Loading document...
Application No.: 12/01140/B Applicant: Sunset Lakes Ltd Proposal: Erection of a fishing complex with lakes, cafe, four holiday cottages, educational facility and landscaping Site Address: Field 314338 And Part Fields 314331,314329 Ballagyr Lane Peel Isle Of Man Case Officer : Miss Jennifer Chance Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
THE APPLICATION IS TO BE DETERMINED BY PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSAL IS CONTRARY TO THE LAND USE DESIGNATION IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SITE
1.1 The main part of the application site lies approximately 0.25km to the south of the Ballagyr Lane and 0.25km to the east of the Battlewattleworth estate in Peel, separated by a field, although the proposed access would utilise an existing lane that is directly to the rear of the houses in Willow Close. - 1.2 The site is currently an open field bounded by a sod hedge with gorse and hawthorn trees. The surrounding countryside is gently sloping rising from 51 (above datum) at the southern boundary of the site, to 59 at the northern boundary. As a point of reference, the houses in Birch Rise (part of the Ballawattleworth Estate) are at about 52(aod), and Ballagyr Lane is about 55/56(aod). - 1.3 The site is approximately 6.5 ha excluding the access roads. PROPOSAL
2.1 The application submission describes the project aim to provide a professionally managed coarse angling centre for the Isle of Man to meet the needs of the local angling population and to provide a tourist facility. The intention is also to allow non-anglers to enjoy the facility by providing a wildlife haven, café and education centre. - 2.2 The proposal comprises:
2.3 Additional information sets out:
2.4 The application originally stated that the ponds are to be created by the removal of material which would be used for the banks and landscaping around the site. Following discussions with the Manx Utility Authority (Water) a soil analysis has been done which shows that the subsoil is slightly porous so the ponds will need to be lined. There are several methods available including the importation of clay which is a waste product generated locally, or the use of a sheet lining system. It is likely that it would be a combination of both, but the precise method will not be known until the site has been stripped and excavated. The applicants have been in discussion with JCK for the supply of clay with is current produced at their Ballasalla facility as a by-product of their soil screening process and then transported to their landfill site at St Johns. The worst case scenario of 100% clay being needed would equate to 3460 tonnes to cover the whole site, which would be 100 lorry loads spread out over a 4 month period. It is unlikely that this quantity would be required. PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 There is no planning history relating to the site. DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES - 4.1 The site lies outside of the Peel Local Plan boundary. On the 1982 Development Order, the site lies within open country in an area designated as being of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance.
4.2 The policies in the Strategic Plan that are of relevance are summarised below.
Strategic Policy 2: Directs new development to towns and villages unless there are exceptional circumstances.
General Policy 3: Development will not be permitted outside of areas zoned for development subject to exceptions, one of which allows for development of an overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there are no reasonable and acceptable alternatives, and another which allows for buildings or works required for the interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage.
General Policy 9: Seeks the provision of artwork that is accessible to the public in major developments.
Environment Policy 4: Gives protection to species and habitats of national or international importance and areas that are given special status.
Environment Policy 7: This policy seeks to address the impact of development on watercourses and wetlands. It states:
'Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which could 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:
Environment Policy 14: Seeks to protect from permanent development, the loss of important and versatile agricultural land (Classes 1-2).
Environment Policy 22: Seeks to protect the environment and properties from harm in terms of pollution of surface water and ground water; emissions of airborne pollutants; and vibration, odour or light pollution.
Environment Policy 24: Requires that applications which are likely to have a significant effect on the environment to be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment in certain cases, and in others to be accompanied by suitable supporting environmental information.
Environment Policy 27: This seeks to enhance the natural environment in location such as where there were former mine workings.
Business Policy 1: This supports applications where could result in the growth of employment opportunities provided that the development accords with the policies of the Plan.
Business Policy 5 does not strictly apply as it caters for some retailing on land zoned for industrial use subject to it being for items that cannot reasonably be sold from a town centre location because of their size or nature, and where it can be demonstrated that the sales would not detract from the vitality and viability of town centres.
Business Policy 11: This policy supports tourism development and 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 rural areas there may be situations where existing rural buildings could be used for tourist use and Environment Policy 16 sets out the circumstances where this may be permitted.'
Business Policy 14: This 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 comply with General Policy 3 and Business Policies 11 and 12. Other forms of quality accommodation 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.'
There are no direct policies within the Sport, Recreation, Open Space and Communities Facilities chapter of the Strategic Plan, however Recreation Policy 1 does enable Area Plans to encourage the provision of sport and recreation facilities and Recreation Policy 2 seeks to prevent the loss of such facilities.
Transport Policy 4: Requires that highways serving any new development be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by the development in a safe and appropriate manner.
Minerals Policy 1: This policy considers applications for the winning and working of minerals and is included because the development will involve the extraction of material. The policy seeks to control and mitigate adverse impact in the short and long term.
REPRESENTATIONS John Shimmin MHK in his former role as Minister for Economic Development:
5.1 "Following the launch of the Visitor Economy Strategy in April 2012, it was highlighted that Angling had become a key new market for our Department to pursue to both new and existing visitors. Our view was that our current product offering could be more successful for the Island if we had a quality facility that met the specific requirements of this market.
5.2 The Sunset Lakes Angling Centre facility proposal fits this growth strategy whilst also offering diversification which would provide an opportunity for the island to attract new visitors who have a keen interest in Wildlife and sustainable tourism. This proposal is unique for the Island and under the provisions of the Tourist Act 1975, this Department has a duty to maintain, encourage, develop, protect, promote and facilitate tourism to and from the Island to the best advantage of the Island.
5.3 We are therefore very supportive of this private sector investment and keen to work with the proposer to help promote and market the facility once complete." DEFA. Fisheries Division: - 5.4 A detailed response has been provided relating to types of appropriate course fish species. There are a variety of course fish species that DEFA allow and some that they do not and approval would not be granted for their importation. The preferred option for DEFA is that fish are sourced on Island, but if not possible for all species then consideration may be given for the importation of certain species in accordance with DEFA's Course Fish Policy which was approved in 2009. - 5.5 DEFA set out that the risk of introduction of fish disease and the introduction of other non-native and invasive species such as zebra mussel is considered to be significant. The applicant has agreed with DEFA a range of precautions such as a ban on the use of personal keep nets and mats by anglers and instead these will be provided by the Complex and disinfected on a regular basis. It is noted that the water levels in the lakes are managed by overflow pipes and monks. These must not connect with any watercourse so that fish or eggs cannot migrate downstream. The applicants are also advised to seek advice regarding bird deterrent so that a problem does not development. Various permissions are necessary from DEFA to comply with relevant regulations including a Fish Culture Licence, a registration under the Aquatic Animal Health Regulations 2009, Section 14 of the Wildlife Act 1990 and potentially a discharge consent under the Water Pollution Act 1991. Provided there is full compliance with the Course Fish Policy 2009 there is no objection. Manx National Heritage (MNH): - 5.6 MNH has an interest in the ecological aspect of the proposed development, but in matters of fish biology the responsibility is with DEFA.
5.7 The 'wildlife haven' has the potential to increase biodiversity in an arable/improved grassland landscape. Biodiversity gains in the lakes will depend on predation of invertebrates and aquatic plants by the fish. - 5.8 Other concerns/comments regarding the proposals to attract corncrakes and possible preventative measures to ward away herons, gulls and cormorants should be subject of discussion with DEFA. - 5.9 Consideration should also be given to flood risk from the drainage ditch that leads away from the site near the south west corner and whether, in times of flood, there may be possible over-topping in periods of prolonged heavy rain. - 5.10 In terms of impact on the landscape, the application seeks to place a major development in essentially open countryside. Although there will be screen planting and the lakes may convey a semi-natural appearance, there are plans for buildings and hardstanding areas to provide tourist accommodation and maintenance yards. On the face of it the proposal appears to be in conflict with Environment Policy 2. - 5.11 The Department of Infrastructure's Landscape Character Assessment describes the land around Peel and recommends the following landscape strategy: 'The overall strategy should be to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the area with its open fields, its roads enclosed by Manx hedges and its scattered traditional farmsteads fringed by woodland.' Landscape planning guidelines are to conserve features of cultural heritage, locate new buildings in visually inconspicuous locations, use vernacular materials and design, provide screen planting, respect scale, respect open views. Views from The Switchback, Peel Hill and the Old Staarvey Road should be considered. - 5.12 MNH also raise concern that a precedent might be set by permitting the construction of a feature would could justify further residential expansion outwards from Peel. - 5.13 In terms of archaeology, there is potential for cultural remains within the site. There is evidence adjacent to the site of prehistoric worked flint and cropmarks suggestive of a prehistoric settlement. - 5.14 MNH therefore conclude that there should be further consultation with DEFA in scrutiny of the biosecurity of the facility, that flood prevention methods are considered, and that should permission be given, it must be dependent on the provision of an appropriate scheme of archaeological works, paid for by the developer, to identify, recover, analyse and publish any archaeological remains within the site. It should be noted that a licence for such works will be required under the terms of the Manx Museum and National Trust Act which will only be discharged once all such processes have been completed. MUA (Electricity) - 5.15 There are underground or overhead lines in the area. These may need to be diverted before any work can be carried out on site. The applicant should contact the MEA. MUA (Water) - 5.16 Manx Utilities do not object to the application if the additional soil testing to be carried out can be conditioned. The testing required would be particle size distribution (PSD) testing and shear vane testing to prove the material is fit for purpose. - 5.17 Manx Utilities concern is with the construction and stability of the embankment and what is fundamental to this is the material to be used for its construction. Particle size distribution (PSD) testing and shear vane testing on site can prove whether the existing soil on site is fit for the purpose. The developer will not know the actual type of soil at the
location until development is commenced. If the material is found to be unsuitable then all that would be required would be the importing of suitable material. We would recommend that the testing be conditioned so that it is undertaken at the time of development and under supervision if required.
DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE - Highway Services:
5.18 Following receipt of further information there is no objection to this application. GERMAN PARISH COMMISSIONERS: - 5.19 Object to the application as the area is not zoned for development, it is in too prominent a position and would be viewed from the Poortown Road, it would be out of keeping with the countryside, the water course feeds the sewage plant to Reayrt Ny Keilley, there will be no economic benefit and the Commissioners feel that the figures are flawed. Knocksharry Farm, Ramsey Road: - 5.20 Request to be kept updated on the application as they have land at Ballagyr Lane.
6 Willow Close, Ballawattleworth, Peel:
5.21 The writer raises concerns regarding use of the unmade track off Ballagyr Lane. In addition they are concerned about noise increase and general disturbance from passing traffic, and that the opening times of 7 am til dusk during March to October would intensify any noise and disturbance caused. The track is unmade and single lane without passing places. 16 Aspen Drive, Ballawattleworth, Peel: - 5.22 The writer asks the Committee to reject the application. She disputes the applicant's assertion that 'the site chosen has been classified as an area of improved pasture and fields in arable rotation' as this is not shown on the 1982 Development Plan Order. The 1982 Order shows it not zoned for development and in an Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. This remains relevant and for these reasons the Planning Committee should reject the application. The writer asks for Interested Party status on the basis that her property is 200 metres due west and the development would be clearly visible from her property and would spoil an uninterrupted view.
8 Maple Avenue, Ballawattleworth, Peel:
5.23 The main access road runs parallel with our garden and is currently a farm lane used infrequently by traffic. It regularly floods at present with an overspill onto the roadway and properties either side on Maple Avenue. There will be increased noise and fumes from both the construction and operational activity. The road will need widening which would create more noise and potentially more risk of flooding. Area currently quiet and development would negatively affect the quiet conditions enjoyed. The lane would no longer be a safe place to walk due to the increase in traffic. Do not object to the fishing complex and centre itself, just to the access. Request interested party status. Ballacross Farm: - 5.24 Letters have been received to the application as originally submitted and to the application as amended and re-advertised. Object to development. - 5.25 Response to original submission: Site is visible from the ground floor of my home and for miles around. It represents unwarranted housing development with ponds attached. It is in an isolated location and on the highest spot in the area. I have a pond which may be adversely affected by water abstraction and no consideration has been given to drainage. There are two streams running from the south side of the site through Ballacross. These streams provide drinking water for livestock, but no consideration has been given to this. The proposal contains insufficient information and in any case the development is inappropriate for the top of a hill in the middle of an area of high scenic value.
5.26 Response to amended application: Proposal would turn perfectly good agricultural land to a housing development with a water feature holding 37million litres of water at the top of a slope. The site is very visible to the point of being dominant. There has been no on-site investigation, the development is based entirely on a desk top study. The ponds will not be butyl lined and water will drain from the ponds into the ground and it currently does. Significant abstraction will have to be carried out on a regular basis. The attenuation tanks have been dispensed with and in normal conditions drainage water will be directed into a tail drain nearly 2km long. There is no engineering evidence to show that this will be effective and what affect it will have on the stream which rises a few metres away in the north western corner of Ballacross field 311568. - 5.27 The plan indicates that the ponds are at different heights and that in the event of catastrophic failure all the water will flow to pond 5 and then into the adjacent field 314331 to the west. There is no engineering evidence to support this. The plan is not credible. It relies entirely on sod hedges to contain any flow and direct it away from the Ballacross fields to the south of the site. Sod hedges are designed to contain livestock and are not engineered to provide flood defence. The rapid acceleration of water will overwhelm hedges and flow onto fields at Ballacross and to the house and buildings. The water would cover it completely to a depth of about 2 feet which is a frightening prospect. Even if it did manage to find its way to field 314331 it would be at the lowest point of that field and would rapidly continue to the adjacent field to the south. In the event of failure the non-native fish would enter the watercourse on Ballacross and then into the River neb. Ballaharra Quarry: - 5.28 Letters have been received to the application as originally submitted and to the application as amended and re-advertised. Object to development and request interested party status. - 5.29 Response to original submission: The existing use is not an empty field but is agricultural. It is located in an AHLV. It is isolated from other development and located on high ground. The application is light on specifics. The UK Environment Agency information does not draw any specific Isle of Man conclusions from it. The Passenger Survey of 2011 is included presumably to show that there is tourism potential but contains no information to support this. The DEFA Summary of Licence Sales 2002-2010 shows that licence sales fell from 2249 to 1886, a decline of about 16%, showing a decline in demand for fishing. The SLR Study was prepared 6 years ago, is only a desk top feasibility study. It only hypothetically considered water abstraction. No on-site investigations have been carried out. It is acknowledged that water drains to the west and south, but the water supply is used for livestock and altering pH values by adding horse manure would affect the water quality at Ballacross. The proposed flood attenuation tanks each having 30000 litre capacity appear to be located outside the proposed site and are on our land. The application has been submitted prior to the consultation with various professionals, the application should have been informed by the consultation with professionals. The proposal is contrary to Environment Policy 1 that protects the countryside and its ecology for its own sake. In conclusions, the application is ill-considered insofar as the site is wrong, there is an inadequate lack of consultation and detail and it does not demonstrate overriding national need. - 5.30 Response to amended application: level of engineering input into it shockingly low. Concerned about how it will affect our property at Ballacross and it has the potential to cause catastrophic damage. The application remains contrary to the Development Plan. It does not comply with General Policy 3. No attempt made to establish that there is any overriding national need for the development and it has not been shown how the introduction of nonnative fish is required for the interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage. Although Business Policy 14 provides for Tourism in rural areas the application fails on this point as it does not comply with policies in the Plan. Proposal is contrary to Environment
Policy 1, the field is engaged in productive agriculture and cannot be described as a 'green desert'. The development will be highly visible from Ballagyr Lane, Poortown Road and the Switchback. Thirty percent of the site will be taken up by buildings, paved areas and car parks, 40% for ponds, leaving only a small area for planting which will not be like a woodland and would be ornamental, not at all natural. No on-site tests have been conducted to assess the effect of abstracting large quantities of water on the surrounding area. Ballacross will inevitably be adversely affected. The Flood Risk Analysis and drainage system is unconvincing. Given that the proposal is for the creation of several ponds containing almost 37 million litres of water situated on top of a hill, there has only been a single percolation test and there is no indication of which consultant engineer carried out the test or the location of the test pit. Progeny, the agents, are not qualified in this respect and an independent report should be provided. The drainage design appears to conclude that a 0.08m diameter tail drain 1.865km long is required and the effectiveness of this is questioned. There is still no evidence to support the assertion that there will be any increase in tourism. The only factual information is the DEFA statistics which show that fishing licence sales fell 16% in the period 2002 - 2010. There are no specifics regarding employment.
33 Ballaquark, Douglas:
5.31 The land is not designated for development. It is at the imprecise edge of an area of High Landscape Value. Access lanes are inadequate. Proposal does not comply with Environment Policy 1 that seeks to protect the countryside and its ecology for its own sake. Glebe Cottage, Kirk Maughold: - 5.32 If it was to use a worked-out quarry or sand-pit then this would be a splendid idea subject to access and other considerations. However it is a dramatic change of use from a field in the countryside. The question needs to be asked as to 'why here' Occupier of 2 Glen View, South Cape, Laxey: - 5.33 As a course fishing representative on DEFA's Anglers Forum and as Chairman of the Coarse Fish Interest Group, support the application. There is considerable demand for such a facility which far exceeds available resources.
7 Spring Valley Road, Douglas:
5.34 Support application. I am a keen fisherman and I sea, river and reservoir fish. The only thing I haven't tried is course fishing 16 Orchid Close, Abbeyfields, Douglas: - 5.35 Support application, keen angler on island for over 25 years. Presently there are no quality facilities available to anglers to fish for coarse fish species. Although rumour of Eairy Dam being turned into a coarse fishery, it runs into the Santon Burn which is one of the prime salmon and trout rivers and so cannot be suitable. Sunset lakes would offer a biologically secure site. People regularly visit UK to go coarse fishing, spending thousands between us to do so. The site visited has a café, tackle shop and lodge accommodation, it provides the whole family with activities to enjoy and is a wonderful base from which to explore the area and do some fishing at the same time. Anglers are keen on wildlife and nature and the planting of native trees and shrubs, the proposal would add to the biodiversity of the area and create habitats that have all but vanished from many parts of the Isle of Man. The education facility for the schools is an excellent idea to inspire a new generation to respect and care for their environment and the wildlife it holds. The letter is signed by about 60 people, although their addresses are not given.
6.1 The issues to be considered in the determination of this application are:
i) The principle of the development including its impact on the landscape; ii) the permanent loss of agricultural land, iii) the ecological impacts of the development; iv) drainage; v) archaeology; and vi) the traffic impact of the development in the short term and long term.
6.2 Section 10 (3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 sets out that in dealing with an application for planning approval the Department shall have regard to; the provisions of the development plan (The Strategic Plan and any Area Plan, in this instance the 1982 Development Order); any relevant statement of planning policy under Section 3 (Planning Policy Statements); such other considerations as may be specified for the purpose of this subsection in a development order, so far as material to the application; and all other material considerations.' - 6.3 The land is not designated for development and the proposal does not meet any of the exceptions set out in General Policy 3 and consequently the proposal is contrary to the Development Plan. Given this, the question is whether there are any other material considerations which would override the development plan in this case. - 6.4 The applicants have put forward very well researched and detailed information relating to the demand for and the potential of course fishing as both a recreational activity for those living on the island and as a tourist attraction for people wanting to visit the island. The benefits of the proposal need to be weighed against any harm that may be caused by the development, including whether the development undermines the principles in the Development Plan. - 6.5 There are a number of aspects to the proposal that need to be considered; the fishing lakes themselves and together with that the ancillary facilities of the office and shop, the fish tanks and workshops; the education facility, the holiday cottages and the car parking. - 6.6 The fishing lakes themselves would alter the character of the landscape, but are not built development that would be unduly intrusive, or would detract from the openness of the countryside, and it could be argued that they would increase the visual attractiveness of the area. - 6.7 The development that results in built form is arguably the element of the proposal that could be considered to harm the principles behind the Strategic Plan aims, that is to direct built development towards towns and villages and to protect the countryside from intrusive and unwarranted development. The car park itself would be an open form of development, however as soon as cars or coaches are parked upon it, these would result in a negative impact on the visual amenities of the area. - 6.8 All of the buildings upon the site are to be single storey wooden buildings of a style typical to those found in countryside visitor attractions in England and Wales in locations such as reservoirs and country parks. The applicants have agreed that the holiday cabins can be conditioned for short term holiday lets only, and if not successful can be required to be removed from site. The buildings and car park can be screened by landscaping and if approved it would be necessary for a condition to be imposed. - 6.9 Light pollution can be very intrusive, particularly in winter months. Although it is unlikely the shop, café and visitor centre facility would be open except in daylight hours, the proposal does include some holiday cabins which will need to be accessed when dark. It is suggested that a lighting scheme be submitted that shows minimal lighting necessary for the safe use of the facility by people staying there, with perhaps the ability for there to be no lighting at times when there are no people on the site.
6.10 The shop is to be a specialist shop, ancillary to the use and only selling fishing rods, tackle and clothing. Provided the goods to be sold are restricted, it is not considered that this would detract from the vitality and viability of town centres. - 6.11 It perhaps needs to be remembered that fishing lakes themselves cannot be located in built up areas and the only place they could be provided is within the countryside, the buildings to be associated with it are proposed to help the viability and attractiveness of the facility as a whole and arguably it would not be as successful without these. - 6.12 The case put forward for the scheme in the supporting information is very persuasive. The provision of additional leisure facilities and the benefits these may bring to the economy are material planning considerations. The development would have some negative impact caused by the building and parking of vehicles, but these are considered to be relatively minor. Bearing in mind this would be the only facility of this type on the island, it is recommended that the principle of development be accepted.
ii) The permanent loss of agricultural land:
6.13 Environment Policy 14 seeks to protect from permanent development, the loss of important and versatile agricultural land (Classes 1-2). From the soil classification map it appears that the land does have soil type Classes 1-2. The question therefore is whether the development would result in the permanent loss of land of this type, or whether it could be used in the future if required and also whether DEFA feel that the loss is important at this stage. DEFA have been asked to comment on this and an update will be reported orally at the Committee meeting.
iii) The ecological impacts of the development;
6.14 The application contains a very basic Environmental Impact Statement (chapter 7 of their submission). They note that DEFA's Phase 1 habitat survey information shows that the application site has limited wildlife value being an area of improved pasture and fields in arable rotation. The application sets out that the development would enhance the biodiversity of the site and improve its visual appearance. The proposal provides increased opportunity for wildlife through the creation of open water, wetland, woodland/scrub and low input grassland habitats. They indicate that native species including some rare and protected plants would be introduced. - 6.15 Manx National Heritage sets out that the development is contrary to the Development Plan but recognises that the development could bring with it some biodiversity and environmental benefits. They have concerns about some potential impacts that may be unintended such as the attraction of certain types of birdlife and suggest close liaison with DEFA. - 6.16 One of the main issues regarding the development is the biosecurity of non-native fish species. The applicant has been in consultation with DEFA regarding this, to which DEFA responded by preparing a policy on coarse fish importation, movement and introduction. This concluded that any new coarse fishery might be considered acceptable if: the fishery is not connected to any watercourse; it is not created on important habitat; it does not threaten adjacent protected species or habitats; coarse fish species introduced are already present on Island; the fish to be stocked have full health certification; and the owners accept full cost recovery on any ongoing health testing required. DEFA has relevant licences which will be necessary to operate the site and consent will be needed from them to introduce fish to the complex.
6.17 Manx Utilities Authority do not object to the application if the additional soil testing to be carried out can be conditioned. They are satisfied that the lakes can be constructed such that they do not pose a threat in terms of flooding. - 6.18 The operators of Corlett's and Ballacross Farm have raised their serious concerns regarding the flood risk analysis that has been carried out. Further information has been provided but this has not allayed their fears. The concerns have been put to Manx Utilities Authority who are satisfied that the construction of the lakes to a standard that is safe and would not be likely to give rise to incidents of flooding is achievable. They do require further details following particle size distribution (PSD) testing and shear vane testing to prove the material is fit for purpose, if the material on site is not, they are satisfied that material can be brought in which is, and other methods of lining the ponds is also possible. This can be a condition of any approval should Members be minded to approve the application. - 6.19 Given the concerns regarding the aspects of the development such as the construction of the lakes and their potential for flooding, officers sought assistance from engineers in the Department to double check the engineering report submitted. They concluded that:
6.20 It is concluded that the works are feasible and the engineering reports are sound and subject to suitable conditions there is no reasons why the development cannot be carried out without any undue risk of flooding or damage to other property.
v) Archaeology:
6.21 In terms of archaeology, MNH suggest that there is potential for cultural remains within the site, there being evidence adjacent to the site of prehistoric worked flint and cropmarks suggestive of a pre-historic settlement. MNH recommend that if approval is granted it must be dependent on the provision of an appropriate scheme of archaeological works, paid for by the developer, to identify, recover, analyse and publish any archaeological remains within the site. It should be noted that a licence for such works will be required under the terms of the Manx Museum and National Trust Act which will only be discharged once all such processes have been completed. A condition is suggested below that falls a little short of what MNH suggest in that it is considered only appropriate for the scheme to pay for trench investigations, recovery and handover to MNH. It is considered that the analysis and publication of any artefacts found, whilst still in the public interest, is unduly onerous.
vi) Traffic impact during construction and long term:
6.22 The application was amended to show an alternative access route to the site, further away from some houses and with a wider access road and improved turning circle. In addition, further information was provided to show the traffic impact in similar schemes
6.33 Whilst the development proposed does not fall within the land use designation, it proposes a use that is not otherwise provided for in the Development Plan. The applicants have submitted a case to show that course fishing could be beneficial to residents of the Island and may encourage visitors. The nature of the use necessitates development of the open countryside, and the applicants have accepted that should the use no longer operate or be viable, the buildings associated with it would be removed. The applicants have sought advice from relevant professionals as to how to undertake the operation in a way that would improve biodiversity. It is concluded therefore that there are benefits that could be seen to outweigh the Development Plan and it is recommended for approval.
6.34 The following parties are considered by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, to be an interested party: German Parish Commissioners; DED, DEFA, MUA; Manx National Heritage
The owner/occupiers of the following properties: Ballacross Farm; Ballaharra Quarry; Knocksharry Farm, Ramsey Road; 6 Willow Close; 16 Aspen Drive and 8 Maple Avenue.
6.35 The following parties are not considered to meet the requirements to be considered interested parties by reason of their distance from the application site: The owners/occupiers of 33 Ballaquark, Douglas; Glebe Cottage, Kirk Maughold; 2 Glen View, South Cape, Laxey: 7 Spring Valley Road, Douglas; 16 Orchid Close, Abbeyfields, Douglas.
Highways Services do not comply with the requirements of the 2005 Order as an interested party separate from the Planning Authority. Their comments form part of that of the Planning Authority.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation:
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval
Reason: To comply with article 13 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Reason: The buildings and structures are considered acceptable as an exception on the basis of the demand for a specialised tourist facility.
Reason: To ensure that the development is only used and occupied as short let holiday accommodation and to prevent the creation of an unjustified separate dwelling in the countryside.
All hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development
or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Any trees or plants indicated on the approved scheme which, within a period of five years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced during the next planting season with other trees or plants of a species and size to be first approved in writing by the Planning Authority. All hard landscape works shall be permanently retained in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.
Reason: The location is not suitable for general retail sales and in order to protect the vitality and viability of existing town and village centres.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity, highway safety and to ensure that excavation does not become the primary land use activity on the site.
Planning Authority. The scheme shall detail the nature of the material, where it is sourced from, the size of vehicles, the number of movements each day and the final date of completion.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity, highway safety and to ensure that the level of importation does not have a significant impact on the land form and is uncontaminated.
This approval relates to drawing reference numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 all date stamped as received 21st January 2014
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 : ……………………… Committee Meeting Date : ………………….. Signed :…………………………………….. Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
