DEC Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Application No.: 23/01330/B Applicant: Mrs Julia Anne Diggines-Patman Proposal: Expansion of camping area; installation of 14 electric hook-up points for campervan pitches. Site Address: Field 234227 Main Road Kirk Michael Isle Of Man Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Photo Taken: 15.05.2024 Site Visit: 15.05.2024 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 28.05.2024 _________________________________________________________________ R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons Reasons for Refusal - R 1. The Department is not satisfied that there is sufficient justification for the proposed development to warrant setting aside the presumption against development in Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's). As such, the proposal is concluded to represent unwarranted development that is detrimental to the amenity of the countryside contrary to the provision of General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Business Policy 11 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. - R 2. No information has been provided to demonstrate that there are no other reasonably acceptable alternative sites or that there is an overriding national need for a campsite of this standard in this specific location. The proposal would result in an unacceptable and unwarranted encroachment into the surrounding countryside, without suitable justification, contrary to Environment Policy 1 and General Policy 3 which seek to protect the countryside for its own sake, and it is not demonstrated that the development would present a reasonable upgrade on the existing temporary camping facility. As such, the proposal is contrary to the principles of the Department for Enterprise IOM Non-Serviced Accommodation Futures Study (March 2017), and Policy on the Development of Non-Serviced Accommodation 2019. - R 3. The development would result in a significant culmination and spread of camping items, campervans and vehicles on land which is not designated for development and which would adversely impact the visual appearance of the site, the countryside and the surrounding AHLV contrary to Environment Policy 2. - R 4. The development would result in a significant culmination and spread of camping items, campervans and vehicles on land which is not designated for development and which would adversely impact the visual appearance of the site and detracting from the historic and architectural quality of the adjacent and surrounding Conservation Area contrary to Environment Policies 35 and 36.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):

Ballarhennie Farm, Orrisdale Road; Thie Cullyn, Rhencullen, Kirk Michael; Laughton Cottage, High Street, Austerfield, South Yorkshire, United Kingdom;

As they are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy. _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site comprises fields 234227 and 234228 situated on the outskirts of Kirk Michael between the existing petrol station and the junction with Orrisdale Road. The site sits between the A3 main road and the Old Railway Line, to the south of the site is an existing stable building forming part of the previous Pennybridge Stables equestrian facility. The site forms part of a larger land holding belonging to Glebe Farm the majority of which sits on the other side of the Old Railway Line. - 1.2 To the rear of the existing stable building is a detached structure providing toilet and shower facilities for a temporary campsite for TT and race periods approved under PA's 14/01001/B and 18/00993/C. This approved campsite area sits alongside the existing stable building, and to the rear of an existing triangular copse of trees, with access provided via the existing track onto the Orrisdale Road.

2.0 PROPOSAL - 2.1 Planning approval is sought for expansion of camping area and installation of 14 electric hook-up points for campervan pitches. There is no intention to create a permanent campsite on site, but to allow campervans pitch at the site during the TT and MGP events. - 2.2 The works seek to increase to the camping area to include the full extent of both field's 234227 and 234228, and the installation of 14 electric hook-up points for campervan pitches. - 2.3 The applicants have provided supporting/additional information which states the following:

• a. They currently use Fields 234227/234228 as campsite for the TT/MGP, and are looking to extend the camping area to include campervans/motorhomes, partially including field 234227 for the race periods only.
• b. They intend to maintain the 65 pitches they have approval for.
• c. Many of the regular TT/MGP campers at the site (including 48 Marshals) have upgraded to campervans/motorhomes, enjoying the comfort and security they provide, hence the application to allow campervans/motorhomes on site.
• d. The rest of the field will continue to be utilised for the parking areas for day visitors and Kirk Michael villagers, dog walkers, and visitors to the Millie's garden.

• e. There will be no loss of agricultural land as the field will return to livestock grazing out of the race periods.
• f. Fencing is paermanently placed for the protection of trees, hedgerows, banking and wildflower area, and protection of visitors during the race periods.
• g. There is no permanent lighting used on site, only solar stake lights placed along fence line to guide pathways, and creating an ambient feel to the site.
• h. There has been no recorded collisions near the site in the last 9 years, and the access is of sufficient size to cater for shared use, with reasonable visibility to anf from the gate, and also Orisdale Road junction with the A3.

2.4 No trees or mature shrubs would be impacted by the proposal.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 Site Specific:

• 3.1.1 The site lies within an area designated as 'Open Space (agriculture)' on the Kirk Michael Local Plan 1994. Part of the site (behind the existing stables) also sits within the Kirk Michael Conservation Area 2006. The site is also recognised as being an Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance on the 1982 Development Plan.

3.2 In planning terms, there is no specific provision within the Strategic Plan to support camp sites, and as such campsites which are a form of tourist development are treated the same as any other form of development in the countryside (Business Policy 11), as the Strategic Plan stipulates a general presumption against development in areas which are not designated for development, and where the protection of the countryside is of paramount importance (EP 1 and GP3). It is further recognised that camping is becoming an important part of the Island's tourist attractions and an increasing popular form of tourist accommodation and the Department of Enterprise (Tourism Division) is supportive of initiatives which attract and accommodate more visitors to and on the Island. Therefore, tourist proposals will generally be permitted where they make use of existing building of interest and quality and where they do not affect adversely environmental, agricultural, or highway interests, and enable enjoyment of our local attractions (Strategic Policy 8). - 3.3 National: STRATEGIC PLAN (2016)

• 3.3.1 Relevant strategic Plan Policies:

• a. General Policy 2 - 'Development Control' considerations.
• b. General Policy 3 - presumption against development outside allocated sites, other than specific exceptions.
• c. Strategic Policy 1 - Efficient use of land and resources.
• d. Strategic Policy 3 - Development to safeguard character of existing towns and villages.
• e. Strategic Policies 4 and 5 relate to preserving the character of the landscape, preventing unacceptable environmental disturbance, and making positive contributions to the environment of the Island.
• f. Strategic Policy 8: Tourist development proposals will generally be permitted where they make use of existing built fabric of interest and quality, where they do not affect adversely environmental, agricultural, or highway interests and where they enable enjoyment of our natural and manmade attractions.
• g. Environment Policy 1 - Protection of the countryside and its ecology.
• h. Environment Policy 2 - Protection of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
• i. Environment Policy 4 and 5 protects ecology (including protected species and designated sites).
• j. Environment Policy 22 - pollution.
• k. Environment Policy 35 - Guides development in Conservation Areas.
• l. Environment Policy 36 - Assesses impacts of developments outside of, but close to the boundary of a Conservation Areas.
• m. Environment Policy 42 - character and need to adhere to local distinctiveness.

• n. Transport Policy 7 and Appendix A.7.6 - Parking Provisions.
• o. Community Policy 7 - Designing out criminal and anti-social behaviour
• p. Community Policy 10 - Proper access for firefighting appliances
• q. Community Policy 11 - Prevention for the outbreak and spread of fire
• r. Business Policy 11: Tourism development must be in accordance with the sustainable development objectives of this plan; policies and designations which seek to protect the countryside from development will be applied to tourist development with as much weight as they are to other types of development.
• s. Business Policy 14: Tourism development may be permitted in rural areas provided that it complies with the policies in the Plan.
• t. Paragraph 9.5.3: "It is considered that the Island's primary assets to tourists and visitors alike are its unique historical landscape, culture and heritage, as well as a wide range of specialist events and attractions. Many activities and facilities providing for the Island's tourists require no permanent development: the TT Races, for example which attract by far the most significant number of tourists to the Island of any event held here, require little but the Grandstand on Glencrutchery Road and a small number of modest marshals' shelters around the Course. Tourism can, however require the erection of built structures - holiday accommodation being the most frequently requested form of new development required in association with the tourism industry. It is important that a balance be struck between the needs of tourism and the protection of these assets, and that tourism development should be sustainable in accordance with the objectives of this plan. There is no special reason why less demanding policies should be applied to tourism development than for other types of development in the countryside, and larger scale schemes may have to be the subject of an environmental impact assessment before planning permission is granted, as with any other form of large scale development.
• u. Environment Policy 14 - Seeks to prevent the permanent loss of important and versatile agricultural land (Classes 1-2).
• v. Transport Policy 4 - Highway safety.

- 4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 Isle of Man Non-Serviced Accommodation Futures - Final Report (2017)

• 4.1.1 Planning Policy Recommendations "In terms of defining what is meant by 'overriding national need', we have suggested a number of tests or criteria that could be considered in terms of:

• o Extending the season/attracting visitors outside the main May-September period;
• o Serving and helping attract target markets - accommodation aimed at families, emptynesters, walkers, cyclists etc.;
• o Securing and attracting investment from both Island and off-island developers and investors - with developers signed up;
• o Showing 'additionality' in terms of providing something not already offered on the Island; meeting an identified gap in supply; attracting new markets rather than diluting existing
• ones; or bringing an established national or international brand name to the Island and all that brings with it in terms of profile, customer databases, and the ability to drive new demand through marketing, central reservations and customer loyalty schemes;
• o High quality, distinctive accommodation provision;
• o Spreading tourism activity and benefit geographically across the Island;
• o Encouraging longer stays and greater visitor spend as a result;
• o Inclusivity and contributing to the health and well-being agenda, e.g. the provision of accessible accommodation, provision for outdoor activities, accommodation that helps connect with nature;
• o Environmental sustainability in terms of eco-friendly accommodation development that respects, protects and enhances the Island's landscape and natural environment and develops its reputation as a sustainable tourism destination".

• 4.1.2 7. Opportunities by Type of Non-Serviced Accommodation "Campsites

• o The upgrading of some of the Island's campsites to a 4 or 5 star standard, to enable them to compete more effectively for off-island business. This would include high quality, heated toilet and shower facilities, a covered dish washing area, pitches with electric hook ups and hard standing areas to allow campers to park next to their tent, and other on-site facilities such as drying rooms, a campers' kitchen/covered cooking area, children's indoor and outdoor play areas, a launderette, Wi-Fi, cycle and motorbike storage, and perhaps a bar and/or café.
• o The expansion of some campsites, if they have land available to extend onto, for which they can achieve planning permission.
• o Some new 5 star sites, although the upgrading of existing sites would seem a more sensible route to pursue.
• o Camping provision in the south of the Island, given the current lack of provision here."

4.2 Policy on the Development of Non-Serviced Accommodation 2019.

• 4.2.1 This document is an offshoot of the Isle of Man Non-Serviced Accommodation Futures Final Report (2017). It sets out governments priorities as it relates to tourism, provides a summary of the Non-serviced study, whilst also outlining the current visitor economy strategy, in addition to articulating the Island Policy towards tourism development.

4.3 Isle of Man Visitor Economy Strategy 2022-2032

• 4.3.1 The Strategy's headline targets are to grow the annual visitor numbers to 500,000 by 2032 and increase the annual economic contribution of the Island's Visitor Economy to £520m. This will mean attracting an additional 170,500 visitors per year compared to 2019. The aim is to triple the holiday and short break market as well as grow all of the other visitor markets. Combined with an expected increase in average spending per visitor, driven by strong growth in longer staying and higher spending leisure markets, these visitor numbers should result in a more than doubling of annual visitor spending on the Island to £310m, which will support an increase in Visitor Economy jobs to 5,000 and generate an annual Exchequer benefit of £49m.

• 4.3.2 Programme 3: Visitor Accommodation Transformation A key aspiration is to widen our non-serviced accommodation supply with the introduction of the innovative offers that are finding a strong market in competitor destinations, such as backto-nature retreats, lifestyle and wellness resorts, sea cabins, treehouses, sky huts and luxury glamping sites.

4.4 Planning Policy Statement (PPS): Planning & the Economy (A Consultation Document February 2012)

• 4.4.1 "In applying the provisions of the Strategic and Area Plans, particularly General Policy 1 and General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan, the Department will seek proposals to be supported by evidence that demonstrates that the proposed development would secure sustainable, long term economic growth of Island wide benefit, which meets the wider objectives of sustainable development by weighing market and other economic matters alongside environmental and social costs and benefits."

4.5 IOM Biodiversity Strategy 2015 to 2025

• 4.5.1 The Strategy seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary. Section 21 deals with Habitat loss actions through promoting a policy of 'no net loss' for seminatural Manx habitats and species and to ensure that unavoidable loss is replaced or effectively compensated for.

- 5.0 PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 Part of the site has been subject to two previous applications considered to be materially relevant to this application. These are:

• i. PA 14/01001/B sought permission for a temporary campsite for part of the existing fields to supplement the loss of income during the motorcycle racing periods as the riding

school and fields were unusable for horses due to the proximity of fast moving vehicles. This application was approved for a temporary period up to 2017.

ii. PA 18/00993/C was submitted and approved for the retention of the toilet and shower facility and the continuation of the temporary campsite for the race periods. The campsite was to accommodate both pre-erected tents and provide an area for those bringing their own tents. The application was approved with the standard 4 year condition and following two conditions:

• C 2. Should the camp site not be used as such for a period of 24 months or more from the last use as a seasonal camp site in accordance with the conditions of this approval, the structures associated with the use - the toilet and shower facilities - must be removed from the site Reason: To ensure that the proposal does not result in any unjustified adverse environmental impact on the surrounding area.
• C 3. The camp site may be available for use as such, no earlier than seven days before the first practice associated with the TT and with the Manx Grand Prix/Festival of Motorcycling and up to seven days after the last race in each case and the camp site may be erected within three days before this and taken down within three days after this. Reason: The application is for the use of the site for the practice and race periods only and whilst provision should be made for setting up and dismantling the camp site, the site should not be used for camping outside those times reasonably associated with these race periods.

5.2 A recent application under PA 20/00175/B which sought to Change of use of land to create a camp site, creation of hard standing for camping vehicles with associated electric hook up points, installation of cladding to and relocation of existing toilet / wash facilities and erection of an attached motorcycle shelter, relocation of a wooden structure to provide a café and social area and construction of decking, was refused at Appeal for the following reasons:

• 1. No information has been provided to demonstrate that there are no other reasonably acceptable alternative sites or that there is an overriding national need for a campsite of this standard in this specific location. The proposal would result in an unacceptable and unwarranted loss of agricultural land without suitable justification contrary to Environment Policy 1 and General Policy 3 which seek to protect the countryside for its own sake and would present a substandard facility contrary to the principles of the Department for Enterprise IOM Destination Management Plan 2016-2020 and Non-Serviced Accommodation Futures Study (March 2017).
• 2. The development would result in a significant culmination and spread of camping items, campervans and vehicles on land which is not designated for development and which would adversely impact the visual appearance of the site, the countryside and the surrounding AHLV contrary to Environment Policy 2.
• 3. The development would result in a significant culmination and spread of camping items, campervans and vehicles on land which is not designated for development and which would adversely impact the visual appearance of the site and detracting from the historic and architectural quality of the adjacent and surrounding Conservation Area contrary to Environment Policy 35.
• 4. It has not been fully demonstrated that the proposal and the expected increase in traffic at the site can be suitably accommodated without detriment or harm to the highway safety of the area contrary to Transport Policy 4.
• 5. By reason of the unacceptable loss of an agricultural site without overriding need or alternatives being demonstrated, the subsequent adverse visual impacts on the immediate surrounding environment and the lack of evidence to truly demonstrate highway safety the proposal is contrary to Strategic Policy 8.

• 5.2.1 The Inspector, in recommending refusal for the application made the following assessments which are relevant in the assessment and determination of the current application: "Principle

• 62. Policies EP1-2, GP3 and BP8 of the IMSP together make clear that any development affecting the landscape of the AHLV can only be justified by an overriding national need and an absence of a reasonable alternative.
• 63. The permanent campsite proposed, whilst of smaller scale and higher quality than the approved part-time site, cannot otherwise be compared in planning terms with the temporary facility, which operates only within the particular circumstances of the TT and MGP periods. Accordingly, this appeal falls for determination strictly on its own individual merits.
• 64. The proposed development is in principle only acceptable if it would not harm the character and quality of the landscape of the AHLV, as the most important consideration, unless its location is essential and there is a recognised overriding national need for it in land use planning terms and no reasonable and acceptable alternative. Visual Impact

• 67. Crucially though, in the wider view, especially on the main road approach to Kirk Michael on the A3, the development, with up to 45 camping and campervan pitches frequently occupied, with their associated camping paraphernalia, would, in my judgement, still have a marked adverse impact on the appearance and character on the countryside landscape of the surrounding AHLV. This would be in unacceptable conflict with the 11 provisions of EP1-2, BP11 and StP8 of the IMSP to protect the countryside for its own sake.
• 68. The questions therefore remain whether the location is essential, whether there is an overriding national need and whether there is a reasonable and acceptable alternative.
• 69. There is evidence of potential customer demand for this particular campsite, as well as some expressed support for the proposal from local businesses and there is broad Government encouragement for high quality camping facilities, as expressed in the DMP and NSA study. However, no information has been submitted in connection with this appeal to quantify the level of Manx national need for permanent campsites and nothing to demonstrate, in planning terms, why this location is essential or that there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative which would not conflict with protective policies to the same degree. The development would thus also be in conflict with GP3 of the IMSP in these respects. Highway Safety
• 70. DOI Highways are satisfied that the proposed access arrangements would be safe and adequate, in compliance with TP4 of the IMSP, subject only to the series of relatively peripheral conditions set out above and based on experience of the temporary campsite already operated for 65 pitches during motorcycle racing periods.
• 71. In contrast, local experience, as expressed by the Kirk Michael Commissioners and residents, leads to voluble objection on highway safety grounds. In the absence of a more detailed technical highway assessment of traffic flows and junction capacity at Orrisdale Road, there remains some doubt whether the development would avoid undue harm to road safety. This concern carries some additional weight against the appeal.

Conclusion

1. Overall, however, it is the conflict in principle with EP1-2, GP3, BP11 and StP8 which alone leads me to the conclusion that the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse the application should be upheld and the appeal dismissed, with doubt regarding of highway safety adding to the case against the proposed development as submitted."

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.

6.1 DOI Highways find the proposal to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking, as the site access has adequate visibility and the site grounds has suitable vehicle manoeuvring area. The applicant should consider whether the site pitches next to the A3 are in a suitable location due to traffic noise levels and protection in the event of errant vehicles from the A3 (24 November 2023/22 April 2024).

6.2 DOI Highways Drainage have stated that allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads. They advise the applicant to be aware of the comments above and avoid debris deposited on the highway (24 April 2024).

6.3 DEFA EPU have made comments regarding the need confirm the discharge method for the effluent, and the need to apply for a discharge license should the applicants seek to install a sewage treatment works and apply for a discharge license through myself.

• 6.3.1 Following correspondence with the applicants, the DEFA EPU have written in to confirm that they have no further queries regarding the foul water provision for the site (30 March 2024).

6.4 The DEFA Biodiversity Team has made the following comments regarding the application (19 February 2024):

• o They note that they are concerned about the proximity of the camping areas and hook up points to a number of wildlife features that have already been created on site to mitigate previous impacts, as they are likely to be degraded by construction works and operational use (use by people and dogs etc.), and so protection measures will need to be put in place.
• o They recommend that construction exclusion areas, temporary construction fencing and permanent fencing (with access for ongoing management) is put in place.
• o They request that a condition is secured for no works to commence unless a habitat protection plan is submitted to the Department and approved in writing.
• o They also request that a condition is secured for no permanent outdoor lighting to be installed until a sensitive low level lighting plan, following best practise as detailed in the Bat Conservation Trust and Institute of Lighting Professionals Guidance Note 8/23 on Bats and Artificial Lighting (2023), has been submitted in writing to the Department for approval. All works must then be undertaken in full accordance with this plan.

6.5 The Visit Isle of Man Agency of the DofE have made the following comments regarding the application (30 April 2024):

• o This comment should be considered as Officer comment only and, therefore, not the view or official position of the Visit Agency Board, or political members of the Department for Enterprise.
• o The Our Island Our Future Visitor Accommodation Transformation Strategy 2022-2032, endorsed by Tynwald in May 2022, includes a Visitor Accommodation Transformation Action Programme that seeks to develop 500 new and transformed hotel and serviced accommodation bedrooms and 500 new units of distinctive, contemporary, eco-friendly non-serviced accommodation to support visitor number growth over the next 10 years.
• o At present, the Island lacks the required level of permanent tourist accommodation bed stock to accommodate the number of visitors to the Island for the TT event and good quality campsites help to support the additional bed spaces required for this event. The TT Strategy seeks to grow the audience at the event, with the peak visitor profile being 28,000 visitors post Covid. This is almost five times the ordinary capacity of tourism accommodation so it is vital that the Island has this accommodation across the Island to look after the visitor's needs and supporting established operations is vital in this long term trajectory. The progression of a series of Island-wide visitor accommodation initiatives are key to the Visitor Accommodation Transformation Programme of the Our Island Our Future Strategy including the development of a motorhome stopovers network across the Island.

• o The inclusion of 14 electric hook-ups for motorhomes on this site will add to the development of the stopovers network. Pennybridge Campsite has been continuously registered with the Department for Enterprise as a campsite since 2015 offering 65 pitches.
• o For the reasons set out above, Visit Agency Officers are thus supportive of this application.

6.6 Kirk Michael Commissioners have not made any comments on the application, although they were consulted on 20 November 2023/22 April 2024. - 6.7 The Owners/occupiers of the following neighbouring properties object to the application:

• i. Cornerstone, 79 Parliament Street, Ramsey for Ballarhennie Farm, Orrisdale Road.
• ii. Thie Cullyn, Rhencullen, Kirk Michael;

6.7.1 They object to the application on the following grounds:

• o The proposal seeks to use an established public parking area by the site access on Orisdale Road which is popular for dog walkers, and visitors to the Milly's Picnic Garden, as a turning area. The parking area is particularly busy during the Spring and Summer months, the very period the applicant wants to run the camp.
• o The current application is broadly similar to PA 21/00175/B (which was refused), with no significant differences.
• o The lawful use of Milly's Picnic Garden would be affected by the proposed seasonal campsite.
• o The proposed installation of fourteen electric hook-up points for campervan pitches is a new element to the proposal, but the scheme still involves 65 tents pitches and motorhomes
• on Field 234227. o None of the concerns raised on the submissions have been addressed by recent submissions by the applicant.

6.8 Laughton Cottage, High Street, Austerfield, South Yorkshire, DN10 6QU, supports the application for the following reasons:

• o They note that they are regular visitors to the Isle of Man and have stayed at Pennybridge every year since 2016.
• o They state that the limited availability across the island for motorhome standing at TT / Manx Grand Prix times is frustrating, and it is in the interests of both visitors and businesses on the island to promote the availability of more spaces, as more spaces brings more people purchasing goods and services across the island, not just for the site itself.
• o They state that the existing site facilities have never been overstretched. This indicates that extra motorhome spaces wouldn't create capacity issues assuming the septic tank arrangements are adequate, especially as motorhomes bring with them their own toilets / showers etc.
• o Extending the opening period would allow many visitors to stay longer outside of the racing weeks.
• o Pennybridge is ideally suited for this on the quieter side of the island with fantastic walking, off roading, beaches and the commercial shopping, eating, and let's face it drinking establishments from Peel through to Ramsey.
• o Public transport serves this site well for those who use it - increasing tourism outside of race weeks must be high on the government's agenda. This may also of course have a positive impact on the limited capacity of the ferries for the racing - allowing motorhomes to stay longer makes a lot of ferry parking space for more bikes in race week.

- 7.0 ASSESSMENT

7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of the current application are:

• a. The Principle;
• b. The Visual and Landscape Impacts,
• c. Impact on Adjacent Conservation Area;

• d. Impacts on neighbouring amenity;
• e. Impacts on Highway Safety; and
• f. Impacts on Biodiversity.

- 7.2 THE PRINCIPLE (GP3, EP1, EP2, BP14)

• 7.2.1 In assessing the acceptability of the principle of the proposed development, it is first noted that there are no specific policies which relate to this type of land use and as such the proposal is to be assessed and determined against the policies which relate to development within the Manx countryside as set out earlier in this report.

• 7.2.2 The site already has approval for use as a temporary campsite to support about 65 pitches (without allowance for motorhomes), with a recent application to create a permanent campsite (under PA 21/00175/C) to include motorhomes refused, with the Inspector noting that "the permanent campsite proposed, whilst of smaller scale and higher quality than the approved part-time site, cannot otherwise be compared in planning terms with the temporary facility, which operates only within the particular circumstances of the TT and MGP periods". The Inspector also noted that the proposed development is in principle only acceptable if it would not harm the character and quality of the landscape of the AHLV, as the most important consideration, unless its location is essential and there is a recognised overriding national need for it in land use planning terms and no reasonable and acceptable alternative.

• 7.2.3 The current scheme whilst seeking to continue the temporary use of the site for camping, also seeks to introduce motorhomes, which is a non-existent form of accommodation on this site, in addition to extending the use into the adjoining field. As such, it is considered that the scheme proposed is considerably different from the current use of the site to only support tents. Therefore, the principle of the current proposal would only acceptable if it would not harm the character and quality of the landscape of the AHLV, as the most important consideration, unless there is evidence to suggest that its location is essential and there is a recognised overriding national need for it in land use planning terms and no reasonable and acceptable alternative, as stipulated in General Policy 3 (g). The above is particularly relevant as General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan sets out the circumstances in which it may be acceptable to set aside the presumption against development outside of areas zoned for development, and it is not considered that this proposal represents such a circumstance. Likewise, the Strategic Plan is clear that policies and designations which seek to protect the countryside from development will be applied to tourist development with as much weight as they are to other types of development (Business Policy 11).
• 7.2.4 Besides, the questions still remain whether the location is essential, whether there is an overriding national need, and whether there is a reasonable and acceptable alternative, as insufficient information has been provided with the scheme to demonstrate that the proposal meets these parameters. The Non-Serviced Accommodation study (NSA) sets out the criteria which the proposed campsite should be considered against when considering overriding national need for tourist development. Whilst the scheme would serve to attract families, empty-nesters, walkers, cyclists, given that the motorhomes/campervans would serve to enable this, the scheme would fail to meet the provisions of the other 11 measures that serve to define overriding national need within the NSA, and as such, it is not considered that this would amount to meeting the criteria in the NSA. Furthermore, the proposal is not supported by any robust demonstration of financial viability, environmental sustainability, 'additionality', securing investment, raising the profile of the Island, or providing high quality, distinctive accommodation. It is also important to note that the application contains no information in terms of the previous uptake or demand for campervans within the temporary facility, and there are no facts or figures of a business plan to demonstrate economic benefit as to outweigh any adverse impacts on economic, social or environment sustainability as set out in the Draft PPS on the Economy 2012 in delivering prosperity, jobs, diversification and economic growth across the Island.

• 7.2.5 Turning to the matter of an alternative location for extending the camping site (camping activities), it is noted that Field 234228 and the part of Field Fields 234227 which the proposal seeks to extend into, sit directly adjacent the existing temporary campsite run by the applicants, which lends itself for easy consideration as a viable site. However, the documents submitted by the applicants clearly indicate that there are other fields within the applicant's ownership, in close proximity to the existing camp site, and better screened in terms of potential impacts on the character and quality of the landscape of the AHLV, which would have been explored as alternative sites for the proposed development, yet these were not explored as alternatives, nor is any information provided to indicate why these were not considered as suitable alternative sites. In addition, whilst Field 234227 would be closer to the campsite facilities, its location is such that would increase the potential for adverse impacts on the character of the landscape, and this lends weight to the argument that an alternative site has not been sufficiently explored. For these reasons, it is not considered that the development is of overriding national need for which there is no alternative, and it would not protect the countryside for its own sake and thus would be contrary to Policies GP3 and EP1 of the IMSP.
• 7.2.6 In addition, the site is situated in the north of the island, which is not a priority area for such development, as the Non-Serviced Accommodation study (NSA) whilst specifying that there is potential for new 4 or 5 star campsites stipulates that the more sensible route would be to upgrade existing campsites and possibly their extension into adjacent land, with provision being made in the south where camping sites are lacking, and this weighs against the proposal. Also, the scheme as proposed could not be judged as an upgrade as it only includes hook-up points (which is considered a basic requirement as detailed within Paragraph 3.3.1 of the study, without incorporating the facilities referred to within the policy that would constitute an upgrade. Moreover, the accommodation proposed here is not considered as one of the types of non-serviced accommodation identified as being in short supply within Paragraph 8.2 of the study. Given the above, it is considered that the proposal would fail to align with the provisions of the NSA study 2017.

• 7.2.6 Given the above, it is considered that a number of issues weigh against the proposal as has already been articulated above. However, it would be vital to ascertain if the proposal would harm the character and quality of the landscape of the AHLV, as this would be a key indicator of the acceptability of the principle of the proposed scheme.

- 7.3 IMPACT ON THE CHARACTER AND QUALITY OF THE LANDSCAPE/ (EP2, BP 11, & STP 8)

• 7.3.1 Environment Policy 2 stipulates that for development in Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan, such as the application site, the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that; (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential.

• 7.3.2 In this case, the site is situated along the main road as you approach Kirk Michael on the A3, with the scheme providing for 65 tent pitches, which would include campervans/motorhomes, spread beyond the existing temporary site further into Fields 234228 and parts of Field 234227, with their associated camping paraphernalia clearly visible from the highway and large parts of the surrounding landscape, which sits elevated and offers unlimited views to the site. Therefore, it is considered that the impact on the appearance and character on the countryside landscape of the surrounding AHLV, would be significant, with impacts considered to be exacerbated over the existing camping use of the adjoining field.
• 7.3.3 Further to the above, no form of screening exists on the eastern boundary of the site, and none is currently proposed, which would mean that the tents and campervans/motorhomes which would be spread into Fields 234228 and 234227, would be clearly noticeable, and this would result in unacceptable conflict with the provisions of EP1,

• EP2, BP11 and STP8 of the Strategic plan which seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake.
• 7.4 IMPACT ON THE ADJACENT CONSERVATION AREA (EP 36)

7.4.1 The Department has a duty to determine whether development proposals outside, but close to the boundary of Conservation Areas will not detrimentally affect important views into and out of the Conservation Area (EP36). With this in view, it is very relevant to evaluate the key views into and out of the adjacent (Kirk Michael) Conservation Area, to ascertain if there would be any detrimental impacts from this scheme when viewed from key views within the Conservation Area.

• 7.4.2 In assessing the potential impacts, it would be vital to note that the site forms a prominent gateway into and out of the village, not only acting as a visual buffer to the built development, but also defining the edge of the village and the start of the countryside. Therefore, the spread of camping paraphernalia and parking of campervans across the site (including Field 234227), would have a significant adverse visual impact on the rural context and enjoyment of the site and one which would negatively impact the wider AHLV and draw attention away from the historic and architectural features of the nearby properties which positively contribute to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
• 7.4.3 While the temporary campsite is considered acceptable in its current form, the current proposal would step significantly outside of the provisions of the current approval by integrating campervans and motorhomes within the site, whilst also spreading the camping pitches, together with their associated camping paraphernalia into Field 234227 and further into Field 234228, which currently do not serve camping purposes, and this would have a significant adverse impact on the visual quality of the area, in addition to impacting views into the adjacent Conservation Area contrary to EP35, particularly as it would introduce motorhomes which are currently not part of the extant approval but require more space requirements, whilst also spreading development into the adjacent field and encroaching into the countryside. It is further noted that nothing has been proposed within the scheme to soften the associated visual impacts resulting from the scheme.

7.5 IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURING LIVING CONDITIONS (EP22 and GP2)

• 7.5.1 Environment Policy 22 requires that development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties. In this case, as with most camping sites, the main concern is likely to be noise, with the most noise generated likely to be associated with outdoor uses , as people gather to socialise and enjoy the outdoors, with its associated music. Whilst many campers would be considerate of nearby properties and surroundings and generally act in good behaviour, there is no guarantee that this would always be the case. However, the nearest residential property situated close to the extended camping area would be 'Balla-Wot-Not', situated about 77m away from the site, where impacts would be considerably diminished.

• 7.5.2 Additionally, it has been considered that the coming and goings to the site will increase considerably over the existing situation, with the spread of camping activities to Field 234227 holding the potential to exacerbate impacts over existing thresholds on nearby properties. However, there is already a level of activity in the area through the existing temporary campsite and with the site being on an main route with high volumes of passing traffic, and/or racing vehicles, it may be that additional comings and goings as a result may not be so extreme as to cause any new or significant amenity harm on the surrounding residents as to warrant a refusal.
• 7.5.3 With regard to the potential impacts on the parking area by the access to Orrisdale Road, which has been highlighted by neighbours, this would be better assessed under the highway impacts which follows this section.

- 7.6 HIGHWAY SAFETY (TP4 & GP2)

7.6.1 In terms of potential impacts of the proposal on highway safety, it is noted that DOI Highways are satisfied that the proposal, as they find the proposal to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking, given that the site access has adequate visibility and the site grounds has suitable vehicle manoeuvring area. They have, however, highlighted potential safety concerns regarding traffic noise levels and protection in the event of errant vehicles from the A3.

• 7.6.2 Further to the above, it is not considered that the concerns regarding impacts on the public parking by the Orrisdale Road access is of sufficient weights to result in refusal of the scheme given that the scheme does to propose to alter the access arrangement to the site, and the use of this parking area is not impeded by the use of this access as was noted during the site visit where the parking was available and unimpeded by the use of the access.
• 7.6.3 Granting the absence of a more detailed technical highway assessment of traffic flows and junction capacity at Orrisdale Road weighs against the proposal, as there remains some doubt whether the development would avoid undue harm to road safety, it is not considered that there is sufficient reason to refuse the application in these grounds, for the reasons detailed above.

- 7.7 IMPACTS ON BIODIVERSITY (EP4, EP5 & GP2).

• 7.7.1 In terms of the ecological impacts of the proposed development, whist the documents submitted in this regard is scant, the application have had discussions with the DEFA Bodiversity Team who have noted that they are content with the plans as proposed, but request a condition on approval for the securing of the areas of planting recently carried out on site, and for all new planting to be undertaken with Manx native or honorary native species. The further request that a condition be include that no further lighting of the site should be allowed without written agreement from the Planning Directorate, should approval be granted for the proposal. As the ecological concerns could be addressed via conditions, it is felt that the concerns in terms of biodiversity impacts are not significant with the current proposal, and this weighs in favour of the proposal.
• 8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 Overall, it is considered that there is no information provided to demonstrate that there are no other reasonably acceptable alternatives or that there is an overriding national need for a campsite of this standard in this specific location. Also, the development would result in a significant culmination and spread of camping items and supporting facilities on land which is not designated for development and which would adversely impact the visual appearance of the site and surrounding countryside. Furthermore, the application is judged to result in adverse impacts on the adjacent Conservation area.

8.2 Based on the foregoing, the proposal is considered to fail the requirements of Strategic Policy 8, Environment Policies 1, 2 and 22, and General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan. The scheme is also considered to be contrary to the principles promoted by the IOM Non-Serviced Accommodation Futures Study (March 2017), and Policy on the Development of Non-Serviced Accommodation 2019. - 9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

9.1 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.

9.2 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.

9.3 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 a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.

Decision Made : Refused Date: 29.05.2024 Determining officer

Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Principal Planner

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.