DEC Officer Report

Applicant: Dandara Homes Limited Proposal Residential development of 138 dwellings with associated drainage, highway works and public open space Site Address Land At Lower Milntown (Fields 134278, 134279, 134280, 134281, 134282, 134283, 134284, 134288 & 134289) And Strip Of Land Between Auldyn River & Auldyn Meadows, Off Lezayre Road, Lezayre & Ramsey Isle Of Man Case Officer : Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken: 09.02.2022 Site Visit: 09.02.2022 Expected Decision Level Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Approve subject to Legal Agreement Date of Recommendation 04.04.2022 Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons

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:

Flood Management Division (DOI) Manx National Heritage Public Estates & Housing Division (DOI) Manx Utilities

For information Ramsey Town Commissioners should also gain IPS status as they comply with Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 which states; "(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".

It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):

Glen End, Lezayre Road, Lezayre Scacafel, Lezayre Road, Lezayre Underhill, Lezayre Road, Lezayre

Ballakillingan Farm, Churchtown, Ramsey (own/manage adjacent fields 134285, 134286 & 134789)

As they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018).

It is recommended that the following persons should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):

Manx Bird Life Lynfield, Hillberry Road, Onchan Lower Ballakaighin, Ramsey Road, Peel Sunnymeade, Lezayre Road, Ramsey Ballameanagh, Glen Auldyn, Ramsey (Former MHK for Ayre & Michael (Minister Baker at the time of writing) Fernside, Glen Auldyn, Ramsey Ivy Cottage, Gardeners Lane, Ramsey Lheaney Ballakerka, Clenagh Road, Sulby Woodland, Grove Mount West, Ramsey Hilton, Stanley Mount West, Ramsey 47 Lezayre Park, Ramsey Freshfield, Glen Auldyn, Ramsey

• 9 Ballaterson Road, Peel 45 Waterloo Road, Ramsey Belfry House, 17 Brookfield Avenue, Ramsey 2 Glen View, South Cape, Laxey

As they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy; are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy; as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy.

________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report

THE PLANNING APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS A SECTION 13 LEGAL AGREEMENT IS PROPOSED; THERE IS OBJECTIONS FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND A NUMBER OF PRIVATE OBJECTIONS CONTRARY TO THE RECOMMENDATION

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site comprises a parcel of land (approx. 0.55 hectare) located on at the land at Lower Milntown (Fields 134278, 134279, 134280, 134281, 134282, 134283, 134284,

• 134288 & 134289) and strip of land between Auldyn River & Auldyn Meadows, located to the north of Lezayre Road, west of Gardeners Lane and south of the Sulby River.

1.2 The general character of the site is fields which appear generally flat in nature, although there is an overall fall in the site from the southern boundary to the north-western boundary of approximately 8.5 metres over the entire extent of the site. The site is also divided with mature hedgerows. Fields 134281, 134282 & part of 134289 are to the south of the former railway line which runs through the centre of the overall site. The remaining fields are to then north of the former railway line.

1.3 For information the Ramsey Town boarders includes the north eastern section of the site (Fields 134278, 134279 & 134280); whereas the rest of the site is within the Parish of Lezayre (134281, 134282, 134283, 134284, 134288 & 134289).

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for the residential development of 138 dwellings with associated drainage, highway works and public open space. - 2.2 The proposed dwellings are located within fields 134282 and 134284 only. The dwellings are a mixture of two storey terraces, two storey semi-detached, two storey detached, two and half storey (dormer accommodation) semi-detached dwellings, semi-detached bungalows, and detached bungalows. The dwellings would be finished in a variety of materials including, stone, render (white & buff colours), brick, cladding (grey & taupe colours), timber coloured garage and doors and all with a dark grey tile with slate like appearance. Within fields 134282 and 134284 it is also proposed to have a play area, a wild flower meadow (including paths). Formal Public Open Space is located to the east of the main development to the northern end of field 134281. The Public Open Space would equate to 5.4Ha (13.34 acres) made up of a children's play area, formal open space and wild meadow area. - 2.3 For information there is no other development proposed to the fields (134278, 134279, 134280, 134283 & 134289) north of the former railway. - 2.4 The proposed housing site within field 134282 and 134284 would be access via an upgrades access onto the Lezayre Road. Current the access in place is a field gate access which provides access for the farmers of the land. The upgraded access would require the removal of four trees to upgrade the access and then a further 32 trees along the southern roadside boundary of the site to provide the required visibility splays from the access. - 2.5 In terms of finished floor levels, the highest dwelling (plot 1 near main access) has a finished floor level of 13.55, while the lowest dwelling (plot 83 north-westerly most plot) has a finished floor level of 7.850 i.e. 5.7m level difference.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The application site and surrounding land has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, the following of which are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:

Approval in principle for the development of Residential, Industrial and Open Space uses 07/02303/A - Fields 134278, 134279, 134280, 134281, 134282, 134283, 134284, 134288 &

• 134289 Between Lezayre Road And The Sulby River And The West Of The Auldyn River, Ramsey & Lezayre - REFUSED at APPEAL on the following grounds; "R 1. The planning application includes land (field 134281) that is not designated for development under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Ramsey Local Plan) (No. 2) Order 1998, the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982 or the West Ramsey Development Framework. As such, the development proposed by the planning application is partially contrary to the land use designation under the aforementioned documents and the presumption against development set out in Strategic Policy 2 & 11, Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 1, 2 & 3, and Housing Policy 2 & 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.

• R 2. The development proposed by the planning application is contrary to the phasing requirements set out within section 17.0 of the West Ramsey Development Framework. The granting of planning approval would fail to have proper regard to the phasing of the overall development of this land and therefore be contrary to the relevant planning policy background and the principles of good land use planning. Specifically:

• i) No extant planning approval exists for the development of area 1 and the provision of the distributor road from the existing extent of Poylldooey Road to the remaining areas within the West Ramsey Development Framework area. As such, the land contained within the application site is proposed to be served by one sole access (Gardeners Lane). The reliance on this sole access to serve the application site in addition to the land with extant planning approval under 03/00790/B (areas 2 & 3) and 03/01846/B (area 4) is unacceptable; and
• ii) The development approved on areas 2, 3 & 4 is not substantially complete and no extant planning approval exists for the development for area 1. As such, the granting of planning approval for the development of areas 5, 6 & 7 would be premature. Furthermore, the grant of planning approval for the development of area 7 is dependent on the substantial completion of development within areas 5 & 6 and therefore also premature.

• R 3. The Residential Land Availability Study (Update 2 2009) indicates that 92 residential units are needed within the North to meet the housing target contained within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. Given the size and estimated residential yield of the land contained within the application site the granting of planning approval would cause a supply of residential units that far exceeded the housing target set out within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. As such, the proposed development is contrary to the provisions of Housing Policy 1, Housing Policy 2 and Housing Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 and premature.
• R 4. The planning application fails to provide adequate information in respect of access to the existing highway network or sufficient information in respect of the impact of the additional traffic generated by the proposed development on the highway network and highway safety. As such the planning application fails to comply with Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007."

- 4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 LOCAL PLAN

• 4.1.1 The application site falls within two area plans, firstly the IOM Development Order 1982 which designates fields 134282, 134283 and 134289 as "proposed predominately residential use". Field 134281 is not designated for development. Fields 134278, 134279, and 134280 fall under the boundaries of Ramsey and given there is the Ramsey Local Plan Order 1998 these fields fall under this plan, which designates the fields as "Residential/ Industrial".
• 4.1.2 The site and surrounding fields were included within the West Ramsey Development Framework (WRDF) which was written to provide an overall development framework for the development of the application site and surrounding land. Under this document the site is within an area designated as "Neighbourhood Centre 4", this states: "Between Gardeners Lane and Glen Auldyn River (as notated "4" on the key diagram) the land should be developed for a neighbourhood centre to service the needs of the overall development of West Ramsey. The neighbourhood centre could include uses such shops, nursery/crèche facilities, meeting hall, public house. During the consultation process interest in the provision of new community facilities for churches within Ramsey has been highlighted. Land within this area that is not needed for neighbourhood centres uses should be developed for medium/high density housing (15-30 dwellings per hectare)."

- 4.2 STRATEGIC PLAN

• 4.2.1 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. Strategic Policy

• 1 Efficient use of land and resources
• 2 Priority for new development to identified towns and villages
• 3 To respect the character of our towns and villages

• 4 Protection of built heritage and landscape conservation
• 5 Design and visual impact

• 10 Sustainable transport
• 11 Housing Needs Spatial Policy

• 2 Identified Ramsey as a Service Centre

• 5 Building in defined settlements or GP3 General Policy

• 2 General Development Considerations Environment Policy
• 3 Protection of Woodland
• 4 Wildlife and Nature Conservation
• 5 Ecological Impacts 10 Flood Risk Assessments 13 No unacceptable risk of Flooding 42 Respect the local character and identity Housing Policy

• 1 General need for additional housing from 2011 -2026
• 2 Supply of designated housing land available
• 3 Defined housing provision per area
• 4 Location of new housing and exceptions
• 5 Provisions for 25% affordable Housing
• 6 Development Briefs

Recreational Policy

• 3 Requirement for Landscaped amenity areas
• 4 Requirement for Public open space
• 5 Links to the countryside

Community Policy 10 Fire Fighting provisions

Transport Policy

• 2 Provision for new links
• 3 Protection of existing and former rail routes
• 4 Highway Safety
• 5 Design of Highway Network Improvements
• 6 Equal weight for vehicles and pedestrians
• 7 Parking Provisions
• 8 Requirements for Transport Assessments

Energy Policy 5 Energy Efficiency

4.3 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDE 2019 - Section 2.0 New Houses

• 4.3.1 This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction.

- 4.4 AREA PLAN FOR THE NORTH AND WEST - PRELIMINARY PUBLICITY

• 4.4.1 The Cabinet Office has undertaken a Preliminary Publicity which outline matters that the Cabinet Office would like to address in detail within the Area Plan and gives individuals the opportunity to comment at an early stage on these outline matters.

• 4.4.2 Part of this the Cabinet Office has produce a Housing Need study which provides evidence of the housing need within the north and west of the Island between 2011 and 2035. This concludes that: "9.1 Housing need for the North and West from 2011 to 2026 will be based on the Strategic Plan 2016, but will take into account the population projection modelling and consequences for housing need revealed by the 2016 Interim Census.

9.2 It is recognised that it takes time to process new Census data and make new projections, and whilst the 2021 Census is imminent, population projection findings will not be available until Spring/Summer 2022. The Plan can progress on data available now; it is important to put potential sites through an assessment process, examining them at public inquiry where necessary with a plan to be able to bring sites forward via a methodology. - 9.3 The updated housing need data suggests that 950 new residential units between 2011 and 2026 are required. - 9.4 The evidence suggests that when taking 2016 Census into account, housing need has been met in the North and West. However, strategic reserves may need to be identified to build in flexibility to meet the need identified within the Strategic Plan. If appropriate, these figures will be reviewed in the light of the 2021 Census figures, prior to the Public Inquiry for the Area Plan for the North and West. - 9.5 It is accepted that migration is increasing albeit affected in the short term by Covid-19 restrictions. Ongoing monitoring of migration will continue and greater insight will be revealed by the 2021 Census and as lockdown restrictions are eased. - 9.6 The questioning of housing need figures in the Statutory Development Plan following the publication of new survey data is accepted in the normal process of delivering a new area plan. New data will naturally bring into question statutory housing need figures, and presents an opportunity for a 'sense check' approach. - 9.7 The North and West Plan will be drafted to be in conformity with the Strategic Plan. Whilst there may not be housing need in the immediate future, there could be in the years ahead which will be planned-in using Strategic Reserve sites. - 9.8 The Strategic Plan is due to be reviewed - starting in 2022 but will not be brought before Tynwald until 2023. Housing need for the North and West set out in this Plan (along with the East and South) will be the basis for an All Island Plan. 19 9.3 Finally, when preparing the Draft Area Plan for the North and West, the Strategic Plan figures 2016 will be relied upon but a system of phasing sites will be deployed through the use of Development Briefs and if where necessary, the use of Strategic Reserves. A methodology for release will be included in the Plan for when 'need' is evident and all of the necessary infrastructure is in place."

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS It should be noted that full comments made by all representations are available on the Online Services - Planning Applications and any decision should read this in full. Further, the application has been re-advertised a number of occasions in response to issues raised and therefore there are multiple comments from various representations. The comments below are taken form the last correspondence from the relevant party only. As mention there have been multiply comments from the majority of each representation.

5.1 Ramsey Town Commissioners have objected to the application making the following final comments (16.03.2022): "The development of the site would not accord with the phasing programme set out in the West Ramsey Development Framework [WRDF]. At present there is no extant planning approval for the development of Area 1 of the WRDF. Furthermore, the development approved on Areas 2,

• 3 and 4 of the WRDF is not substantially complete. In particular, the neighbourhood centre development provided as part of the consent for the existing Auldyn Walk development under PA03/01846/B has not been completed. The development as proposed fails to comply with Paragraphs 13.2, 13.3 and 13.4 of the WRDF which provide for a new distributor road between Gardeners Lane and the development site, and for a new access road to be constructed linking Gardeners Lane to Poyll Dooey Road. Concerns were also raised that the sewage system would not cope with the additional volume of waste and lighting along the main road from the Town boundary to the entrance of estate was inadequate."

5.2 Lezayre Commissioners object to the application making the following final comments;

• 16.07.2021 "This application was originally for 181 dwellings, amended to 164 dwellings. Further amended plans received. Now increased to 166 dwellings. Mr Radcliffe and Ms Radcliffe declared an interest and did not take part in the discussion. Refused Unanimous

• As mentioned above this is the third application received for this site, with the subsequent plans being amended to address the various comments received from objectors. How many times can an applicant tweak the plans? The overall opinion of the Commissioners for this development remains unchanged. Access The applicant has moved the access in an easterly direction, but this still requires the removal of trees and hedges. The Commissioners do not support the removal of the large volume of trees and hedges. We should be protecting our countryside, not cutting it down. Although the applicant has submitted mitigating plans for birds and bats, including planting new trees, once the trees have been removed there is no guarantee that the birds and bats will return and use the bird and bat boxes placed on various properties on the development. The natural habitat should remain to serve the existing wildlife.

Density The site is an over intensive development for a rural parish, such as Lezyare. The development is in the wrong place. Ramsey Town ends at the Glen Auldyn River and this proposed development extends too far into the countryside. Housing Need We reiterate our point that this application is premature in the current housing climate. We do not need this large volume of housing at this time or in the near future as identified in the information provided for the North and West Area Plan. Open Space The Commissioners would like to remind the developer Dandara, that they will not adopt for maintenance any open space on this development. This was pointed out to Dandara when they visited our offices when they presented the idea of the development to the Commissioners. All points raised in our previous submission of comments remain."

13.01.2022 "The Commissioners would like to raise concerns regarding sewerage issues and submit the following comments:Sewerage is going to be put into the present Ramsey Town Sewer and thus during storm overflow the Ramsey sewer will backup first to prevent the new Milntown sewer taking raw sewerage away. Therefore, there is a real risk of raw sewerage being released into the Sulby River, which is tidal and could become anoxic at low tidal levels killing all wildlife both downstream and up stream of the development.

There are three new sewers included in the new plans which in itself is acknowledgement of the flood plain site of the proposed development, which makes it inherently unsuitable for housing and forms the most compelling argument against housing on this site. The three new sewers are a new surface water sewer (blue) which empties in at four points to a newly constructed waste water pit (like a silage pit) and a fifth outfall pipe which would empty directly in to the Sulby river. What happens if during a storm flooding these surface sewers become blockedwon't they cause flooding over the houses and gardens. How well have these sewers been modelled? The second new foul water (sewer) (red) will collect and take untreated sewage for pumping at a new station near the river. The untreated sewage will be pumped by a third new rising (pumped) main sewer (yellow) but it does not show where this main empties? Moreover, what happens if the rate of rainfall intensity and the time of that intense rainfall is sufficient to block these drains so that water floods the entire area, not just with waste water but with untreated sewerage. Where are the models and the computations?? Is there a clause which during severe rainfall the sewers will be allowed to empty directly in the Sulby River rather than flood homes?? This new proposal seems to confirm that the developer expects the area to flood. Given that the area occupied by house footprints will no longer soak up rain water the risk of flooding is markedly increased by putting houses on this floodplain. In a worst case scenario none of the home owners will be able to get insurance after the first flooding incidence."

5.3 Highway Services (DOI) do not object to the application subject to conditions and make the final comments: 24.12.2021 "Highways Development Control notes the revisions uploaded on 10 December 2021, reducing the number of dwellings to 138. Whilst the internal road layout remains acceptable, there is no path shown into the play space and no indication of the bus stop infrastructure. These elements have been previously raised and HDC seeks surety of inclusion via Grampian conditions for details to be provided for approval prior to commencement with installation prior to first occupation to any consent granted. Furthermore, for conditions to be applied to meet the other highway and transport related facilities required to deliver this proposed development on its acceptability on policy grounds. As noted, previously, s4 and s109(A) Highway Agreements plus licences and temporary orders are necessary after grant of any planning consent for adoption of streets to be maintained at public expense, highway works, traffic management and temporary road closures." - 5.4 Public Estates & Housing Division do not object to the application making the following final comments; 31.03.2022 "We refer to the aforementioned planning application, and we can confirm that we have looked at the detail of the application and have considered the provision of a 25% affordable housing requirement.

Current data drawn from Housing Division records for Ramsey and the Northern parishes indicates that there are 53 persons on the general public sector waiting list for affordable housing to rent. There are also 39 persons on the first-time buyers register, of whom 13 are Active, seeking to purchase a first home in the North of the Island including Ramsey. This figure is not indicative of likely final purchases as the ability to progress to completion would depend upon personal circumstances and mortgage ability at point of allocation.

The department would therefore request that consideration be given by the Planning Committee to include a requirement, in respect of any approval granted for this site, for the applicant to enter into a Section 13 Agreement with the Department to provide affordable housing, based upon the usual calculation of 25% of the number of units approved within the application. Accordingly, the Affordable Housing inclusion should total 34 dwellings and a Commuted Sum (0.50 of one unit) will be required for the difference between the 25% Affordable Homes and the proposed number. We can also confirm that the applicant's

representative has in the recent past discussed the Affordable Housing content with the Department.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the application."

5.5 Manx Utilities do not object to the application subject to conditions and make the final comments;

• 21.03.2022 "Following detailed discussions with Dandara in relation the above application and the submission of additional drawings (drwg ADR-500/4 & drwg 2483-1.07), I can confirm Manx Utilities (Drainage) have no further concerns to the drainage proposals for this development subject to the following:-

• * Full engineering construction drawings of the proposed drainage infrastructure (foul pumping station including M&E proposals and the chemical dosing unit, gravity sewers and rising main) to be issued to Manx Utilities for review prior to any works commencing on site.
• * Section 8 adoption agreement (Sewerage Act 1999) to be entered into for the public adoption of the proposed foul & surface water gravity sewers, foul pumping station and pump main (including chemical dosing unit)
• * Sequence connection proposals are required for the proposed dwellings in order to ensure septicity issues do not occur due to low foul flows during the early stages of the development.
• * The proposed SW attenuation basin will not be considered by MU for public adoption and as such it is recommended that a suitable management company is setup to oversee the operation and maintenance of the area.
• * Drainage communication fees are payable for each dwelling ultimately connected to the Ramsey sewerage network.
• * All adoptable drainage works to be constructed to the requirements of Manx Utilities. If you require any further clarification please contact me."

5.6 Agriculture & Lands Directorate (DEFA) making the following comments (relating to conditions which is still relevant) and final comments: 28.04.2021 "Updated comments from the Agriculture & Lands Directorate, DEFA - APRIL 2020 The following conditions are recommended in the event that this application is approved.

• 1. No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted, or otherwise destroyed during the development phase and thereafter within 5 years from the date of occupation of the building for its permitted use, other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars. In the event that existing trees marked for retention die or become damaged or otherwise defective prior to commencement or during the construction phase due to events outside the applicants control, the Department shall be notified as soon as reasonably practicable and remedial action agreed and implemented.

Reason: Required to safeguard and enhance the character and amenity of the area, to provide ecological, environmental and bio-diversity benefits and to maximise the quality and usability of open spaces within the development, and to enhance its setting within the immediate locality.

• 2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved an updated Tree Protection Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department to include protection measures for proposed drainage works, footpath construction, power cable diversions and any other construction work relevant to trees which is not covered by the existing Tree Protection Plan. The agreed protection measures shall be implemented and adhered to in full.

• Reason: required prior to commencement to ensure that ALL trees to be retained are adequately protected from damage
• 3. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS), adhering to the recommendations of BS5837:2012 (Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - recommendations), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department providing details of the following: a. The specification of the protective measures required to adequately protect the retained trees b. Specialist construction techniques (if required) c. An Arboricultural Monitoring Programme (AMP) providing a schedule of a monitoring and reporting programme of all on-site supervision and checks of compliance on all arboricultural matters. The agreed protection measures, construction methods and monitoring shall be adhered to in full.

Reason: to provide a level of technical detail sufficient to provide a high level of confidence in the outcome for retained trees on or adjacent to the site

Note: The AMP should include details of an appropriate Arboricultural Clerk of Works (ACoW) who will conduct the monitoring and supervision, and how and when written and photographic records will be submitted to the Department.

• 4. All tree planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, submitted in support of the application. The planting shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the completion or occupation of any part of the development (whichever is the sooner,) or otherwise in accordance with a programme to be agreed. Any trees which, within a period of 5 years from their planting, die, are removed, or, in the opinion of the Department, become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced as is reasonably practicable or in the next planting season with others of similar size, species and number as originally approved, unless the Department gives written consent to any variation. Reason: to ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of landscape in accordance with the approved designs."

17.11.2021 "I can confirm that no new issues have come to light through the submission of these amendments. My recommendations regarding conditions to be applied in the event that the application is approved remain the same - April 2021 document attached for ease of reference. Updated comments from the Agriculture & Lands Directorate, DEFA - NOVEMBER 2021"

The representation also includes a table which, outlines the concerns raised in the original comments (October 2020), how each of these concerns has been addressed by the applicant through the submission of amendments and additional information, the remaining concerns with each issue, and how these remaining concerns could be addressed".

This highlights the need for several conditions (including some pre-commencement) and also for clarity on management arrangements.

5.7 Ecosystem Policy Officer (DEFA) do not object to the application subject to conditions and make the final comments:

• 04.03.2022 "Since the Ecosystem Policy Team last commented on these proposals in October 2020, the applicants have commissioned various ecological surveys and a number of significant alterations have been made to the plans.

Our initial concerns related to impacts on bats, birds, habitats, trees and invasive plants. We will summarise in this email the findings of the new reports, the recommended mitigation, where changes have been made to the plans to integrate these mitigation measures and where

specific conditions on approval are required in order to secure the required mitigation measures. A specific section is also included at the end of this email that summarises the various conditions required on approval.

Though no development in this area would be preferable. On the basis that a number of mitigation measures are to be included on site and will be conditioned on approval, the Ecosystem Policy Team no longer object to these proposals. The mitigation measures are required to make the proposals ecologically acceptable and to achieve no net loss for biodiversity on site, in line with Strategic Objective 3.3 Environment (b) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 'to protect, maintain, and enhance the built and natural environment (including biodiversity)', Strategic Policy 4 (b) 'protect or enhance the nature conservation and landscape quality of urban as well as rural areas' and habitat loss action 21 under the Biodiversity Strategy 'DEFA will continue to promote a policy of 'no net loss' for semi-natural Manx habitats and species and ensure that unavoidable loss is replaced or effectively compensated for'. The Ecosystem Policy Team would maintain its objection should the below conditions not be secured.

Of particular importance with this application is the potential for a significant negative impact on Isle of Man red listed bird species of the highest conservation concern (Birds of Conservation Concern in the Isle of Man 2021). Though measures have been integrated into the site's design to mitigate impacts on this species, a number of conditions are also required on approval to ensure that impacts on these species are minimised/avoided and to ensure compliance with Environment Policies 4 & 5 of the IoM Strategic Plan 2016 (editing note - the policies are then quoted) …

Bats The Ecosystem Policy Team can confirm that we are happy with the findings of the Manx Bat Group's (MBG) Bat Activity Survey dated 29th October 2020 and the Manx Bat Group's Method Statement for Tree Inspection prior to felling at Lower Milntown dated 16th November 2020 and that a suitable level of assessment has been undertaken. The following is a summary of the Manx Bat Groups mitigation recommendations and how this mitigation will be satisfied:

• * The two important hawthorn hedges to the east and west of field 134282 be retained and protected by excluding them from inclusion in gardens - Done, apart from small sections at the south of the western and eastern hedge which are to be removed to place the new roads and small sections in the north in order to place 2 paths, the hedges are to be retained. Details about the measures to be taken to protect these hedges from damage during construction can also be included in a Construction Environmental Management Plan.

Though a tree protection plan has been provided showing construction exclusion areas around the hedges and the approximate width, these will need to be re-measured, to ensure that the entire width of all of the boundary features are retained. It looks like, based on the most up-to date Landscape Plans, that the road along the east of field 134282 will eat into the hedge at this location. Because of the importance of these hedges, the Ecosystem Policy Team would find it unacceptable for the road placement to require the removal of any width of hedge in this location. If required, updated drawings may need to be provided which clearly show that the width of the hedge in this area will not be reduced. See following image (editing note - image available to view as part of submission on-line)

All of the hedges will also have to be kept outside the curtilages of the new dwellings to protect them removal pressure from future homeowners.

A specific condition can also be requested for the retention and protection of these hedges.

• * The roots of the important hedges to be protected during construction - this can be conditioned as part of an up-to date tree protection plan and as part of a Construction

Environmental Management Plan, through the erection and maintenance of protective fencing and construction exclusion areas.

• o The gaps at the ends of the hedges to be in-filled with new planting - Done and included in the latest Revised Landscaping plans Drawing No. 01.06, which can be secured on approval.
• o Lighting to be designed to as to not deter bats from foraging along the hedge - no low level lighting plan has yet to be provided, but can be secured as a condition on approval.

• * The street lighting at the entrance of Lezayre road designed to take into account the existing bat roost - the entrance to the estate has been moved, meaning that no lighting of the roost should take place. Additionally, a low level sensitive lighting plan can also be conditioned on approval. Lighting should be low level, of a suitable intensity and directed away from boundary features, habitats and known bat roosts.
• * Retention of roadside trees -In the Manx Bat Group's Method Statement for Tree Inspection Prior to Felling at Lower Milntown they state the following 'Only the minimum number of trees to satisfy Highways requirements for visibility splays should be felled in order to preserve a branched archway across the road for bats in transit. Should the ash trees nearest Pinfold Cottage need to be removed because of ash die back it should be done in stages, gradually lowering their height and spread as the replacement trees provided for in the plans grow up to replace them' - We note that the ash trees to be removed along the roadside are noted as being in good condition in the arboricultural impact assessment and the DEFA Senior Arboricultural Officer states that they could be threatened by disease, rather than being diseased at present. We acknowledge that some of the ash trees included in G1 along the east

• of the road will need to be removed to facilitate requirements for visibility splays. However, the western-most trees nearest to Pinfold Cottage could possibly be retained in the short term without compromising highways safety. Therefore in order to comply with the MBG's method statement, we request that a condition is secured for the trees along the road to be re-assessed to differentiate between those that require removal to facilitate visibility splays and those that can be retained in the short-term and felled in stages.

• * Pre-felling inspection of the trees to be felled by a suitable qualified ecologist, additional bat boxes should roost features be found and the soft felling of trees with potential roost features can be conditioned as part of a Construction Environmental Management Plan.
• * Proposed re-planting at an early stage - Dandara have indicated that will accept a condition for screening planting around the boundary to be undertaken prior to the construction of any dwelling and this will be requested as a condition on approval.
• * Signage to be installed on the trails - the riverside trail has been removed as an ecological mitigation measure and therefore signage will no longer be required.
• * Bat boxes to be considered - 6 integrated bat boxes are to be installed across the site as per the Bat Mitigation Plan (Drawing No. 203.01 Revision A) and can be secured via condition.

Birds The Ecosystem Policy Team can confirm that we are happy with the findings of the Manx Wildlife Trust's Lower Milntown Breeding Bird Survey dated 24th August 2021 and that a suitable level of assessment has been undertaken. The following is a summary of the Manx Wildlife Trust's mitigation recommendations and how this mitigation will be satisfied.

The MWT's Breeding Bird Survey report concluded that the proposed development, with the layout as planned when the report was written in August 2021, would have a significant adverse impacts on a variety of bird species, some of which are very rare on the island and Red listed in the 2021 Isle of Man Birds of Conservation Concern and are therefore of the highest conservation concern. The report also concluded that only partial mitigation was possible and that the development would result in a net loss for biodiversity on site, contrary to Planning Policy and the Biodiversity Strategy.

Following this report, and with additional input from bird experts, it was determined that mitigation would be possible on site but only if changes to the site layout were made and other mitigation measures included as follows:

• * The riverside footpath was removed and public access to the north of the railway line was limited- Done, the riverside footpath no longer forms part of the plans.
• * The public open space was moved from the north of the railway line - Done, the POS has now been moved to field 134281. Though not zoned for development, the Ecosystem Policy Team do not object to the use of field 134281 for open space.
• * The agricultural land to the north of the railway line becomes subject of a biodiversity management plan - to include reduction in chemical use, expansion of rough grassland areas, greater areas managed as hay meadows etc. - Dandara have indicated that they will accept a condition for this.
• * The old Tholtan is re-roofed, fitted out with nest boxes and fenced off to exclude human access - Dandara have indicated that they will accept a condition for this.
• * Mitigation planting around the boundary of the development site is undertaken as early as possible, prior to the construction of any dwelling, in order maintain and enhance a tall boundary around the site and to give planting as much time as possible to establish - Dandara have indicated that they will accept a condition for this.
• * Artificial lighting is designed sensitively - a low level sensitive lighting plan can be conditioned on approval.

Much of this is summarised in David Humphrey's email to Planning contained in the document called SUP Officer Proforma and Covering Email 09 Nov 21. Additionally, a number of bird nesting bricks and boxes will be installed across the site, as detailed in Dandara's Ecological Plan - Bird Mitigation Plan (drawing No. 203.02 Revision C) This includes integrated starling, swift and house sparrow boxes and tree mounted open fronted and entry hole boxes.

Habitat and Tree loss The Ecosystem Policy Team can confirm that we are happy with the proposals for the attenuation area, marginal planting, woodland planting and wildflower meadow areas shown in the same plans and in the Revised Planting Plans (Miln_PAL-31@A1). However, in order to ensure the establishment and maintenance of these areas, a habitat creation and long-term maintenance plan will need to be provided and is requested below as a condition on approval.

We have concerns about the proximity of the new road to the hedge along the east of field

1. These concerns are detailed above and a condition on approval has been requested below.

We also have concerns about the tree removal by Pinfold Cottage. These concerns are detailed above and a condition on approval has been requested below. The Tree Protection Plan (Drawing No. 204 Rev B), showing construction exclusion areas, has not been revised since the new site plan was submitted, so is out of date and does not reflect the current site layout. Therefore, prior to any works commencing, an updated tree protection plan should be submitted, which accurately shows all of the construction exclusion areas to the north and the south of the railway line and the protection measures to be put in place. Since the site plan has been changed and houses are no longer to be built in the north of field

• 134282, the area of land identified as marshy grassland (see following image) (editing note image available to view as part of submission on-line) can now also be retained and sensitively managed for the benefit of wildlife and the group of trees labelled G6 in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment can and should be retained. A construction exclusion area should be maintained around this section, and its ongoing management should be included in the site maintenance plan.

Though we are content with the landscaping plans as per the Revised Landscape Plan (Drawing No. 01.06 Revision H), consideration should be given to additional native tree planting in the area highlighted in red on the below image (editing note - image available to view as part of submission on-line), which is in the north-east of the site. H9 Mixed Manx hedgerow mix is

recommended. This would give greater protection against noise and light pollution to the land north of the railway line.

Should this application be approved, we request that conditions are secured for the following measures:

• * An Ecological Clerk of Works be appointed for the pre-construction and construction phases of the development to oversee all protected species work, the implementation of measures identified within a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), to advise on the creation of the habitat management plans, the placement of the bat and bird boxes, and the Old Tholtan wildlife enhancements. The ECoW should be consulted prior to the removal of any areas of semi-natural vegetation and be the first point of contact in the event that protected species or invasive species are encountered on site.
• * A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to be provided to Planning for written approval prior to any works, including clearance and enabling works, taking place. The CEMP will need to contain details of the roles, responsibilities, training, procedures and monitoring on site which will ensure that the environment is protected during all phases of the development and all environmental legislation and policy is adhered to. The CEMP will need to incorporate the following avoidance and mitigation measures and the works must be undertaken in strict accordance with these measures:

• o Precautionary Working Method Statement (PWMS) for common frogs, which demonstrates how construction and site operations will avoid and mitigate detrimental impacts on frogs reasonable avoidance measures for frogs and mitigation should frogs be found (may include the creation of hibernacula features).
• o PWMS for viviparous lizard, which demonstrates how construction and site operations will avoid and mitigate detrimental impacts on lizards - reasonable avoidance measures for lizards and additional mitigation should lizards be found (may include the creation of hibernacula features);
• o PWMS for birds which demonstrates how construction and site operations will avoid and mitigate detrimental impacts on birds - timescales for vegetation removal, suitable checks by an ecologist and mitigation should breeding birds be found, or issues be encountered in relation to red list species;
• o PWMS for bats which demonstrates how construction and site operations will avoid and mitigate detrimental impacts on bats - to include pre-felling inspections and tree felling in line with the recommendations made in the Manx Bat Group's Method Statement for Tree Inspection prior to felling at Lower Milntown dated 16th November 2020. As well as the measures to be taken if bats or evidence of bats is found, including the erection of additional bat boxes;
• o PWMS for Schedule 8 invasive plant species to ensure that they are not spread via the works and for their responsible eradication from site;
• o Measures to the protection of boundary hedges and other areas of habitat during construction, including protective fencing of all of the hedges and boundary features and construction exclusion areas where appropriate - including the majority of the land above the railway line apart from the drainage pipeline route;
• o Working method statement for the construction of the pipeline and river crossing to the north
• of the railway line;
• o Working method statement for the clearance works along the railway line to ensure that a vegetated boundary to the north and south of the railway is maintained.
• o Measures to be taken to prevent water, sediment and pollution runoff from site and as well as light pollution onto surrounding habitats.

• * An up to date tree protection plan containing details of construction exclusion areas across the whole site, accurate width and length measurements of all of the hedges to be retained and details of the fencing that is to be erected to protect areas from damaging construction activities, to be submitted to planning for written approval prior to any works, including site clearance, from taking place. The development must then be undertaken in accordance with these details. The protective fencing shall be erected and maintained throughout the works, any fencing that becomes damaged must be replaced. All of the existing trees and hedge banks

• marked as being retained, must be retained and protected from damage and disturbance throughout the works. Any changes must be submitted to Planning for written approval prior to any removal taking place. Any additional removal must be suitable compensated for by replacement native planting. However, the presumption should be in favour of retaining the existing vegetation as shown because of its importance to wildlife.
• * A plan containing details of selective boundary planting which will be undertaken prior to the construction of any dwelling, to be submitted to planning for written approval. This boundary planting forms part of the essential bird mitigation measures and is required to give boundary planting a longer time to establish as well as to provide additional protection to surrounding habitats and species of importance. Planting details should include their quantity/density and location, species and nursery specification, the planting specification, a timetable for implementation and a schedule of maintenance. The planting shall be carried out in accordance with details provided. Any planted trees that are removed, die or become, in the opinion of the Department, seriously damaged or defective within five years of planting shall be replaced with specimens of a similar size and species as originally required, unless the Department gives written consent to any variation.
• * Prior to any tree clearance a re-assessment of the trees along the roadside shall be undertaken to determine which require removal to facilitate highways visibility splays and those that can be retained and felled in stages as per the Manx Bat Group's Method Statement for Tree Inspection dated 16th November 2020, to allow for the preservation of a branched archway across the road and for mitigation planting to establish. We also request that the group of trees labelled G6 in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment, are retained, now that the site plans have changed and these trees do not need to be removed to allow for the placement

• of a number of houses - this will give greater protection to the land north of the railway line from the damaging impacts of artificial noise and lighting, and is preferable to new planting. The development must then by undertaken in accordance with these details.

• * The bat and bird box plan shall be undertaken as per the details provided in the Revised Bird Mitigation Plan - Drawing No. 203.02 Rev C and the Revised Bat Mitigation Plan - Drawing No. 203.01 (the most up-to date bird box plan is attached, as this did not seem to be available on the planning portal). The tree mounted bird boxes should be erected prior to the construction of any dwelling.
• * A plan for the re-roofing, creation of internal cavities and erection of bird boxes in the Tholtan, and the erection of protective fencing around the Tholtan, which is to be undertaken prior to the construction of any dwelling, should be submitted to Planning for written approval and the development undertaken in accordance with these details.
• * A long-term habitat enhancement and management plan for the fields to the north of the railway line and for field 132288 to the south of the railway line, shall be submitted to Planning for written approval prior to the occupation of any dwelling. The land shall then be managed in accordance with these details.
• * A habitat creation and long-term maintenance plan for the marginal, woodland, attenuation and wildflower meadow areas, as shown in the Revised Landscape Plan (Drawing No 01.06 Revision H), and the marshy grassland area at the north end of field 134282, shall be submitted to Planning for written approval prior to the occupation of any dwelling. The land shall that be managed in accordance with these details.
• * A detailed external low level lighting scheme, which is in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the BCT and ILP Guidance Note 8 Bats and Artificial Lighting (12th September 2018), to be submitted to and approved in writing by Planning prior to the installation of any lighting. The development shall then be undertaken in accordance with these details.
• * Planting shall be undertaken as per the Revised Landscape Plan (Drawing No 01.06 Revision

• H) and as per the Revised Planting Schedule (Miln_PAL-31@A1), though ideally with the additionally planting along the north of field 134282, as detailed above. Any changes to the landscaping must be submitted to Planning for written approval prior to being undertaken.

The Ecosystem Policy Team request that we are consulted on any proposed changes to the site plans or above conditions, as this could result in material adverse effects on protected species and species of highest conservation concern, and may result in our objection to these plans."

5.8 Manx National Heritage objects to the application on the following final grounds:

• 07.01.2022 "I write on behalf of Manx National Heritage ('MNH'), whose statutory responsibilities pertaining to the protection of the cultural and natural heritage of the Isle of Man are defined under the terms of the Manx Museum and National Trust Act.

The development referred to above has been changed from the previously stated 164 dwellings, which we understand from the amended application, is to reduce the risk of flooding. Our concerns for the loss of ecology, should this site be developed, are never the less still relevant.

The fields are currently managed as grazing meadows bordered by predominantly natively planted hedgerows and stands of mature trees. The trees support a number of Red Data listed birds (of greatest conservation concern) many of which are protected under the IOM Wildlife Act.

There are also a number of bat species associated with the area which has been described by the Manx Bat Group as being noteworthy for these animals. A bat roost has been in existence for some years, opposite the proposed development site, with bats frequently observed, in flight, during summer evenings.

We feel that the development of this site would result in a net loss for biodiversity and be contrary to the IOM Strategic Plan, Policy 4, 'proposals for development must protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation of urban and rural areas'. Also Action 21 of the IOM Biodiversity Strategy which supports a policy of 'no net loss of biodiversity for semi natural habitats and the species they support'."

5.9 Inland Fisheries (DEFA) do not object to the application subject to conditions and make the final comments:

• 21.04.2021 "A completed 'Development within 9m of a Watercourse' form has been received in relation to the above application. Fisheries, DEFA has no objection to this proposal providing the following conditions are met;

• o Any works to the watercourse bank and channel are restricted to the period July to September (inclusive). Reason: To avoid disturbance or injury to spawning fish, or to the spawn and fry of fish, during the season in which they are most at risk.
• o Any runoff from the construction site is managed. Reason: To negate sediment entering nearby water courses and avoid disturbance or injury to spawning fish, or to the spawn and fry
• of fish, during the season in which they are most at risk.
• o Works are conducted according to written method statements agreed in advance with the Inland Fisheries Section of the Fisheries Directorate, DEFA. Reason: to allow DEFA fisheries to provide advice on a suitable approach to construction, in order to reduce the possibility of injury
• or disturbance of fish within the river. The applicant is advised to contact Fisheries (tel. 685857, or email [email protected]) to discuss method statements and arrange an initial advisory site visit, should the proposal be granted planning approval."

5.10 Flood Risk Management Division (DOI) do not object to the application subject to conditions and make the final comments: 03.03.2022

"The Department of Infrastructure Flood Risk Management Division have now review the information regarding flood risk for this site and we are now satisfied with the information provided. The most recent information provide is stated below

Drawings

• 1. Drainage layout ADR-500 Rev F
• 2. Impermeable areas ADR-500/1 no rev
• 3. Impermeable areas ADR-500/3 no rev Calcs

• 1. Miln drainage check 08/02/22"

5.11 Highway Services Drainage (DOI) do not object to the application subject to conditions and make the final comments: "With reference to the drainage details listed below for the above application. DOI Highway Services are now satisfied with the highway drainage arrangements Drawings

• 1. Drainage layout ADR-500 Rev F
• 2. Impermeable areas ADR-500/1 no rev
• 3. Impermeable areas ADR-500/3 no rev Calcs

1. Miln drainage check 08/02/22"

5.12 Manx Bird Life make the following comments;

• 03.12.2020 "We note the Ecosystems Policy Officer's comments (2001080B CON Consultation 11 Ecosystem Policy Officer 29.10.2020 .pdf) on the above planning application with regards to "Birds": "Due to the potential impact on birds from the amount of trees to be removed and hedges to be impacted, we consider that the current level of assessment for birds is insufficient. In order to comply with the Wildlife Act 1990 and Environment Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, a bird survey should be undertaken across the entire site by a suitably qualified ecological consultancy and a report detailing the findings, including a mitigation plan for bird protection during and after the development, should be submitted to the Planning Directorate for approval prior to determination of this application. The survey should identify the species of birds using the site, how they use the site and whether and where they are nesting. Particular attention should be paid to Species listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife Act 1990." We fully support this requirement and would add the following additional comments:

• * The following two Schedule 1 species have a history of breeding within the proposed site: Song Thrush, Curlew.
• * Both these species are also Red-listed (BoCC 4) as being of the highest conservation concern.
• * We strongly urge that a bird survey is conducted during the breeding season April - July (NOT out of season, August to March), in order to ascertain the current breeding assemblage of the proposed site.
• * The site shows a historic breeding assemblage of 23 species comprising Red-, Amber- and Green-listed species. We are happy for the contents of this email to be publicly published on the planning portal."

17.07.2021 "Since our original correspondence (03 December 2020) in relation to this planning application, we have become aware of additional ornithological value held by the proposed development site. From at least two initial sources, followed by our own subsequent onsite investigations, we are now aware that:

• 1. Barn Owl (Schedule 1, BOCCIOM* 2021 Red listed): at least one bird, and probably one pair, holds a longstanding roosting site that is almost certainly also a traditional breeding site immediately adjacent to the proposed development site. In relation to this species, the development will:

• a. Deny the owls what appears to be a valuable hunting habitat that is ideally located in relation to the roosting/nesting site;
• b. Given its proximity, cause noise, light and other human related disturbances that undoubtedly will compromise this roosting/nesting site. Barn Owls are famously fastidious in their selection of nesting sites. Moreover, the choice of nesting sites on the Island is dwindling as more old buildings are being renovated and sealed against entry by wild birds and other animals. The decreasing availability of suitable nesting sites, especially those with prey rich proximal hunting grounds, is likely to be a significant limiting factor in the survival of Barn Owl as a native Manx breeding bird. Long eared Owl (Schedule 1, BOCCIOM* 2021 Red listed): has now been proven to nest immediately adjacent to the proposed development site, and very likely also use the site for hunting as well as having been proven to be used as a 'nursery ground' for the owl fledglings. The development will:

• a. Deny the owls what appears to be a valuable hunting habitat that is ideally situated for successfully hunting thus very likely bolstering the chances of breeding success at this site;
• b. Given its proximity, cause noise, light and other human related disturbances that will require the owls to find alternative hunting habitat (if indeed such habitat exists in close enough proximity). Consequently, the owls might cease to nest in this locality. We wish to add a further point, that development along the Sulby River floodplain will prevent any future re-evaluation of the ecological worth of the floodplain and any potential future restoration of its lost biodiversity therefrom. In a national context, the Sulby River provides an extremely rare (if not unique) example of a large alluvial plain with significant potential for ecological restoration and re-establishment of priority species such as Curlew, Lapwing, Teal and more. In conclusion, we ask that:

• 1. You consider the above further findings and comments in your analysis.
• 2. The information relating to the breeding and hunting presence of the two owl species is kept confidential to those involved in the decision making process and is not made publicly known due to sensitivities concerning these two species.

*Please note that BOCCIOM 2021 relates to Birds of Conservation in the Isle of Man 2021, a major new assessment of the state of Manx wild birds by Manx BirdLife, which is to be published in British Birds journal in September 2021. BOCCIOM 2021 provides the definitive update on the results of the Manx Bird Atlas project."

5.13 Former MHK for Ayre & Michael (Minister Baker at the time of writing) makes comments in his constituency role as Member of the House of Keys for Ayre and Michael following a number of relevant concerns which have been expressed by my constituents regarding this proposed development. These are as follows:

• * Highway Matters

• o significant additional volumes of vehicle movements will be generated by the development, due to its size, location and proposed access arrangements;
• o the position of the access to Lezayre Road creates a significant safety risk, particular given the visibility issues around the bend when heading eastbound on Lezayre Road;
• o these issues are magnified by the speed of traffic travelling past the development site in what is a 50mph area, combined with vehicles exiting the development from a stationary position; o the single point of access to the development is inappropriate and inadequate for such a large development, particularly given its location on the TT course;
• o the position of the access will have an adverse impact on neighbouring residents, particularly those on the other side of Lezayre Road opposite the development; o the resulting higher traffic volumes and lack of suitable footways along Lezayre Road will increase the risk to pedestrians, particularly children walking to and from school.

• Flooding and drainage

• o flood risk arising from the proximity of the development to the Sulby River, particularly as climate changes and we experience more extreme weather events;
• o increased built development will potentially increase surface water run-off and reduce the capacity of the ground to absorb rainfall;

• o concerns that the development will lead to a raising of groundwater levels, particularly with an impact on drainage from the properties opposite the site, a number of which I understand do not have mains drainage;
• o adequacy of drainage and sewage arrangements from the development site and concerns
• over the ability of the local infrastructure to cope, given its age and capacity constraints.

• Environment and other o adverse impact on wildlife and biodiversity; o visual intrusion into the countryside, outside the existing built environment of Ramsey;

• lack of need for the development given the existing sites for residential development still available in West Ramsey.

5.14 A number of private representations have been received from the following addresses who have objected to the application:

• * Lynfield, Hillberry Road, Onchan (04.07.2021);
• * Lower Ballakaighin, Ramsey Road, Peel (25.10.2020);
• * Sunnymeade, Lezayre Road, Ramsey (19.10.2020);
• * Ballameanagh, Glen Auldyn, Ramsey (12.11.2020);
• * Fernside, Glen Auldyn, Ramsey (12.10.2020);
• * Ivy Cottage, Gardeners Lane, Ramsey (06.07.2021);
• * Lheaney Ballakerka, Clenagh Road, Sulby (21.10.2020 & 25.11.2020);
• * Woodland, Grove Mount West, Ramsey (01.02.2021 & 27.04.2021);
• * Glen End, Lezayre Road, Lezayre (22.10.2020, 06.03.2021 & 28.04.2021;
• * Hilton, Stanley Mount West, Ramsey (10.10.2021);
• * 47 Lezayre Park, Ramsey (21.10.2020, 25.11.2020, 18.03.2021, 25.04.2021, 12.07.2021, 27.09.2021, 29.11.2021, 09.01.2022 & 22.03.2022);
• * Scacafel, Lezayre Road, Lezayre (22.10.2020);
• * Ballakillingan Farm, Churchtown, Ramsey (21.10.2020, 22.10.2020, 03.03.2021, 28.04.2021, 06.05.2021 & 14.01.2022);
• * Freshfield, Glen Auldyn, Ramsey (22.10.2020, 29.04.2021 & 05.07.2021);
• * Underhill, Lezayre Road, Lezayre (22.10.2020 & 28.04.2021);
• * 9 Ballaterson Road, Peel (05.07.2021);
• * 45 Waterloo Road, Ramsey (16.07.2021 & 19.07.2021);
• * Belfry House, 17 Brookfield Avenue, Ramsey (07.10.2020);
• * 2 Glen View, South Cape, Laxey (17.11.2020 & 30.04.2021);

5.15 Full details of the comments can be viewed on the Planning Departments Website. In the summary the objections are summarised as;

• * Infrastructure in Ramsey isn't conducive to further developments of this site, including local amenities, school, medical etc.;
• * Is a site of this size really needed;
• * It extends on to land that is very clearly countryside and that can be admired as being countryside by passers-by on a busy road;
• * Use up existing town spaces/renovate/rebuild in town before stretching out into the countryside;
• * Planning approval on this site was previously refused;
• * Highway safety concerns of new access onto; Lezayre Road, where traffic is at high speed;
• * once the countryside fields are built on, there is no going back;
• * Lezayre Road also already struggles daily with traffic often backed up as far as Parliament Square and gardeners Lane from the schools particularly at opening and closing times;
• * The proposal doesn't comply with the West Ramsey Development Framework 2004;
• * Curlews, a rare and protected bird nest in adjacent fields to site which will be impacts by light pollution, noise, cats & dogs;
• * The Auldyn River has always acted as an excellent barrier between Town & Country;
• * The traffic survey was undertaken in winter when traffic speeds are lower; very few vehicles travel below 50mph;

• * Loss of flood plains with concrete and tarmac will result in massive surface runoff into Sulby River inserted of fields;
• * Brown field sites in Ramsey should be developed first;
• * The proposed development breaks natural drainage from Sky Hill to the Auldyn and Sulby rivers and is partly on and adjacent to areas recently defined as at high risk of fluvial flood;
• * the proposed access route is that it introduces a significant volume of additional vehicular and pedestrian traffic to a busy main road on the TT course immediately beyond a blind bend at a known accident blackspot;
• * There is no footpath on the South side of the road and the footpath to the North is narrow and in poor condition although widening and re-laying is proposed by the Applicant. This would still not allow safe access to the footpath from existing residents to the South;
• * There is a bat colony present in the protected trees on either side of the road in front of the proposed site and the impact on it would be severe;
• * Any mitigation to this flood risk on the site would obviously displace groundwater to the adjacent area we live in and to the residential area in the lower part of Glen Auldyn;
• * any rise in water table would lead to our soakaways backing up and failing;
• * note the change to the proposed access route which makes it marginally safer but does not mitigate the impact of massively increased traffic to the Lezayre Road and the local schools;
• * Harmful effect of this proposed development on Wildlife and Farming;
• * The 1991 Review of the 1982 Plan states it is no longer considered appropriate for development due to its importance as a Buffer Zone" (i.e. effectively Green Belt) "between the built environment of Ramsey and the area of Sky Hill.";
• * These fields are very good Agricultural Land;
• * You should also bear in mind that while fields affected by ground water can be kept in good heart by field drainage and mole ploughing, this is not remotely possible if the said fields are covered in houses and roads;
• * The TT Course as the sole access for 181 new houses is unsatisfactory, as when the road is closed, not only is access denied for vehicular and pedestrian traffic but also for any emergency vehicles which may need to access any one of the 181 houses;
• * he present Island Footpath Network is impossible to maintain, it is really most ungenerous of the developer to add to this burden on the Highways Board in order to enhance the visual attractions of his scheme;
• * The West Ramsey Development Framework states that the access to the site was proposed via a new road from a new roundabout on Gardeners Lane. It was also stipulated that before any development West of Gardeners Lane (let alone beyond the Glen Auldyn River) a "Distributor Road" must be provided to link Gardeners Lane, North of the old railway line with the centre of Ramsey. This road has still not been started;
• * None of the environmental surveys make any mention of adjoining land and we as neighbouring landowners were not made aware of any surveys nor were we ever approached. Had we been approached, we would have pointed out that there is a fenced off Conservation Area in the field South-West of the boundary of the area of this application (field 134285) where for many years Curlew have successfully nested;
• * This proposed building site is more than half a kilometre beyond the existing urban areas West of the Town in the remaining "Dark Sky" of the Island;
• * The site immediately adjoins an area described on the 1982 development plan as being of "high landscape or coastal value and scenic significance;
• * It is now proposed to completely remove over 500 feet of trees and hedgerow on the South edge of the site. This proposed removal of historic and characteristically un-manicured Manx hedgerow is apparently justified as an improvement to the entrance;
• * The Consultation for the forthcoming area plan for the North and West of the Island has now started. In the light of this Consultation, any decision to approve this application would be premature and very worrying;
• * The existing population projection and its related future housing needs is now considered out of date and an overestimate;
• * The developers' clear wish to get their application approved in advance of adverse findings by the current Area Plan Consultation, we trust will be firmly resisted;

• * Comment is needed on the bird and bat survey, technical notes and mitigations. These creatures will undoubtedly be decimated by the removal of hedgerow and the loss of the wild space and wetland such an intensive housing development would replace, not to mention the light pollution at night, affecting every wild and farm animal and the environment they rely on to survive;
• * There will be noise, light at night, dogs and cats and general human activity and we know many house owners would not tolerate the bird mess created by any bird brave enough to nest in such an intensive housing site;
• * Section 11.2 of the 1982 IOM Development Plan requires to give regard when consider whether to approval of additional land for the use applied would be premature by virtue of there being land elsewhere with approval which is not yet developed for such use of the proposal would not form an extension of an existing developed area; has all the sites within the town be exhausted if not this application should fail; also site is clearly separate from the present built up area;
• * Further the 1982 references "Sequential" approach to the provision of new housing be undertaken;
• * The IOM appointed JBA consulting to prioritise list of locations at risk from flooding and a key recommendation was made which was the resulting strategy should be used to inform future investments and planning decisions at all scales, West Ramsey is identified as an area at risk of flooding;
• * The Strategic Plan seeks to prevent the loss of nature flood plain and to guide development away from areas at risk from flooding;
• * It cannot be acceptable to apply mitigation to this site and increase risk to existing properties in area;
• * Contrary to general Policy 2 (L) i.e. is not subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding;
• * It would appear premature to approve the development of a further 164 homes on "Greenfield" land before the Area Plans and most up to date informed position has been received;
• * It appears that no consideration has been given to provide for emergency access/egress during known sporting events road closures;
• * Within Chapter 7 Environment of National Strategy Evidence Report it states; There may be serious consequences for some parts of the Island's coastline and inland areas particularly those areas at low level and close to natural flood plains as well as other areas which are prone to erosion, particularly the north west and north east coastlines. All areas known to be subject to flooding will be shown on Area Plans;
• * Pedestrian safety concerns;
• * Traffic during rush hour is fast on this section of the TT course, and during TT and Manx Grand Prix it can take in excess of 5 minutes to safely exit the driveway, The sweeping bends approaching the house from Sky Hill encourage speed and the straight out of Ramsey offers good visibility which encourages vehicles to speed and frequently overtake before the bend at Pinfold Cottage;
• * There is a local bat colony that roosts in a neighbour's house and in the hedgerow immediately opposite the house. However, this development will lead to the removal of an existing roosting site, when established hedgerows are cleared to create sight lines for the proposed intersection, and significant disturbance to another as a result of associated light pollution;
• * It is recognised that these fields are zoned for development, and the beauty of this rural area and wildlife would be very much missed. However, the existing zoning indicated on the 2004 West Ramsey Development Framework explicitly states that vehicle access to the estate should be via a new roadway to the north of the development, with no provisions for vehicle access directly onto Lezayre Road;
• * The revised planning application does address the positioning of the access road which was of serious concern to us; the proposed alternative would be welcomed;
• * Climate change models all predict a high chance of increased flooding; no modelling has been completed for information, or flood risk assessment provided as part of the application;

• * We met with a Dandara representative on 21st October 2020 along with residents of the other affected households in the area to discuss the safety concerns we all have regarding the position of the access to the proposed new estate; however we still do not feel that our safety entering and exiting our property is being considered fully;
• * The Dandara representative agreed that there is an issue with speed and visibility on this section of Lezayre Road and acknowledged that due to no pedestrian pavement being available on the Sky Hill side (south) of Lezayre road, safety measures and a permanent speed limit reduction to 30mph will be imposed before any construction works commence;
• * There is a prohibition order that forbids new estate access on to the TT Course however this seems to have been overlooked by the developer;
• * We proposed they revert back to the original access plan as noted in the framework plan at the north side of the development. This was immediately dismissed as Dandara are unable to change the access route due to funding unless the Government are prepared to fund it. We therefore feel that the developer's profits are more important than the safety of all road users and pedestrians;
• * There are also owls that hunt in the area that may also be disturbed and lost by further residential expansion;
• * We have a bat colony living in the roof space of our house and they exit to the roost is directly in line where car headlights will be pointing when exiting the proposed junction to the new estate and it has also been pointed out by the developer that the junction will be illuminated with street lighting that will cause further light pollution. We are very concerned that the bats may abandon their young;
• * We do not object to the development, but we object to the access point, not only for the safety of other cars and pedestrians but ultimately they are denying us safe access to a pavement and by complicating access to our driveway, the developer is denying us safe and lawful use of our land;
• * Will increase urban sprawl out of Ramsey;
• * The impressive scenery as you drive through Ballakillingan and Milntown resembles a great park and it is the Manx countryside at its best and should be retained;
• * The latest census data demonstrates that no new further residential developments are required in the north;
• * The Area Plan for the East revealed that 'housing need; as defined in the Strategic Plan is woefully out of date and therefore the housing needed defined in Housing Policy 3 us incorrect, only 2,718 households are required rather than 5,100;
• * Housing Policy 3 indicates that 15% of these households are required in the north which equates to 408 households between 2011 and 2026 in the north, the Residential Land Availability Study states that 407 approvals have occurred in the north for 2011 (490 households if windfall sites are included) and therefore the housing need has already been provided;
• * Environment Policy 1 seek the countryside is protected for its own sake;
• * The Strategic Plan, mandates that a sequential approach is applied to development, such as brownfield sites must be used first to meet any housing need;
• * Proposal is detrimental to the UNESCO's biosphere objectives;
• * The Strategic Plan is contrary to Strategic Aim mandate - in this context there is evidence that indicates there is no present need for the proposed development, while the development degrades the natural environment this compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs;
• * Greenfield development should not be permitted where there is no evidence need and alternative sites closer to or within existing urban locations;
• * Contrary to the agreed phasing of the Ramsey Development Framework;
• * Loss of a site of a nationally important battle is inexcusable when other options for development exist;
• * Planning Circular 3.92 states Manx hedges should be retained;
• * There has been no effort taken to measure the embodied carbon cost (in terms of construction and raw materials) and lifetime carbon footprint of the proposed development;
• * This road is not built for this large volume (300cars/vans from this development everyday);

• * Reducing the number of dwellings makes no difference;
• * Travelling out along this road is the start if the green area and surely we should not be developing on these precious pieces of land;
• * I note that this application is 'justified' in terms of population and housing predictions made by Isle of Man Government, predictions that have already been severely challenged in the draft Area Plan for the East in the light of the fact that their basis is not supported by population figures obtained at the 2016 Census;
• * The need for this housing in Ramsey is not otherwise justified or proven in terms of Ramsey itself;
• * As such the development at this time represents an isolated cul-de-sac in the countryside unrelated to existing development and likely to cause problems to existing Lezayre Road highway users particularly in the absence of any link to bypass the latter when it is in use as the TT race course;
• * Moreover to proceed out of phase now with this amount of housing without any commensurate employment development is prejudicial to the proper consideration of the Area Plan for the North and West now in the course of preparation;
• * In terms of the landscape in particular from the A10 Mountain Road it will appear isolated and out of keeping with the landscape. There is no justification for taking the site out of agricultural use;
• * The Auldyn river and its tree lined banks forms a natural boundary to Ramsey Town. There is no substantive reason to breech that natural boundary;
• * This is backed up, demographically and in terms of housing need, by the recently published initial Publicity for the Area Plan for the North and West, which reveals that there is not real need for additional housing in the above Area, certainly until the year 2026;
• * Albeit the access point has been relocated, the amended plans still show the loss of most of the trees on the northern side of the Lezayre Road along the boundary;
• * Site will entirely depend on car travel;
• * The area proposed for this development is in a beautiful area and will be detrimental to the environment;
• * The houses built will end up in the hands of private investors and will be priced out of reach for the first time buyer and average couple;
• * There needs to be better managed house building that is affordable and accessible to people who want to get on the property ladder;
• * Stop property being snapped up by investors who in turn rent them out to people at extortionate rates. It's time for the Island to face up to there being a housing shortage and we are going about it the wrong way;
• * Loss of trees due to cable positions;
• * Vegetation along boundaries being removed;
• * Moving the access doesn't overcome the highway safety concerns;
• * Housing not in keeping with the area;
• * Impact on wildlife and nature would be devastating;
• * Our government (Island Plan) have expressed that there should be more developments on brown field sites rather than on good quality green field site which are also good quality farm land;
• * Using attenuation basins on this development would be a signal that the developers have now acknowledged that this area is on a flood plain;
• * 2nd January 2022 saw the Bird Society record 46 species of birds including 9 new species in and around this development area;
• * Who will maintain attention basin;
• * IOM has pledged to protect climate change and protect nature yet developers want to destroy this piece of nature;
• * There are 500 empty properties in the IOM;
• * The land is low lying and land is constantly wet;

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

- 6.1 APPROACH TO ASSESSMENT

• 6.1.1 Given the land-use designation and the type of development the following elements are relevant to consideration in the determination of this application:

• (a) Principle of development;
• (b) The potential impact upon the visual amenities of the area, including tree loss;
• (c) Potential impact upon neighbouring amenities;
• (d) Potential impact upon highway safety / Parking provision / Travel Options;
• (e) Potential drainage/flooding issues;
• (f) Potential impacts upon ecology;
• (g) Affordable housing provision;
• (h) Open space provision; and
• (i) Archaeology interest

6.2 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT (Strategic Policy 1, 2, 5, Spatial Policy 3, General Policy 2 & 3, Environment Policy 43, Housing Policy 1, 4 & 6, Business Policy 9 & 10, Recreation Policy

• 2 , 3, 4 & 5, Community Policy 1, 2, 10 & 11)

• 6.2.1 The first and one of the main issues relating to this application is the principle of residential development on this site, namely on fields 134282 and 134284. As outlined within the planning policy section of this report the relevant fields are proposed for residential development under the IOM Development Plan 1982 Order which has been in force for 40 years. The 1982 Development Plan was the Isle of Man's first statutory Development Plan to be approved by Tynwald. This remains in operation until such time as it, or parts of it are replaced by new Area Plans.

• 6.2.2 Since this time the Ramsey Local Plan has been adopted in 1998 and while this designated land to the north of fields 134282 and 134284, the boundaries of the Ramsey Local Plan do not include the above two fields.
• 6.2.3 In 2004 the West Ramsey Development Framework (WRDF) was published by the Department (not approved by Tynwald) following consultation. This document constitutes as supplementary planning guidance which is in accordance with the Ramsey Local Plan and to which the Department will have regard in the determination of planning applications submitted in relation to the West Ramsey area. This approach is outlined within paragraph 1.3 of the WRDF. The WRDF was written to provide an overall development framework for the development of the application site and surrounding land i.e. essentially gave a Development Brief for whole area and possible phasing of development
• 6.2.4 The WRDF does state: "Beyond the Town boundary to the west, in the Parish if Lezayre, there is further land zoned for development on the 1982 Development Plan. This development is not expected to take place before that within Ramsey, but the Development Framework has been prepared so as to be capable of accommodating, if necessary, further development to the west in the long term."
• 6.2.5 However, soon after 2004 when the WRDF was approved, Manx Utilities who at that time had responsibility for producing flood maps, produced such maps (updated since this time) which demonstrated that large parts of the WRDF sites where within High Risk Flood Zones, namely the land to the north of the Former Railway Line (Areas 1, 3, 6, 7 & 5 on the WRDF). Accordingly, the Framework which sought large scale development throughout the West Ramsey area is now within high flood risk areas, where there is generally a presumption against such development (Environment Policy 13).
• 6.2.6 Accordingly, from the information now known, in terms of the high flood risk implications it is unlikely that the aims of the West Ramsey Development Framework are likely to be fully achievable given the significant flood implications. The majority of approvals to date have been isolated to Areas 2 (outside flood area) and 4 (completed before the flood maps where produced). The current application site which proposes residential development is one of the lasts parts of the WRDF area to be developed which is not within a High Risk Flood Zone.

• 6.2.7 For information and given a number of comments have raised that the site should not be accesses from a new access, but from a new distributor road to the east of the site. The West Ramsey Development Framework did include the potential for a distributor road (please see Section 17.0 Phasing). Paragraph 17.2 states: "The development of areas 2, 3 & 4 as shown on the key diagram, must include highway and infrastructure to support the level of development proposed and make provision to ensure that the distribution road links into the development of area 1, as shown on the key diagram, and the remaining land to the west of the Auldyn River, as noted ass 5 & 6 on the key diagram."
• 6.2.8 To connect the application site to the rest of the WRDF area to the east, this would require a new road from the proposed new housing through parts of the fields to the north of the former railway line (though high flood risk areas) and a road bridge across the Sulby River to the existing estate road north of Auldyn Walk.
• 6.2.9 In the public forum (Public consultation event) potential plans to develop Area 1 of the WRDF for mixed development were shown which would include a distributor road. No application has been made on this site and therefore this has no planning weight at this time. However, this current planning application would not prevent such distributor road being constructed; albeit the current proposed development would not be connected to it.
• 6.2.10 Accordingly, while the West Ramsey Development Framework is a material consideration, the facts are that given the flood issues which have a risen since its approval in 2004, there are limitations/significant difficulties to fully achieving the aims of this document, which essentially where a guide to how the area could be developed. It is not considered the application should fail on the grounds that it does not fully accord with the West Ramsey Development Framework for the reason given.
• 6.2.11 since the adoption of the IOM Development Plan 1982 Order the Isle of Man Strategic Plan has been adopted (June 2007 & 1st April 2016). Within this document Strategic Policies 1 & 2 require that new dwellings be located within existing sustainable settlements. Spatial Policy 2 also indicated that outside Douglas development will be concentrated on a total of five Service Centres to provide regeneration and choice of location for housing, employment and services, one of these service centres is Ramsey. The site where the housing is proposed isn't within the settlement of Ramsey, the sites to the north and east are however within the boundary of Ramsey; it is within the Parish of Lezayre. It does immediately adjoin the boundaries of Ramsey and it is noted that Ramsey sought to incorporate the site within the Ramsey Boundary Extension Report 2020. However, currently as mentioned, the site is within the Parish of Lezayre and not within an established settlement (i.e. Sulby etc.).
• 6.2.12 In terms of housing need, more recently the update to the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 has been undertaken and adopted, which identified that a total of 770 new dwellings is required to be provided between the years of 2011 to 2026 in the north of the Island alone. Given Ramsey is regarded as the main Service Centre in the north of the Island, it is reasonable to consider the majority of these dwellings are likely to be provided in Ramsey, especially given designated residential land is still available under the Ramsey Local Plan which was adopted in

1. Having said this, the part of the application site which accommodates the proposed dwellings is not within Ramsey.

• 6.2.13 It is noted that the Preliminary Publicity for the Area Plan for the North and West of the island has been undertaken. This initial document (pre-draft plan is prepared) comments that housing need has been met in the North and West and therefore no further allocation is required for additional housing. The Preliminary Publicity does comment that strategic reserves may need to be identified to build in flexibility to meet the need identified within the Strategic Plan. If appropriate, these figures will be reviewed in the light of the 2021 Census figures, prior to the Public Inquiry for the Area Plan for the North and West (planned to be adopted by

• Tynwald in 2023). As the Area Plan for the North and West is at its infancy; in terms of the process it is required to adhere too, it therefore has very little, material planning weight attached to it.
• 6.2.14 However, whether the site will or won't be designated for development in any future area plan for the North & West, the fact remains it is still designated today under the IOM Development Plan Order 1982. Accordingly, as with other recent approvals for new housing in the North of the Island recently (Jurby, Andreas & Sulby), the Department must base its decision on current extant planning policy which currently designated the majority of the site for development, and namely fields 134282 and 134284 for proposed residential development. Accordingly, given the above reason it is consider the principle of developing fields 134282 and 134284 for residential purposes is acceptable. This is not an automatic reason to allow development as further material planning matters as indicated previously need to be considered, to determine if 138 dwellings on the site are appropriate.

- 6.3 THE POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON THE VISUAL AMENITIES OF THE AREA, INCLUDING TREE LOSS

• 6.3.1 In terms of the potential impacts upon the visual amenities of the area, it is considered the development will be publically visible from a number of locations along the Lezayre Road to the south and from the former railway line (this section is not a public footpath) which runs through the application site, and along the northern boundary of fields 134282 and 134284 which would accommodate the new dwellings. East views of Pinfold Cottage
• 6.3.2 There are perhaps two sections along Lezayre Road; the first runs from Pinfold Cottage to the east towards the junction of Glen Auldyn road and Lezayre Road meet and the second area from Pinfold Cottage in a westerly direction along the Lezayre Road.
• 6.3.3 From the first area, this is arguable one of the areas which will change significantly, namely given the loss of the roadside trees. Issues on the ecology impacts by this loss will be considered later in this report. However, from a visual impact no one should be under any illusion that the impact will be significant. The applicants Arboricultural Impact Assessment states: "…will result in significant visual impact and loss of canopy cover…". The main reason for the loss of the road side trees which are designated as "G1" and 4 addition trees (T1, T2, T3 & T4) within the submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA), is to provide the required visibility splays for the new access onto the Lezayre Road. Within this group; plus the additional 4 trees, there are a total of 38 trees to be removed, made up of Category U and C trees and being 24 Ash trees, 12 Wych Elm and 2 Sycamore. While individually the trees are not highly rated, as a group "G1" they have an overall Category B rating. Unfortunately, the majority of the Ash trees (21) have been identified of possible Ash Die Back Disease and therefore irrespective of this current planning application is like need to be removed/die in the next 2 to 5 years. Within this same group there are also 6 trees which are U category and recommended to be removed now for good management (5 Ash & 1 Wych Elm). Accordingly, whether this development proceeds or not, there is likely to be significant changes in the visual appearance of this section of Lezayre Road due to tree loss in the coming years. Further, the removal of any hedgerow does not require planning permission or a tree felling licence. Of course the proposal would be still require the removal of approximately 11 Wych Elm and 2 Sycamore which otherwise may not need to be removed to facilitate the development along the road side.
• 6.3.4 The Department sough additional questions to the Forestry Division asking if all the Ash trees were removed due to Ash Dieback how would this affect the remaining trees (11 Wych Elm and 2 Sycamore) and would they survive or given they would be more exposed would they potentially die anyway. In response the Forestry Division commented; "If the development did not go ahead it is likely that the ash trees would be removed more gradually. This would allow other trees amongst them to adapt to the increased exposure, so

• they would spend a better chance of being able to be retained. The elms, however, are at high risk from Dutch elm disease. The disease is rampant in this area at the moment and if resources are limited next year our efforts to control the disease are likely be focussed in other areas (where we have a better chance of success). So overall the prognosis for this row of trees is pretty poor in the long term."
• 6.3.5 Due to this tree loss this will open the site more and the proposed dwellings will be visible from this section of Lezayre Road. Part of the application includes new tree planting along the road side (where currently group G1 mainly exists) which is made up 30 trees ranging (mainly 18 Sessile Oak 3 to 4m in height (14 to 16 cm in girth) and a mixture of Gean/Wild Cherry, Beech, Silver Birch & Pedunculate Oak). A hedgerow is also proposed to be planted along this roadside section of the site (behind visibility splays).
• 6.3.6 With these trees in place there will be some mitigation planting, albeit will take a number of years to be as established as the current roadside trees. The dwellings are set back into the site (min 21+ metres from the pubic highway) and the dwelling on plots 1 to 14 (southerly most section closest to Lezayre Road) are single storey bungalows.
• 6.3.7 When viewing the site from the area around the junction of Glen Auldyn Road and the new access to the site views are more open and look towards the full extent of the western boundary of the site. The existing mature hedgerow will certainly mitigate the lower/mid parts of any dwelling along the western boundary (19 dwellings face this boundary) given the height of the hedges. However, the upper parts of the dwellings along this western boundary which are made up of single dwelling and two storey dwellings will be apparent, especially the two storey dwellings. There is new roadside planting to either side of the new entrance to the site which will also help mitigate the visual impact of dwellings from this area of Lezayre Road. However, partial views of the dwellings along this boundary will be apparent; albeit from a distance across the neighbouring undeveloped field 134281 (east of application site). West views of Pinfold Cottage
• 6.3.8 The second area of interest i.e. from Pinfold Cottage in a westerly direction along the Lezayre Road, the application site is set below that of Lezayre Road. Further, the proposal does not involve any works within the adjacent Field 134285 and this will remain this agricultural field between the development site and Lezayre Road. Furthermore, the existing mature hedgerows along the southern boundary of the site will remain and be reinforced with additional planting. The westerly most dwellings (plots 80 to 84) would be detached bungalows. When viewing from this area of interest (Lezayre Road) the new dwellings, namely the two and two storey with dormer accommodation, will be apparent, albeit given the existing and proposed landscaping the ground floors of these properties would be screened. However, the upper sections will be apparent, albeit at a distance of approximately 160m (dwelling on plot 50) and 225m (dwelling on plot 80) to the nearest points on Lezayre Road.
• 6.3.9 Overall, in relation to the visual impact from the various views from Lezayre Road towards the site; the applicants have considered the visual impact from these sections of Lezayre Road and have tried to mitigate the visual impact. The setback of the dwellings to the eastern, southern and western boundaries of the site which in turn has helped in turn retain the majority of existing mature boundary landscaping to the existing fields which provide a good level of initial screening of the site, with new landscaping proposed in and around the boundaries of the site to reinforce the existing or replace landscaping lost, namely roadside trees to southerly most point of site. Further, the level differences of the site and Lezayre Road (site is generally lower) will help reduce the visual impact and the heights of dwellings, namely along the southern boundary being in large part bungalows along the boundaries will also help mitigate any harm.
• 6.3.10 Further, it is perhaps worthy to note that currently when travelling along this section of Lezayre Road from a Sulby direction (easterly towards Ramsey) the area is characterised by agricultural fields to the north and south, then Pinfold Cottage (albeit unoccupied) to the

northern side of Lezayre Road (adjacent to application site) and the six detached bungalows are located to the southern side of Lezayre Road opposite the application site. Once these properties are past there is the Milntown Estate and industrial/commercial buildings which are all at the edge of Ramsey Town Boundary and currently the end/start of built development.

Former railway line views

• 6.3.11 It is noted that the former railway isn't currently a public right of way. Visiting the site it was noted that currently the former railway line to the north of the site is overgrown and impassable. This can be overcome; however, more difficult is the land (former railway line) to the east and west of the site is land outside the applicant's control (Manx Utilities & potentially Lower Milntown Farm). Further a new pedestrian bridge would need to be installed over the Sulby River. Therefore there isn't current a public right of way from this area of the former railway line to the Gardners Lane entrance to the former railway line which has just been upgraded. However, whilst there are no public views currently from the former railway line; given there maybe the potential for it to become one; it is considered worth of consideration now.
• 6.3.12 There are no dwellings proposed immediately adjacent to the former railway line (northern boundary of development site) and the existing mature landscaping along the northern/railway line boundaries would be retained. There is also new landscaping proposed along section of the development site. Again the setback position of dwelling, existing and proposed landscaping along the boundaries of the railway line will all help reduce the visual impact of the development from these views. However, given the level of development it cannot be argued there wouldn't be any visual impact, there will. However, given the above and layout of the new housing development it is not considered the visual impacts would be so great to warrant a refusal.
• 6.3.13 Overall, the fact remains the site which is currently made up of agricultural fields and therefore characterised as a parcel of undeveloped land on the outskirts of Ramsey will visual change significantly to a residential housing development and arguably will appear more as an urban extension of the settlement of Ramsey; albeit the Ramsey town boundary is 200m to the east of the new access of the application site. However, visually the works will appear as an extension, which is presumed why the site was designated for development. The appearance of housing development on the edge of a settlement boundary is not new; this has occurred a number of occasions, specifically in this area when the new housing was constructed at Greenlands Avenue, Greenlands Park, Greenland View and Lezayre Park a few decades ago; hence again why the land has been designated in the past. It would clearly have been considered and accepted that designating this land for development would consequently change the character of the existing agricultural fields to housing development; albeit this is not an automatic reason to approve the application and it still needs to be considered whether the visual impact is appropriate. However, for the reasons indicated within this section of the report; it is considered the design, layout, landscaping and housing sizes/types all ensure the works would not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape townscape and would respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them complying with General Policy 2.

- 6.4 POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON NEIGHBOURING AMENITIES

• 6.4.1 The residential properties potentially most impacted by the development would be those immediately to the south of the site (Glen Link, Altadale, Underhill, Scacafel, Glen End & Conway) and Lower Milntown Farm to the northeast of the housing development site.
• 6.4.2 Generally, the main issues relating to the impacts upon residential amenities are; overbearing impacts upon outlooks, loss of light, and or loss or privacy. In relation to these aspects, it is considered given the distance the new properties would be from any of these neighbouring properties, landscaping (new/existing) between and layout, design and siting of

• the new dwellings, it is not considered the proposed development from theses respects would have any significant impact to warrant a refusal.
• 6.4.3 There was initial concern (traffic coming and going and car lights) of the new access to the site being directly opposite the neighbouring property "Underhill" to the south of the site. However, following discussions between the applicants and neighbours this was moved to its current position, with the access/exit point being opposite an agricultural field.
• 6.4.4 It should be noted any loss of view, impacts through construction period or impacts upon the value of a property is not a material planning consideration which can be considered as part of this assessment.
• 6.4.5 Overall, whilst the proposed development will have an impacts upon existing neighbouring properties, it is considered for the reasons given the proposed development would not having an significant impacts upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties and therefore comply with General Policy 2 of the IOMSP.

- 6.5 POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON HIGHWAY SAFETY / PARKING PROVISION / TRAVEL OPTIONS

• 6.5.1 The proposal upgrades an existing field gate entrance with a new two lane access road. The proposed access would have visibility splays of 2.4m x 90m in an easterly direction (Ramsey) and 2.4m x 160m in western direction (towards Sulby).
• 6.5.2 Firstly the potential highway implications by the development on the existing highway, the applicants provided a detailed Transport Statement as part of their application, prepared by Bryan G Hall Consulting Civil & Transportation Planning Engineers. The submission also includes a Travel Plan which comments on transports links to and from the site.
• 6.5.3 The submission also mentions how the Former Railway Line will be upgraded to accommodate cycle and pedestrian link; albeit noting that it is not connected into the remainder of the local transport network at present; albeit it notes the IOM Government has aspirations to provide a pedestrian and cycle link along the remainder of the former railway. However, the upgraded works proposed (cutting back overgrowing hedgerows and creation of a 3m wide route, will ensure this will be in place should the other part soft hew former railway line be connected. They plan also indicated that all internal roads are designed for low speed 20mph and shared surfaces 15mph.
• 6.5.4 The Plan refers to and considered the IOM Active Travel Strategy and the applicants Travel Plan proposes to implement measures which support the strategy. The Plan also indicates that the site being within 2km of Ramsey Town Centre, schools and facilities are all within the ideally range when a person is will to walk for the specific purpose and therefore it is more people will walk rather than use a car. Further the site is within a 5km catchment of Ramsey and therefore again it has been demonstrated (UK Development for the Environment Publication 1996) that journeys by cycling within 5km are more likely to occur. For reference Ramsey Town Hall is approximately 1.2km from the site. The Travel Plan also identifies that the existing bus stop (Lezayre Road junction with Glen Auldyn) is within walking distance of the site and a number of bus services stop at this location on an hourly bases (2hrs in evening and weekends).
• 6.5.5 The applicants indicate to consider the success of the Travel Plan, a Travel Plan Co0rdinator will be appointed by Dandara Homes (applicant's) to ensure the Travel Plan is fully implemented and will be in place before the site is marketed to travel information is made available on promotional literature. To measure this, an initial Resident's Travel Survey will be undertaken upon full occupation of the site in order to determine baseline travel patterns and the date collected will be used to identify appropriate Travel Plan model split targets in consultation with the IOM Government. The targets will be included on a updated version of

• the Travel Plan with aims to increase awareness among residents of the advantages of an potential for travel by environmentally friendly modes of travel and health benefits, to reduce the number of single occupancy car trips; and to encourage residents to adopt sustainable modes of travel for journeys to and from the site. This Plan will include a "Welcome Travel Pack" for watch new residents, promote car sharing website, provide pedestrian access to the site (improvement of footpath along Lezayre Road), and a Travel Plan Coordinator to manage and implement the Travel Plan.
• 6.5.6 Highway Services have considered the application in details and their detailed comments can be read in full on the planning website. In summary they have considered the applicants Transport Statement and relevant plans which considered; visibility splays and tracking, Travel Plan, Road Safety Audit Stage 1, the forward and junction visibilities and amendments to the swept paths within the site to ensure bin wagons/fire appliances can access and manoeuvre in the site and therefore complying with Community Policy 10.
• 6.5.7 In terms of highway safety, the main area of concern raised an access onto the Lezayre Road. Highways Services have considered this aspect commenting (28.04.2021); "Visibility splays on exit are to be altered due the proximity of the 30mph speed limit. That to the right on exit is to remain at 2.4 x 160m and that to the left 2.4 x 90m; although 120m is achievable at a 0.5m offset. As the site junction falls entirely within the 50mph speed limit, the 120m extents are necessary. The offset of 0.5m is acceptable given the road alignment and driving practices at this location. Right turners into the site would be seen from 90maway by approaching drivers from the west and those waiting to turn right into or out of the site 120m to the west. There are acceptable sight distances for a driver to stop. We remain open to the Applicant sponsoring a reduction in the 50mph speed limit to a 40mph passing the site."
• 6.5.8 Highway Services have sought new provision for a bus stop is provided along the eastern boundary of the site stating; "28.04.2021 - A new concern is access to conventional bus services and bus stops, particularly on potential increase in numbers requiring bus use; there is no footway or platform for those needing to use stop serving passengers from Ramsey in the vicinity of Glyn Auldyn Road and no space to provide even a platform. The existing Ramsey bound bus stop is currently on the river bridge where the pavement is relatively low and not very wide. There is an opportunity for the Applicant to provide enhanced bus stop provision (half-layby/Kassel kerbs/shelter base) at the eastern boundary of the land ownership area which would provide an increased waiting area and safe haven for anyone wishing to travel east or west. bus vannin and us request that this is considered and provided…"

"16.11.2021 - Additionally, the revised site plans show no provision had been made for enhancements to bus stop infrastructure raised in the HDC response on 28 April 2021. It is considered that given the constraints to providing westbound provision, it is essential for installation of those to the for the eastbound direction of travel to improve accessibility, connectivity and choice for non-car methods of travel. This would include the layby and other associated facilities in advance of the bridge. To ensure the inclusion of bus infrastructure, HDC seek a Grampian condition for details to be provided for approval prior to commencement with installation prior to first occupation to any consent granted."

• 6.5.9 The applicants have indicated that they would be content with a Grampian styled conditioned which would require either no development commencing or no dwelling could be occupied until a new bus stop scheme is approved and completed (or timescale to be agreed).
• 6.5.10 Highway Services have indicated that they have no objection to the application subject to the conditions listed which in summary include details for (email dated 04.04.2022); "I suggest conditions below based on:

• * the site layout - Drawing No: 01/01 Rev H uploaded on 10 Dec

• * Byran G Hall Updated Transport Assessment - Access Arrangements Drawing No: 12/112/TR/006 Rev D
• * BGH Internal Junction Visibility and Forward Visibility on Bends 12/112/TR/010-013 Rev A. Note that the BGH drawings are based on Site Layout Rev E.

• a) Provision of Lezayre Road access junction and associated works, including footway widening and visibility splays.
• b) Provision of internal streets and junctions, including visibility and turning heads.
• c) Before any dwelling unit is first occupied streets, including road, paths and cycleways shall be constructed to binder course surfacing level from the dwelling unit to the adjoining public road at Lezayre Road in accordance with phasing plan to be submitted and approved prior to commencement.
• d) All paths and cycleways shall be fully surfaced in accordance with the phasing plan to be submitted and approved prior to commencement.
• e) Provision of pedestrian and vehicle elements of plots - accesses, driveways, paths, hardstanding, car parking spaces.
• f) Retention of garage /car parking spaces (if appropriate)
• g) Installation of bicycle parking within sheds for non-garaged plots.
• h) Installation of bin storage on plot.
• i) Details to be submitted and approved prior to commencement of:

• i. Phasing plan.
• ii. Pedestrian kissing gate - Lezayre Road
• iii. Path along dismantled railway, including layout, surfacing and connecting arrangements
• iv. Path along riverside, including layout, surfacing and connecting arrangements
• v. EVCPs to each plot, position and type
• vi. Construction method statement
• vii. Addendum to Travel Plan for its implementation to be linked to the phasing plan to be submitted and approved.

• j) Drainage - as required by from DOI FRM and Highway Drainage.
• k) Grampian for bus stop layby and infrastructure north side of Lezayre Road between site access and bridge."

• 6.5.11 Accordingly, it is considered the application complies with Strategic Policy 10 by being located and designed to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to: (a) minimise journeys, especially by private car; (b) make best use of public transport; (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and (d) encourage pedestrian movement. These are all met by being located within walking distance of Bunscoill Rhumsaa primary school (550m away - 6mins walk time) and Ramsey Grammar School (750m - 9min walk) and Ramsey Town Centre/Hall (1300m - 16min walk). Further, with pedestrian integral links within the site joined to existing public footpaths to the east of the site, which include improvements with a 2m wide new pavements along site frontage. Also with the above in mind the proposal would also be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes and comply with Transport

• Policy 1

• 6.5.12 The inclusion of the potential bus stop improvements and the upgrading of the new footpath also comply with Transport Policy 2.
• 6.5.13 In relation to the Former Railway Line, a condition should be attached which include details of how this is to be upgraded to an appropriate standard. Further, the proposed development does not compromise its attraction as a tourism and leisure facility or their potential as public transport routes, or cycle / leisure footpath routes. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with Transport Policy 3.
• 6.5.14 the proposal would provide safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space and does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways complying with General Policy 2. It

• has been designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by the development in a safe and appropriate manner and therefore also comply with Transport Policy 4.
• 6.5.15 Each of the proposed dwellings would have least two off road parking spaces, some fronting the properties and some set slightly away from the dwellings. This is to try break up the parking spaces rather than the space fronting all the properties which can cause adverse visual impacts in the street scene. While in some locations this is less successful (i.e. terraced plots within the site), the applicants have tried to mitigate the impact with the use of tree planting between these parking areas to try mitigate the impact. However, overall the parking provision for the development complies with the relevant IOMSP Parking Standards, and therefor Transport Policy 7.
• 6.5.16 As mentioned previously the applicant has provided a Transport Assessment and therefor complies with Transport Policy 8.
• 6.5.17 Overall, it is considered from a Highway Safety aspect, Parking provision and all other relating matters indicated within this section of the report, it is considered the proposal would be acceptable complying with all the relevant policies stated.

- 6.6 POTENTIAL DRAINAGE/FLOODING ISSUES;

• 6.6.1 Within the West Ramsey Development Framework (WRDF) it has been identified that parts of West Ramsey have been previously affected by a combination of river and tidal flooding. The Framework indicates that following flooding in Sulby, the Department of Transport commissioned and received a report on the Sulby River from Bullen Consultants (November 2002). The conclusions of this report, have where appropriate, been incorporated into the Development Framework.
• 6.6.2 From these conclusions the WRDF stated that new residential development on the West Ramsey area should be built in a way that protects it from flooding at a level of 5.75 metres above local datum. Consequently, when application 03/00790/B (to the north east of site) was approved a number of conditions were attached. These required full details of flood protection measures and that no dwelling shall be occupied until the flood protection measure are constructed. In terms of a protection measures, an earth bund which would runs along the north, east & west boundaries of Area 3 (north of distributor road) have been agreed with the Department, Manx Utilities and the Applicant.
• 6.6.3 Since this approval the Manx Utilities and more recently the DOI Flood Management Division have produced up to date flood mapping, which identifies high risk zones from both river and tidal flooding to all of the northern fields (134278, 134279, 134280, 134283 &

134289) within the application site (not proposed to be developed and sections to the fields to the east (134281). Following a number of amendments made to the application following initial concern by the various drainage authorities, the applicants have reduced the numbers of dwellings from 181 dwellings to 138 dwellings and altered the layout of the development to accommodate namely the drainage/flood issues of the site. No dwelling and the majority of all the internal estate roads (with exception of the northern most section of estate road) within the site are within a flood zone. There are parts of the north western POS which are within a Flood Risk by river, albeit this area is proposed to be landscaped with aquatic plants. Further, parts of the Formal Open Space to the northern end of Field 134281 (east of dwellings) are within a Flood Risk by River. While this is perhaps not ideal, the flood maps indicate the extent of a flood with a 1% (1 in 100) chance of happening in any year, which is not high. Further, no structures/buildings are proposed in these locations and therefore the development would not give raise to flooding on or off the site. While, there may be some concern of whether the formal open space proposed is useable as such; is relevant to consider, the fact remains the flood risk of 1% chance of happening each year is relatively low. Further, once the flood water has subsided, it is likely in a matter of a week the site would be useable again (depending on

weather conditions). Further, the use of the site in terms of risk to life and damage to buildings etc. is much lower compared to residential development where there can be a high risk to life. In this case risk to life or damage to buildings/structures on this section of the field is likely to be nil.

• 6.6.4 In terms of the relevant planning policy, Environment Policy 13 indicates that development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted. Therefore given the above reason it is considered the proposal would comply with Environment Policy 13 and therefore form a flooding perspective the application is considered acceptable.
• 6.6.5 Comments have been made by Lezayre Commissioners (see email dated 13.01.2022 in relation to sewerage is going to be put into the present Ramsey Town Sewer and thus during storm overflow the Ramsey sewer will backup first to prevent the new Milntown sewer taking raw sewerage away. Further concerns are raised that three new sewers are a new surface water sewer (blue) which empties in at four points to a newly constructed waste water pit (like a silage pit) and a fifth outfall pipe which would empty directly in to the Sulby river. In reposes the applicants have indicated; "We've reviewed the comments from Lezayre PC and, with respect to them, there appears to be serious misunderstandings on their part over how the proposed drainage system will work. For example, the foul sewer will connect to an existing pumping main and be taken to the Poylldooey pumping station, it will not be "put into the present Ramsey Town Sewer" and will not back up during storm events. The newly proposed pumping station is not near the river as stated, and surface water will not be taken to a "waste water pit like a silage pit". The proposed drainage system has been designed in full knowledge of the area and its context.
• 6.6.6 It is noted that all drainage authorities have considered all aspects of drainage for the scheme and have raised no objection. Accordingly, given the comments received and as Building Regulation will also considered drainage aspects the Department is comfortable that all aspects of drainage/flood are acceptable.
• 6.7 POTENTIAL ECOLOGY IMAPCTS Bats

• 6.7.1 The applicants employed the services of the Manx Bat Group to under taken a survey and produce a report on their findings/recommendations. This forms part of the application. In summary the survey found that the application site is an important foraging site for three specifies of bats during autumn and is visited by five other species during the course of the summer. Therefore there were eight species of bats recorded over the course of the six monthly acoustic surveys at Lower Milntown,

• 6.7.2 The recommendations are to conserve the principle habitats used by the bats, namely the hawthorn hedges boarding Field 134282 (located along eastern boundary of housing site proposed to be retained), the open ditches across the site and appropriate lighting solutions to be employed. There are also recommendations to provide for continue access across Lezayre Road by bats approaching the site form the south or east, along with the provision of bat boxes.

• 6.7.3 As seen within the representation section of this report (and online) the Ecosystem Policy Team (DEFA) have considered the impacts upon the bats following consideration of Manx Bat Group comments. They confirm that we are happy with the findings of the Manx Bat Group's (MBG) Bat Activity Survey dated 29th October 2020 and the Manx Bat Group's Method Statement for Tree Inspection prior to felling at Lower Milntown dated 16th November 2020 and that a suitable level of assessment has been undertaken. The Ecosystem Policy Team representation (04.03.2022) and can be seen previously within this this report summarises these comments and recommendations made;

• * Retention of the two important hawthorn hedges to the east and west of field 134282 concerns about the proximity of the new road to the hedge condition required to prevent any loss of hedgerow;
• * The roots of the important hedges to be protected during construction, The gaps at the ends of the hedges to be in-filled with new planting;'
• * Lighting to be designed to as to not deter bats from foraging along the hedge;
• * The street lighting at the entrance of Lezayre road designed to take into account the existing bat roost
• * Retention of roadside trees (some trees near Pinfold Cottage could be retained);
• * An updated tree protection plan should be submitted;
• * Pre-felling inspection of the trees to be felled by a suitable qualified ecologist;
• * Proposed re-planting at an early stage; and
• * Bat boxes to be considered.

• 6.7.4 The applicants have either amended the application and/or happy with conditions being attached which our highlighted by the Manx Bat Group/Ecosystem Policy Team. Accordingly, with the appropriated worded conditions attached it is considered the development would sufficiently mitigate the potential impact upon the bat population in the area and proposal would comply with Environment Policy 5. Birds

• 6.7.5 The applicants employed the services of the Manx Wildlife Trust to under taken a survey (Technical Note: Birds & Lower Milntown Breeding Bird Survey Report) and produce a report on their findings/recommendations in relation to birds on the site. This forms part of the application. Five separate surveys were conducted on four dates which identified 47 species of bird, of which 32 exhibited some form of breeding behaviour. Recorded on site of note are Barn Owl, Long-eared Owl, Stock Dove & Teal.

• * Barn Owl is a Schedule 1 protected specifies and is a Red-listed bird of conservation concern on the IOM. It is estimated there are currently 10 breeding pairs of Barn Owl on the IOM.
• * Long-eared Owl is a Schedule 1 protected specifies and is a Red-listed bird of conservation concern on the IOM. It is estimated there are currently 15 breeding pairs of Long-eared Owl on the IOM.
• * Curlew (not recorded when surveying site but previously recorded ten times in the area) is a Schedule 1 protected specifies and is a Red-listed bird of conservation concern on the IOM. It is estimated there are currently 402 breeding pairs Curlew on the IOM (declining) and globally classed as 'Near threatened with extinction'.
• * Stock Dove is a Red-listed bird of conservation concern on the IOM. It is estimated there are currently 10 breeding pairs of Stock Dove on the IOM.
• * Teal is a Schedule 1 protected specifies and is a Red-listed bird of conservation concern on the IOM. It is estimated there are currently 1 breeding pairs of Teal on the IOM.

• 6.7.6 The report identifies that the proposed development may adversely impact those species noted. The main potential impacts are; loss of suitable hunting areas, light pollution, noise pollution, direct human disturbances, pets cats and dogs and local traffic resulting in road mortality. The report indicates that recommendations have been made to address and mitigate the impacts in order to achieve 'no net loss' of biodiversity and ideally 'net biodiversity gain' from any development; however, the report notes that the mitigation suggested within this report will only partially mitigate these impacts, as they comments it would be impossible to provide full mitigation and therefore, the 'Compensate' principle would also be required in order to provide 'no net-loss', and ideally to provide 'net biodiversity gain'.
• 6.7.7 Following these comments the Ecosystem Policy Team and the Department discussed the potential impacts with the applicants who amended the scheme. These measures included;

• * The riverside footpath was removed and public access to the north of the railway line was limited. Initially the application include public footpaths being created; however, these have

• been removed. It should be noted that such path should be provided in the West Ramsey Development Framework, but perhaps is another example where this is now outdated;
• * The Formal Public Open Space was moved from the north of the railway line to field 134281;
• * The agricultural land to the north of the railway line becomes subject of a biodiversity management plan;
• * Due to changes in housing layout, the area of land identified as marshy grassland can now also be retained and sensitively managed for the benefit of wildlife and the group of trees labelled G6 in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment can and should be retained;
• * The old Tholtan is re-roofed, fitted out with nest boxes and fenced off to exclude human access;
• * Additional native tree planting in the area which is in the north-east of the site (H9 Mixed Manx hedgerow mix is recommended), this would give greater protection against noise and light pollution to the land north of the railway line;
• * Mitigation planting around the boundary of the development site is undertaken as early as possible, prior to the construction of any dwelling, in order maintain and enhance a tall boundary around the site and to give planting as much time as possible to establish; and
• * Artificial lighting is designed sensitively; and
• * A number of bird nesting bricks and boxes will be installed across the site.

• 6.7.8 The above matters should be conditional of any approval. The applicants have indicated they have no objection to such conditions. Botanical and Habitat Survey
• 6.7.9 A Botanical and Habitat survey has been conducted by the Manx Wildlife Trust and the site was found to have an overall slightly lower ecological habitat importance from poor semiimproved down to (agriculturally) improved. A wetland area (lower end of botanical interest as it has been regularly ploughed) was identified to the northern part of the development part of the site in Field 134282 (majority of which is not proposed for development).
• 6.7.10 Feature/species of Note within the application site was found in wet ground in Field 134284 (proposed woodland/ wildflower meadow area) these being 'Yellow Bartsia' as well as colonies of 'Yellow Rattle' (insect) likely to have come from the species-rich meadows to the north of the adjacent railway line. Oak Trees along the railway line also suggest the trees as being particular valuable to wildlife in this area.
• 6.7.11 No mitigations are proposed as it is not considered the development would appear to have a significant impact upon the botanical and habitat features of the site. Some recommendation have been made, one being the proposals for the attenuation area, marginal planting, woodland planting and wildflower meadow areas. The Ecosystem Policy Team have confirmed they have no objections although have made recommendations, namely conditions which are included in paragraph 6.7.3 of this report. Overall Ecology impacts
• 6.7.12 As outlined by the Ecosystem Policy Team, "no development in this area would be preferable" from an ecology standpoint and there appears to be a clear potential impact upon the protected birds mentioned in paragraph 6.7.5 of this report. The only way to prevent such impact is not to develop the site at all. This is of course a matter which the Planning Committee may consider as an option. This it is a negative aspect of the application. However, the site is designated for development and the applicants through planning process have amended the scheme following comments made by the Manx Wildlife Trust, Manx Bat Group and DEFA to try mitigate the potential impacts. It is noted that the Ecosystem Policy Team do not object to the application, but this is subject to a number of conditions being attached which the applicants are happy to undertake.
• 6.7.13 Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary to Environment Policy 4 as it would potentially adversely impact protected species (namely bird species); however, Environment

Policy 5 indicates that under exceptional circumstances where development is allowed which could adversely affect a site recognised under Environmental Policy 4, conditions will be imposed and/or Planning Agreements sought to: (a) minimise disturbance; (b) conserve and manage its ecological interest as far as possible; and (c) where damage is unavoidable, provide new or replacement habitats so that the loss to the total ecological resource is mitigated. It is considered with the ecologic proposals within the application currently and with appropriately worded conditions; the proposal could be considered to comply with this policy. Arguably it is a matter to balance the benefits of the development against the negatives. Clearly as mentioned, the potential adverse impacts upon the protected species is still a negative on this site.

- 6.8 AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION

6.8.1 Housing Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan indicates that the Planning Authority will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more. Given submission proposed 138 dwellings this equates to 34.5 affordable dwellings. A Section 13 Legal Agreement would need to be entered into by the applicant and the Department to ensure the affordable housing is provided. The applicants have proposed 34 dwellings provided on the site whilst the balance of the 25% (0.5 units) will be paid by Commuted Sum. This is acceptable to the Public Estates & Housing Division. The proposal therefore complies with Housing Policy 5.

- 6.9 OPEN SPACE PROVISION

6.9.1 The application provides Public Open Space, formal, amenity and play space within the site. In terms of Total Public Open Space this equates to 5.4hectares (13.34acres) of which 1.5 hectares (3.7 acres) is Formal Public Open Space and 0.03hecatres (0.08acres) Formal Play Area (i.e. children's play area). A large area of the non-formal public open space (amenity space) includes the area to the northwest of the housing which accommodates a new woodland area being created which includes informal footpath, landscaping, wild flower meadows and marginal planting (aquatic plants). An open area of this also accommodates the attention basis which again will include marginal planting. The informal paths link the whole POS area and into the main estates footpath which again link into informal footpaths which run through the centre of the site, adjacent to existing field boundary hedgerows and along the westerns boundary, to the roadside boundary of the site, all through landscaping areas, mainly existing but also new landscaping. There are also a new path which runs from the northern part of the site (centre of site) which connects to the former railway line which is proposed to be upgraded by the applicants (condition should be attached to included details and time to be implemented).

• 6.9.2 The proposal would provide more be an over provision of Public Open Space providing 53,985sqm, while the IOM Strategic Plan requires 12,480sqm. Further the open space is well placed within the site and easy access for new residents and for existing residents in the area and therefore complies with Recreation Policy 3 4 & 5.

6.10 ARCHAEOLOGY INTEREST

• 6.10.1 As part of the initial scoping of the site and given the neighbouring field 134281 wasn't designated for residential development; there was an initial question whether there was archology interest in the site/area; namely as there had been discussions that potential the "Battle of Skyhill" took place in 1078 on the site or nearby; albeit it may have been one of a running battle (references have been made of fleeing Manxmen) rather than a pitch battle. Accordingly, Manx National Heritage in 1959 had issues an order as designating the site as an "area of archeologically importance". Accordingly, as part of the submission the applicants undertook a Metal Detector Survey and a detailed report produced to ascertain the archeologically interest of the site. Within the application development site (i.e. where housing etc. is proposed) a total of 637 artefacts were found which included chains from pattern 1853 Enfield rifle nipple protectors, coins and iron fragments. In total within all fields within the application site (red line) a total of 1975 artefacts where recovered and transferred to the Isle of man Manx Museum. Manx National Heritage have raised no objection to the proposed

application on the grounds of archaeology. It is noted that Manx National Heritage where involved during the fieldwork and during the preparation of the document.

- 7.0 SECTION 13 LEGAL AGREEMENTS

7.1 The applicants have agreed that 34 affordable units will be provided onsite and the commuted sum payment for the 0.5 unit will also be made. In respect of a Public Open Space the applicants have confirmed that an agreement will confirm our intention to offer the various areas to relevant public authorities (Commissioners, DoI, MUA). If for whatever reason this is not possible - and we would hope that it will be - then the agreement will require us to maintain those areas. - 7.2 This situation is similar to application in Andreas along Oatlands Road where a Management Company was setup which would provide maintenance of the public open space/ attenuation basin. However, the applicants do not wish to take this route as they have indicated that they are a long-standing and well established developer on the Island and they have huge experience of maintaining POS prior to its adoption. The S13 would therefore include details of when works are undertaken and maintenance of the public open space/attenuation basin, within the flexibility of the areas being adopted by a Local Authority or Government Body (i.e. Manx Utilities may adopt the attention basin when legislation allows). - 7.3 The S13 agreement should also provide details of a scheme for a long-term habitat enhancement and management plan for the fields to the north of the railway line and for field 132288 to the south of the railway line, as well as a scheme for habitat creation and long-term maintenance plan for the marginal, woodland, attenuation and wildflower meadow areas, as shown in the Revised Landscape Plan (Drawing No 01.06 Revision H), and the marshy grassland area at the north end of field 134282 all to improve biodiversity of the area.

- 8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 Overall, it is considered the proposal has a number of issues which need to be considered. The proposal would be developing a site which is designated for residential development currently and until a new Local Plan is adopted the current land uses designation will remain i.e. the IOM Development Plan Order 1982. To the extent that the proposal moves away from the detail provided in the policy framework, this is to respond to the site-specific flood issues and avoid building in the areas most at risk (see below).

8.2 The development will clearly chance the landscape character of the site/area from one of undeveloped agricultural fields to a residential development. However, as discussed within this report it is considered the visual harm caused by the development is not so significant to warrant a refusal. The development will appear as an extension of Ramsey into the open countryside; albeit this is not an uncommon occurrence around existing settlements and has been happening to Ramsey for decades. The proposal would equate to a sustainable development given its closeness and good pedestrian and cycle links to Ramsey Town Centre and would meeting the overarching aims of the IOM Strategic Plan i.e. "Towards a Sustainable Island".

8.3 There are no highway safety/parking concerns raised by the development and with appropriately worded conditions will result in improvements to the roadside frontage of the application site being improved and provisions of a new bus stop.

8.4 There proposed housing development will not result in an unacceptable risk from flooding on or off site and while the development does not follow the West Ramsey Development Framework (WRDF) envisaged phasing; as explained in this report, it is considered to follow the WRDF would now raise more issues in terms of flooding and ecology impacts then was known at the time of the frameworks approval (not approved by Tynwald).

8.5 Finally, there are clear adverse impacts to protect species on this site (namely birds) and while there are significant of mitigation proposed/conditioned, this is a prominent aspect which goes against the application and any decision making needs to balance this adverse impact against any positives the development may bring.

8.6 Overall it is considered that the proposal would contribute to the supply of housing (including affordable housing) as a sustainable urban extension to a settlement identified near the top of the settlement hierarchy. To the extent that the proposal deviates from the detailed policies for the site, this is to respond to site-specific flooding issues identified after the relevant policies were produced. - 8.7 It is considered for the reasons indicated within this report the proposal overall, would not have any significant adverse impacts upon public or private amenities and would therefore comply with Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 2, General Policy 2, Housing Policy 4, 5 & 6, Recreation Policy 3, Community Policy 1 & 2, Transport Policy 4, 6, & 7 and Energy Policy 4 & 5 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016, West Ramsey Development Plan 2004 and the Residential Design Guide 2019. It is recommended that the planning application be approved for the reasons given and subject to the Section 13 Legal Agreement been signed and the conditions listed.

- 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 Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to the it by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status. Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date: 25.04.2022

Signed : C BALMER

Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report). Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.

PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 25.04.2022

Application No. : 20/01080/B Applicant : Dandara Homes Limited Proposal : Residential development of 138 dwellings with associated drainage, highway works and public open space Site Address : Land At Lower Milntown (Fields 134278, 134279, 134280, 134281, 134282,

• 134283, 134284, 134288 & 134289) And Strip Of Land Between Auldyn River & Auldyn Meadows, Off Lezayre Road, Lezayre & Ramsey Isle Of Man

Principal Planner : Mr Chris Balmer Presenting Officer As above

Addendum to the Officer’s Report

The planning application was originally presented to Planning Committee at its sitting 11th April. Determination was deferred by the members in order to conduct a site visit which was carried out 21st April 2022.

• At its meeting of the 25th April 2022 the Committee, with the exception of Mrs Hughes, rejected the recommendation of the case officer. The Chair and Mr Kermode abstained from voting as they did not attend the site visit. Mr Young put forward an alternative proposal, which was seconded by Mr Cubbon, that the application be REFUSED for the following reason-

R 1. The development would result in unacceptable environmental impacts in relation to loss of trees and biodiversity (in particular in relation to identified protected birds), the location of the proposed access unacceptable impacts on the land to be preserved to the East of the site, the provisions for movements by pedestrians/public transport (especially school children) are considered to be inadequate and it has not been demonstrated that the area to be provided for formal open space and children's play area would be capable of being levelled and drained to be of sufficient quality for those purposes. It is therefore considered that the development is contrary to the following policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016) - Strategic Policy 10, General Policy 2, Environment Policy 3, Environment Policy 4, Recreation Policy 3, Transport

• Policy 2 and Transport Policy 6. It is acknowledged that the site is allocated for development in the Isle of Man Development Plan 1982 Order, but the more recent census information and emerging evidence base for the Area Plan for the North & West suggests that there is no requirement for additional housing within Ramsey at this scale, further it is noted that the site is greenfield and there are objections from both Local Authorities. On balance, when taken together, it is considered that the detailed concerns about the site and more recent information outweigh the site allocation and as such the development should be refused.