Residents of Braddan Road & Ballafletcher Road

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 The 2003 Draft Plan is obsolete and irrelevant ...... 8 B. CURRENT REASONS FOR REJECTING THE PROPOSALS ...... 9 1.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

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

Advocate for the residents takes issue with the admissibility of the Braddan Parish Plan 2003 (the 2003 Draft Plan), including the evidence and the inspector’s conclusions (rejected by the Minister he advised).

The 2003 Draft Plan should not be taken into account, because it is invalid. The evidence before the inspector at the time was contrived as a result of such conduct by certain officials that resulted in a perception of bias and that made the evidence (and the inspector’s conclusions) unreliable. The Minister, who introduced the 2003 Draft Plan, withdrew it as ‘unsafe’. Tynwald never passed it.

Evidence that supported the 2003 Draft Plan was deemed inadmissible at Isle of Man planning appeals. For example, in a matter of application 13/00386/B, the Inspector’s Report stated, "The Department has resolved that it will not have regard to the proposals in the abandoned Braddan Parish Plan 2003 in determining planning applications". This approach has been consistently followed.

2. Point of procedure

The story of the 2003 Draft Plan has not been widely publicised. As Minister Rimington, who withdrew it, pointed out in his statement of case to the Select Committee of Tynwald in June 2009, ‘The withdrawal of the Braddan Plan was unique and a serious step. My Tynwald statements, particularly in October 2006, strongly suggested that there [had] been an unacceptable breakdown in public office. Manx Radio failed to give this any serious coverage and IOM Newspapers did not report it at all.’ (Report of the Select Committee of Tynwald on the Affairs of Braddan Parish Commissioners, June 2009, Appendix A, p.14 – p. 108 of the PDF file at http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/pp/Reports/2009-PP-0078.pdf).

The Sponsor’s statement relying on the 2003 Draft Plan was only provided to Mrs. Warwick, advocate for the residents, the evening before the hearing.

It is not surprising that Mrs. Warwick, who only immigrated to the island in 2002, did not remember it at the inquiry hearing of 18 September 2019. When she did, at the end of the same hearing, the inspector gave permission to come back with the response in the closing submissions, for lack of time allocated to the hearings on sites DBH002 and BH030.

3. Reasons for rejecting proposals to rezone land including the current site DBH002 - Area 25 in the 2003 Draft Plan

If the inspector questions the inadmissibility of the 2003 Draft Plan, advocate for the residents would like to draw his attention to the following statements made in the Report of the Select Committee of Tynwald on the Affairs of Braddan Parish Commissioners, of June 2009, published at http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/pp/Reports/2009-PP- 0078.pdf.

To confine the resume of the 314-page Report to 2.5 pages:

The Select Committee summarised the reasons for the withdrawal of the 2003 Plan as follows.

‘22.8 The former Minister of the Department of Local Government and the Environment (Mr J Rimington) withdrew the draft Braddan Plan because, as he stated in his statement of case, 'the validity of the Plan was undermined by the existence of this double "perception of bias" against the two public officials' - being the Planning Officer, Miss S Corlett, and the Braddan Commissioners Clerk, Mr C S Lewin, the second of those, in respect of the Clerk's actions, in Mr Rimington's opinion, being the most serious.’

(While the Select Committee did not find wrongdoing on the part of Miss S Corlett, it criticised the less than honest conduct of Mr. C. S. Lewin (aka Buster Lewin). By 2012, Buster Lewin showed his true character and was convicted of an electoral fraud in the Isle

5 of Man. His conviction was reported in 2012 by the BBC - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-20771532 - and the Isle of Man media.)

In his statement of case to the Select Committee, Minister Rimington disagreed with the conclusions made by the authors of the 2003 Draft Plan and the inspector.

Commenting specifically on the site called ‘the Drinkwater land’, or Area 25 in the 2003 Draft Plan, which is now most of site DBH002 in the Draft Area Plan for the East, Minister Rimington explained the problem by reference to the criteria of coalescence and value as a green open space, which still appear in the Strategic Plan 2016 and the Draft Area Plan for the East:

‘The Dandara group had an option on Area 25 and was supported strongly by both the Commissioners and the Department from the outset, despite this land being on high ground and representing open space between Douglas and Braddan. The arguments against Areas 1-4 [Camlork], the coalescence of settlements, etc., are also valid for Area 25 but were conveniently ignored. Yet again, the inclusion of this land demonstrates the weakness of the Local Plan approach. Its value as a green open space in between Douglas and Braddan is more relevant for the residents of Douglas than for the residents of Braddan, yet Douglas residents had no voice in the Braddan Local Plan.

The report to the Department by the Planning Office of the 28th November 2001 does finally recognise (in paragraph 5.9) the objections to this site and the possible policy contradictions in supporting it. However, any possible conflicts or suggestion of removal are ignored as “this is the largest of the sites identified as being suitable for housing and its loss would represent a significant problem in addressing housing needs”. Thus, whether desirable or otherwise, Area 25 had to remain as it was necessary for housing provision.’ … ‘It is an unfortunate sleight of hand that seemingly describes Areas 7 and 25 as “less visually apparent in the landscape”. A potential 400 houses on land behind Braddan cemetery would not consolidate any settlement.’

(Report of the Select Committee of Tynwald on the Affairs of Braddan Parish Commissioners, June 2009, Appendix A, Statement of Case of Mr. J. Rimington, pp.7-8 – p. 101-102 of the PDF file at http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/pp/Reports/2009-PP-0078.pdf).

In his oral evidence to the Select Committee, comparing the Drinkwater land (Area 25, now most of site DBH002) with Strang, called Area 7 in the 2003 Draft Plan, the Minister explained,

‘There was no balance with the inclusion of other issues such as “should land which is classed as having a High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance be developed?” (that would have invited a negative response and mitigated against developing Area 7) or “should development avoid areas of high ground visible

from a wide range of vantage points?” (that would have invited a negative response and mitigated against developing Area 7 and Area 25). The fundamental premise of planning is to lessen the visual intrusion of development on the landscape. To that end, I believe that major development on high ground should be avoided wherever possible.’

(Report of the Select Committee of Tynwald on the Affairs of Braddan Parish Commissioners, June 2009, Oral Evidence Select Committee, Thursday, 28th June 2007 7TBPC, top left of p. 135 of the PDF file at http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/pp/Reports/2009-PP-0078.pdf).

In the context of the questions asked by the Select Committee, it transpires from oral evidence given by the Director of Planning and Building Control at the time, Mr. McCauley, that Minister Rimington made his own assessment of the Drinkwater land and comparable sites, concluded that the sites were not suitable for development and criticised their inclusion in the rezoning proposals ‘despite being on high land’. (48 TBPC, Select Committee, Thursday, 30th August 2007, Oral Evidence – top left of p.176 in the PDF file at http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/pp/Reports/2009-PP-0078.pdf).

While the witnesses and the Select Committee took the Minister’s comments, by which he rejected the inspector’s conclusions, as the Minister’s own opinion, the Minister did have the advantage of his direct local knowledge when he formed his judgment.

On the importance of the landowner’s support for the development as evidence of its deliverability (which would be relevant to the current site BH030), the Minister commented,

‘… there is a process by which land is put forward for consideration in a development Plan. Generally, the Planning Office is contacted by the landowner who wishes their land to be put forward for development and there is a record of these land interests to be drawn upon when the Plan process commences. There is little point in including land within a development plan if the landowner has no wish for it to go forward otherwise a large amount of public time and effort will be fruitless.’

(Report of the Select Committee of Tynwald on the Affairs of Braddan Parish Commissioners, June 2009, Appendix A, p.12 – middle of p. 106 of the PDF file at http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/pp/Reports/2009-PP-0078.pdf).

Minister Rimington’s overall conclusion was as follows,

‘The Plan was unsafe and the proposals need to be judged afresh in an even and balanced manner.’

(Report of the Select Committee of Tynwald on the Affairs of Braddan Parish Commissioners, June 2009, Appendix A, p.13 – p. 107 of the PDF file at http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/pp/Reports/2009-PP-0078.pdf).

4. The 2003 Draft Plan is obsolete and irrelevant

In addition to the 2003 Draft Plan being inadmissible, it is also irrelevant as obsolete. Parties that may have held one opinion in 2003 changed it by 2019, if not 2016.

Even if there had not been any impropriety in the preparation of the evidence supporting the 2003 Draft Plan, the circumstances have changed.

For example, for the criteria of efficient access, highway traffic, road safety and detriment to the environment, the factual basis of assessment has changed dramatically. In particular, there is far more traffic on local roads now than there was then. It is unclear where the TT effect (public road closures) and the issues with the narrow access road just off Braddan Road were taken into account in 2002-2003. The Sponsor cannot be allowed to rely on the evidence and the inspector’s assessment dating back to 2002-2003 in advancing its case for access from Braddan Road in 2019-2020.

The landscape character has hardly changed, but it was ignored as a result of impropriety in the presentation of the evidence in the 2003 Draft Plan. The legal circumstances were different: the people of Douglas, who would suffer the greatest adverse visual impact if the Drinkwater land were developed, were not allowed to have any say in the consultation on the Braddan Parish Plan 2003. This is not the case with the current Draft Area Plan for the East.

Both the factual reality and the standards of preparation of the 2003 Draft Plan have changed fundamentally.

The evidence to be taken into account at present should be judged by the standards of today.

These standards are still found in the policies of the Strategic Plan 2016 (the Strategic Plan).

The standards of today do not include the numbers of population growth and housing need in the Strategic Plan. By the results of the 2016 census and the more recent data showing continuing decline of population, increase of vacant properties and reduced growth in household numbers, those numbers have been proved to be inflated and obsolete. As confirmed in the published legal opinion given to the inspector by the Isle of Man Attorney General, the housing targets are not binding on the inspector in the assessment of the Draft Area Plan for general conformity with the Strategic Plan.

The residents challenge the proposals of the Sponsor and the Cabinet Office in the Draft Area Plan by relying on more recent evidence and the policies of the Strategic Plan.

B. CURRENT REASONS FOR REJECTING THE PROPOSALS

At least 326 residents of the areas surrounding sites DBH002 and BH030 object to the rezoning proposals (of both sites or DBH002 in isolation) on the grounds of the following breaches of policies set out in the Strategic Plan 2016.

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).

Prominent visual impact of the development on the local landscape and character

It is admitted by all the parties that the development would have an impact on the local landscape character. It is the extent of the impact that is in dispute.

The Principal Planner assessed it as ‘some impact upon the existing character of the landscape as the site is steeply sloping and is quite visually prominent within the landscape’ (at DC2.7 of the Site Assessment Report).

The residents take issue with the logic of the Principal Planner: if the site is ‘quite visually prominent’, it is illogical or too uncertain to assess its development as ‘some’ impact. At best, ‘some’ can be interpreted as ‘unknown’. Logically, if the site is visually prominent, so would be a large housing development on it. Even the minimum of 340 houses stated by the Sponsor (in particular, Mr. Green) is a large development for this locality.

It is unrealistic to expect that such a large housing development on this visually prominent site can be concealed from public view.

Development of the entire site would result in a loss of open space

The proposal is still for the development of the entire site. At the hearing of 27 September, Braddan Commissioners retracted all suggestions of Jim Tarzey of Pegasus Group for partial development of site DBH002 referred to as ‘Scenario 2’. Having heard the evidence of the opposition, they decided that even partial development of the site would be inappropriate. There is no such scenario on the table.

Mr. Green confirmed for the Sponsor the target of 340 houses as the minimum, which the Sponsor would deliver and which means the development of the entire site.

Mrs Brown of the Cabinet Office was asked during cross-examination how the Principal Planner arrived at the conclusion DC6.2 in the site assessment report that the proposed 9 development of the entire sites DBH002 and BH030 would not result in a loss of open space.

It transpired from her explanation that if an open greenfield did not have public access to it, then the Cabinet office does not regard it as ‘open space’.

This approach has no basis in the Strategic Plan. There is no such restriction on the concepts of open space, amenity (particularly visual amenity) and green gap in any policy or legislative document.

The Sponsor’s mitigation proposal is unreliable

The Sponsor’s witnesses have already admitted the impact on residents of Tromode Park Estate, they are only in denial of its true scope and risks.

The Sponsor’s master plan does not represent all the 340 houses, the Sponsor’s target for that site. There is certainly no guarantee that the Sponsor, determined to meet its target of 340 houses (according to Mr. Green), would keep its promise not to build on any high ground that is visible from the locations it examined.

There are at least three flood plains between Braddan cemetery and Tromode Woods, on the high ground of site DBH002, where the Sponsor’s master plan shows new houses and tarmacked driveways, as explained under the heading on flood risk below. There is a significant risk that the development would have to sprawl onto higher ground than indicated on the master plan, in order to avoid those flood plains. The Sponsor has not acknowledged and has not addressed this risk.

The Sponsor and its witnesses (both Mr. Randall and Mr. Green) are in denial of the significant visual impact of the development on a large area of Douglas, including the densely built-up slope that includes Selborne Drive, Woodland Avenue and Quarterbridge Road, whose residents and visitors have an open view of most of the site, not only the highest point of DBH002.

The development of the sites would have a significant impact on a large number of residents and visitors of both Douglas and Braddan

Contrary to the Sponsor’s assertions at the inquiry and its Appendix 3 to Evidence Statement for DBH002, and Mr Randall’s responses to cross-examination at the inquiry, the development would have a significant visual impact on the landscape.

In all its evidence, the Sponsor has omitted the most important vantage points in Douglas, on Quarterbridge Road and the entire slope of the hill that includes Selborne Drive and Woodlands Avenue. It is ironic that Mr. Randall and Mr. Green, witnesses for the Sponsor, when cross-examined on this point, dismissed Selborne Drive or the area around it as ‘insignificant’, despite admitting (a) their lack of knowledge of local geography and (b) the impact the development would have on residents and visitors at a comparable vantage point: Slieau Dhoo in Tromode Park Estate. 10

The Sponsor understated the impact viewed from Tromode Park Estate The Sponsor has limited its examination or representation of the view from Tromode Park Estate to Slieau Dhoo. The residents have illustrated by photographic evidence that the same or more prominent views open up from all the driveways going down the slope of Tromode Park Estate, such as Tromode Park and Cronk Liauyr.

Both Tromode Park Estate and the part of Douglas, which sits on the slope of the hill that includes Selborne Drive and Woodlands Avenue, all the way down to Quarterbridge Road, are densely populated areas. Hundreds of their residents and visitors overlook the greenfield site DBH002 and would see the development, even if the Sponsor ever managed to avoid building on the highest point of site DBH002, while still hitting its target of 340 houses on that site alone.

The residents have already submitted photographic evidence of views from public places in these (and other) areas. The map below red-flags the vantage points on Selborne Drive and Woodlands Avenue:

(Correction to GoogleEarth map: the area it calls ‘Little Switzerland’ is mostly Garden City, south of Tromode Park Estate). 11

The Sponsor is wrong to state that its development would affect only a small number of people.

Its witnesses, none of whom have the advantage of local knowledge, have disputed that Selborne Drive is a significant vantage point in a public place, but they admitted that views of the residents from their homes should still be taken into account, even if, they said, to a lesser extent.

Even with this reservation, the views of the hundreds of residents from their homes should not be disregarded.

The entire slope that includes Selborne Drive, Woodlands Avenue and Quarterbridge Road is akin to an amphitheatre, from which hundreds of people look over site DBH002 as part of the arena and the slope rising on the opposite side. Evidently, site DBH002 is on a slope running from the high ground near Braddan cemetery and Tromode Woods down to Port-e-Chee and Quarterbridge.

The residents and visitors of practically all the houses on the densely built-up slope of Douglas including Selborne Drive, Woodlands Avenue and Quarterbridge Road, and those in the Port-e-Chee, including the Falls, would see the development, whether on low or high ground.

Just on Quarterbridge Road, residents of at least 32 houses on the north-west side and 22 on the south-east side look over the entire site DBH002, not only the top part of it. If the number of people in each household were to be estimated as 4, it would mean that at least 214 people just on that road would suffer direct and adverse visual impact.

It is not only residents that would see the impact of the development. Being part of the TT course, Quarterbridge Road receives numerous visitors during the island’s motoracing events.

Residents of the slope that includes Selborne Drive and Woodlands Avenue in particular look over site DBH002. They also receive numerous visitors, as they close to the TT course (Quarterbridge Road in particular). The number of residents there could be estimated as being at least double that of Quarterbridge.

Advocate for the residents has already submitted evidence of the views from the other vantage points showing that DBH002 is also seen by all the residents of Tromode Woods, right across the site, all the way to the cemetery and the Vagabonds Football Club.

There are at least 78 residents who would see the development from Hollin Lane and from their houses in Tromode Woods.

From public places, the site is also seen from 1. Braddan cemetery, right across to Tromode Woods and, further afield, Douglas; 2. Vagabonds Football Club and car park (overspill car park to Noble’s hospital);

3. Tromode Woods (Hollin Lane – the high ground and the areas below are seen through the trees even in summertime), 4. Tromode Park Estate (not only Slieau Dhoo, but all the driveways going down the slope), 5. Ballafletcher Road (site BH030) and 6. Braddan Road, if and when the Sponsor cuts its preferred entrance from Braddan Road through a high wall and the hill and trees behind it (the removal of the wall and the registered trees being separate grounds for objection).

It should be taken into account that the photographs submitted to the inquiry have been taken by the residents recently, in summertime, when the trees are still covered in leaves. The views will become more transparent once the trees are bare of leaves, which they are for about half the year on the island.

It is a fallacy to believe that leaving the top part of site DBH002 clear would avoid a significant impact on the residents of Braddan and Douglas (the slope including Selborne Drive, Woodlands Avenue and Quarterbridge Road).

At least 326 residents of the area around the sites, especially site DBH002, have signed an objection to the proposal. Their signatures were collected within 2-3 days during a holiday period. Those who were away did not have an opportunity to sign before the hearing of 18 September. Otherwise, the number of signatures would have been greater. Visitors did not have an opportunity to sign at all.

The development would affect hundreds of people, just by its visual impact. The above estimates add up to 722 people. If views from the houses of Tromode Park Estate were to be taken into account, it would take the estimate well over a thousand people.

The Sponsor’s witnesses, all from the UK, might perceive hundreds of people or a thousand as a ‘small’ number, but for the Isle of Man, in this location, this is certainly a significant number of people.

Based on today’s standards and their appropriate local application, the correct conclusion is the development of the sites (or site DBH002 alone) would affect a large number of people.

The visual impact alone constitutes an overriding constraint on the rezoning.

The development would affect an even larger number of people, than the residents of the area, whether in Douglas or Braddan, in other respects, notably traffic, pollution, road safety and damage to the environment, as explained under the relevant headings below.

‘Landscape Character Area’

The residents take issue with the Principal Planner’s statement at DC7.2, ‘The Landscape Character of this site is Broad Lowland Valley however this site is located on the periphery of the Douglas built up area and does not therefore strongly demonstrate the characteristics of this Landscape Character Area.’ 13

There is no logic in this assessment. The fact that the site is located near ‘the Douglas built up area’ makes the valley (in fact, a slope, including a high ground and a valley) more, not less noticeable and valuable for its rural character and visual amenity. It strongly demonstrates the character of the area to all the residents around it, in Douglas and Braddan.

The Sponsor has admitted, ‘The Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal acknowledges that the development of the site will have an adverse effect on the local landscape character and an increase in urban characteristics.’ (Delta Planning for Hartford Homes – Evidence Statement 2 – Site DBH002, para 1.33 on p.11 – p. 166 of the PDF).

The residents dispute the Sponsor’s assessment of the extent, to which they would feel the adverse effect of the development. Even with the proposed mitigation measures, the development would ‘fail to ensure that the individual character of the area is protected or enhanced’ (in breach of Strategic Policy 3).

The green fields of both sites, both agricultural land, define the individual rural character of Braddan. They distinguish Braddan from Douglas, separate settlements (Braddan Hills from Tromode Woods in particular) and contribute positively to the visual amenity of Douglas and Braddan residents.

The sites constitute ‘landscape heritage, which is more than simply the sum of its parts’ (in the words of the Strategic Plan): they combine open green spaces, an agricultural field (farmed for rapeseed), pastures (mainly for horses), registered trees, wildlife, including wildlife protected by statute at all times (in particular, bats and sparrowhawks seen on and around the sites) and history, including archaeological heritage on both sites and a registered building that is designed for the tranquil open-field setting of Braddan cemetery.

The sites have what the Strategic Plan calls ‘an inseparable element of “Manxness”. It provides an overarching context which makes the landscapes here unique and gives them the value which is acknowledged by those who live here and those who visit. The protection and promotion of this element within Manx society is an important element in central Government policy and the Strategic Plan, which both support the view that these valued characteristics of the Isle of Man be acknowledged and protected for the future from inappropriate development’ (para 4.3.6 of the Strategic Plan).

Putting such a large modern housing estate on these agricultural sites, or even one of them, would be inappropriate development.

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).

Admissions of coalescence

The Principal Planner admitted in her site assessment report (at DC7.2), endorsed entirely by the Cabinet Office, that the development would lead to coalescence of Braddan and the part of Douglas, which she and GoogleEarth map mistakenly call ‘Little Switzerland’ (it is in fact mostly Garden City, south of Tromode Park Estate, part of the former Laureston Manor estate, on both sides of Quarterbridge Road in Douglas).

As witnesses examined by Dandara explained to the inquiry, it is obvious that the Principal Planner referred to the GoogleEarth map and did not check to correct the mistakes in the names on that map.

The Principal Planner’s reference to ‘Braddan’ (Braddan being a parish, wider than a settlement) would have to be interpreted in the context of the GoogleEarth map, to which she obviously referred. The housing estate, which is located across the road from the site to the east (the road is called Braddan Road), is the settlement of Braddan Hills.

The logical interpretation of the Principal Planner’s admission is that the development would result in the coalescence of Braddan Hills and Douglas.

She only overlooked Tromode Woods in the belt of continuous development that would sprawl from Douglas (Tromode Park Estate and Garden City), westwards through Port-e- Chee, Cronkbourne Village, Tromode Woods, across the sites (particularly DBH002), Braddan Hills and even further north, to Union Mills, per the Draft Area Plan.

Having quoted without criticism the admission by the Cabinet Office, the Sponsor also admitted that the development would lead to coalescence (at para. 1.33 quoted under the previous heading – see Delta Planning for Hartford Homes – Evidence Statement 2 – Site DBH002, para 1.33 on p.11 – p. 166 of the PDF). In its Representations with the Draft Area Plan (pp.114 of file ‘358.pdf’ uploaded to the Consultation hub), the Sponsor admits, ‘7.6. The site is located immediately adjacent to built-up areas...’

Despite these admissions, the Sponsor claims that its design would leave the following areas as ‘green gaps’: 1. the area ‘in the centre of the site along the top of the ridge’ on its master plan, 2. Douglas Rugby Club field, and 3. ‘green corridors’ along the valleys of the River Dhoo (to the west) and the River Glass (to the east). (Ibid.)

Having cross-examined Mr. Randall and Mr. Green, advocate for the residents take issue with all these claims.

The green gaps identified by the Sponsor are unsatisfactory

1. Even if the master plan were to be believed, the area ‘in the centre of the site along the top of the ridge’ is not large at all. On the contrary, it is a small proportion of the area proposed to be built up.

The central area is enclosed by tarmacked driveways and proposed new houses in all directions, which would appear next to Tromode Woods, Port-e-Chee and Braddan cemetery and close to Braddan Hills.

The green area on the master plan between the proposed new houses and Braddan Road is even smaller and is not even claimed to be a green gap.

The new houses would also be seen from all these directions, including Braddan Hills and Braddan Road, if and when the Sponsor raises to the ground the high wall and the hill and mature trees behind for its proposed vehicular access from Braddan road.

As noted in the comments on the visual impact, there are at least three flood plains between Braddan cemetery and Tromode Woods, on the high ground of site DBH002, where the Sponsor’s master plan shows new houses and tarmacked driveways, as explained under the heading on flood risk below. There is a significant risk that the development would have to sprawl onto higher ground than indicated on the master plan, in order to avoid those flood plains.

The area in the centre of the site would not be a natural or semi-natural green space providing visual amenity value. Consciously or unconsciously, this area would not contribute to feeling of leaving one place and going into another.

2. Douglas Rugby Club field is confined to the southern boundary of site DBH002. The rugby field is not a green gap between Braddan Hills to the west of the site and Tromode Woods and Port-e-Chee to the east.

The Sponsor has to rely on the rugby field as a green gap on the southern border, particularly because its master plan shows ‘Proposed Native Planting’ in the same place north of the rugby field, which presently has woodland. (Delta Planning for Hartford Homes – Evidence Statement 2 – Site DBH002, p.18, and p.153 of the PDF). The term ‘planting’ used throughout the Sponsor’s Evidence Statement means that the Sponsor proposes to remove the existing mass of mature trees, which qualify as registered woodland, to clear way for secondary access and its own plants. It is a separate ground for objection addressed below.

3. The Sponsor’s ‘Green Corridor/Landscape Buffer Plan’ shows its new proposed houses immediately next to the residences of Tromode Woods and Port-e-Chee to the east and 16

Braddan School and Braddan Road to the west (Delta Planning for Hartford Homes – Evidence Statement 2 – Site DBH002, Appendix A, page before last of the PDF).

Mr. Green confirmed at cross-examination that the areas marked as ‘river corridors’ on the ‘Buffer Plan’ to the east and west are - River Glass to the east of Cronkbourne Village and - River Dhoo to the west of Braddan Hills.

There are none between - Tromode Woods and Port-e-Chee to the east and - Braddan Hills to the west of site DBH002.

All that lies between the proposed development and Braddan Hills is a public road (Braddan Road).

The residents submit that public roads do not qualify as green gaps.

‘In the context of Spatial Policy 7, “green gap” means an open area which serves to maintain the distinction between settlements; prevents the coalescence or merging of settlements; and may provide recreational opportunities.’ (Strategic Plan, Definitions).

The concept is synonymous with green open space, as demonstrated by the interpretation of ‘green gaps’ by the Cabinet Office in the Draft Area Plan:

‘They normally represent a physical separation between settlements, often being natural/semi- natural green spaces which have public amenity value. Consciously or unconsciously, these areas contribute to feeling of leaving one place and going into another. It is these areas that help to keep settlements distinct. Green Gaps can be important wildlife corridors, helping to limit habitat fragmentation and providing migration routes.’ (para 5.15.2 of the Draft Area Plan for the East).

Even though the residents take issue with the small number of green gaps that the Cabinet Office has designated in the Draft Area Plan (only three), it is clear that pubic roads do not fall into that concept.

The residents also submit that rivers as narrow as River Glass and River Dhoo are insufficient to keep settlements distinct. In any event, they do not exist between the site and Tromode Woods on the east and the site and Braddan Hills on the west.

Development boundaries v settlement boundaries: green gaps are necessary

The Cabinet Office and the Sponsor initially argued that the Strategic Plan defined settlement boundaries, within which no green gaps were necessary.

In the course of cross-examination (of Mrs. Brown and Mr. Green by Braddan Commissioners in particular), it has been established that the Strategic Plan does not define settlements or their boundaries. 17

The usage of the term ‘settlement’ (in Spatial Vision 5.7) shows that it is a generic term for towns and villages.

The Strategic Plan only sets out the policy of separation of settlements by green gaps (a derivative of ‘green open spaces’ in previous planning policy documents).

Spacial policies 2-4 on pages 26-27 of the Strategic Plan state that it is the area development plans that will define the development boundaries.

These are not boundaries of settlements, which are not defined in any document. What the Cabinet Office referred to as boundaries of settlements are the development boundaries, which it proposed after the Strategic Plan, without giving reasons and without publication together with the Draft Area Plan. It is these boundaries that are challenged by the opposition to the development, or at least the residents.

Mrs. Brown, speaking for the Cabinet Office, has agreed that Tromode Woods do not fall within the defined settlement boundaries.

At cross-examination, Mr. Green, witness for the Sponsor, has admitted that Tromode Woods are outside a defined settlement boundary. So are Braddan Hills.

It has been established at the inquiry hearings that green gaps are needed between these settlements.

The sites, especially site DBH002, provide them.

The residents have submitted that these green open spaces are the last remaining green gaps that separate the settlements of Tromode Woods on the east and Braddan Hills on the West.

In the wider context, avoiding the development of the sites would prevent the continuous urban sprawl from Union Mills eastwards through Braddan Hills, across the sites to Tromode Woods and Port-e-Chee and further east to Tromode Park Estate and Garden City in Douglas.

The Sponsor would not provide satisfactory green gaps

The Sponsor appeared to change its position at cross-examination and claim that it would provide additional green gaps if required - but not, Mr. Green disclaimed, within the development boundaries.

Unless the Cabinet Office changes the development boundaries, which it proposed and the residents challenge, the Sponsor’s disclaimer means that it would not provide satisfactory green gaps between the settlements of Braddan Hills and Tromode Woods - and, from the wider perspective, Douglas and the settlements of Braddan.

3. The development would not meet the need for efficient access, in breach Strategic Policy 1(b).

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).

In view of the overlaps in the reasons for these risks, they are considered together.

As admitted by the Sponsor, the Site-Specific Brief for site DBH002 states that the main access to the site should be from Ballafletcher Road. The Sponsor admits that there are concerns over it.

The residents submit that the real concerns are as follows.

Access from Ballafletcher Road through site BH030 is undeliverable

At cross-examination during the inquiry, the Sponsor’s assertions that it had an understanding with the Burial Committee for the purchase of the site proved to be false.

The owner of site BH030, represented by the Reverend Daniel Richards of the Braddan Church Burial Authority, does not support the development proposal. The owner’s position is neutral, which does not mean support. As explained in the letter of Reverend Richards before the inquiry, any decision to sell the site has to be taken in consultation with the Braddan rate payers.

Most of the Braddan ratepayers oppose the proposal. The Sponsor’s attempt to belittle their role in the decision is not credible. It also would be against the long-term interests of the Burial Authority to sell the site to the developer in the face of significant opposition from the Braddan rate payers and the congregation of its church.

As the Sponsor admits in its evidence, ‘as far as we know, the Cabinet Office has not done any design work yet for an access solution off Ballafletcher Road. … There is a dip in the road which needs to be accommodated and the junction with Braddan Road needs to be tested for capacity.’ (Delta Planning for Hartford Homes – Evidence Statement 2 – Site DBH002, para. 4.5, pp.10-11)

This admission is applicable to both the new proposed access through site BH030 and the existing access through Tromode Woods.

Access from Ballafletcher Road through Tromode Woods is unsafe

Mr. Thomas, the witness the Sponsor called from the UK, surprised the residents by a remarkable declaration at this cross-examination that the Department had removed to the long-standing planning restriction, 50, on the number of dwellings that could be served by vehicular access through the entrance to Tromode Woods. It was put to him that the access already served 47 dwellings.

When asked when and why the limit was removed, Mr. Thomas replied that the Department considered it ‘outdated’ and agreed to the increase on the strength of mitigation measure proposed by the Sponsor: putting in a ‘ghost junction’ at the entrance to Tromode Woods.

The residents take issue with the credibility of Mr. Thomas. His statement to the inquiry is incorrect.

There a specific restriction on the number of dwellings that can be served from access though Tromode Woods. For example, from the planning officer’s report in a recent planning application 14/00847/A states: ‘'5.2 Highway services of department of infrastructure do not oppose subject to no more than a total of 50 houses served from the main access. Visibility splays of 2 x 18 meters must be provided. Nothing must be planted, erected or allowed to remain within the splash that exceeds 1m.’

Safety does not become outdated. The residents expressed concern over the increased frequency of recent repeated accidents involving a child on a bicycle hit by a car on the main driveway of Tromode Woods. Putting more vehicles in Tromode Woods would exacerbate the existing safety problem.

A new junction at the entrance would not make the existing traffic through Tromode Woods safer. As for ghost junctions as a new mitigation measure, they have become controversial; where they were installed in the UK, residents repeatedly reported that their ghost junction became ‘a prolific accident blackspot’.

In the case of Mr. Thomas in particular, he did not collect correct factual information before stating his conclusions to the inquiry. He did not listen to the safety concerns over access through Tromode Woods even for cyclists. He did not take on board the fact well known locally that the limit of 50 on the number of dwellings available for this particular access is practically exhausted: it already serves 47 houses in Tromode Woods.

Mr. Thomas had the same problem, as the other witnesses the Sponsor called from the UK: their opinions were not based on direct knowledge of the local facts and realities. They did not explore the landscape and environment of the wider area, including part of Douglas. They did not know the ‘TT effect’ on traffic (in fact, they did not even know that public roads close not only for TT, but also for several other Isle of Man motoracing events in May, June and August). They did not try to drive in the area during the rush hours. Their relevant local experience was limited to occasional or single visits of the sites.

Access from Braddan Road would lead to unacceptable loss of registered trees

The site assessment report of the Principal Planner and the Site-Specific Brief of the Cabinet Office are based on the assumptions that the registered trees on and around the site would be retained.

The Sponsor cannot comply with these requirements. This is the reason for its proposal to amend the Site-Specific Brief, “Any loss of registered trees arising from the proposals should be fully mitigated through replacement planting” (Delta Planning for Hartford Homes – Evidence Statement 2 – Site DBH002, para. 4.10, bottom of p.12)

The residents take issue with the proposals to remove mature trees on the faith of a promise to replace them.

The Sponsor (Mr. Randall) admitted that the replacement trees would take 19 years to grow.

For local residents, this is a very long time in human terms, enough for a new generation to grow up without the lost trees.

The registration of trees recognises their value as amenity and, in the case of this particular group of trees, their potential as registered woodland. Putting new access through them would lead to the loss of not simply individual trees, but the uninterrupted group or mass of trees. Irrespective of the fact that these particular trees were planted in replacement of the registered trees lost previously, the purpose of their registration is their preservation. The Sponsor’s proposal would defeat this purpose.

Mr. Randall, speaking for the Sponsor at cross-examination, attempted to quantify the loss as 2.5% of registered trees but did not explain how he arrived at that percentage. There is no explanation or assessment in the Sponsor’s written evidence.

Nevertheless, Mr. Randall admitted that the loss would persist after replanting, as he proposed for the Sponsor to replace individual trees with shrubs in an attempt to conceal the new houses from the view of the residents of properties with direct views of the site.

The concept of removing mature trees and planting new ‘vegetation’ every twenty years is misguided and outdated, especially if the island is to take action on climate change.

Access from Braddan Road would not be efficient

The Sponsor admitted at the inquiry that the new access from Braddan Road would require major engineering works involving the removal of a high wall, which was built 20 years ago, together with a mass of soil behind it, which forms a hill covered in mature trees.

The significant interruption, which such works would entail, would not be worth it. Even if Braddan Road were widened from the new access to the junction around Jubilee Oak with Peel Road, Braddan Road as a whole is and will be too narrow to take more vehicles from proposed housing development. It cannot be widened in its section between Braddan School on one side and the existing residencies of Braddan Hills (or the land drop) on the opposite side. There is a registered building in the way of any wall alteration around Braddan Cemetery Office. The proposed works would not obliterate the current bottleneck effect on traffic from Noble’s Hospital and Braddan School.

As noted above, the visibility splays required for the new access from Braddan Road mean that the development of the site would be visible to the public on Braddan Road.

The development of the sites would have an unacceptable effect on road safety and traffic flows (congestion)

Even if the Sponsor widened Braddan Road from its controversial new access to the roundabout junction with Peel Road, the ‘bottleneck’ of Braddan Road further north, between Braddan School and the residencies of Braddan Hills, could not be widened. Traffic from and to Braddan School and Noble’s hospital nearby would continue to put and increase pressure on Braddan Road and Ballafletcher Road.

On Ballafletcher Road, even if the Sponsor put in a ghost junction at the entrance to Tromode Woods or through site BH030, it would still increase congestion on the entire road combining Ballafletcher Road and Johnny Watterson’s Lane. It is evident that Johnny Watterson’s Lane between its intersections with Tromode Road and Ballanard Road cannot be widened. Traffic on it is already almost stationery during the rush hours.

As in the case of Braddan Road, the bottleneck effect on Johnny Watterson’s Lane, with a direct impact on Ballafletcher Road, means that the development of the sites would result in an unacceptable adverse effect on highway traffic.

The additional traffic from the proposed access from Braddan Road, Ballafletcher Road or Peel Road (at least 340 cars – or, more likely, 680, since most households have two cars) would increase the existing congestion on Ballafletcher Road, Johnny Watterson’s Lane, Braddan Road and Peel Road to unacceptable levels.

In the event of access from Ballafletcher Road, in accordance with the Site Specific Brief, this would ‘encourage the use of unsuitable routes such as Tromode Road for some traffic travelling to/from Douglas Town Centre’ (in the Sponsor’s words - Delta Planning for Hartford Homes – Evidence Statement 2 – Site DBH002, para. 4.6, p.11). It would put further traffic on Quarterbridge Road, which is already at capacity.

Traffic going past the proposed access points to the sites during the rush hours has already approached some 700 cars per hour on Ballafletcher Road and increasingly more on Braddan Road by Jubilee Oak roundabout and Peel Road and Quarterbridge Road at Quarterbridge junction.

During pubic road closures, traffic congestion is already above tolerance levels: a journey that would normally take ten minutes takes nearly an hour.

All the evidence submitted by the Sponsor and the Department of Infrastructure show that both have ignored such ‘TT effect’, despite the location of both sites inside the TT circuit.

Cross-examination of Mr. Green also revealed that giving evidence at examination on the suitability of the site for access to the inquiry on 27 September 2019, he did not take into account either

- the report of the Cabinet Office’s report ‘Impact of the Draft Area Plan on the highway network’ (PIP3), which concluded that travel times would more than double, or

- the report by traffic consultant SYSTRA, which maintains that average travel times around Douglas would quadruple if all sites proposed in the Eastern Area Plan came forward.

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.

Air quality

The development would result in more motor vehicles and emissions concentrating in an already polluted area around the busy Ballafletcher Road, Braddan Road and Peel Road, the main roads to Douglas via Quarterbridge junction, where the air quality is below EU standards.

Tynwald has recently commissioned air quality (nitrogen dioxide) tests from the experts of Friends of the Earth, in the absence of data from the Department of the Environment, Food and Agriculture (DEFA). Their tests carried out in December 2018 and January 2019 showed that air quality near Quarterbridge was already below EU standards.

Nitrogen dioxide is a toxic colourless gas which is classified as a hazardous substance. The European Union have set a legal mean annual limit for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) at 40μg/m3. The test results show that its levels for Quarterbridge, Douglas, exceeded the European Union limit in December 2018 and came very close to this dangerous level in January 2019. (Letter of Tynwald members to Minister for the Environment Geoffrey Boot of 25 February 2019, attached).

Active travel is not a widely acceptable mitigation measure

The Sponsor relies on mitigation by ‘Active Travel’ in response to the obvious problems with travel by car all around sites DBH002 and BH030.

It should be noted that Active Travel is only a mitigation measure, not a replacement of travel by car. Active Travel is not a policy in the Strategic Plan.

There are site-specific constrains on using Active Travel in this area.

1. Quarterbridge junction does not meet the criteria for Active Travel.

2. Both sites DBH002 and BH030 are inside the TT circuit. During public road closures, when the only way out to Douglas is through the access road (off Braddan Road), active travel is not an option at all. Walking or cycling on the access road during that time is prohibited and dangerous.

Irrespective of the objective constraints, residents of this and other areas have already submitted to the inquiry that for the majority of them, cycling or walking is not an option.

The Isle of Man has an older population than in the UK, from which the Sponsor called its witnesses. Since there is no major university on the island, young people of university and working age, who are fit for active travel, leave the island at the height of their fitness.

Island residents in this and similar areas testified to the inquiry at the evening hearing of 25 September 2019 that the majority of the island’s residents are either too frail or too young and inexperienced for cycling on public roads, especially during the rush hours.

This evidence is consistent with what local residents told the group of objectors, who were collecting 326 signatures under their petition for 18 September 2019. Active Travel is not an option for most of them.

Vibration, noise and light pollution

The cross-examination of Mr. Green in particular has revealed that the kind of development that is being proposed is expected to be a busy and condensed conglomeration of starter homes with commercial properties, including a convenience shop, which would add commercial traffic on the roads and driveways and environmental damage caused by 24-hour commercial refrigeration and lighting.

It is not going to be in keeping with the registered building, the Braddan Cemetery Office, as further explained below. Here, it is worth noting that registered buildings in the area already suffer from vibration and pollution caused by busy traffic, as explained under the relevant heading below.

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

The Sponsor’s drainage note fails to address surface water flood risk

The Sponsor relies on an incomplete site assessment for the risk of flooding, which it describes as follows: ‘Drainage Note has been prepared by BB Consulting and was submitted with the representation to the Draft Plan in 2018. This evidence confirms that the site it outside both the river and tidal flood zones and is not at risk of flooding.’ (Delta Planning for Hartford Homes – Evidence Statement 2 – Site DBH002, p.9)

The two-page ‘drainage note’ in the Sponsor’s representations (pp.181-182 of file ‘358.pdf’ uploaded to the Consultation hub) reveals that BB Consulting Engineers visited site DBH002 on a dry and sunny day and consulted ‘the Manx Utility Authority’s Flood Maps for a 1in100 year river flood event’. This was the limit of their examination.

On this basis, contrary to the Sponsor’s claim that it proposed drainage mitigation measures, no such proposal is found in its evidence. The engineers instructed by the Sponsor ‘propose’ the following:

‘4. FLOOD PROTECTION 4.1. The site is not affected by flooding as evidenced by the Manx Utility Authority’s Flood Maps for a 1in100 year river flood event.’ (Engineering review relating to provision for drainage, p.181-182 of the PDF)

It appears that the engineers instructed by the Sponsor looked at the wrong sources. On site DBH002, it is not so much river flood that is at issue, it is surface water flood, due to the increasing rainfall.

The site is in a surface water flood hotspot

By 2016, the Manx Utility Authority published surface water flood maps of the island at https://www.gov.im/about-the-government/departments/environment-food-and- agriculture/environment-safety-and-health-directorate/national-strategy-on-sea- defences-flooding-and-coastal-erosion/. The map for the relevant location is that for ‘Douglas – Braddan’, found on the above webpage. The documents downloaded following that link contain PDFs showing three hotspots of surface water flooding in this location. Hotspot 32 map shows surface water flood plains in the centre, east and south of the site (although it does not show the entire site DBH002):

The Manx Utilities state that even though the Manx Utility maps are prepared using predictions and approximations, they use ‘the best information we currently have’ (https://www.manxutilities.im/your-home/watercourses-and-flooding/flood-maps- frequently-asked-questions/).

At present, site DBH002 is agricultural land, including a rapeseed field and pasture, which absorbs surface water, but still accumulates it, as indicated above. It is this information that the Manx Utilities would have used for its current surface water flood map.

The development of the site would significantly reduce its water absorption. The number of surface water flood hotspots would increase dramatically.

An ecologist of the Manx Wildlife Trust instructed by the Sponsor admits, ‘To the north an area of very damp and wet ground probably marks the site of a former watercourse or body of water, beyond which the land rises again, reaching a high point close to Ballafletcher Farm and Ballafletcher road.’ (Geology and Topography, para 3.2.1, p.16/38, or p. 147 of file ‘3895.PDF). The ecologist further notes ‘the central marsh’ on the site (ibid., top of p.185). 26

He photographed and exhibited ‘Figure 4 Seasonal Pond (Constraint 11)’ (‘Appendix 2: Target Notes for Land off Braddan Road (Sites DBH002 and BH030’, under para. 16, p.192 of the PDF).

The area pictured in Figure 4 looks like one of the areas seen by local residents to collect water on a rainy day. It is large enough for them to photograph from outside the site. Their photograph of one such area looks similar that in the Sponsor’s evidence:

Residents of Tromode Woods observe at least three areas on the high ground of site DBH002, which fill with water regularly and which are marked as ‘FLOOD PLA’ and ‘FLOOD PL.’ on the following extract of map 8 of the Cabinet Office. The above photograph shows the area denoted as ‘FLOOD PLA’ on the marked-up extract of map 8:

A comparison with the Sponsor’s master plan shows that the developer would build or tarmac on all the natural flood plains of the site.

It was remarkable the hear the witnesses for the Sponsor and the Cabinet Office answer at cross-examination on the flooding issues on and around site DBH002 that they were unaware of any flooding issues, even on Tromode Road.

Tromode Road is in the flood plain of the River Glass. It is partially reflected in the Manx Utilities map of surface water flood (Hotspot 32) above. The residents have submitted evidence of serious river flood on Tromode Road, caused by rainfall rather than tide, particularly in 2017, when they saw cars being swept into the River Glass.

The Sponsor admits, '… off Ballafletcher Road. … There is a dip in the road ...’ (Delta Planning for Hartford Homes – Evidence Statement 2 – Site DBH002, para. 4.5, pp.10-11)

It is this dip that floods regularly and where the residents observe the ‘Flood’ signs that the Department of Infrastructure (DoI) puts out on Ballafletcher Road. The same applies to Tromode Road.

The Sponsor’s proposed mitigation of surface water run-off is unsafe

The Strategic Plan requires that it is the Department of Transport Drainage Division that should be consulted regarding the potential requirement for attenuation of surface and foul water flows (paras 11.8.1 and 11.8.2 of the Strategic Plan, p.104).

The Sponsor has not submitted any assessment by the competent authority, the Drainage Division, of the Sponsor’s proposal of SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage), in which it admits ultimate ‘discharges to the River Glass’ (2018 Representations with the Draft Plan, file 358 PDF, Engineering review relating to provision for drainage, at 3.2, p.2, or PDF p. 182).

The River Glass and its banks are already a recognised natural flood plain and a surface water flood hotspot. The existing drains cannot cope with any more water run-off.

Considering that the River Glass and its banks are already a recognised flood plain and a hotspot for surface water flood, the Sponsor’s proposal is unsafe.

A local resident has recently asked the manager in charge of the remedial work at Braddan Bridge what had caused the problem. The manager explained that it was poor construction of part of the wall coupled with poor drainage. He was incredulous when he was told of the proposed development, of which he was not aware, and stated, “There is no way that the drains will cope with more run-off”.

The Sponsor’s foul drainage proposals are unsafe

The Sponsor admits, ‘as part of the Manx Utility Authority’s response to the Draft Area Plan for the East, they have identified that the existing sewage infrastructure serving Douglas is at capacity.

The Manx Utility Authority have commissioned extensive studies of the existing sewage network to identify options for an enhanced network. This study is not concluded…’ (2018 Representations with the Draft Plan, file 358 PDF, Engineering review relating to provision for drainage, at 2.1., p.2, or PDF p. 181).

Infrastructure Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan requires,

‘… with the exception of individual plots or very small-scale schemes (equivalent in scale to an individual plot), development shall only take place in areas which will ultimately be connected to the IRIS system (Integration and Recycling of the Island’s Sewage). 29

When operational, it will allow the sewage from local networks to be transmitted to the central treatment site at Meary Veg before being discharged as environmentally acceptable effluent. … The Sewage Treatment Works at Meary Veg is now operational, and further phases of the overall scheme are currently subject to review. … In areas which are beyond the final extent of IRIS – in general it will connect those areas currently served by mains drainage – development is likely to be limited in order to reduce reliance upon individual septic tanks. … The discharge standards for stand-alone treatment works will vary and must be discussed with the Environmental Protection Unit of DLGE (not the Drainage Division), taking into account the Water Pollution Act.’ (paras 11.8.3-4 of the Strategic Plan).

As above, the Strategic Plan requires that it is the Department of Transport Drainage Division that should be consulted regarding the potential requirement for attenuation of surface and foul water flows (paras 11.8.1 and 11.8.2 of the Strategic Plan, p.104).

The Sponsor has not provided any evidence of such consultation. There is no assessment from the competent authority of the Sponsor’s engineer’s proposals (in Engineering review relating to provision for drainage, at 2.1., p.2, or file 358.PDF, p. 181):

- to connect to ‘the existing sewage network’ ‘in Tromode Road to the east of the site and on the other side of the River Glass’ (as to which there is no evidence from the Department of Transport Drainage Division),

or, failing that,

- localised treatment on the site located on the east end with a treated effluent discharge to the River Glass (as to which there is no assessment from the Environmental Protection Unit of DLGE – Department of Local Government and the Environment).

The residents submit: 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.

Not only the site itself should have been examined for surface water flood risks, but also the issue of the water run-off onto the residences of the Falls and Port-e-Chee should have been assessed.

While site DBH002 is agricultural land, it absorbs the water from the increasing rainfall, but already contains surface water flood hotspots.

If it is tarmacked over, including the natural flood plains shown above, the water would run off to flood not only (1) the lower ground, such as the Falls at Port-e-Chee and (2) the Meadow on River Glass and the Rugby Club field, which the Sponsor recognised in its Evidence Statement 2 as flood plains, but also (3) Tromode Woods, in close proximity to all the three flooding areas on high ground mapped above.

The Sponsor’s drainage proposals, whether for surface water run-off or foul water, end up with admitting ultimate discharges into the River Glass, a surface water flood hotspot and a designated wildlife site. This another ground for objection - damage to the environment.

Surface water flood or run-off issues in this area represent a far more serious constraint on development than the Sponsor and the Department of Infrastructure have recognised.

7. The development is likely to have a significant effect on the environment (constraint of Environment Policy 24 applies).

The development would have a significant effect on the environment due to traffic congestion, pollution, loss of mature trees and harm to wildlife on and around the sites.

Pollution

The former two factors have been addressed under the relevant heading above on congestion and air quality. The latter two are explained below.

Also, as noted above, the Sponsor’s drainage proposals, whether for surface water run-off or foul water, end up with admitting ultimate discharge into the River Glass, a surface water flood hotspot and a designated wildlife site.

The development would lead to the loss of registered woodland

It has already been submitted under headings specific to access from Braddan Road that the development of that access would lead to the loss of registered trees.

Furthermore, the Sponsor’s master plan shows ‘Proposed Native Planting’ in the south of the site, in the same place north of the Rugby Club field, which presently has woodland (Delta Planning for Hartford Homes – Evidence Statement 2 – Site DBH002, p.18, and p.153 of the PDF).

This is illustrated by the juxtaposition of the GoogleEarth map marked up with only wildlife sites and the Sponsor’s master plan showing the boundaries and the proposed development of site DBH002, under the heading on wildlife below.

The term ‘planting’ used throughout the Sponsor’s Evidence Statement means that the Sponsor proposes to remove the existing mass of mature trees.

This group of trees qualifies as registered woodland. It has a group value. The removal of individual trees means splitting the group.

The Sponsor should have called as witnesses the experts from the Manx Wildlife Trust, on whose constrained ecological survey it relies and who would have attested to this fact.

Suitable supporting environmental information has not been provided

Environment Policy 24 of the Strategic Plan states that when development is likely to have a significant effect on the environment, it will be required: i) to be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment in certain cases; and ii) to be accompanied by suitable supporting environmental information in all other cases.

The residents submit that the development would have a significant effect on the environment. Even if the Sponsor did not believe so, it should still have submitted suitable supporting environmental information.

The Sponsor has not submitted suitable supporting environmental information beyond a wildlife ‘walkover’ survey, which was done only once in 2017 and at the wrong time of year for many species.

The archaeological assessment, drainage note and transport appraisal, on which the Sponsor relies in its representations with the Draft Area Plan and all its evidence statements to the inquiry, do not consider the natural environment of the sites.

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).

Initial reports on wildlife on and near the sites

The assessment report of Hollie Bryant, the Principal Planner, published at https://www.gov.im/media/1355503/dbh002-site-assessment-draft-february-2017.pdf admits that the ‘southern and western perimeter is within a Registered Tree Area and there are designated wildlife sites to the north and west.’ The Draft Area Plan for the East contains a list of the designated wildlife sites, which includes ‘Tromode Dam – Along the River Glass, N. Douglas’.

The residents reported seeing wildlife, including protected species such as sparrowhawks, herons and bats, nesting on site DBH002.

Advocate for the residents has had to spend a long time trying to obtain information on what wildlife was found by whose surveys, where and when. 32

The Manx Wildlife Trust reports on both surveys, done in 2011 and 2017, disclaim that they were too early or too late in the season, that they were only initial and that further investigations were needed.

The following limited information indicates the presence of wildlife and the need for a proper ecological survey of site DBH002 in particular.

Site DBH002 is practically surrounded by wildlife, even if the results of the constrained survey done the by Manx Wildlife Trust in 2017 were treated as complete.

Manx Wildlife Trust initial walkover surveys done at the wrong time of year

The Site Constraints Information Note of the Manx Wildlife Trust discloses the following limits of the methodology: ‘The site was visited by Andree Dubbeldam, on the 28th March and 5th April. In total four hours were spent on site. All fields and boundaries were visited, pictures taken and areas of potential ecological interest surveyed with a walk-over survey. On the first survey the weather was heavy persistent rain and the second survey was overcast but dry. Overall habitat quality could be accurately assessed; however, the season was too early for detailed botanical survey or other surveys.’

(Manx Wildlife Trust, Site Constraints Information Note, Land off Braddan Road, May 2017, para. 2 on p.183 of file 385.PDF)

The residents take issue with the timing of the survey, which must have affected the fact- finding by the ecologist and lead him to the wrong conclusions on the presence of wildlife on and next to site DBH002.

The Manx Wildlife Trust has provided the following map of wildlife sites (marked in yellow on a GoogleEarth map of the sites and the area), which relies to a great extent on the preceding, also constrained, survey done buy the Trust in 2011.

The following comparison of this map with the Sponsor’s master plan shows that (a) construction of new houses would take place immediately next to (i) the Braddan cemetery wildlife site and (ii) the wildlife site of the wetlands along River Glass and Port-e-Chee and (b) major engineering works to remove the 20-year-old high wall (with a hill behind it) and registered trees would take place near not only the Braddan cemetery wildlife site, but

34 also the Kirby Park wildlife site (across Peel Road), which is comparable in nature and which the Manx Wildlife Trust surveyed, with reservations, in 2012:

The residents have submitted that wildlife does not respect human borders. In particular, the Braddan cemetery wildlife site, which is adjacent to site DBH002, is not enclosed in a

35 cage. The residents take issue with the conclusion of the Manx Wildlife Trust that wildlife on the north of the site ‘probably’ exists in isolation.

The residents see wildlife, including protected species such as bats, sparrowhawks and herons proliferating all around the area, including sites DBH002 and BH030. Their evidence partially conflicts with the findings of ‘low ecological interest’ on the site during the initial walkover survey by the Manx Wildlife Trust.

In its 2017 report on the initial ‘walkover’ survey of sites DBH002 and BH030, the Manx Wildlife Trust does call for ‘presence/absence’ surveys for protected and notable fauna, such as lizards around the stone walls and frogs in the seasonal water features of the pond and the flooded will grove.

The Sponsor’s proposal to remove mature trees on the site border with Braddan Road and the potentially the TT campsite next to the Rugby Club field is particularly disturbing to the ecologist. He notes in his report,

‘The woodland and wetland areas of the site are likely to be significant bat feeding areas and the mature woodland in the south is very likely site roost site. Maintaining the integrity of wildlife corridors will be an important constraint, as will any works that impact upon the mature trees in the southern woodland’

(Manx Wildlife Trust, Site Constraints Information Note, Land off Braddan Road, May 2017, p.186 of file 385.PDF – Sponsor’s representations with the Draft Area Plan)

He identified the following constraints, in particular,

‘The Southern Woodland (Constraint 5, 7 & 9) The mature trees should be protected from damage, disturbance and destruction, including a root protection zone of 20m from the base of the trees. Where unavoidable disturbance will occur, individual large trees will need to be surveyed by bat experts prior to works. The young shelterbelt and hedgerow (constraint 7 & 9) can be seen as a successor habitat to the mature woodland. The area would benefit from more successor cohorts of trees, shelter-belts and woodlands to ensure that as the existing trees fail (as they will do over the next 100 years) there will be established habitat for the wildlife interest to migrate to. The Scrub (Constraint 6) This has both intrinsic interest for warblers and invertebrates as well as contextual interest due to the neighbouring mature trees for bat feeding and supporting wider invertebrate communities that require open and closed habitats to complete their life-cycle. The habitat is not particularly species rich nor particularly aesthetically attractive. Some of the value lies within the rough nature of the vegetation, thus the juxtaposition of nettles, thistles and brambles is a known combination that attracts many invertebrates such as butterflies.’ … The Seasonal Watercourse (Constraint 10)

[This is the seasonal water feature of the flooded will grove, where the ecologist recommended a survey for the presence of frogs, as it was too late in the year when he did his initial walkover survey.]

Elsewhere in his report, the ecologist notes,

‘This seasonally flooded grove may possibly be a frog spawning site, but no evidence was seen (Survey was too late in season to see spawn). Dutch Elm (Ulmus x hollandica) semi- mature trees occur at SC3661 7713 are attractive trees that do extend the woodland interest of the cemetery.’

The Pond (Constraint 11) Like the watercourse, the pond’s current ecological value would seem to be less than a feature of this size would normally be. The withdrawal of grazing from the site will also lead to the rapid change in the habitat, where the nutrient rich soils will lead to rapid tall growth of course vegetation. It would also be difficult to turn this seasonal feature into a permanent pond without major engineered lining works…

(Manx Wildlife Trust, Site Constraints Information Note, Land off Braddan Road, May 2017, p.186 of file 385.PDF – Sponsor’s representations with the Draft Area Plan)

The ecologist has confirmed the habitat value of Southside Woodland, through which the Sponsor proposes to cut access from Peel Road:

5. Southside Woodland. A mature woodland with mature and veteran trees and significant amounts of deadwood. Not botanically rich, which is why this woodland did not clearly qualify as a Wildlife Site in a 2011 assessment. The old trees are rare examples on IOM of trees with multiple cavities and probably have some nesting bird interest and lots of potential bat interest. The Kirby/Port-e- Chee area is noted as a bat-rich site and the trees should be seen as part of a wider Kirby Park local cohort of old woodland interest.

6. Scrub site. This would appear to be the site of an old landfill or at least landraise through waste hardcore infill. A mixture of rough grassland, bramble and mixed scrub. There is generally poor botanical diversity on the site, but the vegetation structure and composition (lots of edge, nettles and thistles, tussocky grass, rabbit lawns, dense scrub) is likely to be ideal for invertebrates and nesting birds…

7. Shelterbelt. An area of mixed broadleaf and conifer dense tree planting with some older trees dispersed between. A very effective visual screen from the road that affords the entire southwest of the site a feeling of seclusion and privacy. Like many semi-mature woodlands the habitat value is somewhat low, with a poor ground flora and probably a somewhat limited bird-nesting habitat. It is however a potentially important wildlife corridor for species such as bats, linking Braddan Cemetery and Kirby Wildlife Sites. The trees are now starting to mature and will soon start to acquire the flora and wildlife of a mature woodland. In time the shelterbelt will equal the ecological importance of the southern woodland belt.’ (Manx Wildlife Trust, Site Constraints Information Note, Land off Braddan Road, May 2017, p.191 of file 385.PDF – Sponsor’s representations with the Draft Area Plan)

The 2012 report on the survey of ‘Kirk Braddan Cemetery’ sited by Manx Wildlife Trust, also constrained as a ‘Early/Late Survey’, noted both the Kirk Braddan Cemetery and the second is Kirk Braddan Old Church and its grounds ’for the unimproved neutral grassland they contain and the wildlife such as butterflies and bats they support’. 37

The characteristics of the designated wildlife site as Braddan Cemetery appear to be rather similar to those of site DBH002.

The conclusions of the 2017 survey of Manx Wildlife Trust are not exactly the same as the Sponsor’s description of it in its written evidence:

‘In a note prepared by Manx Wildlife Trust in May 2017 following a walk over survey in late March / early April 2017 no rare, protected or uncommon species were noted. The survey was however qualified by the fact that more detailed survey work should be carried out in appropriate seasons.’ (Delta Planning for Hartford Homes – Evidence Statement 2 – Site DBH002, para. 1.67 on p.20 of Appendix 3, or p.68 of the PDF)

Furthermore, it is not correct that ‘no rare, protected or uncommon species were noted’ on the entire site. Bats were noted, and bats are protected species.

Uncommon features were noted too, particularly ‘in the Land off Braddan Road. The Northern Species-Rich Grassland (Constraint 1, 14 and 15) Species-rich neutral grassland is uncommon on the Isle of Man. In common with a lot of species-rich grassland on the Island, the wildflower interest here is hidden by close grazing by horses.’

As mentioned above, the residents take issue on the matter of fact, namely, the presence or absence of certain protected species. Contrary to the findings of the Manx Wildlife Trust in 2011 and 2017, the residents observe abundant wildlife on and around site DBH002, including wildlife protected at all times by statute, the Wildlife Act 1990: herons and sparrowhawks nesting on the site and its vicinity (not only bats noted by both the Trust and the residents).

When advocate for the residents approached the Manx Wildlife Trust directly, its ecologists, having acted for the Sponsor, declared a conflict of interests and stopped providing further information.

Advocate for the residents submitted that it was the government’s fault that a full ecological survey of the site was not done. The Cabinet Office denied it, claiming it was the responsibility of the Manx Wildlife Trust.

Legal responsibility for wildlife site designation

Advocate for the residents submitted that a proper ecological survey should have been done on both sites to examine their merit for the designation as wildlife sites. The sites share common characteristics with the designated wildlife site adjacent to site DBH002. If the sites were not designated, she submitted, it was the government’s fault. (The Department of the Environment, Food and Agriculture is a government body.)

The Cabinet Office replied that it was the responsibility of the Manx Wildlife Trust, a charity. The inspector left the clarification of the position to a later hearing or, if and when time precluded it, to the concluding submissions. This is the first opportunity for the residents to put the matter straight.

The Department of the Environment, Food and Agriculture (DEFA) is a government body and the public authority ultimately responsible for the protection of wildlife in the Isle of Man (under the Wildlife Act 1990, e.g., sections 13, 30 and 31).

DEFA bears statutory responsibility to act in consultation with an advisory body, called the Wildlife Committee (under the Wildlife Act 1990, s.24).

There is no such body as the Wildlife Committee in existence, despite DEFA’s duty to establish it, under the Endangered Species Act 2010, s.1(2).

DEFA has not commissioned any ecological surveys recently.

Enquiries have revealed that the latest ecological survey results held by DEFA date back to 1990. This explains the absence of the more recent information on its website at https://www.gov.im/about-the-government/departments/environment-food-and- agriculture/ecosystem-policy-and-energy/wildlife-biodiversity-and-protected- sites/protected-sites/.

DEFA refers all enquiries about wildlife and its location as follows, ‘The Wildlife Sites project is managed by the Manx Wildlife Trust. Wildlife Sites are not statutorily designated or recognised by law but are recognised through the planning system.’

The statute, the Wildlife Act in particular, imposes on DEFA a duty to take appropriate action. It is sufficiently wide to designate Wildlife Sites to protect wildlife habitats.

Advocate for the residents has submitted a Freedom of Information Request (no. 1008649) to the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (DEFA) asking what wildlife was found and where in Braddan. The updated request asks for information on the ecological surveys done in Braddan after 1990 and 2011, i.e., after the curtailed 2012 survey of the Manx Wildlife Trust, which was done too early or too late (a constraint admitted on p.19 of the attached PDF, ‘Douglas Onchan Proposed Sites’). In particular, the request asks DEFA to confirm whether it has more complete and more up-to-date information on wildlife in the area between the Braddan cemetery wildlife site and the River Glass wildlife site. Response is expected in early November 2019.

The consequence of DEFA’s dereliction of duty is public reliance on charity, now starved of funds.

From March 2013, the main charity, to which DEFA refers public enquiries on wildlife, the Manx Wildlife Trust, has suspended its work for lack of funding, as admitted on its own website at https://www.manxwt.org.uk/what-we-do/wildlifesites. On the same

39 webpage, the Manx Wildlife Trust admits that it now provides information on wildlife sites to landowners and developers, not the public.

An advocate on the board of the Manx Wildlife Trust denied that the Trust was responsible to do anything about wildlife protection. She said, the statutory responsibility remained with DEFA, which was ‘not doing anything’.

Full ecological survey should be instructed jointly or independently of the Sponsor

The sad situation with the protection of wildlife in the Isle of Man results in the evidence of wildlife being put under the developer’s control. The Sponsor could instruct an ecologist or the Manx Wildlife Trust too early or too late in the season for notable or protected species and limit the scope of its instructions. The Sponsor could also choose not to rely on a report, if it did not make ‘convenient’ conclusions.

A registered ecologist, whose opinion DEFA indicated it would accept, confirmed to the residents’ advocate that an ecological survey of site BH030 alone, to which the owner has given permission, would not give a reasonable indication of wildlife on site DBH002. Access to the entire site DBH002 is necessary for a full ecological survey to be reliable.

The landowner of site DBH002 is not giving permission to complete the ecological survey of site DBH002, if it is not commissioned by the Sponsor.

In such circumstances, the landowner should not be permitted to take advantage of the rezoning, which would boost the price of the land plot, on the basis of deficient surveys, which are admitted to have been constrained. Such ‘evidence’ is unreliable.

If the landowner gives permission to complete an independent ecological survey of site DBH002, it must be completed by an independent or jointly instructed ecologist or the Manx Wildlife Trust, taking into account evidence reported by the residents around site DBH002, provided that the expert is not bound by the instructions of one party and constraints limiting the quality of the survey.

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)

In the Site Assessment Report, the Principal Planner misstates as ‘Predominantly Residential; the ‘Status’ of the land ‘as at … 25th May 2018’.

The Sponsor repeats this mistake in its evidence or states that the land is ‘wholly non- agricultural’. Mr. Green relied on the Agricultural Land Use Capability Map, but it is not a source of correct information on the permitted use of the land, or its status.

It is plain that both sites are agricultural land. The Department of the Environment, Food and Agriculture has confirmed it.

The Sponsor’s assertion, heard at the hearing on 27 September 2019 on the development briefs, that at least site DBH002 is not being used for agriculture, is incorrect.

A farmer has informed the residents’ advocate that part of the land is being used for farming rapeseed. Residents of Tromode Woods overlook a farming field, a picture of which was submitted as part of their evidence:

It was submitted at a development brief hearing of 27 September 2019 that a comparable site in the vicinity of the Drinkwater land, Camlork, was tested and proved to have Class 2/3 agricultural land.

A resident’s conversation with a tester, Soil Environment Services, revealed that ‘/3’ was only added because of the gradient of the land, and the essence of that soil is Class 2.

There is no good explanation as to why the evidence of the soil class on site DBH002 was not before the inquiry. The Sponsor should have tested it and the planners should have required it. The Sponsor and the Cabinet Office are not relying on the Agricultural Soils of the Isle of Man report 2001 (cited in the Strategic Plan).

As with the other tests or assessments, which have not been done or disclosed, the failure begs the question whether this is because of the risk for the Sponsor that the evidence will undermine its case.

The owner of site DBH002 is not giving permission to any experts not commissioned by the Sponsor to access the site for testing or surveying for any purpose.

The same expert, Soil Environment Services, has confirmed, however, that soil test on the adjacent land, site BH030, whose owner gave permission, would give a reasonable indication of the soil class on site DBH002. To this end, the residents have sought to instruct the expert to conduct the soil test, but as it requires substantial funding, they and the Braddan Commissioners are awaiting the inquiry report and the next consultation stage, at the local authority level, at which such evidence would be accepted. The cost of the test in the area of £3,000. If due process were followed, it is the Sponsor who should have done the test and borne the cost.

The rezoning should not be recommended or done until the evidence of the soil class is before the Minister and his advisors. The Strategic Plan establishes a general presumption against the release of Class 1 and 2 agricultural land for development (para 7.13.1).

Irrespective of the soil class, rezoning for development ‘must not be at the expense of the appearance and character or openness of the landscape, or result in the loss of traditional hedgerows and field boundaries or the loss of limited areas of good quality agricultural land’ (para. 7.13.1 of the Strategic Plan).

10. The development cannot be provided with all necessary services, in breach of General Policy 2(j).

1. As already noted, the Sponsor has not provided evidence from the competent authority assessing the Sponsor’s engineer’s proposals (in Engineering review relating to provision for drainage, at 2.1., p.2, or file 358.PDF, p. 181):

but there is evidence of Manx Utilities quoted by Sponsor that the existing network is ‘at capacity’;

2. There is no evidence that the existing drains can take in more surface water run off the sites if they were to be developed; the evidence of the residents suggests otherwise.

3. The road network is at capacity and the roads on the routes past the proposed access points cannot be widened at the ‘bottlenecks’ of (a) Johnny Watterson’s Lane between its intersections with Tromode Road and Ballanard Road, if access were from Ballafletcher Road, (b) Braddan Road,1 between Braddan School and the residencies of Braddan Hills or (c) Tromode Road.

4. The sites, being inside the TT course, would be landlocked during public road closures, if access from the estate onto Braddan Road only had a left turn (to Douglas town centre), for safety.

5. The residents have maintained throughout the inquiry hearings that Braddan School is full.

Mr. Green relied on a statement a representative of the Department that it was not.

This appears to be one of those situations when the word of 300+ residents of the island, who have children attending Braddan School, is against the word (or hearsay) of a government official.

There is no direct evidence to the availability of Braddan school to newcomers, as the only witness speaking on the subject on 27 September 2019, Mr. Green, did not have direct knowledge of local facts and relied on the opinions of other people.

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).

The proposal to build at least 340 houses just on site DBH002 fails to protect or enhance the fabric and setting of the registered building, in breach of Strategic Policy 4(a).

The same applies to site BH030, if the Sponsor’s initial proposal to build on it is retained. At the hearing of 27 September, the Sponsor focused on site DBH002 and expressed its readiness to renounce its proposal regarding site BH030. While this is a departure from the Site-Specific Brief, the objections apply to the development of either site.

In breach of the policy, the site assessment reports of the Principal Planner fails to recognise that site DBH002 adjoins Braddan Cemetery which contains a registered building – the Baillie Scott-designed Cemetery Office.

Counsel for the Cabinet Office, John Barrett QC, told the inquiry at his cross-examination of the resident’s advocate, Mrs. Warwick, that it was enough for the Cabinet Office to print out a list of registered buildings and include it in the materials of the 18 September

43 hearing. When asked why the presence of a registered building adjacent to the site was not acknowledged in the assessment report, he replied that the Cabinet Office had no duty to acknowledge every registered building.

Such an attitude demonstrates a dereliction of duty to take the registered building into account at the assessment stage of the rezoning proposals. The Cabinet Office has not amended its assessment report. On the contrary, it endorsed the Chief Planner’s report entirely. Nether the Cabinet Office nor the Sponsor has given any consideration to the duty to protect or enhance the fabric and setting of the registered building.

In response to the inspector’s question, advocate for the residents repeats her submission that the application of the policy to protect or enhance the setting of a registered building is a matter of fact and degree. In a built-up setting of Douglas, it may be enough not to put a modern block out of keeping with the fabric of the registered building next to it. In a rural setting of the green open space provided by the Braddan cemetery and both Braddan sites, for which the Cemetery Office was designed, the assessment must be much more sensitive. It is inappropriate to put such a large number of modern ‘starter homes’, out of keeping with the fabric of the registered building, particularly such a large number, in this location.

The cross-examination of Mr. Green revealed to the inquiry the Sponsor’s ambition to build at least 340 houses quickly. This ambition would not ensure that the new houses would be in keeping with the registered building, the Braddan Cemetery Office. A minimum of 340 houses in keeping with the multi-coloured brick fabric of the Baillie Scott- designed Cemetery Office would take too long to build for the Sponsor to deliver its target on time and to budget.

The development would interfere with the visual amenity provided for the visitors of the cemetery, the tranquil setting of the registered building – the Cemetery Office.

12. The development might damage, disturb or detract from an important archaeological site … or the setting thereof (in breach of Environment Policy 40).

The Sponsor relies on ‘a Heritage Desk-Based Assessment (DBA) and Geophysical survey … undertaken by Cgms in August 2018 and submitted with the representations to the Draft Plan.’ (Delta Planning for Hartford Homes – Evidence Statement 2 – Site DBH002, p.9) This turned out to be the Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment by Jason White FdSc, BSc(Hons) part of the Sponsor’s representations with the Draft Area Plan (file ‘358.pdf’ uploaded to the Consultation hub).

Manx National Heritage has confirmed that no such assessment has been done in respect of site BH030. This is a constraint on the development plan, because, in accordance with the Site-Specific Brief, site BH030 must be examined together with site DBH002.

The following extracts from The Sponsor’s Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment of site DBH002 done by Jason White FdSc, BSc (Hons) merit short comments.

The desk-based assessment has ‘determined there are no Ancient Monuments or Registered Buildings within the site itself, although there is one Ancient Monument and a number of Registered Buildings within the 1km study area. It has established that the proposed development, and in particular development in the north western field of the proposed site, has the potential to impact negatively on the setting of three designated assets - Braddan camp …, Braddan Cemetery Office … and Old Kirk Braddan ...’ (p.136 of file ‘358.pdf’ uploaded to the Consultation hub).

‘Additionally, there are three known heritage assets recorded within the site – an undated low mound of uncertain function and two findspots – of a Bronze Age collared urn and razor found during quarrying (probably the remains of a burial) and the findspot of an undiagnostic worked flint. On the basis of this desk-based assessment, it is considered that the site has a moderate potential to contain remains of prehistoric and early/medieval… date. These are likely to be of local or regional (low or moderate) significance.’ (Ibid.)

It should be noted that what is ‘local’ or ‘regional’ significance from the perspective of a UK archaeologist is of ‘national’ significance for the Isle of Man.

‘In addition to these known assets, a number of anomalies have been detected though through geophysical survey across the southern end of the site which are likely to be archaeological in origin. These appear to comprise a series of rectilinear anomalies likely to represent field systems, possible enclosures indicative of settlement and a series of circular anomalies which could be kilns or ring ditches. As such, it is considered that the site clearly has potential to contain buried archaeological remains, and the proposed development would likely impact on potential archaeological remains, if present.

This assessment concludes that there is evidence for archaeological remains within the site which require further investigation to determine their significance. It is strongly recommended that further evaluative work, in the form of a programme of targeted trial trenching be undertaken to investigate and characterise the likely archaeological anomalies identified by geophysical survey, and to further determine their significance, thus allowing this significance to be fully articulated as part of the planning submission.’ (Archaeological desk-based assessment, pp.13.28-15.38, or p.149-151 of file 58.PDF)

A walkover survey of the site was undertaken on March 19th 2018. The report states, in particular,

‘… the earliest detailed Ordnance Survey map of the site shows an earthwork in the south western corner of the site, described as a ‘Fort’. … The walkover survey identified an area of raised ground in the dense scrub on the edge of the wooded scarp which roughly corresponds to the location of this mapped earthwork (see Plate 12).’

‘… Within the wider study area, the sites of three assets from this period lie nearby, c.200m to the west of the site, which are; the site of supposed medieval camp (697), a 12thC. Church at Kirk Braddan and possible site of an earlier keeill or chapel (697), and a Viking burial site (690). Additionally, located within the churchyard (697), three medieval crosses, (72, 135 and

136) with either, intricately carved plaits or runic inscription; however, they were not found in situ.

4.5.5 The grouping, type, and similar dating of these assets suggest that this would have been the foci of settlement within the area during the medieval period, elements of which could possibly extend into the site and may indicate the mound within the site (686) as being medieval in origin. As such, the likelihood of further remains of this period being encountered within the site is considered moderate.’

‘This study has also determined that the site contains likely archaeological remains in the form of a known earthwork mound, of uncertain purpose, whilst the recovery of a likely Bronze Age burial and undiagnostic worked flint point to likely prehistoric activity within the site. a geophysical survey undertaken as part of this assessment has identified a series of anomalies likely to represent former field systems, ditched enclosures, trackways and a series of circular anomalies which may be kilns, but could also be ring ditches. Without understanding the nature, extent and date of these anomalies, it is difficult to determine their significance with certainty, although it is potentially medium or even high. It is recommended that a targeted archaeological evaluation be undertaken to investigate these anomalies and allow their significance to be determined more comprehensively.’

‘‘There is one known heritage asset (an undated mound of uncertain function) and two findspots within the site – both suggestive of prehistoric burial or activity. Furthermore, a magnetometer survey undertaken as part of this assessment recorded a number of anomalies which could possibly relate to features of archaeological origin. The form of these suggests that they represent the remains of former field systems, enclosures (possibly related to settlement), whilst a series of circular anomalies may be kilns, or perhaps more likely ring ditches. Further work is needed to determine the nature, date and extent of these potential archaeological remains, and to determine their significance. It is strongly recommended that this potential and significance are determined through a targeted archaeological trial trenching exercise.’ (p.31/38, or p. 162 of file ‘358.PDF’)

‘… variously interpreted as a motte, a Viking burial mound or the foundations for a post medieval summer house, but given the recovery of worked flints and a prehistoric burial from elsewhere within the site, it could equally represent the remains of a prehistoric burial mound.

6.1.9 On the basis of this desk based assessment, it is considered that the site has a moderate potential to contain remains of prehistoric and early/medieval… date. These are likely to be of local or regional (low or moderate) significance.’

Again, a Viking burial may be of local or regional significance from the UK perspective of the archaeologist, but for the Isle of Man, it is likely to be of national, i.e., all-island significance.

‘6.1.10 In addition to these known assets, a number of anomalies have been detected though through geophysical survey across the southern end of the site which are likely to be archaeological in origin. These appear to comprise a series of rectilinear anomalies likely to represent field systems, possible enclosures indicative of settlement and a series of circular anomalies which could be kilns or ring ditches. As such, it is considered that the site clearly has potential to contain buried archaeological remains, and the proposed development would likely impact on potential archaeological remains, if present.’ 46

Even though the Sponsor promised to carry out the detailed archaeological surveys and trench excavations recommended by the archaeologist, the residents question whether the surveys can genuinely be completed within the lifetime of the Draft Area Plan.

The significance of the finds, particularly immovable ones (such as the Fort) may turn out to be greater than anticipated. In other words, the archaeological sites on DBH002 and BH030 may turn out to be ‘important’ for the Isle of Man.

The archaeological report contains early indications that the correct conclusions may turn out to be different from those of the Sponsor: the development of the sites is undesirable. It might damage, disturb or detract from an important archaeological site … or the setting thereof (in breach of Environment Policy 40).

13. The development of the sites would be unsustainable

Logical scrutiny of the evidence and opinions submitted by the Sponsor reveals the reality, which is the opposite of the Sponsor’s main contention. The development of the sites would not be sustainable.

1. The sites, particularly DBH002, are ‘visually prominent’. The development would have significant adverse visual impact on a large number of people (in local terms).

2. The sites are situated ‘immediately adjacent to the built-up areas’. The development of the sites would lead to the coalescence with them.

3. Despite the physical proximity of the sites to the main services, the development could not be served by them, because the drains, the roads (which cannot be widened) and the nearest primary school are ‘at capacity’.

4. The sites do not have an efficient access. All the identified access solutions would have an unacceptable effect on the traffic flow on local highways and road safety and at least one is undeliverable - the main proposed access under the Site-Specific Brief, off Ballafletcher Road via site BH030.

5. The implementation of at least two solutions (access from Braddan Road and from Peel Road) would lead to the loss of registered trees or mature trees that should have been recognised as registered woodland.

6. The development would adversely affect wildlife, both identified (bats) and not yet identified by the Manx Wildlife Trust but seen by the residents (herons and sparrowhawks).

7. The development would damage the environment in other respects. It would add 340-680 cars to the congested local traffic and would have an unacceptable level of

pollution and adverse effect on the environment.

8. The development would come at the expense of the appearance and character or openness of the landscape or result in the loss of traditional hedgerows and field boundaries or the loss of limited areas of good quality agricultural land.

9. The development would not be in keeping with the fabric and setting of a registered building adjacent to the site.

10. The full archaeological surveys of these archaeologically promising sites require a substantial time, meaning that the development of the sites is undesirable or may not be delivered within the timescale of the Draft Area Plan.

11. The development is unnecessary and the increasing vacancy rates of residential properties in the Isle of Man may lead to it becoming a ‘ghost town’.

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.).

The cross-examination of Mrs. Brown of the Cabinet Office revealed that, according to the Department’s information, ‘we now know’ that the number of new units that can be built on brownfield is now 650’. When asked about the source of that knowledge, Mrs. Brown admitted that it was not a register of brownfield sites. The register is not released and consequently not available for logical scrutiny. In particular, it is unclear whether the register includes brownfield sites, which were not identified in the Draft Area Plan (it should).

The document, on which the Cabinet Office relies, in in fact its supplementary evidence paper 8 published at https://www.gov.im/media/1361897/supplementary-evidence- paper-8-statistics-on-brownfield-development-published-25th-june-2018.pdf).

On page 1 in print, which is page 2 in PDF online (under headings 2.0 and 3.0, at para 3.1), the document states the number of new housing units as being 658, which was to be deducted from the original target of 2440 (now revised):

Page 10 gives the total calculated from a table of brownfield sites identified by June 2018 – 658.45 new housing units:

Page 11 in PDF online (Appendix 2) gives a vastly greater number – 2528:

On these numbers, no greenfield sites should have been brought forward for rezoning.

Page 14 in PDF online (marked as page 4 of Appendix 2) gives a different number - 984 just for the East:

The inconsistent numbers do not refer to different concepts. They refer to the number of new housing units on brownfield sites.

There is no information on the number of the ‘old’ housing units on those sites, which are vacant. 50

This confusing document fails to explain the original number of housing units on brownfield sites as 650 and fails to make a case for greenfield site development.

Bill Shimmins, MHK, has submitted an amendment to the combined vote on the Strategic Plan housing need numbers, requesting an updated review by December 2019. Tynwald approved it by 20 votes to 12. The strong support from the Court of Tynwald and the debate should be a clear warning that an evidence-based need is a requirement and the overall numbers should be reduced.

Until the debate is transcribed for Hansard, the recording can be listened to at http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/listen/AgainFiles/t191017a2.mp3

Having regard to all the available evidence, the best conclusion is clear: sites DBH002 and BH030 must be removed from the list of sites designated for housing development.

21 October 2019

Marina Warwick Advocate for the public residing around the sites

Advocate Marina Warwick, LL.M. 1 Athol Street Douglas Isle of Man IM1 1LD British Isles