Planning consent has been approved in principle for a controversial housing estate near a nature reserve and protected saltmarsh.

The proposed £40m Sulby Riverside development at Poyll Dooey, Ramsey, was rejected by the planning committee in February, despite being recommended for approval.

Blythe Church Investments Holdings Ltd are appealing that decision but in the meantime it submitted a new, revised application seeking approval in principle for a reduced area of housing - and this has now been unanimously approved by the planning committee.

There was raft of last minutes objections to the plan as well as a Facebook petition, all citing concerns over loss of wildlife habitat, flood risk and lack of infrastructure.

Blythe had previously sought detailed planning approval (22/00679/B) for the first phase of the Sulby Riverside scheme comprising a total of 66 houses and 12 flats built on fields at Poyll Dooey.

Its application also sought consent for a second phase of up to 127 more homes, making 205 in total.

But the planning committee voted three to two against the scheme, amid concerns over flood risk and possible loss of two red-listed wildflowers.

An appeal is still in progress.

Blythe’s latest application (24/00741/A) sought approval in principle for the development of 7.38 hectares of land for a residential-led development at Ballachrink, off Poylldooey Road.

For this application it proposed that land to the north of a future spine road - the exact location of which is not now known - would be maintained as open space with no housing or other development.

Multiple drainage ‘swales’, dug to 0.5-0.75m in depth, would be constructed, to help minimise the risk of run-off during floods.

The whole site would be protected as open space under the proposed new Area Plan.

But planning officer Hamish Laird, recommending approval, described the Area Plan as an ‘aspiration’ that currently ‘doesn’t hold any weight’.

He said the pressure on environmental grounds from various bodies both within and outside government has diminished by the fact that the scheme now proposes no built development to the north of the spine road.

Committee member Peter Whiteway pointed out it was agricultural land currently zoned for development. ‘I can’t see an objection to it at this stage,’ he said.

Colleague Matthew Warren agreed. ‘I can’t see any reason to oppose. I think it would be an asset to the area.’

Acting committee chairman Ian Young said there were a lot of changes since the last application and Helen Hughes said: ‘It’s a much better application’.

The application was approved unanimously with a series of conditions relating to a future reserved matters application which will set out details of design and layout of homes and flood mitigation relating to the proposed spine road.