DEC Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No.: 20/00454/B Applicant: Department Of Infrastructure Proposal: Creation of a cycle lane Site Address: Pulrose Golf Course / Playing Fields And Rear To Nos 53 Springvalley Road And Nos 60 - 90 Springfield Road Douglas Isle Of Man Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Site Visit: 25.06.2020 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 12.08.2020 _________________________________________________________________

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The development complies with General Policy 2 and Transport Policies 2 and 5 of the Strategic Plan.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This decision relates to drawings 102D and 103 received on 16th June, 2020 and 101A received on 1st May, 2020. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status

Additional Persons None _____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report THE SITE

1.1 The site is a roughly L shaped strip of land at the periphery of Douglas Golf Course running alongside the A25 New Castletown Road from the traffic light controlled junction with Annacur

• Lane to the rear of 55, Spring Valley Road where the site turns east and runs behind 60-90 (even numbers only), Springfield Road before meeting Springfield Road in the space separating the Spring Valley and Pulrose housing developments.
• 1.2 The site is between 10 and 25m wide. THE PROPOSAL

2.1 Proposed is the creation of a footpath within the land which will accommodate pedestrians and cyclists which is intended to connect the west of Douglas with the town centre using the Peel Road cycling lane set up. This is part of the Isle of Man Active Travel Plan. - 2.2 The applicant has undertaken an Equality Impact Screening exercise which indicates that there will either be no effect at all or no adverse impact on any of the protected characteristic groups identified in the Equality Act 2017. - 2.3 Some of the site has previously been tipped upon and the path will be built upon this land with any excavated arisings used to fill depressions in the existing ground. The path will be on average 3m wide with a metal fence on the golf course side similar to existing fencing alongside Springfield Road. Two trees will be removed to facilitate the path and the rest will be protected by a construction exclusion zone. - 2.4 The applicant has submitted further information on 12th June, 2020 in the form of two drawings which show more clearly the construction details and the context of the route. They clarify that they are aware of the history of the site and its previous use and the cycleway will be constructed on top of the existing ground wherever practical and excavation will be limited to a maximum depth of 200mm which is well within the limit of the current capping layer and no material will be removed from the site and will be re-used as fill material to improve surface regularity prior to constructing the cycleway. PLANNING POLICY

3.1 The site is designated as Open Space - Golf Course on the Douglas Local Plan of 1998 and as Open Space on the draft Area Plan for the East. - 3.2 There is a presumption against development in such areas as set out in General Policy 3 and what is proposed does not comply with any of these exceptions. It is important to consider the wording of both GP2 and GP3: GP2 discusses development which is in accordance with the land use zoning on the appropriate area plan whereas GP3 talks about land which is not designated for development and the two are not mutually exclusive: in this case, the proposed development of a path and cycle track is consistent with the land use designation as Open Space for a particular purpose of recreation (Golf Course) and which is in public ownership and through which there are existing public rights of way (PROWs 224 and 334 run through the golf course). It therefore complies with GP2. However, it is not designated for development, only a particular use where there are restrictions on use and the amount of development (not more than 5% is covered in buildings, is the Strategic Plan definition of Open Space). It could be argued that GP3 should also be applied and there are no exceptions within that policy to support what is proposed. - 3.3 The Strategic Plan supports sustainable development and transport and development which is accessible to cycle networks (Transport Policy 2). - 3.4 Transport Policy 5 states: Any improvements to the Island's highway network, including the provision of new roads, footpaths, and cycle routes, should be undertaken in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan. - 3.5 General Policy 2, as referred to above, should be applied, which sets out generally applicable standards of development and the relevant parts are as follows:

• (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
• (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;
• (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;

• (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
• (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents 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; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan and (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 There have been previous applications for land in the vicinity of this site but none which is particularly relevant to the current proposal. Two applications proposed the installation of safety fencing alongside 84-90, Springfield Road (03/01442/B and 04/00541/B - both permitted). REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Douglas Borough Council seek additional time to comment on the application as they are concerned inadequate information has been provided in relation to how the contaminated land will be dealt with and removed which they consider is a reasonable and relevant part of the development (29.05.20). They submit a further response on 17.06.20 indicating that further time is required to consider the application at the meeting of the full Executive Council on 24.06.20 and they note that they are the owner of the application site. They confirm on 27.07 that they support the application.

5.2 DEFA Ecosystems Policy Officer reports that there is potential for nesting birds to be within the vegetation to be removed to facilitate the cycle lane and the applicant's attention is drawn to the provisions of the Wildlife Act 1990. They advise that the bird nesting season is usually late February to August or late September in the case of swifts, swallows or house martins and thorough checks for birds, their active nests and eggs should be undertaken prior to the clearance of vegetation and if a nest is discovered all work must cease and advice sought from the Ecosystems Policy Team (10.06.20). - 5.3 DoI Highways Services requests an extension of time to comment on the application as additional information has been requested - a topographic survey of the site, details of the interface between the existing public road and the proposed cycle way and a road safety audit (12.06.20). Following the submission of further information, Highway Services confirm that they have no objection subject to conditions relating to the requirement for a Road Safety Audit and that the development is undertaken in accordance with drawings 102D and 103 (19.06.20).

ASSESSMENT

6.1 The issues in this case are whether the proposed works would have any adverse visual impact on the character and appearance of the area, whether there would be any adverse impact on highway safety or on the living conditions of those in the adjacent residential properties.

6.2 The tree to be removed alongside the A5 is not significant and its loss is not considered objectionable.

6.3 The introduction of new surfacing will not be out of keeping in an area characterised by fencing alongside the golf course and pavements alongside the highway. The route will take pedestrians and cyclists away from the highway and from the front of residential properties and will provide better safety for the residents and the users of the route. - 6.4 There are other procedures which will ensure that the removal and treatment of any contaminated material is handled appropriately.

CONCLUSION

7.1 The application will support safe and sustainable transport into the capital without any adverse impacts and is supported. It would not be appropriate to require by condition a RSA as this is something determined by another party and also, if the RSA determined that the proposal was unsafe, it would not be possible to then refuse to satisfy the condition which would undermine the approval granted. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
• (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
• (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
• (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

8.2 The decision maker must determine:

• o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
• o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 4(2) who should be given Interested Person Status.

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

I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Permitted Date: 17.08.2020 Determining officer

Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Principal Planner

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