Loading document...
Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE LAND IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR DEVELOPMENT AND THE ERECTION OF A DWELLING HEREON WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION FOR THE SITE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE COMMITTEE ON 1ST OCTOBER, 2012
1.1 The site differs slightly from that which was the subject of PA 12/01053 for the construction of a dwelling and restoration and landscaping of the site, in that the southern boundary of the site is now a straight line and incorporates a small triangle of land to the rear of David Crowe's recycling yard to the south. The current application also differs from the previous one in respect of alterations to the house itself which are detailed below but which are largely cosmetic and do not fundamentally change the appearance, impact or size of the proposed dwelling, its access or the landscaping associated with it.
1.2 Work has commenced on site including the protection of the ecology of the area.
2.1 The site is a parcel of land, divided into two by the road which links the Stoney Mountain Road (hereafter referred to as the access road) in the south to the A24 Foxdale Road which runs along the northern edge of the site. The eastern part of the site is around 7 acres (2.7 ha) and the western part 4.4 acres (1.7 ha). Before works commenced on site, the eastern part of the site was mostly exposed, bare earth with steep undulations and has been used informally for motorcycle and BMX scrambling for a considerable period of time. The western side was more vegetated with gorse and other natural shrubs. The site is between 80m and 140m wide and has a frontage of 175m to the A24 on the western side of the site and 270m on the eastern side. To the south west of the access road, the land level has clearly been artificially managed and has hillocks which are mainly vegetated with grass, cushhog, some domestic-looking evergreen shrubs, brambles and gorse. There was a large concrete structure in this part of the site.
2.2 The northern part of the site had a much more bare appearance with watercourses running variously through it, outcrops of gorse and in the centre was an elevated area with
| Application No.: | 13/00387/B |
| Applicant: | JCK Ltd |
| Proposal: | Remediation of site and erection of a detached dwelling with associated landscaping works (comprising amendments to PA 12/01053/B) |
| Site Address: | The Deads East Foxdale Road Foxdale Isle Of Man |
metal shuttering around a tall concrete structure built alongside the hillock behind. As stated above, works have commenced on site in respect of the erection of protective fencing of the ecologically sensitive areas and vehicles and machinery brought to site. 2.3 The site lies on the southern side of the A24 between Ard Jerkyll (MSPCA) and the village of Higher Foxdale. To the east of the site is open agricultural land which is being invaded by gorse, associated with Eairy Mount, a dwelling to the east of the site. To the west is open farmland which is designated for residential development (see Planning Status and Policy). To the south of the site is open agricultural land. To the south east is the recycling facilities operated by David Crowe Ltd and to the east of that, Billy Goat Park, the home ground of Foxdale Football Club. The land immediately to the south has been planted with young trees and is well maintained. This marks a clear edge to the application site with its exposed soil and stone and gorse. 2.4 The site accommodates two known mine shafts and one possible shaft. The 1869 county series mapping shows shafts in all three locations, as well as considerable infrastructure (water wheel, engine house, aqueduct, washing floor and pumping rod running from the western shaft to the eastern one). A water course runs alongside the A24 and running under the minor road to Stoney Mountain before continuing towards the village, where it joins Struan Barrule and continues to become part of the River Neb which meets the sea at Peel harbour. 2.5 The roadside has no formal edge or marking. The part around the access road is largely devoid of significant vegetation with increasing amounts of vegetation closer to the road to the north east and south west.
3.1 The site is designated as "Area for reclamation" on the Foxdale Local Plan of 1999. There are two sites of interest for nature conservation and two sites of archaeological interest on the site. These relate to Hawkweed Hierarcium and Rosa rugosa on the site. 3.2 Paragraph 2.0 of the Local Plan states "Foxdale is, in some parts, still characterised by views of large areas of spoil and the remnants of mining structures which not only blot the landscape, but post a potential environmental hazard. Any study which looks at the village must as a priority consider how best to confront these challenges whilst recognizing, and where appropriate protecting, the village's existing assets and valuable characteristics." 3.3 The Plan included reference to a number of studies which were undertaken into the contamination of the former mining area and concluded that the study area accommodated three heavily contaminated sites directly related to the presence of mine workings, of which the application site, known as the Louisa Mine site, is one and is described in paragraph 2.11 as "perhaps the most in need of restoration of all those identified in the Wolverhampton Study as it is so close to the highway and is very open with little in the way of roadside hedging so that the ground itself and the remnants of the mining apparatus - the old chute, concrete buddle and wheelcase etc - may be seen by the passing public. The site does, however also have much to offer in terms of natural and archaeological interest: naturally in terms of species of flora and habitat which currently exist and that which could be restored by reducing or eliminating the possibility and continuation of exposure and spread of contaminated material and also by creating another part of a wildlife corridor, possibly linked to the adjacent Kionslieau Dam which is rich in ecological interest" (paragraph 2.11). 3.4 The Plan goes on to state, "The Louisa Mine site is not visually an integral part of the village; rather it forms part of the wider periphery or backdrop to the village and in this respect it is suggested that the site is not suitable in its entirety for the development of built structures. This has significant repercussions for the viability of any reclamation works which themselves are likely to be costly. There may be opportunity, however to develop the
westernmost part of the site for housing as tests undertaken subsequent to the Wolverhampton Study have revealed that the level of contamination in this part may not be so high as to preclude such development and after use (see Section 3)." (paragraph 2.12). 3.5 It goes on in paragraph 2.13, "It is suggested that the site should be reclaimed with an end use of Open Space which if properly managed could provide a valuable asset in terms of ecological and archaeological conservation for the village and the Island as a whole. The site should be capped at the eastern end around the old reprocessing plant and planting encouraged of indigenous species of gorse, broom, heathers and grasses. The slopes of the western and northern part of the plateau should be remodelled at a lower angle, infilled around the old chute which itself should be removed or buried. The central part should be appropriately landscaped with indigenous species and where possible mining structures should as the remnants of the wheelcase and concrete buddle should be retained and preserved. In the western part of the site there is little which needs to be done but should be appropriately managed in view of the botanical and industrial interest. Due to the possible problems of ground stability and hot spots of contamination which may be identified, it is recommended that access by livestock and the public be appropriates restricted." 3.6 The Plan recommends that catchment-wide drainage scheme be formulated for the interplay of drainage water and contaminated spoil. This would be made up of Government departments and agencies. This has never been undertaken. 3.7 A series of policies were introduced for the different levels of contamination of the area. The most heavily contaminated areas were subject to a list of conditions relating to dealing with the contamination, landscaping, drainage and surface materials. 3.8 Paragraph 3.16 states "Various parts of the village have become contaminated to varying degrees as a result of mining spoil transported around the area by unconstrained surface water flowing over the area. The Wolverhampton Study has recommended that any land which is known to be heavily contaminated should not be used for housing due to the possible risk to health through disturbance of the sub-soils by the creation of gardens, planting etc. There is also a continuing rise in standards applied by the European Community to such matters and there is also a general increase in terms of public expectations for such work. There are, therefore, areas in which residential development should not occur (Fig. 2) to reduce the risk of contamination which might prevail due to bringing contaminated earth into the surface during planting and the creation of gardens. Such pockets as have been identified should be properly capped and sealed and either developed for non-residential purposes in conjunction with specialist advice or sealed/de-toxicated and encouraged to revert back to natural open space." 3.9 The plan makes provision for the development of land for housing opposite Springfield Terrace, adjoining the application site (Louisa Mine site). This was on the basis that the land was at the time all in one ownership and as such, the development of the residential area could help towards the cost of the remediation works required on the contaminated part. Also, the housing development would be at risk of being contaminated if the Louisa Mine site were not remediated and the interplay of the watercourse which runs into the residential site, with contaminated land, were resolved. The first condition of the development brief for this residential land states "Any proposal for development of the site must be accompanied by proposals for the restoration of the Louisa Mine site. The Mine site may only be used, after restoration, as Open Space (paragraph 3.54.1). 3.10 The Strategic Plan was introduced after the adoption of the Foxdale Local Plan and provides further, general guidance for development on the Island. There are general policies presuming against development outside of designated areas - General Policy 3 sets out the exceptions to this as follows:
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". 3.11 The development would not accord with any of these exceptions. Environment Policy 1 confirms the presumption against development and provides protection of the countryside in its own right. 3.12 The Plan contains advice about contaminated land, as follows:
7.19.1 Development will not be permitted where it would be incompatible with an existing use of land. In the case of new residential development, this will not be allowed where properties would suffer unacceptable loss of amenity due to exposure to existing sources of pollution whether this is from noise generation, odours or airborne pollutants such as dust. Not only could this reduce the quality of life of future residents but it could lead to future complaints that may prejudice any future development or expansion of an existing land use." 3.14 Environment Policy 24: "Pollution-sensitive development will only be allowed to be located close to sources of pollution where appropriate measures can be taken to safeguard amenity.
7.20.1 Contaminated land on the Island is typically as a result of the legacy of past industrial and chemical land uses. Perhaps the most notable sites are land areas associated with former mining practices and it is not uncommon for such sites to be close to residential areas or watercourses which can be detrimentally affected by such contamination. Foxdale is a prime example of a former mining village, which largely specialised in lead mining during the 19th Century under the control of the Isle of Man Mining Company, and physical evidence can still be found of important archaeological remains. A number of studies have revealed varying degrees of contamination across Higher Foxdale, much of which still requires reclamation from heavy metal contamination. It is recognised, however, that some of the former mining areas host a variety of rare plants which may have ecological value." 3.16 7.20.2 "The practice of reclaiming contaminated land and bringing it back into beneficial use is supported, whether it be suitable in the end for open space or residential development or as deemed appropriate in the Area Plans. It is important that however former contaminated land is utilised, both health and property are safeguarded. Detailed surveys may be required to identify the extent of contamination and how contamination problems can be overcome. On sites where the Department has no control, the developer will have responsibility to ensure that any development site is free of contamination which may constitute a hazard to occupiers or potential users of the development or land. Furthermore,
precautions will be essential to ensure that contaminants cannot escape from the site which may cause airborne or waterborne pollution or pollution of nearby land." 3.17 Environment Policy 26: "Development will not be permitted on or close to contaminated land unless it can be demonstrated that there is no unacceptable risk to health, property or adjacent watercourses."
7.21.1 In addition to the need for protection there is also a need to carry out enhancements to the natural environment if a sustainable vision for the Isle of Man is to be achieved. Opportunities for environmental enhancement, such as tree planting, the removal of eyesores and the management of habitats will need to be identified in Area Plans with the full involvement and support of local communities. Such opportunities may include former mining areas which have been or are in the process of being reclaimed. Appropriate reclamation should protect or enhance features of industrial or archaeological significance." 3.19 Environment Policy 27: "The Department will seek to enhance the natural environment, including sites contaminated by former mine workings, along with other Government Departments, local communities, the private sector and all appropriate agencies in order to ensure the appropriate reclamation, water management, planting of appropriate tree species, the management of special habitats including aquatic habitats and the removal of eyesores."
7.22.1 The policy set out below aims to safeguard life and property from ground instability such as landslips and subsidence. Therefore, unless mitigating measures can be taken, development will not be permitted where it would be at risk from unstable land or increase the risk of ground instability elsewhere." 3.21 "It may be necessary for a developer to undertake a specialist investigation and assessment to identify any remedial measures required to deal with ground instability. It may also be appropriate to carry out monitoring after the development has taken place. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the developer to ensure that land is safe and suitable for development. Whilst the Department will try to ensure that a development will not be put at unacceptable risk, the subsequent liability for safe development and secure occupancy of a site rests with the developer and/or landowner." 3.22 Environment Policy 28: "Development which would be at risk from ground instability or which would increase the risk from ground instability elsewhere will not be permitted unless appropriate precautions have been taken." 3.23 The plan also contains provisions for development close to watercourses: "Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which would not be overcome by mitigation measures will not be permitted. Where development is proposed which would affect a watercourse, planning applications must comply with the following criteria: a) all watercourses in the vicinity of the site must be identified on plans accompanying a planning application and include an adequate 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 any adjacent watercourse; and
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
