DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 23/01396/B Applicant: Mrs Jojanneke Hartmann Proposal: Using cut and fill methods to make level areas for horticultural activities, and to install land drains and soakaway (Retrospective) Site Address: Field 616147 Ballamenagh Road Baldrine Isle Of Man Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 06.02.2024

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• C 1. The re-profiling of the field shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans (Drawing No. S1 Rev B and S1a Rev B), and shall thereafter be retained as shown on the approved plans.

Reason: In the interests of the visual appearance of the area, and the agricultural/ecological value of the site.

• C 2. Only subsoil generated from the excavation of land within Field 616147 is to be utilised as infill material for the re-profiling works hereby approved, and no importation of any material is hereby approved. Reason: to clarify the extent of the approval and reflect what is included in the application.

N . The applicant is advise exclude 'sea buckthorn' which is an invasive non-native plant species, or any plant species listed on Schedule 8 Part II of the Wildlife Act 1990, or cherry laurel, Rosa Rugosa, Italian arum or common snowberry in the re-vegetation of the site.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason.

Overall, the proposal is not considered to have any significant adverse impacts on the environment, the landscape, or soil quality. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal accords with General Policy 3 (f), Environment Policies 1, 4, and 22, and Strategic Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to the flowing documents and Plans:

• o Design Statement, Cover Letter, Location Map, Site Map, Google Earth Map, Photographs, and Drawing Nos. S0, S2, and TS-211123, received 30 November 2023;
• o Correspondence from Agent received 4 January 2024;
• o Correspondence from Agent received 8 January 2024;
• o Correspondence from Agent received 16 January 2024;
• o Drawing Nos. S1 Rev B and S1a Rev B, received 5 February 2024; and
• o Photographs with descriptions, received 13 February 2024. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

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

Manx national Heritage _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site comprises part Field 616147 which is located to the southeast side of Ballamenagh Road and to the North and West of Groudle Glen, near the settlement of Baldrine. Access to the site can be obtained by an existing field gate off the Ballamenagh Road. - 1.2 The site is characterised as a grassed field, open in nature which slopes downwards in the South Easterly and South Westerly directions towards the Coast (East) and Groudle Glen (South/West). The site is just about 40,468sqm (10 acres or 4.05 Hectares) in area. The longest stretch of the field (northwest -southeast) is about 259m long, while the longest northeast-southwest distance is about 192m. - 1.3 Along the Western and Southern boundaries of the site is a public footpath (track) which serves the Groudle Glen Railway and forms a section of the Raad Ny Foillan. Along the Western boundary (adjacent the track/footpath) of the site there is a bank of various heights which includes a number of mature hedgerows and trees. The boundaries to the East and South are open fields, being the remaining parts of Field 613191. - 1.4 The site is flanked by the Groudle Glen Designated Wildlife Site to parts of the northeast boundary, the entire southeast boundary, and the southwest boundary, although a public footpath separates the southwest boundary from the designated wildlife site. - 1.5 The northern sections of the site are visible from the Ballamenagh Road and to the North, but the entire southern section of the site where the works are largely proposed are not visible from this highway, with limited views achievable from the footpath due to the nature of the topography and mature vegetation along the field boundary.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The proposal seeks planning approval for using cut and fill methods to make level areas for horticultural activities, and to install land drains and soakaway (Retrospective). The works

will entail alterations to ground levels by cut-and fill method: topsoil removed and set aside, underlying ground levels adjusted, drainage installed. Then topsoil replaced, levelled and seeded. No export or import of any soil material. Drainage channels/soakaway filled with 96.22 tons drainage ballast, brought in by tipper truck. 1000m drain pipes used.

2.2 The breakdown of the proposed works are as follows:

• a. Levelled area for planting food crops = 2,700m² - the subject of this planning application (retrospective).
• b. Creating a soak away that would be fed by field drains. The soak away measures approximately 5m x 3.5m, with depth 3-4m, and would be fed by 6" perforated pipework from the two levelled areas. The first drainage would run in a northwest -southeast direction, while the second drainage pipe would run northeast-southwest.

2.3 No trees are to be removed to facilitate the development. - 2.4 The applicants note that there are no roofs and paved surfaces on site to increase runoff. Ground water and surface runoff drainage is to a newly created soakaway within the field. - 2.5 The applicants further note that they bring a global perspective with experience/ investments in sustainable environments, corporate social responsibility, and regenerative forestry projects - they believe that together we can make a difference and achieve the extraordinary. Their vision for the field is to use it for growing food plants, and view it as a step along the journey to net zero. Creation of some level areas of ground for growing is to facilitate that progression. - 2.6 The applicants have provided a Design Statement which sets out details of site assessment, relationship with existing trees and vegetation, conceptual objectives of the scheme, scope of works planned within the scheme, details of site requirements, and schedule of proposals for the site as a whole. - 2.7 Other works on site which are not part of the current application include:

• a. Area proposed for slope stabilising woodland, predominantly native, all sourced from Manx Native Trees = 1000m² (not part of this planning application)
• b. Area proposed for fruit trees = 1500m² (not part of this planning application)
• c. Area for shelter belt (Manx natives) = 500m² (not part of this planning application)
• d. Area proposed for other herbs & medicinal plants and scented plants for the benefit of insects = 1000m² (not part of this planning application).
• e. Remaining area of grassed field and wildflower meadow areas = 33,768m² or 83% of the field, retaining its original character.

- 3.0 PLANNING POLICY

3.1 Site Specific

3.1 The site is within an area not designated for development on the Area Plan for the East and the site is not within a Conservation Area nor within an area designated as Natural Conservation Zones, Nature Reserves & Sites of Ecological Importance for Conservation. However, immediately to the South and West are Public Open Space (woodland) with Ecological Interest i.e. the Groudle Glen. The site does not lie within a high flood risk zone, there are no Registered trees on the site, and the site is also not within a Registered Tree Area. - 3.2 The Character Appraisal within the Area Plan for the East states thus concerning the area: "Landscape Character Area: Clay Head (E4)

• 3.2.1 Conserve:

• a) the character, quality and distinctiveness of the tranquil coastal area with its rich ecological habitats, open and expansive panoramic views and numerous sites of archaeological importance.
• 3.2.2 Key Views

• o Channelled views out to sea from the beach at Port Groudle.
• o Extensive panoramic views out to sea and across Douglas Bay from the A11 around Howstrake Camp Electric railway stop and at the periphery of the settlement of Onchan.
• o Glimpsed views towards Laxey Bay and up to the Northern Uplands over heathland from the eastern end of Clay Head Road.

3.4 Due to the site location, zoning and the type of proposal, the following policies are relevant for consideration:

• a. General Policy 3 - Exceptions to development in the countryside. Part (f) deals with building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry.
• b. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations.
• c. Strategic Policy 1 - Efficient use of land and resources
• d. Strategic Policy 2 - Priority for new development to identified towns and villages.
• e. Strategic Policy 4 - protects the nature conservation value of urban and rural areas, and indicates development must not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance.
• f. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact.
• g. Spatial Policy 5 - Development only in countryside in accordance with General Policy 3.
• h. Environment Policy 1 - Protection of the countryside and its ecology.
• i. Environment Policy 3 - Development to safeguard woodland of high amenity value
• j. Environment Policy 4 - Protects biodiversity (including protected species and designated sites).
• k. Environment Policy 5 - Mitigation against damage to or loss of habitats
• l. Environment Policy 14 - Loss of important agricultural land (Classes 1/2) only permitted in case of overriding national need.
• m. Environment Policy 15 - Development of agricultural buildings in the countryside.
• n. Environment Policy 22 - Deals with pollution of sea, surface water or groundwater, vibration, odour, noise and light pollution in relation to the environment and nearby properties.
• o. Section 7.14 of the Strategic Plan: Horticulture "7.14.1The use of land for horticulture, market gardens or nursery grounds is common on the Island and often found on sites in the urban fringe or free-standing in the countryside. Such uses can contribute to the economic activity of rural areas, but the requirement for buildings and adequate access and parking spaces means that such developments can be intrusive in the countryside. The development and expansion of such sites needs to be carefully managed particularly where there are traffic implications and in order to prevent the proliferation of buildings, which may include growing tunnels and external displays and greenhouses, leading to an adverse impact on the character of such areas."

- 4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 The Isle of Man's Biodiversity Strategy (2015 - 2025)

• 4.1.1 The Department's Biodiversity Strategy is capable of being a material consideration. It seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary.
• 4.2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1999

• 4.2.1.1 45 Interpretation "agriculture" includes horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming, the breeding and keeping of livestock (including any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skins or fur, or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land), the use of land as grazing land, meadow land, market gardens and nursery grounds, and the use of land for woodlands where that use

is ancillary to the farming of land for other agricultural purposes, and "agricultural" shall be construed accordingly.

- 5.0 PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 The site has been the subject of a previous planning applications for Change of use of part field to tourist use to create a glamping site to include the erection of 20 timber tourist accommodation cabins, one modified cabin to provide a welcome office and associated onsite parking for 22 spaces, under PA 19/00830/B. The application was refused by the Planning Committee on 16 March 2020, with decision notice issued on 23 March 2020. The application was refused for four reasons which border on; demonstration of need, adverse visual impact due to the quantum of development proposed, insufficient information in relation to passing places, and insufficient information related to impacts of lighting proposed. - 6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.

6.1 Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division have no interest (8 December 2023).

6.2 DOI Highways Drainage have stated that allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads. They advise the applicant to be aware off and comply with the above clauses (9 January 2024).

• 6.2.1 In response to the comments made by DOI Highways Drainage, the applicants have stated that the levelling and field drains installed have rectified and repaired a drainage issue,

• as previously there was no management of surface water runoff, which was free to collect, stagnate and spill onto the footpath/access track nearby. They further note that surface runoff is now collected and directed to a soakaway, thus managing water runoff within the boundaries of the field (16 January 2024).

6.3 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team recommend that sea buckthorn which is listed in the woodland planting list in the Design Statement should not be planted on site as it is an invasive non-native plant species. They recommend that a condition is secured for no planting to be undertaken on site with any plant species listed on Schedule 8 Part II of the Wildlife Act 1990, or cherry laurel, Rosa Rugosa, Italian arum or common snowberry (4 January 2024). - 6.4 Manx National Heritage have indicated that do not support a change of use to field 616147 from agricultural to what appears to be proposed which is a horticultural/ garden allotment use. They note that the site is next to the Groudle Glen Wildlife Site and also abuts a large number of registered trees which cover the side of the neighbouring Groudle Valley. They further note that draining the application field could have a detrimental effect on the ecology of the neighbouring Wildlife Site, and make reference to non-native horticulture species referred to in the application which could impact on the wild life site. They refer to other developments not proposed within the application (14 December 2023).

• 6.4.1 In response to the comments made by Manx national Heritage, the applicants have provided a response which indicate that there is no proposal for a change of use, as the planning application (retrospective) is for ground levelling to facilitate improved management for food crops in this sheltered corner of an agricultural field. They further state that the proposal is not for garden/allotment use as the owners have their own garden at home in Colby and the areas involved for field 616147 are on a different scale. On the ground levelling works proposed, they state that the works are entirely within the boundaries of the field and has no influence on the registered trees on the side of the neighbouring Groudle valley, which is separated from this field by a single track roadway (4 January 2024).

6.5 Garff Commissioners note that no structures such as polytunnels were indicated in the application. They considered the visual impact of the proposals and consider that these would not be detrimental. The Commissioners have no objections to raise with these proposals (12 January 2024). - 6.6 No comments have been received from neighbouring properties.

- 7.0 ASSESSMENT

7.1 The key issues to consider in the assessment of the current application are:

• a. The Principle (GP3 (f) and TCPA)
• b. Whether the proposed re-profiling would adversely affect the character and appearance of the area (STP 4 & 5, and TAPE);
• c. Impact on trees and ecology of the area (EP1, 3 and 4);
• d. Whether the works would prejudice the use of the site for agriculture (EP 14);
• e. Potential pollution of sea (EP 22); and
• f. Whether there would be any impacts on neighbours (EP 22 & GP2).

7.2 THE PRINCIPLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT (GP3 and EP1, and TCPA)

• 7.2.1 In considering the justification for the development, it is noted that the site is not designated for development, and as such there is a presumption against development here. However, General Policy 3 makes provisions for possible exceptions for development on land not zoned for development in the countryside, such as buildings and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry.

• 7.2.2 In the case of the current application, it is considered that the site is an agricultural field which should support schemes that seek to promote agriculture, with the applicants providing sufficient information to reinforce the use of the field for horticulture which is clearly defined as an element of agriculture within the Town and Country Planning Act 1999. From reviewing the application documents, it has also been demonstrated why the works are needed to serve the field and why the existing lie of the field would impede the use of the affected part of the field for agriculture.
• 7.2.3 Moreover, the land is legitimately used for agricultural purposes and it is equally legitimate to require works needed in association with this use. Besides, ground levelling works would facilitate improved management for food crops in this sheltered corner of an agricultural field. Given the above, it is judged that the scheme would be acceptable in principle. Albeit, the acceptability of the entire proposal for the site would be dependent on whether there would be any adverse impacts on other factors highlighted in 7.1 above.

- 7.3 CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE AREA (EP 1)

• 7.3.1 With regard to the impacts of the proposed development of the character and appearance of the area, it is considered that the re-profiling of the site area (which is the work that would be noticeable) will change the appearance of the affected part of the field. However, once the site has been re-seeded, the change would not be noticeable. Besides, the observed impacts in terms of changes to the appearance of the landscape would be softened by the existing vegetation and sod banks on the site boundary, as well as the topography of the site which rises gently and then slopes away towards the southern boundary.
• 7.3.2 Whilst is noted that the works area would be close to the public footpath to the southwest, the existing sod banks and vegetation along the site boundary with the work area would be largely retained; conditions that would serve to ameliorate any visual impacts that result when viewed from the foot path.
• 7.3.3 It would be vital to note that they key features of this part of the landscape which the Area Plan for the East seeks to protect are the channelled views out to sea from the beach at

Port Groudle, and the current scheme would not in any way impede these. Besides, the works would not in any way make the field appear any different from the adjoining parts of the field to which it belongs given the undulating nature of the entire field area. Moreover, the area of the field to be re-profiled is relatively small in scale comparative to the size of the entire field and, as has been already noted, in an area that is not particularly noticeable from public vantage points.

• 7.3.4 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that it is unlikely for the scheme to result is significant adverse impacts on the character and appearance of the area sufficient to warrant refusal of the scheme.

- 7.4 IMPACTS ON ECOLOGY (SP4, EP 4 & EP 5)

• 7.4.1 In terms of impacts on Ecology, it is considered that the applicant has provided sufficient supporting information, which has been reviewed by the DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team with no significant concerns raised, save for the request for the removal of sea buckthorn which is an invasive non-native plant species from the planting list, as well as the request that a condition is secured for no planting to be undertaken on site with any plant species listed on Schedule 8 Part II of the Wildlife Act 1990, or cherry laurel, Rosa Rugosa, Italian arum or common snowberry. As there is no objection from the Department's Ecosystem Policy Team whose advise are relied upon in matters related to ecological impacts, it is considered that these elements of the proposal would align with the requirements of the aforementioned polices. A condition would, however, be attached in relation to these, although some level of impact is unavoidable.
• 7.4.2 The proposal would also not result in the removal of the existing sod hedges/vegetation on site boundary, which would serve to ensure that existing ecology is not dislodged. Moreover, the further boundary planting of native hedge trees (birch/hazel/Elder/Hawthorn/oaks) will contribute to natural diversity of the site, and will eventually complement the existing biodiversity in the immediate locality. As such, it is considered that the requirements of Strategic Policy 4, and Environment Policies 4 and 5 of the Strategic Plan are met in this regard.

- 7.5 FUTURE USE OF SITE FOR AGRICULTURE (EP 14)

• 7.5.1 In assessing the suitability of the re-profiled ground for agricultural purposes, it is noted that the proposal would not prejudice the use of the site for agricultural purposes which is its current use, as the works would not be importing new soils to the site, but would be reallocating the existing soils on the field to make the site suitable for cultivation.
• 7.5.2 Likewise, soil characterisation of the site would be unaltered by the proposal given that the application site forms a congruent unit with the other parts of the field which is within the same soil region and land use capability area. Therefore, it is considered that the development would accord with the requirements of Environment Policy 14 in this regard.

- 7.6 POTENTIAL POLLUTION OF SEA (EP 22)

• 7.6.1 With regard to potential impacts on the sea which sits just below the cliffs south of the site, it is considered that the application site is situated about 21m from the cliff face (at the nearest point), with most of the site boundary situated more than 34m from the cliffs, and the existing sod bank on the southern boundary of the site and vegetation along the water course serving as additional buffer from any water drainage from the site towards the coastline.
• 7.6.2 Additionally, the scheme also proposes to plant additional plantings along the site boundary which would further serve as buffers for water flow. It is also vital to note that the infilled soil is not contaminated soil and as such any flows here, which would still be contained within the site boundary would not bear any form of contamination that would be leached into the nearby cliffs in a manner sufficient to warrant refusal of the application. Furthermore, the site is separated by rail line and footpath with rising sides which would further serve to ensure

• that loose soil is not washed into the sea. Thus, it is not considered that there would be any polluting operations from the proposed development to justify any concerns over detrimental impacts on the sea.
• 7.6.3 The comments made by Manx National Heritage regarding the potential detrimental effect on the ecology of the neighbouring Wildlife Site from draining the site is noted. However, surface runoff would be collected and directed to the soakaway which is integral to the proposed development, a situation that is a significant improvement over the previous situation

at the site without the drainage provisions. Besides, the factors identified in 7.6.1 and 7.6.2 above would serve to ameliorate any concerns with drainage.

• 7.6.4 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the proposal is unlikely to cause any significant environmental impacts on the sea due to the separating distance between the boundary of the site and the river, and the nature of boundary treatment between the site and watercourse, and the intervening changes in the topography between the site and cliffs.

7.7 IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURS (EP's 22)

• 7.7.1 With regard to impacts on neighbours, it is noted that the works to re-profile the land may generate more noise, and more airborne particulates than is currently attainable at the site. Albeit, the detached position of the site is relation to the nearest neighbouring properties 'Groudle Glen Cottages' which is more than 95m, would ensure that any impacts in this regard would be significantly diminished.
• 7.7.2 Equally, the existing mature trees and vegetation within the Groudle Glen that lines the southern boundary of the site, would further serve as sound and dust buffers that would serve to diminish any impacts on these neighbouring properties. Besides, it is not uncommon to have some disturbance from agricultural operations resulting from the use of machines to support farm operations. As such, it is not considered that the development would result in unacceptably harm to the environment in terms of emissions of airborne pollutants or noise pollution. Thus, the proposal would comply with Environment Policy 22.

- 7.8 OTHER MATTERS

• 7.8.1 No other concerns have been noted.

- 8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 The proposal is not considered to have any significant adverse impacts on the environment, the landscape, soil quality or neighbouring properties. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal accords with General Policy 3 (f), Environment Policies 1, 4, and 22, and Strategic Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan. - 9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

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

9.2 The decision maker must determine:

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

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

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Acting Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status

Decision Made : Permitted Date : 19.02.2024 Determining officer

Signed : A MORGAN Abigail Morgan Acting Head of Development Management

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.