Creation of new vehicular access to northern end of Field 134001

Refusal Reasons

• ✗The Department is not satisfied that there is sufficient justification for the proposed access and sod bank alterations to warrant setting aside the presumption against development outside of areas zoned for development. Furthermore, access is available to the field utilising the three existing accesses and no agricultural justification has been made for creating a new access to the site. Therefore, the proposal is concluded to represent unwarranted development that is detrimental to the amenity of the countryside contrary to the provisions of General Policy 3, part (f) and Environmental Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
• ✗The application site is within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance where it is required that new developments do not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or that the location for the development is essential. In this case, it is considered that the proposed development would unduly alter the character of this part of the countryside landscape, particularly as agricultural need has not been demonstrated and as the proposal is not of overriding national need. Therefore, the creation of a new vehicle access would result in inappropriate development in the countryside contrary to Environment Policy 2 and Strategic Policy 4 (b) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
• ✗As no ecological information or supporting environmental information has been provided to enable the Department to ascertain the likely ecological impacts and potential mitigation measures to ensure that there are no negative impacts on the ecology of the site and surrounding areas, and to make certain that the proposal does not result in net loss of biodiversity, the proposal would undermine established policies of the Strategic Plan that seek to protect the countryside and its ecology for their own sake. This is significant because it has not been established that that there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms for the new access which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas. In addition, the proposal would adversely impact on the existing sod banks which are significant habitat for a variety of wildlife, including commuting wildlife, and it has not been established that there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Environment Policies 1 and 4 of the Strategic Plan.