DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 19/00830/B Applicant: Anchard Leisure Proposal: Change of use of part field to tourist use to create a glamping site to include the erection of 20 timber tourist accommodation cabins, one modified cabin to provide a welcome office and associated onsite parking for 22 spaces Site Address: Part Field 613191 Ballamenagh Road Groudle Glen Baldrine Isle Of Man Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 09.03.2020 _________________________________________________________________ R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons Reasons for Refusal - R 1. The site is not within a sustainable location or an existing settlement. It is considered that insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that there is an overriding national need for the development and that there are no reasonably acceptable alternatives. It is therefore considered that the proposal would be contrary to the policies within the Strategic Plan which seek to protect the countryside for its own sake and to direct development to sustainable locations in order to reduce the need to travel by car and to support existing services (Strategic Policies 2 & 10, General Policy 3 and Business Policy 11 & 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016). - R 2. The development would result in a significant amount of built development on land which is not designated for development. It is therefore concluded that the proposal would result in an adverse visual impact (during both the day and at night) upon the on the character and appearance of the countryside, which should otherwise be protected for its own sake, and also harm the character and quality of the landscape. The proposal is therefore contrary to Environmental Policy 1 & 2 and Strategic Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. - R 3. Insufficient detail in relation to the passing places has been provided to demonstrate that the access onto the Ballamenagh Road will not have an unacceptable impact on road safety and the proposal is therefore contrary to Transport Policy 4 and Strategic Policy 10 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. - R 4. Insufficient detail has been provided to demonstrate that lighting of the site (including cabins) would not have a significant adverse impact upon the visual amenities of the countryside/landscape or upon the wildlife on the site/surrounding area. Accordingly, it is considered the application would be contrary to Environmental Policy 1, 2, 4 & 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:

o Department of Enterprise

It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):

Groudle Glen Railway

o Ballakilley Farm, Ballamenagh Road, Baldrine
o Woodrising, Ballamenagh Road, Baldrine
o Wildlife, Ballamenagh Road, Baldrine
o Highfield, Bibaloe Beg Road, Onchan
o Baldromma Beg Farm, Baldromma Road, Baldrine
o AMG Investments Ltd, The Estate Office, Ballamona Estate, Oak Hill, Port Soderick on behalf of Croit ny Cabbyl, Ballamenagh Road, Baldrine
o Baldromma Christian, Ballamenagh Road, Baldrine As they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy
on Interested Person Status (July 2018). While more than 20m away from the site, given an Environmental Impact Assessment could be considered the general 20m distance is removed as per section paragraph 2B of the Policy. It is recommended that the following persons should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
o Groudle Glen Ltd
o 33 Ballaquark, Douglas
o Garden Flat Glenholme, King Edward Road, Onchan
o Ballaclague House, Lonan Old Church Road, Baldrine As they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy

Manx Utilities Manx Bat Group Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment

As they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy. _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

THE APPLICATION IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL DIRECTORATE

- 1.0 THE SITE

1.1 The site forms part of Field 613191 which is located to the southeast side of Ballamenagh Road and to the North and West of Groudle Glen, near the settlement of Baldrine. Access to the site can be obtained by an existing field gate off the Ballamenagh Road. The site is characterised as a grassed field, open in nature which slopes downwards in the South Easterly and South Westerly directions towards the Coast (East) and Groudle Glen (South/West). Along the Western and Southern boundaries of the site is a public footpath (track) which serves the Groudle Glen Railway and forms a section of the Raad Ny Foillan. - 1.2 Along the Western boundary (adjacent the track/footpath) of the site there is a bank of various heights which includes a number of mature hedgerows and trees. The boundaries to the East and South are open fields, being the remaining parts of Field 613191.

- 2.0 THE PROPOSAL

2.1 The planning application seeks approval for the creation of a glamping site, including the erection of 20 timber tourist accommodation cabins, one modified cabin to provide a welcome office and associated onsite parking for 22 spaces. - 2.2 The site access would be improved and a new access lane would run from this access to a parking and turning area. The modified cabin to provide a welcome office would be located to the car park/turning head. From this point a timber walkway would run in a southerly direction which would throughout the site, with additional walkways branching of the main walkway to serve the total of 20 cabins.

2.4 The timber cabins or also known as “camping pods”, can accommodate up to 4/5 people each with their own toilet/shower facilities, small kitchenette and living/bedrooms. Each pod would have their own outside decked seating area and additional seating within a small garden adjacent to cabin. The cabins are sited in groups where they shares communal seating areas including gas BBQ so larger joint groups can stay as one. - 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 There are no previous planning applications are considered relevant in the determination of this application. - 4.0 KEY DOCUMENTS

4.1 Material Considerations

4.1.1 Section 10(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act states: “In dealing with an application for planning approval… the Department shall have

regard to –

(a) The provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application,

(b) Any relevant statement of planning policy under section 3;
(c) Such other considerations as may be specified for the purpose of this subsection in a development order or a developmentprocedure order, so far as material to the application; and
(d) All other material considerations.”

4.1.2 In light of the above, it is considered that the key documents are:

• Laxey and Lonan Local Plan (2005);
• The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016);
• The Draft Planning Policy Statement on the Economy (2012);
• The Programme for Government (2016);
• The Destination Management Plan (2016); and
• The Non-Serviced Accommodation Study (2017).

4.1.3 All the documents are available on the government website, other than the Non-Serviced Accommodation Study (2017) which is available upon request from DfE.

4.2 Laxey and Lonan Local Plan (adopted 2005)

4.2.1 The site is shown as within an area not designated for development and within an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance on the Laxey and Lonan Local Plan.
4.2.2 The application site is not within a Conservation Area nor within an area designated as Natural Conservation Zones, Nature Reserves & Sites of Ecological Importance for Conservation. However, immediately to the South and West are Public Open Space (woodland) with Ecological Interest i.e. the Groudle Glen.
4.3 Isle of Man Strategic Plan (adopted 2016)

4.3.1 In light of the above, it is considered the policies from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (adopted 2016) set out below are relevant in the determination of this application.
4.3.2 The Strategic Plan takes its lead from the Government aims which include the pursuit of manageable and sustainable growth based on a diversified economy which is intended to raise the standard of living of the people of the Island and to provide the resources to sustain and develop public services. It also includes the protection and improvement of the quality of the environment such that it continues to be an asset for future generations.
4.3.3 The Strategic Aim is: “To plan for the efficient and effective provisionof services and infrastructure and to direct and control development and the use of land to meet the community’s needs, having particular regard to the principles of sustainability whilst at the same time preserving,protecting, and improving the quality of the environment, having particular regard to our uniquely Manx natural, wildlife, cultural and built heritage.”
4.3.4 The Strategic Aim is noted but not considered directly further, as the relevant aspects are unpacked by the relevant detailed policies which are identified below.
4.3.5 Strategic Policy 1 states: “Development should make the best use of resources by:

(a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials;
(b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space(1) and amenity standards; and
(c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services.”

4.3.6 Strategic Policy 2 states: “New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions (2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3.”
4.3.7 Strategic Policy 4 states: “Proposals for development must:

(a) Protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments, Registered Buildings (1), Conservation Areas (2), buildings and structures within National Heritage Areas and sites of archaeological interest;
(b) protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban

as well as rural areas but especially in respect todevelopment adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations;and

4.3.8 Strategic Policy 8 states: “Tourist development proposals will generally be permitted where they make use of existing built fabric of interest and quality, where they do not affect adversely environmental, agricultural, or highway interests and where they enable enjoyment of our natural and man-made attractions.”
4.3.9 Strategic Policy 10 states: “New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to:

(a) minimise journeys, especially by private car;
(b) make best use of public transport;
(c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and
(d) encourage pedestrian movement”

4.3.10 The Strategic Plan sets out a Spatial Strategy which includes a hierarchy of named settlements. The application site is not within a named settlement and therefore Spatial Policy 5 is relevant, which states, “New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3”.
4.3.11 General Policy 2 relates to “Development which is in accordance with the land use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan”and indicates that such proposals will be supported subject to compliance with a detailed list of issues. Proposals outside of allocated areas are assessed against General Policy 2 (see below). However, because the majority of the detailed considerations set out in General Policy 3 could be seen as ‘standard’ planning considerations, it can be helpful to consider whether a proposal complies with the detail of General Policy 2, even where it is not on land zoned for development. On that basis the following extracts from General Policy 2 are considered potentially relevant: “…

(b) respects the site and surroundings in terms ofthe siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spacesaround them;
(c) does not affect adversely the character of thesurrounding landscape or townscape;
(d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;
(e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
(f) incorporates where possible existing topographyand landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
(g) does not affect adversely the amenity of localresidents or the character of the locality;
(h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
(i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;
(j) can be provided with all necessary services; … (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; …”

4.3.12 General Policy 3 states: “Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:

… (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative …”

4.3.13 Environment Policy 1 states: “The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative.”
4.3.14 Environment Policy 2 states: “The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV’s) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until suchtime as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:

(a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or
(b) the location for the development is essential.”

4.3.15 Environment Policy 3 states: “Development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damageto woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi-natural woodlands, whichhave public amenity or conservation value”.

4.3.16 Environment Policy 4 states: “Development will not be permitted which wouldadversely affect:

(a) species and habitats of international importance:

(i) protected species of international importance or their habitats; or
(ii) proposed or designated Ramsar and Emerald Sites or other internationally important sites.

(b) species and habitats of national importance:

(i) protected species of national importance or their habitats;
(ii) proposed or designated National Nature Reserves, or Areas of Special Scientific Interest; or
(iii) Marine Nature Reserves; or
(iv) National Trust Land.

(c) species and habitats of local importance such as Wildlife Sites, local nature reserves, priority habitats or species identified in any Manx Biodiversity Action Plan which do not already benefit from statutory protection, Areas of Special Protection and Bird Sanctuaries and landscape features of importance to wild flora and fauna by reason of their continuous nature or function as acorridor 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 therelevant Local or Area Plan, are not, particularly where that plan has been in placefor many years. In these circumstances, the Department will seek site specific advice from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry if developmentproposals are brought forward.”

4.3.17 Environment Policy 5 states: “In exceptional circumstances wheredevelopment is allowed which could adversely affecta site recognised underEnvironmental Policy 4, conditions will be imposedand/or Planning Agreementssought to:

(a) minimise disturbance;
(b) conserve and manage its ecological interest asfar as possible; and
(c) where damage is unavoidable, provide new or replacement habitats so that the loss to the total ecological resource is mitigated.”

4.3.18 Environment Policy 7 states: “Development which would cause demonstrableharm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which could not be overcome bymitigation measures will not be permitted. Where development is proposed whichwould affect a watercourse, planning applications must comply with the followingcriteria:

(a) all watercourses in the vicinity of the site must be identified on plans accompanying a planning application and include anadequate risk assessment to demonstrate that works will not cause long term deterioration in water quality;
(b) details of pollution and alleviation measures must be submitted;
(c) all engineering works proposed must be phased in an appropriate manner in order to avoid a reduction in water quality in anyadjacent watercourse; and
(d) development will not normally be allowed within8 metres of any watercourse in order to protect the aquatic and bankside habitatsand species.”

4.3.19 Environment Policy 13 states: “Development which would result in anunacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted”.

4.3.20 Environment Policy 22 states: “Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or theamenity ofnearby properties in terms of:

i) pollution of sea, surface water or groundwater;
ii) emissions of airborne pollutants; and
iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution.”

4.3.21 Environment Policy 24 states: “Development which is likely to have a significant effect on the environment will be required:

i) to be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment in certain cases; and
ii) to be accompanied by suitable supporting environmental information in all other cases.”

4.3.22 Paragraph 7.18.1 states: “Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is an important procedure for ensuring that the likely effects of new development on the environment are fully understood and taken into account before the development is allowed to go ahead. It is a process by which information about the likely environmental effects of certain types of development is collected, assessed and taken into account by the developer (as part of project design) and by the planning authority (in determining the acceptability of theapplication). In cases where developments are likely to have significant environmental effects, whether public or private, by virtue of their nature, size or location, EIA’s will be required and the general principles set out in Appendix 5 should befollowed.”
4.3.23 Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan states that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) will be required in all cases where the proposed development comprises a “permanent camp site and caravan site”.
4.3.24 Business Policy 1 states: “The growth of employment opportunities throughout the Island will be encouraged provided that development proposals accord with the policies of this Plan.”
4.3.25 Paragraph 9.5.3 states: “It is considered that the Island’s primary assetsto tourists and visitors alike are its unique historical landscape, culture and heritage, as well as a wide range of specialist events and attractions. Many activities and facilities providing for the Island’s tourists require no permanent development: the TT Races, for example which attract by far the most significant number of tourists to the Island of any event held here, require little but the Grandstand on Glencrutchery Road and a small number of modest marshals’ shelters aroundthe Course. Tourism can, however require the erection of built structures –holiday accommodation being the most frequently requested form of new development required in association with the tourism industry. It is important that a balance bestruck between the needs of tourism and the protection of these assets, and that tourism development should be sustainable in accordance with the objectives of this plan. There is no special reason why less demanding policies should be applied to tourism development than for other types of development in the countryside, andlarger scale schemes may have to be the subject of an environmental impact assessment before planning permission is granted, as with any other form of large scale development.”
4.3.26 Business Policy 11 states: “Tourism development must be in accordance with the sustainable development objectives of this plan; policies and designations which seek to protect the countryside from development will be applied to tourist

development with as much weight as they are to other types of development. Within the rural areas there may be situations where existing rural buildings could be used for tourist use and Environment Policy 16 sets outthe circumstances where this may be permitted.”
4.3.27 Business Policy 14 states: “Tourism development may be permitted in rural areas provided that it complies with the policies in the Plan. Farmhouse accommodation or quality self catering units in barn conversions and making use of rural activities will be encouraged but must complywith General Policy 3 and Business Policies 11 and 12. Other forms of qualityaccommodation in rural areas will be considered, including the provision of hostels and similar accommodation suitable for walkers but must comply with General Policy 3 and Business Policies 11 and 12.”
4.3.28 Recreation Policy 3 states, “Where appropriate, new development should include the provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design…”.
4.3.29 Community Policy 10 states, “Proposals for the layout and development of

land will be permitted only where there is providedproper access for fire-fighting vehicles and adequate supplies of water for fire-fighting purposes”.

4.3.30 Community Policy 11 states, “The design and use of all new buildings and of extensions to existing buildings must, as far as isreasonable and practicable, pay due regard to best practice such as to prevent theoutbreak and spread of fire”.
4.3.31 Transport Policy 1 states, “New development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes”.
4.3.32 Transport Policy 4 states, “The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan.”
4.3.33 Transport Policy 6 states: “In the design of new development and transport facilities the needs of pedestrians will be given similar weight to the needs of other road users.”
4.3.34 Transport Policy 7 states: “The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department’s current standards. The current standards are set out in Appendix 7.”
4.3.35 Transport Policy 8 states: “The Department will require all applications for major development to be accompanied by a TransportAssessment.”
4.3.36 Infrastructure Policy 5 states: “Development proposals should incorporate methods for water conservation and management measures to conserve the Island’s water resources”.

4.4 The draft Planning Policy Statement Planning & the Economy (2012)

4.4.1 The weight to be attached to that document would obviously be greater if the review promised in paragraph 26 of the "Initial Summary of Responses" had been carried out, and also if a final PPS had been laid before Tynwald and published in accordance with Section 3(3) of The Act. Further, it has been 8 years since the originally laid before Tynwald and little if anything has been undertaken since. Accordingly, it could be considered as time has gone by, its weight lessens. It is also considered that the weight to be attached to the draft PPS would be greater if paragraph 14 of that document recognised the primacy of the development plan (as required by Section 3(4) of the Act), rather than suggesting a less onerous test than is contained in General Policy 3(g) of the Strategic Plan. Nevertheless, the general thrust of draft PPS remains a material consideration, which reinforces Business Policy

1 of the Strategic Plan.

4.4.2 With the above in mind, and also noting that the PPS is quite short and therefore in some ways the entire document has a relevance to the foregoing assessment, the extracts of the Draft PPS set out below are considered particularly relevant.

• "The Government is committed to promoting a strong,stable, and productive economy that aims to bring jobs and prosperity for all. In doing so the Government is committed to delivering further economic growth and diversification."
• "Achieving sustainable economic growth requires a fast, efficient and responsive planning system that includes a presumption in favour of development whilst protecting the countryside and enhancing the quality of the natural and built environment, which supports growth alongside regeneration, social and environmental sustainability, and has a greater emphasis on the quality of design."
• "It is essential that the planning system considers, and makes appropriate provision for the identified national needs of theentire economy and assists in steering economic development to the most appropriate locations. The economy should not be constrained bya shortage of land for economic development uses."
• "The planning system should support economic and employment growth alongside social and environmental sustainability.There is a general presumption in favour of development. Proposals will be considered on their merits bearing in mind the Development Plan and the need to protect the island's unique character, natural environmentand quality of life."
• "For planning purposes the Isle of Man Government defines economic development as the development of land and buildings for activities that generate wealth, jobs and incomes. Economic development land uses include: the traditional employment land uses (offices, research and development, industry and warehousing), as well asretail, leisure, and public services."
• "Although for planning purposes, it is not definedas economic development, it is recognised that house building and construction do play a valuable role in the economy."

• "In so doing, the planning system will aim to:

o Recognise that economic development can often deliver environmental and social benefits;
o (iv) Through the Development Plan ensure that suitable locations are available for industrial, commercial, retail, housing, public sector (e.g. health and education) tourism and leisure developments, so that the economy can prosper;
o (v) Provide opportunities for land and premises toenable for improved productivity, choice and competition, particularlywhen technological and other requirements of modern business are changing rapidly;
o (vi) Recognise that the economy will always be subject to change; therefore planning will need to be sensitive to these changes and the implications for development and growth;
o (viii) Work with the Department of Economic Development and other Government Departments to identify opportunities for future investment to deliver economic objectives;
o (ix) Ensure that economic and employment growth supports regeneration, social and environmental sustainability."

• "In the national interest, it is important that Planning Officers, the Planning Committee and Planning Inspectors adopt a positiveand constructive approach to determining planning applications for economic development, taking account of advice on the indicated economicbenefits of the development alongside social and environmental issues."
• "Planning will need to ensure that the economic benefits associated with a proposed project are understood and that these aregiven adequate material consideration with social and environmental issues in the decision making process. Therefore it is essential that anyevidence is sufficient to meet these criteria. The decision makers in planning will continue to recognise that on occasions the economic benefits may outweigh social and environmental considerations."
• "Well designed employment and residential uses canin some cases be compatible and planning should have regard to the proximity and compatibility of proposed residential development adjacent to existing industrial and commercial uses to ensure that bothamenity and economic development opportunities are not unduly compromised."

4.5 Programme for Government (2016)

4.5.1 Programme for Government 2016 – 2021 (approved in Tynwald) states the Governments strategic objectives for the next five years and identifies the initial priorities. One of the three main objectives being “An Island of Enterprise and Opportunity”

4.5.2 There are a number of objectives within this document which could be considered relevant to this application, as set out below.

• “We have an economy where local entrepreneurship issupported and thriving and more new businesses are choosing to call the Isle of Man home”
• “We have a diverse economy where people choose to work and invest”
• “We are an Island where people choose to live and visit”
• “We have a planning system which supports sustainable growth”

4.5.3 In terms of policies (under heading ‘Sustainable Island’) within this document, those set out below could be considered relevant.

• “Make best use of our Island’s land and seas for leisure and work through food, agriculture and fisheries strategies, plus tourism and recreational use that work together with our environment”
• “Continue to promote and support our national heritage, culture and language at home and around the world”
• “Build on and promote our UNESCO Biosphere accreditation for the benefit of our economy, environment and community”
• “Grow the visitor economy in the Isle of Man”
• “Make it easier for Government’s priorities to be reflected in the way planning applications are considered”

4.6 Destination Management Plan 2016 – 2020 (Status accepted by Department of Enterprise (DfE) in 2016)

4.6.1 The Plan sets out five objectives, which include “Creating an exceptional visitor experience” and “Championing new investment and product development”. The Plan indicates potential growth from UK families who are responsive to amongst other things, “self-catering, including camping at all price points”.

4.6.2 The Plan also identifies a number of key points in terms of the CURRENT situation:

• that 2,800 people are directly employed in the Islands tourism sector (7% of available workforce);
• There has been a 28% fall in bed spaces since 2003 (3% loss per year), these mainly being 1 & 2 star serviced accommodation (i.e. guesthouses being converted to residential units);
• Self-catering sector has increased, especially the higher end (4 & 5 star);
• Increase in 20 temporary campsites and rooms in residents homes during TT races;
• There were 277,00 visitors to the IOM in 2014 (91% from British Isles) which had an overall spend of £107.7m;
• In broad terms the volume of visits to the IOM over the last 12 years has seen a steadily fallen by an average of 1.7 a year (2014 were 16.5% lower than in 2003);

• The current profile of visitors are; 47% of visitors are over 55+, stay for more than 4 days &68% of visitors are without children; and
• Currently the forecast of the plan is there would be an continued growth in leisure visitors but a decline in business visitors and people visiting friends and relatives, resulting in an overall stagnation of visitor number sot the IOM up to 2020.

4.6.3 In terms of “Where we want to be” the plan identifies the following;

• Shifting in focus to target potential growth in leisure markets, specifically the UK short break and family markets, and efforts to consolidate business and visiting friends and relatives markets which are currently in decline; and
• A 2% increase per annum in tourism growth equates to 311,900 visitors and £122m value a 4% increase equates to 350,500 visitors and £137m value.

4.6.4 The Plan includes a chapter of “How we get there” in terms of the targets listed above, these are:

• Effective Partnerships;
• Promotion & Marketing;
• Visitor Experience;
• Product Development; and
• Research & Intelligence.

4.6.5 Within the “Product Development”, the plan identifies two “Primary Target New Growth Markets” these being:

“UK Families” – children ages 12 and under, short breaks 1 to 3 days, primary from North West, travel by car/ferry. These are responsive to beaches, selfcatering including camping, holiday centres offering child focused facilities e.g. swimming pools, entertainment and general activity; safe and friendly. “Short breaks” who on average stay 4 nights, aged 50+ couples; located in UK & near Europe, travel by car/ferry or budget airline, general holiday or special interest, higher spending than families and coach trips. These are responsive to range of type of accommodation, including high end resort spa/golf resorts, quality places to eat in serviced hotels and resultants throughout the destination, special retail, arts and crafts & café culture, and broad range of cultural events, heritage attractions, natural environment and gentler activities such as walking.

4.6.6 The plan has also broken down the “Primary Growth Target Markets” into a specific set of detailed visitor profiles to gain a better understand their needs and better target our promotion and marketing. These fours are:

• Out Timers-generally couples and groups of friends in their 60s;
• Trusty Travellers – usually couples aged 50+;
• Work hard, play hards – tend to be mid-20s to 40 something’s; and
• 2.4 explorers – adventurous families with children.

4.6.7 Key actions in relation to improving visitor services include, “Conduct an Accommodation Strategy to identify and direct current and future development of serviced and non-serviced accommodation”and “Work with Department of Infrastructure to review and assess the need for the development of a deep water

berth for cruise ships and commercial marinas and “Work the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (DEFA) identify and assess suitable sites for the development of family orientated holiday centres”.
4.6.8 The IOM Destination Management Plan is an approved strategy of the Department of Enterprise, as such it is capable of being a material consideration.

4.7 Isle of Man Non-Serviced Accommodation Futures Study (March

2017) Status accepted by Department of Enterprise (DfE) in 2017

4.7.1 The Study was prepared by “Hotel Solutions” which is a hotel development consultancy, on behalf of the Department of Enterprise (formerly DED) following the recommendation so the IOM Destination Management Plan 2016-2020. The below four points outline the purpose, coverage & use of the Study:

• “The Isle of Man Non-Serviced Accommodation FuturesStudy seeks to make an objective assessment of the future potential for non-serviced visitor accommodation development on the Isle of Man, both in terms of developing existing stock and new provision if evidenced by market need.
• It covers self-catering holiday cottages, holiday apartments, holiday lodges and complexes, holiday resorts, campsites, touring caravan provision, glamping and youth and group accommodation – hostels, bunkhouses, camping barns and outdoor education centres.
• The assessment has involved an audit of current non-serviced accommodation supply on the Island; a review of non-serviced accommodation provision and development trends in rural destinations in the UK and on comparator UK islands; a survey of the Island’s existing non-serviced accommodation businesses to understandperformance and market demand; interviews with holiday cottage andholiday lodge letting agencies; a review of non-serviced accommodation development proposals and potential development sites; stakeholder consultations; a review of relevant policy, strategy and research documents; and a survey of UK and international non-serviced accommodationoperators and developers.
• The study will be used to shape a future development strategy for the sector, inform planning policy and decision-makingon non-serviced accommodation proposals, guide DED interventions tosupport future development (including the FAS1), and ensure that Government and interested parties are aware of the prospects and potential of the nonserviced accommodation sector going forward.”

4.7.2 The Study identifies that the IOM is lagging behind UK rural and island designations in terms of provision of most types of non-serviced visitor accommodation and it is missing out on business that could be attracted with a wider, better quality, more contemporary non-serviced accommodation product.

4.7.3 The overall conclusion for the need of Non-Serviced Accommodation of the Study states the following:

“The market research undertaken for the DMP showedthat there are significant potential markets that can be attractedto the Isle of Man from the UK and Ireland in terms of the family holiday and break market, empty nesters and retired people coming for short breaks,and people that can be attracted for walking, outdoor activities, star gazing, and bird and wildlife watching. All of these markets are interested in staying in non-serviced accommodation.

Our assessment of the Island’s current non-servicedaccommodation offer and how it compares to UK rural destinations and other UK islands is that the Isle of Man does not currently have a sufficientlydeveloped non-serviced accommodation offer to attract these markets and compete effectively for them. It has very little weather-proofed non-serviced accommodation, very little family-friendly accommodation, and very little activity-focused accommodation. While the Island has a good stock ofgenerally high quality self-catering accommodation, compared to other destinations, the Isle of Man has:

o A limited stock of luxury contemporary/boutique holiday cottages;
o No holiday cottages with leisure facilities;
o No holiday resorts;
o No holiday lodge parks;
o No holiday parks;
o Very little high quality glamping, and nothing distinctive in terms of glamping
o Only one 4 star campsite and no 5 star campsite;
o A ban currently on towed caravans;
o Limited provision in terms of hostels and bunkhouses.

• From our review of planning approvals, discussions with the Island’s existing non-serviced accommodation operators and land owners, and conversations with UK non-serviced accommodation operators and developers, it is evident that there is growing, and current live interest in bringing forward non-serviced visitor accommodationdevelopment schemes

on the Isle of Man, including some of scale.

• There are however three barriers to securing investment in non-serviced accommodation development on the Isle of Man. The cost of getting to the Island is an issue for some markets, particularly at off-peak times, when the market is more price-driven. The short tourist season on the Island and inclement winter weather pose significant challenges in terms of achievable occupancy levels on the Island, and the viability therefore of investment. Planning and policy restrictions also place a barrier on non-serviced accommodation development, particularly developments of any scale in the countryside, and the development of caravanning.
• If the Destination Management Plan targets are tobe achieved, and the Isle of Man is to realise its tourism potential, attractthe identified target growth markets, extend its tourist season, and compete effectively as a holiday and short break destination, it is clear from our research that the Island needs:

o More family-friendly non-serviced accommodation;

o More weather-proofed non-serviced accommodation;
o More activity-focused non-serviced accommodation;
o The types of non-serviced accommodation that aresuccessfully operating in UK rural destinations and on other UK islands.

• High quality, distinctive accommodation that people will feel is worth the extra time and cost of travelling to the Isle of Man for is key.
• Some non-serviced accommodation developments of scale (holiday resorts, holiday lodge parks and holiday parks) need to be considered as part of the forward strategy.”

4.7.4 The study finds there is the potential for a number of different types of NonServiced Accommodation on the IOM these being; Holiday Cottages / Holiday Apartments, Holiday Lodges, Forest Holiday Centres, Holiday Resorts, Holiday Lodge Parks and Holiday Parks, Golf Lodges, Fishing Lodges, Glamping, Campsites, Eco Camping, Camping pods, A Camping Shelter Network, Touring Caravanning, Seasonal Tourers, Motorhome Stopovers, Campervan/Motorhome Hire, Hostel and Bunkhouses, Accommodation at Attractions & Walker, Cyclist and Motorcyclist Friendly Accommodation.
4.7.5 In terms of this application, the following type of accommodation as listed above have been included in full, being likely to be most relevant when determining the current application.

“Camping Pods A few of the Island’s campsites have added campingpods to provide an alternative accommodation offer and help extend theseason. They are generally attracting good demand, primarily from on-islanders. This suggests potential for campsites to add a few more camping pods.

There might be scope for camping pod resorts/encampments (15-20 units) with central communal socialising and cooking areasand outdoor activities. Such resorts would have appeal for the family market, family and friend group holidays and breaks, and activity groups e.g.walking, cycling and motorbiking groups.”

“Walker, Cyclists and Motorcyclist Friendly Accommodation Growing the walking, cycling, mountain biking, Enduro riding and motorbiking holiday and break market on the Island will requireexisting and new nonserviced accommodation businesses to provide facilities such as drying rooms, boot and bike wash facilities, and secure cycle and motorbike storage.”

4.7.6 The concluding comments of the Study state; “• This is a time of great opportunity for the Isleof Man to grow its visitor economy. Anincrease in the supply of non-serviced accommodation is critical to achieving this. TheHotel Futures Study was primarily about renewing the Island’s hotel offer, rather thanincreasing hotel capacity. This study has shown that the opportunities for increasingthe Island’s accommodation

capacity, and growing staying visitor numbers, aremuchmore about developing non-serviced accommodation.

• The analysis has shown that the Isle of Man has already fallen considerably behind other Island and rural UK destinations in terms of the supply of high quality, distinctive, contemporary non-serviced accommodation that will attract the Island’s target markets. Without intervention to accelerate investment in this sector that gap will widen, leaving the Isle of Man in an increasingly uncompetitive position as a destination, and undermining the potential for the visitor economy to play its partin the Island’s future growth strategy.
• The Isle of Man is in a strong position: the market opportunity is there, and there is developer, operator and investor interestin taking opportunities forward – including schemes that have the ability to be game-changers, and to really make a difference to the Island’s visitoreconomy and profile as a holiday and short break destination. The opportunities can only be realised however, if non-serviced accommodation developmentsites and viable schemes can be delivered, which a more flexible planning approach and Government financial assistance have a key role toplay in achieving. The Government can, and we believe should, pick this upand run with it, leading the way with a positive, dynamic and enabling programme of pro-activity and support, and a ‘can do’ attitude that will ensure the non-serviced accommodation sector is given the freedom to flourish on the Island.”

4.7.7 The Study is a piece of evidence base rather than a strategy in its own right, but highlights areas of potential action/focus which could help to deliver the Destination Management Plan and has been accepted by DfE on that basis.
4.7.8 Furthermore, it is perhaps worth to note that permission shouldn’t be granted on the first, second, third etc schemes which are submitted, as the “wrong site” could then have future implications on the viability of more suitable sites that may come forward in the future. Accordingly, it is vital any such application is carefully considered.

4.8 Policy on the development of Non-Serviced Accommodation (March

2019) Status accepted by Department of Enterprise (DfE) in 2019

4.8.1 Following the Non-Serviced Accommodation Study in 2017 the Department of Enterprise (DFE) have now produced a policy/strategy. This report states:

“There is current and growing interest in the development of additional non-serviced accommodation units, as such it is now viewed that the Agency (Visit IOM Agency), and theDepartment, should clearly articulate their policy in respect of such development.”

4.8.2 The documents summarises the non-serviced accommodation on the Island which makes up 54% of the overall bed space, with the majority being single units across the IOM. It highlights that there are gaps of:

1. Complexes, particularly with leisure facilities;
2. Units adapted for those with disabilities;
3. Large units catering for groups; and
4. Luxury, boutique style properties.

4.8.3 It comments that there are 11 permanent camp sites and 21 temporary campsites (Motor cycling events only), with the majority being 3 star quality. There are a small supply of glamping operations, primarily add-ons to campsites, where two operate of a high standard, operating all year round and the remainder are seasonal and basic. It also comments there are no holiday cottages and leisure facilities; holiday resorts; or holiday parks/holiday lodge parks. Again the report comments that the ION is lagging behind the UK in terms of non-serviced accommodation and could be missing out on visitors who could be attracted with a wider range and better quality of non-serviced accommodation offering.

4.8.4 The document also comments that in 2016, 292,328 visitors came to the IOM, spending £106m on accommodation, food and drink, shopping, entertainment and transport, equating to an average spend of £363 spend per person. 679 people were employed in the visitor sector, with a further 2129 in catering and entertainment. In total this represents approx 7% of all jobs in the IOM.
4.8.5 The Visitor Strategy 2019-2023 seeks to; Promote and develop the IOM as a quality visitor destination; increase the employment rate in the visitor economy by 15% by 2023; and provide a first class visitor experience and enhancing perceptions of the IOM as a great place to visit, live, work and invest. To achieve these aims it is necessary for the Visit IOM Agency to develop polices which ensure the evolving demands of the Visitor Market continues to be met. It comments that the IOM does not have sufficient quality accommodation to meet our ambitions.
4.8.6 In terms of the Policy, the documents indicates that: This policy is designed to provide a balance approach, supporting growth of the potential market, in terms of scale and quality, whilst not substituting or displacing current provision. As such, focus will be on the types of nonserviced accommodation identified as being in shortage within the study, namely:

1. Developments of multiple units;
2. Those that cater for families;
3. Those they cater for individuals with disabilities;
4. Proposals which incorporate leisure and entertainment facilities;
5. High quality, luxury, boutique developments;
6. Clusters or separate small scale units which complement existing tourist activities or leisure facilities;
7. Glamping units; and
8. Those catering for group experiences.

4.8.7 The high level policy positions is; “Visit IOM and the Department for Enterprise will actively support the development of non-serviced accommodation which meets agreed high level criteria and serves to complement and enhance the overall proposition for the visitor economy.”. The document comments that this Policy does not lead to substitution or dilution of the existing visitor economy, such support will initially be limited to proposals which, in aggregate provide for the development of units equating to no more than 5% of the total non-serviced bed spaces as recorded during March 2019. A Strategic Approach is also listed which considered the short, medium and long terms. The end of the document indicates that the policy will be supported where it meets a number of high level components. These are listed (and considered) within the representations from the Department of Enterprise within paragraph 5.4.1 of this report.

4.9 UNESCO Biosphere Isle of Man

4.9.1 UNESCO Biosphere Isle of Man is all about keeping the Isle of Man a special place to live, work and visit. The Isle of Man is the first entire Island Nation in the world to receive this designation.

4.9.2 The UNESCO Biosphere Isle of Man project does not seek to prevent any specific actions, but to promote enjoying and celebrating the Isle of Man to the full, making it an even better place to be and promoting engagement.

4.9.3 The scope of the UNESCO Biosphere Isle of Man Pledge is deliberately broad and inclusive but the context of the Pledge principles are set out below.

• “Protecting our natural resources – this could relate to anything you’re trying to do better that will impact positively on our natural resources, from managing water use to planting trees.
• Developing our economy in a sustainable way – doing business responsibly, balancing the need for growth with respect for our natural, social and cultural environment. Responsible businesses tend to be more resilient, contributing to a diverse economy which is more sustainable than a ‘monoculture’ economy.
• Supporting and promoting our cultural heritage – for example, staff involvement in, or corporate sponsorship of, cultural events and groups.
• Making our environmental impact positive wherever possible – closely related to the first principle of protecting our natural resources, this could include anything from energy saving and waste management measures to support of local environmental projects.
• Engaging with the local community – through environmental, social or community groups, whichever fit best with your business. You’ll find a wide range of groups listed under ‘Who is involved?’ on the Environmental/Cultural, Community and Educational pages.
• Promoting our outstanding living landscapes through active involvement with Biosphere Isle of Man – being an ambassador for the project and advertising the fact that you support it, thereby encouraging others to get involved.”

4.9.4 The Biosphere Reserves are about achieving a good working balance between people and nature’ and the Accreditation reflects how the Isle of Man manages its environment, community and economy, acknowledging that all three components are necessary to achieve a sustainable situation.

4.9.5 The Biosphere related guidance is not formal planning policy but the designation is capable of being a material consideration.

- 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Garaff Commissioners (Local Authority)

5.1.1 Garaff Commissioners have objected to the application (23.08.2019):

“The Commissionersobjectto these proposals. They do not feel there is adequate justification to warrant setting aside thevarious planning policies that are relevant to the application.”

5.2 DOI Highways

5.2.1 DOI Highways Services (05.02.2020) made the following comments: “Key highway issues The key highway issues relate to:

• Access visibility including entry and exit movements;
• Access width and surfacing;
• Turning around space for service vehicles;
• Car parking in terms of space sizes, layout, numbers and turning space;
• Traffic generation;
• Impact upon the local highway network;
• Off-site highway improvement measures; and
• Access to public transport.

Existing highway situation The site would be accessed from Ballamenagh Road which is an adopted single track rural road with occasional passing places. The road has a typical carriageway width of only 2.5m with grass verges on either side and often with drainageditches within the verges. The road is subject to a 40mph speed restriction but the carriageway width, forward visibility and alignment would generally keep average speeds to less than the limit. The road surfacing is at least in places in poor condition with potholes inthe wheel tracks.

From the site access over a distance of 830m in a north-westerly direction, Ballamenagh Road has a priority ‘T’ junction with King Edward Road where King Edward Road has priority. King Edward Road is an adopted road subject to a 40mph speed restriction. Visibility from Ballamenagh Road onto King Edward Road is 2.4m x 120m+ to the north. Visibility is 2.4m x 90m to the south nearside channel, but this could be improved by trimming back vegetation on the highway verge; the visibility to the centre line which would include most of the approaching vehicles in the offside lane is 120m. The normally required visibility for this type of road is 2.4m 120m. The junction would be suitable for a moderate intensification of use. The junction area of Ballamenagh Road where it joins King Edward Road has just sufficient space for 2 cars to pass each other.

On King Edward Road there is access to a limited bus service and the Manx Electric Railway. The current access to the site is from an agricultural type access part surfaced in bitumen macadam and part in compacted stone that carries aPublic Right of Way (PRoW). There are other field accesses in this area close to the proposed site access. To the southwest of the proposed site access, the access track continues asa PRoW. The area of land between the adopted highway and the site entrance is not adopted highway maintainable at public expense. The access is situated on the outside of a tight bend that turns through around 120 degrees. At this point the carriageway width is around 4.0mto allow a moderate sized vehicle to make the turning movement. On the inside of the bend there is a turf bank that severely restricts forward visibility for a driver with an eye heightof 1.05m travelling through the bend. At this location forward visibility is just a few metres and anticipated safe vehicle speeds would be around 5mph.

Visibility from the access onto Ballamenagh Road for exiting vehicles is in excess of that required. Forward visibility from a vehicle waitingto make a right turn from Ballamenagh Road into the site is very limited, as it would be for avehicle travelling straight on. For this reason a slow moving right turn into the site on this singletrack road would be no more hazardous than travelling straight on. Forward visibility for a vehicle making a left turn into the site is better than that for a right turn.

The capacity of a single track road can vary considerably depending upon the frequency of passing places, the forward visibility to oncomingtraffic and inter-visibility between passing places. Research into the capacity of such roads was undertaken in the 1960s using single track roads in the Scottish Highlands which lead toa report being published by the Road Research Laboratory in 1967. The report derived anempirical formula that indicated the capacity of single track roads was between 100 and220 vehicles per hour, (this is the sum of traffic in both directions). More recent computer modelling has concluded that capacity lies between 100 and 300 vehicles per hour. Due to the limited number of passing places and the sometimes absence of visibility between them it would be appropriate to assume that the capacity of Ballamenagh Road for the purpose of this assessment to be 100 vehicles per hour. The applicant has stated that the observed actual flows on Ballamenagh Road are less than 10 vehicles per hour. During a sample survey undertaken by Highway Services on 3rdFebruary

2020 only 4 vehicle movements were observed in a 45minute period between 2:15pm and 3:00pm, on the section of road between the application site and King Edward Road. It is therefore considered to be likely that in the morning and evening peak hours 10 or less vehicle movements would take place in each period.

The part of Ballamenagh Road that heads away from the site in a north-easterly direction has similar characteristics of the section of Ballamenagh Road heading north-westerly from the site, with single track carriageway, few passing places and tight bends with turf banks on the inside of these bends. Again, in places, the carriageway condition is poor.

Proposals The planning application proposes the change of useof part of a field to provide a welcome office and 20 ‘Glamping’ cabins for tourist use.

The access from Ballamenagh Road which includes thePRoW would be upgraded to have bitumen macadam surfacing as would part of the access into the site which would be gated. The access would be 5.3m wide with sufficient turning around space for refuse collection and emergency vehicles. There would be suitable pedestrian visibility from the site access to the PRoW. The site would contain 22 car parking spaceswhich would have acceptable size and layout, plus 4 additional overspill spaces. A whiteline would be provided to denote the edge of carriageway where the proposed new surfacing wouldmeet the edge of carriageway. Any works within the highway boundary would need to beundertaken by the highway authority and the developer would need to enter into a Section 109A Agreement with the Highway Authority.

It is likely that a high proportion of visitors tothe site would be from off the island and whilst many would arrive by private car it is considered unlikely that each cabin on average would have more than 1 car in attendance. When taking into account that there will be times when there is not full occupancy it is considered that the proposed amount of car parking would be sufficient for most of the time the site is open. The applicant has also indicated that a shuttle

bus would also be provided for guests whereby the use of private cars could be reduced. The applicant has indicated that during periods offull occupancy the development would generate between 40 and 50 traffic movements per day (a journey out and then back in again would count as 2 traffic movements). This is considered to be a realistic assessment but for the purposes of this assessment a higher value of 60 movements per day is assumed. The generated traffic would be less likely to follow conventional peak hour flows and it is likely that there would be no more than 5 additional traffic movements in the peak hours which may not necessarily coincide with background peak hour traffic movements. It would be likely that most of the generated traffic would be using the sectionof Ballamenagh Road between the site and King Edward Road which as stated previously is around 830m long.

For the purposes of illustration it is considered that during the morning or evening peaks with the development in place at full capacity there would be 15 traffic movements per hour (10 background flow and 5 due to the development). Thiswould be 1 vehicle movement every 4 minutes, or 1 in each direction every 8 minutes onaverage. If an average travel time of 90 seconds, at an average speed of around 20mph is assumed for a journey along the 830m section of road, then in the case of the majority of journeys there would be no opposing flow. In any event the road would be operating within itscapacity of 100 vehicle movements per hour.

However; in the cases where a point of conflict occurs, which would be in the minority of cases

but still a frequent event, there could be a significant distance to reverse back to a passing place. This could be problematic from a practical point of view due to such a narrow carriageway and soft verges with drainage ditches.The applicant has recognised that this issue could occur and has stated a willingness to provideadditional passing places. Highway Services has identified possible locations where passing laybys could be provided and a minimum carriageway width of 5.0m could be achieved. Theselocations often had at least 2.5m wide verges on either side of the 2.5m wide carriageway.The provision of these additional laybys is suggested as a planning condition.

The carriageway in places is in poor condition butit should be noted that most of the additional site traffic would be light vehicles which cause slight deterioration of the carriageway. Heavy vehicles cause greatly disproportionate damage to the carriageway.

The detail of the offsite highway works can be agreed post planning approval, but the applicant is advised that in the order of 3 passinglaybys may be required; constructed to highway specification. The location of the laybys would need to be agreed with Highway Services and a possible traffic volume and speed survey may be required to inform the process.

Representations The application has attracted significant public interest and most of the representations made include comments or objections in relation to highway issues. A summary of the highway related comments is as follows:

• An increase in traffic on Ballamenagh Road which could be more than the existing traffic or even a dramatic increase;
• The increased traffic on Ballamenagh Road would bedetrimental to farming operations;
• Limited traffic capacity of Ballamenagh Road;
• There would be unsuitable access to the site from the Baldrine end of Ballamenagh Road which is only suitable for local traffic;
• Difficulty for two vehicles to pass each other on Ballamenagh Road;
• No designated vehicle passing places on BallamenaghRoad;
• Poor state of repair of Ballamenagh Road;
• Size of vehicles accessing the site;
• Emergency vehicles would have difficulty in accessing the site;
• Inadequate highway infrastructure;
• Lack of street lighting on Ballamenagh Road;
• Poor visibility for vehicles making a right turn from Ballamenagh Road into the site;
• Insufficient onsite car parking;
• Poor visibility at the junction of Ballamenagh Roadwith King Edward Road;
• Overspill car parking could occur at the Groundle Glen public car park;
• Limited public transport to serve the site;
• Lack of retail facilities in proximity of the site;
• The development would be too car dependent;
• Narrow verges containing ditches that result in poor pedestrian facilities and insufficient space to pass cyclists and horse riders;
• Lack of footways on King Edward Road;
• Sharp bends in Ballamenagh Road with limited forward visibility that present a road safety issue;
• Ballamenagh Road is not suitable for the proposed shuttle bus;
• Additional traffic on Ballamenagh Road will cause damage to verges;
• If additional passing places are provided on the verges Ballamenagh Road this would result in environmental damage;
• Insufficient width of adopted highway corridor to widen the carriageway and there would be very limited scope to provide places on Ballamenagh Road;
• Ballamenagh Road is not suitable for the construction traffic and damage to the road would occur; and
• Significant upgrading of Ballamenagh Road would berequired to accommodate the development.

The above representations have been taken into account in the highway assessment and many of which have been specifically addressed within the text of this report. In particular, the limited number of passing places on Ballamenagh Road and the distance between them is recognised. Therefore by way of mitigation the provision of additional passing places has been suggested by means of a planning condition.

Suggested planning conditions

1. Prior to occupation of the site the provision of passing laybys shall be provided on Ballamenagh Road in agreement with Highway Servicesat the expense of the developer. Reason: in the interest of safe highway operation.

2. Prior to occupation of the site the proposed site access, turning areas and car parking shall be provided and then retained for the duration of the use of the development. Reason: in the interest of safe highway operation.

Informative In order to provide the site access upgrade withinthe highway boundary and the passing laybys the developer would need to enter into a Section 109A Agreement with the Highway Authority.

Recommendation: DNOC”

5.3 Manx Utilities

5.3.1 Manx Utilities comment (30.08.2019): “We have no comments to issue regarding the above application.”

5.4 Department of Enterprise

5.4.1 The Department of Enterprise (Tourism) made the following comments (): “Thank you for your letter of 1st August 2019 seeking the Department for Enterprise’s comment on application 19/00830/B.

The Department has assessed the information provided within the Groudle Glen Glamping (Anchard Leisure) Architect’s Design Statement (July 2019) against the Department for Enterprise’s Policy on the development of Non-Serviced Accommodation criteria (March 2019). The Department is unable to assess elements of the proposal due to limited information and the absence of a detailed business case.

The Department has made reference to the following documents within the assessment: Non-Serviced Accommodation Futures Report (March 2017); Visit Isle of Man Strategy Overview to 2023 (updated Destination Management Plan 2016 -2020) and Strategic Plan (2016).

Table: Policy on the development of Non-Serviced Accommodation

|Criteria|Description|Policy Statement|Comment on Application| |---|---|---|---| |Variety|Offer a good choice of high quality, distinctive accommodation units for rental and ownership/rental of varying sizes and different types e.g. holiday lodges, holiday cottages and apartments, glamping units and a hotel or inn.|A mixed use development will be of more appeal than a collection of identical units in isolation;|Less favourable The Architect’s Design Statement identifies the units as not in line with the policy however, the statement suggests ‘more variety to the site rather than having all the units being of the same design’ could be included. If approved, would recommend variety remains an important consideration.| |Facilities|Provide a good range of indoor and outdoor leisure, sports, restaurant, bar and entertainment facilities.|A proposal that is selfsufficient for visitors in leisure facilities, as well as developing the broader leisure proposition for other visitors and residents will be of more appeal than no leisure facilities;|Less favourable It appears the 19/00830/B development is to offer limited facilities that do not meet the criteria within the Policy.| |Layout|Feature an imaginative layout and landscaping that integrates with and utilises the site’s naturally occurring vegetation and topography|A development that is in keeping with its surroundings, or distinctive but shielded from the main vantage points will be of|Unable to assess The Policy is supportive in principle to a segregated car parking area, as opposed to|

| |to afford privacy to guests and achieves a positive environmental impact. It might also be worth specifying car-free resort environments, with segregated guest parking areas, as opposed to parking alongside accommodation units.|more appeal than a proposal that is in stark contrast to the surroundings or that interrupts existing scenic views;|parking alongside the accommodation units. The Architect’s Design Statement describes the site as follows, ‘The field can be seen as part of the general landscape of Groudle Glen from the corner of King Edward Road when travelling to Douglas. Part of the field along the western boundary is screened from view by tall mature trees. The proposed development will be located close to these trees so that is it mainly concealed from view from the road and the holiday cottages on the opposite side of the river.’ From the application information provided, we are unableto assess.| |---|---|---|---| |Design|Feature distinctive, Manxinspired design and the use of sustainable building materials and measures to ensure environmentally sustainable operation.|A design that has clearly unique attributes will be of more appeal than one which replicates facilities commonly found in other destination markets.|Less favourable The design of the glamping units replicates those commonly found in other destination markets and does not appear to have unique attributes or feature distinctive Manxinspired design. The Department is less favourable of the design.| |Market|Encourage environmentally friendly holiday activities by guests; enjoyment and appreciation of the Isle of Man’s natural environment and heritage and UNESCO Biosphere status; and exploration on foot, by bike and using public transport|A proposal that fitswith the Island’s Destination Management Plan markets will be of more appeal than one which is looking forwards an undefined or generic visitor;|Unable to assess Since the Non-Serviced Accommodation Futures Report (March 2017) there has been in increase in similar glamping units. The market remains one expected to grow. Due to the limited information provided within the planning application documents and no available business plan, the Department is unable to assess.| |Accessibility|Provide accommodation units and guest facilities that are fully accessible for people with disabilities|A proposal that includes fully accessible accommodation and leisure facilities will be of more appeal than one which has limited or no accessibility;|Unable to assess The Architect’s Design Statement suggests that the 19/00830/B development will include accessible glamping units stating ‘all cabins will be located off a timber boardwalk running through the site which will provide access for wheelchair users to specifically modified cabins close to the car park’. However, the information provided on accessibility is limited and as such, the Department is unable to appear supportive or unsupportive of the accessibility of the development.| |Economic|Demonstrate significant economic benefit to the Island, particularly in terms|A proposal that carries an independent economic assessment demonstrating|Unable to assess Due to the limited information|

| |of retained local spend and employment over an extended season, ideally year-round|long term material economic contribution will be of more appeal than one that shows initial exchequer benefit but is highly speculative and will cause economic harm to the existing market;|provided within the planning application documents and no available business plan, the Department is unable to assess.| |---|---|---|---| |Viability|Demonstrate long term sustainable market growth|A proposal that carries an independent economic assessment showing long term viability and overall market growth will be of more appeal than one which is based on a business plan replying on exploiting the current market;|Unable to assess Due to the limited information provided within the planning application documents and no available business plan the Department is unable to assess.| |Displacement|Demonstrate a unique proposition and proven ability to grow the overall visitor profile|A proposal that demonstrates an ability to grow the overall visitor profile, season and spend will be of more appeal than one which seeks to operate seasonally within the existing market boundaries;|Unable to assess Due to the limited information provided within the planning application documents and no available business plan the Department is unable to assess.| |Promotion|Demonstrate through owner capability or operator capability a commitment to promote the proposition to new audiences|A proposal that demonstrates the ability to reach a new market through the likes of established customers in other facilities, will be of more appeal than a speculative development that requires a significant commitment to promotion as part of the initial business plan;|Unable to assess The Architect’s Design Statement states Wigwam Holidays will provide marketing support to the development as part of an overall advertising strategy. It appears that the development will have sufficient promotional support however, in the absence of a business plan and detailed marketing strategy the Department is unable to assess.| |Transport and Access|Demonstrate how the scheme integrates with the Island’s transport networks|The access and egress to and from the site must meet the standards laid down by the Department of Infrastructure’s Highways Services section. An integrated approach to the provision of cycle and pedestrian routes will be encouraged. A small scheme is unlikely to need additional public transport considerations however larger schemes that are already accessible form the public transport network will be of more appeal than those that are not currently serviced.|Unable to assess The vehicular access to the site appears in our opinion to be fairly poor, being mostly single lane with passing places and a junction on to Groudle Road that is at an oblique angle. It is anticipated that the Department of Infrastructure’s Highways section would not view favourably, that aspect of the site’s location. The Department is unable to assess.| |Location|Integrate the scheme with and enhance the site upon which it is located and the wider landscape|An application which clearly demonstrates why and how the location has been selected will be of more appeal than a proposal which does not set out the benefits of the proposed location. Where existing buildings on the site may have architectural or|Less favourable The Non-Serviced Accommodation Futures Report carried out on the Department's behalf, identifies the need for a diversification of non-serviced accommodation across the Island. However, the NonServiced Accommodation|

| | |historic value; they should be retained and re-used.|Report is clear in directing those considering such development, to do so in accordance with the policies set out within the Strategic Plan. The Department understands that the site is not currently designated and does not have a history of development. Whilst the Department considers the proposal to have merit, it would direct the applicant to seek development in a more appropriate location thereby complying with the bases of the polices within the Strategic Plan.| |---|---|---|---| |Scale|To be appropriate in scale of accommodation considering the proposal for facilities and the location concerned.|An application which clearly demonstrates the reasons for the scale of the proposed development and how such is required to be successful will be of more appeal and a proposal where the benefits are unclear.|Unable to assess Due to the limited information provided within the planning application documents and no available business plan the Department is unable to assess.| |Occupancy|Given the inherent risk that holiday facilities could be over time utilised for quasi residential use, conditions to ensure holiday use and rental of owned holiday homes should also be specified. These could include: • A requirement for holiday home owners to provide evidence of their permanent address; • A requirement for owned holiday homes to be made available for rental through the resort operator for a certain number of days per year, and evidence of rental bookings; • A restriction on the usage of holiday homes by the owner to a certain number of days per year, and evidence of owner use. |An application which demonstrates processes and control mechanisms to prevent permanent residential occupancy and ensure frequent rental availability will be preferable to those where such consideration is not adequately addressed.|Unable to assess Due to the limited information provided within the planning application documents and no available business plan the Department is unable to assess.|

We trust this is sufficient for your requirements.”

5.5 Senior Biodiversity Officer (DEFA)

5.5.1 Senior Biodiversity Officer (DEFA) makes the following initial comments (03.09.2019)

“The adjacent Groudle Glen has been identified as afeeding area for several bat species including common pipistrelle, brown long-eared bat and whiskered bat. Whiskered, Natters and Daubenton’s bats allavoid lit areas for feeding and commuting, therefore it is important that a low level lighting scheme is included within the design plans and a dark corridor is maintained adjacent to the glen to enable bats to continue to feed and commute; this should be in place for the duration of the development. See Bats and Artificial Lighting Guidance Note 08/18 by the Bat Conservation Trust and Institution of Lighting Professionals for more information.

Should the application be granted permission the following conditions are recommended:

A scheme of low lighting shall be submitted to andapproved in writing by Planning before the development is commenced. The scheme shall be retained for the life of the development.

A landscape scheme using native tree species shallbe submitted to and approved in writing by Planning before the development is commenced. The scheme as approved shall be carried out in the first planting season following the completion of the development. Any trees that die within a period offive years from the completion of the development shall be replaced in the first available planting season with others of similar size and species. The scheme shall be retained for the life of the development.”

5.6 Other Organisations

5.6.1 Manx Bat Group object to the application which can be summarised as

(30.08.2019): Our group is specifically mentioned in the notional ecological appraisal contained within the applicants design statement although no approach has be made to the Manx Bat Group, in relation to the impact on bats arising from this development; the statement indicated that lighting will not impacts bats, but no assessment has been made; refuse the further assertion in the document that bat habitat will somehow be protected by this development; all lighting will have a an impact, generally be regarded as being detrimental; two types of bats been recorded in the Glen which are sensitive to artificial light; and this proposal would increase levels of artificial light in the wooded areas of Groudle Glen adjacent to the site in question.

5.6.2 Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment (SPMC&E) objects to the proposal which can be summarised as

(31.08.2019); site is not part of Groudle Glen and should references should be ignored; the submitted plans should new planting within the verge of the public highway which runs along the boundary of the site, for which the applicants has no right and cannot be regarded as part of the application as it falls outside the ownership; site within a Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic or Costal Significance; application fails GP3 (g) as site does not have an overriding national need to be developed in this way and there are many other reasonable and acceptable alternative sites; Strategic Plan Tourism indicates that new forms of contemporary tourism being welcomes, but they must comply with GP 3 and BP 11; this application fails BP11 as it does not seek to protect the countryside from development; contrary to IP1; applicants indicate that views from King Edward Road will screen the cabins, however they are tall pines and are denuded of foliage on the lower part of the trunk of the trees and therefore views of the huts are likely to be

visible from the coastal road; car park while finished in a grasscrete, when cars are parked they will all be visible from Kind Edward Road; The application should be refused given the land isn’t designated and no overriding national need to permit it to take place in an area designated as being High Landscape Value and Scenic or Costal Significance; and glamping may be the latest craze in tourism, but the importance of maintained a balance between tourism needs and potential impact on the countryside cannot be overstated.

5.6.3 Groudle Glen Railway (19.08.2019) comment on the application which can be summarised as; we run an own land running adjacent to the boundary of Field 613191; it is correct the applicants discussed the potential development with us; although best described as broad/”big picture” about the desirability of a full Groudle “resort” cantered around the proposed glamping venue; The Department should be under no illusion that the grant of this application would lead to further applications for potentially more permanent structures in the area which the railway would strongly object to; discussions where had to potentially share costs for installation mains electricity to the Sea Lion Rock café (we already have an easement across the applicants field) and the grant of land to assist in the installation of more aesthetic storage facilities, however these are contingent on the outcome of the planning application; We have had reservations about supporting the scheme and therefore it is our preference for the field to remain for agricultural purposes; concerns of the positon of the septic tank and whether this would impact on the stability of the railway lines; currently an unofficial stairs/access from applicants site to the café which we had no involvement in, currently is positioned and requires to cross the railway lines which is a potential safety hazard, especially if an increase in foot traffic; this should be terminated and discussions had for an alternative location for a crossing, should one be deemed necessary in light og the extensive public footpath network in the area; The proposed revisions to the junction with Ballamenagh road, whilst welcome, would take place on a third parties land rather than the applicants own and would need a third party agreement; the rest of the

lane running adjacent to the site is a public footpath but does not allow any vehicular traffic (except for railway users); we have reservations as to the access of the site given the Ballamenagh Road is in a poor state of repair and single lane, with only modest level of traffic currently, the 40-50 trips per day as cited by the applicants would represent an extremely dramatic increase in traffic flow through the area and we are not confident the current road in its present state would be able to cope; we have also had volunteers have reported that two cars passing is very difficult and result in person getting stuck in the drainage ditches to the side of the road; and the road would need a significant upgrade.

5.6.4 (06.01.2020) Concerns that the applicant has submitted a letter which we are concerned that the selection of papers disclosed may have the potential to portray an incorrect or inaccurate reflection of the situation as between GGR and the applicant and we have felt the need to clarify our position and the public record; made up of 18 paper communications and 2 meetings in person, which where confidential commercial nature and ultimately resulted in no concluded agreement; we are disappoint the applicant has elected to put these in the public domain given no agreement was reached; our positions is as our initial letter/comments; an proposed agreement was we would receive a portion of field adjoin the rail way line

at a agricultural commercial rate which would allow use to screen the development from the railway and in turn a letter of support would be submitted; subsequently we were advised that no agreement could be made till the application was approved,

therefore we felt unable to progress discussions further and it was agreed that we would adopt a neutral stance in the application, pointing out our concerns over the application details bit not taking an active objection. Despite this, the applicants represents to several individuals that they have the support of the GGR in this scheme, as events show, this is not the case.

5.6.5 Groudle Glen Ltd (21.08.2019) make the following summarised comments; seek IPS; do not oppose the application at this stage but would value the right to comment as the application progresses; we own most of land which the railway line and the Sea Lion Rocks Café is located; note the application indicates discussions between Groudle Glen Railway (GGR) and applicants to improving access and provision to electricity supply, we own the land and there is no public right of way and GGR have no authority to agree to such access; the applicant has not agreed this right off access to the Café & railway with us; We would have concerns of the future plans for wedding venue due to increase in noise and traffic generated; Highways should be satisfied that access and parking is acceptable to ensure no incentive to use the existing public car park and road within Groudle Glen as a means to access site; and while the application overall is well presented and largely well considered we would suggest that application site should be considered on its own merits, as a standalone enterprise without the reliance on surrounding and largely inaccessible facilities and amenities.

5.7 Private Representations

5.7.1 Following the submission of the application, a total of around 10 private representations have been received objecting to the application from:

• Ballakilley Farm, Ballamenagh Road, Baldrine (15.08.2019);
• Woodrising, Ballamenagh Road, Baldrine (24.08.2019):
• Wildlife, Ballamenagh Road, Baldrine (17.08.2019):
• Highfield, Bibaloe Beg Road, Onchan (15.08.2019):
• 33 Ballaquark, Douglas (14.08.2019):
• Baldromma Beg Farm, Baldromma Road, Baldrine (28.08.2019):
• AMG Investments Ltd, The Estate Office, Ballamona Estate, Oak Hill, Port Soderick on behalf of Croit ny Cabbyl, Ballamenagh Road, Baldrine: (29.08.2019):
• Baldromma Christian, Ballamenagh Road, Baldrine (16.08.2019):
• Garden Flat Glenholme, King Edward Road, Onchan (14.08.2019): and
• Ballaclague House, Lonan Old Church Road, Baldrine (20.08.2019):

5.7.2 The list below shows the main topics of objection. However, this is not a complete list, as can be seen from the submitted, which can all be viewed via the Planning Web Site.

• Site is designated as agricultural use / not designated for development;
• Area of High Landscape Value;
• Not right location;
• Site is in full view from Kind Edward Road, where a spectacular viewpoint it is part of commanding outlook over a scenic rural headland;
• Trees which boarder the site on the applicants lane which allege to conceal the development from the Douglas Road are deciduous, being mainly sycamore and ash, will be devoid of leaves in winter and in any event will not conceal any further development on the field;

• This type of tourist development not needed;
• This is a direct substitute for the mass caravan sites in the rest of Britain, but generally successfully operated in wooden units are to be found in sheltered wooded area not on exposed headlands;
• Access is poor, being a narrow track and in poor condition with drainage ditches either side which makes it impossible for traffic to pass;
• Installing passing places/widening of road is extremely limited along Ballamenagh Road, the road is currently 3m and 4m when measured base of hedge each side;
• Road floods;
• Sharpe bends in the road to site which make is hazardous and increased traffic will increase dangers;
• Access from Ballamenagh Road onto Kind Edward Road is on a blind bend;
• Emergency vehicles would find it difficult to access site;
• Insufficient parking, parking is one space per cabin which can hold 4 people which could have more than one car;
• Parking would take up more of field area;
• Impacts on wildlife (butterflies & bats) in the immediate area;
• Bus service on Kind Edward Road is 3 times per day (Monday to Friday 12.08pm till 3.15pm) and no weekend service and Tram Service is half hourly and hourly during peak times and every 2 hours the rest of the season; therefore public transport is not convenient and the stops do not have safe turning /parking area which a shuttle bus would be required;
• No pavements for 0.75m in either direction and no pavements to walk on;
• People would need to replay on their own vehicle which is not viable using Ballamenagh Road / increase in carbon emissions;
• The GGR would be negatively affected by this development;
• Application is set up in such a way that the whole area could end up being developed;
• The cabins are permanent structures which are a basic form of camping, while a nice addition to the island in the right place, this is not that place and a more secluded field with appropriate infrastructure and transport would be better suited;
• Adverse visual impact from the Ballamenagh Road (forming part of the ‘Raad ny Follen’ footpath) and from opposite side of valley;
• Nosie concerns to nearby residential properties (Croit ny Cabbyl);
• Applicant has indicated further development on the site which raises further concern;
• Detrimental to farm operation which operates in nearby fields and utilises the Ballamenagh Road, given narrowness of road and as the site peak times during summer, this will affect farm traffic/contractors/moving livestock along road;
• Drainage concerns;
• Impacts views for visitors on the MER; and
• Existing area is very quiet and has a unspoilt rural landscape.

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 Key Issues

6.1.1 Business Policies 11 and 14 support tourism development where it complies with other relevant policies of the plan. It is therefore considered that the following main issues in the determining of this application are as set out below.

6.1.2 Issues relating to the principle of the proposal are as follows.

• Provision of sufficient information (StP5, EP24 and TP8)
• Principle of Development Laxey and Lonan Plan Order 2005 land use allocation, StP1(a), StP8, StP2, SP5, GP3(g), EP1 and EP2)
• Economic Benefit (BP1, Draft PPS, Destination Management Plan, NonServiced Accommodation Study (2016 & 2019)
• National Need (GP3(g) and EP1) and Alternatives (GP3(g) and EP1)
• Alternatives
• Sustainability (StP 2, StP 10 and BP 11)

6.1.3 Issues relating to the detail of the proposal are as follows.

• The internal design and layout of the site (GP2, TP6 & TP7)
• Infrastructure Capacity and requirements (GP2(j), StP1(c), IP1, IP4 and IP5)
• Traffic Impacts (GP2(i), StP10, TP1 and TP4)
• Flood Risk (GP2(l), EP11)
• Fire Risk (CP10 and 11)
• Impact on Trees (GP2(f), EP3)

6.1.4 Impact on Neighbouring Properties (GP2(g))
6.1.5 Issues relating to the wider impact on the built and natural heritage are as follows.

• Impact on the Landscape (GP2(c and e), Laxey and Lonan Local Plan ASLV Designation, EP2, EP22 and StP4(b)) – including Light Pollution
• Impact on Nature Conservation (GP2(d), StP4(b & c), EP4 and EP5)

PRINCIPLE OF PROPOSAL

6.2 Provision of Sufficient Information (StP5, EP10, EP24, EP41 and TP8)

6.2.1 StP5 requires a Design Statement, and one has been provided.
6.2.2 Based on EP24 and the supporting text and appendix it is considered that an Environmental Impact Assessment is potentially required. An EIA should be informed by the UK regulations/guidance - Although the Strategic Plan sets out clear policies in relation to when EIA is required, it does not set out how EIA should be done. It states at A.5.1 that in due course a Planning Policy Statement will be produced but in the interim UK methodology will be used. The PPS has not yet been produced therefore any EIA would be informed by the relevant parts of the UK EIA Regs (2017) and DCLG Guidance (last updated July 2017) - although Schedules 1 and 2 of the UK EIA regulations these are arguably not relevant as these aspects are covered within the relevant Strategic Plan appendix. However, it is clear than given the scale, nature and location of the site that a full EIA would not be required under the UK Regs.
6.2.3 A brief Ecological & Environmental Appraisal has been provided which includes consideration of; Trees, Flora & Fauna, Bats, Visual & Nosie Impacts & Highways & Parking.

6.2.4 There could be an argument made either way to whether a full EIA is required or not. It is considered the topics that the applicants have highlighted appear to be the main issues, and the proposal is of a relatively small side (compared to the scale of development that would require an EIA in the UK). Accordingly, having considered the issues in relation to this specific proposal, the Department is content that a full EIA is not required in this particular case; however, whether the information is sufficient will be considered later in this report. On balance, and given the legal/policy framework, it is considered that the Ecological & Environmental Appraisal is broadly adequate to comply with the requirements of EP24.
6.2.5 TP8 requires a Transport Assessment. Highway Services have not sought one to be provided and appear content with the Transport Statement which has been provided.

6.3 Principle of Development (1982 Development Plan land use allocation, StP1(a), StP8, StP2, SP5, GP3(b, c and g), EP1 and EP2)

6.3.1 The application site is within an area High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance, which is also land which is not designated for development. Given this, there is a general presumption against any development, as set out in Strategic Policy 2 of the Isle of Man.
6.3.2 Strategic Policy 2 of that Strategic Plan 2016 states that development will be located primary within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3 of that plan. That paragraph contains General Policy 3. This is reiterated in Spatial Policy 5 which indicates that outside named settlements, development will only be supported if it complies with General Policy 3 (GP3).
6.3.3 Therefore, the principle of the development can only be considered to comply with the Development Plan if it meets one of the exceptions set out in General Policy

3, and the potentially relevant exceptions relate to:

• Overriding National Need and lack of alternatives – GP3(g).

6.3.4 It is therefore considered that the only potentially relevant exception if GP3(g) in relation to Overriding National Need and lack of alternatives.
6.3.5 Furthermore, Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan indicates that “the countryside … is to be protected for its own sake”; and that “development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an overriding national need … which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative”. It is considered that a development of the scale proposals would undermine the intention of Environment Policy 1 to protect the countryside, unless the exception in relation to need and alternatives can be complied with.
6.3.6 Environment Policy 2 indicates that within Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV’s) “…the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that: (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b)

the location for the development is essential.” Again, it is considered that a development of the scale proposals would undermine the intention of Environment Policy 2 to protect the AHLV’s, unless the exceptions in relation to whether the proposal would harm the character of the area or the location for the development is essential. In term of the impact on the character, this will be considered later in this report.

6.3.7 In light of the above and the requirement to consider need and alternatives, there are three separate points, each of which are considered in subsequent sections.

1. Is there a demonstrable economic benefit?
2. Is this benefit capable of being a national need?
3. Are there alternatives?

6.3.8 Strategic Policy 8 indicates tourism development will be supported where they make use of existing built fabric of interest and quality, where they do not affect adversely environmental, agricultural, or highway interests and where they enable enjoyment of our natural and manmade attractions. These issues are addressed in points raised by other policies and so considered in detail in subsequent subsections, other than the last point “Enable enjoyment of natural and man-made attractions” which therefore needs specific consideration.

6.4 Economic Benefit (BP1, Draft PPS, Destination Management Plan,Non- Serviced Accommodation Study)

6.4.1 It should be noted that the planning application does not include any information in terms of facts and figures (i.e. business plan) to demonstrate the economic benefit. Accordingly, the Department is unable to comment on the economy benefit of the proposal. This is also made clear by the Department of Enterprise who have commented in terms of the “Market” that: “Unable to assess Since the Non-Serviced Accommodation Futures Report(March 2017) there has been in increase in similar glamping units. The market remains one expected to grow. Due to the limited information provided within the planning application documents and no available business plan, the Department isunableto assess.”
6.4.2 Further in respect to the “Economic” DFE comment; “Unable to assess Due to the limited information provided within theplanning application documents and no available business plan, the Department isunableto assess.”
6.4.3 A important consideration for any tourist development of this type is the fact that the IOM is different to the UK in that there is an additional cost and time to travel to the site by plane or ferry, which must have an economic impact upon the site (tourism as a whole) and the amount of expenditure people would have once on the IOM. It is noted within the Destination Management Plan (DPM) that the majority of visitors to the IOM are from the North West of England (35%)with the South East (16%) and Midlands (13%) raking second and third, with the catchment populations for sea and air routes being the key factors. This is compared to the UK where similar sites are only a car journey away, potentially within a few hours and no need for additional expenditure on ferry or plane journeys, on top of the additional costs (i.e. accommodation).

6.4.4 The applicants have commented that they are in discussion with “Wigwam Holidays” who are an established UK company offering high quality eco-friendly wooden cabins in over 80 UK locations. The applicants indicate that they would provide the necessary expertise with regard to capital investment ad running costs, as well as site management and ensuring the long term viability of the project. They would also provide an overall advertisement strategy in association with other promotional opportunities such as the “Visit IOM” website.
6.4.5 From Wigwam Holidays website, they are a franchise group which describe themselves as; “Starting a Wigwam® Site is an ideal way to diversify your farm business or attract new customers to your existing campsite. With glamping more popular than ever, our state-of-the-art timber Wigwam® Cabins are a smart, sustainable and rewarding way to take advantage of this growing market.” Further to start a Wigwam Holidays site you must: “1) Purchase a minimum of six Wigwam® Cabins, accommodating at least 24 people per night; 2. Agree to an initial franchise fee, which will vary depending on which services you require; and 3) Pay an ongoing monthly fee to access the many benefits and support services available to Wigwam® Franchisees.”. This franchise agreement allows the applicant to use the trade-mark of Wigwam, brand and operational manuals to launch the business; access to their website/booking system; geographic exclusivity; and ongoing IT, marketing and operational support. It should be noted that from a planning perspective permission runs with the land not the applicant. Accordingly, while the current applicant could fall under the “branded resort”, there cannot be any guarantees of this.

6.4.6 While little economic benefit is included in support of the application; it is perhaps worthy to not the draft Planning Policy Statement (PPS) on Planning and the Economy should be considered. This seeks to promote a strong, stable, and productive economy that aims to bring jobs and prosperity for all and to deliver further economic growth and diversification in appropriate locations. Further when planning application 15/01186/B (Jackson Car Showroom) was considered by the Independent Appeals Inspector he made the following comments in relation to the PPS, which are also relevant now;

“There is also a national need for economic development, which is reflected in the draft PPS on “Planning and the Economy”, asissued for consultation in

The weight to be attached to that document would obviously be greater if the review promised in paragraph 26 of the “Initial Summary of Responses” had been carried out; and if a final PPShad been laid before Tynwald and published in accordance with section 3(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999. I also consider that theweight to be attached to the draft PPS would be greater if paragraph 14 of that document recognised the primacy of the development plan (as required bysection 3(4)of the 1999 Act) rather than suggesting a less onerous test than is contained in General Policy 3(g) of the Strategic Plan. Nevertheless, the general thrust of draft PPS remains a material consideration, which reinforcesBusiness Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan. It provides a national strategic reason for approving development in the countryside in accordance with the policy requirements of the Braddan District Plan.”

6.4.7 Accordingly, weight is attached to the PPS once again, although it is clear within it that the advice and support of Department of Enterprise (formerly DED)

must be in place. DfE is an independent authority whose advice is specifically recommended by the Planning Policy Statement (PPS). The PPS is clear that;

“When determining economic development proposals, the Strategic Plan and Area Plans should not be considered in isolation ofother relevant material factors so as to deter economic development. Planning will look favourably on applications for economic development uses which may not be in accordance with the development plan, but only if based on a robust evidence base (which can withstand scrutiny, testing and cross examination) and the economic benefits of the development are demonstrated to outweigh adverse impacts on economic, social or environmental sustainability.”

6.4.8 The Department of Enterprise have considered the application and their comments can be viewed within paragraph 5.4 of this report. They do not set out clear support for the proposal, and do highlight the lack of information to properly consider the application in certain regards.

6.4.9 The applicants advise that they would like to involve local companies and the construction of bespoke glamping cabins and the associated ground/landscaping works.

6.4.10 It should be noted that the PPS defines economic development:

“…as the development of land and buildings for activities that generate wealth, jobs and incomes. Economic development landuses include: the traditional employment land uses (offices, researchand development, industry and warehousing), as well as retail, leisure, and public services."

And goes on to state:

"Although for planning purposes, it is not definedas economic development, it is recognised that house building and construction do play a valuable role in the economy."

6.4.11 The Inspector for application 15/01186/B commented:

“During the construction period the proposed development would provide employment for about 68 workers and entail an initial investment of some £14.5 million. These effects would clearly be temporary, and that must affect the weight to be attached to them. Nevertheless, they would add to the balance in favour of the proposed development.”

6.4.12 It is noted that the wooden cabins would be purchased/provided by Wigwam

as part of the franchisee agreement and therefore presumed they would be constructed off Island and would then be brought to the Island, either in one piece or in sections and then essentially put together (each within a few days). It is also impossible for the Department to dictate who undertakes any development work. Accordingly, in terms of construction; as suggested by the PPS and the Inspector (15/01186/B) the economic construction benefits by the proposals are limited in terms of material weight, albeit do add to the balance in favour of the scheme.

6.5 Overriding National Need and Alternatives (GP3(g) and EP1) and Alternatives (GP3(g) and EP1)

6.5.1 General Policy 3 (g) states:

“Development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative”.

6.5.2 The IOMSP is silent in terms of a definition of “overriding national need”. Since the adoption of the IOMSP originally in 2006 and then more recently 2016, the main types of application – especially in the north of the Island that were approved on this basis, related to infrastructure i.e. Service Reservoir in Glen Auldyn, Northern Civic Amenity Site / Sewerage Treatments Works the new sewerage works/pumping station at Mooragh Park in Ramsey. These were approved due to a “national need” to serve the population of the IOM. Further, each site was chosen following detailed site assessments, which gave the ‘pros and cons’ of number of sites and came to an overall conclusion why the particular site was chosen. All these areas where within the countryside/open space and some in AHLV’s.
6.5.3 The applicants do not specifically comment on this matter and an argument that the proposal is of a; “overriding national need” is not provided. Their argument in favour of the development is there is a need for this type of tourist accommodation meeting the aims if DFE as outline in the Non-Serviced Accommodation Study.
6.5.4 In terms of “overriding national need” an argument could be made that given there is a “need”; this applies to all forms of tourist development or any development on the IOM, essentially as long as it is different to existing provision and adds money to the economy that this meets the “Overriding National Need”. This is not necessarily acceptable in planning terms. A counter argument is more pivotal on the word “need”. This is tourist accommodation of a particular type, just because we do not currently have it, does not directly mean that we need it, or can support it. Residents of the Island do need sewage works, they do need an airport - otherwise it cannot function. The Island does need tourists, it is an industry that supports the economy, but that does not mean that all proposals for tourist purposes are individually of overriding national need. The DMP does seek to provide an “Accommodation’ Strategy” to identify and direct and future development of serviced and non-serviced accommodation. From the recommendation of the DMP the IOM Non-Serviced Accommodation Study has been prepared by Hotel Solutions.
6.5.5 The study finds there is the potential for a number of different types of NonServiced Accommodation on the IOM these being; Holiday Cottages / Holiday Apartments, Holiday Lodges, Forest Holiday Centres, Holiday Resorts, Holiday Lodge Parks and Holiday Parks, Golf Lodges, Fishing Lodges, Glamping, Campsites, Eco Camping, Camping pods, A Camping Shelter Network, Touring Caravanning, Seasonal Tourers, Motorhome Stopovers, Campervan/Motorhome Hire, Hostel and Bunkhouses, Accommodation at Attractions & Walker, Cyclist and Motorcyclist Friendly Accommodation. It needs to be clear that this report is a strategy of how and what types of accommodation are available to the IOM. It is not policy and there maybe examples listed that are not acceptable and/or acceptable on one site, but not another.

6.5.6 The report also finds that the IOM does not currently have a sufficiently developed non-serviced accommodation offer to attract these markets and compete effectively for them. It has very little weather-proofed non-serviced accommodation, very little family-friendly accommodation, and very little activity-focused accommodation. Arguably this proposal would not meet these requirements. The site would provide no on site facilities, except for a small welcome centre cabin and covered communal seating and BBQ areas. There are no other services suggested in the DMP proposed on this site.
6.5.7 However, the applicants suggest that one of the key benefits of the proposal is it would meet the aim of the Non-Serviced Accommodation Study. The applicant’s state: “….highlighted the need for glamming sites to accommodate 15-20 units which would have a strong appeal for the family & friend get together and group holidays and breaks. The proposal also meets with the Department for Enterprise aims to provide suitable accommodation along the Raad Ny Follian coastal walk.”
6.5.8 The Non- Serviced Accommodation Study does outline that the Primary Growth Segments are Uk Families. However, the “Visitor Accommodation Needs” of this group include: Family holiday centres with flexible accommodation and a range of on-site leisure & entertainment; Family-friendly accommodation, serviced and selfcatering; Accommodation suitable for multigenerational holidays; Self-catering; and Camping at all price points.
6.5.9 In terms of the “needs” there is concern with this proposal. There are no leisure & entertainment facilities on site. The applicant does indicate that the Groudle Glen provides sufficient attritions for tourist and local visitors including: “National Glen and associated woodland walks; Quiet beach location; Groudle Glen Railway; Groudle Glen holiday cottages; Part of the ‘Raad Ny Follian’ costal walk; proximity to the Manx Electric Railway; and Proximity to King Edward Bay golf course.”. However, it is not consider this would meet the aims of providing “a range of on-site leisure & entertainment”. This view is shared by DFE who comments: “Less favourable - It appears the 19/00830/B development is to offer limited facilities that do not meet the criteria within the Policy.”
6.5.10 It should be noted the definition of “Glamping” within the Study is; ”(glamorous camping) involves camping in ready-erected, fully-equipped tents, yurts, tipis and other unusual forms of camping and caravanning accommodation such as geodesic domes, gypsy caravans, retro caravans, safari tents, glamping pods and tree camping. These types of accommodation have proved to be highly popular with more affluent families that want to experience camping holidays but without the hassle of having to bring their own tents and camping equipment” . It is not considered the proposal would necessary fall under this description, rather being a “Camping Pods” which is defined as; “Camping pods are insulated wooden tents with double glazed windows and French doors, heaters, electricity and sometimes outside decking areas. They range from standard pods sleeping two people to family, super or mega pods sleeping 4 people.” It is perhaps important to note the definition when considering what the Non- Serviced Accommodation means by certain types of accommodation. The applicants submission appears to be seeking a mixture of the two by description them as “glamping cabins”.
6.5.11 In relation to this list of types of accommodation the site could be consider to fall into the following:

Glamping - In terms of “Glamping” the Non- Serviced Accommodation Study indicates that there is potential for such facilities on the IOM, theses being; “The priority for attracting off-island business from the UK is high quality, distinctive glamping sites that are worth travelling to the Island for. There is a real opportunity we feel to develop a distinctive Manx glamping offer, with specially-designed units that reflect the Island’s heritage and culture, both externally and internally, and feature Manx toiletries and food and drink specialties.” Further, the study does comment that; “There might be scope for larger glamping resorts (15-20 units) with central communal socialising and cooking areas andoutdoor activities. Such resorts would have strong appeal for the family market andfor family and friend get togethers and group holidays and breaks.”. This proposal does have such facilities, having four central areas (table/BBQ) which are grouped by the cabins.
6.5.12 The applicants comment that; “The DFE champions high quality glamping accommodation especially where it would supports oradds to existing tourism in an area. We think that the proposal would be ideallysuited to extend the support the existing Groudle Glen facilities”. However, on this matter from DFE are not especially supportive to this scheme in this respect; commenting that the; “Less favourable design of the glamping units replicates those commonly found in other destination markets and does not appear to have unique attributes or feature distinctive Manxinspired design. The Department is less favourableof the design.”. In terms of “variety” DFE comments: “Less favourable - The Architect’s Design Statement identifies the units as not in line with the policyhowever, the statement suggests ‘more variety to the site rather than having all the units being of the same design’ could be included. If approved, would recommend variety remains an important consideration.”
6.5.13 Camping Pods - The proposal could also be considered to fall under the category of; “Camping Pods” within the Non- Serviced Accommodation Study. This outlines that:

“A few of the Island’s campsites have added campingpods to provide an alternative accommodation offer and help extend theseason. They are generally attracting good demand, primarily from on-islanders. This suggests potential for campsites to add a few more camping pods.

6.5.14 As highlighted initially, which this proposal could fit this type of accommodation, specifically the second paragraph, it is not an automatic reason to permitted the development, especially as the second paragraph begins with “There might be scope…”;however, it would appear to be a positive in favour for the proposal.
6.5.15 Walker, Cyclists and Motorcyclist Friendly Accommodation – The study states; “Growing the walking, cycling, mountain biking, Enduro riding and motorbiking holiday and break market on the Island will requireexisting and new non-serviced

accommodation businesses to provide facilities suchas drying rooms, boot and bike wash facilities, and secure cycle and motorbike storage.” The submission does not provide or at least comment on the specific requirements/facilities as outlined above for this type of user.

6.5.16 The DPM also recommends that the IOM focus on two types of tourist growth markets, the first is UK families and the second being ‘Short Breaks’. Within each group the following requirements are set out:

“UK Families” – children ages 12 and under, short breaks 1 to 3 days, primary from North West, travel by car/ferry. These are responsive to beaches; selfcatering including camping at all price points; holiday centres offering child focused facilities e.g. swimming pools, entertainment and general activity; Plenty to do, wet weather options, new experiences and challenges, including leisure activities; and safe and friendly.

6.5.17 Again there is some concern that this facility would not meet all the aims of the UK Family target market by not having child-focused facilities (i.e. children’s play area etc) and wet weather options/leisure activities on the site or nearby which are safely accessible.

“Short Breaks” - who on average stay 4 nights, aged 50+ couples; located in UK & near Europe, travel by car/ferry or budget airline, general holiday or special interest, higher spending than families and coach trips. These are responsive to range of type of accommodation, including high end resort spa/golf resorts; quality places to eat in serviced hotels and resultants throughout the destination; special retail, arts and crafts & café culture, and broad range of cultural events; heritage attractions, natural environment and gentler activities such as walking.

6.5.18 The proposal would not appear to meet this growth market, given the main types of the accommodation would appear to high end resort spa/golf resorts and places to eat in serviced hotels given these are specially mentioned. The site would however, provide a natural environment and walking opportunities nearby. But again would not provide leisure facilities, swimming pools or gyms what you would expect

at high end spa/golf resorts.

6.5.19 The broad policy context provided by the Destination Management Plan is considered to be a material consideration with some weight (as a government strategy adopted by the relevant Department). The Non-Serviced Accommodation Study is an evidence base study that identifies potential options for future work, which has occurred by the introduction of the Non-Serviced Accommodation Policy

(2019) which DFE have used to consider this application (Paragraph 5.4). It is understood that the Study and Policy have accepted by the then Department of Economic Development, but that it has not yet been published (albeit it is understood interested parties can seek a copy). It is considered to have less weight than the DMP, as it is an evidence base to identify options for future work. However, the support provided by the DfE, especially being within the context of the Destination Management Plan and informed by the Non-Serviced Accommodation Study is given a degree of weight. Consideration should also be had that the Department of Enterprise remit with the application are solely the economic and

tourism benefits of encouraging this type of accommodation to develop on the Island and the economic benefits forecast to accrue from it.

6.5.20 Irrespective of whether a holiday resort can be considered to be of overriding national need or not, the fact that the Destination Management Plan is a material consideration, and that seeks to improve the Island’s tourist offering there is merit in a proposal for additional tourist accommodation. However, this is to some extent undermined given the status of the evidence base, the absence of adopted government policy in relation to this type of development that could set clear parameters of acceptability, and discrepancies between the potential requirements highlighted in the Non-Serviced Accommodation Study and the specific offer being proposed by this development.
6.5.21 The Non-Serviced Accommodation does list various options for types of tourist development, two of which are “Glamping” and “Camping Pods” and these are the applicant’s main sources of evidence to support this scheme. However, the very same document considered that the application in terms of number of facilities on site does raise concern with this site, as it is essential 20 camping pods within a field, which are near a public footpath, which isn’t especially unique on the IOM. It is noted the GGR is nearby and a beach made up of pebbles rather than sand; however wether these off site facilities provide sufficient reasoning to allow this development is a consideration which needs to be had. The Department would have concern on this matter, as the GGR while a special attraction, isn’t open everyday (generally open on a Sunday and Wednesday only) and therefore would not occupy families/visitors for perhaps 1 trip during their stay. The beach as mentioned isn’t the same attraction as perhaps the sandy beaches of Peel or Port Erin, as it is made up of pebbles. There is Groudle Glen and the Raad Ny Foillan. However, this footpath is a costal footpath which travels around the whole IOM. Further the IOM is well catered for public footpaths, which link each other. Accordingly, while the proposal is adjacent to it and is a positive for the application, it is perhaps not sufficient to overcome concerns. Further, the DMP two identified growth areas do not appear to be fully serviced by this scheme; particularly families, given the limited amount of leisure/recreation and wet weather space.
6.5.22 Accordingly, it is considered the application would not meet the recommendations of the Non-Serviced Accommodation nor the DPM and therefore cannot be said the scheme meets an overriding national need in the form that has been submitted.
6.5.23 Noting the Inspector’s report in relation to 15/01186/B, if it were considered a national need had been demonstrated, it would be necessary to consider whether this could be considered ‘overriding’, which entails consideration of the impact on the countryside/ecology etc, which are set out later in this report. Alternatives
6.5.24 The policies require the demonstration not only of “Overriding National Need” but also that there is “no reasonable and acceptable alternative”. The application is silent on this point.
6.5.25 The Non-Serviced Accommodation report indicates that in term of identifying suitable sites in the countryside, and key opportunities to investigate would seem to be DEFA sites, other sites with established complementary leisure uses such as golf

course, equestrian centres, reservoirs and attractions like Curragh’s Wildlife Park, as well as the potential to re-develop, expand and diversify the offer at existing visitor accommodation sites, and potentially safeguarded tourist sites in the South, where hotel viability may be marginal. The report goes on to indicate that a programme of work to identify and investigate the planning potential of sites that match market opportunity and interest should therefore be a priority with cross-departmental inputs.

6.5.26 In terms of whether there are “no reasonable and acceptable alternative”, the applicants have not provided any information and therefore it has not been demonstrated that there are no reasonable and acceptable alternatives.

6.6 Sustainability (StP 2, StP 10 and BP 11)

6.6.1 The main aim of the IOMSP is that development should be sustainable as required by StP 2, StP 10 and BP 11. Business Policy 11 makes clear that tourism development must be in accordance with the sustainable development objectives of the SP, and those policies and designations which seek to protect the countryside from development will be applied to tourist development with as much weight as they are to other types of development. It is noted the site is not within a defined settlement, in fact it is not within any settlement, albeit near to Groudle Glen. The nearest defined settlements (Spatial Policies 1 to 4) are; Onchan (4.8km – Commissioners Offices), Douglas (9km - Douglas Town Hall); Baldrine (3km – Clock) and Laxey (7.3km Garff Commissioners Offices).
6.6.2 This element of the proposal would not comply with that intention. Not only is the site contrary to sustainable development principles in being in the countryside, but it is also in a location where users of the facility would be highly reliant on use of private motor vehicles, evidence of this is the large car park and the provision for 1 car parking spaces for each lodge. Further, pedestrian access to and from the site to the closest public transport routes on King Edward Road are up/down steep slopes/narrow roads with no footpaths to public transport services which are limited. The applicants response is they will provide a mini bus to take person form the site to such facilities. However, this arguable isn’t in the aims of sustainable development and/or not an aspect which the Department could control is provided/maintained throughout the operation of the site. Given these points it is considered likely the main mode of travel to and from the site would be via private car, and therefore would fail the polices which seek sustainable forms of development and minimise the need for private cars.
6.6.3 Overall, given the level of parking provided, the limited availability of public transport options throughout the day/night of a week, there being no public footpaths along the narrow and twisting public highway (Ballamenagh Road) and the site not being within a reasonable walking distance of existing settlements with sufficient services/shops; it is not considered that the site would support policy aspirations to reduce the need to travel by private car, and this weighs against the application and therefore considered contrary to StP 2, StP 10 and BP 11. It is considered that this level of visitor accommodation would be better suited to a more accessible location consistent with the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. ISSUES RELATING TO THE DETAIL OF THE PROPOSAL

6.7 The design and layout of the site (GP2(b, h), TP6, TP7, RP3)

6.7.1 As there are no provisions for such development under normal planning policies, there is no specific guidance in terms of design/layout of camping cabin developments, although the provisions under GP2 are noted.
6.7.2 In relation to the layout of the site, the cabins are set either side of a pedestrian timber walkway which runs down/up the site. There is then further walkways branching off to serve groups of cabins which are in a cluster of between 2 and 4. The cabins, given the topography of the site (level difference between the northern and southern most cabin is approx 11.6m over a 90m distance) they would be staggered up the hillside and generally would have different levels. They are generally facing in a southerly direction with seawards views/woodland views.
6.7.3 In terms of the design of the units, the cabins have the same design throughout, being constructed of timber with a shape/appear similar to a tent and is the same as other camping pods/cabins found throughout the IOM.
6.7.4 Highway Services have not objected to the internal walkways/car park arrangement.

6.10 Infrastructure Capacity and requirements (GP2(j), StP1(c), IP1, IP4and IP5)

6.10.1 In relation to foul sewerage the proposal includes the installation of a Klargester Biodisc within the south-western corner of the site (lowest part of application site). They indicate that this would be emptied/serviced from the adjacent track to the west of the site. It is noted through the representation section of this report that there may be a ownership issue with this use of the track. Manx Utilities (Drainage) have raised no objection to the proposal. Additionally, consideration would also be had at a Building Control stage to ensure the Klargester Biodisc is appropriate for the site. From a planning perspective the Department only needs to be comfortable that such a system is appropriate, which it is.
6.10.2 The details of surface water system are considered acceptable and again Manx Utilities who considered drainage & flooding have raised no concerns. Building Regulations would consider the precise details to ensure the system is appropriate.
6.10.3 New underground electricity cables would be provided to the site.
6.10.4 Traffic impacts are considered below.
6.10.5 In light of the above, it is not considered that there are any infrastructure requirements which could not be met or would justify refusal of the application.

6.11 Traffic Impacts (GP2(i), StP10, TP1 and TP4)

6.11.1 A main issues relate to whether road has capacity for the additional traffic generated by the development and whether the visibility when exiting the entrance of the site is safe for all users.
6.11.2 Highway Services have provided a details response to the application (par

5.2). They have provided an analysis of the existing road capacity and consideredthe applicants comments that the proposal would generate 20 visitor vehicles duringfull occupancy of the cabins and 2 vehicles for members of staff. Highways haveaccepted that the car park for 22 spaces is sufficient to meet the needs of the site.

Highway Services have also considered and acceptedthe applicants comments that during periods of full occupancy the development would generate between 40 and 50 traffic movements per day (a journey out and then back in again would count as

2 traffic movements). They have however, considered a higher value of 60 movements per day is assumed, worst case scenario. On this cases Highway have considered that the generated traffic would be lesslikely to follow conventional peak hour flows and it is likely that there would be nomore than 5 additional traffic movements in the peak hours which may not necessarily coincide with background peak hour traffic movements. This would be 1 vehicle movement every 4 minutes, or 1 in each direction every 8 minutes on average. Further they comment that the road would be operating within its capacity of 100 vehicle movements per hour.

6.11.3 They have also considered the access point from the site onto the Ballamenagh Road and the accesses from the Ballamenagh Road onto King Edward Road, in terms of visibility spays and determined the proposal would be acceptable and not result in a highway safety concern.
6.11.4 The main, and outstanding issues relates to the provision of passing places along sections of the Ballamenagh Road, as the section of the Ballamenagh Road where most visitors (from the ferry direction to the site) would travel along is long and narrow and there is the realistic potential for a conflict to occur which would result in vehicles having to reverse a significant distance to reverse back to a passing place. The applicants and Highway Services appear in principle to be able to come up with a solution, albeit no plans/information has been provided to the Department as part of this application to show where/how these passing places would be provided and how many. This could be considered unacceptable as such information should be provided as part of this application so all parties and the Department know precisely what is proposed to overcome the issue. It is noted that the works would need to be on land the applicants does not own (likely to the DOI ownership). Accordingly, the application could be refused on the grounds of lack of information in relation to passing places. Alternatively a Grampian styled condition could be attached, which states no work may commence on site still all the passing places are provided. However, there may be concerns/issues without knowing any details of the passing places and possible impacts upon the visual amenities of the countryside/impacts on wildlife/neighbours/drainage etc. If it is simply extending the width of the existing carriageway, then this may raises less concern; albeit if given there are drainage works also involved and for example alterations to the banks either side of the road, then there is more of a concern.
6.11.5 As the application is for Full approval, the details should be provided at this stage, and there is concern that this information has not been provided. Highway Services have indicated that condition may able to be used for the applicants to submit a design/number for the location of passing places. When attaching any conditions to an approved application, the Department needs to be comfortable that the condition can meet the needs in an acceptable and appropriate way. The amount and position of the passing places is unknown and thus, amongst other matters, the visual impact of these passing places cannot be assessed.
6.11.6 Accordingly, at this stage it is considered there to be insufficient information to adequately determine whether that the proposed passing places would be acceptable.

6.12 Flood risk (GP2(l), EP11)

6.12.1 As outlined in Manx Utilities Drainage representation, they have no objection to the application. Accordingly, in terms of flooding on the application site, where the lodges would be located there are no concerns.

6.13 Fire Risk (CP10 and 11)

6.13.1 No objections have been received from the Fire Brigade. In terms of proximity of cabins to each other and any other fire related matters/equipment this would be a matter for any subsequent Building Regulations application. Accordingly, for these reason it is considered the proposal complies with CP10 & 11.

6.14 Impact on Trees (GP2(f), EP3)

6.14.1 As part of the submission a Tree Survey has been undertaken. The applicants also discussed and met the Arboricultural Officer onsite prior to submitting the application. The applicants advise that the cabins will be set a distance away from the trees and so as not to impact them. They also comments that the cabins do not need any concrete pile or strip foundations that may affect the root systems of the trees. A informal discussion with the Arboricultural Officer and Officer of the Department he confirmed:

“I visited today and, based on the site plan provided, I don’t think this will be an issue to the nearby trees.”

IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURING AMENITIES (GP2 & EP22) 6.15 Impact on Neighbouring Properties

6.15.1 When considering the potential impacts upon neighbours generally the main issues relate to loss of light, overbearing development and/or loss of privacy through overlooking. In this case there are other important potential impacts, these being visual impact, general disturbances by additional traffic, lights pollution and/or noise created by persons within the site (i.e. outside decking areas etc).

6.15.2 The properties most likely to be affected would be Ballavarane Cottage (430m to northeast), Ballavarane Farm (630m to north east), Ballavarane (590m to northeast), Croit Ny Cabbyl (250m to northeast), Ash Tree Cottage (470m to northwest), Baldromma Christian (520m northwest), Wildlife (630m to northwest), Woodrising (645m to northwest), Groudle Glen Cottages (100+ to west) and properties within Scott Close 210m+ to the west).
6.15.3 In respect of all of these properties it is not considered the proposals would cause any significant impacts in relation to loss of light, overbearing development and/or loss of privacy through overlooking - given the distance, positioning, topography and vegetation between the site and neighbouring properties. Accordingly, it is concluded that the likely main impacts upon amenities are to be noise from visitors within the site and visitors passing these properties when travelling to and from the site.
6.15.4 In terms of general disturbance the main issue is the increase in traffic along the Ballamenagh Road. The properties most likely to be affected are Wildlife and Woodrising. These properties are immediately adjacent to the Ballamenagh Road and on two uphill/downward bends along the Ballamenagh Road. They are also close to the road junction with King Edward Road which is likely to be the access more people use, rather than the junction with Ballamenagh Road/Old Lonan Road and A2

(exits in Baldrine). These properties also have landscaping along there roadside boundaries. It is useful to also consider the Highway Services comments, in relation to the anticipated number of additional traffic generated by the development. It is considered during peak hour flows there would be no more than 5 additional traffic movements in the peak hours which equates to 1 vehicle movement every 4 minutes, or 1 in each direction every 8 minutes on average. It is important to note that as mention the two properties are on two bends which will result in greater level of engine noise (when travelling upwards) and it is also accepted the level of background noise in the area is likely to be low, compared to a town when background noise is higher. Accordingly, there is likely to be a greater level of noise sensitive to the occupants of these dwellings. However, given the relatively low level of traffic, it is not considered to be so significant to warrant a refusal.

6.15.5 With regards to other properties in the immediate area, it is noted the majority of other properties in the area are setback a sufficient from the Ballamenagh Road and therefore the additional traffic would not likely affect the occupants significantly to warrant a refusal.
6.15.6 In terms of other impacts, namely person/s sitting outside the cabins (i.e. outside decking areas etc.) the potential noise associated with user of the cabin, it is not considered the impacts would be so significant, given the distance between the site and neighbouring properties, landscaping and the sites topography being lower, all would help reduce noise levels. It is noted the applicants indicate the sites will be managed (manager onsite), and it is in their owner interest and interest of other guests that such management is undertaken to ensure noise issues are not of a level which would cause concern.
6.15.7 Overall, whilst there is a potential for noise impact through additional traffic and/or noise created by persons within the site (i.e. outside decking areas etc.) it is not considered that these are sufficient reasons in it to refuse the application.

ISSUES RELATING TO THE WIDER IMPACT ON THE BUILT AND NATURAL HERITAGE ARE AS FOLLOWS

6.16 Impact on the Landscape (GP2(c and e), Laxey and Lonan Local Plan ASLV Designation, EP2, EP22 and StP4(b)) – including light pollution

6.16.1 The main visual receptors are likely to be from the King Edward Road to the southwest/west, from the Ballamenagh Road to the north and from the Raad ny Foillan public footpath to the north, west and southwest of the site. There are also two time periods when the level of impact potential could be different day and night, due to lights within the site.

6.16.1 King Edward Road – When viewing towards the site from various of places along the King Edward Road, it is apparent the applicants have positioned the proposed cabins/car parking to the section of the site which affords the most screening by the mature tree along the west boundary and within Groudle Glen. The main belt of trees which offer screening are made up of pine trees (evergreen). This in the main will screen the cabins throughout the year, albeit there may be aspects viewable through the trees (foliage is greater at the top pf trees than at lower parts); albeit at a passing glance they are not likely to be significantly apparent. There needs to be careful consideration however, that should the trees be removed, this would open the site up in its entirety. It is generally unwise to approve as

development just because it can’t be seen. This would start a very dangerous precedent on the IOM. The trees are not within the applicants control and lay within a private ownership and/or Government Ownership. Accordingly, while the trees removals are unlikely, it is not impossible or guaranteed.
6.16.2 Arguable, there is the potential for them to be more noticeable during night periods, given lighting which is proposed throughout the site. Little information has been provided, other than directional comments within the applicants statement which comment: “LED lighting together with covered external seating areas” and “no general floodlighting” and “all lighting will be at low level e.g. bollard lighting, or similar, that will be limited to highlighting specific areas such as the car park, pathways etc. External lighting to cabins will be directional LED lighting to prevent any over-spill beyond the areas they serve.”. There is concern that no lighting plan or details/position/amount of lights have been submitted as part of this application. There is a real concerns that if all 20 cabins each with their own lights both internally and externally where on, with outside lighting to the outside spaces/communal areas with lighting along the central 100m+ walkway and with lighting within the car park area, this would have a significant adverse visual impact during night periods especially as the site slopes down the valley, which directly faces towards the King Edward Road. While the trees may reduce some light glare, the Department is not able to make a judgement given there is little to know information on the lighting.

6.16.3 Ballamenagh Road – Views of the proposal from the Ballamenagh Road would likely be very limited, given the roadside boundary heights and the topography of the site, which is such that the development is set below the road level in most part. The section of the Ballamenagh Road where the development would be most apparent would be from the access of the site, where views of the car park would be most apparent. This view could potentially be mitigated with additional landscaping which is proposed by the applicants.
6.16.4 Raad ny Foillan public footpath – The main views of the site form the Raad ny Foillan would be when walking along the western boundary of the site. Currently, the majority of the field/site is well screened, due to the ground level so of the site being above that of the Raad ny Foillan, but also given the level of mature landscaping. There are sections along the north-western boundary of the site where views from the Raad ny Foillan can see into the field. However, with appropriate additional landscaping this impact could be mitigated.
6.16.5 When considering the visual impact Environment Policies 1 & 2 are the most relevant. Both seek to protect the countryside from development. Environment Policy 1 states that:

“Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative.”

6.16.6 Environment Policy 2 which deals with Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance, this states that:

“…the protection of the character of the landscapewill be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that: (a) thedevelopment would not

harm the character and quality of the landscape; or(b) the location for the development is essential.”

6.16.7 The proposal would adversely affect the landscape as viewed from public viewpoints, arguably the potential impact may not be significant; however, EP1 does not include a significance test and simply states that development which would “adversely affect the countryside” will not be permitted. The policy makes no reference to how adverse. Further EP2 requires that the development must “not harm the character and quality of the landscape”. Again the proposal would be introducing a significant amount of development for this site which is apparent from public views. There are also potential issues of parked vehicles in the car park which are likely to be brighter in colour and may become more apparent from distance views than the timber cabins, which in turn may draw the eye of a person/s to the site and to the cabins themselves.
6.16.8 It should be noted that both EP 1 & 2 do offer exceptions to development which do have adverse impacts or change the character of the landscape, where there “is no reasonable and acceptable alternative” and there is an “over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative.” If it is considered the economic benefits/need outweigh the visual impact of the development (as discussed earlier in this report), then there is an argument that the proposal could comply with EP 1 & 2, as the policies allow such development in such cases.
6.16.9 In terms of the issue of lighting the site/cabins, given the lack of detailed information an assessment cannot be made on the potential impacts of such development. It is not considered appropriate that such level of detail is sought via a condition of any approval, as the conditions should only be added when the Department is comfortable that such a scheme would be considered acceptable. In this case the Department is not. Additionally, it is also considered the issue is such an important aspect to determine the potential impact upon the visual amenities of the countryside/ecology/wildlife, that it would be wholly inappropriate to add as a condition and hope it would be acceptable.
6.16.10 Accordingly, it is considered this aspect fails to comply with Environment Policy 1, 2 & 22 as there is insufficient information to make an assessment on the potential impact of lighting to the environmental as a whole.

Light Pollution (EP22)

6.17.1 As outlined previously within this report, with no details lighting plan being submitted it is not possible to make an assessment on the potential issues of light pollution to the area/ecology/wildlife etc. Therefore due to this insufficient evidence being produced it is considered the proposal would be contrary to EP 22.

6.18 Impact on Ecology and Nature Conservation (GP2(d), StP4(b), EP4 and EP5) and UNESCO Biosphere Status

Impact on Nature Conservation

6.18.1 Firstly, it should be noted that the comments above in relation to trees, light pollution and water pollution are relevant in terms of nature conservation impact.

6.18.2 Arguable, the main issue appears to the potential impact upon bats in the vicinity of the site. Objection form Manx Bat Group are noted and comments from the Senior Biodiversity Officer has also commented that “…all avoid lit areas for feeding and commuting, therefore it is important that a low level lighting scheme is included within the design plans and a dark corridor is maintained adjacent to the glen to enable bats to continue to feed and commute; this should be in place for the duration of the development.”
6.18.3 Again the issue of lighting raises concern. Further no Bat survey has been carried out by the applicants however, they acknowledge that there are bats in the adjacent woodland. The applicants are happy to provide bat and bird boxes within the site. The Senior Biodiversity Officer appears to be content with seeking this “low level lightened scheme” through condition. As mentioned early, to add a condition to deal with an issue at a later date, the Department needs to be comfortable that there is a solution. In this instance, While the comments of the Officer are noted, there is again concern that the level of lighting within the entire site may have a significant impact upon the bats nearby and therefore such information should not be conditioned.
6.18.4 Overall it is not considered there is sufficient information to make a adequate assessment. Therefore the application fails GP2(d), StP4(b), EP4 and EP5. UNESCO Biosphere Status

6.18.5 Under the Biosphere the IOM as a whole is split into three zones, Core, Care and a Sustainable Development Zones. The application site is within a Care Zone. These are described as being zones which link to the other two types of zones and are managed in a way that is compatible with conservation.
6.18.6 It is understood the New Biosphere Status is not been intended to raise new restrictions additional to the usual considerationsfor wildlife and the countryside, though it is clear that it does bring special emphasis and an international focus on the protection of sites on the Isle of Man and sustainable forms of development in appropriate places. Further, the Zonation Guide for Appropriate Uses suggests that tourism and recreation are both “allowable and encouraged” in the Care Zone. The emphasis of the Biosphere status is on promoting innovative approaches to sustainable development, so the question is essentially, is the development sustainable, in terms of its positive or negative effects on the environment, society and economy, taking account of the specific proposals and the site and position. The proximity of the Core Zone is a very relevant matter though, importantly the proposed development is in the Care Zone and potential risks to the conservation of wildlife interest on and outside of the site have been noted in the Environmental Impact Assessment, with mitigation proposed.”
6.18.7 It is worth noting that there are no specifically planning policies which restrict development because of the UNESCO Biosphere status. However, It would still appear that existing planning policies seeking to protect the environment/ecology etc (and other legislation within DEFA) are still in place to ensure the impacts to the sensitive areas like the Care & Core Zones as still protected from development which causes harm.

8.0 Conclusion

8.1 A key issue is whether the proposal is considered to have demonstrated an overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternatives (GP3), which would essentially override general planning policy which seeks to protect the countryside and ecology for its own sake (EP1) from adverse development and would not harm the character and quality of the landscape (EP2).

8.2 As outlined within this report it is difficult to assess the economic benefit of the proposal given very limited information has been provided. It is reasonable to consider there would be some, but whether it is sufficient planning policy is unknown. The proposal could be argued to meet some of the aims of the NonServiced Accommodation Report; albeit comments from the Department of Enterprise do not support the scheme and the proposal would not appear to meet the two primary markets, certainly in terms of on-site facilities. - 8.3 The target market for the IOM is the “UK Families” who seek the following on site facilities; family holiday centres providing flexible accommodation & a range of on-site leisure (swimming pools, play areas etc), entertainment facilities and general activity; variety of wet weather family orientated attractions; varied value for money restaurants & cafes; programme of children’s entertainment; easy to use, accessible, comprehensive and affordable public transport network as all outlined in the Destination Management Plan. It is considered this proposal would fail to meet the needs of this group. - 8.4 In terms of the second target market “Short Breaks”, the Destination Management Plan outlines that “range and choice across all types of accommodation, including high end resort spa/golf hotels” and “quality places to eatin services hotels and restaurants throughout the destination”. The type of accommodation would appear to be more aimed at spa/hotel sites. Further they also seek easy to use, accessible, comprehensive and affordable public transport network. The site would not appear to meet the main aims of this target market which the IOM seeks to attract. - 8.5 There are of course other target groups, albeit below the two main target markets as discussed. These are niche markets such as; motor sport; walking, specialist cycling; special interest heritage (museums & railways) UK Coach groups; and marine tourism; however, these are identified by the Destination Management Plan as being accommodated by hotels and self-catering operators; rather than the proposed cabins. - 8.6 For the Department to be comfortable in approving any development contrary to planning policy/sustainable aims and especially on the grounds of overriding national need; the proposal needs to demonstrate clearly that it meets the required need. For the reasons given within this report the Department does not consider the needs nor that there are no reasonable acceptable alternative have been sufficiently proven nor is the site within a sustainable location (not within a settlement); therefore contrary to Strategic Policy 2 & 10, General Policy 3 and Business Policy 11 & 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. - 8.7 The proposal does not appear to meet the overriding national need requirement; nor do the material considerations of economic benefit and provision of additional tourist facilities (as presented in this submission) appear to override the

Development Plan that seeks to restrict development in the countryside, given that the proposal would result in a significant amount of built development resulting in adverse visual impact (day and night times) upon the on the character and appearance of the countryside. Therefore the proposal is contrary to Environmental Policy 1 & 2 and Strategic Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

8.8 There are also concerns of lack of information with regard to the proposed passing places along the public highway. Accordingly, the proposal is considered contrary to Transport Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. - 8.9 Again this is concern that the lack of a detailed lighting plan adequate demonstrates that all lighting on the site (including cabins) would not have a significant adverse impact upon the countryside/landscape nor upon the wildlife on the site/surrounding area. Accordingly, it is considered the application would be contrary to Environmental Policy 1, 2, 4 & 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

9.0 Interested Person Status

9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:

(a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant’s agent;
(b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
(c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material
(d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and
(e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

9.2 The decision maker must determine:

• whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
• whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

9.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date: 16.03.2020

Signed : S BUTLER Presenting Officer

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

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

Customer note

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

Planning Committee Decision 16.03.2020

Application No. : 19/00830/B Applicant : Anchard Leisure Proposal : Change of use of part field to tourist use to create a glamping

site to include the erection of 20 timber tourist accommodation cabins, one modified cabin to provide a welcome office and associated onsite parking for 22 spaces

Site Address : Part Field 613191 Ballamenagh Road Groudle Glen Baldrine Isle Of Man Principal Planner : Mr Chris Balmer Presenting Officer Mr Steve Butler Addendum to the Officer’s Report

The Planning Committee on 16th March 2020 refused the applications for the reasons recommended, including an amendement to the 4th reason for refusal to reference Environment Policy 22 -

R4. Insufficient detail has been provided to demonstrate that lighting of the site (including cabins) would not have a significant adverse impact upon the visual amenities of the countryside/landscape or upon the wildlife on the site/surrounding area. Accordingly, it is considered the application would be contrary to Environmental Policy 1, 2, 4, 5 and 22 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

Reason for Refusal

R 1. The site is not within a sustainable location or an existing settlement. It is considered that insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that there is an overriding national need for the development and that there are no reasonably acceptable alternatives. It is therefore considered that the proposal would be contrary to the policies within the Strategic Plan which seek to protect the countryside for its own sake and to direct development to sustainable locations in order to reduce the need to travel by car and to support existing services (Strategic Policies 2 & 10, General Policy 3 and Business Policy 11 & 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016).
R 2. The development would result in a significant amount of built development on land which is not designated for development. It is therefore concluded that the proposal would result in an adverse visual impact (during both the day and at night) upon the on the character and appearance of the countryside, which should otherwise be protected for its own sake, and also

harm the character and quality of the landscape. The proposal is therefore contrary to Environmental Policy 1 & 2 and Strategic Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 3. Insufficient detail in relation to the passing places has been provided to demonstrate that the access onto the Ballamenagh Road will not have an unacceptable impact on road safety and the proposal is therefore contrary to Transport Policy 4 and Strategic Policy 10 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 4. Insufficient detail has been provided to demonstrate that lighting of the site (including cabins) would not have a significant adverse impact upon the visual amenities of the countryside/landscape or upon the wildlife on the site/surrounding area. Accordingly, it is considered the application would be contrary to Environmental Policy 1, 2, 4, 5 and 22 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

DEC Officer Report

Source & Provenance