Two government departments have found themselves on opposite sides in a planning dispute over a replacement TT footbridge in Douglas.

The Department of Infrastructure has applied (20/00081/B) for permission to build a new footbridge, complete with lifts, to cross Glencrutchery Road which would be open all year round.

According to the DoI, two mature elm trees in Noble’s Park will have to be removed if the proposed new bridge at the Grandstand is to be built.

An email from the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture’s arboricultural officer Andrew Igoea to planners said that he was submitting an objection to the application because of the trees’ ’high amenity value’ and contribution to the local area.

Some of the trees are also registered by the Department of the Environment, Food and Agriculture and as such are maintained by the Tree Preservation Act 1993.

Mr Igoea’s email to planners said he also had concerns about trees on the cemetery side of the road where two large mature trees, one sycamore and one elm, along with a younger holly tree, are at risk of being damaged ’due to excavation within their rooting areas’.

He added: ’Anticipating an objection from the Agriculture and Lands Directorate, the statement supporting the application says that the department "is willing to commit to planting 100 trees in locations to be agreed upon with DEFA" to offset the carbon impact of the proposed tree removal.

’The impact to carbon sequestration and storage, however, is not significant. We are only talking about the removal of up to (worst-case scenario) seven individual trees and carbon issues are only relevant at a much bigger scale.

’The impact to the amenities of the area is the major issue but the impacts to biodiversity and the removal of trees which mitigate air pollution, traffic noise and reduce storm water run-off are also important.’

Mr Igoea also pointed out that the DEFA does not own any of the land and said that the DoI will need to work with other parties to undertake any mitigation planting.

And he criticised the lack of detail about what trees will be planted and where.

He added: ’There isn’t much information in the application about why a replacement bridge is needed (e.g. expected usage) and what benefits this would deliver to local people.’

community

The DoI said that the bridge would serve the community, including elderly residents who currently don’t feel safe crossing the road.

Douglas Council, while asking for an extension on time to make its recommendation to planners, also asked for more details about the trees.

Since this, the DoI has provided additional information in the form of an arboricultural impact assessment written by Manx Roots Tree Management.

The report said that based on the DoI’s proposed bridge, MRTM’s assessment ’has identified the requirement to remove three category B trees and one category C tree to facilitate the development.

It added: ’ These trees cannot realistically be retained due to the position of the proposed footbridge.

’Retention may have been possible by minimising root damage with the use of pad footings.

’However, crown spreads would have to be severely reduced and would likely result in ill-health and/or ongoing maintenance issues.’

The report also says that the removal of the trees should be mitigated with six extra-heavy standard, disease-resistant elms. It said that this ’would provide a long-term improvement on what currently exists’.