Officer Report

Application No.: 14/00632/B Applicant: Cheeseden Investments Limited Proposal: Erection of three 10 Kw wind turbines Site Address: Field 414526 Ballaman Ballnahowe Road Port Erin Isle Of Man Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 11.06.2014 Site Visit: 11.06.2014 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE SCALE OF REPRESENTATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND THE NATURE OF THE APPLICATION

THE SITE

1.1 The site is a small piece of land within a wider area defined in blue which is the land holding owned in association with Ballaman and the agricultural land surrounding it. Ballaman is a large dwelling sited on the western side of the Balnahowe Road and has two entrance gates onto the public highway which runs from Port Erin to Cregneash. The property has been the subject of a number of relatively recent applications for alterations and extensions, including the creation of a helicopter landing facility and storage shed. The application site is approximately 80m long and between 22m and 40m wide. - 1.2 A public footpath runs along the western side of the site and is around 60m from the proposed development site at its closest point. - 1.3 The site is visible from a very wide area, from Bradda Head through Surby, Ballafesson to Port St. Mary including a view downwards from the Meayll Circle Ancient Monument which is a prehistoric burial of late Neolithic or early Bronze Age. - 1.4 The applicant installed a structure on the site of the proposed development and at the height of the proposed turbines. This was in order to be able to assess the visibility of the structures, although of course, this was a stationary pole without moving turbines. THE PROPOSAL

2.1 Proposed is the erection of three wind turbines within the application site. The scheme was amended in February, 2017 to try to address concerns raised. The turbines will be 15m high with three blades which are 7m in turning diameter (around 3.5m long each). 21.5m will be provided between the turbine poles and unlike the initial submission, the turbines will now be installed in a line running north to south with 22m in between each. An electricity cable will be laid from the turbines to the main house, some 120m away, laid 1m under ground level. - 2.2 The turbines would be established at a level of around 90AOD which is comparable with the ground level of the helicopter building which in turn is 8.68m tall. - 2.3 The information submitted with the application explains that the colour of the turbines can be changed if required but are currently proposed as white. The potential for shadow flicker, that is,

• discomfort to an observer from the movement of the blades, would be approximately 70m to the west and east of the turbines. This tends to occur in periods where the sun is shining and at a low angle (after dawn and before sunset), where the turbine is between the sun and the affected party and there is sufficient wind to ensure that the blades are moving. They have concluded that there are no dwellings within this area.
• 2.4 The system has a design life of up to 50 years. The applicant explains that the turbines would generate enough energy to offset around £6,000 of electricity costs at the site.
• 2.5 The scheme has been amended following discussion with various parties to try to address concerns about environmental impact - particularly the impact on birds, and also the impact on the visual character of the area. The applicant has commissioned further information in respect of the impact of the turbines on choughs, following specific comments raised in this respect. The report, prepared by Huckle Ecology Ltd comments on the scheme for three 18m high turbines although the application proposes 15m high turbines and still shows the turbines in a triangular shape whereas the application has been amended to have the turbines in a line and this is commented on positively in the report. The consultant has engaged with DEFA Biodiversity Officer and the Manx Chough Project (MCP). During their visit, up to 12 choughs were seen at maximum count, foraging in the fields to the south and north of Ballaman and flying over the buildings and occasionally landing on them. It was considered that the fields to the north and south of Ballaman are optimal foraging habitat for the local populations of chough and DEFA and the MCP advised that they breed on cliffs to the north of Ballaman and adjacent to the Marine Biological Station with further pairs breeding on cliffs around the coast to the west and southwest of Ballaman with winter flocks using the fields to the south, near Sound Farm.
• 2.6 It is reported as having been agreed amongst those at the meeting, that the site selected is the optimal location for minimising the impact on choughs compared with others which have been considered and is also that for minimising the impact on Airport radar and local residences. Whilst there is a risk to the birds of collision with the turbine blades, this is considered to be "very low" due to the relatively small size of the turbines creating a risk window of around 6-7m. Whilst there is no published evidence of incidence of choughs coming into contact with turbines, they are members of the crow family which are known to be relatively intelligent and it is considered that they would rapidly become accustomed to the turbines and not be critically or fatally affected by them and the linear alignment would help reduce risk of birds flying into them whilst crossing the site. It is also considered that any displacement of choughs from the area would not be significant given the abundance of feeding grounds in the vicinity. It is recommended that to further reduce impact with the choughs that the grass beneath the turbines remain relatively long to be less attractive to them and to increase the distance to 15m between any planting and the turbines and that the turbines could be shut down 5-10 minutes immediately before and after any take-off or landing of any helicopter on the site. Any incidence of bird mortality should be reported to DEFA and that site staff should undertake a monthly patrol of the site to check for any carcasses. Their conclusion is that "incorporating these measures into the operational phase of the wind development would effectively reduce the risk of adverse effects on birds, including the local population of red-billed chough". PLANNING STATUS AND POLICY

3.1 The site lies within an area not designated for development on the Area Plan for the South (APS). The site is close to but not within a coastal draft zone of ecological importance. The draft Landscape Character Assessment identifies the site as lying within a much wider area of Coastal Cliffs - specifically Cregneash Head and Meayll Peninsula. The APS Written Statement refers to this area as follows:

"The overall strategy is to conserve the strong sense of openness of this rugged area, its expansive and dramatic views and to conserve the setting of the numerous archaeological features and Cregneash village and the surrounding traditional field pattern as well as the wartime structures on Meayll Hill.

Key Views Dramatic views of rising uplands to the north and across Port St. Mary Bay to the northeast. Dramatic views across the Sound to the Calf of Man. Panoramic, open views across the Peninsula. Extensive, panoramic, open views across ever-changing sea and sky engulfing the character area on three sides."

• "Landscape Proposal 10: Any additional new built development on the Meayll Peninsula, other than very limited development near its northern edge at the former Marine Biological Station, should be avoided as such development would adversely affect the largely unspoilt character and appearance of the Peninsula and/or would diminish its role in providing a vegetated, undeveloped backdrop to Port Erin, Port St Mary and Cregneash."
• "Landscape Proposal 11: Should the opportunity arise, the radio beacon on Cronk ny Arrey and other communications apparatus on the Meayll Peninsula should be removed or, if necessary, replaced by more modest and less intrusive structures."

3.2 The Strategic Plan contains the following in respect of renewable energy installations:

Energy Policy 4 states "Development involving alternative sources of energy supply, including wind, water and tide power, and the use of solar panels, will be judged against the environmental objectives and policies set out in this Plan. Installations involving wind, water and tide power will require the submissions of an Environmental Impact Assessment."

3.3 Other Strategic Plan policies which are considered relevant include the following:

• Environment Policy 1: "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."
• Environment Policy 2 states: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape of Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce difference categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:

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

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

• a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10)
• b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historical, or social value and interest (Housing Policy 11)
• c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of buildings where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environmental and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment
• d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14)

• e) location-dependant development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services;
• f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry
• g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative and
• h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage". Environment Policy 4 states "Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect:

• a) species and habitats of international importance:

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

• b) species and habitats or 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 or local importance such as Wildlife Sites, local nature reserves, priority habitats or species identified in any Manx Biodiversity Action Plan which do not already benefit from statutory protection, Areas of Special Protection and Bird Sanctuaries and landscape features of importance to wild flora and fauna by reason of their continuous nature or function as a corridor between habitats.

Some areas to which this policy applies are identified as Areas of Ecological Importance or Interest on extant Local or Area Plans, but others, whose importance was not evident at the time of the adoption of the relevant Local or Area Plan, are not, particularly where that plan has been in place for many years. In these circumstances, the Department will seek site specific advice from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry if development proposals are brought forward."

Strategic Policy 4; "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 or urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations; and

• c) not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance".

Environment Policy 40 states: "Development will not be permitted which would damage, disturb or detract from an important archaeological site or an Ancient Monument or the setting thereof."

PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The site has been the subject of a number of applications which have sought and gained approval for alterations and extensions of the house and the creation of storage and hangar facilities for the applicant's helicopter all of which have increased the impact of the development albeit arguably improved the quality and character of the buildings on the site. Alterations have also been approved to the two entrances to the site from the Balnahowe Road. None of these are considered relevant to the consideration of the current application. What has approval is what can be seen on site or thereabouts. - 4.2 There has also been recent incidence of tipping on land which is in the ownership of the applicant. This has partly been resolved by a retrospective application, 16/00963/B. REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Rushen Parish Commissioners recommend very strongly that the application is refused. They consider that the proposal would be contrary to the sound planning principles as set out in the APS and that the turbines would be within an area of high landscape value and scenic significance in a

• prominent position which has dramatic uninterrupted views. They would also be seen from wide areas in Port St. Mary and Port Erin from where the existing buildings already have a significant impact and the impact would adversely affect the tourist attraction of Port Erin. They are also concerned that there will be no benefit to the public from the turbines and an approval would establish an unfortunate precedent for further intrusions into the countryside (26.06.14). They reiterate these concerns, and express further concern at potential re-siting elsewhere towards Sound Farm (06.10.16, 15.03.17)
• 5.2 Port Erin Commissioners object to the application on the basis that whilst being generally supportive of renewable energy solutions, have a concern that one of the most iconic views of the Isle of Man will be severely impacted and disrupted by the proposed wind turbines. Views from the Beach outwards, from Bradda Head across the Bay and from the Manx National Heritage Site at Mull Hill towards Bradda would all be affected. These views are publicised on most Tourism literature, regularly feature on various TV weather reports and are used by a whole host of private companies' promotional material. Concerns were raised that the application is for 3 wind turbines at this stage but a greater number may be erected at a later date and they note that the area of Ballaman has been developed heavily over recent years and is very much out of character with the rest of the area of Port Erin over which it looks. Concerns were raised regarding the choice of wind turbines, their location and the level of civil aviation activity at the dwelling and it was considered that other less visually intrusive options for renewal energy solutions are available and should be considered ahead of the proposed solution. Should wind turbines be erected they were of the view that there are other far less intrusive locations within the land owned by the applicant. Port Erin Commissioners consider that they must be granted interested party status due to the impact the proposed development will have on Port Erin (25.06.16). They reiterate these concerns on 12.10.16 following the submission of additional information by the applicant.
• 5.3 Highway Services indicate that there is no highway interest in the application (03.10.16).
• 5.4 Manx National Heritage is aware that onshore wind turbines are often a sensitive issue and in this respect, formulated their own policy, Interim Policy Statement on Renewable Energy in 2011. This essentially commits to monitor all renewable energy and distribution schemes proposed for the Island and only to support such installations where they are considered to be of an appropriate scale and design and sited in an appropriate location and it is demonstrated that mitigation against any adverse effects will reduce impacts to an acceptable and manageable level but being generally in favour of diversification, decentralisation and localisation of energy supply within the Island. They acknowledge that the applicant has chosen a lower turbine height than could have been selected, to help mitigate their visual impact but are aware that the visual impact of the scheme is not insignificant. They conclude by suggesting that, "It is not clear from current planning policy and guidance whether the application passes the tests for acceptability or not and it would seem that the arguments are quite finely balanced." They recommend further advice from DEFA and Manx Birdlife in respect of the impact on birdlife. Should planning permission be granted they recommend commitment to the mitigation measures referred to in the application and a clear plan for decommissioning the turbines and restoration of the site should the turbines become redundant. They also recommend consideration of re-siting of the turbines closer to Ballaman and perhaps alternative forms of renewable energy (23.06.14).
• 5.5 MNH add further comment on 07.10.16 explaining that they have met with the applicant and have discussed other sites which were considered less suitable in environmental terms and being sited further from the applicant's property. They agree with DEFA that the present siting appears to be the least damaging from a wildlife conservation point of view and would be unlikely to have an impact on archaeology. However, they remain concerned with the visual impact of the turbines from Port Erin, the coastal footpath and higher ground to the south and considering the visitor attractions around here - Mull Hill ancient monument and the facilities at the Sound and Port Erin, the turbines appear incompatible with the public enjoyment of the coastal area. They note the lack of precedent for multiple turbine installations on the Island and consider that whilst this is a domestic installation and part of a laudable plan to meet Ballaman's energy requirements from renewable sources, the

possible cumulative effect of continuing built development around the existing building group "merits cautious approach" and would recommend refusal on that basis, but not on any basis relating to impact on wildlife and archaeology. They finally comment on the most up to date information provided in 2017, stating that it "finds the proposed turbines would still impose a regrettable visual intrusion in this setting, even in their amended positions. By the very nature of the technology and the need to optimize wind conditions for the generation of electricity, this does not seem to be a resolvable issue at this time".

5.5 Manx Wildlife Trust object to the application on the basis that there is insufficient information contained within the application to be able to determine whether there would be any adverse impact on bats and/or birds, including chough and peregrines both of which are known to be present feeding and nesting on and around the Meayll Peninsula or kittiwake, fulmar and guillemot which breed in and around the cliffs. They believe that the development would contravene Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan (13.06.14). - 5.6 DEFA Senior Biodiversity Officer (Zoologist) comments that this proposal is somewhat larger than other proposed turbines on the Island and his advice is generally to site the turbines so that the risk of strikes is minimised. In this respect he notes that the turbines will be set back from the cliff edge where many birds soar but there is a hedgerow of small trees immediately adjacent to it. Bats navigate along tree and hedgelines and forage in the lea of them and there are records of pipistrelles, Natterer's bats and further towards Port Erin, long eared bats in similar situations. In the absence of specific information on bats, a cautious approach is recommended. A bat survey in low wind conditions may help clarify the risk. In the absence of this information, he recommends that a greater distance is placed between the turbines and the hedge (26.06.14). - 5.7 Following the submission of additional information, DEFA Wildlife Division advises that the proposal site overcomes some of the problems associated with other sites but still are affected by close features which attract wildlife - hedgerows, trees and the pond, some of which accommodate species of interest (linnet and blackbird) although there is little in the way of interest recorded at the pond itself, possibly due to the lack of vegetation near the helipad. The operation of the helicopter could, in a worst case scenario, result in birds being flushed out from an approaching helicopter towards the turbines. This would need to be managed by the applicant. He recommends precautionary mitigation for the scheme (29.09.16).

5.7 Department of Infrastructure Airport express concern that the turbines will be in the direct line of sight of the Airport's radar systems which are 230m north of runway 08 approach surface. As such, a full technical safeguarding exercise is required. Until this is undertaken they cannot advise whether the installations would be tolerable to the Airport (24.10.14). A further submission from Air Traffic Services at the Isle of Man Airport opposes the application on the basis of the high probability of an area of cluster PSR clutter adjacent to the final approach to runway 08 and the possibility of the generation of credible false PSR returns (undated letter, attached report dated November 2014). This report is provided with a later representation dated 05.10.16 which strongly opposes the application on the grounds of aviation safety due to the possibility of the fact that the turbine blades are situated within the optical visibility of both of the primary surveillance radars at the Airport and that they are not constructed of radar absorbent material sufficient to prevent target returns being generated. - 5.8 The co-owners of The Coote which lies to the south of the entrance to Ballaman and on the same side of the Balnahowe Road object to the application (8, First Avenue, Douglas). They state that their property is 330m from the turbines and suggest that they will have an adverse visual and potentially noise impact on their property whose value could be reduced as a result (this is not a material planning consideration). They suggest that the turbines will be visible from the Meayll Circle and there is no justification for them in public terms. Finally, the construction would result in an existing unobtrusive track potentially being upgraded to accommodate the construction traffic.

5.9 The owner of Ballaqueeney Cottage in Port St. Mary also owns land close to the application site (abutting the site). They, together with Bay Estates Limited of the same address, who own Car-nyTouree which lies around 400m to the south east of the application site and land and Cronk Queena, object to the application, suggesting that the development would be intrusive and skyline development and within an area not generally designated for development (23.06.14, 24.06.14,

• 06.10.16). He submits further comments, suggesting that the applicant has been treated disproportionately in being given the opportunity for such a long time, to submit further information (15.03.17).

5.9 Representations have been received from the following parties who between them raise concerns about the visual impact of the proposed development in an exposed area, the despoliation of the view (private and public) of the headland and the panorama of the bay, the impact on birdlife and wildlife and tourism, some of whom are supportive of the principle of renewable energy but not in this particular location and the safety of aircraft flying in the area (not only the impact on radar but also of the physical obstacle which may not be visible in times of low cloud) and one party has prepared calculations relating to solar energy which could be captured with less visual impact for the same cost and output:

Port Erin Baycliffe, Tower House and Cooil Ghlass Veg, Tower Road, Port Erin Flat 11, Carlton Apartments, Spaldrick, Port Erin Halewood, The Lhag Rocky Road, Highview 2, Bradda Mount and The Lodge, Bradda East, Port Erin

• Flat 2, Flat 5, Bradda Court, Brook Cottage, Springhill, Sea View Cottage, Gull Cottage, Reayrt Ny Marrey, The Lodge and The Westwards, Bradda Road, Port Erin Manchester House, Creg-Ny-Shee, Muirfield, Taruman and Charnwood House, Bradda West Road Spaldrick Port Erin 1, Bradda Glen Close, Port Erin (09.06.14)

8, Imperial Heights, Port Erin 6, Imperial Lodge, later Manchester House (above) 93 and 103, Ballamaddrell, Port Erin Blue Waters, The Headlands and Windyridge, Traaie Meanagh Drive, Port Erin Tinsleys, Spaldrick, Port Erin 23, Erin Way, Port Erin Craigmount, Darragh, Port Erin

• 23 and 70, Erin Way, Port Erin

4, Erin Court, Rowany Drive, Port Erin 1, Fairway Drive, Port Erin 1, Edremony Court Rowany Drive Port Erin 34, Edremony Estate, Port Erin 20, Fairway Close, Port Erin Davlin and Town House, 1, Bay View Road, Port Erin Whitebridge, St George's Crescent Port Erin 9 and 11, Athol Court, Port Erin

• 12, Ballahane Close, Athol Meadow, Port Erin

Flat 3, Kittiwake House, Apts 5 and 8, Snaefell House, Promenade, Port Erin 1D, 2A and 2C, Princess Towers, Promenade Port Erin Fairfield, Cumbrae and Davaar, Athol Park, Port Erin Belvedere and Glenshoggil, Ballafurt Road, Port Erin Representative of the petition, 15, Station Road, Port Erin Station Hotel, Station Road, Port Erin Ingleside Port Erin 8, Church Road, Port Erin

• 13, Ellan Vannin 5, Droghadfayle Park, Port Erin

• 4 and 5, Ballakneale Close, Port Erin
• 5, Ballakneale Avenue, Port Erin Port Erin Traders' Association

Port St. Mary Shilley Ny Marrey, Castletown Road, Port St Mary Ballahane House, Truggan Rd Port St Mary Greenings and Ballajofay, Castletown Road, Port St. Mary Glenchass Farmhouse, Chasms Road, Glen Chass Well Cottage and Creg Cottage, Howe Road Port St. Mary

• 3B and 3C, St Mary's Bay Apartments, The Promenade Port St Mary Norbrid, Beach Rd, Port St Mary Ballamoar, Shore Road, Bay Ny Carrickey Tarifa, Linden Avenue, Port St. Mary

Colby 12B, Viking Hill, Carrick Bay View and 11, Hill Park, Ballakillowey, Colby 1, Strawberry Meadows, Croit-E-Caley, Colby Middle Field, Glen Road, Colby 32, Cronk Cullyn, Colby

Ballabeg Ivydene, Main Road, Ballabeg

Castletown 147, Malew Street, Castletown Maisonette, 8A, Smetana Close, Castletown

Surby Millcroft and Keston, Mill Road, Surby Dragonscroft, Honna Road, Surby The Leigh, Lhie Ny Greiney, Moorlands, Surby Mooar, Folly Cottage, Eairy Veg and Carnanes, Surby Road Surby Greenhill, Ballagale Avenue, Surby Southview, 61, Garth Avenue Surby

Onchan 64, Seafield Close, Onchan

Santon

• 24, Ballanoa Meadow, Santon

Further afield 12, The Fairway, Morpeth, Northumberland West Street, Tallow, Co. Waterford, Ireland

5.10 The residents at 16, Westminster Terrace in Douglas, Devonshire House, St. Mary's Road, Port Erin, Highfields, Howe Road, Victoria Lodge, Surby and those at Thie Yuan, Port St. Mary support the application, suggesting that an individual's commitment to renewable energy should be encouraged although some are not supportive of the use of private helicopter to and from the premises. - 5.11 Speaker of the House of Keys Hon. Juan Watterson MHK objects to the application on the basis that the development fails the tests of General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan and would have a harmful effect on the Meayll Circle Ancient Monument. He suggests that the turbines would be more eye-catching than shown in the illustrations as they will be moving and notes that there are landscape policies which seek to remove existing masts. Whilst in favour of the principle of

• renewable energy he considers that the visual impacts of what is proposed outweigh the benefits (18.06.14 and 26.09.16).
• 5.12 Hon. Lawrence Skelly MHK opposes the application on the basis of the adverse visual impact and impact on the quality of life for those who would see them (11.07.14 and 10.06.14).
• 5.13 Manx Utilities make comment regarding the procedure for connecting to other systems (06.06.14).
• 5.14 A number of other unaddressed comments have been received, expressing objection to the application. A petition signed by a number of people, submitted via Ken Quine's Hardware, 15, Station Road, Port Erin, many of whom have either not provided a full address or whose writing is illegible, all objecting to the application for reasons relative to visual impact, aircraft safety including helicopters operating from Ballaman, impact on wildlife and the fear that approval could establish a precedent for other, larger offshore wind farms (06.10.16).
• 5.15 The Manx Chough Project, objects to the application for reasons relating to the potential impact on choughs in this area (29.09.16). No further information has been received following the further information from Huckle Ecology.
• 5.16 Rushen Heritage Trust opposes the application (10.10.16). They consider that the proposal is contrary to a number of planning policies and would have an adverse impact on the archaeology of Meayll Hill and its Bronze Age circle as well as from the beach at Port Erin which is an important tourist asset. ASSESSMENT

6.1 The key issues are whether there are any adverse environmental impacts from the turbines and their operation on the visual character and appearance of the area, the local ecology, the living conditions of those in any dwellings in the area, the safety of the operation of the Island's principal Airport or any site of archaeological interest or importance and if so, whether the environmental benefits of harnessing renewable energy in this case, outweigh these concerns. Visual character - 6.2 The site is a headland which overlooks a populated bay which provides a range of facilities for residents and visitors alike. The site is also looked down upon from public footpaths and an Ancient Monument, Meayll Circle. In addition, the site is visible at reasonably close range from the public footpath which skirts the coast, linking Port Erin with the Sound. The site can therefore be seen from a number of public and private vantage points, with the impact of the proposal differing depending upon the position and level of the viewpoint and its distance from the site. - 6.3 There is a great deal of correspondence from residents of Port St. Mary and Port Erin, as well as from as far afield as Douglas, Onchan and Santon on the Island as well as off-Island. These viewpoints are at a considerable distance - 1.3km to Bradda, 2.3km to Surby and around 1km to the lower part of the upper promenade. Whilst the higher part of the Promenade, Bradda and Spaldrick all have views in this direction, it is not considered that the distance enables such a clear view of the proposed turbines that they would be so discernible as to warrant a visual impact so significant as to warrant refusal for reasons relating to the outlook from these properties. The impact on a private view is not a material planning consideration. It is of course the case that there are also public views from Spaldrick, Bradda and the higher part of the promenade but again, the distance from these vantage points is considered to be such that a clear view would not be available which would so adversely affect the general landscape sufficient to refuse the application. - 6.4 As the promenade descends, the view of the turbines will become closer but towards the lowest point, the topography of the site will prevent a view of them. There is also a view of the turbines which is available from the sea as one approaches the bay although the site is one small part of a much wider landscape and with much of that view having a backdrop of the surrounding hillside.

• From few places to the north and north west will the turbines be visible on the skyline. It is also relevant that there is already a line of overhead power cables which ascend the same hillside.
• 6.5 As one ascends Balnahowe Road, the turbines will be screened by the distance from the road and the high roadside hedges as well as the existing buildings at Ballaman. The turbines will start to become visible with a backdrop of the sea and sky as one proceeds higher up Balnahowe Road. As one reaches the brow of the hill, the turbines will be visible but in a wider panorama and one will look down on them with Ballaman and its entourage sitting alongside. From the Mull Circle, the turbines will be clearly visible within an impressive panorama of Port Erin, Milner's Tower and Bradda Head right around to Port St. Mary. The view from the footpath is perhaps the most direct with an upward view of the turbines on the skyline from the northern part of the path before it drops down to the Marine Biological Station.
• 6.6. Simply being able to see something does not necessarily make it objectionable. It is the impact on the character and appearance of that landscape which is the critical assessment and the Landscape Character Assessment is helpful in this respect. This identifies the character of the area as being the dramatic views of rising uplands to the north and across Port St. Mary Bay to the northeast, the dramatic views across the Sound to the Calf of Man, the panoramic, open views across the Peninsula and extensive, panoramic, open views across ever-changing sea and sky engulfing the character area on three sides and the overall strategy being to conserve the strong sense of openness of this rugged area, its expansive and dramatic views and to conserve the setting of the numerous archaeological features and Cregneash village and the surrounding traditional field pattern as well as the wartime structures on Meayll Hill. Most importantly, this has translated into Landscape Proposal 10 which states:

"Any additional new built development on the Meayll Peninsula, other than very limited development near its northern edge at the former Marine Biological Station, should be avoided as such development would adversely affect the largely unspoilt character and appearance of the Peninsula and/or would diminish its role in providing a vegetated, undeveloped backdrop to Port Erin, Port St Mary and Cregneash."

Furthermore, Landscape Proposal 11 states: "Should the opportunity arise, the radio beacon on Cronk ny Arrey and other communications apparatus on the Meayll Peninsula should be removed or, if necessary, replaced by more modest and less intrusive structures."

6.7 It is very difficult to reconcile a proposal for three new vertical, moving structures with these policies within such a landscape and particularly where other apparatus is recommended for being removed (albeit at a considerably larger scale than the current proposal) particularly when considering the view from Mull Circle and that from the coastal footpath alongside the site. Whilst the applicant has considered other sites within his land holding, it is likely to be inevitable that such structures will be considered to have an adverse visual impact which it is considered in this case, that they will. Ecology - 6.8 The Manx Chough Project and others have raised an issue with the impact of the turbines on wildlife and particularly birds and most specifically red billed choughs which are protected under the Wildlife Act. The risk to birds of turbines is generally twofold - they can be killed or injured through coming into contact with the blades and they can also be prompted to relocate due to the turbines deterring them from visiting the area which may be used for foraging or in some cases (but not believed to be this one) breeding. The plentitude of good quality foraging areas in the vicinity results in the concern about relocation of the species. There remains a concern about bird strike. The applicant's additional report prepared by Huckle Ecology attempts to address this and we have received no further comment from the Manx Chough Project who were consulted at the time. It is relevant that DEFA's Senior Biodiversity Officer does not object to the application on these grounds although he did raise caution regarding the impact on bats and recommended that further distance be put between the turbines and any hedging.

6.9 The absence of firm objection from a qualified authority on ecology provides less scope for an objection on these grounds, and in particular, Manx National Heritage in their latest communication note that they are "more comfortable with the measures to minimize impact on birds and would not object to the application on these grounds". Impact on the living conditions of those in any dwellings in the area - 6.10 The closest property to the turbines is Ballaman itself, the applicant's own property. Those further from the site are some distance away - over 300m and as such, it is not considered that the turbines would have such an impact on local residents as to warrant refusal for reasons relating to impact on their living conditions. Impact on the safety of the operation of the Island's principal Airport - 6.11 The Airport has indicated that there is a risk of the turbines interfering with the operation of the Airport. The applicant has indicated that the methodology for ascertaining whether the turbines would adversely affect the operation of the Airport is very expensive and he is reluctant to invest in this if there is a chance that the application will be refused for other reasons. Whilst it should be ascertained whether the turbines would have any adverse impact on Airport or aircraft safety, it is possible that a suspensive condition could be attached to any approval to have this methodology undertaken prior to the commencement of any works and only upon the Department being satisfied that the safety of the operation of the Airport and of aircraft would not be compromised by the turbines, could they be erected. Impact on any site of archaeological interest or importance - 6.12 The Mull Circle is not itself affected by the turbines and as such the setting of the monument and EP 40 cannot be said to be compromised as a result. Whilst the enjoyment of this site of archaeological importance would be as the turbines would be directly visible as one considers the panorama of the landscape from Bradda Head to Port St. Mary this is a concern in respect of the impact of the turbines on the character and appearance of the area rather than an impact on the monument itself.

Whether the environmental benefits of harnessing renewable energy in this case, outweigh these concerns

6.13 Renewable energy developments are generally encouraged as the Department and Government in general are committed to the recently approved Climate Challenge Mitigation Strategy 2016-2020 adopted June 2016 (GD 2016/0031). This requires the Island to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, deep electrification of the energy system and promoting the use of sustainably sourced biomass and improvements to some land use practices. In particular that total greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generated on the Island will be close to zero by 2020. This will clearly necessitate the introduction of renewable energy harnessing developments as well as reducing total energy consumed and improving energy efficiency. The document includes specific references to wind power, amongst other renewables, stating, "The intermittent nature of some renewable energy resources, such as solar radiation, wind and wave, has led some to call into question the viability of harnessing them as means of generating electricity. Fortunately, a range of options, from domestic to industrial scale, for storing electricity are already commercially available and the technology continues to evolve rapidly". - 6.14 The approach by the planning authority to balancing the impact of the benefits of renewable energy against any environmental impact have varied, depending upon the nature of the impact. For example, a number of turbines have been approved - PA 14/00117/B for two turbines the same height as those now being proposed at Bay View Farm. These are now in situ and at Bride (PA 16/00033/B) and is the same height as that now proposed. A more recent application for a turbine of the same height as is now proposed, at Ballacallin Farm in Gordon on the west coast of the Island was refused for reasons relating to both visual impact and a lack of information on ecological impact (16/00902/B). This application is currently at appeal.

6.15 In this case, there is perhaps more independent information available to assess the acceptability of the visual impact of the development, in terms of the Area Plan and Landscape Character policies and proposals and it is clear that the overriding characteristic of the area is its openness and the quality of its views across to the sea at Port Erin, Port St. Mary and around the Sound. As stated before, it is difficult to reconcile this objective with a proposal which will introduce a moving, vertical development into this landscape although it is accepted that from many viewpoints, the turbines will not create an unacceptable visual impact, or in fact will be barely discernible in the wider landscape. The impact, however from the coastal footpath and downwards from the Mull Circle is considered to be unacceptable and is not outweighed by the benefit, and it is an acknowledged benefit to the environment of the harnessing of renewable energy in general in line with Government objectives, particularly as there are other ways of harnessing environmental energy which would not have such visual impacts - for example solar energy which, it is understood, the applicant is considering. - 6.16 The application is recommended for refusal for the single reason that the visual impact would be so harmful as viewed from the coastal footpath and the higher perspective from the Mull Circle as not to be outweighed by the environmental benefits of the scheme and would therefore be contrary to Environment Policies 1 and 2 and General Policy 3 all of the Strategic Plan and Landscape Proposal 10 of the Area Plan for the South. - 6.17 Should the application be approved, conditions should be considered as follows:

• 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• 2. Prior to the commencement of any work on site in relation to the approved development, the applicant must have approved in writing by the Department technical evidence which demonstrates that the development will not adversely affect the safe operation of the Isle of Man Airport and aircraft using the area. If there are any recommendations within that evidence the development must be undertaken in accordance with such recommendations.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not adversely affect the safe operation of the Island's Airport and aircraft in the area generally.

• 3. No approval is hereby granted to the introduction of any hedging or vegetation between the turbines and the coastal footpath or to directly to the north and south of the turbines. Reason: To reduce the attractiveness of the area of the turbines to foraging birds.
• 4. Prior to the commencement of any work on the development hereby approved, the application must have approved by the Department a scheme for managing the operation of the turbines in association with helicopter movements within the site, resulting in the turbines being in-operational ten minutes before and after helicopter take-off and landing.

Reason: To reduce the incidence of bird strike caused by birds leaving the site due to helicopter activity.

6.18 It may also be useful to consider a condition relating to the colour of the turbines - poles, rotor engine and blades. The majority of the views of them will be with a backdrop of hillside and as such, a darker colour may reduce the visual impact from the majority of the places from which they will be seen. From the closer view, particularly from the coastal footpath, it is considered that the view would be little if any different if the turbines and support poles were dark or lightly coloured.

PARTY STATUS

7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, 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 - in this case, Manx National Heritage, Department of Infrastructure Airport Division and Manx Utilities
• (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.

Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Biodiversity Office is part of the same Department as is the planning authority and as such should not be afforded interested person status under the Order.

In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.

In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13:

• i) Port Erin Commissioners: although their physical area of responsibility does not extend as far as the application site, it would, in part be directly affected by the development, particular its part of the coastal footpath
• ii) owners of The Coote
• iii) owners of Car-ny Touree
• iv) owners of land close to the site (Ballaqueeney Cottage) all of whom are close enough to the site to be considered to have a direct interest in the development
• v) Manx Wildlife Trust
• vi) Manx Chough Project

Whilst neither of these parties would usually be considered eligible for interested person status, in this case, there are clearly conflicting views on the impact of the development on local ecology and a range of differing views generally on such impacts. As such, it is considered that these two parties who have expertise in this area should be afforded interested person status in this case.

In this instance, it is recommended that the remainder of persons who have expressed a view do not have sufficient interest to be awarded the status of an Interested person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13.

With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 22.03.2017

R 1. The visual impact would be so harmful as viewed from the coastal footpath and the higher perspective from the Mull Circle as not to be outweighed by the environmental benefits of the scheme and would therefore be contrary to Environment Policies 1 and 2 and General Policy 3 all of the Strategic Plan and Landscape Proposal 10 of the Area Plan for the South.

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:…03.04.2017

Signed :………S CORLETT………….. 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 03.04.2017

Application No. : 14/00632/B Applicant : Cheeseden Investments Limited Proposal : Erection of three 10 Kw wind turbines Site Address : Field 414526

Ballaman Ballnahowe Road Port Erin Isle Of Man Presenting Officer : Miss S E Corlett Addendum to the Officer’s Report

The Planning Committee refused the application for the reason given but widening the extent of the adverse visual impact and also adding a second reason relating to adverse impact on the operation of the Airport and resultant impact on aircraft safety.

Reason for Refusal

• R 1. It has not been demonstrated that the installation will not adversely affect the operation of the Isle of Man Airport with a resultant potential significant harm to aircraft safety, contrary to Transport Policy 10 of the Strategic Plan.
• R 2. The visual impact would be so harmful on the surrounding environment, from Port Erin and its surrounding hinterland and particularly as viewed from the coastal footpath and the higher perspective from the Mull Circle as not to be outweighed by the environmental benefits of the scheme and would therefore be contrary to Environment Policies 1 and 2 and General Policy 3 all of the Strategic Plan and Landscape Proposal 10 of the Area Plan for the South.