Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
20/01297/B Page 1 of 14
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 20/01297/B Applicant : Ballacutchel Farms Ltd Proposal : Creation of access tracks across agricultural fields Site Address : Fields 314218, 314225, 314220, And 314219 Staarvey Road Peel Isle Of Man
Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 16.05.2022 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. There is insufficient agricultural justification for the siting of the access track and culvert to outweigh the presumption against development here or enough to exempt the development as having sufficient agricultural need to pass as being essential for the conduct of agriculture. As such, the proposed development would fail to comply with General Policy 3 (f) and Environment Policy 15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 2. Given that the need for the proposed track and associated works have not been adequately proven, and there is no over-riding national need in land use planning terms for the proposed development which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas from inappropriate development, it is concluded that the proposal represents unwarranted development on land not zoned for development and would be contrary to Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
R 3. The formation of the track, which is proposed to be about 521m in length, 4-5m wide and between 33 - 450mm deep, and which would be finished in imported hardcore materials, from the existing entrance would result in an incongruous feature in the countryside within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance, and would detract from the vegetated and open character of the landscape. Accordingly, given the development harms the character and quality of the landscape and is not essential, the creation of the track is contrary to General Policy 3 and Environmental Policy 1 and 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
==== PAGE 2 ====
20/01297/B Page 2 of 14
R 4. The proposed development would result in adverse impacts on marshy grassland, a very rare habitat on the Isle of Man, which covers just 1.94% of the islands land area as indicated in the Isle of Man Ecological Habitat Survey 1991 to 1994, and which form part of an extensive area of marshy grassland habitat totalling 53.21 acres, recognised for its ecological importance. The proposal would also impact on Common Spotted and Heath Spotted Orchids, which are Wildlife Act Schedule 7 protected plants that have been recorded from field 314220 (and the wider marshy grassland area). Common Lizards, which are Wildlife Act Schedule 5 species, which have been recorded from the surrounding banks and are likely to occur in Field 314220 would likely be impacted by the development as part of their habitat would be cleared to enable the proposed scheme. Therefore, the development is considered to be contrary to Environment Policy 4 and Strategic Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan, and the Wildlife Act 1990.
R 5. Insufficient information has been provided to support that the proposed development would not have detrimental impacts on the flooding of the area as no flood risk assessment has been provided, and the approach to culverting of the watercourse is contrary to the principles set out in the industry culvert, screen and outfall manual CIRIA C786. As such, the development is considered to be contrary to Environment Policy 10 and 13 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and Section 68 of the Flood Risk Management Act (2013).
R 6. The proposed field access would preclude the existing agricultural use of the fields as it reduces, by a substantial level, the amount of land available for agricultural use by the livestock for grazing given that it would use up an area of the fields measuring about 2605sqm (about 0.64 acres).
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:
Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Flood Risk Management Division Manx National Heritage __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site comprises part of Fields 314218, 314225, 314220, And 314219 Staarvey Road, Peel which is located on the on the western side of the Staarvey Road, which is north of the village of St John's.
1.2 The site slopes southwest wards, although the other fields on the western end slopes eastwards, creating a valley at sections of the field 372m west of Staarvey Road, where a watercourse runs through the site. The site is situated on the northern boundary of Upper Lhergydhoo Farm, while Ballavaish Farm is situated southeast, separated by Staarvey Road, which is situated southeast of the application site. There are currently no building on the site.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for creation of access tracks across agricultural fields to an existing access gate onto Staarvey Road. The track width would be 4.5 to 5m and would have a gradient 1:10. This track would be covered in Clean Type 2 approved material and topped off, that would be between 33 - 450mm deep (depending on ground quality).
==== PAGE 3 ====
20/01297/B Page 3 of 14
2.2 The works would also involve the erection of a culvert over the existing watercourse that divides the site. The culvert would comprise the existing pipe culverts and existing backfill to culvert that are presently on site. This would be laid over with 300-450mm Clean Type 2 approved material and topping off. The total length of the track would be about 521m.
2.4 The additional information indicates that the existing formed earth bank would be lined in sheet metal/gabion baskets to form upstream and downstream head walls in order to eliminate future earthbank erosion during high water levels (All to Inland Fisheries and MUA approvals). As well, temporary Soakaways would be formed on either side of the watercourse to ensure that no debris material enters watercourse during construction of field track.
2.5 The applicants have provided the following additional documents to address concerns raised by the Ecosystem Policy Team: i. Manx Wildlife Trust's Technical Note: Compensation Options for Track at Bwoaillieecowle Farm dated April 2021, ii. Bwoailiecowle Farm Tracks Orchid Survey dated June 2021, and iii. Ballacutchelfarms Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report (PEAR) dated March 2021.
2.6 The proposed scheme would involve site level changes and some excavation of topsoil, although the applicants had indicated that the scheme would not involve site level changes. Therefore, the applicants were contacted for further additional information on this element of the scheme. The applicants were also asked to provide additional information to address concerns raised by the German Commissioners and Manx National Heritage with regard to the buildings currently on site and proposed use of the track. The information provided on 04 November 2021 includes the following:
i. Site Level Changes: Generally the track will be more or less level with the adjacent land, but there will be an increase in level along one side of the track to create the bank which consists of only the soil stripped when excavating to create the new track.
ii. Hardcore Import: They estimate that over a length of 505m, the quantity of material that would be require would be in a range of 682cu.m to 1136cu.m. It has been agreed with DEFA that the imported clean Type 2 Approved Material will be constructed from slate/ Stony Mountain or Poortown materials.
iii. Need for Tracks: The Applicant farms beef cattle across a number of farmland fields in disparate parts of the Island. The livestock is moved between these locations in a cattle wagon. Access from Staarvey Road is the only option. There is no other access to the fields as the only other access is a Greenway Road and that is not suitable for larger vehicles. In this location in German the furthest fields are remote from the only access off Staarvey Road. Moving the cattle in a wagon along the track makes for better livestock welfare and reduces the hoof-fall damage that would be done to the fields by driving cattle from the access point to the remotest fields. Having the track will make moving cattle and the regular delivering of feed to the cattle much more convenient for the farm manager
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The application site is within an area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance, under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area or a Registered Tree Area, and there are no protected trees on site. Whilst the site is generally not prone to flood risks, a water course divides the site with the proposed culvert which forms part of the development to be within a flood risk area.
3.2 Due to the zoning of the site and the proposed works the following policies are relevant in the determination of the application:
==== PAGE 4 ====
20/01297/B Page 4 of 14
3.3 General Policy 3: Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry".
3.4 Environment Policy 1: The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative."
3.5 Environment Policy 2: The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas 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."
3.6 Environment Policy 10: Where development is proposed on any site where in the opinion of the Department of Local Government and the Environment there is a potential risk of flooding, a flood risk assessment and details of proposed mitigation measures must accompany any application for planning permission. The requirements for a flood risk assessment are set out in Appendix 4.
3.7 Environment Policy 13: Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted.
3.8 Strategic Policy 4: "Proposals for development must: (a) Protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments, Registered Buildings, Conservation Areas, buildings and structures within National Heritage Areas and sites of archaeological interest; (b) protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations; and (c) not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance."
3.9 Environment Policy 4: Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect: (a) species and habitats of international importance: (i) protected species of international importance or their habitats; or (ii) proposed or designated Ramsar and Emerald Sites or other internationally important sites.
(b) species and habitats of national importance: (i) protected species of national importance or their habitats; (ii) proposed or designated National Nature Reserves, or Areas of Special Scientific Interest; or (iii) Marine Nature Reserves; or (iv) National Trust Land.
(c) species and habitats of local importance such as Wildlife Sites, local nature reserves, priority habitats or species identified in any Manx Biodiversity Action Plan which do not already benefit from statutory protection, Areas of Special Protection and Bird Sanctuaries and landscape
==== PAGE 5 ====
20/01297/B Page 5 of 14
features of importance to wild flora and fauna by reason of their continuous nature or function as a corridor between habitats.
Some areas to which this policy applies are identified as Areas of Ecological Importance or Interest on extant Local or Area Plans, but others, whose importance was not evident at the time of the adoption of the relevant Local or Area Plan, are not, particularly where that plan has been in place for many years. In these circumstances, the Department will seek site specific advice from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry if development proposals are brought forward."
3.10 Environment Policy 5: In exceptional circumstances where development is allowed which could adversely affect a site recognised under Environmental Policy 4, conditions will be imposed and/or Planning 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 so that the loss to the total ecological resource is mitigated.
3.11 Environment Policy 7: "Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which could not be overcome by mitigation measures will not be permitted. Where development is proposed which would affect a watercourse, planning applications must comply with the following criteria: (a) all watercourses in the vicinity of the site must be identified on plans accompanying a planning application and include an adequate risk assessment to demonstrate that works will not cause long term deterioration in water quality; (b) details of pollution and alleviation measures must be submitted; (c) all engineering works proposed must be phased in an appropriate manner in order to avoid a reduction in water quality in any adjacent watercourse; and (d) development will not normally be allowed within 8 metres of any watercourse in order to protect the aquatic and bankside habitats and species."
3.12 Transport Policy 4: The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan.
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Flood Risk Management Act (2013) 4.1.1 Section 68 of the Flood Risk Management Act (2013) indicates that any published Flood Risk Management Plan and the extent to which the proposed development creates an additional flood risk are material considerations.
4.1.2 Given that part of the site is within a flood risk area the above requirements apply and appropriate consideration will be given in section 7 of this report.
4.2 The Isle of Man's Biodiversity Strategy (2015 - 2025) 4.2.1 "Habitat loss actions 21. DEFA will continue to promote a policy of 'no net loss' for semi-natural Manx habitats and species and ensure that unavoidable loss is replaced or effectively compensated for. 22. By the end of 2015 complete a land use and terrestrial habitat assessment to understand rates of habitat loss, use this information to help prioritise habitat and species conservation, through Biodiversity Action Plans, and consider how to monitor success".
4.3 Minerals Act 1986 4.3.1 Minerals act 1986 states in Part 2 - Miscellaneous; paragraph 29 states; "that over 200m2 of excavation requires a mineral license from the Department of Enterprise.
==== PAGE 6 ====
20/01297/B Page 6 of 14
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 There are no previous planning applications for the application site or within the vicinity of the application site that are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 The Department of Infrastructure Highway Services have made the following representations regarding the application: 6.1.1 Correspondence dated 25 November 2020: They do not oppose the application with the following comments:
The proposed access tracks will be using the existing gated access onto Staarvey Road. The areas of the proposed works do not cross over any Public Rights of Way.
Whilst the eventual use of the track would not create a significant increase in the trip rate, the access would benefit from a firmer temporary surface treatment given the increase in vehicle movements and loading on importation of material to form the tracks. Reinstatement to grass should occur on completion. The side vegetation should be cut back at the field gate to maximise visibility.
The proposals raise no significant highway safety or network efficiency concerns. Accordingly, Highway Services raise no opposition.
6.1.2 Correspondence dated 20 May 2021 - no further comments to those made on 25/11/2020.
6.1.3 Correspondence dated 4 June 2021: Do not oppose.
6.1.4 Following review of additional documents submitted by the applicants, they continue to not oppose this proposal (19 August 2021).
6.2 DEFA's Ecosystem Policy Team made the following comments regarding the application: 6.2.1 Representation dated 3 December 2020: o They expressed concern for the lack of environmental consideration within the application. o The application site (fields) are marshy grassland, a very rare habitat on the Isle of Man, which form part of an extensive area of marshy grassland habitat totalling 53.21 acres, recognised for its ecological importance. o The Isle of Man Ecological Habitat Survey 1991 to 1994 concluded that marshy grassland covered just 1.94% of the islands land area and it is therefore a very rare Manx habitat. The extensiveness of the habitat present on site and in the wider area, increases the species diversity present and the resilience of those species to environmental changes including climate change and therefore extent is an important feature of this area. o The creation of the access track would destroy approximately 610m2 of marshy grassland and sever an ecologically important habitat. o Unless carefully engineered the track could change the hydrology of the surrounding land and this in turn would lead to a negative change in the surrounding marshy grassland habitat. o The proposed development could also damage or destroy a number of other protected species, such as:
==== PAGE 7 ====
20/01297/B Page 7 of 14
a. the Common Spotted and Heath Spotted Orchids, Wildlife Act Schedule 7 protected plants, which have been recorded from field 314220 and 316141 (and the wider marshy grassland area) b. Common Lizards, a Wildlife Act Schedule 5 species, which have been recorded from the surrounding banks and are likely to occur in Field 314220 and 316141. c. Common frogs, a Wildlife Act Schedule 5 species. Frogs spend the majority of their time searching for food in wet grassland and marshy habitats only returning to ponds and ditches to breed or hibernate. They can disperse up to 2km from their breeding ponds. d. Common and widespread bird species which have been recorded showing evidence of nesting in Field 314220. Cutting outside of the ADS approved cutting period could result in an offence under the Wildlife Act 1990. o They request that a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA), adhering to CIEEM (2017) Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal 2nd edition, as well as any associated protected species surveys, be undertaken by a suitably qualified ecologist, and these should be provided to Planning and additional time given for their consideration, prior to the determination of this application. o The PEA and protected species survey reports need to include appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures (including, avoidance, minimisation and compensation measures) to ensure that the ecological important features are protected during and after the development. o If marshy grassland is to be lost the Ecosystem Policy Team recommends that an equal area of marshy grassland habitat is created, which joins up to the existing marshy grassland habitat, to compensate for the loss. o They also request that updated information is provided which clearly demonstrates that the track and culverts are to be engineered in such a way as to not impact on the hydrology of the surrounding habitats.
6.2.2 Representation dated 14 May 2021: They requested that determination of the application be delayed until an orchid survey has been undertaken by a suitable qualified ecological consultancy and a report detailing the findings has been submitted to Planning.
6.2.3 Representation dated 26 May 2021: o Curlew is a Schedule 1 bird on the Isle of Man and they are also classified as a UK Red list species of highest conservation concern that require urgent conservation action. From 1995 -2015 breeding curlew declined by 48% across the UK and some of this loss is associated with loss of breeding habitat or loss of habitat quality, especially in farmland. o Curlews are birds associated with uplands and wet grassland and it is therefore entirely likely that curlews are breeding in the area that is to be developed and the building of the track could lead to the loss of further curlew breeding habitat and thus the loss of breeding curlews, in the development area and within the wider habitat due to changes in hydrology, habitat quality and increased disturbance. o Since the PEA was undertaken in the winter months, it would not have been possible to determine whether curlews were breeding in the area at that time. o Due to high potential for red list curlews to be impacted by the work, the Ecosystem Policy Team request that a full breeding bird survey is undertaken on the development site, prior to determination of this application. The bird survey should incorporate a suitable buffer area around the site to take account of potential wider impacts. o Surveys are required to identify the species of bird using the area, their location, abundance and whether they are breeding and this will help to determine the mitigation required. o A report detailing the findings, including a mitigation plan for the birds protection during and after the development, should be submitted to the Planning Directorate for approval prior to determination of this application. o They highlighted that they do not see the need for the creation of this new track, as there is already good, established access points, via well used tracks, to both the eastern and
==== PAGE 8 ====
20/01297/B Page 8 of 14
western fields, since the track will result in the destruction of rare habitat and the likely loss of protected species including orchids, lizards, frogs and curlew. o They are of the view that the application is contrary to Strategic Policy 4 and Environment Policies 1, 4 and 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and Actions 21 and 26 of the Isle of Man's Biodiversity Strategy.
6.2.4 Having reviewed the additional documents provided by the applicants they have provided correspondence dated 23 September 2021 with the following comments: o From reviewing the documents provided, they consider that a suitable level of assessment has been undertaken. o 800m2 of the land to be impacted by the new track is species-rich marshy grassland. o The orchid survey has now confirmed that Wildlife Act 1990 protected orchids are in the development footprint. o The survey found that orchids were present across the width of the field and the placement of the track coincides with lower orchid densities compared to the surrounding marshy grassland areas. o Mitigation recommendations were not included in the orchid report but the Ecosystem Policy Team considers that the relocation of the track is not suitable. o In line with Environment Policies 4 & 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the orchid turfs to be impacted by the development should be translocated to a suitable receptor site and an Ecological Clerk of Works be appointed for the duration of the works to oversee the translocation of orchids and the construction of the track. o In order to protect the remaining orchid population and surrounding rare habitats from changes in soil conditions, the track will also need to be constructed of slate/ stony mountain or Poortown materials. No limestone or recycled materials should be used. o Whilst Curlews were not seen or heard throughout the survey, there are still concerns about curlews, as they could nest in the area in future. However, if the track creation is undertaken outside of nesting season, in line with recommended mitigation, these concerns will be negated. o They recommended a set of conditions that could be applied should the Planning Department be minded to approve the application.
6.3 DEFA Fisheries have made the following comments in a letter dated 2 December 2020: o They have no objection to this proposal providing the following conditions are met:
5.4 Manx National Heritage 5.4.1 Correspondence dated 25 November 2020: o They request that 'after works' checks are carried out to confirm that the water course is able to travel through the culvert without impeding the passage of fish. o They support advice given by Inland Fisheries, to prevent silt and excavated spoil entering the water course both during works and after. o There is little supporting information to indicate the times and intensity of the use of the tracks. o They would like to see further information that defines a need for the creation of the tracks before they make further comments.
5.4.2 Correspondence dated 25 May 2021:
==== PAGE 9 ====
20/01297/B Page 9 of 14
o The current use of the four fields appears to be grazing which from a wildlife perspective, if the pressure is not too intensive will be beneficial to nature conservation. o The fields are of particular habitat value, particularly those containing bands of marshy grassland which surround the watercourse to the north and south along the shallow valley. o Marshy grassland is not widely represented on Mann and often supports assemblages of plants which are correspondingly rare and often protected by legislation. o Areas of marshy grassland form particularly important habitat when they form part of a wider, ecologically similar area and are able to support greater biodiversity, as is the case here. o Common spotter and Heath spotted orchids are recorded as being present in fields 314220 and 316141 along with Common lizards and frogs, all of which are protected under the Wildlife Act. o We are still unsure as to why the applicant should wish to construct a track through the fields. Without a clear need for the track we feel we should draw your attention to the policies set out in the IOM Strategic Plan, Policy 2: states that Development will be permitted in the countryside only in exceptional circumstances. o We feel that the mitigation offered by the applicant, should the track be permitted, shows a good level of appreciation as to the wildlife value of the marshy fields. Nevertheless we are unable to support this application on the grounds of the loss of valuable wildlife habitat and the biodiversity that it supports.
5.4.3 They have not made additional comments since additional information was provided by the applicants on 04 November 2021.
6.5 DEFA Agriculture and Lands Directorate has made the following comments regarding the application (14.01.2022): o There is no agricultural justification for the development. The livestock would be moved from the field a handful of times a year. The applicant is actually reducing the grazing area available for his livestock. o A more appropriate solution would be to create a suitable handling area (pen) in field 314225. o The sites (fields) are suitable for grazing, and need an appropriate grazing regime to maintain the desirable habitats that have been recorded on the site. o The development of this magnitude is not required to move cattle between the fields (considering the fields are only for grazing). o Having checked the recent aerial photographs, it would appear that significant activity is occurring in the area where the road is proposed to end, I suggest that the proposal has been put forward to facilitate this operation and that citing livestock movements is a smoke screen. o The Ecosystem Policy team have indicated what mitigation measures would be required should the development proceed, mitigation being required to offset the damage caused. I consider that the area is best left undeveloped.
6.5.1 Following comment received from DEFA Agriculture and Lands Directorate, the applicant's agent applicants was contacted to provide a response to the issues raised on 17 January 2022. The applicant's agent was also asked via a phone conversation if they would be submitting additional information. In response, they asked that decision be deferred, whilst requesting for a joint site visit by the DEFA Head of Agriculture and the Planning Officer to enable a walk through.
6.5.2 Whilst it was agreed that the site visit would be carried out, the applicants were informed that the site visit would not alter the objections to the proposal as the issues for contention border on the agricultural justification for the scheme and potential impacts on the ecology of the site, and not visual impacts which could be altered by site visits.
6.5.3 The site visit was, however not carried out as a suitable time could not be reached due to logistical challenges with the applicant requesting that the scheme be assessed as currently submitted in an email dated 6 April 2022.
==== PAGE 10 ====
20/01297/B Page 10 of 14
6.6 German Parish Commissioners state that they are unhappy about the application as they would like some more information as to what buildings are already on the site at the moment (23 February 2021).
6.6.1 They have, however, not made additional comments since additional information was provided by the applicants on 04 November 2021.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 In assessing this application, the issues in this case are as follows: i. Principle of the development; ii. Whether there would be any significant impacts upon the landscape; iii. Whether the impacts on ecology would be acceptable; iv. Impact on the Watercourse; v. Flooding; and vi. Impact on highway safety
7.2 PRINCIPLE (GP 3, EP1, & HP 15) 7.2.1 The site is designated as an Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance under the Isle of Man Development Order 1982, and as such there is a presumption against development here. However, General Policy 3 makes provisions for possible exceptions for development on land not zoned for development in the countryside, such as buildings and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry; as is the case with the current application, considering the tracks are intended to facilitate the agricultural use of the site.
7.2.2 Whilst it is noted that the site is an agricultural field which is attached to an active farm, the issue here is whether there is sufficient agricultural justification for a development of such magnitude in an area not zoned for development within the open countryside.
7.2.3 In assessing the agricultural need/justification for the proposed development, advice was sought from the Head of DEFA Agriculture and Lands Directorate whose advise the Department gives significant weight when dealing with issues bordering on agricultural justification and need for proposed developments. Having evaluated the details of the scheme, he notes that there is no agricultural justification for the development, as the livestock would only be moved from the field a handful of times a year. He further notes that the scheme is actually reducing the grazing area available for livestock, and insists that the development of this magnitude is not required to move cattle between the fields, considering the fields are only for grazing. Given the above, it is, therefore, considered that a scheme of such magnitude would not be appropriate given the significant impacts on the site and ecology, minding the agricultural contributions of the proposed scheme would be minimal.
7.2.4 Moreover, the track would be rarely used considering there are no farm buildings to be served on the site and access would only be provided to serve livestock movement within the fields; thereby diminishing the need for the development.
7.3.5 As there is no overriding need for this track, any incidental benefit to the management of the land would carry very little weight in comparison with the level of harm that the presence of the track and associated works would do to the site and ecology, particularly the marshy grassland habitat which is a rare habitat on the Isle of Man, and recognised for its ecological importance. This scheme would also be at variance with the fundamental aims to protect the countryside from unwarranted development. Thus, the development would be contrary to General Policy 3 (f), Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 15 as the Department is not satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for the development sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside.
==== PAGE 11 ====
20/01297/B Page 11 of 14
7.3 VISUAL IMPACT (EP1, EP 2 and SP 4) 7.3.1 In terms of visual impacts, it is considered that the proposed track would be visible from Staarvey Road given that the site slopes away from the highway which is on an elevated level comparative to the site. It would be vital to note here that the immediate surrounding area is characterised by open fields bounded by Manx sod hedges and natural vegetation, with existing track leading to a group of farm buildings or established residential curtilages. What is proposed under this scheme would take away the existing green and openness of the area by introducing a manmade track which would be constructed with imported materials which do not bear similar characteristic with the existing soil lithology and would represent a detrimental intrusion into the countryside.
7.3.2 It is also considered that the new track would not appear as a natural feature of the landscape and as such would alter the existing character of the area and would conflict with the requirements of Environment Policy 1. Similarly, the location for development is not considered essential and is judged to cause major harm to the character and quality of the landscape. As such, the proposed development is deemed to adversely affect this part of the countryside, and would harm the character and quality of the landscape failing Environment Policy 1, 2 and Strategic Policy 4 (b).
7.4 POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON ECOLOGY (EP1, SP 4 & EP4) 7.4.1 In assessing the impact of the proposed scheme on the ecology of the site, it is noted that the site has a considerable coverage of marshy grassland which covers just 1.94% of the islands land area and is therefore a very rare Manx habitat. Orchids which are protected under the Wildlife Act 1990 are also within development footprint. Moreover, this habitat also holds the potential to serve as habitats to curlews which are classified as a UK Red list species of highest conservation concern.
7.4.2 Whilst the Ecosystem policy Team have not indicated outright objections to the application, they consider that the development would impact on the above habitats, with the possibility for impacts on species that rely on these habitats such as Curlews, Common lizards and frogs, all of which are protected under the Wildlife Act. Besides, any works on the site would be subject to a number of conditions being attached which may not result in 'no net loss' for the affected habitats and species that rely on them, considering any replacement planting would be over a period of which may result in existing species on site relocating to other habitats or sites.
7.4.3 When the above scenario is assessed against the recommendation of the Head of Agriculture that the land is best left as it is, given the minimal benefits the scheme would offer in terms of agricultural contributions, it is clear that the only way to prevent detrimental impacts on the ecology of the site is not to carry out the development proposed.
7.4.4 Accordingly, the proposal development would be contrary to Environment Policy 4 as it would potentially adversely impact protected species on and around the site. It is, however, noted that Environment Policy 5 indicates that under exceptional circumstances where development is allowed which could adversely affect a site recognised under Environmental Policy 4, conditions will be imposed and/or Planning 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 so that the loss to the total ecological resource is mitigated. In the case of the current application, the ecological proposals within the application may with appropriately worded conditions serve to ameliorate the impacts on ecology. Albeit, when the benefits of the development are weighed against the negatives, and the fact that the development is not essential for the conduct of agriculture, or a development with an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative, it is considered that the potential adverse impacts significantly outweigh any positives.
==== PAGE 12 ====
20/01297/B Page 12 of 14
7.4.5 Given the above, it is considered that the proposal would be contrary to the requirements of Environment Policies 1 and 4, and strategic Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan.
7.5 IMPACT ON THE WATERCOURSE (EP 7) 7.5.1 In terms of impacts on the watercourse, the Fisheries Directorate were consulted on the application and they indicated that they had no objection to this proposal. They, however, provided details of guidelines that the applicants should follow to ensure there are no detrimental impacts resulting from the scheme on the water course which cuts through the site. It should be noted here that the requirements stipulated by DEFA fisheries from which advice is sought on these matters are built on the design details provided by the applicants for the proposed scheme. As such, it is considered that the scheme as proposed would meet the requirements of DEFA Fisheries and would comply with the requirements of Environment Policy 7.
7.5.2 It is, however, vital to note that in seeking to carry out the works relating to the proposal it would be reasonable to say that there would be an overriding duty of care expected to be implemented throughout the entire process and should any harm be caused to a watercourse or habitats that legal action could be taken and prosecutable under a number of other legislation including Wildlife Act 1990, Fisheries Act 2012 and Water Pollution Act 1993.
7.5.1 This element of the scheme, is, therefore considered to be acceptable.
7.5 FLOODING CONCERNS (EP 10 & EP 13) 7.5.1 In terms of flood risk concerns, it is considered that the site is generally not prone to flood risks, although a water course divides the site with the proposed culvert which would link both ends of the track erected within a flood risk area. The applicants have provided details of works to be carried out on the proposed culvert to ensure that there is no earth bank erosion during high water levels, as the works would prevent siltation and increased flooding intensity along the water course; works which the applicants have stated are acceptable to Inland Fisheries that have also provided a written statement to indicate that they have no objection to this proposal providing the scheme meets a set of conditions.
7.5.2 As the proposal has potentials to generate flood impacts, DOI Flood Risk Management were consulted on the scheme with their response dated 17 January 2022 indicating that a flood risk assessment would usually be required for such schemes. They also indicated that they do not support culverting of watercourses in the manner described which is contrary to the principles set out in the industry culvert, screen and outfall manual CIRIA C786.
7.5.3 Given the adverse concerns have been raised with regard to the development creating floods, and the fact that the proposed culverts would be within an area susceptible to flooding, it is considered that the proposal would fail to comply with the requirements of Environment Policies 10 and 13.
7.6 HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPACTS (TP 4) 7.6.1 In assessing the impacts of the proposed development on highway safety, it is considered that the proposed scheme would rely on an existing field access to Staarvey Road. It is also vital to note that DOI Highways raise no objection to the proposal, whilst acknowledging that the development holds the potential for increase in trip rate from the site onto the abutting highway.
7.6.2 Based on the foregoing, it is not considered that the proposal will impact the use of the existing highway to such an extent as to warrant refusal of the scheme. The development is therefore considered to comply with Transport Policy 4 in this regard.
7.7 OTHER MATTERS
==== PAGE 13 ====
20/01297/B Page 13 of 14
7.7.1 Excavation on site (Minerals act 1986) Within the application to enable the creation of the new access track, there would be a degree of excavation shown on the sectional drawings and in the supporting information provided by the applicant. This area of excavation would measure about 505m long, be 4 -5m wide and 450mm deep along its stretch and would serve to link Staarvey Road to the site extend into the adjoining field over the watercourse that cuts through the site area. This would see the extraction of 682cu.m to 1136cu.m of material from the ground and as such would require a mineral license to enable the excavation given that the proposed volume of excavation would be over 200cu.m. DEFA (Minerals) to be consulted on mineral licence. The above would, however, be subject to approval being granted for the creation of the proposed track.
7.7.2 No other concerns have been noted.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 For the above reasons, it is considered the proposed access track and associated works, given the insufficient agricultural justification of need, the isolated position within the countryside and being apparent from public views would result in a detrimental visual impact and harm the character and quality of the landscape contrary to General Policy 3; Environment Policy 1, 2, & 15 of the IOM Strategic Plan. The scheme would also result in impacts on the ecology of the site with concerns also raised for potential impacts on flooding for the area.
8.1 Overall, it is concluded that the planning application does not accord with the provisions set out in General Policy 3, Environment Polices 1, 2, 4, 7, 10 and 15, and Strategic Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and as such is recommended for refusal.
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 the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and
==== PAGE 14 ====
20/01297/B Page 14 of 14
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 : 19.05.2022
Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal