Residents of Braddan Road & Ballafletcher Road
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
AREA PLAN FOR THE EAST SITES DBH002 AND BH030 AT BRADDAN ROAD AND BALLAFLATCHER ROAD CLOSING SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESIDENTS OF THE AREAS AROUND THE SITES At least 326 residents of the areas surrounding sites DBH002 and BH030 object to the rezoning proposals on the following grounds, which include breaches of policies set out in the Strategic Plan 2016. The following table of contents serves as a summary of these grounds. The section titled ‘The development of the sites would be unsustainable’ provides a more compressed one-page resume. Contents A. STANDARDS OF EVIDENCE AND ASSESSMENT ........................................................... 4 1. Draft Braddan Parish Plan 2003 is inadmissible ................................................................ 4 2. Point of procedure .................................................................................................................. 5 3. Reasons for rejecting proposals to rezone land including the current site DBH002 - Area 25 in the 2003 Draft Plan ..................................................................................................... 5 4. The 2003 Draft Plan is obsolete and irrelevant ................................................................... 8 B. CURRENT REASONS FOR REJECTING THE PROPOSALS ............................................. 9 1. The development would (a) lead to the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of the area (breach of Environment Policy 42), (b) fail to ensure that the individual character of the area is protected or enhanced (breach of Strategic Policy 3), (c) affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality, in breach of General Policy 2(g). .......................... 9 Prominent visual impact of the development on the local landscape and character ...... 9 Development of the entire site would result in a loss of open space................................. 9 The Sponsor’s mitigation proposal is unreliable ................................................................ 10 The development of the sites would have a significant impact on a large number of residents and visitors of both Douglas and Braddan ......................................................... 10 ‘Landscape Character Area’ ................................................................................................... 13 2. The development would not provide sufficient green gaps around the sites (in breach of Spatial Policy 7). It would lead to the coalescence of Tromode Woods and Braddan Hills, or continuous development from Union Mills to Douglas (breach of Strategic Policy 3). ....................................................................................................................... 15 Admissions of coalescence ..................................................................................................... 15 the Sponsor claims................................................................................................................... 15 The green gaps identified by the Sponsor are unsatisfactory ........................................... 16 Development boundaries v settlement boundaries: green gaps are necessary ............. 17 The Sponsor would not provide satisfactory green gaps .................................................. 18 3. The development would not meet the need for efficient access, in breach Strategic Policy 1(b). .................................................................................................................................... 19 4. The development would have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways, in breach of General Policy 2(i). ........................................................ 19 2 Access from Ballafletcher Road through site BH030 is undeliverable ............................ 19 Access from Ballafletcher Road through Tromode Woods is unsafe .............................. 19 Access from Braddan Road would lead to unacceptable loss of registered trees .......... 20 Access from Braddan Road would not be efficient ............................................................ 21 The development of the sites would have an unacceptable effect on road safety and traffic flows (congestion) ........................................................................................................ 22 5. The development would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of air pollution, vibration, odour, noise or light pollution (in breach of Environment Policy 22). It would cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance, in breach of Strategic Policy 4(c) and Strategic Objective 3.3(g) to minimise environmental pollution to air etc. ......................................... 23 Air quality................................................................................................................................. 23 Active travel is not a widely acceptable mitigation measure ........................................... 23 Vibration, noise and light pollution...................................................................................... 24 6. The development would (a) result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site (breach of Environment Policy 13) and (b) fail to prevent the loss of natural flood plain and to guide development away from areas at risk of flooding (para 7.12.2 of the Strategic Plan) or (c) the proposed drainage is unsafe .................................................... 25 The Sponsor’s drainage note fails to address surface water flood risk ........................... 25 The site is in a surface water flood hotspot ......................................................................... 25 The Sponsor’s proposed mitigation of surface water run-off is unsafe .......................... 29 The Sponsor’s foul drainage proposals are unsafe ............................................................. 29 the Sponsor and the DoI have not addressed the risks of surface water flood and poor drainage of the site in conformity with the Strategic Plan. ............................................... 30 7. The development is likely to have a significant effect on the environment (constraint of Environment Policy 24 applies). ........................................................................................... 31 Pollution .................................................................................................................................... 31 The development would lead to the loss of registered woodland ................................... 31 Suitable supporting environmental information has not been provided ....................... 32 8. Development of the sites would adversely affect wildlife on the adjacent and nearby Wildlife Sites and potentially on the sites (in breach of General Policy 2(d) and Environment Policy 4). ............................................................................................................... 32 Initial reports on wildlife on and near the sites .................................................................. 32 Manx Wildlife Trust initial walkover surveys done at the wrong time of year ............. 33 Legal responsibility for wildlife site designation ............................................................... 38 Full ecological survey should be instructed jointly or independently of the Sponsor . 40 9. Soil grade test has not been carried out on the versatile and potentially important agricultural land (part of site DBH002 used for agriculture), in breach of Environment Policy 14(b) ................................................................................................................................... 40 3 10. The development cannot be provided with all necessary services, in breach of General Policy 2(j). ...................................................................................................................... 42 11. The development would fail to protect or enhance the fabric and setting of a registered buildings and sites of special archaeological interest – in breach of Strategic Policy 4(a). .................................................................................................................................... 43 12. The development might damage, disturb or detract from an important archaeological site … or the setting thereof (in breach of Environment Policy 40). .......... 44 13. The development of the sites would be unsustainable ............................................... 47 14. The rezoning is inconsistent with the ‘current policy of constraining further greenfield development’ (para 5.9 of the Strategic Plan 2016) and ‘focus on securing development on brownfield sites, previously developed land and sites within existing settlements before releasing greenfield sites’ (para 13.3 ibid.). ............................................. 48 These findings are based on the current admissible evidence and not on an obscure assessment made some 16 years ago, called the draft Braddan Parish Plan 2003. The 2003 Draft Plan is inadmissible and obsolete. A. STANDARDS OF EVIDENCE AND ASSESSMENT Hartford Homes, the sponsor of the proposal to rezone the two agricultural sites for residential use (the Sponsor), and counsel for the Cabinet Office relied in all the relevant proceedings on the draft Braddan Parish Plan 2003. 1. Draft Braddan Parish Plan 2003 is inadmissible