**Document:** Delta Planning Statement of Case on Behalf of Hartford Homes
**Application:** AP24/0048 — Appeal against the full approval for a residential development comprising up to 153 dwellings and community uses with associated highway and pedestrian access and infrastructure, drainage, landscaping and public open space together with approval in principle for a primary school on land at Vollan Fields together with enhancement of existing habitat on land to the east of Royal Park
**Decision:** Appeal dismissed - PA APPROVED
**Decision Date:** 2025-04-28
**Parish:** Lezayre
**Document Type:** report / planning_statement
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/88392-lezayre-land-at-vollan-dwelling/documents/1142196
---
# Delta Planning Statement of Case on Behalf of Hartford Homes
Town and Country Planning Act 1999 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 Appeal in relation to a planning approval on land at Vollan Fields and land east of Royal Park, Ramsey Case Reference: AP24/0048 Statement of Case of behalf of Hartford Homes
December 2024
###### Contents
- 1. Qualifications ............................................................................................3
- 2. Introduction and Scope of Statement........................................................4
- 3. The Site and its Background.....................................................................7
- 4. Appeal Proposals......................................................................................8
- 5. Planning Policy Context..........................................................................12
- 6. Assessment of the Appellants’ Case ......................................................18
- 7. Summary and Conclusions.....................................................................41
###### Appendices
- 1. Core Documents List, December 2024
- 2. List of Final Drawings as of June 2024
- 3. List of Final Supporting Documents, June 2024
- 4. Copy of Final Consultee Responses
- 5. Agricultural Soils of the Isle of Man 2001 Extract – Land Classifications Map
- 6. Agricultural Land Quality Survey, Land Research Associates, September 2024
- 7. Town Constraints Plan, Hartford Homes
- 8. Cabinet Office Note to Inquiry 22July 2024
Statement Produced by: Delta Planning Cornwall Buildings, 45 Newhall Street, Birmingham, B3 3QR Tel: 0121 285 1244 www.deltaplanning.co.uk
December 2024
###### 1. Qualifications
- 1.1. This Statement has been prepared by David Green, Director of Delta Planning, on behalf of Hartford Homes. I am the owner and Director of Delta Planning. The practice was established in 2011 and is based in the West Midlands, England and provides town planning consultancy services to a range of clients across the UK and on the Isle of Man including industrial and residential developers, landowners, property investors and education institutions. I have over 30 years of professional experience of a broad spectrum of town planning matters.
- 1.2. I hold a Bachelor of Science with Honours Degree in Land Management (Development and Planning) from the University of Reading (1990). In 1994 I was elected a Member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and am a member of the Planning and Development Professional Group. In 2005 I was also elected a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute.
- 1.3. Before establishing Delta Planning, I was employed for 6 years as a Director of UK national planning consultancy Turley in Birmingham. Prior to that I worked for 9 years at UK national property consultancy Fuller Peiser (now part of BNP Paribas) during which time I headed planning teams in Scotland and Birmingham. Prior to Fuller Peiser I worked in the London office of UK national consultancy DTZ which today trades under the name of Cushman and Wakefield.
- 1.4. I am instructed in this matter by Hartford Homes. I have been advising Hartford Homes on planning matters across the Isle of Man for the last 8 years, and on the appeal site since 2021. In this regard I represented Hartford Homes on the site throughout the preparation process of the Area Plan for the North and West and represented them at the Area Plan Inquiry. The site and its planning background and context is therefore well known to me.
- 1.5. This statement has been prepared in accordance with the guidance of my professional institutions and I fully understand my duty as an expert witness to the Planning Inspector. The views expressed are my true and professional opinions.
###### 2. Introduction and Scope of Statement
- 2.1. This Statement of Case has been prepared on behalf of Hartford Homes in relation to an appeal made by the owner of the neighbouring property Elleray situated on Bride Road who is representing the following 8 third parties which include: Fair Isle; Rostherne; Anchor Down; Greenbank; Thie-Y-Vollan; and Erin Brae on Bride Road as well as 2 Ormly Avenue; and Fasque, Andreas Road, herein referred to as the Appellants’.
- 2.2. The appeal is against the approval of planning permission by the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (DEFA) for a residential led development of up to 153 dwellings on land at Vollan Fields, Ramsey (Application ref: 23/00744/B). A fuller description of the development and the site is provided in Sections 3 and 4 of this Statement.
- 2.3. Hartford Homes was the Applicant on the planning application and therefore has Interested Person Status in the appeal. We can confirm that we have no material areas of dispute with the Department.
- 2.4. The reasons for the appeal against the approval are stated as being those reasons set out in the Request to Appeal.
- 2.5. In brief, the stated reasons for the Appeal are as follows:
- • The principle of development.
The impact of the development in respect of a number of technical issues specifically: flooding and drainage, highways, agricultural land, landscape and visual harm; wildlife/ecology; design; healthcare; residential amenity/noise; and odour.
- • The impact of the development during construction.
- • Actions of the Planning Officer and planning conditions.
- • Non-compliance with various policies of the Strategic Plan (linked to above matters).
- 2.6. Within the appeal request the Appellants’ state that it should be read in conjunction with all the individual planning objection letters submitted by those with and without interested person status. It is of note that the reasons for the appeal cover a wide range of issues and there is limited evidence provided for the reasons given. In preparing this Statement I have therefore relied on what has been provided to date and in the original objections as far as I can but, given the circumstances, I reserve the right to provide a further statement if further more detailed statement or evidence is submitted.
- 2.7. In preparing this Statement I have also sought to capture responses from other Third Parties as best I can at this stage, but again reserve the right to provide a further statement should we receive any other Interested Parties Statements of Case.
- 2.8. The main focus of this statement relates to the land use considerations and technical issues raised by the Appellants’. I address the policy context and assessment that is required to be carried out in the decision-making process, in particular the extent to which the development complies with the Strategic Plan, the extant Ramsey Local Plan (1998), the emerging Draft North and West Area Plan and other policy considerations. I also undertake an assessment of the planning balance that needs to be made between the benefits of the development when weighed against any potential impacts.
- 2.9. Expert opinion in respect of issues relating to access design, traffic impacts and sustainable travel is provided in a separate Highways Statement of Case presented by Mr Ben Thomas of i-Transport. This evidence draws upon the Transport Assessment that was submitted as part of the application, and the additional supplementary information provided during the application process.
- 2.10. Expert opinion in respect of issues relating to flooding/drainage is provided in a separate Flood Risk and Drainage Statement of Case presented by Paul Bergin of BB Consulting. This evidence draws upon the Drainage Statement (March 2023), Hydrology Statement (March 2023) and subsequent Site Hydrology & Flood Risk Statement Addendum (February 2024), Revised Drainage Layout Plans and Surface Water Calculation (February 2024) that was submitted as part of the planning application.
- 2.11. Expert opinion in respect of issues relating to noise is provided in a separate Noise and Vibration Statement of Case prepared by Mike Brownstone of Resound Acoustics. This evidence draws upon the Noise Assessment that was submitted as part of the planning application.
- 2.12. All other technical matters are covered in general terms in this Statement through cross reference to the comprehensive assessment of all impacts in the planning application, together with the statutory consultee responses on such matters.
- 2.13. Given the very broad range of issues raised in the appeal reasons by the Appellants’, together with the several Third Parties in this case, Hartford Homes reserves the right to ask for specialists to be available for the appeal hearing to answer any technical queries that may arise following exchange of statements that cannot be satisfactorily discussed through existing evidence available to the Inspector.
- 2.14. The structure of my evidence is to briefly outline the site location and background to the appeal proposals (Section 3) followed by a description of the appeal proposals in Section 4. Section 5 briefly sets out the key relevant planning policy context. Section 6 sets out our full response to the Appellants’ case and finally Section 7 provides conclusions.
- 2.15. Throughout this Statement I refer to documents that were either submitted with the original application, submitted during its determination, submitted in response to consultees, or form part of the Department’s determination process. These are all provided on the Department’s on-line portal and are referenced for the purposes of this appeal as Core Documents (CDs). A list is attached as Appendix 1 and includes hyperlinks to the portal. I understand these have been provided to the Inspector in paper form also. To avoid document duplication, I therefore cross reference to them only on first mention and do not append them except where considered necessary to aid the Inspector.
- 2.16. I also understand that the Inspector will be provided with copies of the following policy documents and therefore I do not append copies of these or the Proposal Maps:
- • The Isle of Man Strategic Plan, April 2016 (CD1.1)
- • The Ramsey Local Plan, December 1998 (CD1.2)
- • Draft Area Plan for the North and West, March 2024 (‘Track Change’ version for the Public Inquiry to illustrate Cabinet Office’s proposed changes following the public consultation on the Draft Plan) (CD1.3)
- • Report to the Cabinet Office on a Public Inquiry into the Draft Area Plan for the North and West, October 2024 (CD1.4)
- • Isle of Man Strategic Plan Review Preliminary Publicity consultation document, July 2023 (CD1.5)
- • Our Island, Our Future. Isle of Man Economic Strategy, November 2022 (CD1.6)
- 2.17. All the above have been included in the CD list attached at Appendix 1.
###### 3. The Site and its Background
###### The site and surrounding area
- 3.1. The appeal site is split into two parts: a development area and an area for habitat enhancement.
- 3.2. The development area is situated to the north of Bride Road (A10) and to the east of Andreas Road (A9). Andreas Road forms the sites western boundary and Bride Road forms its southern boundary. The town boundary forms the northern boundary. The development area extends to 11.3 hectares (gross) and comprises of modified grassland used for grazing separated by a number of hedges (Field no’s 131043, 131042, 135315, 135316 and 135318). It is located within the Parish of Ramsey approximately 1.5km north of the town centre.
- 3.3. The area proposed for habitat enhancement extends to 3.73 hectares and is located to the south-east of the development area between Royal Park residential development and the Promenade. It comprises of two fields (reference nos. 131085 and 135140) of grazed modified grassland.
- 3.4. A full description of the site is outlined in Section 2 of the submitted Planning Statement (CD2.6).
###### 4. Appeal Proposals
- 4.1. The proposals subject to this appeal comprise of a full application for a residential development comprising up to 153 dwellings and community uses with associated highway and pedestrian access and infrastructure, drainage, landscaping and public open space together with approval in principle for a primary school on land at Vollan Fields together with enhancement of existing habitat on land to the east of Royal Park. The development is described in full in Section 2 of the Planning Officer’s Report (CD4.1), alongside the submitted Design Statement (CD2.5).
- 4.2. A detailed layout accompanies the application which was amended during the determination of the application following consideration of both consultee and public comments (as detailed in paragraph 4.8 below).
- 4.3. The final layout is shown on the application Site Plan drawing (Dwg Hart 70 06B) and the accompanying Landscaping Masterplan Drawing (Dwg 5132 01L). The layout is also shown on the Indicative Phasing Plan (Dwg Hart 70 16C).
- 4.4. The application layout plans above clearly demonstrate how the proposals provide a very high-quality layout and design that responds to the site’s context and topography and seeks to minimise impacts on the surrounding community.
- 4.5. The approved scheme also seeks to deliver a highly energy efficient and sustainable development. The homes will be constructed using low carbon technology (air source heat pumps and solar panels) and sustainable construction techniques, in order to ensure that the development complies with the emerging climate change bill. The scheme also provides significant areas of retained/improved green infrastructure within which substantial ecological mitigation and biodiversity measures are proposed together with additional offsite habitat enhancement.
- 4.6. It is important to note that the application is fully compliant with the site Development Brief in the Ramsey Loal Plan. This is explained in full in the submitted Planning Statement at Paragraph 7.5 - 7.19. The Planning Officer’s Report itself considers this at Section 6.2 where the Officer also concludes the application is fully compliant with the Brief.
- 4.7. Of note, the original application submitted in June 2023 was amended with a revised scheme submitted in February 2024 to respond to consultee and public comments made on the application. A summary of the key amendments made and additional information at this point in the process is outlined below:
- • The Proposed Site Plan and Landscape Masterplan were amended as follows:
- - Minor alterations made to the highways layout (these amendments had been agreed with DOI);
- - The proposed 5 metre planting zone along the eastern boundary was extended along the boundary of Plots 145 – 149;
- - The inclusion of replacement and additional native hedges along Andreas Road and Bride Road; and
- - Existing hedgerow corridors retained within the site were widened with new planting.
- • A revised Arboricultural Impact Assessment and tree protection plans (CD2.23).
- • Revised Fungi Reports for both areas to clarify the location of the fungi (CDs 2.15 and 2.16).
- • Bat and bird surveys (CDs 2.31 and 2.32).
- • A Noise Assessment (CD2.33) to address concerns raised relating to potential disturbance from the Coach House Kennels and Cattery.
- • A Site Hydrology and Flood Risk Statement Addendum (CD2.9), Surface Water Calculations (CD2.10) and revised Drainage Layout Plans (CD2.11) to provide the additional information requested by consultees.
- • Revised Construction Environmental Management Plan (CD2.28).
- • A Statement in response to Third Party consultations (CD2.34).
- 4.8. It should be noted that a Transport Assessment Addendum was also submitted on 12th October 2023 to address issues previously raised and included a substantial package of off-site mitigation measures agreed with DoI Highways (CDs 2.20 and 2.21).
- 4.9. In addition to this, a Wading Birds Survey was submitted in April 2024 (CD 2.35) at the request of DEFA.
- 4.10. It is worthy of note that the proposals were the subject of detailed preapplication discussions with DEFA starting in October 2022. It formed a trial project for the Major Planning Application Process to expedite the planning system as part of the Departments Built Environment Reform Programme. Hartford Homes took on board feedback received during that process. In addition, a public consultation event was also held in February 2023, and further detail of that is set out within the submitted Public Consultation Report (CD 2.27).
- 4.11. It should also be noted that prior to the submission of the application the proposals were subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment Screening. Officers confirmed that the proposals did not constitute EIA development as the appeal site is within the town boundary and the site is zoned for development.
- 4.12. The application was determined following a thorough period of consideration at the end of which there were no technical objections from statutory consultees.
- 4.13. The application was recommended for approval by the Planning Officer and was presented to the Planning Committee on 20th May 2024. The committee deferred their decision to undertake a site visit which took place on Friday 24th May. Following the committee meeting Hartford Homes submitted a letter in response to the Planning Committee to provide further clarification on the matters raised (CD2.36).
- 4.14. The application was re-considered by committee on 8th July and approval was granted subject to a Section 13 agreement. The combined Planning Officer’s report for these two committees’ is CD4.1.
- 4.15. The Section 13 Agreement was completed on 4th October 2024 (CD4.4) and the Decision Noticed was issued on 11th October 2024. It should be noted that there were a number of drawing revision errors on the original decision notice (dated 9th October) which was raised by ourselves to the Department who rectified the errors and issued a Correction Notice together with an explanatory email. For the avoidance of doubt the correct decision notice is the one provided as CD4.3.
- 4.16. A final application Drawings List and Document List is provided at Appendices 2 and 3.
- 4.17. It is to be noted that Hartford Homes has no objection to the planning conditions listed in the Decision Notice nor of course to any of the terms of the Section 13 agreement.
- 4.18. The Section 13 agreement relates to the affordable housing, transfer of amenity space, an off-site highway payment and off-site habitat enhancement works. I briefly explain these items below.
- 4.19. In regard to the onsite public open space, the Section 13 allows for this to be adopted by Ramsey Town Commissioners.
- 4.20. The section 13 agreement also makes provision for 25% affordable housing in the normal way and commuted sum of £7,500 in lieu of 0.25 of an affordable housing unit.
- 4.21. In terms of the off-site highway commuted payment this relates to a payment of £15,000 to upgrade the Parliament Square, Ramsey traffic signals with Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation (MOVA) software which has been agreed with DoI Highways.
- 4.22. In regard to off-site biodiversity mitigation, the s13 includes a clear plan for biodiversity enhancement which has been agreed with the Ecosystem Policy Team and is on land under the same ownership as the application site so fully deliverable in this manner.
###### 5. Planning Policy Context
- 5.1. A full résumé of all relevant policies is contained in Section 4 of the Planning Officer’s Report. It is also covered in the Planning Statement (CD2.6). The key aspects that I consider are of most relevance to the appeal are as follows: Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016)
- 5.2. The Strategic Plan was adopted in 2016. The most relevant aspects of the plan are summarised below.
- • Strategic Policy 1 – seeks to ensure development makes the best use of resources by, amongst other things, ensuring efficient use of sites and by locating development so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services.
- • Strategic Policy 2 – seeks to focus new development within existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions.
- • Strategic Policy 10 – requires development proposals to be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to minimise car journeys, make best use of public transport, not adversely affect highway safety, and encourage walking.
- • General Policy 2 – states that development which is in accordance with the land use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of the Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that it satisfies a number of criteria regarding its design and layout and relationship to the surrounding area and impacts on such matters as ecology, road safety and traffic flows.
- • Spatial Policy 2 – defines Ramsey as a Service Centre, the boundaries of which will be determined by the appropriate Area Plan. It will be for the Area Plan to provide a range of housing and employment opportunities at a scale appropriate to the settlement.
- • Spatial Policy 5 – requires new development to be located within the defined settlements.
- • Housing Policy 3 – outlines that the North Area will provide 770 homes for the period 2011-2026.
- • Housing Policy 4 – specifies that the location of new housing will be primarily within existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions identified in adopted Area Plans.
- • Environment Policy 14 – outlines that development which would result in the permanent loss of important and versatile agricultural land (Classes
1 -2) will not be permitted except where there is an overriding need for the development, and land of a lower quality is not available and other policies in this plan are complied with. This policy is applied to a) land annotated as Classes 1/2 on the Agricultural Land Use Capability Map; and b) Class 2 soils falling within areas annotated as Class 2/3 and Class 3/2 on the Agricultural Land Use Capability Map.
- 5.3. A review of the Strategic Plan has commenced, and a Preliminary Publication Consultation was held between July to September 2023. At the time of writing, it is understood that the Cabinet Office is planning to re-commence the Preliminary Publicity stage in the near future. Given the review is at an early stage it is of very limited weight. Nevertheless, it is of relevance to note that one of the core objectives of the review is to support the Government’s aim to grow the Island’s population to 100,000 residents by 2037. Ramsey Local Plan (1998)
- 5.4. The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Ramsey Local Plan) Order 1998 came into effect on 1st December, 1998 and along with the Ramsey Local Plan Written Statement (Planning Circular 2/99) forms the extant Ramsey Local Plan. Whilst a number of its policies have been superseded by the Strategic Plan, it still provides extant land use zonings for all land within the town boundary.
- 5.5. Within the Local Plan the development area is zoned for residential development as part of an area of mixed use. The proposed habitat enhancement area is zoned as proposed open space.
- 5.6. Policy R/R/P2 ‘Specific Area Development Briefs’ states that areas which are identified by letter and title on the Local Plan Map, should be developed in accordance with the briefs. The Development Brief for Vollan Fields is relevant to the development area of the application site and is set out below.
R/R/P2 I. Vollan Fields
- 5.7. The development brief states that an additional area has been zoned for residential development as part of an area of mixed use. This area lies to the east of the A9 and to the north of the Bride Road, limited by the Town boundary to the north and by Vollan Farm to the east. Development may proceed only in accordance with an overall scheme for the whole area. The scheme should include an appropriately landscaped soft northern edge to the Town.
- 5.8. It is noted that part of the site is allocated for light industrial development with Policy R/I/PI ‘Light Industrial Development’ referring to the development site as ‘D. Vollan Fields’. This policy states that the area to the east of the A9, north of the Bridge Road and limited by the town boundary to the north and the Vollan Farm to the east has been re-zoned for mixed use which may include light
- industrial development in the eastern most area. Development may proceed only in accordance with an overall scheme for the whole area (reference: Policy R/R/P2I).
- 5.9. In regard to education, Chapter 5 Community Facilities, Paragraph 5.2 states that the Department of Education has indicated that two primary schools are needed in Ramsey. One of the locations is defined (the expansion of Auldyn Infants School). The location of the second school is not defined and the plan states it will be subject to further consideration by the Department of Education, and will be determined having particular regard to open space and landscaping requirements. Reference is made to Policy R/COM/PI A ‘Ormly Hall’ and B ‘Poyll Dooey’ where new community uses are permitted, the policies for each of the two sites state that this may include a new primary school. Neither of these sites have delivered a new school and this issue is discussed in more detail later in this Statement.
- 5.10. In terms of retail development, Paragraph 5.7 advises that existing policy does not permit or encourage new retail development outside town centres in order to maintain an economically healthy and vibrant town centre. However, one or two neighbourhood shops, possibly in association with other community facilities, are recognised as desirable in new large residential estates, provided they are of appropriate scale and character, and will be permitted (reference: Policy R/COM/P3).
- 5.11. In regard to the proposed open space area of the application site, Policy R/R/P1: rezones this area to open space as set out below:
Policy R/R/P1: Re-Zoning to Open Space
- 5.12. The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Ramsey Local Plan) (No.2) Order 1998 rezones the following areas from residential use to open space.
(a) Land on the eastern side of the undeveloped part of the Ormly Hall Estate;
this land is judged unsuitable for built development, being very open to view from off-shore and from land to the north and south; it should remain as natural, green open space, but might be used as such in association with existing or proposed adjoining uses.
- 5.13. Other relevant policies in the plan are as follows:
- • Policy R/COM/P3 ‘New Shops’ – outside the retail core of the town centre, new shops shall be permitted in new residential areas at a scale designed to serve local needs only.
- • Policy R/E/P8 Wildlife Sites – There is a general presumption against any development which would have an adverse effect or impact, and a
presumption against either tree felling or grubbing out of hedgerows in a number of areas.
###### Draft Area Plan for the North and West (2024)
- 5.14. The Area Plan for the North and West (APNW) is being prepared to align with the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016).
- 5.15. The draft plan is now at an advanced stage having been through examination in July 2024. The Inspector’s report (CD1.4) was published on 7th November which recommended major changes before the plan is taken forward for formal adoption. Cabinet Office is currently reviewing the recommendations and considering next steps prior to further consultation. Given its advanced stage it is therefore considered that the Draft Plan should be given at least moderate weight in the decision making process.
- 5.16. At the time of the planning submission the Draft Plan published for consultation in June 2022 the current allocation in the Ramsey Local Plan was not retained and Hartford Homes objected to this. However, a number of additional housing sites were included in the draft plan as pre-inquiry changes which included the proposed development site (Site Ref: RR006) which is proposed for zoning for predominantly residential use.
- 5.17. The proposed habitat enhancement area is zoned for Open Space on the Ramsey Draft Policy Map.
- 5.18. The Draft Plan includes a Development Brief for the development site and includes a nearby field which is also zoned for residential development situated to the west on the opposite side of Andreas Road, known as Mount Pleasant (Site Ref: RR007). However, it should be noted that Site RR007 does not form part of the planning application and is not within Hartford Homes control.
- 5.19. It is important to note that the Area Plan Inspector supported the allocation of the appeal site (RR006) and RR007, noting that it would form a logical extension to Ramsey and that it is evident from the consideration of the current application (for RR006) that there is scope to mitigate any adverse planning impacts. The Inspector also commented that he considered it logical and appropriate to facilitate a small extension to include the farmhouse and boarding kennels to the east to potentially alleviate noise concerns. Overall, the Inspector found that the allocation of sites RR006 and RR007 should remain in the plan. (CD 1.4, Paragraphs 348-353).
- 5.20. The Draft Plan sets out a Development Brief to guide the development of both sites RR006 and RR007. In summary the brief states as follows:
- 1. The site shall be used for predominantly residential uses.
- 2. A planning application to develop this site must include suitable supporting environmental information to allow full and proper assessment of the impact of the proposal. It may be determined that specific information is necessary at the planning application stage. As a minimum, a preliminary ecological assessment will be required.
- 3. Safe access to the site must be achieved off the Bride Road (A10) as well as the Andreas Road (A9).
- 4. A Travel Plan must be submitted with any application which sets out intended strategy approach for the delivery of sustainable travel objectives. In addition to this, development should take into consideration the identified congestion issues at Parliament Square, Ramsey and should not seek to exacerbate such issues.
- 5. Development must not adversely affect Registered Tree Area RA1594.
- 6. A structural landscaping plan must be included with any application which should, wherever practicable, aim to retain existing hedgerows as part of the design approach.
- 7. A minimum density of 35 dwellings per hectare of the net developable area should form the basis of the design to ensure the optimum use of the development site. A higher density may be appropriate. Any densities lower than the minimum set out must demonstrate why this is not practicable in relation to the proposed development.
- 8. There must be no net loss of biodiversity.
- 5.21. The Area Plan Inspector’s Report proposes the following changes to the joint Development Brief:
- • An additional criterion stating that given that sites RR006 and RR007 are in separate ownership they may be developed at different times.
- • A requirement for the appeal site to provide for access off Andreas Road A9.
- • A full Transport Assessment is required for any planning application to provide justification for the proposed access solution and all traffic impacts including consideration of potential impacts at Parliament Square, Ramsey.
- • Removal of the density figure (this change applies to all development briefs).
- • The criteria requiring no net loss of biodiversity is to refer to biodiversity net gains to be sought in accordance with current strategic policy or legislation.
- • The requirement for a soil quality survey at planning application stage (this change applies to all development briefs for greenfield sites where development could involve the loss of agricultural land of Classes 1 or 2).
- 5.22. The following Area Plan policy is also of note:
• Open Space and Community Proposal 1 – requires applications for residential development on proposal sites within the plan for ten dwellings or more must demonstrate that they have taken into account the impact that the additional development will have on the demand for health, social care and education facilities, as well as need for other community facilities such as neighbourhood shops, open space and children’s play space.
###### 6. Assessment of the Appellants’ Case
- 6.1. As noted in Section 2, the Appellants’ have cited many varying reasons for the appeal and there is limited evidence provided for the reasons given. Where necessary I therefore will also refer to the Appellants’ original objections to the application.
- 6.2. The starting point for considering the merits of planning applications is provided by Section 10(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 (as amended). This requires that development proposals are to be considered having regard to the policies set out in the development plan, relevant national policy directives, relevant planning policy statements, development orders or development procedure orders and all other material considerations.
- 6.3. The development plan for the purposes of this appeal comprises of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the Ramsey Local Plan 1998. The emerging Draft Area Plan for the North and West (APNW) is at an advanced stage having now been through examination and should also be given at least moderate weight. The most relevant policies have been outlined within Section 5 of this statement.
- 6.4. In the context of the above and the Appellants’ reasons for the appeal, this assessment considers the following:
- • The principle of the proposed residential development.
- • The principle of the other proposed land uses.
- • Policy compliance with a number of technical issues raised by the Appellants’ specifically: flooding and drainage, highways, agricultural land, landscape and visual harm; wildlife/ecology; design; healthcare; residential amenity/noise; and odour.
- • The impact of the development during construction.
- • Actions of the Planning Officer and planning conditions.
- • Other Considerations - Housing Need and Economic Benefits.
The Principle of the Proposed Residential Development
- 6.5. The Appellants’ and other Third Parties contest the Principle of Development, stating that the site is unsuitable for residential development and is not included for development in the draft Area Plan for the North and West (APNW). Some question the need for more housing on greenfield land in Ramsey, particularly given that the new residential estate at Royal Park has recently been completed. Our response to these objections is set out below.
- 6.6. In policy terms the acceptability of the site for development in principle is very clear. Strategic Plan General Policy 2 directs that development which is in accordance with the land use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan will normally be permitted. This is subject to satisfying detailed design and layout criteria and addressing any impacts on matters such as ecology, road safety and traffic flows.
- 6.7. The Ramsey Local Plan provides the extant land use zonings for all land within the Ramsey town boundary. This Local Plan is still in force and zones the site for residential use as part of a mixed-use development.
- 6.8. The Development Brief in the adopted Local Plan for the application site states as follows:
“An additional area has been zoned for residential development as part of an area of mixed use. This area lies to the east of the A9 and to the north of Bride Road, limited by the town boundary to the north and by Vollan Farm to the east. Development may proceed only in accordance with an overall scheme for the whole area. The scheme should include an appropriately landscaped soft northern edge to the town.”
- 6.9. The suitability of the application site for development has therefore been clearly established through the statutory process of the Development Plan preparation and this provides the starting point for the consideration of this application and is clear that residential uses are acceptable in principle.
- 6.10. The emerging draft APNW (CD1.3) reaffirms this starting position, and again proposes to zone the main site for predominantly residential use.
- 6.11. In regard to the weight to be given to the Draft APNW, we note that the Planning Officer gave no weight to it within the report no Committee (see CD4.1 paragraph 6.2.14). However, that was written prior to the public inquiry outcome into the draft plan. Given the inquiry has now been held and the outcome reported, it is my view that at least moderate weight should now be given to the Draft Area Plan and the Inspector’s support for the allocation of the site as primarily residential.
- 6.12. The need for additional housing on the Island is also actively being encouraged by the Government through the approved Isle of Man Economic Strategy
(2022) which aims to increase the Islands population from 84,000 to 100,000 residents over the next fifteen years to 2037. Notwithstanding the Appellants’ views and comments on this, it is clearly the Governments adopted policy to promote population growth and deliver more homes on the Island.
- 6.13. Given that the Economic Strategy has been published since the adoption of the Strategic Plan (2016), it is considered that the housing need outlined in the Strategic Plan should be considered as a minimum in this context. It is noted that there is one representation amongst the third party responses that acknowledges this (Comment no.11).
- 6.14. The Appellants refer to one of the Strategic Plan environment objectives “to promote urban regeneration and the re-use of derelict and redundant sites” and they go onto make the case that the development of greenfield land is unjustified due to the abundance of available local brownfield sites. The Appellants’ have included images of a number of brownfield sites in their response to the application (Comment 16.3 dated 25th March 2024).
- 6.15. I do not dispute the fact that the Strategic Plan requires development to make the best use of resources by ‘optimising’ the use of previously developed land (Strategic Policy 1). However Strategic Policy 2 also provides that some development will come through sustainable urban extensions (SUE’s) where appropriate.
- 6.16. The definition of such SUE’s in the Strategic Plan is explicit that it refers to the ‘planned’ expansion of a settlement. It is further explained in Housing Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan which further states that sustainable urban extensions are as identified in adopted Area Plans. There is no doubt in my mind that the application site constitutes a SUE in this regard as it was a planned town extension in the Ramsey Local Plan. There is no policy that directs that SUE’s allocated in Local Plans should be delayed from coming forwards until all brownfield sites have bene developed, rather they form part of the overall response to development needs and blend of sites.
- 6.17. Turning to the Draft APNW (2024), the approach taken to site selection and housing requirements is outlined in section 14.8 (pages 127 - 128) where it is clear that the strategy is based on the following:
- • “the largest site allocations are situated on the edge of the Service Centres of Peel and Ramsey to help support the vitality and viability of the Service Centres which are at the metaphorical hearts of the North and West.
- • Realistic expectations of what brownfield sites can deliver in existing settlements based on settlement studies and regeneration potential and
- • Recognition that the best opportunities for affordable housing are currently on greenfield sites as securing actual affordable units on brownfield sites is not always achievable with the current affordable housing scheme and the wording of Housing Policy 5.”
- 6.18. The Inspector’s Report into the Draft APNW assesses the priority of brownfield land on pages 14 -15. The Inspector notes that he is satisfied that the site selection process has given priority to the use of urban previously developed land over greenfield land. Of note, 29 urban brownfield sites are allocated within the Draft Plan for residential or employment use with 8 sites in Ramsey, 8 sites in Peel with the remaining spread across all other settlements.
- 6.19. On a final point under this section, the Appellants refer to two refusals for residential developments in Ramsey and suggest that the same decision should be made in this case. Clearly, all applications must be made on their own merits and no two sites or situations are the same. A summary of the two cases is provided below which demonstrates this point.
Lower Milntown, Lezayre Road, Ramsey
- 6.20. This application was referred to in the Appellants’ initial response to the application (Comment no.16 dated 24th July 2023). The proposal was for 138 dwellings at Lower Milntown, Lezayre Road, Ramsey (application reference: 20/01080/B). The application was recommended for approval by the Planning Officer but was refused by planning committee, a decision which was upheld at appeal. The reasons for refusal were on grounds that the proposals were not in accordance with the Development Plan and that the site sat in isolation from the settlement due to the intervening flood plain. It was also considered that there was no demonstrable need for market housing at that time, although it was noted that this matter would be subject to detailed evidence at the Draft Area Plan examination.
- 6.21. In comparison, the proposed development at Vollan Fields is in full accordance with the Local Plan, is not divorced from the town and is completely compatible with the settlement boundary (a matter confirmed by the Area Plan Inspector); is immediately adjoining an existing established residential area; is located on a public transport route (A10); and is within good proximity of the town’s existing facilities.
- 6.22. The refusal at Lezayre Road is therefore not a precedent for refusing the appeal proposals.
Land at Poyll Dooey Fields, Ramsey
- 6.23. This application was referred to in the Appellants’ further response on the application dated 25th March 2024 (Comment no.16.3). The proposal was for a hybrid application for 205 dwellings (application reference 22/00679/B). The application was recommended for approval by the Department but was refused by planning committee due to technical concerns relating to ecology, flood mitigation and access. Although it was appealed that was recently withdrawn
- and a revised application on the site was submitted and is currently under determination (application reference 24/00741/A).
- 6.24. Again, this case does not compare to the appeal proposals which relates to zoned land with all technical matters resolved. It is again not a precedent for refusing the appeal proposals.
- 6.25. It is therefore quite clear that the suitability of the development on the site is not in question here, nor is the question that there is a housing need. The Principle of the Other Proposed Land Uses
- 6.26. The principle of the other proposed land uses is considered below, as well as further clarification on the exclusion of light industrial use at the site.
Primary School
- 6.27. Within the Appellants’ initial response to the application (Comment no.16 dated 24th July 2023) they question the timings of the delivery of the school and suggest that it will never progress and the land reserved for it will be utilised for more housing. In addition, a number of Third Party responses questioned why the application included land reserved for a new primary school.
- 6.28. The school land has been included principally in response to pre-application consultations with the Department of Education Sport and Culture (DESC) and given the historic references in the Local Plan relating to primary school provision in Ramsey (see paragraph 5.9 above).
- 6.29. Section 5 of the Local Plan highlights a potential need for two new primary schools in Ramsey. The plan outlines that one primary school can be created through the expansion of Auldyn Infants School and a second elsewhere with an indication through the Development Briefs for sites at ‘Ormly Hall’ and ‘Poyll Dooey’ that those sites could be suitable: if required by the Department of Education.
- 6.30. Since the Local Plan came into effect, Auldyn Infants School has been redeveloped and a new junior school has also been delivered on an adjacent site with both schools renamed as Bunscoill Rhumsaa located off Lezayre Road in the Poyll Dooey area.
- 6.31. The primary school requirements identified in the Local Plan have therefore been met. However, in October 2022, the DESC advised Hartford Homes that they wished to preserve the option for the development of further primary capacity in north Ramsey, should significant further residential development continue in this catchment. Hartford was willing to help facilitate this objective and therefore included a suitably sized plot within the application. The DESC
- since confirmed that the proposed 2-hectare area was appropriate for this potential future need.
- 6.32. The above discussion is confirmed in the consultation response form DESC which is provided in Appendix 4. DESC stated that Bunscoill Rhumsaa primary school is currently within capacity with the 2023/24 roll of circa 461 pupils with a capacity of 566 pupils. The school has been designed to accommodate future extensions which would increase the capacity to circa 650. DESC advised that their future options to increase primary school capacity in Ramsey are to extend Bunscoill Rhumsaa or provide a new school at the appeal site and this will be dependent upon future development in the town and funding.
- 6.33. The Planning Officer’s report discusses the proposed educational land use at paragraphs 6.2.8 – 6.2.11 which concludes that it is a suitable use as the site is designated for mixed use, there has historically been a need for a second primary school to serve the northern area of the town and the appeal site is the last site currently designated for development which could accommodate a new primary school. The Officer also acknowledges that the Draft Area Plan does not designate any sites for a new primary school in Ramsey.
- 6.34. The application has therefore allowed for this eventuality. Should the DESC in future declare there is no need, the school site would be released for alternative use subject to a separate future planning application.
Neighbourhood centre
- 6.35. The appeal proposals include the provision of a neighbourhood centre which would be delivered in phase 2 of the development as shown on the submitted Phasing Plan (Dwg Hart 70 - 16C). The centre includes two local convenience shops (143 sq.m); a community hall (407 sq.m); a nursery unit (133 sq.m) a parking area along with a play area and sports pitch. These uses are considered to be appropriate within a residential area and provide overall a mixed-use scheme in accordance with the Local Plan Development Brief.
- 6.36. In terms of community uses, Paragraph 5.7 of the Local Plan recognises that neighbourhood shops and other community facilities are desirable in new large residential estates. Furthermore, Local Plan Policy R/COM/P3 permits shops in new residential areas which are at a scale designed to serve local needs only. The proposed retail units extend to 143sq.m and will provide a convenience retail for day-to-day essentials only.
- 6.37. The Planning Officer’s Report acknowledges that there is no local convenience provision in the northern area of the town and the Officer considers that the retail units are of an appropriate scale and would be beneficial to the new and existing residents in the area (see paragraphs 6.10.10 – 6.10.13, page 76).
- 6.38. It is therefore considered that the neighbourhood centre use is acceptable and complies with the Local Plan.
Habitat enhancement area
- 6.39. The proposed area for habitat enhancement is situated to the east of Royal Park which is zoned as ‘Open Space’ under Policy R/R/P1 in the Local Plan. This policy states that it should remain as natural, green open space, but might be used as such in association with existing or proposed adjoining uses.
- 6.40. Within the Draft Area Plan the area is designed as ‘Open Space’ on the policy map and there is no specific use for the site itself within the plan.
- 6.41. The purpose of the proposed use is to enhance the biodiversity of this area to achieve biodiversity net gain for the development at Vollan Fields.
- 6.42. The approved Habitat Enhancement Works document (CD2.17) prepared by Manx Wildlife Trust outlines the proposed works which involves the enhancement of the existing hedgerows; the creation of a mixed scrub habitat on field 131085 and a neutral grassland habitat enhancement on field 135140. A 30-year maintenance regime for this area is secured through in the Section 13 Agreement.
- 6.43. For the purposes of ensuring the delivery of biodiversity net gain, the area would not be accessible to the general public.
- 6.44. It is therefore considered that the proposed habitat enhancement area is acceptable and complies with the Local Plan requirement for it to remain as natural green open space.
Light industrial
- 6.45. Whilst not raised by the Appellants’, it is also relevant to provide further clarification regarding the exclusion of light industrial uses within the proposals given that Local Plan Policy R/I/PI ‘Light Industrial Development’ refers to this potential use at Vollan Fields. To recap, the policy states that the mixed use development of the site may (our emphasis) include light industrial development in the eastern most area.
- 6.46. It is apparent that the background to this was that the Local Plan sought to promote economic growth in the town. Paragraph 4.2 of the plan outlines that in 1991 unemployment in the town was high at 5.1% and there was a need to attract further employment opportunities for the area, particularly in the industrial sector. The present day context is quite different. The unemployment rate in Ramsey has since significantly changed and is currently very low at 0.7% (Isle of Man Labour Market Report, October 2024).
- 6.47. It is also noted that the existing employment areas in Ramsey are situated on the banks of the Sulby River which includes land at Gladstone Park, Riverside Industrial Estate and Station Road. There is remaining zoned employment land available in Ramsey at Gladstone Park and the Poyll Dooey area.
- 6.48. In terms of the employment land requirements in the Draft APNW, this includes 29.53 ha of land identified for industrial use, of which 11.89ha is available to meet the need of 10.89ha for the remaining plan period with an oversupply of 1.0ha. The Inspector was satisfied with the employment land requirement and supply figures as outlined in paragraph 193 of their report (page 31).
- 6.49. It is my view therefore that there is no demonstrable need for light industrial uses on the site. Furthermore, I also consider that residential use is a more appropriate use given the adjacent residential uses and the housing need in Ramsey. The proposals also comply with the Development Brief in the Draft Area Plan for predominantly residential use of the site.
- 6.50. The Planning Officer has considered this matter at paragraph 6.2.8 of their report which states that the site is not the ideal location for light industrial uses and the proposed uses are considered to provide a mixed-use development.
Conclusions on Principle of Development
- 6.51. To conclude therefore on this matter, it is clear to me that the principle of residential development on the site is not in question here and the Planning Officer’s Report further confirms this (Section 6.2, Pages 48-51).
- 6.52. The other proposed uses are also considered to be acceptable in principle which comprise of land reserved for a primary school, a neighbourhood centre with community facilities including two local convenience shops; community hall; nursery; a parking area along with a play area and sports pitch. The Planning Officer’s Report concludes at paragraph 6.2.15 that the proposed mix of residential, neighbourhood centre and possible primary school would all comply with the relevant land use designations. I concur with this conclusion.
- 6.53. Finally, the proposed area of habitat enhancement on land to the east of Royal Park complies with the designations within the Local Plan and Draft Area Plan as well as meeting the Strategic Plan objective to protect, maintain and enhance biodiversity.
- Technical Issues
- 6.54. Having considered the principle of development, I now turn to the various technical and detailed design matters which have been listed in the Appellants’ Reasons for Appeal, together with those raised by Third Party Consultees.
- 6.55. It should first be noted that all such considerations were satisfactorily addressed during the application determination period and there were no outstanding technical objections by consultees.
- 6.56. As such I do not propose to address all technical matters in detail but respond to those principal issues raised by the Appellants’ as set out below. The order I have taken to discuss these matters follows the general order set out in the Appellants’ Reasons for Appeal.
Flooding and Drainage issues
- 6.57. The main concerns raised by the Appellants’ and some Third Parties appears to relate to existing flooding and drainage issues on and around the site and the impact of the development on this situation.
- 6.58. A significant level of detailed information relating to flood risk and drainage was provided with the original application and supplemented with additional technical information during the determination process. (CD’s 2.7 – 2.11). This information was assessed in great detail by the statutory bodies responsible for flooding and drainage as part of the determination process. A further response to drainage concerns is also provided to the Inspector by way of a separate evidence statement of Mr Paul Bergin of BB Consulting. I briefly recap the situation below.
- 6.59. The statements and information provided demonstrate that the main development site is not within a high flood zone in terms of river or tidal flooding, however there are areas which currently experience surface water flooding during high rainfall events, particularly within the southern boundaries.
- 6.60. The outcome of the mitigation proposed with the development is that the proposed surface water drainage system will include attenuation measures to ensure that surface water flows will not result in off-site flooding. Likewise in terms of the foul drainage, the key principle of the strategy is that following implementation of the scheme no additional stress would be placed onto the existing foul sewer network.
- 6.61. The Appellants refer to an email from Flood Risk Management which relates to the requirement for a flood risk management plan for the construction phase of the development. This was subsequently secured by pre-commencement planning condition no.19 which requires a detailed construction phase surface
- water runoff management plan to deal with the potential increased water flow from the site to neighbouring properties.
- 6.62. The Appellants’ submitted supplementary information during the application which included images showing areas of surface water flooding in December 2023 on the proposed development site and in the surrounding area. This includes images of Hartford Homes completed development at Royal Park situated to the south of the development site and claims that the Royal Park site floods.
- 6.63. It is important to note that the existing site does not have a drainage system in place, and this results in excess surface water standing on site not draining away which affects the properties adjacent to the site. Whereas the proposed development will significantly decrease the flood risk to neighbouring properties and surrounding areas through active drainage.
- 6.64. Due to the concerns raised by the residents of the existing properties situated to the rear of proposed plots 7 to 21 Hartford Homes has included additional flood resilience measures which are not technically required, as confirmed in the response from Highway Services Drainage dated 8th May 2024. The proposals will already significantly reduce the flood risk to the existing dwellings with a reduction of 89% in the catchment area from 18,000m2 to 2,000m2. Nevertheless, the additional mitigation comprises of French drains and an earth bund within the area of plots 7 to 21. These would discharge into the proposed public sewer network. This has been agreed with the MUA and is acceptable under Manx Sewers for Adoption. Condition no.18 requires further details of these surface water provisions to be submitted and agreed before the occupation of these dwellings.
- 6.65. The Appellants’ and other third parties have raised concerns about the maintenance of the French drains which would have to be maintained by the homeowner of each plot. This however is not unusual and the drains will be designed to be fully accessible for ease of maintenance (i.e. principally comprising of moving the grass) and the obligations for homeowners are no more onerous than for standard drainage to dwellings.
- 6.66. It is also to be noted that proposed Condition 21 removes permitted development rights for structures to be erected within the curtilage of any dwelling house on plots 7 to 21, without the prior written approval of the Department. This will provide additional protection for the drains as the homeowners of plots 7 to 21 would need to obtain planning permission from the Department before carrying out any development within the curtilage of their property.
- 6.67. In regard to the wider issues of standing water on the site, a seasonal detention basin has been designed in the public open space area to the south eastern corner of the site to temporarily hold water during wet periods. This is a replication of the pre-development condition in this vicinity. This area is to be adopted as Public Open Space and maintained by Ramsey Town Commissioners.
- 6.68. Overall, the proposed drainage strategy has been agreed with all the drainage authorities as confirmed in the Planning Officer’s Report (paragraph 6.6.13, page 69). The final consultation responses from DOI Highways Drainage; DOI Flood Risk Management; and MUA Drainage is attached within Appendix 4. None of these consultees raise any outstanding issues subject to planning conditions as required.
- 6.69. Hartford Homes will enter into a Section 8 Agreement with Manx Utilities for the adoption of both the foul and surface water drainage systems serving the development.
- 6.70. Given the above, I am in no doubt that there is no evidential case for refusal on grounds of flood risk or drainage.
Transportation Issues
- 6.71. Both the Appellants’, and some of the Third Parties raise a number of concerns relating to issues relating to transportation. I will focus on the matters raised by the Appellants’ which relate to pedestrian highway safety, location of bus stops and accessibility.
- 6.72. A detailed response to these concerns is contained within the separate evidence statement of Mr Ben Thomas of i-Transport but I briefly summarise the situation below.
- 6.73. Transport related issues were assessed in great detail as part of the submitted Transport Assessment (CD2.19). The assessment had full regard to the Department’s ‘Manual for Manx Roads’ (Version 2.00, February 2021) and the Highway Services Transport Assessment guidance document, GN-06-021, May 2018.
- 6.74. In terms of site accessibility and access details, full details of this are provided in the submitted Transport Assessment.
- 6.75. Following discussions with DoI Highways during the application a package of off-site improvement works were agreed and submitted as part of the amendments made to the application in February 2024 (CD.21). The improvements comprised of the provision of dropped kerb crossings with tactile paving on a number of side road junctions along Bride Road; Bowring Road;
- and the access and egress to Ramsey and District Cottage Hospital on Cumberland Road.
- 6.76. In terms of pedestrian highway safety, the Appellants refer to a lack of lighting along footpaths into the town centre on Adreas Road, Bride Road and Mooragh Promenade which provides an alternative walking route into the Town Centre. It is noted that DoI Highways did not require any additional off-site lighting to be provided.
- 6.77. Trip hazards and overgrown hedgerows along the walkways are mentioned by the Appellants’ but there is no description of what these comprise. It is my view that it is for the highway authority to maintain existing footpaths, but that notwithstanding this as part of the off-site highway improvements agreed with DoI Highways the existing hedgerow on eastern side of Bowring Road at the back of the footway is to be cut back within the highway limits between junctions with Bride Road and Thornhill Park Road as shown on drawing no. ITB17390-GA-106. Condition 28 requires all off-site improvement works such as this to be completed before the occupation of any dwellings or the neighbourhood centre. No other footpath maintenance works have been requested.
- 6.78. The package of off-site highway improvements would improve pedestrian safety by providing dropped kerb areas to cross and also the tactile paving will improve safety for blind pedestrians and wheelchair users.
- 6.79. In response to the concern about the bus stops in the vicinity of Elleray and Ormly Avenue it should be noted that this is an existing bus stop in this location and the proposals will merely upgrade this as requested by DoI Highways with a cantilever shelter which would be sited on the same footprint as the existing bus stop area. A swept path analysis is provided within the Transport Statement of Case which demonstrates that the residents can access their properties even in the very rare event that a bus is waiting at the bus stop at the same time.
- 6.80. In terms of general accessibility, Ramsey is a Service Centre where development in general is focused and I agree with the Planning Officer’s summary that the proposal would equate to a sustainable development given its closeness and good pedestrian and cycle links to Ramsey Town Centre.
- 6.81. The highways issues were ultimately fully consulted on during the determination process and the final response from DOI Highways is attached within Appendix 4. This confirms that the Department considers that the development is acceptable from a highway’s perspective.
- 6.82. Given the above, I am in no doubt that there is no evidential case for refusal on grounds of transportation issues.
- Loss of Agricultural Land
- 6.83. The Appellants’ and other Third Parties raise concern about the loss of agricultural land and make reference to Strategic Plan Environment Policy 14. This policy states:
“Development which would result in the permanent loss of important and versatile agricultural land (Classes 1-2) will not be permitted except where there is an overriding need for the development, and land of a lower quality is not available and other policies in this plan are complied with. The policy will be applied to a) land annotated as Classes 1/2 on the agricultural land use capability map; and b) Class 2 soils falling within areas annotated as Class 2/3 and Class 3/2 on the Agricultural Land Use Capability Map”.
- 6.84. The Agricultural Land Use Capability Map is attached to the Agricultural Soils of the Isle of Man Report 2001. An extract of the Agricultural Land Use Capability Map is attached as Appendix 5.
- 6.85. On the map the appeal site is annotated as partly urban land to the south with the majority of the site identified as having a 2/3 class. Given the map classification I fully accept that the policy is relevant, and I note that it was covered by the Planning Officer in the report to committee as is discussed further below.
- 6.86. Although an agricultural land report was never requested by the Department during the pre-application or determination stages of the application my client has subsequently commissioned a report in order to confirm that the site is correctly classified. The outcome of this is provided for completeness as Appendix 6 and it confirms that the site is indeed within the higher grade capability classification and therefore the policy definitely applies.
- 6.87. The status of the land is therefore confirmed, and this must be weighed in the planning balance against the following issues.
- 6.88. First, I view Environment Policy 14 as a general guidance policy and it should not be treated as overruling development zoning on a specific site, or indeed rule out such land being zoned. It would be inappropriate for agricultural land classification alone to dictate where new development can occur as it could result in unsustainable growth locations. It should be treated as one of the basket of policies to be weighed in the planning balance against other factors which Environment Policy 14 allows for.
- 6.89. Second, Environment Policy 14 is clear that it must be weighed against the overriding need for the development. The housing need is fully set out in paragraphs 6.145 – 6.153 of this Statement and this is an important context for consideration of the policy. This outlines that there is a housing crisis on the Island and the Government is actively promoting population growth. The appeal site is zoned for development in the Rasmey Local Plan 1998 and it remains to be zoned in the advanced Draft Area Plan for predominantly residential use and is supported by the Examination Inspector.
- 6.90. Finally, the policy is clear that the availability of land of a lower quality has to be taken into account. Hartford Homes has prepared a Constraints Map of Ramsey town which includes an overlay of the Agricultural Land Quality Map
(2001) together with other key constraints. This is provided in Appendix 7. This shows that the only realistic option for the growth of Ramsey is to the north and west. Ramsey is constrained by the coast to the east, by well established protected woodland belt areas and golf course to the south, and by flood plain to the west. The only option for significant growth is to the north and north west.
- 6.91. As is clear from our plan in Appendix 7 all the land to the north and west is predominantly within Class 2/3 areas. It is therefore clear to me that to meet housing needs in Ramsey it will inevitably require the loss of Class 2/3 land.
- 6.92. Overall, it is considered that the proposals comply with Environment Policy 14 as there is an overriding need for the development and land of a lower quality is not available.
- 6.93. As demonstrated in the Planning Officer’s Report the Department has taken a similar view. In section 6.12 (page 78) the Officer concludes that the merits of the proposal can be considered to outweigh the loss of agricultural land and comply with Environment Policy 14, especially given that the land is already designated for development.
- 6.94. A similar decision making approach was expressed by Policy Officer’s from the Cabinet Office at the recent Area Plan Examination where they stated in evidence to the examination as follows:
“Cabinet Office consider that the mere presence of Class 3/2 soils is a consideration to inform potential allocation (or development control) rather than a stand-alone constraint”. (Cabinet Office Note to Inquiry 22 July 2024 – Appendix 8).
- 6.95. I concur with this approach taken by Government Officers’ and see no grounds whatsoever for refusal of the application based on loss of agricultural land. It would be inappropriate for agricultural land alone to dictate where new development can occur which could result in unsustainable growth locations.
- Landscape and Visual
- 6.96. The Appellants describe the impact on landscape character as being ‘enormous’. I strongly disagree.
- 6.97. Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposals would result in the loss of greenfield land on the edge of a settlement, and that this would have a degree of landscape harm, I would not describe it as enormous, or indeed significant.
- 6.98. A detailed assessment of the impact upon the landscape and visual amenities of the area is provided in Section 6.3 of the Planning Officer’s report. At paragraph 6.3.25 (pages 55 - 56) the Officer concludes that the density, design, layout, landscaping, housing sizes/types all ensure the works would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding landscape and townscape and would respect the site and surroundings in terms of sitting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them.
- 6.99. Further, in the Officer’s final conclusions he identifies that the proposed development would appear as an extension of Ramsey which is within the town boundary and the visual harm is not so significant to warrant a refusal (Section 8, pages 81 – 82).
- 6.100. I concur with the Officer’s assessment of this matter. The site is not within any designated area of protection of landscape sensitivity and the proposed development has been prepared by Hartford Homes with landscape issues at the forefront of the design process. Details include:
- • A landscaped, soft edge along the northern boundary is provided in line with the Local Plan Development Brief. This comprises of the retention of the northern hedgerow boundary together with the incorporation of a 10 metre green buffer strip to the south of the majority of this, except where existing trees provide screening, thus ensuring that no houses are immediately abutting the open countryside;
- • The playing fields would be located adjacent to the northern boundary further helping to secure the required soft northern edge. A 5-metrewide planting zone is proposed to provide screen planting along the eastern boundary of the proposed school;
- • The existing internal hedgerows and trees along the other site boundaries are mostly retained. A significant number of new trees will also be planted along the site boundaries and within the site to provide tree-lined roads;
- • The layout provides 1.5ha of public open space within the proposed residential area itself; and
- • The scheme includes the provision of 3.73ha of land for habitat enhancement situated to the south east of the development area between Royal Park and the Promenade.
- 6.101. I am therefore of the opinion that the proposals are genuinely landscape led and will not have significant harm to landscape or visual interests.
Wildlife/Ecology
- 6.102. The Appellants refer to two registered rookeries located at Ormly Hall, Bride Road and at Grest Farm, and raise concern over the impact of the development on them.
- 6.103. The first point to make here is that there appears to be confusion over terminology. There is no categorisation of a registered rookery. The registration relates to the trees and is an arboricultural designation rather than a wildlife designation.
- 6.104. Second is that there is no direct impact on the registered tree areas as a result of the proposals as confirmed in the Planning Officer’s Report (see paragraph 6.7.21, page 72) and the indirect impacts have been assessed as acceptable by Manx Wildlife Trust.
- 6.105. Given the above conclusions of the ecology surveys and the Ecosystem Policy Officer, I am in no doubt that there is no evidential case for refusal on grounds of impact on the registered trees, or on wildlife or ecological impacts more generally.
- 6.106. Indeed, the proposals will achieve a net gain in biodiversity through the proposed habitat enhancement works on land east of Royal Park as outlined in the submitted Habitat Enhancement Works document (CD2.18). A detailed habitat creation and management plan extending to 30 years is secured by precommencement condition no.6 and the Section 13 Agreement. This should be given positive weight in the decision making process as it supports the Strategic Plan Environment objective to protect, maintain and enhance biodiversity.
Design
- 6.107. The Appellants’ contest that the proposals do not comply with the Residential Design Guide in terms of the proposed density,and have put forward various suggestions of how to amend the scheme to make it acceptable.
- 6.108. With regard to the proposed suggestions, it is first of all not appropriate to consider an alternative scheme, as the submitted proposals must be assessed on their own merits.
- 6.109. Regarding density, I disagree that the proposals are overly dense. The areas proposed for housing, community uses and roads amount to approximately 9.1 ha. The net site density is therefore approximately 16 dwellings per hectare. This density is at the lower end of medium density (15 to 30 dph) as defined in the Residential Design Guide (2021).
- 6.110. It is noted that the density of Hartford Homes development at Royal Park (Phase 2) situated to the immediate south of the appeal development site is 19.1 dph which is the most recent expansion of the town.
- 6.111. The proposed density is therefore entirely appropriate in the context of the surrounding area and recent development but is also of course entirely appropriate given the need to make efficient use of land as required by Strategic Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan.
- 6.112. The need to make efficient use of land is recognised in the Residential Design Guide which states that land is a finite resource, and it is important to strike a balance between the need to make best use of land (i.e., by maximising densities) and the need to make sure that new developments are attractive and fit-for-purpose.
- 6.113. The proposed housing layout also meets the public open space requirements within Appendix 6 of the Strategic Plan as confirmed in the Officer’s Report (paragraph 6.9.1, page 73) and the separation distances between both the existing and proposed properties comply with the guidance within the Residential Design Guide (2021).
- 6.114. The Appellants’ refer to the separation distance between Elleray, Bride Road and the proposed dwelling to be sited adjacent to it (plot no. 80) which they state does not align with the Residential Design Guide as there is a separation distance of 15m between the two properties and the guide asks for 20m.
- 6.115. However, the “20 metre guide” within the document refers to distances between elevations that contain windows serving habitable rooms that face each other and it is in any event a ‘guide’ only. The document states that the distance can be relaxed, where the design or orientation is such that privacy and amenity of a neighbouring property is not compromised. The proposed house type for Plot 80 is Type G (drawing no. Hart 70 49) which does not have any habitable windows on the side elevation facing Elleray. It is therefore considered that the 20m guide can be relaxed in this instance. The Planning Officer’s Report outlines that the development to the side boundaries of both Elleray and also FairIsle, Bride Road is considered appropriate and would not give rise to any significant adverse impacts to amenities (paragraph 6.4.7, page 57).
- 6.116. Overall, the Planning Officer concludes that the proposed development would not affect adversely the character of the surrounding area (paragraph 6.3.25, pages 55 -56).
- 6.117. I concur with the Officer’s conclusions on these matters and find no evidential case for refusal on grounds of design.
Capacity of Primary Health Care
- 6.118. The Appellants’ and Third Parties have made reference to capacity issues at the local GP surgery in their Appeal Reasons.
- 6.119. The Applicant does not contest that GP services generally are under pressure on the Island and the 2019 Health and Social Care Review report raised concerns about the adequacy of GP provision across the Isle of Man. This however is an Island-Wide issue and not something that an individual development proposal can resolve. Nor is it relevant to a specific site, as clearly wherever new housing is developed in Ramsey the same issue will be present. This is not a new issue and was recognised in the Strategic Plan where if refers to the issues associated with an ageing population and its implications for healthcare, social services and pensions on the Island. The Strategic Plan recognises however that the ageing population is an issue which needs to be dealt with by Government as a whole, not just the planning system.
- 6.120. In terms of the specific situation in Ramsey, the towns primary and secondary healthcare provision includes the following services:
- • Ramsey Group Practice surgery located on Bowring Road.
- • Four pharmacies located on Parliament Street; St Pauls Square; and two on Bowring Road.
- • Two dental practices at Grove Mount Dental Practice on Grove Mount South and Smile Dental Care on Cumberland Road.
- • Three opticians on Parliament Street.
- • Ramsey and District Cottage Hospital on Cumberland Road.
- 6.121. In terms of Ramsey Group Practice, it is understood that the practice has five full-time and two part-time doctors, who are part of a primary care team providing health care to over 14,000 patients. The practice covers the northern plain of the Island extending from Glen Mona to Kirk Michael.
- 6.122. It should be noted that prior to the submission of the application Hartford Homes contacted Ramsey Group Practice in January 2023 to inform them of the proposed development and questioned if the GP services could
accommodate the additional residents. The Practice Manager replied as follows:
“Any development is always welcomed. The problem within the NHS reaches wider than the Island and there are no short term fixes. We cope quite well considering the pressures we are all under and are always actively trying to recruit, adapt, change and learn. I’m sure this will be the case here.”
- 6.123. The correspondence between Hartford Homes and Ramsey Group Practice is provided as CD3.11. The practice did not submit a formal response to the application.
- 6.124. It is noted that within the Appellants’ initial response to the application (Comment no.16 dated 24th July 2023) they refer to their own correspondence with Ramsey Group Practice on 15th July 2023 and state that the practice advised that “development is always welcomed as there is always a need for homes for people and it is not in a position to offer a registered GP to new patients at present and that parking was problematic.”
- 6.125. As of December 2024, the practice website appears to be accepting new patients again and clearly the situation changes, as is the case with all GP surgeries. Although the proposed development will result in an increased number of homes in the town this will occur over a phased period and not all residents will be new to the area.
- 6.126. What is clear is that this particular part of the Island is comparatively well served with primary healthcare facilities and this issue is ultimately not in the gift of an individual planning application to resolve.
- 6.127. Indeed, and conversely, one of the constraints on the growth of primary healthcare is resourcing, in particular availability of doctors and other health workers. The Island Economic Strategy (2022) recognises this and notes that in order to retain and attract an economically active population there needs to be, amongst other things, access to suitable property markets. This proposal is therefore part of the solution of making the Island attractive to new economically active workers like health care professionals by providing high quality suitable new housing.
- Residential Amenity
- 6.128. The Appellants’ have raised concern over loss of residential amenity. However, in this case taking an objective view it is clear to me that the approved development is of an extremely high-quality layout and design that provides ample separation between properties combined with quality boundary landscaping that respects its neighbours and would not cause noticeable detriment to its neighbours upon completion.
- 6.129. The Planning Officer’s report confirms that the potential impact of the proposals on the current residents to the north, south and west of the site in terms of loss of light, overlooking and/or overbearing impacts upon outlook would not be so significant to warrant a refusal (paragraphs 6.4.1 – 6.4.14, pages 57 - 58).
- 6.130. In terms of external noise impacting upon the proposed houses themselves, issues have been raised during the application and by the Appellants’ relating to the noise from the neighbouring kennels due to existing issues of dogs barking. This matter is covered in the evidence statement of Mike Brownstone of Resound Acoustics which I briefly summarise below.
- 6.131. The evidence concludes that complaints about noise from dogs from the Coach House Kennels and Cattery are unlikely and that the objections were addressed during the application stage through proposed mitigation. The mitigation is to include mechanical ventilation with heat recovery in the proposed properties sited closest to the kennels at plots 1 to 6, 35 to 41, and 146 to 153 inclusive. The ventilation will reduce the need for these properties to open windows and is secured by condition no.33 which requires the details to be submitted and approved by the Department prior to the occupation of these plots.
- 6.132. It is notable that the final response from the Environmental Heath Unit of DEFA had no objection to the application as confirmed at paragraph 6.11.6 of the Planning Officer’s Report (page 78).
- 6.133. In response to the Appellants’ concerns raised regarding the proposed primary school, the potential for impacts were assessed in the Noise Assessment which found that the noise from dogs met the relevant guidelines, and the detailed design of the school will be agreed at Reserved Matters stage and any noise mitigation measures can be considered at that point.
- 6.134. Overall, I find no evidential case for refusal on grounds of noise.
- 6.135. The Appellants’ have also raised concerns regarding odour associated with Grest Farm situated to the north and specifically refers to a slurry pit and also odour associated with the Coach House Kennels to the east.
- 6.136. It is noted that Environmental Health did not comment on this matter in their response to the application and it was not assessed during the application. The Appellants have not provided any evidence on this matter
- 6.137. To conclude, I therefore find no evidential case for refusal on grounds of odour. The impact of the development during construction
- 6.138. The Appellants’ and other third parties raise concerns that the construction works will create significant disruption in terms of noise and traffic, vibration, dust, and air pollution which could last for a number of years, similar to the development of Royal Park.
- 6.139. Whilst it is inevitable that some disruption will be experienced from such works, this is something that is proposed to be managed through best practice techniques and controlled via a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) which is secured by proposed Condition 7 and a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) which is secured by Condition no. 31.
- 6.140. Collectively these control measures will cover issues such as construction deliveries to avoid sensitive and busy periods; the routing of construction traffic to avoid the most sensitive areas; timing of construction activities, and the parking and storage of contractor’s vehicles and materials. They will all ensure that the construction process is undertaken in as safe and as convenient manner as possible in a way that limits the impact on local roads and the amenities of nearby occupiers and the area generally. Actions of the Planning Officer and planning conditions
- 6.141. The Appellants’ have commented on the amount of planning conditions attached to the consent, suggesting that it demonstrates the development is not acceptable. The imposition of Conditions requiring further details of certain matters and securing aspects of mitigation is however completely normal practice, and there is nothing in the proposed Conditions that is unusual for a development of the type and scale proposed. Other Considerations
Housing Need and Economic Benefits
- 6.142. Contrary to the Appellants’ appeal reasons there is a housing need given the housing crisis on the Island. The proposals will also deliver economic benefits. These are material considerations that further weighs in favour of the application proposals.
- 6.143. The need for new homes is set out in the Strategic Plan, through Strategic Policy 11 and Housing Policy 1, with the spatial distribution set out in Housing Policy 3. This sets out a housing need for the North and West of the Island of some 1,540 dwellings (770 in each area) for the period 2011-2026.
- 6.144. In terms of the outstanding need in the North for the remaining plan period up to 2026, the Planning Officer’s Report (paragraph 6.2.5) outlines that Cabinet Office has advised that 84 units are still required to meet the Strategic Plan housing target of 770 units. While the proposed development would result in an overprovision this was found to be reasonable as the development will take a number of years to be completed.
- 6.145. Within the Draft APNW the introduction to the Residential Chapter 14 (see paragraph 14.1.1) refers to the commitment within the Our Island Plan (2022) to “tackle the housing crisis by ensuring everyone has a suitable and affordable place to call home” which is linked to a goal that “our housing stock meets the needs of our population now and into the future.” The Draft Area Plan is clear that its role is not to tackle national housing issues but there is a need to fully understand the context within which the plan is drafted.
- 6.146. There is therefore clearly a need for new housing given that there is a national housing crisis. The proposals support Spatial Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan which states that outside Douglas new development will be concentrated in the Service Centres with Rasmey being the only Service Centre in the north of the Island.
- 6.147. It is also important to recognise that more recent than the Strategic Plan is the new Isle of Man Economic Strategy ‘Our Island, Our Future’ dated November
2022. Amongst other elements, the strategy is predicated upon growing the Island’s population to 100,000 by 2037 (from the current estimate of 84,000). This policy marks a step change in population and housing growth from the Strategic Plan and whilst it has yet to feed through into Planning Policy, it serves to further confirm the need to deliver new housing. It is considered that the new growth agenda is a material consideration.
- 6.148. A further material consideration in favour of the proposals is the economic benefits of the proposal. These were set out as part of the application submission (CD2.6, pages 20-25). Of note in this regard is the consultee response from the Head of the Business Agency at the Department of Enterprise which is attached within Appendix 4. The response outlines the Officers’ support for the scheme in regard to delivering on the aims of the new Island Plan and Economic Strategy.
###### 6.149. To summarise, the economic benefits are:
- • Delivery of 153 new homes towards the housing needs identified in the Strategic Plan and the Draft Area Plan for the North and West;
- • During the construction phase, it is estimated that the proposed development would support up to 100 construction jobs and result in a total capital investment in the order of £50 million which represents a total economic output of over £142 million;
- • Provision of a varied housing mix including significant family housing which will help to attract and retain an economically active population which supports the vision within the Isle of Man Economic Strategy;
- • Provision of 38 affordable houses which has the ability to cater for all 20 people of those on the current Register for First Time Buyers with Active Status who are ready to purchase a property in the North area;
- • Delivery of community uses including two local convenience shops, a community hall and a nursery, which will support both the existing and new community with childcare and day to day convenience retail needs, together with creating in the region of 15 jobs;
- • Provision of land to accommodate a future two-form entry primary school to be delivered by the Department of Education which would support the Island’s education infrastructure to support the vision within the Isle of Man Economic Strategy and has the potential to create further jobs;
- • Provision of extensive areas of publicly accessible open space on-site;
- • Provision of over 3ha for habitat enhancement situated to the east of Royal Park;
- • Significant additional household expenditure to support the local economy;
- • Delivery of a low carbon development through the provision of highly energy efficient buildings that are highly insulated with air source heat pumps, roof mounted PV panels and EV charging infrastructure; and
- • Off-site highway works would benefit existing road users.
###### 6.150. These economic benefits clearly add further weight in favour of thedevelopment.
###### 7. Summary and Conclusions
- 7.1. This Statement of Case has been prepared on behalf of Hartford Homes in relation to an appeal against the approval of planning permission for a residential led development of up to 153 dwellings and community uses, together with a nursery, a neighbourhood centre, 2-form entry primary school and associated infrastructure.
- 7.2. Hartford Homes was the Applicant on the planning application and therefore has Interested Person Status in this appeal.
- 7.3. The reasons for the appeal against the approval are wide ranging but focus on the principle of development, and impacts on a number of technical issues such as drainage and highways.
- 7.4. This Statement has demonstrated that in this case the appeal should be refused and the approval upheld. The key points are:
- • The need for housing is clearly established though the Strategic Plan; Draft Area Plan for the North and West; and Economic Strategy.
- • The suitability of the site for housing in principle is clearly established through the extant allocation in the Ramsey Local Plan. This is proposed to be retained in the Draft Area Plan for the North and West, which zones the development site for predominantly residential use and land east of Royal Park for Open Space.
- • The proposals fully comply with the Development Brief within the Ramsey Local Plan and the Draft Area Plan for the North and West.
- • The development will deliver 153 high quality homes, a nursery, and neighbourhood centre. It also reserves land for a future new primary school should it be required.
- • The proposal is for a high-quality form of development which would not cause any unacceptable harm to the character of the area or the amenities of neighbouring properties.
- • The site is located in a sustainable location on a public transport corridor with opportunities for travel other than by the private car.
- • The development will deliver no biodiversity loss and a net gain.
- • There are no other technical grounds for refusal.
###### 7.5. Overall, in view of the above assessment I consider that the appeal should bedismissed and the Committee decision to grant planning permission be upheld.
###### Appendix 1 – Core Documents List, December 2024
###### Land at Vollan Fields and land east of Royal Park
Full approval for a residential development comprising up to 153 dwellings and community uses with associated highway and pedestrian access and infrastructure, drainage, landscaping and public open space together with approval in principle for a primary school on land at Vollan Fields together with enhancement of existing habitat on land to the east of Royal Park
###### Appeal Ref: AP24/0048
Appeal Core Document (CD) List December 2024 1 Policy and Legislation Documentation 1 Policy and Legislation Documentation
1.1
The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016
1.2
The Ramsey Local Plan 1998
1.3
Draft Area Plan for the North and West, March 2024 (Track Change’ version for the Public Inquiry to illustrate Cabinet Office’s proposed changes following the public consultation on the Draft Plan)
1.4
Report to the Cabinet Office on a Public Inquiry into the Draft Area Plan for the North and West, October 2024
1.5
Isle of Man Strategic Plan Review Preliminary Publicity consultation document, July 2023
1.6
Our Island, Our Future. Isle of Man Economic Strategy. November 2022
1.7
Residential Design Guide 2021
1.8
Climate Change Act 2021
1.9
Built Environment Reform Programme, 2022 / 2023
1.10
Landscape Character Assessment, 2008
1.11
Agricultural Soils of the Isle of Man, 2001
1.12
Manx for Manx Roads, 2021
|Doc No
|Tile/Description
|Online File name / hyperlink|
|---|---|---|
|2 Planning Application Documentation Ref: 23/00744/B
|2 Planning Application Documentation Ref: 23/00744/B
|2 Planning Application Documentation Ref: 23/00744/B
|
|2.1|Planning Application Forms, June 2023|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/35D929C15F37448835DB175BF0442E10/pd f/23_00744_B-2300744B_APL_Application_Form-556246.pdf
|
|2.2|Final Document List, June 2024|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/EB0CFDF563534FB21F9DCEA52449E9D3/ pdf/23_00744_B2300744B_AMD_Document_List_03_Jun_24-479542.pdf
|
|2.3|Final Drawing List, June 2024|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/A420139E497DD474CBA981EFF8D5D1D7/ pdf/23_00744_B-2300744B_AMD_Drawing_List_03_Jun_24382050.pdf
|
|2.4|Covering Letter, June 2023 and February 2024|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/D83DD6EFC8EFCD2F75A6D174E278CE8D /pdf/23_00744_B2300744B_APL_230626_Land_at_Vollan_Fields_Planning_Ap
|
|2.4|Covering Letter, June 2023 and February 2024|plication_Covering_Letter-493090.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/0B17F497D07C56DE36522661A7233303/pd f/23_00744_B2300744B_AMD_Agents_Covering_Letter_Covering_Letter331631.pdf
|
|2.5|Design and Access Statement, March 2023|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/8DA1F1AE8174278047686B7CC85596A1/p df/23_00744_B2300744B_APL_Design_and_Access_Statement-607565.pdf
|
|2.6|Planning Statement, June 2023|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/A699CEFB579E40F7179D27B554CEB08B/p df/23_00744_B-2300744B_APL_Planning_Statement329209.pdf
|
|2.7|Drainage Statement, April 2023|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/20D4C38C4993A36524E9729414DA059A/p df/23_00744_B2300744B_APL_Planning_Drainage_Statement-362252.pdf
|
|2.8|Hydrology Statement, March 2023|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/68755119BE7B332F95AD0875F5D8566C/pd f/23_00744_B2300744B_APL_Planning_Hydrology_Statement-447229.pdf
|
|2.9|Site Hydrology & Flood Risk Statement Addendum February 2024|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/47D7B9F01BC79E2FD8507B63DD33B0BA/ pdf/23_00744_B2300744B_ADD_Site_Hydrology_and_Flood_Risk_Statement _Addendum_Dated_Feb_24_27_Feb_24-375988.pdf
|
|2.10|Surface Water Calculations February 2024|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/58F128B174E451C0EE5841F668E8B2B2/pd f/23_00744_B-2300744B_ADD_22111-240206-cfSurface_Water_Calculations_February_2024_29_Feb_24572192.pdf
|
|2.11|Revised Drainage Layout Plans
22-111-01C Proposed Drainage Overall Layout Plan
22-111-02C Proposed Drainage Detailed Layout Plan Sheet 1 of 3
|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/87F57EB4C601298E29F6B291EDD2A6B2/p df/23_00744_B-2300744B_AMD_Dwg_22-111-
01C_Proposed_Drainage_Overall_Layout_Plan_29_Feb_24365751.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/1643A87E8FEABA1567F8950C36FE0131/p df/23_00744_B-2300744B_AMD_Dwg_22-111-
02C_Proposed_Drainage_Detailed_Layout_Plan_Sheet_1_of_
3_29_Feb_24-523794.pdf
|
|Doc No
|Tile/Description
|Online File name / hyperlink|
|---|---|---|
|2 Planning Application Documentation Ref: 23/00744/B
|2 Planning Application Documentation Ref: 23/00744/B
|2 Planning Application Documentation Ref: 23/00744/B
|
| |22-111-03C Proposed Drainage Detailed
Layout Plan Sheet 2 of 3
22-111-04C Proposed Drainage Detailed
Layout Plan Sheet 3 of 3
22-111-05 Proposed Drainage Flood Flow Routing & Detention Basin Locations
22-111-06 Proposed Drainage Impermeable Drainage Plan
|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/39B49C1D0712E59BEB49EDD6FAD31FF2/ pdf/23_00744_B-2300744B_AMD_Dwg_22-111-
03C_Proposed_Drainage_Detailed_Layout_Plan_Sheet_2_of_ 3-443124.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/EBF193C8A9661D72FF242C8C7C44BE31/p df/23_00744_B-2300744B_AMD_Dwg_22-111-
04C_Proposed_Drainage_Detailed_Layout_Plan_Sheet_3_of_ 3-374086.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/9645F5133AAC564858C112E5A25FA9C2/p df/23_00744_B-2300744B_SUP_Dwg_22-111-
05_Proposed_Drainage_Flood_Flow_Routing_and_Detention _Basin_Locations_29_Feb_24-545413.pdf https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/43D5C80A34411A83F642645AA800E61D/p df/23_00744_B-2300744B_ADD_Dwg_22-111-
06_Proposed_Drainage_Impermeable_Area_Plan-511986.pdf
|
|2.12|Ground Investigation, March 2023|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/3BE6DE7D7AB33FF5D6200BF95A517003/p df/23_00744_B2300744B_APL_Ground_Investigation_Report-504303.pdf
|
|2.13|Preliminary Ecology Appraisal - Land at Vollan Fields, March 2023|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/66E7E7E4BA6329F45EABAD2B04F3C31F/p df/23_00744_B2300744B_APL_Preliminary_Ecological_Appraisal__Land_at_Vollan_Fields-432928.pdf
|
|2.14|Preliminary Ecology Appraisal - Land east of Royal Park, March 2023|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/FC239148D469FCCADDEC140FCA0FD030/ pdf/23_00744_B2300744B_APL_Preliminary_Ecological_Appraisal__Land_east_of_Royal_Park-490325.pdf
|
|2.15|Fungi Survey - Land at Vollan Fields, March 2023|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/F1703839AC24C1069790A28B1486FE2B/pd f/23_00744_B-2300744B_SUP_Fungi_Survey__Land_at_Vollan_Fields-526062.pdf
|
|2.16|Fungi Survey - Land east of Royal Park, March 2023|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/B52D77E4382BF5A050355E621A4A7FCB/p df/23_00744_B-2300744B_AMD_Revised_Fungi_Survey__Land_east_of_Royal_Park_29_Feb_24-479124.pdf
|
|2.17|Landscape Strategy|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/4FFE4D93841898E53F259A18F9AE2738/pd f/23_00744_B-2300744B_APL_Landscape_Strategy324176.pdf
|
|2.18|Habitat Enhancement Works - Land east of Royal Park, March 2023|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/5602DCC1E254912BE91CD833B83EB311/p df/23_00744_B2300744B_APL_Habitat_Enhancement_Works__Land_east_of_Royal_Park-378472.pdf
|
|2.19|Transport Assessment, May 2023|Parts 1 to 15: https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/F4031441FA5555898D5DD4E2C2C129CD/p df/23_00744_B-2300744B_APL_ITB17390-
002C_R_Transport_Assessment_Part_1_of_15-409950.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/CAFFBEC13C0DD28A0E38F1322A7A3796/ pdf/23_00744_B-2300744B_APL_ITB17390-
002C_R_Transport_Assessment_Part_2_of_15-496583.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/A6F4729F96AC763A4C2006E95B66D76C/p
|
|Doc No
|Tile/Description
|Online File name / hyperlink|
|---|---|---|
|2 Planning Application Documentation Ref: 23/00744/B
|2 Planning Application Documentation Ref: 23/00744/B
|2 Planning Application Documentation Ref: 23/00744/B
|
| | |df/23_00744_B-2300744B_APL_ITB17390-
002C_R_Transport_Assessment_Part_3_of_15-314433.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/51F57C164664323B8DFCDB03B6660745/p df/23_00744_B-2300744B_APL_ITB17390-
002C_R_Transport_Assessment_Part_4_of_15-390559.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/online-
applications/files/B4DDDA4E9D423BE448073331DA1C8D52/ pdf/23_00744_B-2300744B_APL_ITB17390-
002C_R_Transport_Assessment_Part_5_of_15-527226.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/3113A913EF4847D0416448ECCD94C676/p df/23_00744_B-2300744B_APL_ITB17390002C_R_Transport_Assessment_Part_6_of_15-351145.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/373028F07EB3AE7604A23AE61241B951/pd f/23_00744_B-2300744B_APL_ITB17390002C_R_Transport_Assessment_Part_7_of_15-457528.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/FD37C41FDBF368BE3DC744A9B300312B/ pdf/23_00744_B-2300744B_APL_ITB17390002C_R_Transport_Assessment_Part_8_of_15-603118.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/39446783C8BB78268CD7FFBFF0747A77/p df/23_00744_B-2300744B_APL_ITB17390002C_R_Transport_Assessment_Part_9_of_15-561305.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/9E4008E7E12B4ED500424625733AD896/pd f/23_00744_B-2300744B_APL_ITB17390002C_R_Transport_Assessment_Part_10_of_15-588094.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/4B852BCF067C429ADF45145E7A045C9F/p df/23_00744_B-2300744B_APL_ITB17390002C_R_Transport_Assessment_Part_11_of_15-614930.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/0F64A285BA625E93BAF79D293692B286/pd f/23_00744_B-2300744B_APL_ITB17390002C_R_Transport_Assessment_Part_12_of_15-385877.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/online-
applications/files/C498226FAA299CEA00BE1A7B0BD88B50/ pdf/23_00744_B-2300744B_APL_ITB17390-
002C_R_Transport_Assessment_Part_13_of_15-437491.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/8B81C6503F56A15308CF5D863B3625C2/p df/23_00744_B-2300744B_APL_ITB17390-
002C_R_Transport_Assessment_Part_14_of_15-536801.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/DFCBB58062AC811BDB1FBFB6CB9E22FA/ pdf/23_00744_B-2300744B_APL_ITB17390-
002C_R_Transport_Assessment_Part_15_of_15-366057.pdf
|
|Doc No
|Tile/Description
|Online File name / hyperlink|
|---|---|---|
|2 Planning Application Documentation Ref: 23/00744/B
|2 Planning Application Documentation Ref: 23/00744/B
|2 Planning Application Documentation Ref: 23/00744/B
|
|2.20|Transport Assessment Addendum - Response to DoI Highways October 2023|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/10D89E7C16A27570039106E2FBCF9491/pd f/23_00744_B2300744B_ADD_Supp_to_TA_Response_to_DoI_Highways_ October_2023__without_appendices_-604357.pdf
|
|2.21|Final Proposed Off-site Pedestrian Improvements|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/D72E1D82F30ECFB12EFF477AF075E9B4/p df/23_00744_B-2300744B_AMD_Revised_Appendix_C_-_OffSite_Pedestrian_and_Cycle_Improvement_Plans_05_Mar_24507350.pdf
|
|2.22|Framework Travel Plan, April 2023|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/5D515DCB33A8A1A6BA845B27C2E25715/p df/23_00744_B-2300744B_APL_ITB17390003B_R_Framework_Travel_Plan-475434.pdf
|
|2.23|Revised Arboricultural Impact Assessment, November 2023|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/3B5A234B5304BBBFF3B9B1C2D81D871E/p df/23_00744_B2300744B_AMD_Revised_Arboricultural_Impact_Assessment _Dated_Nov_23_29_Feb_24-381786.pdf
|
|2.24|Tree Constraints North East & South West, December 2022
Revised Tree Protection Plan – North East, November 2023
Revised Tree Protection Plan –South West, November 2023
Revised Tree Removal Plan, November 2023|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/CE5CAAD8402EDDC1A919980B7FD278A0/ pdf/23_00744_B2300744B_APL_Tree_Constraints__Tree_Removal_and_Tree _Protection_Plans-583081.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/F53617E2D1DC67D01FFFBA34419094CC/p df/23_00744_B-2300744B_AMD_Dwg_TP-061222NE_Rev_D_Revised_Tree_Protection_Plan__North_East_29_Feb_24-405781.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/54D3D39F2563C9FF7BFC34AB21EA9ADF/ pdf/23_00744_B-2300744B_AMD_Dwg_TP-061222SW_Rev_D_Revised_Tree_Protection_Plan__South_West_29_Feb_24-506094.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/3CC481862E9F2A07E2A36282FAD3AD1A/p df/23_00744_B-2300744B_AMD_Dwg_TR-061222_Rev_E__Revised_Tree_Removal_29_Feb_24-594284.pdf
|
|2.25|Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment, March 2023|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/EC9B8DF428B822F9C75BD768E1A0B59C/ pdf/23_00744_B2300744B_APL_Archaeology_Desk_Based_Assessment320837.pdf
|
|2.26|Geophysical Survey, March 2023|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/1CFEDC57AB4C929FB8E35999CDBD40E5/ pdf/23_00744_B-2300744B_APL_Geophysical_Survey457671.pdf
|
|2.27|Public Consultation Report, March 2023|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/4ED5CD297C266995E0E4BE89A230BE2F/p df/23_00744_B-2300744B_APL_Public_Consultation_Report315702.pdf
|
|2.28|Revised Construction Environmental Management Plan, January 2024|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/C81FA2296A1B2307316DF27D142A2923/pd f/23_00744_B2300744B_AMD_Construction_Environmental_Management_ Plan_Dated_Jan_24_29_Feb_24-454734.pdf
|
|2.29|Earthworks Method Statement, March 2023|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/384CF93AEA6335D9FA9DC614D0C03DE4/ pdf/23_00744_B-2300744B_APL_Earthworks_Statement583298.pdf
|
|2.30|Schedule of Air Source Heat Pumps, June 2023|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/E6B683DF8646059BDD7CE03C58BC62A4/ pdf/23_00744_B2300744B_APL_Scehdule_of_Air_Source_Heat_Pumps416555.pdf
|
|Doc No
|Tile/Description
|Online File name / hyperlink|
|---|---|---|
|2 Planning Application Documentation Ref: 23/00744/B
|2 Planning Application Documentation Ref: 23/00744/B
|2 Planning Application Documentation Ref: 23/00744/B
|
|2.31|Breeding Bird Survey, December 2023|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/04892142C1A2FD67159E85044F91AB40/pd f/23_00744_B2300744B_ADD_Breeding_Birds_Report_December_2023411714.pdf
|
|2.32|Bat Survey, December 2023|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/F1807A31EA0807649733E8EA9ADC9265/p df/23_00744_B2300744B_AMD_Bat_Activity_Report_December_23_29_Feb _24-586541.pdf
|
|2.33|Noise Assessment, December 2023|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/28E1D15CE66C50F933B66D8367F386C0/p df/23_00744_B2300744B_ADD_Noise_Assessment_Dated_Dec_23_29_Feb _24-316751.pdf
|
|2.34|Statement in response to Third Party Consultations|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/2F5C651B6010C190F7B6FF8BF581509B/pd f/23_00744_B-2300744B_AMD_Vollan_Fields__Statement_in_response_to_Third_Party_Consultations_29_F eb_24-455671.pdf
|
|2.35|Wading Birds Survey, April 2024|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/827656D489C85AEAC659D9A5F6D5C15E/p df/23_00744_B2300744B_ADD_High_Tide_Roost_Wader_Survey_Dated_Ap r_24_29_Apr_24-469495.pdf
|
|2.36|Applicant’s Letter in response to Planning Committee, May 2024|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/97379C58AEEE5D7C7EB640BA138A7355/p df/23_00744_B2300744B_ADD_Applicants_Response_to_Planning_Committ ee_03_Jun_24-464672.pdf
|
|2.37|Applicants Letter in response to Grest Farm, May 2024|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/B340596085E7E7DFB84B9159C14F0958/pd f/23_00744_B2300744B_ADD_Applicants_Response_to_Grest_Farm_31_M ay_24-520733.pdf
|
|Doc No
|Title/Descrip tion
|Online File name / hyperlink|
|---|---|---|
|3 Statutory Consultation Responses
|3 Statutory Consultation Responses
|3 Statutory Consultation Responses
|
|3.1|Department of Education Sport and Culture|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/D3D194048E779081373C534399C11318/pdf/23_00744_B2300744B_CON_Consultation_10_Education_email_1.5.24-350633.pdf
|
|3.2|DoI Flood Risk Management|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/9530D1C87D15E05B34945253764A15D1/pdf/23_00744_B-
2300744B_CON_Consultation_2.1_DOI_FRM_08.12.2023_Redacted-396866.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/C3C3CC111E28D5AD62DB33192E74BA43/pdf/23_00744_B2300744B_CON_Consutlation_2.3_DOI_FRM_22.12.2023.Redacted-500576.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/C3BD55315411D08357405C840B32FABF/pdf/23_00744_B-
2300744B_CON_Consultation_2.2_Flood_Risk_Management_18.03.2024-383601.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/67D0FF43DFAA52787059555F99E788C4/pdf/23_00744_B2300744B_CON_Consultation_12_Flood_Risk_Management_09.05.2024-614087.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/259B6D04A2B4E56B830AEA2FD6FD2455/pdf/23_00744_B2300744B_COR_Email_correspondence_MU_Drainage__FMD_and_Officer_10.05.24472271.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/E0B57B919B6E3A49D0771213AF4DB08F/pdf/23_00744_B-
2300744B_CON_Consultation_2.3_DOIFRM_28.6.24-433998.pdf
|
|3.3|DoI Highways Drainage|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/F4454437B58F9439129A49871F0FF392/pdf/23_00744_B2300744B_CON_Consultation_1.4_Highways_Drainage_18.04.2024-593613.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/D995B2A5F0AED94E8ED21078752ACB22/pdf/23_00744_B2300744B_CON_Consultation_13_Highways_Drainage_09.05.2024-563125.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/74D7E9554DE5BD12248F1E544E30F797/pdf/23_00744_B2300744B_CON_Consultation_13.1_DOI_Highways_drainage_28.6.24-535296.pdf
|
|3.4|Manu Utilities|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/C4AFB6E5F973FE93D2182271198C1A7C/pdf/23_00744_B2300744B_CON_Consultation_8_MUA_Drainage_14.9.23-357498.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/BBD5D20DC263D48FCA81D230608D8A6C/pdf/23_00744_B2300744B_CON_Consultation_14_Manx_Utilites_Drainage_09.05.2024-599740.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/79437A85125D71EF126A358DC15391D6/pdf/23_00744_B2300744B_COR_Correspondence_between_MU_and_Department_1_July_24-467211.pdf
|
|3.5|DoI Highways|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/0513147016691BAA77A76A08CD0A22DC/pdf/23_00744_B-
2300744B_CON_Consultation_1.1_DOI_Highways_20.07.2023-581867.pdf https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/221E978DFADF4E2741C76977B0DC9BE4/pdf/23_00744_B-
2300744B_CON_Consultation_1.2_DOI_Highways_18.10.2023-408145.pdf https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/97D3DEF8CA675F360FA2529123FC6C6F/pdf/23_00744_B-
2300744B_CON_Consultation_1.3_DOI_Highways_6.3.24-376849.pdf
|
|Doc No
|Title/Descrip tion
|Online File name / hyperlink|
|---|---|---|
|3 Statutory Consultation Responses
|3 Statutory Consultation Responses
|3 Statutory Consultation Responses
|
|3.6|DEFA Biodiversity|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/208BB250C90EBEA17589419A1C48E65C/pdf/23_00744_B2300744B_CON_Consultation_3_DEFA_Biodiversity_21.7.23-618520.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/D9C0B70EE55EDA3EB91DA74616DFA49D/pdf/23_00744_B-
2300744B_CON_Consultation_3.1_DEFA_Biodiversity_8.3.24-593733.pdf https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/29A71BA480AA7A467F440BDE64D23CAA/pdf/23_00744_B-
2300744B_CON_Consultation_3.2_Ecopolicy_Officer_26.04.2024-370592.pdf
|
|3.7|DEFA Forestry|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/800299626ADC2386A555F3F21F8333E3/pdf/23_00744_B2300744B_CON_Consultation_11_Forestry_09.05.2024-597085.pdf
|
|3.8|Department for Enterprise|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/9D5017B675D61489E5431C2F93B1B122/pdf/23_00744_B2300744B_CON_Consultation_6_DED_Business_Agy_15.8.23-513799.pdf
|
|3.9|Planning Policy Officer, Cabinet Office|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/4E188B1D4378D3F672D34BE50EBDDBBD/pdf/23_00744_B2300744B_CON_Consultation_15_Planning_Policy_14.05.2024-402193.pdf
|
|3.10|Public Estates and Housing Division|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/35692072A871CEAF332E9208B0ACA642/pdf/23_00744_B2300744B_CON_Consultation_7_DOI_Estates_Housing_18.8.23-434342.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/E037701713BA3ABBDD2183D8C87F4013/pdf/23_00744_B2300744B_CON_Consultation_7.2_DOI_Estates_Houseing_04.03.2024-487562.pdf
|
|3.11|Manx Care|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/ACF139810AB4AE35F825B1CEF38407F8/pdf/23_00744_B2300744B_COR_Communication_between_Manx_Care_and_Applicants__pre_application_stage _-485752.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/C200D1D557AC4BAAD7AA739B2810DD30/pdf/23_00744_B2300744B_COR_Comments_between_Department_and_Manx_Care_19.2.24-523280.pdf
|
|3.12|Ramsey Town Commissione rs|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/649FF7CD2A818B2A331DB5F794DF85F1/pdf/23_00744_B2300744B_CON_Consultation_4_Ramsey_Commissioners_25.7.23-310503.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/2B6982BBF537CED1EDA0C72544018BF0/pdf/23_00744_B2300744B_CON_Consultation_4.1_Ramsey_Town_Commissioners_14.05.2024-335294.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/34E7544BC907ED42AFF68EBD42144F46/pdf/23_00744_B2300744B_COR_Communication_from_Ramsey_Commissioners_to_the_department-358229.pdf
|
|3.13|Environmenta l Health Unit|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/1BC93CBF7F625548BA9EF735409C4A2A/pdf/23_00744_B2300744B_CON_Consultation_5_Environmental_Health_2.8.23-602514.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/2E6869EAF2A6386E1CB11DEB3D37CBBB/pdf/23_00744_B2300744B_CON_Consultation_5.1_Environmental_Health_26_Mar_24-397559.pdf
|
|3.14|Manx National Heritage|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/F5D4E0D30195200E954D07DB4E0CEB80/pdf/23_00744_B2300744B_CON_Consultation_9_MNH_3.11.23-335106.pdf
|
|Doc No
|Title/Description|Online File name / hyperlink|
|---|---|---|
|4 Determination Documents
|4 Determination Documents
|4 Determination Documents
|
|4.1|Committee Report, July 2024|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/07D6501C6DF515E71B065AFFD842212D/pdf/23_00744_B2300744B_DEC_Officer_Report-417311.pdf
|
|4.2|Committee Meeting Minutes, July 2024|https://pabc.gov.im/media/qbelujqc/planning-committee-minutes-8th-july2024_compressed.pdf
|
|4.3|Decision Notice, October 2024|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/E0534D19E65EC1AC083FACB29E6619A0/pdf/23_00744_B2300744B_DEC_Decision_Notice-317073.pdf
|
|4.4|Section 13 Agreement, October 2024|https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/4DFDF750D8ED8B9FD89AA2000D02F0C7/pdf/23_00744_B-
2300744B_DEC_S13_Agreement_Part1-499469.pdf
https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/files/C3D61529D6451FAF163B1AC1CBAD2EE7/pdf/23_00744_B-
2300744B_DEC_S13_Agreement_Part2-367258.pdf
|
###### Appendix 2 - List of Final Drawings as of June 2024
###### Land at Vollan Fields Final Drawing list, as of June 2024
|Drawing Title
|Drawing Number|
|---|---|
|Architectural Plans|Architectural Plans|
|Location Plan|Hart 70 01|
|Existing Site Plan|Hart 70 02|
|Existing Survey Sheet 1 of 3|Hart 70 03|
|Existing Survey Sheet 2 of 3|Hart 70 04|
|Existing Survey Sheet 3 of 3|Hart 70 05|
|Proposed Site Plan - Hart 70 06|Hart 70 06 B|
|Proposed Site Plan Sheet 1 of 3|Hart 70 07 B|
|Proposed Site Plan Sheet 2 of 3|Hart 70 08 B|
|Proposed Site Plan Sheet 3 of 3|Hart 70 09 B|
|Fencing Plan Sheet 1 of 3|Hart 70 10 A|
|Fencing Plan Sheet 2 of 3|Hart 70 11 A|
|Fencing Plan Sheet 3 of 3|Hart 70 12 A|
|Wildlife Mitigation Plan|Hart 70 13 A|
|Section 13 Agreement|Hart 70 14 A|
|Phasing Plan|Hart 70 16 C|
|Accessibility Plan|Hart 70 17 A|
|Street Elevations Sheet 1 of 3|Hart 70 18|
|Street Elevations Sheet 2 of 3|Hart 70 19|
|Street Elevations Sheet 3 of 3|Hart 70 20|
|Computer Generated Images|Hart 70 21|
|House type E/F|Hart 70 30|
|House type A|Hart 70 31|
|House type A|Hart 70 32|
|House type B|Hart 70 33|
|House type B|Hart 70 34|
|House type G|Hart 70 35|
|House type C|Hart 70 36|
|House type H|Hart 70 37|
|House type C|Hart 70 38|
|House type H|Hart 70 39|
|House type H|Hart 70 40|
|House type M|Hart 70 41|
|House type J|Hart 70 42|
|House type L|Hart 70 43|
|House type H|Hart 70 44|
|House type K|Hart 70 45|
|House type D|Hart 70 46|
|House type K|Hart 70 47|
House type E/F
Hart 70 48
House type G
Hart 70 49
House type C
Hart 70 50
House type N
Hart 70 51
House type N
Hart 70 52
House type P
Hart 70 53
House type H
Hart 70 54
House type M
Hart 70 55
House type J
Hart 70 56
House type D
Hart 70 57
Retail Units
Hart 70 58
Nursery
Hart 70 59
Community
Hart 70 60
Substation
Hart 70 61
Landscape Masterplan
5132 01 L
Landscape Sections
5132 02A
Natural Play Area LAP A
5132 03 D
Natural Play Area LAP B
5132 04 C
Formal Play Area LEAP A
5132 05 C
Natural Play Area LEAP B
5132 06 C
Drainage Plans
Drainage Plans
Proposed Drainage Overall Layout Plan
22-111-01C
Proposed Drainage Detail Layout Plan Sheet 1 of 3
22-111-02C
Proposed Drainage Detail Layout Plan Sheet 2 of 3
22-111-03C
Proposed Drainage Detail Layout Plan Sheet 3 of 3
22-111-04C
Proposed Drainage Flood Flow Routing and Detention Basin Locations
22-111-05
Proposed Drainage Impermeable Area Plan
22-111-06
Proposed Drainage Flood Flow Routing & Detention Basin Locations
22-111 05 B
Indicative Drainage Plan Plots 7 to 21
Hart 70 29
Arboricultural Plans Arboricultural Plans Tree Constraints North East
TS-061222-NE
Tree Constraints South West
TS-061222-SW
Tree Removal
TR-061222 E
Tree Protection Plan - North East TP-061222-NE_revD Tree Protection Plan - South West TP-061222-SW_revD
Highway Plans
Highway Plans
Highway Adoption Plan ITB 17390-GA 015A Proposed Access Andreas Road ITB17390-GA-001F Proposed Access Bride Road ITB17390-GA-002H Visibility Splays & Forward Visibility ITB17390-GA-005G Proposed Pedestrian Crossing Bride Road ITB17390-GA-007H Proposed Neighbourhood Centre - Swepth Path Analysis ITB17390-GA-009C Proposed Bus Stop Improvements - Bride Road ITB17390-GA-012B Proposed Bus Stop Improvements - Bride Road ITB17390-GA-013B Proposed School Swepth Path Analysis ITB17390-GA-014B
Proposed Off-Site Pedestrian Improvements Proposed Off-Site Pedestrian Improvements Proposed Off-Site Pedestrian Improvements ITB17390-GA-100
Sheet 1
ITB17390-GA-101 A
Sheet 2
ITB17390-GA-102 A
Sheet 3
ITB17390-GA-103 A
Sheet 4
ITB17390-GA-104
Sheet 5
ITB17390-GA-105
Sheet 6
ITB17390-GA-106
Sheet 7
ITB17390-GA-107 A
Sheet 8
ITB17390-GA-108 A
Sheet 9
ITB17390-GA-109
Sheet 10
ITB17390-GA-110 A
Sheet 11
ITB17390-GA-111
Sheet 12
ITB17390-GA-112 A
Sheet 13
ITB17390-GA-113 A
Sheet 14
ITB17390-GA-114
###### Appendix 3 - List of Final Supporting Documents
###### Land at Vollan Fields, Ramsey Application for residential mixed-use development Document list, June 2024
|Drawing Title
|Original submission
|Additional information October 2023
|Revised / additional information February 2024
|Additional information April 2024
|Additional information June 2024
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Application Forms|June 2023|n/a|n/a|n/a|n/a|
|Document List|June 2023|n/a|February 2024|April 2024|June 2024|
|Drawing List|June 2023|n/a|February 2024|May 2024|June 2024|
|Covering Letter|June 2023|n/a|February 2024|n/a|n/a|
|Design and Access Statement|March 2023|n/a|n/a|n/a|n/a|
|Planning Statement|June 2023|n/a|n/a|n/a|n/a|
|Drainage Statement Hydrology Statement Drainage Layout Plans|March 2023|n/a|Site Hydrology & Flood Risk Statement Addendum February 2024
Revised Drainage Layout Plans (see drawing schedule)
Surface Water Calculations February 2024|n/a|n/a|
|Ground Investigation|March 2023|n/a|n/a|n/a|n/a|
|Preliminary Ecology Appraisals|March 2023|n/a|n/a|n/a|n/a|
|Drawing Title
|Original submission
|Additional information October 2023
|Revised / additional information February 2024
|Additional information April 2024
|Additional information June 2024
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Fungi Surveys – Vollan Fields and Royal Park|March 2023|n/a|Revised surveys|n/a|n/a|
|Landscape Strategy|March 2023|n/a|n/a|n/a|n/a|
|Habitat Enhancement Works|March 2023|n/a|n/a|n/a|n/a|
|Transport Assessment|May 2023|Transport Assessment Addendum Response to DoI Highways October 2023|n/a|n/a|n/a|
|Framework Travel Plan|April 2023|n/a|n/a|n/a|n/a|
|Arboricultural Impact Assessment|March 2023|n/a|Revised Arboricultural Impact Assessment November 2023|n/a|n/a|
|Tree Constraints, Tree Removal and Tree Protection Plans|March 2023|n/a|Revised Tree Protection Plans and Removal Plan November 2023 (see drawing schedule)|n/a|n/a|
|Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment|March 2023|n/a|n/a|n/a|n/a|
|Geophysical Survey|March 2023|n/a|n/a|n/a|n/a|
|Drawing Title
|Original submission
|Additional information October 2023
|Revised / additional information February 2024
|Additional information April 2024
|Additional information June 2024
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Public Consultation Report|March 2023|n/a|n/a|n/a|n/a|
|Construction Environmental Management Plan|March 2023|n/a|January 2024|n/a|n/a|
|Earthworks Method Statement|March 2023|n/a|n/a|n/a|n/a|
|Schedule of Air Source Heat Pumps|June 2023|n/a|n/a|n/a|n/a|
|Breeding Bird Survey|n/a|n/a|December 2023|n/a|n/a|
|Bat Survey|n/a|n/a|December 2023|n/a|n/a|
|Noise Assessment|n/a|n/a|December 2023|n/a|n/a|
|Statement in response to Third Party Consultations|n/a|n/a|February 2024|n/a|n/a|
|Wading Birds Survey|n/a|n/a|n/a|April 2024|n/a|
|Letter in response to Planning Committee|n/a|n/a|n/a|n/a|May 2024|
###### Appendix 4 – Copy of Final Consultee Responses
###### Appendix 4 – Final Statutory Consultation Responses to 23/00744/B
|Consultee
|Date of Final Response(s)|
|---|---|
|Department of Education Sport and Culture|01/05/2024|
|DOI Flood Risk Management|09/05/2024 and 28/06/2024|
|DOI Highways Drainage|17/04/2024, 09/05/2024, and 28/06/2024|
|Manx Utilities Authority|09/05/2024 and 02/07/2024|
|DOI Highways Development Control|18/10/2023 and 06/03/2024|
|DEFA Biodiversity|08/03/2024 and 26/04/2024|
|DEFA Forestry|09/05/2024|
|Public Estates and Housing Division|18/07/2023 and 21/02/2024|
|Planning Policy, Cabinet Office|13/05/2024|
|Manx Care|27/07/2023 and 19/02/2024|
|Environmental Health Unit|26/03/2024|
|Department for Enterprise|14/08/2023|
|Ramsey Town Commissioners|25/07/2023 and 13/05/2024|
|Manx National Heritage|02/11/2023|
###### Callow, Jo (DEFA)
From: Balmer, Chris Sent: 01 May 2024 11:51 To: DEFA, Planning Subject: FW: 23/00744/B - Land At Vollan Field, Ramsey - Full approval for a residential
development comprising up to 153 dwellings and community uses and approval in principle for a primary school
From: Collister, Richard (DEC) Sent: 01 May 2024 11:40 To: Balmer, Chris Subject: RE: 23/00744/B - Land At Vollan Field, Ramsey - Full approval for a residential development comprising up to 153 dwellings and community uses and approval in principle for a primary school
Hi Chris, Education capacity in Ramsey. Primary
The planning site is in the catchment of Bunscoill Rhumsaa primary school. This school is within capacity with a current 23/24 roll of circa 461 (including SPC unit) compared to our stated mainstream capacity of 566.
The school was designed to accommodate future extensions to increase capacity when needed, at both ends of the junior building wings – this could increase capacity to circa 650. As you are aware the application includes provision for the siting of a new primary school. I can confirm this site identified appears suitable for the development of a one or two-form entry school. Whether we move forward with enlargement at Bunscoill Rhumsaa to meet future additional demand or a new school provision at this location, will be a decision for the Department in the longer term, depending on educational policy, the extent / location of future residential development in the town, and funding.
Secondary
The planning site is in the catchment of Ramsey Grammar school. This school is running at capacity with a current 23/24 roll of circa 991 (including SPC unit) compared to our stated mainstream capacity of 943, which has been increased through the provision of mobile classrooms to 978.
Whilst the existing east and west sites are constrained by the main Lezayre Road to the front, existing residential to the front and sides, and the golf course to the rear, and we do not wish to see any future reduction in external recreation space, there are development opportunities at both sites. There are extension infill opportunities, and potential to increase density by two storey accommodation rather than single as existing, which could enable the capacity to grow to circa 1200 / 7-form entry. Our requirement to grow the school capacity is identified within our Strategic Needs Impact Assessment (SINA), as submitted to Treasury.
IOMG / Treasury must support such new educational development (and staffing / revenue implications) , if new residential development is be approved / progress at this site (and other sites in the town / RGS catchment), in order that we can accommodate the existing and arising educational needs.
I hope this is helpful – if any queries / further information needed, let me know. Best regards Richard
Richard A Collister BSc (Hons), MRICS Estates Director, Department of Education, Sport & Culture,
Thie Slieau Whallian, St John’s, Isle of Man, IM4 3AS Tel: (01624) 686428 | Mob: (07624) 431456.
From: Balmer, Chris Sent: 29 April 2024 09:52 To: DESC, Admin ; Collister, Richard (DEC) Subject: RE: 23/00744/B - Land At Vollan Field, Ramsey - Full approval for a residential development comprising up to 153 dwellings and community uses and approval in principle for a primary school Importance: High
Morning I was wondering if the Department could have any comments you may have on the above planning application please? The application is due to go before the Planning Committee on the 20th May (deadline for report to be completed is the 10th May). Kind Regards Chris
Any views expressed in this email are those of the officer onlyand are without prejudice to any formal decision made under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and any relevant secondary legislation.
Please be aware that should the content of this email be materially relevant to a planning application, its content may be published as detail relevant to the formal assessment of the application. Publication will include availability via online services.
CHRIS BALMER - MA (Hons), MTCP, MRTPI PRINCIPAL PLANNER
Direct Tel: +44 (0) 1624 685908 Office Tel: +44 (0) 1624 685950 Email: chris.balmer@gov.im
Web: https://www.gov.im/categories/planning-and-building-control/ Address: Planning & Building Control Directorate, Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture (DEFA), Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2SF
###### Spencer, Daniel
From: Balmer, Chris Sent: 09 May 2024 11:36 To: DEFA, Planning Subject: FW: PA 23/00744/B - Vollan Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: Dan Please add as a rep from FMD to Department questions Kind Regards Chris
Any views expressed in this email are those of the officer only and are without prejudice to any formal decision made under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 andany relevant secondary legislation.
Please be aware that should the content of this email be materially relevant to a planning application, its content may be published as detail relevant to the formal assessment of the application. Publication will include availability via online services.
From: Cowin, Malcolm (FMD) Sent: 08 May 2024 19:41 To: Balmer, Chris Cc: Kershaw, Chris ; Wade, Ian ; Dainton, Peter Subject: PA 23/00744/B ‐ Vollan
Hi Chris, The Flood Management Division (FMD) of the Department of Transport have reviewed the proposals from a flood risk perspective and are satisfied with what is proposed. FMD was made aware of the two areas of pluvial flooding from south west corner of the where the public open space and playing pitch are proposed and the flooding behind the existing properties on Bride Road (proposed houses 7-18). We had discussions early on with the developer about our concerns about these two areas and asked for them to consider overland flows routes and other solutions to these issues. The developer has provided the overland routes, detention basins and ground profiling to contain any overland flow that is not captured by the surface water drainage system which is designed for the 1in 100 plus climate change event. These detention basins and ground profiled areas will drain back into the surface water via land drains. In response to your two questions
- 1. Are you able to confirm that the concerns raised by the local residents in relation to surface water/flood water (namely Fair Isle, Elleray, Anchor Down, Greenbank, Thie-Y-Vollan, Rosterne, Vollan Garden) have been addressed by the submission please? The Planning Committee will want assurances (as we all will) that the development would not make the situation and ideally improve it. Yes the surface water drainage system will intercept the water from the impermeable areas for a storm up to a 1 in 100 plus climate change event which is an event that only has a 1% chance of occurring in any year. Any overland flow not captured by this system will them flow to the landscaped area where it will drain back into the surface water system.
- 2. Are you also able to comment whether the larger public open space (southwest corner of site), which includes a detention basis will be useable as public open space? The detention basin is only occupying one area of the public open space and will only be active in very wet periods this is to capture overland flow not captured by the surface water system.
I would say we need to make sure that the landscaping areas and the detention base are constructed properly so that the water flows into them and that undertake their function. Could a condition could be added to cover this?
I also agree with Chris that the greatest risk of flooding is during construction phase so this will have to be managed. If a condition could be added for construction phase surface water runoff management plan to be produced if approved?
Kind regards, Malcolm Malcolm Cowin| Senior Engineer BEng MSc GMICE MCIWEM| Flood Management Division Department of Infrastructure | Sea Terminal Building | Douglas | Isle of Man | IM1 2RF Tel: 01624 693512 Mob: 07624 431157 Email: malcolm.cowin2@gov.im
http://www.twitter.com/iominfra http://www.facebook.com/iominfrastructure
Please don't print this email unless you really need to. DOI Values: Communication; Respect; Teamwork; Recognition; Trust; Customer Service. WARNING: This email message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and may be subject to
legal privilege. You must not copy or deliver it to any other person or use the contents in any unauthorised manner without the express permission of the sender. If you are not the intended addressee of this e-mail, please delete it and notify the sender as soon as possible.
###### Representation from Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Flood Risk Management Division
Flood Risk Management Comment:
DNO
Flood Risk Management Representational History for this case:
FRM have reviewed all of the drainage data and have no objection to this Planning Application
Conditions
Flood Risk Management Officer:
Peter Dainton iomfloodhub@gov.im
###### Code Definition
|DEFFER|Flood Risk Management’s input has been deferred pending further information|
|---|---|
|DNO|Do not oppose|
|DNOC|Do not oppose subject to condition(s)|
|NFRMI|No Flood Risk Management interest|
|O|Oppose|
Please note that the content of this memo has been completed by Officers from DOI Flood Risk Management in relation to the detailed planning application for the benefit of Officers of DEFA P&BC
Department of Infrastructure Sea Terminal Building, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2RF www.gov.im/infrastructure
CK-planning-23-00744/B Email: highwaysdevelopmentcontrol@gov.im Officer: CK
###### Planning Application Response
Date of Response: 17th April 2024 Date of Application: 29th June 2023 Application Reference: 23/0744/B Location / Address: Land At Vollan Field No's 131042, 131043, 135315 And 135318 Land East Of Royal Park Field No's 131085 And 135140 Andreas Road Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 4EA Description: Full approval for a residential development comprising up to 153 dwellings and community uses with associated highway and pedestrian access and infrastructure, drainage, landscaping and public open space together with approval in principle for a primary school on land at Vollan Fields together with enhancement of existing habitat on land to the east of Royal Park Highways Drainage Comments:
Further to discussions with the Applicant and the submission of revised drainage plans and surface water runoff calculations as listed below: -
- Drawing 22-111-01 Rev C Drainage Layout
- Drawing 22-111-02 Rev C Drainage Layout
- Drawing 22-111-03 Rev C Drainage Layout
- Drawing 22-111-04 Rev A Drainage Layout
- Drawing 22-111-05 Flood Routing & Detention Basins
- Drawing 22-111-06 Impermeable Areas Surface Water Runoff Calculations dated 06/02/2024
We are now satisfied that the surface water drainage system serving the highway within the proposed development is satisfactory.
Recommendation: The proposed surface water system meets our highway drainage requirements and in this respect the highway within the development is suitable for adoption under Section 4 of the Highway Act 1986. Please note that this recommendation does not guarantee adoption as there are other criteria to be met before this can occur. If the Applicant wishes to enter into a Section 4 agreement we recommend that they discuss this with our Highway Asset Management Team who administer the adoption process. Ideally this should be done prior to the determination of the planning application as any amendments required to the highway layout post planning (if approved) might need to be resubmitted to them for approval.
Department of Infrastructure Sea Terminal Building, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2RF
From: Kershaw, Chris To: DEFA, Planning Cc: Balmer, Chris; Cowin, Malcolm (FMD); Wade, Ian; Dainton, Peter Subject: PA 23/00744/B - The Vollan, Ramsey Date: 28 June 2024 16:57:51 Attachments: image003.png
Dear Planning,
Further to drawing Hart 70-29 Indicative Drainage Plan Plots 7 to 21 dated 03 Jun 24 submitted as an additional document to Planning. We can firm that the drainage proposals for the rear gardens of plots 7 -21 will not have a significant impact on the drainage system serving the estate roads.
Regards
Chris Kershaw Senior Highway Drainage Engineer, DOI Design Services.
From: Balmer, Chris Sent: 24 June 2024 08:54 To: Cowin, Malcolm (FMD) ; Wade, Ian ; Dainton, Peter ; Kershaw, Chris Subject: 23/00744/B - The Vollan Importance: High
Morning All, Would you please be able to provide formal comments to the recently submitted drainage information? I understand you may have indicated to applicants that you had no concerns; however, if you could provide the Department with your thoughts, that would be good. I hope to update my report asap (deadline this Friday) for the next Planning Committee meeting. Kind Regards Chris
Any views expressed in this email are those of the officeronlyand are without prejudice to any formal decision made under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and any relevant secondary legislation.
Please be aware that should the content of this email be materially relevant to a planning application, its content may be published as detail relevant to the formal assessment of the application. Publication will include availability via online services.
CHRIS BALMER - MA (Hons), MTCP, MRTPI PRINCIPAL PLANNER
Direct Tel: +44 (0) 1624 685908 Office Tel: +44 (0) 1624 685950
###### Email: chris.balmer@gov.im Web: https://www.gov.im/categories/planning-and-building-control/ Address: Planning & Building Control Directorate, Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture (DEFA), Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2SF
###### Spencer, Daniel
From: Balmer, Chris Sent: 09 May 2024 11:38 To: DEFA, Planning Subject: FW: PA 23/00744/B - Vollan Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: Dan Please add as a rep from Manx Utilities Drainage to Department questions Kind Regards Chris
Any views expressed in this email are those of the officer only and are without prejudice to any formal decision made under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 andany relevant secondary legislation.
Please be aware that should the content of this email be materially relevant to a planning application, its content may be published as detail relevant to the formal assessment of the application. Publication will include availability via online services.
From: Wade, Ian
- Sent: 08 May 2024 16:50 To: Balmer, Chris Cc: Kershaw, Chris ; Cowin, Malcolm (FMD) ; Slinger, Aisha Subject: PA 23/00744/B ‐ Vollan Good afternoon Chris,
- Manx Utilities have reviewed the drainage proposals for PA 23/00744/B for the construction of 153 dwellings and associated drainage off Andreas Road Ramsey and can comment as follows:‐
- The proposed foul and surface water infrastructure has been designed in accordance with Manx Sewers for adoption and Manx Utilities requirements.
- The surface water infrastructure design includes the latest uplift to 1:100 yr plus 50% climate change which Manx Utilities is requesting for all new adoptable drainage systems.
- Manx Utilities can confirm that capacity exist within the Vollan sewage pumping station and Balladoole WwTW to receive the foul flows from the proposed development.
- Manx Utilities met with residents along Bride Road to discuss the flooding concerns in the area. The main cause of this flooding appeared to be overland surface water flows from the proposed site flowing to the low area in the SE corner of the site. Once the site has been developed, the majority of these overland flows will be captured in the new positive surface water drainage system serving the estate therefore greatly reducing the impact within the area. Land drainage will also be installed through the rear of plots 7‐18.
- The developer has indicated that they will be entering into a section 8 adoption agreement for the adoption of both the foul and surface water infrastructure for this development. A S8 adoption application will be required prior to construction work commencing on site.
- The detention basins/ swale areas which will accommodate exceedance flood routing away from the highway/ properties into soft landscaped areas will not be adopted by Manx Utilities.
- The addition of a new surface water drainage system as part of this development is welcomed by Manx Utilities. During heavy rainfall events, the existing foul sewers serving the properties along Bride Road have been utilised as a route for residents to drain flooded/ waterlogged gardens which greatly impacts the downstream foul sewerage network causing surcharging. The installation of a new surface water system will remove the requirement for this, resulting in a reduction of rainwater being pumped from Vollan PS to Balladoole WwTW for unnecessary treatment.
Regards Ian
###### Ian Wade Project Delivery Manager Wastewater
PO BOX 177 DOUGLAS ISLE OF MAN IM99 1PS BRITISH ISLES
tel: +44 (1624) 693511 e‐mail: ian.wade@manxutilities.im mob: +44 (7624) 451678 web: www.manxutilities.im
please consider the environment ‐ do you really need to print this email?
From: Balmer, Chris To: DEFA, Planning Subject: FW: 23/00744/B - The Vollan Date: 02 July 2024 10:06:37 Attachments: image001.png
image004.png
Please add as correspondents between MU and Dept. Kind Regards Chris
Any views expressed in this email are those of the officeronlyand are without prejudice to any formal decision made under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and any relevant secondary legislation.
Please be aware that should the content of this email be materially relevant to a planning application, its content may be published as detail relevant to the formal assessment of the application. Publication will include availability via online services.
From: Wade, Ian Sent: 01 July 2024 14:36 To: Balmer, Chris Subject: RE: 23/00744/B - The Vollan
Hi Chris,
Further to your email, it is only new surface water drainage infrastructure that is being designed to 1:100 plus 50% cc as these are new standards being implemented on all new developments across the Island.
The existing SW system on Vollan Crescent was designed to the appropriate standards when the first phase the Royal Park development was constructed with capacity included for future development flows.
Regards Ian
From: Balmer, Chris Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024 9:54 AM To: Wade, Ian Subject: RE: 23/00744/B - The Vollan
Hi Ian,
Thanks for below. I am reading through concerns of neighbours and one matter that has been raised is while the proposed drainage systems meet the 1 in 100 plus 50%, do the existing drains which the new ones would connect into meet this/be able to cope?
Kind Regards Chris
Any views expressed in this email are those of the officeronlyand are without prejudice to any formal decision made under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and any relevant secondary legislation.
Please be aware that should the content of this email be materially relevant to a planning application, its content may be published as detail relevant to the formal assessment of the application. Publication will include availability via online services.
From: Wade, Ian Sent: 28 June 2024 13:53 To: Balmer, Chris Subject: RE: 23/00744/B - The Vollan
Hi Chris,
I refer to the recent drainage proposals submitted by the applicant detailing the installation of land drainage around several properties to allay concerns over waterlogged ground in these areas. Although these proposals are supported by Manx Utilities, these drainage runs would not be considered for public adoption, with only the main wastewater and surface water sewers and associated manholes being adopted.
The proposed land drainage would remain private with the relevant landowner being responsible for future maintenance.
The above comments are in addition to those issued by MU in the email dated 8th May 2024 (copy attached).
Regards Ian
PO BOX 177 · DOUGLAS · ISLE OF MAN · IM99 1PS · BRITISH ISLES tel: +44 (1624) 693511 · e-mail: ian.wade@manxutilities.im mob: +44 (7624) 451678 · web: www.manxutilities.im
please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?
From: Balmer, Chris Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 8:54 AM To: Cowin, Malcolm (FMD) ; Wade, Ian ; Dainton, Peter ; Kershaw, Chris Subject: 23/00744/B - The Vollan Importance: High
Morning All, Would you please be able to provide formal comments to the recently submitted drainage information? I understand you may have indicated to applicants that you had no concerns; however, if you could provide the Department with your thoughts, that would be good. I hope to update my report asap (deadline this Friday) for the next Planning Committee meeting. Kind Regards Chris
Any views expressed in this email are those of the officeronlyand are without prejudice to any formal decision made under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and any relevant secondary legislation.
Please be aware that should the content of this email be materially relevant to a planning application, its content may be published as detail relevant to the formal assessment of the application. Publication will include availability via online services.
CHRIS BALMER - MA (Hons), MTCP, MRTPI PRINCIPAL PLANNER
Direct Tel: +44 (0) 1624 685908 Office Tel: +44 (0) 1624 685950 Email: chris.balmer@gov.im
Web: https://www.gov.im/categories/planning-and-building-control/ Address: Planning & Building Control Directorate, Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture (DEFA), Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2SF
###### HIGHWAYS DEVELOPMENT CONTROL Planning Application Response
Email: highwaysdevelopmentcontrol@gov.im Officer: RW
Date of Response: 18 October 2023 Date of Application: 29 Jun 2023 (revised information 12 October 2023) Application Reference: 23/00744/B Location Address: Land At Vollan Field No's 131042, 131043, 135315 And 135318 Land East Of Royal Park Field No's 131085 And 135140 Andreas Road Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 4EA Description: Full approval for a residential development comprising up to 153 dwellings and community uses with associated highway and pedestrian access and infrastructure, drainage, landscaping and public open space together with approval in principle for a primary school on land at Vollan Fields together with enhancement of existing habitat on land to the east of Royal Park Highways Comments: Proposal: The proposed development comprises of 153 dwellings, community centre, small shops, public open spaces and an outline proposal for a primary school, associated with highway and pedestrian access and infrastructure, drainage, landscaping together with enhancement to existing habitat on land to the east of Royal Park. The proposals would require S4 and S109 agreements for highway adoptions and off-site highway works. The applicant has had pre-application discussions with DOI Highway Services regarding the TA for the development, and access and layout design. This DOI Highway Services response is in relation to a second submission to the application with revised Transport Assessment information and plans submitted in October 2023 after further discussions between the applicant and DOI Highway Services. Outstanding items to address from previous HDC response dated 20 July 2023: The applicant has provided additional information and plans in October 2023 to address items from DOI Highway Services previous response dated 20 July 2023. It is advised that an electronic copy of the supplementary TA dated 12 October 2023 online is uploaded as a direct pdf rather than a scan of a paper file as the quality and detail of the plans is not clear for readers. However, DOI Highway Services have seen a direct pdf copy of the plans and can respond to each point as itemised summary as follows:
- 1. Traffic calming measures and crossing warning signs should be considered on Bride Road and Andreas Road – the applicant has proposed suitable traffic calming measures on Andreas Road and Bride Road as shown on plans GA-001, GA-002 and GA-007.
- 2. Explain omission or re-submit Station Road accident data within the TA – the applicant has adequately explained the situation and therefore this item is addressed.
- 3. The main arterial road should be traffic calmed and pedestrian crossings prioritised – pedestrian desire lines between the mixed use area and northern part of the site, between the open spaces and between the primary school area and the dwellings should be enhanced, such as raised crossings or junction features – the applicant have provided suitable features to the main arterial road and therefore this item has been addressed.
- 4. Junction accesses onto Bride Road and Andreas Road, and pedestrian crossing on Bride Road - visibility splays for these accesses and pedestrian crossing should be confirmed to be adopted and made into footways – the applicant has provided additional footway where available and suitable, and provided deterrent paving at locations to protect visibility splays for accesses and pedestrian crossings. Therefore, this item has been addressed. The exact design of the paving that will be adopted will be agreed in future design and Road Safety Audit stages.
- 5. New footways fronting Bride Road should be extended to link existing footways in front of properties to the north of Bride Road, to secure adopted visibility splays at the vehicular and pedestrian crossings and to encourage pedestrian trips to/from the site – similar to item 4 above, the applicant has provided additional footway where available and suitable, and provided deterrent paving at locations to protect visibility splays for accesses and pedestrian crossings. Therefore, this item has been addressed. The exact design of the paving that will be adopted will be agreed in future design and Road Safety Audit stages.
- 6. New footways fronting Andreas Road should be extended to adopted visibility splays and to encourage pedestrian trips to/from the site - similar to items 4 and 5 above, the applicant has provided additional footway where available and suitable, and provided deterrent paving at locations to protect visibility splays for accesses and pedestrian crossings. Therefore, this item has been addressed. The exact design of the paving that will be adopted will be agreed in future design and Road Safety Audit stages.
- 7. Uninterrupted and safe/prioritised pedestrian connections to the nursery from the surrounding dwellings should be considered – the applicant has now provided a direct crossing from the surrounding dwellings through the car park on the layout plan and therefore this item has been addressed.
- 8. Adopted margin of 600mm width should be provided on the proposed adopted roads where footway is omitted on one side. – this has been addressed on the revised layout plan.
- 9. Bus stop improvements should be proposed on Bride Road and Andreas Road – consultation with the Bus Vannin department should be undertaken to see what facilities would achieve the best outcome to encourage users of the site to use public transport – the applicant has provided bus stops on Bride Road has requested by Bus Vannin on the revised off-site highway works plans which therefore addresses this item. No bus stop shelters were recommended on Andreas Road by Bus Vannin.
- 10. The pedestrian crossing at the vehicular access on Bride Road would result in pedestrians crossing behind a stopped bus – this should be moved to the rear of the bus when it is stopped as vehicles are approaching the stopped bus – the applicant has moved the crossing between the two bus stops which addresses this condition.
- 11. The applicant should propose MOVA installation at the Parliament square signals, via a S109 agreement, to offset the traffic impacts of the development – the applicant has agreed to fund MOVA installation at this signals which is welcomed and therefore addresses this item.
- 12. PERS Study for Ramsey – applicant should suggest improvements funded by the development based on the audit recommendations as well as maximising/prioritising improvements to encourage sustainable travel from the site to/from Ramsey centre – the applicant has agreed to provide improvements to pedestrian access in Ramsey to the site, as per the off-site highway plan proposals, which is welcomed and therefore addresses this item. The exact design of the improvements will be agreed in future design and Road Safety Audit stages.
- 13. Visitor parking for the dwellings within the private parking areas should be considered at 0.25 spaces per dwelling – the applicant has added visitor parking to these private parking areas which is welcomed.
- 14. Motorcycle parking for the community centre and retails shops should be provided, and disable parking should be provided in front of the retail shops. Internal cycle parking stores for the nursery, community hall and retail shops staff should be provided – the applicant has provided cycle, motorcycle and disabled parking as requested so this item has been addressed. Details of the cycle facilities should be conditioned on permission.
- 15. The applicant should re-assess the lay-by layout for retail shops deliveries and bin store including demonstrating swept path tracking of appropriately large delivery/refuge vehicles to use the bay safely. – the lay-by has been altered to address this item.
- 16. Flood risk issues, and surface water drainage not draining onto the existing and new public highway, need to be resolved with DOI Flood Risk and Drainage Teams. – further comments by DOI Flood Risk and Drainage Teams are needed to address any outstanding issues for this item. Planning Conditions:
DOI Highway Services request the following conditions (the drawing numbers below are in relation to plans within the Supplementary TA dated 12 October 2023):
- a) Site access and layout to:
- a. GA-001 – Proposed Site Access Andreas Road
- b. GA-002 – Proposed Site Access Via Bride Road
- c. GA-007 – Proposed Pedestrian Crossing – Bride Road
- d. GA-015 – Proposed Site Layout - Highways Adopted Plan
- e. 06 – Proposed Site Plan
- b) Provision of visibility splays for Bridge Road and Andreas Road accesses and crossings as per approved plans GA-001, GA-002 and GA-007 implemented before first occupation.
- c) Provision of visibility splays for internal site layout accesses and internal bend forward visibilities as per approved plan GA-005 implemented before first occupation and retained for the lifetime of the development.
- d) Boundary frontages onto the proposed adopted highway for all dwellings must be no more than 1m in height and pedestrian inter-visibility for driveways onto path / public road connections of 2 x 2m must be retained without visibility obstructions for the lifetime of the development.
- e) Gradients: No residential driveway shall exceed gradients of 15% for the first 5.0m. No pedestrian or cycle path shall exceed gradients of 7%.
- f) Provision of surfacing for parking and movement areas: Prior to the first occupation of the development, private drives, driveways and associated parking areas, local centre circulation and associated parking area must be properly consolidated and hard surfaced and drained and maintained in good working order.
- g) Completion of streets: Before any dwelling is first occupied the roads and footways shall be constructed to an appropriate level from the dwelling to the adjoining street and public highway at Andreas and Bride Road (in accordance with the phasing plan TBA?) to ensure streets are completed prior to occupation and satisfactory development of the site.
- h) Car Parking as per approved layout plans to be retained for the lifetime of the development.
- i) Cycle sheds and secure covered parking for non-garaged dwelling units to accommodate one space per bedroom with details required for approval and provided before first occupation.
- j) Cycle parking for staff and visitors at local centre- details to be submitted for approval and provided before first occupation.
- k) Offsite works:
- a. 4 Bus stop shelters, with details to be agreed with planning authority, shall be provided on Bride Road (2 in each direction) before first occupation of the site.
- b. Pedestrian improvements as per plans GA-001, GA-002, GA-007, GA-101, GA-102, GA-103, GA-104, GA-105, GA-106, GA-108, GA-109, GA-110, GA-112, GA-113, GA-114; to be completed before occupation of the site.
- l) Construction Traffic Management Plan - details required for approval.
- m) Travel Plan approved: The Framework Travel Plan hereby approved shall be implemented in accordance with the measures therein.
Contributions: S13 financial contribution for MOVA installation at Ramsey Parliament Square signals on commencement of the development – likely to be no more than £15,000. Reserved matters: Access, layout, lay-bys and car parking to be agreed for the primary school in a future planning application. Conclusions: The applicant has addressed all items requested by DOI Highway Services in previous response to the application dated 20 July 2023 and the development provides suitable access, layout, road safety, accessibility and off-site highway works proposals. Accordingly, DOI Highway Services do not oppose (DNOC) this application subject to conditions and a S13 contribution for the MOVA installation at Parliament Square signals. Separate permissions will be necessary with the DOI Highway Services after grant of planning consent to transfer streets from private to public ownership as highway maintainable at public expense under a S4 Highway Agreement and for works in the highway under a S109(A) Highway Agreement. Highway Licences apply for temporary closures and traffic management on the public highway etc. Recommendation: DNOC Code definition:
DNO – Do not oppose DNOC – Do not oppose subject to condition NHI – No highways interest O – Oppose.
From: Webster, Richard To: DEFA, Planning; Foster, Dawn; Stewart, Helen Subject: RE: Planning Application Number 23/00744/B (updated HDC response to upload please) Date: 06 March 2024 15:32:22
Hi Helen, Dawn,
Highway Services HDC have reviewed the updated information submitted online for the above application within the 8 Mar 2024 publication list and HDC cannot offer anymore comments to that made on 18 Oct 2023. Accordingly, HDC still do not oppose (DNOC) the application subject to a conditions outlined in the HDC comments on 18 Oct 2023 - please note that the drawing revision numbers have changed but the general drawing numbers stated in the response are still the same.
Kind Regards,
Richard Webster l Senior Highways Development Engineer Highway Services l Department of Infrastructure
DD Email: Richard.Webster@gov.im @ Website: www.gov.im/infrastructure
http://www.twitter.com/iominfra http://www.facebook.com/iominfrastructure Please don't print this email unless you really need to. DOI Values: Communication; Respect; Teamwork; Recognition; Trust; Customer Service.
From: Costain, Sophie (DEFA) To: DEFA, Planning Subject: PA 23/00744/B - Residential Development, The Vollan Fields, Ramsey Date: 08 March 2024 15:54:36 Attachments: image001.png
Good afternoon PA 23/00744/B - Residential Development, The Vollan Fields, Ramsey
The Ecosystem Policy Team can now confirm that a suitable level of ecological assessment has been undertaken and we are content with the following submitted information-
· Manx Wildlife Trust’s (MWT) 2 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Reports (PEAR) for the Vollan Fields A and the Vollan Fields B, both dated March 2023. · Isle of Man Fungus Group’s 2 Vollan Fields Survey Reports – The first for Fields
1 -3 and the second for fields 4-7. · MWT’s Bat Activity Report for the Vollan Fields dated December 2023. · MWT’s Breeding Bird Survey Report for the Vollan Fields dated December 2023. · MWT’s Habitat Enhancement Works – Land East of Royal Park dated March
2023 · Hartford Homes’ Wildlife Mitigation Plan dated February 2023 (drawing No. 13 Rev A) · Hartford Homes’ Construction Environmental Management Plan for the Vollan Fields dated January 2024. · Hartford Home’s Landscape Masterplan (Drawing No. 01 Rev K)
We can also confirm that the applicants have adequately dealt concerns raised in our original response to this application dated 21st July 2023.
The main ecological mitigation is to be provided off-site in field’s numbered 131085 and
135140. Basic details are provided in ‘MWT’s Habitat Enhancement Works – Land East of Royal Park’ dated March 2023. A more detailed habitat creation and management plan incorporating 30 years of ongoing management, timescales for planting and protection measures for rare fungi (See the Isle of Man Fungus Group’s Survey of Vollan Fields 1-3), will need to be secured via a Section 13 Agreement which Hartford Homes have already agreed to in section 2.65 of their ‘Statement in response to Third Party Consultations’ dated February 2024.
As well as this S13 Agreement, the Ecosystem Policy Team also request that the following conditions are secured on approval:
· No works to commence unless details of a suitably qualified Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) have been submitted to Planning and approved in writing. The ECoW shall the be responsible for overseeing the various wildlife mitigation measures and the protection measures contained in the Construction Environmental Management Plan, throughout the duration of construction works;
· All works to be undertaken in accordance with the Hartford Homes’ Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) for the Vollan Fields dated January 2024;
· All works to be undertaken in full accordance with Hartford Homes’ Wildlife Mitigation Plan dated February 2023 (drawing No. 13 Rev A); · All works to be undertaken in full accordance with Hartford Home’s Landscape Masterplan (Drawing No. 01 Rev K); · No works to commence unless a landscaping schedule has been provided to
Planning and approved in writing.
To note: The MWT recommended in their PEAR dated March 2023 that a 20m buffer between the woodland to the north of field 135316 and any development should be maintained. This was reduced to 7m buffer following the bat survey, on the condition that an area of tall trees was to be planted in this area to shield the woodland from the development and any artificial lighting. These trees need to be planted early on in the construction period in order to give them a longer period to grow and provide this protection – thus the requirement for a landscaping schedule to secure planting at specific times.
· All works to be undertaken in full accordance with the tree retention and protection measures, including use of Construction Exclusion Areas, shown in Manx Roots Tree Protection Plan North East (Drawing No. TP-061222-NE_revD) and Tree Protection Plan South-East (TP-061222-SW_revD );
· No works to commence until a sensitive low level lighting plan, following best practise as detailed in the Bat Conservation Trust and Institute of Lighting Professionals Guidance Note 8/23 on Bats and Artificial Lighting (2023), has been submitted to Planning and approved in writing. All works must then be undertaken in full accordance with this plan;
· The standard replanting condition for the replacement of any tree or shrub which dies or becomes damaged within 5 years from the date of planting, should be applied.
Best wishes
###### Sophie
Miss S Costain, Ecosystem Policy Officer Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture, Thie Slieau Whallian, Foxdale Road, St Johns, Isle of Man, IM4 3AS Tel +44 (0)1624 685963 Mob +44 (0)7624 431301 Fax +44 (0)1624 685851 Email sophie.costain@gov.im or ecopolicy@gov.im Website: www.gov.im/defa DEFA - working for a clean, safe, healthy, attractive and vibrant environment which will be enjoyed by present and future generations alike.
Our Island, Our Environment, Our Future.
Working Together for a Sustainable Future Gobbragh Cooidjagh Son Traa Ry-Heet Shassooagh
Sent: 29 April 2024 08:39 To: DEFA, Planning Subject: FW: 23/00744/B _ Vollan, Ramsey
Categories: Dan
From: Costain, Sophie (DEFA) Sent: 26 April 2024 18:20 To: Maria Sheridan ; Balmer, Chris Cc: Paul Brew ; David Green Subject: RE: 23/00744/B _ Vollan, Ramsey
Good afternoon all The Ecosystem Policy Team have read through the wader report and as you report below, Ecology Vannin found no evidence of use of any of the fields by waders. No further avoidance and mitigation measures are therefore required, above that which you have already provided details of and which we have requested conditions on approval for previously. Best wishes
Miss S Costain, Ecosystem Policy Officer Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture, Thie Slieau Whallian, Foxdale Road, St Johns, Isle of Man, IM4 3AS Tel +44 (0)1624 685963 Mob +44 (0)7624 431301 Fax +44 (0)1624 685851 Email sophie.costain@gov.im or ecopolicy@gov.im Website: www.gov.im/defa DEFA - working for a clean, safe, healthy, attractive and vibrant environment which will be enjoyed by present and future generations alike.
Our Island, Our Environment, Our Future. Working Together for a Sustainable Future Gobbragh Cooidjagh Son Traa Ry-Heet Shassooagh From: Maria Sheridan
- Sent: 26 April 2024 17:32 To: Balmer, Chris Cc: Paul Brew ; David Green ; Costain, Sophie (DEFA) Subject: RE: 23/00744/B _ Vollan, Ramsey
###### Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please take care before opening any attachments or following any links.
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the update on commi ee dates. I called earlier and le a message with your colleague Jason. I wanted to let you know that we now have a report on a recently completed Wading Bird survey. This is the final ecology survey as recommended in the submi ed Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. The findings iden fy no evidence of wader use in either the proposed development site or the habitat enhancement area. Can you advise on the consulta on period for this addi onal technical document please? We don’t want to delay the commi ee date so would be willing for the survey to be condi oned if needed. Kind regards
Maria Sheridan Associate Delta Planning
T: 079833 27720 E: maria@deltaplanning.co.uk
Cornwall Buildings, 45 Newhall Street, Birmingham, B3 3QR | Tel: 0121 285 1244 | www.deltaplanning.co.uk
Delta Planning is the trading name of Delta Planning & Development Consultancy Ltd. Registered in England and Wales No. 7629341. Please consider the environment before printing this email. The information contained in this email and any attachments may be confidential and legally privileged and is intended for the named recipients only. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender immediately, destroy any copies of it, and note that any disclosure, reproduction or dissemination of its contents is strictly prohibited.
From: Balmer, Chris Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 8:00 AM To: Maria Sheridan Subject: RE: 23/00744/B _ Vollan, Ramsey
Hi Maria, The application won’t be going to the PC on the 7th May. I have blanked out the next two weeks to finish my report, so I am hopeful to get the application to the PC on the 20th May. If you email me this time next week, I will be able to give a further update. Kind Regards Chris
Any views expressed in this email are those of the officer only and are without prejudice to any formal decision made under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and any relevant secondary legislation.
Please be aware that should the content of this email be materially relevant to a planning application, its content may be published as detail relevant to the formal assessment ofthe application. Publication will include availability via online services.
Sent: 09 May 2024 10:22 To: DEFA, Planning Subject: FW: 23/00744/B Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: Dan From: Swithinbank, Sebastian
- Sent: 09 May 2024 10:18 To: Balmer, Chris Cc: Harrison, Charles Subject: RE: 23/00744/B Morning Chris,
The application involves the removal of two category B sycamore trees. This would usually result in an objection under the Tree Protection Policy, in this instance, however, we will be withholding our objection due to the scale of the mitigation proposed, and the limited contribution the trees make to the landscape due to their limited size and age. If this application is approved, I recommend that a detailed planting plan including species of trees, size at the time of planting, planting methodology, and aftercare plan, is requested as a pre‐commencement condition, as well as adherence to the tree protection plan that has already been provided.
Best regards, Seb
Sebastian Swithinbank | Arboricultural Officer Forestry, Amenity and Lands Directorate | Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Thie Slieau Whallian | Foxdale Road | St Johns | Isle of Man | IM4 3AS E‐MAIL: Sebastian.Swithinbank@gov.im | MOB: +44 7624 244279
From: Balmer, Chris Sent: 07 May 2024 11:22 To: Swithinbank, Sebastian ; Harrison, Charles Subject: 23/00744/B Importance: High
Morning, I am just competing my report (report needs to be complete by end of week). I note we haven’t received any tree related comments (application was submitted last year). There are a number of tree documents included in the submission. Would you please be able to comment? Kind Regards Chris
Any views expressed in this email are those of the officer only and are without prejudice to any formal decision made under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 andany relevant secondary legislation.
Please be aware that should the content of this email be materially relevant to a planning application, its content may be published as detail relevant to the formal assessment of the application. Publication will include availability via online services.
CHRIS BALMER - MA (Hons), MTCP, MRTPI PRINCIPAL PLANNER
Direct Tel: +44 (0) 1624 685908 Office Tel: +44 (0) 1624 685950 Email: chris.balmer@gov.im
Web: https://www.gov.im/categories/planning‐and‐building‐control/ Address: Planning & Building Control Directorate, Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture (DEFA), Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2SF
From: Woods, Brett To: DEFA, Planning Cc: Kermode, Gary; Brown, Diane (CO) Subject: PA 23.00744.B Full approval for a residential development, 153 dwellings, land at Vollan Field, Ramsey.docx Date: 20 August 2023 14:21:28 Attachments: PA 23.00744.B Full approval for a residential development, 153 dwellings, land at Vollan Field, Ramsey.docx
Good afternoon Please see attached Memorandum from DOI Public Estates and Housing regarding the provision of affordable housing requirements on the subject site. If you have any queries regarding the foregoing please do not hesitate to contact us. Many thanks Brett Woods
Head of Commercial Public Estates and Housing Division Department of Infrastructure, Isle of Man Government Sea Terminal Building Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2RF
Tel: 01624 685940 Fax: 01624 685933 email: brett.woods@gov.im
PPlease don't print this email unless you really need to
Warning: If you are not the intended addressee of this e-mail, you must not copy or deliver it to anyone else or use it in any unauthorised manner
###### Department of Infrastructure Public Estates and Housing Division Sea Terminal Building, Douglas
###### Memorandum
To: Secretary of the Planning Committee From: B Woods, Public Estates and Housing Division Copy to: G. Kermode, Director of Public Estates and Housing, DOI D Brown, Planning Policy Manager, Cabinet Office Date: 18th July 2023
RE: PA23/00744/B –Full approval for a residential development comprising up to 153 dwellings and community uses with associated highway and pedestrian access and infrastructure, Land at Vollan Fields and land to the east of Royal Park and Andreas Road, Ramsey IM7 4EA
We refer to the aforementioned planning application, and we can confirm that we have looked at the detail of the application and have considered the provision of a 25% Affordable Housing requirement. We have held preliminary discussions with the applicant who has included in the current application for the provision of 38 affordable homes, comprising two-bed and three-bed dwellings.
Current data drawn from Housing Division records for the North of the Island indicates that there are 63 persons on the general public sector waiting list for affordable housing to rent in the north.
There are 47 persons on the First-time Buyers Register seeking to purchase a first home in the north of the Island. Of this number, 41 are on the Active Purchaser List seeking to purchase a home within the next 12-18 months. This figure is not indicative of likely final purchases as the ability to progress to completion would depend upon personal circumstances and mortgage ability at point of allocation.
The department would request that consideration be given by the Planning Committee to include a requirement, in respect of any approval granted for this site, for the applicant to enter into a Section 13 Agreement with the Department to provide affordable housing, based upon the usual calculation of 25% of the number of units approved within the application, this being 38.25 comprising 38 affordable dwellings and a Commuted Sum in lieu of 0.25 of an affordable unit. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the proposal.
###### B.L.Woods Public Estates & Housing Division
From: Balmer, Chris To: DEFA, Planning Subject: FW: 23/00744/b - Vollan Fields Date: 21 February 2024 08:36:57
Please as a rep from Estate and Housing ujih Kind Regards Chris
Any views expressed in this email are those of the officer only and are without prejudice to any formal decision made under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and any relevant secondary legislation.
Please be aware that should the content of this email be materially relevant to a planning application, its content may be published as detail relevant to the formal assessment of the application. Publication will include availability via online services.
From: Woods, Brett Sent: 20 February 2024 21:05 To: Balmer, Chris Subject: Re: 23/00744/b - Vollan Fields
###### Happy with the 10k if the applicant is. Get Outlook for iOS
From: Balmer, Chris Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 7:52:01 AM To: Woods, Brett Subject: RE: 23/00744/b - Vollan Fields
Hi Brett Thanks for email. I had also asked the applicants on this issue (see below and their response in red) and they have said £10,000. Happy to go with the higher figure but they may ask why it has changed?
“I have also sought advice from Estate and Housing for the value of the commuted sum for the 0.25 in the shortfall of affordable homes. I will let you know what that is once I have it. We have been in contact with the DOI and agreed a £10,000 contribution for the shortfall.”
Kind Regards Chris
Any views expressed in this email are those of the officer only and are without prejudice to any formal decision made under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and any relevant secondary legislation.
Please be aware that should the content of this email be materially relevant to a planning application, its content may be published as detail relevant to the formal assessment of the application. Publication will include availability via online services.
From: Woods, Brett Sent: 19 February 2024 17:43 To: Balmer, Chris Subject: RE: 23/00744/b - Vollan Fields
Hi Chris
We don’t have a lot of up to date comparables but would expect about £7,500 in this location for 0.25 of a Commuted Sum, equating of course to £30k for a Sum in lieu of one affordable dwelling.
Kind regards Brett
From: Balmer, Chris Sent: 19 February 2024 12:34 To: Woods, Brett Subject: 23/00744/b - Vollan Fields
Hi Brett Hope you are well? You have already made comments for the above where you ask for the 38.25 units, with the 0.25 being commuted sum. Can you advises what value this 0.25 would be please? Kind Regards Chris
Any views expressed in this email are those of the officer only and are without prejudice to any formal decision made under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and any relevant secondary legislation.
Please be aware that should the content of this email be materially relevant to a planning application, its content may be published as detail relevant to the formal assessment of the application. Publication will include availability via online services.
CHRIS BALMER - MA (Hons), MTCP, MRTPI PRINCIPAL PLANNER
Planning & Building Control Directorate, Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture (DEFA), Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas, Isle of Man, im1 2sf
Tel: 44+ (0) 1624 – 685908 - Fax: 44+ (0) 1624 – 686443 Email: chris.balmer@gov.im Web: www.gov.im/categories/planning-and-building-control
###### PPlease don't print this email unless you really need to
###### Spencer, Daniel
From: Balmer, Chris Sent: 14 May 2024 10:02 To: DEFA, Planning Subject: FW: 23/00744/B Attachments: Table Set 2- North.pdf; North Maps.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: Dan
###### Please add as rep from Planning Policy (Cabinet Office)
From: Grubb, Ethan Sent: 13 May 2024 14:26 To: Balmer, Chris Subject: RE: 23/00744/B
Hi Chris, Sorry Chris it was just me in on Friday and it was the deadline day for registrations for the North and West! See attached and this has been sent to GTS to upload. Table Set 2 Page 3 indicates that there is a need for 84 units in the North to meet the 770 housing ambition. Do you know what time on the 20th? Kind regards, Ethan
|An 2
An 3
|Map produced by the Department of Infrastructure Mapping Service
and Cabinet Office Planning Policy. © Crown Copyright. Department of Infrastructure, Isle of Man. Reproduction of map in any form prohibited without prior permission from the publishers.
1:9,000
0 50 100 200 300 400 Meters
Scale|
|---|
|Legend
| |
|---|
Residential Land Avaliability 2024
Land No Longer Avaliable|
|---|
|Residential Land Avaliability Update 17
North Map 1: Andreas|
|---|
|
|---|
|Ba 2
Ba 3
Ba 1
|Map produced by the Department of Infrastructure Mapping Service
and Cabinet Office Planning Policy. © Crown Copyright. Department of Infrastructure, Isle of Man. Reproduction of map in any form prohibited without prior permission from the publishers.
1:5,000
0 50 100 200 Meters
Scale|
|---|
|Legend
| |
|---|
Residential Land Avaliability 2024
Land No Longer Avaliable|
|---|
|Residential Land Avaliability Update 17
North Map 2: Ballaugh|
|---|
|
|---|
|Bri 1
|Map produced by the Department of Infrastructure Mapping Service
and Cabinet Office Planning Policy. © Crown Copyright. Department of Infrastructure, Isle of Man. Reproduction of map in any form prohibited without prior permission from the publishers.
1:3,000
0 50 100 Meters
Scale|
|---|
|Legend
| |
|---|
Residential Land Avaliability 2024
Land No Longer Avaliable|
|---|
|Residential Land Avaliability Update 17
North Map 3: Bride|
|---|
|
|---|
|Ju 1
Ju 3
Ju 2
|Map produced by the Department of Infrastructure Mapping Service
and Cabinet Office Planning Policy. © Crown Copyright. Department of Infrastructure, Isle of Man. Reproduction of map in any form prohibited without prior permission from the publishers.
1:7,000
0 50 100 200 300 Meters
Scale|
|---|
|Legend
| |
|---|
Residential Land Avaliability 2024
Land No Longer Avaliable|
|---|
|Residential Land Avaliability Update 17
North Map 4: Jurby|
|---|
|
|---|
|Le 3
Le 5
Le 4
|Map produced by the Department of Infrastructure Mapping Service
and Cabinet Office Planning Policy. © Crown Copyright. Department of Infrastructure, Isle of Man. Reproduction of map in any form prohibited without prior permission from the publishers.
1:5,000
0 50 100 200 Meters
Scale|
|---|
|Legend
| |
|---|
Residential Land Avaliability 2024
Land No Longer Avaliable|
|---|
|Residential Land Avaliability Update 17
North Map 5: Lezayre (Sulby)|
|---|
|
|---|
|Le 7
|Map produced by the Department of Infrastructure Mapping Service
and Cabinet Office Planning Policy. © Crown Copyright. Department of Infrastructure, Isle of Man. Reproduction of map in any form prohibited without prior permission from the publishers.
1:7,000
0 50 100 200 300 Meters
Scale|
|---|
|Legend
| |
|---|
Residential Land Avaliability 2024
Land No Longer Avaliable|
|---|
|Residential Land Avaliability Update 17
North Map 6: Lezayre (Ramsey)|
|---|
|
|---|
|Mau 1
|Map produced by the Department of Infrastructure Mapping Service
and Cabinet Office Planning Policy. © Crown Copyright. Department of Infrastructure, Isle of Man. Reproduction of map in any form prohibited without prior permission from the publishers.
1:5,000
0 50 100 200 Meters
Scale|
|---|
|Legend
| |
|---|
Residential Land Avaliability 2024
Land No Longer Avaliable|
|---|
|Residential Land Avaliability Update 17
North Map 7: Maughold|
|---|
|
|---|
|Ra 10
Ra 1
Ra 6
Ra3
Ra5
|Ra 8
Legend
| |
|---|
Residential Land Avaliability 2024
Land No Longer Avaliable|
|---|
Ra 9
Ra 4 Ra 7
|Map produced by the Department of Infrastructure Mapping Service
and Cabinet Office Planning Policy. © Crown Copyright. Department of Infrastructure, Isle of Man. Reproduction of map in any form prohibited without prior permission from the publishers.
1:10,000
0 50 100 200 300 400 500 Meters
Scale|
|---|
|Residential Land Avaliability Update 17
North Map 8: Ramsey (North)|
|---|
|
|---|
|Ra 10
Le
|7
Legend
| |
|---|
Residential Land Avaliability 2024
Land No Longer Avaliable|
|---|
Ra 8
Ra 9
|Map produced by the Department of Infrastructure Mapping Service
and Cabinet Office Planning Policy. © Crown Copyright. Department of Infrastructure, Isle of Man. Reproduction of map in any form prohibited without prior permission from the publishers.
1:5,000
0 50 100 200 Meters
Scale|
|---|
|Residential Land Avaliability Update 17
North Map 9: Ramsey (West)|
|---|
|
|---|
|Ra 13
Ra 14
Ra 12
Ra 11
|Map produced by the Department of Infrastructure Mapping Service
and Cabinet Office Planning Policy. © Crown Copyright. Department of Infrastructure, Isle of Man. Reproduction of map in any form prohibited without prior permission from the publishers.
1:4,000
0 50 100 200 Meters
Scale|
|---|
|Legend
| |
|---|
Residential Land Avaliability 2024
Land No Longer Avaliable|
|---|
|Residential Land Avaliability Update 17
North Map 10: Ramsey (South)|
|---|
|
|---|
|RM002
RM003
RM006
RM004
RM005
|Map produced by the Department of Infrastructure Mapping Service
and Cabinet Office Planning Policy. © Crown Copyright. Department of Infrastructure, Isle of Man. Reproduction of map in any form prohibited without prior permission from the publishers.
1:3,544
0 50 100 Meters
Scale|
|---|
|Legend
| |
|---|
Residential Land Avaliability 2024
Land No Longer Avaliable|
|---|
|Residential Land Avaliability Update 17
North Map 11: Ramsey (Centre)|
|---|
|
|---|
RLA Update 17, 2001-2024
North, 1st January 2001 to 2nd April 2024
|Parish|New dwellings on land designated 'proposed' on 1982 Plan or relevant Local Plan including land subject to specific development briefs|New dwellings on land designated 'predominantly residential' (includes mixed use)|New dwellings approved on land zoned other than residential (apps. of less than 25 units taken as 'windfalls')|Conversions|New dwellings in the countryside i.e. on land not zoned for development|Parish Totals|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Andreas|91|11|0|16|12|130|
|Ballaugh|4|4|0|16|8|32|
|Bride|0|3|0|10|6|19|
|Jurby|73|51|26|7|5|162|
|Lezayre|34|17|2|17|19|89|
|Maughold|1|10|0|11|4|26|
|Ramsey|487|368|50|126|0|1031|
| | | | | | | |
|Totals|690|464|78|203|54| |
|Total new builds|1286| | | | | |
|Total new + conversions|1489| | | | | |
North, 1st July 2011 to 2nd April 2024
|Parish|New dwellings on land designated 'proposed' on 1982 Plan or relevant Local Plan including land subject to specific development briefs|New dwellings on land designated 'predominantly residential' (includes mixed use)|New dwellings approved on land zoned other than residential (apps. of less than 25 units taken as 'windfalls')|Conversions|New dwellings in the countryside i.e. on land not zoned for development|Parish Totals|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Andreas|17|2|0|4|2|25|
|Ballaugh|0|2|0|8|1|11|
|Bride|0|2|0|3|2|7|
|Jurby|73|36|22|3|3|137|
|Lezayre|9|11|2|3|8|33|
|Maughold|0|5|0|3|0|8|
|Ramsey|164|170|50|63|0|447|
| | | | | | | |
|Totals|263|228|74|87|16| |
|Total new builds|581| | | | | |
|Total new + conversions|668| | | | | |
Table Set 2 - North (2001-2024) Housing Figures for the North, Page 1
###### North, 1st January 2001 to 2nd April 2024
|Parish|New builds approved between 1st January 2001 and 2nd April 2024|Conversions approved between 1st January 2001 and 2nd April 2024|Projected conversions 2001 to 2016 [conversion figure ÷ 23.5 (past years) x 0 (years remaining)]*|No. of approved units considered as 'windfalls'|Projected windfalls 2001 to 2016 [windfall figure ÷ 23.5 (past years) x 0 (years remaining)*|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Andreas|114|16| |0| |
|Ballaugh|16|16| |0| |
|Bride|9|10| |0| |
|Jurby|129|7| |26| |
|Lezayre|70|17| |2| |
|Maughold|15|11| |0| |
|Ramsey|855|126| |10| |
| | | | | | |
|Totals|1208|203|0|38|0|
|Total new + conversions|1411| | | | |
|Total new + conversions + conversion projections|1411| | | | |
|Total new + conversions + conversion and windfall projections|1411| | | | |
|Number of units needed up to 2016 to meet the Strategic Plan housing target of 1200|-211| | | | |
* The conversion and windfall projection figures have been rounded up or down to the nearest whole number where appropriate.
Table Set 2 - North (2001 - 2024 summary) Housing Figures for the North, Page 2
###### North, 1st January 2011 to 2nd April 2024
|Parish|New builds approved between 1st January 2011 and 2nd April 2024|Conversions approved between 1st January 2011 and 2nd April 2024|Projected conversions 2024 to 2026 [conversion figure ÷ 153 (past months) x 23 (months remaining)]*|No. of approved units considered as 'windfalls'|Projected windfalls 2024 to 2026 [windfall figure ÷ 153 (past months) x 23 (months remaining)]*|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Andreas|21|4| |0| |
|Ballaugh|3|8| |0| |
|Bride|4|3| |0| |
|Jurby|134|3| |22| |
|Lezayre|30|3| |2| |
|Maughold|5|3| |0| |
|Ramsey|384|63| |10| |
| | | | | | |
|Totals|581|87|13|34|5|
|Total new + conversions|668| | | | |
|Total new + conversions + conversion projections|681| | | | |
|Total new + conversions + conversion and windfall projections|686| | | | |
|Number of units needed up to 2026 to meet the Strategic Plan housing target of 770 units|84| | | | |
* The conversion and windfall projection figures have been rounded up or down to the nearest whole number where appropriate.
Table Set 2 - North (2011 - 2024 summary) Housing Figures for the North, Page 3
###### North, 30th June 2023 to 2nd April 2024
|Parish|New dwellings on land designated 'proposed' on 1982 Plan or relevant Local Plan including land subject to specific development briefs|New dwellings on land designated 'predominantly residential' (includes mixed use)|New dwellings approved on land zoned other than residential|Conversions|New dwellings in the countryside i.e. on land not zoned for development|Parish Totals|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Andreas|0|0|0|0|0|0|
|Ballaugh|0|0|0|0|0|0|
|Bride|0|0|0|1|0|1|
|Jurby|73|2|0|0|2|77|
|Lezayre|0|0|0|1|0|1|
|Maughold|0|0|0|0|0|0|
|Ramsey|0|5|0|12|0|17|
| | | | | | | |
|Totals|73|7|0|14|2| |
|Total new builds|82| | | | | |
|Total new + conversions|96| | | | | |
Table Set 2 - North (2023-2024) Housing Figures for the North, Page 4
###### Spencer, Daniel
From: Balmer, Chris Sent: 13 May 2024 10:04 To: DEFA, Planning Subject: FW: Enquiry regarding healthcare provisions in Ramsey - 23/00744/B Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: Dan Please add as email between Manx Care and applicants (pre application stage). Kind Regards Chris
Any views expressed in this email are those of the officer only and are without prejudice to any formal decision made under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 andany relevant secondary legislation.
Please be aware that should the content of this email be materially relevant to a planning application, its content may be published as detail relevant to the formal assessment of the application. Publication will include availability via online services.
From: Phillips, Mandy On Behalf Of RGP, General
- Sent: 27 January 2023 11:24 To: George Li Subject: RE: Enquiry regarding healthcare provisions in Ramsey Good morning
- Many thanks or your emails. Its vey kind of you to think about the health needs of our community. Any development is always welcomed.
The problems within the NHS reach wider that the Island and there are no short term fixes. We cope quite well considering the pressures we are all under and are always actively trying to recruit, adapt, change and learn. I’m sure this will also be the case here.
Many thanks Mandy Mandy Phillips, Practice Manager, Member of the Institute of General Practice Managers, Ramsey Group Practice . Bowring Road. Ramsey . Isle of Man. IM8 3EY. T: 01624-813881 E:Mandy.Phillips@gov.im .ramseygrouppractice.co.uk
###### https://igpm.org.uk/
WARNING: This email message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. You must not copy or deliver it to any other person or use the contents in any unauthorised manner without the express permission of the sender. If you are not the intended addressee of this e-mail, please delete it and notify the sender as soon as possible.
Please consider the environment. Do not print off this e‐mail unless absolutely necessary – thank you.
From: George Li Sent: 26 January 2023 10:23 To: RGP, General Cc: Balmer, Chris ; Paul Brew Subject: RE: Enquiry regarding healthcare provisions in Ramsey
###### Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please take care before opening any attachments or following any links.
Good morning, Further to my email of the 3rd January, I was wondering whether you have had time to consider the questions which I raised? As alluded to in my email, the increase in resident numbers will be gradual, being spread over a number of years. Hopefully this is a situation the practice can manage and deal with given the timescale, and if this development proceeds. Kind regards George
From: George Li Sent: 03 January 2023 11:13 To: RGP.General@gov.im Cc: Balmer, Chris ; Paul Brew Subject: Enquiry regarding healthcare provisions in Ramsey
###### For the attention of the Practice Manager
Dear Sir / Madam, We are looking at a proposed development of approximately 156 new family homes in North Ramsey and would be grateful if you could advise on whether the local GP services can accommodate the additional residents.
The development is subject to planning approval, so is unlikely to commence on site until the start of 2024. Whilst some residents may relocate from existing homes in Ramsey, there will be an overall net increase in homes, which will result in an increase in resident numbers. The development will take approximately 2 to 3 years to complete, so the increase in potential patient numbers will be relatively gradual.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Kind regards George
______________________________________________________________________ This outbound email has been scanned by the Hartford Email Security System.
______________________________________________________________________
Privacy Notice: https://www.gov.im/about-the-government/statutory-boards/manx-care/manx-care-privacy-notice/
###### Isle of Man. Giving you freedom to flourish
WARNING: This email message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. You must not copy or deliver it to any other person or use the contents in any unauthorised manner without the express permission of the sender. If you are not the intended addressee of this email, please delete it and notify the sender as soon as possible.
No employee or agent is authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of any of the Departments or Statutory Boards of the Isle of Man Government with any party by e-mail without express written confirmation by a Manager of the relevant Department or Statutory Board.
RAAUE: S’preevaadjagh yn çhaghteraght post-l shoh chammah’s coadanyn erbee currit marish as ta shoh coadit ec y leigh. Cha nhegin diu coipal ny cur eh da peiagh erbee elley ny ymmydey yn chooid t’ayn er aght erbee dyn kied leayr veih’n choyrtagh. Mannagh nee shiu yn enmyssagh kiarit jeh’n phost-l shoh, doll-shiu magh eh, my sailliu, as cur-shiu fys da’n choyrtagh cha leah as oddys shiu.
Cha nel kied currit da failleydagh ny jantagh erbee conaant y yannoo rish peiagh ny possan erbee lesh post-l er son Rheynn ny Boayrd Slattyssagh erbee jeh Reiltys Ellan Vannin dyn co-niartaghey scruit leayr veih Reireyder y Rheynn ny Boayrd Slattyssagh t’eh bentyn rish.
______________________________________________________________________ This inbound email has been scanned by the Hartford Email Security System.
______________________________________________________________________
From: Balmer, Chris To: DEFA, Planning Subject: FW: 23/00744/B - Land At Vollan Field, Ramsey - Full approval for a residential development comprising up to 153 dwellings and
community uses and approval in principle for a primary school Date: 19 February 2024 14:12:58 Attachments: image001.png
Please add as comments between department and Manx Care Kind Regards Chris
Any views expressed in this email are those of the officer only and are without prejudice to any formal decision made under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and any relevant secondary legislation.
Please be aware that should the content of this email be materially relevant to a planning application, its content may be published as detail relevant to the formal assessment of the application. Publication will include availability via online services.
From: Radford, Oliver Sent: 19 February 2024 14:08 To: Balmer, Chris ; CO, Public Health ; DESC, Admin ; Collister, Richard (DEC) ; Barlow, Emma Cc: Phillips, Mandy Subject: RE: 23/00744/B - Land At Vollan Field, Ramsey - Full approval for a residential development comprising up to 153 dwellings and community uses and approval in principle for a primary school
Hi Chris
I’ve copied in Mandy Phillips who is the Practice Manager for Ramsey Group Practice who will be able to provide you with some feedback around GP provision both in terms of practice staffing as well as the premises.
In terms of dental provision, there is only one NHS dental provider in Ramsey which is Smile based in RDCH who are currently unable to fulfil their NHS contract due to dentist recruitment issues. Given we have no additional identified funding for provision of NHS dental services in the north (or indeed anywhere on island), the construction of additional properties in the north will place additional demand on the local NHS dental services which we will struggle to accommodate based on our current budgetary allocation.
Thanks Oliver
###### Oliver Radford
Executive Director of Health Services
Management Suite • Noble’s Hospital • Strang Braddan • Isle of Man • IM4 4RJ M: +44 (0) 7624 499802 • T: +44 (0) 1624 650141 E: oliver.radford@gov.im • www.manxcare.im
From: Balmer, Chris Sent: 19 February 2024 13:27 To: CO, Public Health ; DESC, Admin ; Radford, Oliver ; Collister, Richard (DEC) ; Barlow, Emma Subject: 23/00744/B - Land At Vollan Field, Ramsey - Full approval for a residential development comprising up to 153 dwellings and community uses and approval in principle for a primary school
Good Afternoon, I am currently writing my Planning Committee report for the above planning application (link below).
###### https://services.gov.im/planningapplication/services/planning/planningapplicationdetails.iom? ApplicationReferenceNumber=23%2F00744%2FB
We have received a number of objections from local residents, many of which raise concerns about (amongst other things) lack of access to health (including Doctors and Dentists) and education (including school places) and that the proposal will make the situation worse.
It would therefore be helpful to understand: · Is there a shortage of physical health/educational facilities within this local area (i.e. space to provide services, not the staff etc. to run those services); · If so, is there any opportunity/space within existing sites for such facilities/buildings to be expanded/remodelled; and
· Depending on the above, is there a requirement for any provision to be made within this site for additional/new facilities. For example, there are community facilities proposed including a nursery, two retail units and a community hall. If there was a shortfall in G.P surgery’s for example would one or both of the retail units be utilised (I haven’t discussed that with applicants)?
Further, from an education perspective, the proposal seeks approval in principle for a new primary school, so it would also be useful to understand whether the site is suitable and is required or not?
I am working towards this application being considered at Planning Committee on the 11.03.2024, and so would be grateful for a response (which can be published) at your earliest convenience.
Happy to discuss should you have any questions. Kind Regards Chris
Any views expressed in this email are those of the officer only and are without prejudice to any formal decision made under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and any relevant secondary legislation.
Please be aware that should the content of this email be materially relevant to a planning application, its content may be published as detail relevant to the formal assessment of the application. Publication will include availability via online services.
CHRIS BALMER - MA (Hons), MTCP, MRTPI PRINCIPAL PLANNER
Planning & Building Control Directorate, Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture (DEFA), Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas, Isle of Man, im1 2sf
Tel: 44+ (0) 1624 – 685908 - Fax: 44+ (0) 1624 – 686443 Email: chris.balmer@gov.im Web: www.gov.im/categories/planning-and-building-control
PPlease don't print this email unless you really need to
###### DEFA, Planning
From: Cowin, Kristian Sent: 26 March 2024 16:56 To: Balmer, Chris Cc: DEFA, Planning Subject: Planning Application Ref 23/00744/B Attachments: RA00807 - Vollan Fields, Ramsey, Isle of Man - Noise Assessment - FINAL Rev2.pdf;
Hart 70 - 06A-Proposed Site Plan.pdf; Planning Application Ref 23/00744/B Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: Jason
Dear Chris Further to my email of the 2nd August 2023, copy attached for ease of reference, I write to make further comments on the Planning Application Ref 23/00744/B. I believe that Figure G.4 in the attached noise assessment report Ref: ‘RA00807 – Report 1’ by Resound Acoustics correctly identifies the homes where the occupiers could be at a realistic risk of noise nuisance. I note the following from the report: the Executive Summary states:
###### “…Hartford Homes intends to install some form of mechanicalventilation in Plots 1 to 6, 35 to 41, and 146 to 153 inclusive…”
Section 6.21 states:
“Closing any form of window will result in much lower noise levels than were set out in this report, so Hartford Homes could considerusing some form of mechanical ventilation, either a whole house system, or a room-by-room system, so that futureoccupants do not need to open their windows to obtain ventilation or to avoid overheating.”
and Section 7.8 in the Conclusions states:
I have since had confirmation from Hartford Homes that the ventilation systems would be designed in accordance with Approved Document F (Ventilation) of the building regulations and would be Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery (MVHR).
On the condition that whole home MVHR is incorporated into the properties that are to be built on Plots 1 to 6, 35 to 41, and 146 to 153 inclusive in the attached site plan I would be happy to withdraw my previous objection to the application.
Kind Regards Kristian
Mr. Kristian Cowin MCIEH CEnvH Head of Environmental Health Environmental Health Unit, Regulation Directorate Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Thie Slieau Whallian, Foxdale Road, St Johns, Isle of Man,IM4 3AS Tel: +44(0)1624 685894 Email: kristian.cowin@gov.im
P Please don't print this email unless you really need to
14th August 2023
FAO: Senior Planning Officer
Planning and Building Control
Department of Infrastructure
Murray House
Mount Havelock
Douglas
Isle of Man
IM1 2SF
Business Isle of Man
Department for Enterprise
1st Floor, St George's Court
Upper Church Street
Douglas, Isle of Man
IM1 1EX
Direct Dial No: (01624) 685873
Reception: (01624) 685123
Email: DFEPlanningSupport@gov.im
Dear Sir/Madam,
23/00744/B - Full approval for a residential development comprising up to 153 dwellings and community uses with associated highway and pedestrian access and infrastructure, drainage, landscaping and public open space together with approval in principle for a primary school on land at land at Vollan Field No's 131042, 131043, 135315 and 135318 Land East of Royal Park Field No's 131085 and 135140 Andreas Road Ramsey Isle of Man IM7 4EA.
This comment has been provided by Officers from within the Business Agency and as such, should be considered as Officer comment only and, therefore, not the view or official position of the Business Agency Board, or political members of the Department for Enterprise.
We note that the eastern site, are out with the Existing Settlement Boundaries as annotated on the ‘Draft Proposals Map 4 RAMSEY’ forming part of the Draft Area Plan for the North and West published 24th June 2022. However, the two sites are included on the extant Ramsey Town Plan 1998, map 1.
The following comments on the scheme proposals, are made in light of the Isle of Man Economic Strategy: November 2022, which strengthens Government’s economic drivers to:
“... develop a strong and diverse economy, which is sustainable, ambitious and built on firm foundations to provide economic success, rewarding career opportunities and prosperity which positively impacts all residents on the Isle of Man.
To achieve this vision, we aim to make the Island a more attractive and prosperous place to live and work, which in turn will sustain and grow productive businesses and services. Combined, this will provide more diverse and sustainable public finances that support the best possible public services and quality of life for all of our Island residents. We will achieve this through a significant £1bn long term public and private investment programme – investing in our people, our economy, our Island and our public services to secure 5,000 new jobs and a £10bn economy with infrastructure that can support 100,000 Island residents over the next fifteen years, with appropriate incentives / disincentives to achieve targeted and sustainable population growth”.
The Business Agency is pleased to endorse this application, noting particularly that the proposals for 153 homes, noting that 114 No. ‘open market’ properties, which include a mixture of 2 and 3 bed bungalows and 3, 4 and 5 bed houses. There are 39 No. affordable homes provided (25.5% of the total) which complies with the IOMSP Housing Policy 5, which include 2 and 3 bed house types which are considered to meet a major strategy driver in the Economic Strategy to ‘tackle the housing crisis by ensuring everyone
has a suitable and affordable place to call home and our housing stock meets the needs of our population now and into the future'.
‘Section 20. National Outcomes and Indicators’ of the Island Plan also sets out that Government will seek to improve infrastructure and services, specifically Housing, with +1,000 additional homes occupied by the end of the parliamentary term, measured using Census information supplemented by additional measurement methods.
The Economic Strategy goes on to state that we should create;
‘A more vibrant place for residents to live, building great communities with better services, and a higher quality of life’. It also seeks to ‘re-adjust the Island’s offering to target new younger workers and families, while encouraging our young people to stay and build their futures on the Island’ and proposes that ‘attracting more economically active people will help generate further income to be reinvested into the Island’.
The ‘Labour Market Statistics’ report produced by the Cabinet Office clearly outlines a low unemployment rate at 0.5% in the June 2023 report, with circa 788 vacancies noted at the Job Centre. This scheme, a mix of 2 and 3 bed bungalows, 2 bed apartments and 2, 3 and 4 bed houses delivers on the broader desires to see more multi-generational housing made available as set out in the Island’s Strategic Development Plan. In so doing, the provision of housing seeks to alleviate one of the barriers to relocating to the Island, which is the availability and choice of housing.
The application provides a Summary of Economic Benefits, stating that the proposals will contribute towards achieving the economic aims of the Isle of Man Government by supporting inward investment, providing homes and job opportunities and by making the Isle of Man a more accessible and attractive place to live and invest. The applicant estimates that the proposed development would generate the following economic benefits:
- A total capital investment in the order of £50 million which represents a total economic output of over £142 million; the Planning Statement accompanying the application quotes the following as justification for this;
“A report by UK Construction Council of the Confederation of British Industry showed that via these indirect channels, construction projects send ripples of economic activity through the wider economy generating £2.84 in total economic activity for every £1 spent construction projects (CBI, Bridging the Gap: Backing the Construction Sector to Generate Jobs, 2012)”.
The Agency has not been able to validate these figures however, we note that the research conducted for the February 2020 CBI report entitled ‘Fine Margins: delivering financial sustainability in UK construction’ indicates that ‘every £1 spent on UK construction creates £2.92 of value to the UK. The industry employs 2.3 million people directly – supporting over 3 million more indirectly – and construction activity contributes 6% of GVA’. This might suggest that the scheme is worth £146 million in the UK context.
- Supporting some 100 jobs in the construction industry;
- Delivery of 153 new homes towards the housing needs identified in the Strategic Plan;
- The scheme includes a varied housing mix, predominantly family housing which will help to attract and retain the economically active population through the provision of housing accommodation which supports the vision within the Isle of Man.
In respect of the Economic Strategy, the scheme delivers:
- 39 affordable houses which will cater for all 20 people of those on the current Register for First Time Buyers in the North area;
- Community uses including two local convenience shops, a community hall and nursery unit which will provide day to day essential services and create approximately 15 jobs;
- The provision of a nursery will provide childcare which will help to remove barriers to employment;
- Provision of land to accommodate a future two-form entry primary school to be delivered by the Department of Education which would support the Island’s education infrastructure;
- Provision of publicly accessible open space on-site;
- Provision of over 3ha for habitat enhancement situated to the east of Royal Park;
- Additional household expenditure to support the local economy.
The scheme delivers a low carbon development through the provision of highly energy efficient buildings that are highly insulated with air source heat pumps, roof mounted PV panels and EV charging infrastructure which the Business Agency therefore considers that these proposals go some way to ‘considering how our Climate Change commitments can inform and positively influence our economic growth, opportunities and stability over the long term’.
In conclusion, the Business Agency reiterates its support for these proposals which it considers maximises the development of a site designated for residential development, thereby directly delivering aspects of the Island Plan and Economic Strategy and the Built Environment Reform Programme, released in July 2022 by the Cabinet Office, which seeks to improve infrastructure and services, specifically Housing, with +1,000 additional homes occupied by the end of the parliamentary term.
I am grateful for this opportunity to offer the Business Agency’s comments and support for this scheme and trust you find them of use. Yours sincerely,
Tim Cowsill
Head of the Business Agency
^{}[]
Yours Sincerely,
###### Erica
Erica Spencer Environmental Planner & Ecologist E mail Erica.Spencer@mnh.im
###### Appendix 5 – Agricultural Soils of the Isle of Man 2001 Extract – Land Classifications Map
Your Ref:
Our Ref: TRKC/MPC/F 19
13th May, 2024.
Mr. C. Balmer, M.A. (Hons.), MTCP, MRTPI,
Principal Planner,
Department of the Environment, Food and Agriculture,
Planning and Building Control Directorate,
Murray House,
Mount Havelock,
Douglas,
Isle of Man, IM1 2SF
Dear Mr. Balmer,
Re: Planning Application 23/00744/B – Vollan, Ramsey.
Hartford Homes have proposed that there is public open space accounted within the above-mentioned planning application at The Vollan, Ramsey.
The Company have met with Ramsey Town Commissioners and the Commission has agreed, subject to all relevant departmental permissions, to adopt the public open space and enter into a Section 13 agreement to formalise this arrangement.
Hartford Homes and Ramsey Town Commissioners will prepare the formal agreement and forward a copy to your Department in due course. Yours sincerely, Town Clerk and Chief Executive.
Town Hall and Library, Parliament Square, Ramsey, Isle of Man. IM8 1RT
Hailey yn Valley as Lioarlann, Kerrin Y Valley, Rhumsaa, Ellan Vannin.
VAT Reg. No. GB 000 0631 62
2/11/2023
Ms E J Callow
Secretary to the Planning Committee
Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture
Murray House
Mount Havelock
Douglas
IM1 2SF
PA 23/00744/B-Full approval for a residential development comprising up to 153 dwellings and community uses with associated highway and pedestrian access together with approval in principle for a school on land at Vollan Fields together with enhancement of existing habitat on land to the east of Royal Park, Andreas and Bride Roads, Ramsey.
I write on behalf of Manx National Heritage ('MNH'), whose statutory responsibilities pertaining to the protection of the cultural and natural heritage of the Isle of Man are defined under the terms of the Manx Museum and National Trust Act.
The Manx Wildlife Trusts Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report recommends that a buffer of at least 20 m should be maintained between the development and a band of mature woodland, to the North of the site, surrounding the neighbouring Grest Farm. The application's tree protection plan shows that plots 146 to 149 backing straight on to the trees. We would like to see this amended and a buffer between the trees and the development, of at least 20m, provided.
We are also concerned about the effects of lighting on wildlife, especially nesting birds and bats. We would like to see that wildlife friendly lighting such as that with a high amber tone which, emits a light that is less harsh than traditional LED, be included as a condition of any planning approval.
We note that the DEFA Ecosystem Team raise concerns about flood lighting above the playing pitch adjacent to the above mentioned woodland. We would like to see either this pitch moved away from the trees, if it is to be flood lit, or a condition of planning approval that no floodlighting can be installed either during the construction stage or in the future.
Yours Sincerely,
Erica
Erica Spencer
Environmental Planner & Ecologist
E mail Erica.Spencer@mnh.im
SUMMARY A Land Use Capability survey has been undertaken of 11.2 ha of land north of Ramsey, Isle of Man in August 2024.
The land has coarse loamy over sandy soils, often affected by fluctuating groundwater. Agricultural land of Class 2 quality has been identified. The principal limitations to agriculture are climate, erosion risk, soil limitations and wetness.
Figure 4. Agricultural land use capability map of the Isle of Man.
- 2.0 Soils
- 2.1 A soils and agricultural land quality survey was carried out in August 2024 in accordance with the Land Use Capability Classification3. During the survey, soils were examined by hand auger and soil pits to a maximum depth of 1.2 m. Observations were at a density of one per hectare. A log of these observations and a map (Map 1) showing their location are given in an appendix to this report. PODZOLIC SOILS
- 2.2 Most soils have podzolic features and show some combination of a bleached subsurface horizon, an accumulation of organic matter down the soil profile, a cemented subsoil horizon, and / or a brightly coloured subsoil horizon.
- 2.3 The soils are coarse loamy to sandy. They generally have a very slightly stony medium sandy loam to loamy medium sand topsoil, over very slightly to slightly stony loamy medium sand upper subsoil and stoneless to moderately stony medium sand lower subsoil.
- 2.4 A cemented subsoil horizon was identified at around half the observations points, encountered as shallow as 45 cm depth and as deep as 88 cm depth. These cemented horizons are around 4 – 10 cm thick. They restrict rooting, such that only a very small number of very fine roots can penetrate, but do not appear to prevent the downward drainage of water.
- 2.5 Gleying (rusty mottling) is not evident above the cemented horizon but it is commonly evident in the subsoil below. This is judged to be caused by fluctuating groundwater. Where gleying is evident within 70 cm depth soils are judged to belong to Soil Wetness Class II; they are likely to be moderately freely draining and likely to suffer slight seasonal waterlogging. Where gleying is not evident above 70 cm depth, or no gleying is evident at all, soils are judged to belong to Soil Wetness Class I; they are likely to be freely draining.
- 2.6 Soil samples were submitted to a UKAS accredited lab for particle size distribution (PSD) and loss on ignition (LOI) analysis, to confirm soil textures and soil organic matter context. These results are attached to this report as an appendix. They confirm topsoils to be sandy loam to borderline sandy loam/loamy sand. Subsoils are confirmed to be loamy sands over sand. Topsoil soil organic matter content is in the range of 5-6%.
3Mackney D., 1974. Soil Type and Land Capability. Soil Survey of England and Wales, Technical Monograph No. 4.
###### Other Soils
- 2.7 A slightly different soil type is found on a limited extent of raised ground in the west of the site. These soils appear not to have podzolic features. They have slightly stony medium sandy loam topsoil over brightly coloured, moderately stony, medium sand subsoil to at least 90 cm depth.
- 3.0 Agricultural land quality
- 3.1 The accepted method to assess agricultural land quality on the Isle of Man is Land Use Capability Classification (see Environment Policy 14 of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan). Land Use Capability Classification (LUC) is a method for classifying land quality according to the extent to which physical or chemical characteristics impose long-term limitations on use for agriculture or forestry. The classification includes seven classes, class 1 – class
7. Limitations to the quality of land include wetness (w), soil limitation (s), gradient (g), erosion (e) and climate (c).
CLIMATE
- 3.2 Equivalent methods to assess agricultural land quality on the British Isles include Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) in England and Wales and Land Capability Classification for Agriculture (LCA) in Scotland. These methodologies rely on long term historic agro-climatic datasets. The ALC methodology, published in 1988, relies on agroclimatic data from 1941-1980. The LCA methodology, first published in 1982, relies on agro-climatic data from 1958-1978.
- 3.3 The LUC methodology was published in 1969. Publicly available agro-climatic data predating 1969 for the Isle of Man, and for the survey area specifically, are either not publicly available or are not known of. However, broadly suitable average annual values, based on long term climate data for the period 1969-1990, are available via the Met Office4 for three locations broadly equivalent in climate to the Isle of Man survey area. These climate data are given below. Table 1: Met Office average annual values based on long term climate data, 1969-1990
||Station|Altitude|Max. temperature|Min. temperature|Days of air frost|Sunshine|Rainfall|Days of rainfall ≥1 mm|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |m|°C|°C|days|hours|mm|days|
|Ronaldsway, IoM|16 m|12.17|6.82|22.33|1537.70|862.21|138.13|
|Walney Island, Barrow in Furness|15 m|12.29|6.92|32.28|–|991.59|152.31|
|West Freugh, Stranrear|11 m|12.13|5.52|37.96|–|988.89|152.39|
|
|---|
4 Met Office, 2024. UK climate averages. Online resource, https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-climate-averages/
- 3.1 For the appropriate reference period, it is unlikely that average annual rainfall at this locality would have been in excess of 1,000 mm. The survey area is therefore not limited by climate to LUC Class 3 or lower. However, the relatively cool temperatures, relatively high precipitation and relatively brisk winds at this locality do limit the survey area to no higher than Class 2. SURVEY RESULTS
- 3.2 The agricultural quality of the survey area is determined by climate, erosion risk, soil limitations and wetness. Land of Class 2 quality has been identified. Class 2
- 3.3 The overriding limitations to agriculture are climate and erosion risk. The climate in this locality is likely to slightly restrict crop performance and may prevent the cultivation of particularly sensitive crops. The relatively low level of clay in the topsoils, c. 6-7%, means that soils across the survey area are likely to be slightly susceptible to wind erosion and this may require additional management measures.
- 3.4 In areas where a cemented subsoil horizon (noted in italics in the auger log) exists within 75 cm depth soil limitations are also important. Crop roots are largely prevented from reaching below the depth of the cemented horizon, though it is likely that some water below this depth is accessed during the growing season by capillary action. These soils may be slightly droughty, particularly for deeper rooting crops such as wheat or barley. In some locations a cemented horizon exists within 50 cm depth. The impact is more significant in these soils (moderate limitation to agriculture) but these profiles are relatively rare and not found contiguously.
- 3.5 In areas where soils are moderately freely draining (Soil Wetness Class II) wetness is a limitation to agriculture. These soils are affected by fluctuating groundwater and may be waterlogged at shallow depth for short periods from late autumn to early spring. This is a slight limitation to agriculture which may inhibit winter cultivations and / or harvests, particularly in wet years.
- 3.6 As a whole however, the survey area is judged to have minor limitations.
- Class areas
- 3.7 The land classes are shown on Map 2 and the areas occupied shown below. Table 2: Areas occupied by the different land classes (ha)
||Class|Area (ha)|% of the land|
|---|---|---|
|Class 2|11.2|100|
|Total|11.2|100|
|
|---|
Appendices:
- 1. DETAILS OF OBSERVATIONS
- 2. MAPS
- 3. LABORATORY RESULTS
###### Land north of Ramsey, Isle of Man: Details of Soils and Land Use Capability survey
|Obs|Topsoil|Topsoil|Topsoil|Topsoil|Upper subsoil|Upper subsoil|Upper subsoil|Lower subsoil|Lower subsoil|Lower subsoil|Slope|Wetness|Agricultural quality|Agricultural quality|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|No|Depth (cm)|Texture|% Stones 2 mm – 2 cm|% Stones >2 cm|Depth (cm)|Texture|Mottling|Depth (cm)
|Texture|Mottlin g|()|Class|Class|Main limitation|
|1|0-26|vslst MSL|<5|<5|26-50 50-62|vslst LMS vslst MS|x -|62-82 82-120|slst MS slst CS|xx(x) xx(x)|1|I / II|2|c, e, (w)|
|2|0-25|vslst MSL|<5|<5|25-43 43-52 52-60|slst LMS slst MS slst MS|o o o|60-70 70-90 90-100 100+|MS MS mst CS Stopped on stones|o o o|3|I|2|c, e, s|
|3|0-29|vslst MSL|<5|<5|29-45|vslst LMS|o|45-50 50-60 60-90 90-120|MS MS MS MS|o o xxx xxx|3|II|3|s|
|4|0-28|slst MSL|<5|5-10|28-70|vslst LMS|o|70-75 75-120|MS SCL + MS|o xxx|3|I|2|c, e, s|
|5|0-30|vslst LMS / MSL|<5|<5|30-60|vslst LMS|o|60-88 88-120|MS MS|o o|1|I|2|c, e|
|6|0-30|vslst LMS / MSL|<5|<5|30-63 63-88|vslst LMS vslst MS|o o|88-95 95+|MS Stopped, too firm|o|1|I|2|c, e|
|7|0-25|vslst MSL|<5|<5|25-45 45-56|vslst LMS vslst LMS|o o|56-61 61-75 75-83 83-95 95+|MS MS slst CS mst CS Stopped on stones|o o xxx xx(x)|2|I|2|c, e, s|
|8|0-25|vslst MSL|<5|<5|25-36 36-49|vsltst LMS vslst LMS|o o|49-54 54-70 70-90 90-95 95+|MS MS MS mst MS Stopped on stones|o o xx(x) xx(x)|2|I / II|2 / 3|s, (c), (w)|
|9|0-28|slst MSL|<5|5-10|28-90|mst MS|o|90+|Stopped on stones| |3|I|2|c, e|
|10|0-30|Vslst LMS / MSL|<5|<5|30-55 55-68|vslst LMS vslst MS|o o|68-72 72-90 90-120|MS MS MS|o
xxx xxx|1|I|2|c, e, s|
|11|0-25|vslst MSL|<5|<5|25-43 43-56 56-73|vslst LMS vslst LMS vslst MS|o o o|73-85 85-120|MS MS|o xxx|1|I|2|c, e, s|
|12|0-25|vslst MSL|<5|<5|25-46 46-64|vslst LMS vslst MS|o o|64-100 100+|slst MS Stopped, too firm|xxx|2|II|2|c, e, w|
###### Soil log key
Gley indicators1 Texture2 Limitations: o unmottled C – clay w – wetness / workability x 1-2% ochreous mottles and brownish matrix e - erosion
(or a few to common root mottles (topsoils))3 ZC - silty clay s– soil xx >2% ochreous mottles and brownish matrix SC - sandy clay g – gradient
and/or dull structure faces (slightly gleyed horizon) CL - clay loam (H-heavy, M-medium) c - climatic xxx >2% ochreous mottles ZCL - silty clay loam (H-heavy, M-medium)
and greyish or pale matrix (gleyed horizon) SZL - sandy silt loam (F-fine, M-medium,C-coarse)
or reddish matrix and >2% greyish, brownish or ochreous LS - loamy sand (F-fine, M-medium, C-coarse) mottles or f-m concentrations and pale ped faces (gleyed horizon) SL - sandy loam (F-fine, M-medium, C-coarse)
xxxx dominantly blueish/greenish matrix, often with some reddish S - sand (F-fine, M-medium, C-coarse) mottles (gleyed horizon) SCL - sandy clay loam Suffixes & prefixes: xx(x) Subsoils where gleying evidence is unclear in auger boring (especially reddish soils)
P - peat (H-humified, SF-semi-fibrous, F-fibrous) o - organic LP - loamy peat; PL - peaty loam (vsl, sl, m, v, x)st – (very slightly, slightly,
moderately, very, extremely) stony6 Slowly permeable layers Wetness Class5 I (freely drained) to VI (very poorly drained) (vsl, sl, m, v, x)ca (very slightly, slightly, moderately, very, extremely) calcareous7 a depth underlined (e.g. 50) indicates the top of a slowly permeable layer A wavy underline (e.g. 50 indicates the top of a layer borderline to slowly permeable
Other abbreviations 1Gley indicators in accordance with Hodgson, J.M., 1997. Soil Survey Field Handbook (third edition). Soil survey technical monograph No. 5 fmn - ferri-manganiferous concentrations 2Texture in accordance with particle size classes in Hodgson (1997) dist - disturbed soil layer; chky - chalky 3 Occasionally recorded in the texture box R – bedrock (CH – chalk, SST – sandstone
LST – limestone, MST – Mudstone) r-reddish, gn – greenish 5Soil Wetness Classes are defined in Hodgson (1997) 7calcareous classes as defined in Hodgson (1997) 6stoniness classes as defined in Hodgson (1997) Note – brightly coloured potentially cemented layers are written in italics.
Soil pit descriptions
Pit 2
0-25 cm (Ap) Dark greyish brown (10YR 4/2) medium sandy loam; a few (c. 3%) small and medium subrounded hard stones; moderately developed medium to coarse subangular blocky structure; moderately firm; many fine fibrous roots; clear wavy boundary to:
25-43 cm (Ap / Ea) Dark grey (10YR 4/1) loamy medium sand with common medium very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/3) mottles; common (c. 10%) small, medium and large subrounded hard stones; weakly developed fine angular blocky structure; very weak; >0.5% macropores; many fine fibrous roots; clear broken boundary to:
43-52 cm (Ea) Light grey (10YR 7/1) medium sand; common (c.15%) small, medium and large subrounded hard stones; single grain structure; loose; >0.5% macropores; common fine fibrous roots; abrupt broken boundary to:
52-60 cm (Bh) Black (10YR 2/1) and very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/1) medium sand; common (c. 5-10%) small, medium and large subrounded hard stones; massive structure; moderately firm with some moderately strong concretions; brittle; >0.5% macropores; a few fine fibrous roots; clear wavy boundary to:
60-70 cm (Bhm) Dark brown (7.5YR 3/4), strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) and reddish brown (5YR 5/3) medium sand; a few (c. 15%) small and medium subrounded hard stones; massive structure; moderately strong; brittle; 0-0.5% medium macropores; a few very fine fibrous roots; gradual wavy boundary to:
70-90 cm (Bs) Strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) medium sand; weakly developed medium angular blocky structure; moderately firm; 0.5-1.0% fine and medium macropores; no roots: Extended by auger below 90 cm.
90-100 cm (C) Dark greyish brown (10YR 4/2) and brown (10YR 5/3) coarse sand with many (c. 20%) small rounded and angular hard stones.
This profile is similar to a (cultivated) humo-ferric podzol in the soil classification system of England and Wales5. Suggested horizon notations are given in brackets.
###### Pit 10
0-30 cm (Ap) Dark greyish brown (10YR 4/2) medium sandy loam to loamy medium sand; a few (c. 1%) small, medium and large subrounded hard stones; strongly developed fine to medium subangular blocky structure; moderately weak; many fine fibrous roots; clear smooth boundary to:
30-55 cm (Ap / Ea) Very dark grey (10YR 3/1) loamy medium sand; a few (c. 1%) small, medium and large subrounded hard stones; weakly developed fine subangular blocky structure; moderately to very weak; >0.5% macropores; many fine fibrous roots; clear wavy boundary to:
55-68 cm (Bh) Dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) and black (7.5YR 2.5/1) medium sand; a few (c. 1%) small, medium and large subrounded hard stones; weakly developed fine angular blocky structure; moderately weak; brittle; >0.5% macropores; common fine fibrous roots; clear wavy boundary to:
68-72 cm (Bhm) Very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2), dark brown (7.5YR 3/3) and strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) medium sand; massive structure; very strong; brittle; 0-0.5% medium macropores; a few very fine fibrous roots: Extended by auger below 72 cm.
72-90 cm (BCg) Pale brown (10YR 6/3) and light greyish brown (10YR 6/2) medium sand with common fine yellowish brown
(10YR 5/6) mottles: 90-120 cm (Cg) Light grey (10YR 7/1) medium sand with common fine yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) mottles. This profile is similar to a (cultivated) humo-ferric gley podzol in the soil classification system of England and Wales. Suggested horizon notations are given in brackets.
5 Avery, B. W., 1980. Soil Classification for England and Wales (Higher Categories). Soil Survey of England and Wales, Technical Monograph No. 14.
Land Research Associates
Report 2412/1– Agricultural quality of land north of Ramsey
9
Class areas
3.7
The land classes are shown on Map 2 and the areas occupied shown below.
Table 2: Areas occupied by the different land classes (ha)
Class
Area (ha)
% of the land
Class 2
11.2
100
Total
11.2
100
Land Research Associates
Report 2412/1– Agricultural quality of land north of Ramsey
10
Appendices:
1. DETAILS OF OBSERVATIONS
2. MAPS
3. LABORATORY RESULTS
Land north of Ramsey, Isle of Man: Details of Soils and Land Use Capability survey
Obs
Topsoil
Upper subsoil
Lower subsoil
Slope
Wetness
Agricultural quality
No
Depth
Texture
% Stones
% Stones
Depth
Texture
Mottling
Depth
Texture
Mottlin
g
()
Class
Class
Main
(cm)
2 mm – 2 cm
>2 cm
(cm)
(cm)
limitation
1
0-26
vslst MSL
<5
<5
26-50
50-62
vslst LMS
vslst MS
x
-
62-82
82-120
slst MS
slst CS
xx(x)
xx(x)
1
I / II
2
c, e, (w)
2
0-25
vslst MSL
<5
<5
25-43
43-52
52-60
slst LMS
slst MS
slst MS
o
o
o
60-70
70-90
90-100
100+
MS
MS
mst CS
Stopped on stones
o
o
o
3
I
2
c, e, s
3
0-29
vslst MSL
<5
<5
29-45
vslst LMS
o
45-50
50-60
60-90
90-120
MS
MS
MS
MS
o
o
xxx
xxx
3
II
3
s
4
0-28
slst MSL
<5
5-10
28-70
vslst LMS
o
70-75
75-120
MS
SCL + MS
o
xxx
3
I
2
c, e, s
5
0-30
vslst LMS / MSL
<5
<5
30-60
vslst LMS
o
60-88
88-120
MS
MS
o
o
1
I
2
c, e
6
0-30
vslst LMS / MSL
<5
<5
30-63
63-88
vslst LMS
vslst MS
o
o
88-95
95+
MS
Stopped, too firm
o
1
I
2
c, e
7
0-25
vslst MSL
<5
<5
25-45
45-56
vslst LMS
vslst LMS
o
o
56-61
61-75
75-83
83-95
95+
MS
MS
slst CS
mst CS
Stopped on stones
o
o
xxx
xx(x)
2
I
2
c, e, s
8
0-25
vslst MSL
<5
<5
25-36
36-49
vsltst LMS
vslst LMS
o
o
49-54
54-70
70-90
90-95
95+
MS
MS
MS
mst MS
Stopped on stones
o
o
xx(x)
xx(x)
2
I / II
2 / 3
s, (c), (w)
9
0-28
slst MSL
<5
5-10
28-90
mst MS
o
90+
Stopped on stones
3
I
2
c, e
10
0-30
Vslst LMS / MSL
<5
<5
30-55
55-68
vslst LMS
vslst MS
o
o
68-72
72-90
90-120
MS
MS
MS
o
xxx
xxx
1
I
2
c, e, s
11
0-25
vslst MSL
<5
<5
25-43
43-56
56-73
vslst LMS
vslst LMS
vslst MS
o
o
o
73-85
85-120
MS
MS
o
xxx
1
I
2
c, e, s
12
0-25
vslst MSL
<5
<5
25-46
46-64
vslst LMS
vslst MS
o
o
64-100
100+
slst MS
Stopped, too firm
xxx
2
II
2
c, e, w
Soil log key
Gley indicators1
Texture2
Limitations:
o
unmottled
C – clay
w – wetness / workability
x
1-2% ochreous mottles and brownish matrix
e - erosion
(or a few to common root mottles (topsoils))3
ZC - silty clay
s– soil
xx
>2% ochreous mottles and brownish matrix
SC - sandy clay
g – gradient
and/or dull structure faces (slightly gleyed horizon)
CL - clay loam (H-heavy, M-medium)
c - climatic
xxx
>2% ochreous mottles
ZCL - silty clay loam (H-heavy, M-medium)
and greyish or pale matrix (gleyed horizon)
SZL - sandy silt loam (F-fine, M-medium,C-coarse)
or reddish matrix and >2% greyish, brownish or ochreous
LS - loamy sand (F-fine, M-medium, C-coarse)
mottles or f-m concentrations and pale ped faces (gleyed horizon)
SL - sandy loam (F-fine, M-medium, C-coarse)
xxxx
dominantly blueish/greenish matrix, often with some reddish
S - sand (F-fine, M-medium, C-coarse)
mottles (gleyed horizon)
SCL - sandy clay loam
Suffixes & prefixes:
xx(x)
Subsoils where gleying evidence is unclear in auger boring
(especially reddish soils)
P - peat (H-humified, SF-semi-fibrous, F-fibrous)
o - organic
LP - loamy peat; PL - peaty loam
(vsl, sl, m, v, x)st – (very slightly, slightly,
moderately, very, extremely) stony6
Slowly permeable layers
Wetness Class5
a depth underlined (e.g. 50) indicates
the top of a slowly permeable layer
I (freely drained) to VI (very poorly drained)
(vsl, sl, m, v, x)ca
(very slightly, slightly,
moderately, very, extremely) calcareous7
A wavy underline (e.g. 50 indicates
the top of a layer borderline to slowly permeable
Other abbreviations
1Gley indicators in accordance with Hodgson, J.M., 1997. Soil Survey Field Handbook (third edition). Soil survey technical monograph No. 5
fmn - ferri-manganiferous concentrations
2Texture in accordance with particle size classes in Hodgson (1997)
dist - disturbed soil layer; chky - chalky
3 Occasionally recorded in the texture box
R – bedrock (CH – chalk, SST – sandstone
5Soil Wetness Classes are defined in Hodgson (1997)
7calcareous classes as defined in Hodgson (1997)
LST – limestone, MST – Mudstone)
r-reddish, gn – greenish
6stoniness classes as defined in Hodgson (1997)
Note – brightly coloured potentially cemented layers are written in italics.
Soil pit descriptions
Pit 2
0-25 cm (Ap)
Dark greyish brown (10YR 4/2) medium sandy loam; a few (c. 3%) small and medium subrounded hard
stones; moderately developed medium to coarse subangular blocky structure; moderately firm; many fine
fibrous roots; clear wavy boundary to:
25-43 cm (Ap / Ea) Dark grey (10YR 4/1) loamy medium sand with common medium very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/3) mottles;
common (c. 10%) small, medium and large subrounded hard stones; weakly developed fine angular blocky
structure; very weak; >0.5% macropores; many fine fibrous roots; clear broken boundary to:
43-52 cm (Ea)
Light grey (10YR 7/1) medium sand; common (c.15%) small, medium and large subrounded hard stones;
single grain structure; loose; >0.5% macropores; common fine fibrous roots; abrupt broken boundary to:
52-60 cm (Bh)
Black (10YR 2/1) and very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/1) medium sand; common (c. 5-10%) small, medium and
large subrounded hard stones; massive structure; moderately firm with some moderately strong
concretions; brittle; >0.5% macropores; a few fine fibrous roots; clear wavy boundary to:
60-70 cm (Bhm)
Dark brown (7.5YR 3/4), strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) and reddish brown (5YR 5/3) medium sand; a few (c. 1-
5%) small and medium subrounded hard stones; massive structure; moderately strong; brittle; 0-0.5%
medium macropores; a few very fine fibrous roots; gradual wavy boundary to:
70-90 cm (Bs)
Strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) medium sand; weakly developed medium angular blocky structure; moderately
firm; 0.5-1.0% fine and medium macropores; no roots:
Extended by auger below 90 cm.
90-100 cm (C)
Dark greyish brown (10YR 4/2) and brown (10YR 5/3) coarse sand with many (c. 20%) small rounded and
angular hard stones.
This profile is similar to a (cultivated) humo-ferric podzol in the soil classification system of England and Wales5. Suggested
horizon notations are given in brackets.
Pit 10
0-30 cm (Ap)
Dark greyish brown (10YR 4/2) medium sandy loam to loamy medium sand; a few (c. 1%) small, medium
and large subrounded hard stones; strongly developed fine to medium subangular blocky structure;
moderately weak; many fine fibrous roots; clear smooth boundary to:
30-55 cm (Ap / Ea) Very dark grey (10YR 3/1) loamy medium sand; a few (c. 1%) small, medium and large subrounded hard
stones; weakly developed fine subangular blocky structure; moderately to very weak; >0.5% macropores;
many fine fibrous roots; clear wavy boundary to:
55-68 cm (Bh)
Dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) and black (7.5YR 2.5/1) medium sand; a few (c. 1%) small, medium and large
subrounded hard stones; weakly developed fine angular blocky structure; moderately weak; brittle; >0.5%
macropores; common fine fibrous roots; clear wavy boundary to:
68-72 cm (Bhm)
Very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2), dark brown (7.5YR 3/3) and strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) medium sand; massive
structure; very strong; brittle; 0-0.5% medium macropores; a few very fine fibrous roots:
Extended by auger below 72 cm.
72-90 cm (BCg)
Pale brown (10YR 6/3) and light greyish brown (10YR 6/2) medium sand with common fine yellowish brown
(10YR 5/6) mottles:
90-120 cm (Cg)
Light grey (10YR 7/1) medium sand with common fine yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) mottles.
This profile is similar to a (cultivated) humo-ferric gley podzol in the soil classification system of England and Wales. Suggested
horizon notations are given in brackets.
5 Avery, B. W., 1980. Soil Classification for England and Wales (Higher Categories). Soil Survey of England and
Wales, Technical Monograph No. 14.
## Key
- Survey area
- Auger observation
- Soil pit
Site:
Land north of Ramsey
Map:
Map 1 - Observations Date: 27 / 08 / 2024 Scale: 1 : 3,500 at A4
Land Research
ASSOCIATES
Tapton Park Innovation Centre
Brimington Road
Chesterfield
541 0TZ
www.lra.co.uk
Key
- Survey area
- Class 2
Site:
Land north of Ramsey
Map:
Map 2 - Land Use Capability
Date: 27 / 08 / 2024
Scale: 1 : 3,500 at A4
Land Research
ASSOCIATES
Tapton Park Innovation Centre
Brimington Road
Chesterfield
S41 0TZ
www.lra.co.uk
[Table omitted in markdown export]
###### Note 1A: Constraint Maps – Additional Content
- Note 1A is provided by Cabinet Office in response to various suggestions from participants made at the week 1 Tuesday PM session that there should be additional content to the Constraints maps, which currently consist of two sub-divisions, Environmental and Infrastructure. Examples of suggested additional content included:-
- • draft conservation zones
- • soils survey results
- • ancient forts and quarterlands
- • landfill sites subject to coastal erosion.
- • Agri-environment schemes
General Response - the Constraints Maps provide a time specific snapshot of potential constraints identified by the Cabinet Office or which are brought to its attention.
The content of the Constraints Maps typically serves to operate in a mandatory / prohibitive manner in relation to land allocation (or site specific planning applications) and thereby serve to inform where allocation of land for development (or allocation for certain types of development) is going to be considered inappropriate.
Cabinet Office would caution against introduction of undue complexity to the Constraints Maps by seeking to include additional layering of matters which are mere considerations to be weighed as opposed to genuine Constraints.
Concessions
Cabinet Office would be open to a recommended amendment from the Inspector requiring the content of the Constraints Maps to be expanded to include -
- • proposed conservation areas, and
- • Sites presenting a potentially high risk of environmental pollution arising from natural erosion processes – e.g. land fill sites
###### Rejections
Ancient forts and quarterlands - when assessing the planning merits of candidate sites proposed for allocation, Cabinet Office take into account available data and evidence in the plan making process, including the Historic Environment Record – which provides a record of archaeological assets. They can be difficult to see on maps covering large areas. It is proposed to continue to rely on the Historic Environment Record for archaeological information. Manx National Heritage are a statutory consultee in respect of the planning process – which provides additional safeguards for sites not captured on the Historic Environment Record.
Quarterland farms - similarly, Landscape Character Assessments, which set out the typical characteristics and features of the landscape across the Island form a consideration. The existing Landscape Character Assessment Report is due to be updated – providing an opportunity to capture characteristic quarterland farms within its content.
Soils Survey Results - Cabinet office consider that the mere presence of Class 3/2 soils is a consideration to inform potential allocation (or development control) rather than a stand alone Constraint.
Agri-environment schemes - are newly instated enhancements situated on agricultural farmland, which take time to mature. It is proposed that the existing environmental designation process, as administered by the Department for Environment, Food and Agriculture, continue to be relied upon to represent agri-environment sites that may develop into sites of high environmental value in the future.
###### Note 1B: Constraint Maps – the Evidence Base for Inclusion
- Note 1B is provided by Cabinet Office in response to a query from a participant made at the week 1 Tuesday PM session as to the evidence base for including Wildlife Sites and Areas of Ecological Importance or Interest (AEI) – given their non-statutory status.
Though not recognised by law, Wildlife Sites are sites of high wildlife value, selected (by the Manx Wildlife Trust) using a set of scientific criteria. One of the main purposes of the Manx Wildlife Sites system is the requirement for sites to be recognised through the planning system. The Wildlife Sites Handbook, containing the rationale and criteria for their selection, can be found here - https://www.mwt.im/terrestrial/wildlife-sites-are-places-are-high-wildlifevalue.
Areas of Ecological Importance or Interest (AEI) are areas proposed by DEFA to have known wildlife interest but which have not yet been surveyed in detail or scientifically evaluated.
Paragraph 5.17 of the Strategic Plan states that:
###### “This Spatial Strategy does not attempt to identify ecological zones. The boundaries of areas which are currently afforded statutory protection for their biological, geological and archaeological merit are set out in their designation documents. In the preparation of Area Plans, the Department will identify such designated areas and Areas of Ecological Importance or Intereston the proposals maps.”
Paragraph 7.8.6 states:
“Development which would affect any proposed or other recognised site of conservation value, including areas of ecological interest, will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that:
- • The proposed development will not compromise the conservation objectives of the site or unacceptably harm its conservation value and its overall integrity;
- • There is proven public interest wheresafety and exceptional social or economic considerations outweigh the ecological importance of the site, and
- • The need for development cannot be met in other less ecologically damaging locations or by reasonable alternative means.”
The policy protection is set out in Environment Policy 4:
###### Environment Policy 4:
Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect: (c) species and habitats of local importance such asWildlife 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 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 Intereston 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.
Appendix I of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan defines Areas of Ecological Importance or Interest as – “Sites designated in Local and Area Plans which serve to protect areas known to house important species or those which act as habitat corridors between such areas”.
To conclude - there is a rationale for their selection and a definite basis for their inclusion in the area plans. Inclusion of these non-statutory sites serves to flag up the need for caution within these areas.
###### Note 2: Landscape Character – reference to “Southern Uplands”
Note 2 is provided by Cabinet Office in response to a suggestion from a participant made at the week 1 Tuesday PM session that the reference to the Southern Uplands should be removed from the Draft Area Plan for the North and West.
The references to the Southern Uplands in the APNW have arisen from reliance on the terms of the Isle of Man Landscape Character Assessment Report 2008. Distinctive landscapes identified as having typical landscape characteristics are not limited to administrative boundaries, but rather span over the wider landscape and may cross established boundaries. Consequently the boundary of the landscape character area of the Southern Uplands falls within both the extent of the geographical area covering the Area Plan for the South and the extent of the geographical area cover the Draft Area Plan for the North and West.
The scope of the Draft Area Plan for the North and West (APNW) does not extend to a review of the boundary of the Southern Uplands, as contained in the Landscape Character Assessment Report 2008.
Cabinet Office have reviewed the appropriateness of the references to “Southern Uplands”, and suggest that the Inspector recommend amendments shown in red in the Table below -
|References to “Southern Uplands” contained in the Written Statement|References to “Southern Uplands” contained in the Written Statement|References to “Southern Uplands” contained in the Written Statement|References to “Southern Uplands” contained in the Written Statement|
|---|---|---|---|
|Paragraph 6.4.8|Reference derived from the Isle of Man Landscape Character Assessment Report 2008|Review of the boundary of the “Southern Uplands” landscape character area falls outside of the scope of the APNW.|Retain reference.|
|Paragraph 6.6.1 (three references)|Reference derived from the Isle of Man Landscape Character Assessment Report 2008|Review of the boundary of the “Southern Uplands” landscape character area falls outside of the scope of the APNW.|Retain references.|
|Paragraph 6.7.1 (two references)|Reference included as part of a proposed Landscape Proposal 3.|The reference is incorrect.|Amend - Landscape Proposal 3 to make reference to “Northern Uplands”.
Amend reference within paragraph 6.7.1|
|References to “Southern Uplands” contained in the Written Statement|References to “Southern Uplands” contained in the Written Statement|References to “Southern Uplands” contained in the Written Statement|References to “Southern Uplands” contained in the Written Statement|
|---|---|---|---|
| | | | |
|Paragraph 6.7.5|Reference included as part of a proposed Landscape Proposal 7.|The reference is incorrect.|Amend - Landscape Proposal 7 to make reference to “Northern Uplands”.|
|Paragraph 6.8.2|Reference derived from the Isle of Man Landscape Character Assessment Report 2008|Review of the boundary of the “Southern Uplands” landscape character area falls outside of the scope of the APNW.|Retain reference.|
|Paragraph 7.17.6|Reference derived from the Isle of Man Landscape Character Assessment Report 2008.|Review of the boundary of the “Southern Uplands” landscape character area falls outside of the scope of the APNW.|Retain reference within Natural Environment Proposal 2.|
|Appendix 2 Landscape Character Area H2|Reference derived from the Isle of Man Landscape Character Assessment Report 2008|Review of the boundary of the “Southern Uplands” landscape character area falls outside of the scope of the APNW.|Retain reference.|
|Appendix 2 Landscape Character Area D9|Reference derived from the Isle of Man Landscape Character Assessment Report 2008|Review of the boundary of the “Southern Uplands” landscape character area falls outside of the scope of the APNW.|Retain reference.|
|Appendix 2 Landscape Character Area F5|Reference derived from the Isle of Man Landscape Character Assessment Report 2008.|The reference is incorrect.|Amend - to make reference to “Northern Uplands”.|
|Appendix 2 Landscape Character Area D9|Reference derived from the Isle of Man Landscape Character|Review of the boundary of the “Southern Uplands”|Retain reference.|
|References to “Southern Uplands” contained in the Written Statement|References to “Southern Uplands” contained in the Written Statement|References to “Southern Uplands” contained in the Written Statement|References to “Southern Uplands” contained in the Written Statement|
|---|---|---|---|
| |Assessment Report 2008|landscape character area falls outside of the scope of the APNW.| |
Cabinet Office note to Inquiry – 22 July 2024
Note 1A and 1B: Constraints Maps
Note 2: Southern Uplands
2
Soils Survey Results - Cabinet office consider that the mere presence of Class 3/2 soils is a
consideration to inform potential allocation (or development control) rather than a stand alone
Constraint.
Agri-environment schemes - are newly instated enhancements situated on agricultural
farmland, which take time to mature. It is proposed that the existing environmental
designation process, as administered by the Department for Environment, Food and
Agriculture, continue to be relied upon to represent agri-environment sites that may develop
into sites of high environmental value in the future.
Note 1B: Constraint Maps – the Evidence Base for Inclusion
Note 1B is provided by Cabinet Office in response to a query from a participant made at the
week 1 Tuesday PM session as to the evidence base for including Wildlife Sites and Areas of
Ecological Importance or Interest (AEI) – given their non-statutory status.
Though not recognised by law, Wildlife Sites are sites of high wildlife value, selected (by the
Manx Wildlife Trust) using a set of scientific criteria. One of the main purposes of the Manx
Wildlife Sites system is the requirement for sites to be recognised through the planning
system. The Wildlife Sites Handbook, containing the rationale and criteria for their selection,
can be found here - https://www.mwt.im/terrestrial/wildlife-sites-are-places-are-high-wildlife-
value.
Areas of Ecological Importance or Interest (AEI) are areas proposed by DEFA to have known
wildlife interest but which have not yet been surveyed in detail or scientifically evaluated.
Paragraph 5.17 of the Strategic Plan states that:
“This Spatial Strategy does not attempt to identify ecological zones. The boundaries
of areas which are currently afforded statutory protection for their biological, geological and
archaeological merit are set out in their designation documents. In the preparation of Area
Plans, the Department will identify such designated areas and Areas of Ecological
Importance or Interest on the proposals maps.”
Paragraph 7.8.6 states:
“Development which would affect any proposed or other recognised site of
conservation value, including areas of ecological interest, will only be permitted
where it can be demonstrated that:
•
The proposed development will not compromise the conservation objectives of
the site or unacceptably harm its conservation value and its overall integrity;
•
There is proven public interest where safety and exceptional social or economic
considerations outweigh the ecological importance of the site, and
•
The need for development cannot be met in other less ecologically damaging
locations or by reasonable alternative means.”
The policy protection is set out in Environment Policy 4:
Cabinet Office note to Inquiry – 22 July 2024
Note 1A and 1B: Constraints Maps
Note 2: Southern Uplands
3
Environment Policy 4:
Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect:
(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 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.
Appendix I of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan defines Areas of Ecological Importance or Interest
as – “Sites designated in Local and Area Plans which serve to protect areas known to house
important species or those which act as habitat corridors between such areas”.
To conclude - there is a rationale for their selection and a definite basis for their inclusion in
the area plans. Inclusion of these non-statutory sites serves to flag up the need for caution
within these areas.
Cabinet Office note to Inquiry – 22 July 2024
Note 1A and 1B: Constraints Maps
Note 2: Southern Uplands
4
Note 2: Landscape Character – reference to “Southern Uplands”
Note 2 is provided by Cabinet Office in response to a suggestion from a participant made at
the week 1 Tuesday PM session that the reference to the Southern Uplands should be removed
from the Draft Area Plan for the North and West.
The references to the Southern Uplands in the APNW have arisen from reliance on the terms
of the Isle of Man Landscape Character Assessment Report 2008. Distinctive landscapes
identified as having typical landscape characteristics are not limited to administrative
boundaries, but rather span over the wider landscape and may cross established
boundaries. Consequently the boundary of the landscape character area of the Southern
Uplands falls within both the extent of the geographical area covering the Area Plan for the
South and the extent of the geographical area cover the Draft Area Plan for the North and
West.
The scope of the Draft Area Plan for the North and West (APNW) does not extend to a review
of the boundary of the Southern Uplands, as contained in the Landscape Character
Assessment Report 2008.
Cabinet Office have reviewed the appropriateness of the references to “Southern Uplands”,
and suggest that the Inspector recommend amendments shown in red in the Table below -
References to “Southern Uplands” contained in the Written Statement
Paragraph 6.4.8
Reference derived
from the Isle of Man
Landscape Character
Assessment Report
2008
Review of the
boundary of the
“Southern Uplands”
landscape character
area falls outside of
the scope of the
Retain reference.
Paragraph 6.6.1
(three references)
Reference derived
from the Isle of Man
Landscape Character
Assessment Report
2008
Review of the
boundary of the
“Southern Uplands”
landscape character
area falls outside of
the scope of the
Retain references.
Paragraph 6.7.1
(two references)
Reference included
as part of a
proposed Landscape
Proposal 3.
The reference is
incorrect.
Amend - Landscape
Proposal 3 to make
reference to
“Northern Uplands”.
Amend reference
within paragraph
6.7.1
Cabinet Office note to Inquiry – 22 July 2024
Note 1A and 1B: Constraints Maps
Note 2: Southern Uplands
5
References to “Southern Uplands” contained in the Written Statement
Paragraph 6.7.5
Reference included
as part of a
proposed Landscape
Proposal 7.
The reference is
incorrect.
Amend - Landscape
Proposal 7 to make
reference to
“Northern Uplands”.
Paragraph 6.8.2
Reference derived
from the Isle of Man
Landscape Character
Assessment Report
2008
Review of the
boundary of the
“Southern Uplands”
landscape character
area falls outside of
the scope of the
Retain reference.
Paragraph 7.17.6
Reference derived
from the Isle of Man
Landscape Character
Assessment Report
2008.
Review of the
boundary of the
“Southern Uplands”
landscape character
area falls outside of
the scope of the
Retain reference
within Natural
Environment
Proposal 2.
Appendix 2
Landscape
Character Area H2
Reference derived
from the Isle of Man
Landscape Character
Assessment Report
2008
Review of the
boundary of the
“Southern Uplands”
landscape character
area falls outside of
the scope of the
Retain reference.
Appendix 2
Landscape
Character Area D9
Reference derived
from the Isle of Man
Landscape Character
Assessment Report
2008
Review of the
boundary of the
“Southern Uplands”
landscape character
area falls outside of
the scope of the
Retain reference.
Appendix 2
Landscape
Character Area F5
Reference derived
from the Isle of Man
Landscape Character
Assessment Report
2008.
The reference is
incorrect.
Amend - to make
reference to
“Northern Uplands”.
Appendix 2
Landscape
Character Area D9
Reference derived
from the Isle of Man
Landscape Character
Review of the
boundary of the
“Southern Uplands”
Retain reference.
Cabinet Office note to Inquiry – 22 July 2024
Note 1A and 1B: Constraints Maps
Note 2: Southern Uplands
6
References to “Southern Uplands” contained in the Written Statement
Assessment Report
2008
landscape character
area falls outside of
the scope of the
---
*Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).*
*Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/88392-lezayre-land-at-vollan-dwelling/documents/1142196*