Officer Planning Report

General Report Site Visited ☑ YES ☐ NO The site represents around 17 acres (6.9 ha) of land Stated on the northern side of the Monne Drive. The site slopes upward from the road and is presently characterized by large mounds of earth, bare motorcycle tracks. With some grass and heath retained largely in the south western part of the site. The site has been used in various ways for informal and infrequent formal scambing since at least 1990. Aerial photographs before then (see enclosed) show scambing being place in various different locations on this headland. Most recently an international event was held in April this year. Informal pecking has been place since. The application is in principle, detail and for change of use, according to the form. The issues, I would suggest are the impact of the "proposed" use. ### Summary of objections/views MNN - Concern re ecology & travel impact DST defect DAFF no adverse impact on river condition. BPC 050 ### Recommendations ↓ Approve/Refuse Upon willfulfe, the watercourse, the appearance of the area, terfic and the amenities of the Monne Drive as part of the leading foilen football and residents. The site is designated as Open Space & HIV on the 1990 Bedden local Plan. In the emerging plan it is also identified as an area of ecological sensitivity reiterated in Dr. Scuman's letter of 3117103 which refers to lizards. PTO. This impact could be mitigated by protecting the remaining areas of dring, shambled and angrance of people gaining access to it for pering or scambling. The Pigeon Stream runs along the eastern side of the site. It has been interfered with relatively recently by the deposit of stones although this has not interrupted the flow of the river and it appeared clear and uncontaminated drainstream. There is also a large pond of brain still water within the track circuit. Where this comes from and goes to is unknown (see myleths of 12/3/03 to which I have had no reply) DAFF has recommended the provision of an 8m buffer zone of natural vegetation between the track and the stream. This would necessitate re-forming the circuit at some points in the north eastern corner. The steleaks dreadful at the moment due to scaffolding (marshalling points 1 thick), pallets, poor quality picket fencing and scattered patches of bare track. Some of this could be improved but it will always, if used, be something other than natural headland / headland. When the track is in use however, its appearance is probably improved as it is appearance matches its use. Success to the site is solely from Douglas Mead. No objection has been received from BOT or any residents of Head Road on the basis that this is unacceptable. Access into the site is good although most people attending events as spectators will park on marine Drive. The amenities of the footpark are affected in terms of both the appearance of the site and when events APPLICATION No. acknowledges the possible difficulties in getting past but this is likely the effect from incineration from allies and other motorsports events and are infrequent. The frequency of the events can be controlled by condition (see PA 01/0098) whilst the apartments at Douglas Head are cleaned half a mile after carbon and I am not aware of Egechins needs after the event is April. In summary: the concerns which have been asked regarding hotel pollution and wildlife, access can all be overcome. What cannot be overcome is the change in appearance of the site. The site is not designated for development or own tax reafionalize on the development plan, but these are its grely are (see the Kimmeragh, Ballagarr- aghun and Blackfray (irents) and are almost all ways in rural areas. Motorsport is generally encouraged on the load idely this is to be supported, this site is relatively out of the way and need not be detrimental to wildlife. The application is deficient in many respects and should not be approved without considering control. through conditions. The PC may resolve to do away at the following: 1) refuse the application for being on inappropriate use with an unacceptable visual impact 2) refuse the application on the grounds that the application is deficient in addressing wildlife, pering water/water and traffic concerns. 3) approve the application subject to wildlife areas being set aside but protected, the track re-stected to provide an 8m buffer to the Rigor Stream, facing sea holding by pullers being removed and finger parking provided. The question of enforcement should be considered if PTO option it is pursued. The site has clearly been used in some form since 1990. The intensity of use may have increased recently although evants. it is pursued. The site has clearly been used in some form since 1990. The intensity of use may have increased recently although evidence of this would be hard to find. There may be a difference between purchasing and events. I'm not persuaded from the evidence but in the application of what has happened on site, that the impact is justified by the few times it is used as by whom. SEC 17/11/03