68708

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      22/00036/B                                     Page  1  of  4

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Application No. : 22/00036/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs Cowsill Proposal : Creation of pond Site Address : Ballachrink Beg Fields 214314 And 210194 Jurby East Isle Of Man IM7 3HD

Planning Officer: Mrs Vanessa Porter Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 10.05.2022 __

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

C 1. Within two months of the date of this decision, details of any proposed planting/seeding shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and the development shall not take place other than in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: the application does not provide details of any proposed planting/seeding and given the nature of the proposed scheme, it is important that any that does take place is appropriate.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposal is considered not to have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the countryside, and the works would enhance the nature conservation value of the site, thus according with Environment Policies 1, 2, 4 and 27. No material considerations have been identified which would justify refusal.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to the following plans and drawings, date stamped received on 14th January 2022; o Location Plan o Site Plan o Cross Section - Width o Cross Section - Length __

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:

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      22/00036/B                                     Page  2  of  4

(DOI) Flood Risk Management Division __

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE DEVELOPMENT AND COULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is situated to the South of Field No.214314 which is North to Ballachrink Beg, Jurby East which is situated down a dead end road to the North of Jurby East Road.

THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The current planning application seeks retrospective approval for the creation of a pond within Field No.214314. The pond measures 9m by 18m with an approximate depth of 2m.

2.2 The applicants have provided the following information as justification;

• Most winters the area becomes very waterlogged and water collects in around the site. The best option was therefore to dig a farm pond which would then reduce the flooding in the rest of Field: 214314
• The idea was discussed with DEFA's Agri-Environment Scheme partners and an ecological assessment indicated a net biodiversity gain.
• The pond will naturally fill from rainwater and existing field drains.
• The outflow is into the existing ditch.
• Trees and shrubs will be planted on the site following approval from DEFA.
• DEFA have indicated that once Planning Approval is granted, they will help fund the farm pond under the Agri-Environment Scheme.

PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The previous applications are not relevant in the assessment of this application.

PLANNING POLICY 4.1 STRATEGIC POLICIES

4.1.1 The site lies within an area zoned as "Not for Development" on the 1982 Development Plan, North Map, the site is not within a Conservation Area but is within a Surface Water High Likelihood Flood Risk Zone.

4.1.2 Given the nature of the application and the land designation, General Policy 3 (h), is the most relevant Strategic Policy followed by the following Strategic Policies;

• Strategic Policy 1 seeks that development should make the best use of resources.
• Strategic Policy 2 seeks that development in this case must protect or enhance the landscape quality and must not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance.
• Environment Policy 1 seeks to prevent development which would adversely affect the side other than in exceptional circumstances.
• Environment Policy 2 seeks to prevent development within Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance from harming the character and quality of the landscape.
• Environment Policy 4 seeks protection of ecology and designated sites/protected species.
• Environment Policy 22 which seeks that development will only be permitted where it would not in this case unacceptably harm the environment
• Environment Policy 27 which seeks to enhance the natural environment

4.2 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.2.1 The Isle of Man's Biodiversity Strategy (2015 - 2025)

4.2.2 Wildlife Act 1990

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      22/00036/B                                     Page  3  of  4

REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 The following representations can be found in full online, below is a short summery;

5.2 Highway Services have considered the proposal and state "No Highways Interest." (27.1.22)

5.3 No representation has been received from Ramsey Commissioners at the time of writing this report.

5.4 DOI Flood Risk Management Division have written in to state they "Do not Oppose" (24.01.22)

5.5 The Ecosystem Policy Officer has written in to state that they have no issues with regards to the application. (03.02.22)

5.6 DEFA Fisheries have written in to state they the works "are not likely to have caused an issue." (11.04.22)

ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are;

• principle of the development
• impact upon visual amenities
• impact upon ecosystems
• impact upon neighbouring amenity
• any other matters.

6.2 PRINCIPLE 6.2.1 The land in question is zoned not for development, whilst this is the case the proposed works could be done under General Policy 3 (h), buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage. This is due to the works having more of an ecological benefit than the underused agricultural land which will enhance the nature conservation value of the site, with minimal visual change in the appearance of the area.

6.2.2 Moreover the creation of a pond accords with the environmental aspirations of the Strategic Plan, the Biodiversity Strategy and are specifically allowed for in Environment Policy 27/paragraph 7.21.1. As such, it is considered that the principle of the development are acceptable.

6.3 VISUAL IMPACT 6.3.1 When looking at the potential visual impact from the scheme, the proposed pond is situated within a site which will not be seen from the main Kiondroghad Road which is situated to the North of the site or Jurby East Road which is situated to the South of the site, as such the potential visual impact would be minimally.

6.3.2 It should also be noted that there have been several applications for ponds in recent years within site such as this, as such a wildlife pond/drainage pond would be an acceptable development within farmland, as such it is concluded that the proposal would have an acceptable visual impact and aligns with Environment Policy 2.

6.4 ECOLOGICAL IMPACT 6.4.1 Turning towards the potential ecological impact from the proposal. Generally speaking a new pond should introduce new wildlife habits within the surrounding area, specifically with this site being in an area of improved agricultural land. With the potential that over time there would be an ecological benefit once the vegetation in the surrounding area has been established. Both Inland Fisheries or DEFA Biodiversity have considered the application and do not raise any issues.

6.5 NEIGHBOURING AMENITY 6.5.1 Due to the ponds location, the nearest neighbour is situated to the South East, Ballachrink Farm is approximately 145m away as such there should be no impact on the neighbouring amenity.

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      22/00036/B                                     Page  4  of  4

6.6 OTHER MATTERS 6.6.1 No other matters have been identified.

CONCLUSION 7.1 Overall, it is considered that the proposed development is considered to be of a scale and nature which would not have an unacceptable impact upon the environment and surrounding countryside. Additionally, the proposed works would enhance nature conservation for the site in accordance with Environment Policies 1, 4 and 27, and no material considerations have been identified which would justify refusal.

INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 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.

8.2 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 __

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.

Decision Made : Permitted

Committee Meeting Date: 23.05.2022

Signed : V PORTER Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.