Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
22/01540/B Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 22/01540/B Applicant : Mr Jimmy Callow Proposal : Creation of new vehicular access to northern end of Field 134001 Site Address : Field 134001 Bride Road Ramsey Isle Of Man
Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 16.05.2023 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. 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.
R 2. 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.
R 3. 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
==== PAGE 2 ====
22/01540/B Page 2 of 7
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. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site falls within field 134001, which is situated on the eastern side of the A10 Bride Road, Lezayre. The field is a long narrow strip of land which measures about 293m on the north-south direction, 40.8m on the southern boundary with Barrule Cottage, and 80.2m on the northern boundary.
1.2 There are three existing entrances into the field, one access is to the most southern point of the site and near the boundary with Barrule Cottage, while the second entrance is near and almost opposite the entrance way to Balladoole Beg. A sod bank runs along the entire western boundary of the site with the Bride Road, only opening up at the existing entrances to the site. The eastern boundary falls away to the beach.
1.3 The part of the field which forms the current application site sits opposite Rose Cottage, Bride Road, with the proposed new access positioned about 8.1m south of the vehicular access for Rose Cottage on the western side of the Highway.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for creation of new vehicular access to northern end of Field 134001.
2.2 The proposed works would include: a. Removal of a 10m section on the front and 6m section at the back of the existing sod bank by the highway to create a new vehicular access to the northern section of the field. b. Alterations to retained sections of the existing Manx sod hedge to achieve required splay, such that there would be no vegetation/planting above 1.05m height within visibility splay sight lines which measures 70m to the north and south of the existing sod bank. c. Creating a new hardstanding area to have tarmac finish with nominal fall back to field to serve the new access. d. Installing new field gate 5m x 1.2m at the field access. e. Creating new gully from the access to discharge to new soakaway within the field. f. Installing new post and wire fence to separate the northern section of the field from the southern parts.
2.3 No supporting information has been provided as justification for the proposal as the field already has two field accesses. Also, no ecological information is provided as supporting information for the proposal. The applicant indicates that there would be no changes to site levels.
3.0 PLANNING POLICIES 3.1 The application site is not designated for any site specific purpose and lies within an area recognised as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance under the 1982 Isle of Man Development Plan. The site is not within a Conservation Area, and is largely not
==== PAGE 3 ====
22/01540/B Page 3 of 7
prone to flood risks, although the proposed access area is within an area with high likelihood of surface water flood risks. The site is adjacent and slopes towards the Ramsey Bay Marine Nature Reserve.
3.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains three policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:
3.2 Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider the following parts of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016):
3.2.1 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;
3.2.2 Environment Policy 1 reads in full: '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'.
3.2.3 Environment Policy 2 states: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape of 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 difference 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."
3.2.4 Environment Policy 4 protects biodiversity (including protected species and designated sites).
3.2.5 Strategic Policy 4 (In part): Proposals for development must: (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.
3.2.6 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 The Town and Country Planning Act 1999, Section 45, defines; "agriculture" to include horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming, the breeding and keeping of livestock (including any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skins or
==== PAGE 4 ====
22/01540/B Page 4 of 7
fur, or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land), the use of land as grazing land, meadow land, market gardens and nursery grounds, and the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for other agricultural purposes, and "agricultural" shall be construed accordingly".
4.2 IOM Biodiversity Strategy 2015 to 2025 4.2.1 The strategic aims (In part): o Managing biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats. o Maintaining, restoring and enhancing native biodiversity, where necessary.
4.2.2 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."
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, two of which are considered relevant to the current applications:
5.2 PA 16/00335/B for Alteration and widening of vehicular access - Approved. It was considered that the new field entrance would facilitate access to the field whilst minimising conflict with domestic vehicles using Bride Road.
5.3 PA 22/00229/B for Proposed modern single storey dwelling and associated parking - refused. The site of this application is similar to the site area for the current application. Also, the refused application proposed a new access through the sod banks that is similar in width, position and impacts as that which was proposed within the refused scheme. The entre scheme was refused on the grounds that there was no agricultural justification for the proposal.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that the proposal raises no significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues. Accordingly, Highway Services Development Control raises no objection, subject to the area of bound and consolidated surface at the access increasing to a minimum of 6m back from the edge of the highway, as well as the gate being moved to a minimum 6m back also (13 January 2023).
6.1.1 Following submission of revised plans DOI Highways Division continues to raise no opposition and requests a condition for the layout and visibility splays to accord with Drawing 002 rev A (3 May 2023).
6.2 DOI Highways Drainage have stated that allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads. As such, they have asked the applicants to provide details demonstrating compliance with the above conditions (14/17 February 2023).
6.2.1 They have not made further comments since the applicants provided revised plans to address the concerns raised in their initial comments.
6.3 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team have made the following comments regarding the application (7 March 2023): o They do not believe that justification has been provided as to why a new field access is required here. They note that field banks are important habitat for a variety of wildlife, particularly commuting wildlife and therefore it is our preference that this bank to be retained.
==== PAGE 5 ====
22/01540/B Page 5 of 7
o If justification for the new access is provided then it should also be accompanied by mitigation for the loss of this area of bank, via the creation of a new stretch of bank, as well a Precautionary Working Method Statement (PWMS) for common lizards and breeding birds, to ensure that they are not harmed by the works.
6.4 Lezayre Parish Commissioners have recommended that the application be refused. They note that the land is not zoned for development and the applicant has not provided background information for the agricultural need (3 February 2023).
6.5 No comments have been received from neighbouring properties.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The key issues in this case are: a. The principle of the proposed development; b. Potential visual impact of the proposed works to the area and surrounding countryside; c. Impacts on biodiversity; and d. Possible highway safety issues.
7.2 The principle of the development (GP3, HP15 and EPI) 7.2.1 In considering the justification for the development, it is noted that 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, the proposal would introduce another means of access into this field which already benefits from three existing field accesses.
7.2.2 Whilst the site is an agricultural field which should support schemes that seek to promote agriculture, the issue here is whether there is sufficient agricultural justification for the current development in an area not zoned for development within the open countryside. From reviewing the application documents, it has not been demonstrated why a new access is needed to serve the field or why the existing field accesses would no longer be sufficient to support the agricultural needs of the field.
7.2.3 There is also no overriding national need for this new access, and 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 new access and its associated works on the existing sod bank would do to the site and ecology, particularly as the field already benefits from existing accesses which offer good visibility from the field.
7.2.4 Moreover, the size of the entire field (Field 134001) is not such that would involve a scale of agricultural production requiring four accesses, considering the field only measures about 0.93hectares (2.31acres). Therefore, it is considered that the principle of the introduction of a new access here is considered unacceptable and at variance with GP3 and Environment Policies 1 and 15.
7.3 Visual impact on the Countryside (EP 2 & STP 4) 7.3.1 The works will change the appearance of this stretch of the site boundary with the highway which is largely uninterrupted, and introduce a new access that would be finished with hard surfacing that would be particularly noticeable given that this part of the highway is almost straight and would afford clear views for those using the highway to the proposed development. It is also considered that the works to create the required visibility by lowering about 70m of the existing sod bank on either side of the new access which is about 1.5m high to 1.05m would be significant and alter considerably this part of the countryside contrary to the requirements of Environment Policy 2 which seeks to ensure that development does not harm
==== PAGE 6 ====
22/01540/B Page 6 of 7
the character and quality of the landscape. Besides, it has not been demonstrated that the location for the development is essential.
7.3.2 It would be vital to note here that the character of this part of the countryside is defined by the sod banks which line the highways, channelling views towards the surrounding fields and sea beyond the sod banks. As such, the proposed development which would alter considerably the existing sod banks which contribute to the character of the area is deemed to adversely affect this part of the countryside, and would harm the character and quality of the landscape failing Environment Policy 2 and Strategic Policy 4 (b).
7.4 Impacts on Biodiversity (EP 4 and EP1) 7.4.1 In terms of impacts on biodiversity, it is considered that the current proposal would destroy and alter considerably the existing sod banks which is important habitat for a variety of wildlife, particularly commuting wildlife within the site and area. It is also noted that although the scheme would impact biodiversity within the site, no supporting ecological information has been provided to ascertain the level of impacts that would result from the scheme or measures that would be taken to mitigate any impacts that would result from the development.
7.4.2 Additionally, and as has already been noted, no agricultural justification has been offered for the proposed scheme to enable the Department determine if the agricultural justifications outweigh any harm that would result from the scheme. Additionally, it has not been demonstrated that there is an overriding national need as to outweigh the test of the policies which seek to protect the countryside from unwarranted development.
7.4.3 Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would be unnecessary and averse to the requirements of Environment Policies 1 and 4 of the Strategic Plan.
7.5 Impact on highway safety (TP 4) 7.5.1 In assessing the impacts of the proposed development on highway safety, it is considered that the proposed scheme would introduce a new access to a field where three already exist. Whilst the comments from DOI Highways who raise no objection to the proposal are noted, it is considered that the development holds the potential to increase the number of exit/entry points from the existing field onto the abutting highway which supports a 30m/h speed with potential to increase disruptions along this stretch of the highway. It is vital to note that this part of Bride Road is not within a residential area where it is common to have frequent breaks to allow for vehicular entrances. As such, increasing the number of entry/exit points along this stretch of agricultural boundary (sod bank) which only measures about 289m holds the potential to increase highway safety concerns for road users.
7.5.2 It is also important to note that Transport Policy 4 requires that new development should be in accordance with the environmental objectives of the Strategic plan. In this case, while arguments could be made in favour of the application in terms of the scheme not unduly exacerbating the highway safety concerns along this stretch of the Bride Road, the proposal fails to align with the relevant environmental policies that relate to developments in the countryside, particularly EP1, EP2, EP15 and EP4, as there is insufficient agricultural justification for the proposal and the scheme is considered to have adverse landscape and ecological impacts.
7.5.3 Based on the foregoing, it is not considered that the proposal would comply fully with the requirements of Transport Policy 4 in the current case. The development is therefore considered to fail the full requirements of Transport Policy 4.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 It is considered that there is no overriding need for the proposed development, as has been assessed in the preceding sections of this report, and no exceptions can be justified within the application documents as required by General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1. It
==== PAGE 7 ====
22/01540/B Page 7 of 7
has also not been demonstrated that the proposal would not result in adverse impacts on biodiversity within the site and the scheme is considered to have detrimental impacts of the character of the surrounding landscape. The proposal is, therefore, concluded to represent unwarranted development that is detrimental to the amenity of the countryside contrary to the provision of the aforementioned section of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
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 a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and 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: 13.06.2023
Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Principal Planner
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