Loading document...
Case Reference: DF15/0021 Planning Application: 15/00462/B
The main points made in notes accompanying the application and in a further letter are: 3. This is one of a series of recreational developments in line with DEFA's long term strategy for maximising the recreational potential of the Forest Estate. The intention is to develop the use of the countryside for the health and economic benefit of the whole Island. This plantation is one of the nearest recreational woodlands to the population of Douglas. It is popular for cycling, horse riding and walking. The present parking is inadequate and becomes congested at peak times. Parking often takes place on the main road. The proposal would allow a wider range of users to enjoy the area, including horse riders and persons with mobility issues. As the adjacent road is often busy, it is important that the vehicles of persons using the site do not cause danger/nuisance to other road users. The proposal would assist in that. It would allow separation of activities and give the following road safety benefits:
of visitors is likely to change the demographic and behaviour of other users and provide an increased element of "self-policing". It is hoped that the provision of "honey-pot" sites in the plantations and forests will serve to reduce pressures on footpaths which run directly across farmland, and reduce the overall impact on livestock. The land between the site and the land of one of the objector's is presently open, due to felling of trees for disease control, but this area has been planted with broadleaved trees which will create a long term screen to noise and disturbance.
The main points made in this statement are: 5. The plantation is being renewed following felling of trees for disease control. As a consequence, the plantation itself and the car park are currently quite stark features in the landscape. 6. The site is in an area designated as owned by the Forestry Mines and Lands Board or the Government Property Trustees on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982. There is a presumption against development in such areas other than for purposes identified in General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan ("the Strategic Plan"). Such purposes include buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife and heritage. The Strategic Plan (paragraph 10.3.2) promotes health and well-being and the role which open space has to play in this, including as a "mains of improving the health and fitness of the island's population". 7. The provision of adequate parking facilities to serve the Island's plantations is an important element of DEFA's strategy to maximise the potential of the land, in line with the Sport and Recreation Strategy. The value of providing adequate parking and increasing the opportunities for the public to enjoy the plantation is significant. Those benefits must be weighed against any adverse impacts. Although the area of hardstanding would be increased, the visual impact would be limited because the surfacing would be behind a hedge. With respect to highway safety, visibility for emerging drivers towards the right is good at over 300 m . To the left towards the Braaid visibility is closer to 60 m to the far side hedge. Because visibility towards Douglas is so good, vehicles can emerge further to gain better visibility to the left and so emerging is not unsafe. The Highway Services Division has made no objection on highway safety grounds. Given that the A24 is a heavily used major route into Douglas, the increase in traffic generated by the proposal is unlikely to be significant as a proportion of overall traffic. Whilst Highway Services has requested a condition to provide and maintain visibility splays, this matter needs to be assessed taking into account the slope of the land towards the road and the desirability of retaining roadside hedges to help minimise the visual impact of the scheme. 8. The allegations of adverse impact on adjacent agricultural operations are significant and constitute a material consideration. However, public access to the countryside would need to be completely restricted in order to prevent any such impact. That would not be in the public interest. Having controlled areas such as this plantation allows the public to have access in a way which is secure, wellsigned and serviced with litter bins. This should reduce incidences of trespass and inappropriate behaviour. The extra parking spaces and the picnic area are likely to increase use of the facility. The resulting benefits need to be assessed against the risk of more incidents of inappropriate behaviour affecting the agricultural use of the adjacent land. If the application is approved, it is suggested that an informative be attached to encourage the applicant to liaise with the adjacent land owners to ensure every effort is undertaken to prevent trespass and interference with agricultural activities. 9. No recommendation is made, but 2 conditions are suggested should the application be approved. These comprise the usual time limit for the commencement of the development and a requirement for the provision of receptacles for collection of litter and dog waste.
the submitted drawings indicate that it is possible to provide visibility splays of 2.4 \mathrm{~m} \times 160 \mathrm{~m} in both directions at the site access. That would require some cutting back of the hedges on the frontage, particularly to provide visibility to the left (west). That would have some implications in terms of reducing the existing screening of the site. Subject to the attachment of a condition to ensure the enhancement and/or replacement of any parts of the hedgerow which have to be removed or reduced, such works should not cause any significant visual harm. Proportionally the extra traffic likely to be generated by the proposal would not be significant in the context of existing traffic volumes. I do not find the concerns expressed about the potential for increased accident numbers to be justified. I have been given no evidence to show that this length of road has a significant accident record, and there is no detailed or technical evidence to demonstrate that the risk of accidents would be materially increased. I have concluded that the proposal would cause no significant harm to highway safety. I have found no conflict with policies of the Strategic Plan which are of relevance to this issue, including Transport Policy 4, which expects that new and existing highways which serve any new development should be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian movements generated by the development in a safe and appropriate manner. 17. Turning to the third issue, 2 local farmers have expressed concern about the potential impact on their farming activities, with especial reference to the worrying of livestock and potential damage. There is a lack of any detailed evidence in the papers before me regarding the prevalence/frequency of problems of this nature in the past and to date. More significantly, there is no evidence to demonstrate that such incidents would be materially increased by this proposed development. I do not consider that the evidence available on these matters is indicative of problems which are so substantial as to justify refusal of planning approval on that basis. It is also relevant that the applicant Department intends to install educational signage, which should help to reduce the likelihood of incidents of incursion onto agricultural land and of worrying of livestock. With respect to some points of detail raised by the objectors, it is intended to make provision for the collection of litter and waste. There is nothing to suggest that any significant degree of light pollution would arise. There is no indication that it is intended to illuminate the car park, and any effect of vehicle lights would be transient and would be limited, given that the site would be most likely to be used during daylight hours. Any increase in vehicle noise would be limited, given the context of existing traffic volumes on the adjacent road. As a matter of balance, it is also necessary to weigh the substantial recreational benefits the scheme would have, including for the Island's economy and for the health and welfare of its population. 18. I have also had regard to the fact that the exceptions in General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan to the normal restrictions on development outside of areas that are zoned for development include works that are required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage. It is in my view reasonable to regard the proposed car parking and picnic area either as falling within the category of development required for the interpretation of the countryside, or as being akin to development of that type. Bearing that in mind, together with my conclusions on the main issues, and taking account of all other matters which have been raised, I have concluded that there are no substantial reasons to justify refusal of this application. I intend to recommend approval. My recommendation includes conditions to deal with the matters contained in the conditions suggested in the Planning Statement and in the Highways Division comments. I am amending the suggested wordings, firstly to require that details of the litter and dog waste bins are approved prior to their installation, as the suggested wording to require "adequate receptacles" would fail the test of a planning condition which requires "precision". Secondly, I am amending the wording of the condition relating to the visibility splays to ensure the provision of the splays shown on the submitted drawings, and to require a scheme of reinstatement/replacement of any parts of the frontage hedges which would be affected by the provision of the splays.
I recommend that planning approval be granted for extension to car park and creation of picnic area, car park at Chibbanagh Plantation, Cooil Road, Braaid subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of 4 years from the date of this decision notice. (Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.)
Prior to the commencement of use of the picnic area or car park hereby approved there must be in place adequate receptacles for the collection of litter and dog waste which may be generated on the site. These receptacles shall be provided in accordance with a scheme of details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to their installation. (Reason: In the interests of the appearance and hygiene of the site).
Prior to the commencement of any other work on the site, the access and associated visibility splays detailed on Drawing No. 101 Rev. B shall be completed in accordance with that drawing. The visibility splays shall thereafter be retained at all times and maintained free from any obstructions, including signs, over 1.05m in height. Should the provision of the visibility splays result in the removal or reduction of any parts of the hedges on the site frontage, a scheme of reinstatement/replacement of those parts shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The approved works of reinstatement/replacement shall be completed prior to the commencement of use of the car park extension and picnic area. (Reason: In the interests of highway safety, to reduce the impact of construction traffic on the highway network, and to protect the visual amenity, character and appearance of the area.)
Following completion of the development, the car parking and manoeuvring space included in the scheme shall be retained and shall at all times remain free from obstruction and available for parking of vehicles associated with the use of the plantation. (Reason: To prevent the use of the car park as a storage facility, or its use for the long term storage of vehicles not associated with the use of the plantation, and to prevent any reduction in the number of parking spaces.)
Stephen Amos MA (Cantab) MCD MRTPI Independent Inspector
Case Ref. DF15/0021 - Application No. 15/00462/B
Page 5
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
