A request was made for officer notebooks, phone notes, and diary entries regarding planning application 20/01215/B for Ballavarvane Farm, resulting in the disclosure of email correspondence concerning highway safety and access design, though not all requested information was held.
Key Facts
The request targeted internal records such as notebooks and diary entries for a planning application at Ballavarvane, St Marks.
The Department of Infrastructure responded that some information was sent but not all was held.
Disclosed emails discuss the requirement for a Road Safety Audit (RSA) Stage 1.
Highway Development Control Officers provided feedback on vehicle tracking, visibility splays, and tree positioning.
The correspondence references specific design standards from the Manual for Manx Roads.
Data Disclosed
20/01215/B
2021-06-30
2021-07-27
26 August 2020
17 August 2020
06 August 2020
05 August 2020
13 July 2020
10 July 2020
120m
0.5m
2 x 23m
20mph
85th%
RSA Stage 1
Original Request
Please supply copies of officers notebook; phone notes; and diary entries showing any meetings or notes of such meetings or photographs taken, and any additional material that may be relevant in respect of the above application Ballavarvane, St Marks
Appendix 1
1
From:
Sent:
26 August 2020 12:16
To:
Cc:
Subject:
RE: Ballavarvane Farm - St Marks,
It would be prudent to undertake a RSA Stage 1 given the nature and status of the road and to address the proposed
junctions, relationships to each and existing intersections, such as the crossing movements for vehicles and any
pedestrians or other vulnerable users.
Regards
|Highway Development Control Officer
From:
Sent: 26 August 2020 10:44
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Ballavarvane Farm - St Marks,
Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please take care before opening any attachments or
following any links.
I trust you are well?
Is there any requirement for an RSA to be carried out to form part of the planning application for the project and if
so, to what extent would the department require?
Kind Regards
From:
Sent: 17 August 2020 15:33
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Ballavarvane Farm ‐ St Marks,
’s the largest vehicle likely to use the access the most often, e.g. the Applicant’s tractor towing a trailer or
a rigid delivery and collection vehicle if used regularly, and some farm vehicles and equipment can be very large
these days as well as slow moving especially when manoeuvring so need more time and space. We often ask for the
local authority’s waste collection vehicle or equivalent vehicle types thereto as the test for junction and street
suitability, probably inapplicable at this site, but there may be other rigids using the site on a regular basis, such as if
loads are palletised. The size of waste collection vehicle makes it a strong benchmark test of vehicles entering and
exiting the site, including fire and rescue without overrunning the kerbs / path / verge.
Regards
|Highway Development Control Officer
From:
Sent: 17 August 2020 14:43
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Ballavarvane Farm - St Marks,
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
t
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
2
Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please take care before opening any attachments or
following any links.
for your comments below, they are much appreciated and we have amended our information where
applicable.
However we do have one query in regard to the vehicle tracking. Which vehicle would you recommend I use in order
to produce this information?
Many Thanks
:
Sent: 06 August 2020 14:26
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Ballavarvane Farm ‐ St Marks,
Thank you for the updated plans. Just a few comments.
Vehicle tracking would be prudent to ensure the radii are sufficient. The ones to the new access look tight.
The visibility splay is less than 120m since the kerb edge is reached before the extent drawn and it will need to be
justified, such as by basing the visibility splays on the 85th% of actual speeds passing the proposed and changed site
accesses. An offset of 0.5m from the edge may be acceptable and better reflect the position of a vehicle passing
along this section. Again this would need to be explained in the supporting documentation to any planning
application.
The alternate arrangement is less acceptable given the likely impact of tress on the lines of sight and wall as these
grow. The preference is for trees to be located behind any wall with root protection. DEFA’s tree officer would be
able to advise further on positioning, number and species. A green style wall may be more appropriate and would
help soften its appearance with lichen and / or other low and limited spread vegetation.
Additionally, where the should be adequate lines of sight where the new track intersects the existing; typically 2 x
23m for private shared space, but could be reduced if speeds are below 20mph.
Regards
|Highway Development Control Officer
.im]
Sent: 05 August 2020 15:07
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Ballavarvane Farm - St Marks,
Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please take care before opening any attachments or
following any links.
Good Afternoon
I trust you are we
Please see attached updated site plans and visibility splays following your comments below regarding the initial
correspondence for the proposed entrance at the above property.
As an alternative to this, also attached is a plan showing a small stemmed tree line to the southern most side of the
proposed openings. The thoughts behind the alternate plan is to reduce the overall impact and loss of tree line to
this area. Can you advise, from a highways point of view that the alternate plan would be acceptable?
Many Thanks
From:
Sent: 13 July 2020 13:38
To:
Cc:
Subject: Ballavarvane Farm ‐ St Marks,
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
3
to your email dated 10 July 2020 which has been forwarded to me for response. I provide the following
comments:
i.
From the highway viewpoint there is no objection in principle to the creation of a new access given the
safety issues and subject to it meeting the design standards set out in Manual for Manx Roads:
https://www.gov.im/media/1359885/mfmr‐103.pdf and Making an application – a guide for applicants
supplementary guidance on highway issues: https://www.gov.im/media/1363894/making‐an‐application‐
guidance‐highways‐issues.pdf Any variation should be justified, e.g. to retain trees etc.
ii.
As the proposed access is to be taken from the A26, a primary route, reference is necessary, also, to the
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB). The relevant standard for frontage / direct access or priority
junction, being CD123.
iii.
The proposed visibility splay complies with the speed limit of 50mph at 2.4 x 120m in each direction and is
clearly shown on the plan. There should be no obstruction above 1.05m in height.
iv.
As drawn, the proposed layout is compliant; dimensions are indicated as being above minimum
requirements. It is to be recessed with radii allowing access and egress for larger or towing vehicles without
obstructing the highway and of suitable width to allow passing vehicles.
v.
Any gates should open inwards or slide.
vi.
The area between the pillars and the carriageway should be surfaced in a consolidated and bound material
with surface water drained into the site
vii.
Closure and reinstatement of the existing access is necessary.
viii.
Consider providing warning signs for ‘farm vehicles ahead’ either side of the access as an additional safety
measure. Diag 553.1 refers:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment data/file/77203
7/traffic‐signs‐manual‐chapter‐4.pdf
ix.
Works within the highway are necessary requiring a s109(A) Highway Agreement on planning consent.
Regards
|Highway Development Control Officer
Isle of Man. Giving you freedom to flourish
WARNING: This email message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. You must not copy or deliver it to any
other person or use the contents in any unauthorised manner without the express permission of the sender. If you are not the intended addressee of this e-
mail, please delete it and notify the sender as soon as poss ble.
No employee or agent is authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of any of the Departments or Statutory Boards of the Isle of Man
Government with any party by e-mail without express written confirmation by a Manager of the relevant Department or Statutory Board.
RAAUE: S’preevaadjagh yn çhaghteraght post-l shoh chammah’s coadanyn erbee currit marish as ta shoh coadit ec y leigh. Cha nhegin diu coipal ny cur eh
da peiagh erbee elley ny ymmydey yn chooid t’ayn er aght erbee dyn kied leayr veih’n choyrtagh. Mannagh nee shiu yn enmyssagh kiarit jeh’n phost-l shoh,
doll-shiu magh eh, my sailliu, as cur-shiu fys da’n choyrtagh cha leah as oddys shiu.
Cha nel kied currit da failleydagh ny jantagh erbee conaant y yannoo rish peiagh ny possan erbee lesh post-l er son Rheynn ny Boayrd Slattyssagh erbee jeh
Reiltys Ellan Vannin dyn co-niartaghey scruit leayr veih Reireyder y Rheynn ny Boayrd Slattyssagh t’eh bentyn rish.
Redacted
Redacted
1
From:
Sent:
10 July 2020 16:33
To:
Subject:
FW: Ballavarvane Farm - St Marks,
Attachments:
19-3003-01 - Location Plan.pdf; Draft proposal - 1-200 @A1.pdf; Draft proposal -
1-500 @A1.pdf; TR-20520.pdf; TS-12520.pdf
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Hi
Fro
DC inbox
Regards
From:
Sent: 10 July 2020 15:10
To: DOI, Highways Development Control
Cc:
Subject: Ballavarvane Farm - St Marks,
Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please take care before opening any attachments or
following any links.
Dear Sirs,
Please find attached proposals for a new access at the above address.
I’m aware
has seen this before so apologies if we’re going over old ground here. I also met
from Defa
to discuss the trees that would be affected, and also attach the information received with regards removal and
protection required. (based on the current proposal)
The client wishes to create a new access largely related to safety as the family have been involved in a RTC and a
number of near misses. The proposed access is located on the main road ‐A26‐ north east of St Marks village. The
road is restricted to 50mph in this area. There is currently farm traffic in the location also.
I would like the views of Highways and Defa in particular as the proposals have impact / benefit to both of these
aspects and wish to reach agreement as to how best to proceed before submitting a formal application.
The proposal shows replanting, and the client is very much prepared to offer and include mitigating planting – not
necessarily in the form shown and we would be happy to receive advise with regards type and location. With
regards the removal of trees, we are looking to minimise this but are aware that visibility is a key factor with regards
highways. The applicant intends to create a similar access for agricultural use on the south side of the road, again
with improved visibility. If we can find a balance to suit both departments (Highways / defa) it would be most
appreciated.
I’m happy to meet – possibly on site should that be required.
Peter
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
2
Ellis Brown Architects
RIBA Chartered Practice
12, Strathallan Crescent,
Douglas,
Isle of Man ‐ IM2 4NR
Redacted
Redacte
d
Redacted
Appendix 2
1
From:
Sent:
07 December 2020 11:21
To:
Cc:
;
Subject:
RE: 20/01215/B - Ballavarvane Farm
Attachments:
3003 - 01A Site & Location Plans.pdf; Ballavarvane Planting Plan 291020.pdf
Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please take care before opening any attachments or
following any links.
Thank you for your email.
Firstly apologies for the plan being incorrect – This has been update and is attached. You are correct the Old Mill is
under a different ownership / control.
Also attached is the Information from Manx Roots – which for some reason wasn’t attached to the original
submission.
With regards your question as to how we arrived at the proposal we did.
The current access serves both the application property and the Old Mill as identified on the plan. The client isn’t in
control of the land adjacent to the existing access opening, that would have been required for the visibility splays. As
such the applicant would be required to enter into a legal agreement with the owner of the Old Mill. This was felt to
have potential issues and an area the applicant didn’t wish to pursue. Additionally, directly adjacent to the existing
opening is a water course that runs along the hedge line to the right of the existing lane, which was felt that may
create further issues, particularly as this watercourse enters a culvert that passes under the road.
These factors combined led to us pursuing the proposal that we have submitted. As you may be aware we met with
on site and have had discussion with Highways with regards the proposal. I understand that the
proposal will interrupt the “avenue” of trees – but as the Manx roots documents enclosed, mitigation planting is
proposed that is intended to offset this and provide alternative habitats for the ecology in the area.
I trust this adequately responds to your questions, but should you require anything further please don’t hesitate to
contact me.
Regards,
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
2
Ellis Brown Architects
RIBA Chartered Practice
12, Strathallan Crescent,
Douglas,
Isle of Man ‐ IM2 4NR
From:
Sent: 24 November 2020 16:38
To: office
Cc:
;
;
Subject: 20/01215/B ‐ Ballavarvane Farm
Dear
I am starting my report on the above application. The location plan seems to indicate that the applicant owns The
Old Mill which I understood was in different ownership. Can you check this please and if necessary submit an
amended, corrected plan.
I think there is something missing from the information from Manx Roots. There is usually a statement
accompanying the plans which describes the condition of the trees. Did Manx Roots prepare this for you? If so,
could we have a copy of this please? There is also usually a planting schedule which provides a 5 year management
programme and details of the planting to ensure that the proposed new trees survive and I can’t see that either.
Also, the scheme results in the removal of a number of mature trees which contribute significantly to the character
of the roadway and area and will take a long time to replicate: this is likely to be the most contentious part of the
application. I would have expected there to be in the application a consideration of what alternatives you
considered which may not have involved the loss of so many trees. For example, why not try to improve the existing
access so that both Ballavarvane and The Old Mill would benefit from an improved access incorporating the
widening of the existing lane and avoid a new access crossing through an open field? I don’t know whether this
would involve the removal of as many, more or fewer trees than the proposed scheme does but it would be useful
to know that you considered it.
It would be useful if you could provide the above information before 16th December, 2020.
Thanks.
Principal Planner,
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
3
Planning and Building Control Directorate,
Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture,
Murray House,
Mount Havelock,
Douglas,
Isle of Man IM1 2SF.
Any views expressed in this email are those of the officer only and are without prejudice to any formal decision made
under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and any relevant secondary legislation
From the 1st January 2020 planning is changing ‐ see www.gov.im/planningreform
To be kept up‐to‐date on changes to the planning service, sign up to our mailing list by sending your request
(including contact details) to plann
[Response truncated — full text is 45,142 characters]