Planning Officer Refusal Report

which is thought to be at Middle River but that the application site could be said to have contemporary cultural interest. Department of Transport Drainage Division indicate that the applicant should submit a flood risk assessment including historical and anecdotal evidence to demonstrate whether flooding has occurred in the past and including details of watercourse bed levels and bank levels. If such information is not received then the Department's stance is objection to the application. A resident of Port Soderick notes that the site is not designated for development, development of it would be contrary to various policies within the Strategic Plan and that it is not an appropriate place for development and is situated on an already dangerous stretch of road. The owner of Ballastrang Farm points out that she has no objection to the application but that she presently has difficulties in maintaining their livestock fencing when people try to climb down onto the river bank opposite the site. She requests that a sign be erected to indicate that there is no public access to her property. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Wildlife and Conservation Division comment that the site forms part of a linear wildlife corridor and there is a pond with wildlife interest within the site, which should be protected. They comment that it is difficult to ascertain precisely what is proposed due to the lack of information. They also incorporate the comments of the Inland Fisheries who express concern for the protection of what is a prime salmonid watercourse and where Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has recently created a fish bypass channel to encourage Atlantic salmon and seat trout to migrate further upstream. They also wish to seek the protection of the water course in compliance with Environment Policy 7d. ASSESSMENT The site is not designated for development and as such the proposal should be judged against the provisions of General Policy 3 which states: "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-dependent 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". Whilst he refers to the interpretation of the wildlife or heritage of the countryside or the countryside itself, and the Fairy Bridge has some acknowledged popular interest, the application does not propose any interpretation of this feature of interest - rather commercial facilities intended to use the bridge as a feature and focus. The proposal is therefore contrary to this policy and would be detrimental to the presumption against development, as set out in Environment Policies 1 and 2 which protect the countryside for its own sake: 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: "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 wand 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". Section 9 of the Strategic Plan makes it clear that development proposed in association with tourism will not be subject to any less stringent policy control than any other form of development (Business Policy 11 and paragraph 9.5.3). "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 the rural areas there may be situations where existing rural buildings would be used for tourist use and Environment Policy 16 sets out the circumstances where this may be permitted". Strategic Policy 8 also states that "Tourist development proposals will generally be permitted where they make use of existing built fabric of interest and quality, where the do not affect adversely environmental, agricultural, or highway interests and where they enable enjoyment of our natural and man made attractions" which would not support this application. Environment Policies 4, 7 and 22 deal with the protection of the natural environment and species protected under the Wildlife Act 1990 and state: 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. Environment Policy 7: "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 d) development will not normally be allowed within 8 metres of any watercourse in order to protect the aquatic and bankside habitats and species. Environment Policy 22 states "Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of: i) pollution of sea, surface water or groundwater; ii) emissions of airborne pollutants; and iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution. Environment Policies 10 and 13 deal with potential flooding - both sites which presently have the potential to flood and works which would exacerbate the likelihood of the site or other premises flooding and state: Environment Policy 10 states: "Where development is proposed on any site where in the opinion of the Department of Local Government and the Environment there is a potential risk of flooding, a flood risk assessment and details of proposed mitigation measures must accompany any application for planning permission. The requirements for a flood risk assessment are set out in Appendix 4". Environment Policy 13 states: "Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted." In order to be able to assess fully the impact of this proposal, additional information is required to demonstrate what the impact of a new access would be. As stated above, there is no existing vehicular or other access and in order to provide the visibility splays required by the dot trees will have to be felled. In fact, trees will have to be felled in order to create an opening for access. The total length of visibility required, in both directions, could be up to 192 m (the sight stopping distance for a vehicle travelling at 70 mph is 96 m - for 60 mph this reduces to 73 m ) which exceeds the length of the site and thus the amount of land in the applicant's ownership. As such, it is concluded that a safe means of access cannot be provided at all: notwithstanding that, it is believed that a safe means of access cannot be provided without a loss of trees which would detrimentally affect the appearance and character of the site. Environment Policy 3 states that "Development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi-natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value". In addition to the impact resulting from the creation of the access, the construction of buildings on the site will also have an impact. Regardless of the size and position of the buildings, the introduction of any buildings on this site and the creation of parking and manouevring space and the appearance of parked vehicles will change what is presently an open and natural area into a man-made one with structures and activity which is alien to the site and the surrounding area. The Landscape Character Assessment advises against "linear development along roads from settlements that extends urbanising influences into the wider countryside" and suggests that "tourist-related development, such as camp-sites, should avoid visually prominent locations, particularly those which can be viewed from higher land and those which would extend urbanising influence along the coast" and that "Care should be taken to avoid the suburbanisation of river valleys and stream corridors". The development would have an urbanising impact on the character and appearance of the area, regardless of whether any trees would be removed - the visual impact of hard surfacing will have an impact, as well as the appearance of parked vehicles, particularly coaches, not to mention proposed buildings. Department of Transport Drainage Division has indicated that a flood risk assessment is required to evaluate whether development is appropriate, whether the site would flood and whether development would affect the likelihood of flooding elsewhere. Clearly, if such an assessment were to recommend that the level of the site be raised to avoid the potential of flooding, this will exacerbate the visual impact of the development. In summary, the application is deficient in information which is essential for the proper evaluation of the full impact of the proposed development in terms of an accurate tree survey and a clear indication of which trees would need to be removed in order to provide a safe access into and from the site or indeed whether a safe access into and from the site is physically possible. In addition, there is no information on the extent or scale of hard surfacing and buildings which would be required and as such it is not possible to fully asses the visual impact of such development or the impact of this on the ecology of the site and the adjoining Santon Burn and its habitat, contrary to Environment Policies 4 (in respect of the habitat for frogs which are protected under the Wildlife Act Schedule 7), 7 and 22. There is no information on the potential flood risk both of the site as it stands and following the proposed development, contrary to Environment Policy 10 and potentially Environment Policy 13. In any case, the site is not designated for development and the proposal does not represent a form of development for which an exception should be made under the provisions of General Policy 3 or Business Policy 11. Furthermore, whilst the development is proposed in order to interpret the Fairy Bridge, which is a well known local landmark, the historical accuracy or significance of this feature is not well established and as such, this would not represent sufficient justification for setting aside the general policy against development in this area. ## Party Status The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status. Manx National Heritage and Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Wildlife and Conservation Division raise material planning considerations and represent a statutory authority and should be afforded party status in this instance. The resident of Ballastrang has land which is directly opposite the application site and as such should be afforded party status in this instance. The resident of Port Soderick is not directly affected by the proposal and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance. ### Recommendation <br> Decision Recommended by the Director of Planning and Building Control: Refused

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal 0 : Notes attached to refusals R 1. The site is not designated for development and the proposal does not represent a form of development for which an exception should be made under the provisions of General Policy 3 or Business Policy 11. Furthermore, whilst the development is proposed in order to interpret the Fairy Bridge, which is a well known local landmark, the historical accuracy or significance of this feature is not well established and as such, this would not represent sufficient justification for setting aside the general policy against development in this area.

R 2. Notwithstanding reason 1 above, the application is deficient in information which is esssential for the proper evaluation of the full impact of the proposed development in terms of an accurate tree survey and a clear indication of which trees would need to be removed in order to provide a safe access into and from the site or indeed whether a safe access into and from the site is physically possible bearing in mind the length of the site (approximately 80 m ) and the likely visibility splay requirements (at least 90 m in each direction).

R 3. In addition and not withstanding reason 1 above, there is no information on the extent or scale of hard surfacing and buildings which would be required and as such it is not possible to fully asses the visual impact of such development or the impact of this on the ecology of the site and the adjoining Santon Burn and its habitat, contrary to Environment Policies 4 (in respect of the habitat for frogs which are protected under the Wildlife Act Schedule 7), 7 and 22. There is no information on the potential flood risk both of the site as it stands and following the proposed development, contrary to Environment Policy 10 and potentially Environment Policy 13.