced - located to south of Spine Road;
o House Type B x 12 - 3-Storey Corner Apartments (1 per level); 1B/2P - located to S of SR and on corners of Streets 1, 2 and 3;
o House Type C x 48 - 2-Storey Semi-Detached; 3B/5P - located S of SR - see Streets 1, 2, 3 and Crescent;
o House Type D x 2 - 2-Storey Detached; 3B/5P - located S of SR - see Streets 1 and 3;
o House Type E1 x 4 - 2-storey Town House; 3B/5P - located on Street 9 - N of SR;
o House Type E2 x 2 - 2-storey Town House; 3B/5P - located on Street 9 - N of SR;
Total No. of Units = 78. Total No. of Beds = 203 Total No. of Persons = 258
7.21 All Phase 1 dwellings would be capable of having Solar PV panels and Air Source Heat Pumps installed. Those dwellings with 1 or more car parking spaces would have 50% of their car spaces surfaced with a permeable finish - grass-crete.
==== PAGE 71 ====
22/00679/B Page 71 of 76
7.22 It is considered that the scale, design and layout of the proposed development for Phase 1, to the south of the Spine Road; the relationship of the dwellings to each other, and adjoining development; the inclusion of the LAP and LEAP; and the ability to connect with Auldyn Meadows; Poyll Dooey Road via the Spine Road, and via footpath links to the south onto the footpath cycleway of the old railway line, would result in a form of development that was well related to and well-integrated into its surroundings, and is considered to be acceptable in these regards. (See IoM Strategic Plan 2016 Policies STRP1, STRP2, STRP3, STRP4, STRP11, SPP2, GEN2, ENV7, ENV10, ENV13, ENV22, ENV24, HP1, HP2, RP4, RP5, TP2, TP3, TP4, TP5)
COMMENTS ON THE LACK OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING - SP POLICY H5
7.23 In terms of the western and northern parts of the application site which are the subject of the Outline Planning permission element of this application, the details of how the development is proposed to be laid out in respect of up to 127 new residential units in the form of dwellinghouses and flats, flexible commercial space, a new public house and new retail space with all matters reserved save for access, are indicated on the submitted masterplan Drawing No. 296-300-100 (Rev. F). This outlines the flatted residential development on the north side of the Spine Road, and residential and commercial development to the east side of Street 3 (including Streets 4-7); the commercial units and Public House and picnic area on the north side of Street 8; the NEAP (Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play); and, the commercial units/kiosks on the north side of and with lay-by access onto the Spine Road. It is considered that as the line of the Spine Road is fixed, and that it would be installed prior to development on the outline application area commencing, that the indicative layout of the development proposed for this part of the site would be very likely to occur in the manner shown on the Masterplan, and as per the submitted house types for the residential units as per the Full part of the application. As this element of the proposals is less likely to be required to cross- subsidise the Spine Road because it should already be installed, the applicants have advised that they would be willing to accept a review clause in any S13 Agreement where the question of the provision of some Affordable Housing could be made within the outline application area. The starting point would be 25% of the approx. 127 Housing Units this area could provide (approx. 31.5 AH Units).
DESIGN AND VISUAL IMPACT - OUTLINE ELEMENT OF THE APPLICATION
7.24 This outline element of the application is considered to be acceptable because it would secure the development of the rest of the allocated Sulby Riverside site with the majority of the proposed residential development (127 of 205 new dwellings) most likely being reflective of the appearance, layout, and scale of those for the full element of the proposals, with access being fixed (Spine Road) at the outline stage. This element of the proposals would provide all of the 156 non-construction jobs within the Commercial Units/Shop Kiosks/Public House. It would also provide a NEAP, picnic area associated with the PH, retention of existing mature trees, and natural water storage/drainage areas close to the bend in the Sulby River which adjoins the sites NE boundary. (See SP Policies GEN2, and ENV1).
8.00 SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
8.01 The proposed development is on an allocated site in the 1998 Ramsey Local Plan as advised in the WRDA Development Brief 2004. The provision of a Spine Road underpins the development of this allocated site as was envisaged in these valid Policy Documents. The Draft Area Plan for the North and West (DAP) - published June 2022 - promoted the deletion of the application site as an allocated site for development, with it being put forward as an area of 'Proposed Open Space'. No further work has been carried out on the DAP since publication and given that the proposed policies and allocations contained therein have not been the subject of public scrutiny, it is effectively for information only, and as a consequence, holds no weight.
==== PAGE 72 ====
22/00679/B Page 72 of 76
8.02 There is a lot of pressure on environmental grounds from various bodies both within and outside Government for no development to take place and for the site to remain as a 'wild area' which may flood occasionally, and over time, it is likely to increase in its biodiversity offering. However, this would need to be undertaken via a programme of active management which does not exist. It is noted that the site could also be farmed (cattle/sheep grazing) as of now which would diminish its biodiversity value. The environmental comments, are therefore, also based on the hope that the site will become an area of Open Space as outlined in the Draft Area Plan for the North and West (published June, 2022). However, as advised above, this Plan and its policy objectives remain as aspirations.
8.03 Against the retention of the site in its current state is that the proposals offer a unique development opportunity for Ramsey on allocated land that should not easily be dismissed when the flood risk issues are addressed in the EIS, Flood Risk Assessment and additional FR documentation which is provided by a leading UK consultancy (who has informed the DoI in updating its Flood Risk Maps - to be published in 2024), with mitigation provided (Spine Road) amongst other things. It is unhelpful that constructive comments have not been forthcoming from DoI FMD.
8.04 The main conclusion of this Report is that if there is no Spine Road, the development in the manner proposed on this allocated site would not occur. The cost outlay in implementing the Spine Road means that Affordable Housing in Phase 1 will not be secured. In the IoM Governments publication "Operational Policy on Section 13 Agreements (2020)", Clause 5.4 reads:
"Where there is a longer anticipated build-time for a development (for example for larger housing estates) and it is accepted that a lower affordable housing contribution is acceptable, a requirement to reassess whether this can be increased prior to commencement of each phase may be included in the Section 13 Agreement. Nevertheless, where a development can only provide a reduced level of affordable housing due to viability issues this will weigh against the development in reaching a balanced decision as to whether it should receive planning approval."
8.05 The applicants have provided a viability argument that the cost of implementing the Spine Road up front obviates their ability to provide Affordable Housing on the Full, Phase 1 element of the proposals. This is accepted by Officers. The applicants have advised that they would be willing to accept a review clause in any S13 Agreement where the question of the provision of some Affordable Housing could be made within the outline application area. It is appreciated that the lack of AH 19.5 AH Units (25% of 78) on Phase 1 is significant and that it would make a difference in the Ramsey area and in the north of the Island as far as AH provision goes. In any review mechanism secured by the S13 Agreement for AH provision on the Outline Phase 2 element of the application, the starting point would be 25% of the approx. 127 Housing Units this would provide (approx. 31.5 AH Units). This would comply with the provisions of SP Policy H5. On balance, it is considered that given the sustainability argument for this allocated site - it is within easy walking distance of Ramsey Town Centre - and, that the SR would secure an alternative route from the new development on the site, and existing housing at Greenlands Avenue/Lezayre Park/Audlyn Walk to Ramsey Town Centre avoiding Parliament Square, these benefits to local people and road users, plus the flood alleviation measures that the Spine Road would provide, outweigh any concerns in respect of the lack of any AH provision within the Full element of the application.
8.06 It is considered that the proposals contained in this hybrid application offer an acceptable form of development that strikes a balance between benefitting Ramsey and the surrounding area in terms of housing and employment provision, community facilities and flood defence for both the site and existing development of land to the south in conjunction with open space and play space provision and achievable goals in relation to wildlife and habitat management. Members should also be mindful that the site off Lezayre Road to the west of
==== PAGE 73 ====
22/00679/B Page 73 of 76
Ramsey for 138 dwellings (PA 20/01080/B) was refused at appeal on 1/3/23; and, that the Hartford Homes site (PA23/00744/B) on the north side of Ramsey for up to 153 dwellings and Community Uses - some distance from the town centre - has yet to be considered. Therefore, this hybrid application which includes provision for up to 202 dwellings, at a sustainable location within easy walking distance of Ramsey Town Centre, would make a significant difference to Housing Supply and also to the Government's ultimate target for a 100,000 Island population.
9.00 RECOMMENDATION Overall, the application is considered to be acceptable as the benefits offered by the proposed development are considered to outweigh the dis-benefits. The application is recommended for approval subject to the prior signing of a Section 13 Agreement to secure:
In the Full element: o The provision of the Spine Road; o Off-Site Highway Improvement Works; Open Space and Estate Management comprising: o The provision of the LAP and LEAP with their relevant play equipment; o The provision of a commuted sum for the maintenance costs for the LAP and LEAP;
In the outline element: o That the Spine Road shall be completed prior to the implementation of the first of any approval of Reserved matters for the development of the outline element of the site; o A clause/mechanism to secure the provision of some on-site Affordable Housing; o The provision of the Commercial Units o The provision of the Public House/Community Facility including picnic area; o The provision of the shop/kiosks Open Space and Estate Management comprising: o The provision of the NEAP with its relevant fully equipped play areas/courts/pitches /fencing and associated equipment; o Waymarking, signage and landscape interpretation boards along the Sulby Riverfront from the access onto Poyll Dooey Road in the east linking in with the Poyll Dooey Nature Reserve to the west;
And subject to conditions.
10.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 10.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
10.2 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.
==== PAGE 74 ====
22/00679/B Page 74 of 76
10.3 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 Interested Person Status. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to the it by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : ...Pending Decision... Committee Meeting Date:...26.02.2024
Signed :...H LAIRD... Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
==== PAGE 75 ====
22/00679/B Page 75 of 76
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 26.02.2024
Application No 22/00679/B Applicant Blythe Church Investments Holdings Ltd Proposal Combined approval in principle and full approval for a residential development seeking planning permission for the erection of 66 dwellinghouses and 12 flats, site access, Spine Road through the site, drainage, car parking and associated landscaping (Phase 1). Outline Planning permission for development of up to 127 new residential units in the form of dwellinghouses and flats, flexible commercial space, a new public house and new retail space with all matters reserved save for access Site Address Land At Poylldooey Fields And Part Fields 134271, 134253, 134270, 134272, 131273, 131276, 132274 & 134274 Ramsey Isle Of Man Planning Officer Mr Hamish Laird Presenting Officer As above - Addendum to the Officer Report
The Planning Committee initially considered the application at its sitting 15th January, agreeing to defer determination in order for a site visit, which was carried out January 18th. The application was further discussed by the Committee meeting on 12th February, 2024, where any decision was again deferred before being further reported to the Committee at its 26th February, 2024, Meeting, where the application was decided.
ADDENDUM -
The Members discussed the points in favour and against the proposal, and voted as follows -
Miss Betteridge abstained from the vote as she had not attended the site visit.
Mrs Hughes and Mr Whiteway voted in support of the case officer's recommendation to approve the application.
The Chair, Mr Young and Mr Warren voted against the case officer's recommendation, therefore the application was refused.
The Acting Head of Development Management summarised the grounds for the reasons for refusal as the lack of information regarding ecological protection measures, concerns regarding Red List species within the development site and potential flooding.
==== PAGE 76 ====
22/00679/B Page 76 of 76
The Members recognised the need for housing in the area, but had grave concerns with regard to the submitted flood protection measures. They expressed that they would have preferred the proposal be divided into two parts, Phases 1 and 2, which could than have been given separate consideration as there were fewer concerns with the proposed development associated with Phase 1 than that proposed in Phase 2.
The Chair requested that the applicant meet with the relevant Government Departments together with the assigned case officer prior to submitting any further applications for this site.
The Acting Head of Development Management advised the members with regard to the proposed Interested Person Status, confirming that it remained as per the published report together with the addition of those parties highlighted on the visual presentation
DECISION The Committee, with the exception of Miss Betteridge who abstained, and Mrs Hughes and Mr Whiteway who voted in support of the case officer's recommendation, by remaining majority REJECTED the recommendation of the case officer and the application was REFUSED subject to the following reasons: -
R1 The proposed development is unacceptable because insufficient survey data and ecological protection measures were proposed to mitigate against the impact of the development on the established diverse, natural habitat of the site relative to Protected Species and Red List Plants; and, to the Sulby River Saltmarsh where it abuts the site boundary particularly in relation to Phase 2 of the development to the north of the proposed Spine Road. This is contrary to the provisions of Strategic Policy 4b) and c); General Policy 2 b), c), d), h), and l); Environment Policies 4, 5 and 22iii) as outlined in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016; Schedules 7 and 8 of the Wildlife Act 1990; and, "Section 21 (e) protecting and enhancing biodiversity, ecosystems and ecosystem services" of the Climate Change Act 2021.
R2 The proposed development is unacceptable because convincing Flood Mitigation Measures have not been proposed, whereby, the development would be adequately protected against flooding during a flood event - either tidal, fluvial or both - to the extent that the safety of occupants of the development would be adequately protected. This relates particularly to both a 1 in 100 year fluvial flood event; and, a 1 in 200 year tidal flood event in relation to predicted flood levels above AOD Douglas including allowances for climate change. This is contrary to the provisions of Environment Policies 10, 13, 22i), as outlined in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R3 The submitted design and construction details for the proposed Spine Road, particularly in relation to the roads gradient where it would join the existing highway to the east at Auldyn Walk; and, the submitted highway drainage details are inadequate to ensure that post development the Spine Road would be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Manual for Manx Roads and that it would be constructed to an adoptable standard. This unacceptability is emphasised by the fact that post development at the 1:200 year 2120 tidal level, both spine road access points to the east and west of the site would be flooded. This is contrary to the provisions of Environment Policies 10, 13, and Transport Policy 4 as outlined in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal