Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
17/01205/B Page 1 of 16
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 17/01205/B Applicant : Mr Allen John & Mrs Marilyn Lloyd Proposal : Erection of a building to provide two staff residential units and office accommodation with associated landscaping and parking Site Address : Land At Arragon House Santon Isle Of Man
Head of Development Management: Miss Jennifer Chance Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 06.08.2018 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The site is not designated for development and there would appear to be no policy or material reasons to set aside General Policy 3, Environment Policies 1 and 2, Housing Policy 4, the Strategic Aim and Strategic Policies 1,2, 9 and 10 and Transport Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
R 2. The introduction of a building of the size proposed and its associated activity would adversely affect the character of the area through which a footpath passes, contrary to the principles of Environment Policy 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan 2016.
R 3. The proposal would result in unsustainable development, increasing the number and distance of vehicle movements. These movements would be along a narrow and winding access road, which is also a public footpath and would have an adverse impact on highway safety and the desirability of the public footpath, contrary to Transport Policies 1 and 4 of the Strategic Plan 2016.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:
Department for Enterprise
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject
==== PAGE 2 ====
17/01205/B Page 2 of 16
matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
Seafield House and Arragon Cottage as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018).
__
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSAL IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND DUE TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE
Please note that there are references to Department of Economic Development which was the former title of the Department for Enterprise.
THE SITE 1.1 The site is a piece of land which lies to the north east of the road which leads from the A25 Old Castletown Road, past a number of properties including Arragon House, past the application site and south east towards Meary Voar, a residential property, and ultimately to the coastal footpath. This group of buildings is somewhat unusual, all being clearly visible from the road which is also a public footpath and whilst Arragon House is a substantial property, it too is relatively close to and visible from the road/footpath. The application site has on it no structures or features, is grassed and slopes upward from north west to south east by around 2m over a distance of 31.5m.
1.2 To the north east of the site is a strip of trees and to the north east of that are two portal framed buildings. To the north west of the site a is a hard surfaced car parking area and to the north west is a private dwelling, Arragon Cottage which is in separate ownership to the application site.
1.3 To the immediate south of the site is another private dwelling in ownership separate from the application site - Seafield House. This has a number of windows abutting the footpath, five of which serve toilets or bathrooms and are adjacent to the footpath and which are fitted with obscured glazing, the other five are larger windows with clear glass. To the north west of this is an existing range of interesting stone buildings which is in the ownership of the applicant. The site also includes a number of dwellings - Harbour Croft, Arragon Lodge and Ballaquiggin. The site plan also indicates that Seafield Cottage and Arragon Cottage are within the ownership of the applicant but it is understood that this is not the case as there are objections from these parties (see later).
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a new building to accommodate staff accommodation and offices. The building will have a footprint which is 22.2m long at its longest and 10m at its widest with elements which step in from these dimensions. The building will be just over 5m at its highest eaves level and 8.3m to its highest ridge level with its roof pitched at 30 degrees. The ground floor will accommodate an office area with a single front entrance and two side annexes which are each self-contained and not accessible from the offices and which will provide the ground floor accommodation (laid out as two double bedrooms) of two residential units. The first floor provides a continuation of the ground floor uses - more offices in the central section and the living quarters of the residential accommodation on each side. The proposal will create around 397 sq m of nett floor space.
2.2 The property will be served by 19 parking spaces which lie to the north west of the proposed building.
==== PAGE 3 ====
17/01205/B Page 3 of 16
2.3 The building is designed to appear as a large house.
2.4 This application follows on from a previous one which is referred to in the planning history below. The building previously proposed would have had a footprint of 9m by just under 29m and would have been 5.5m to the eaves and 7.7m to the roof. The building was to be finished entirely in stone under a slated roof pitched at 25 degrees. Internally the building was arranged to provide 4 offices and associated storage and staff facilities on the first floor and three residential units with 2 bedrooms each, on the ground floor. New tree planting was to be introduced alongside the roadway and between the new building and 20 car parking spaces were shown in the position shown in the current application.
2.5 The applicants support the application by a statement which states that the present scheme differs from that which was refused and that the inspector's concerns have been either overcome, or those concerns were an error of judgement. The statement is appended to this report. Not stated in this application but in the previous one, the applicants explained that they have been resident on the Island since 1995, having relocated from the UK. They have either directly or through their companies, invested in or developed over 330 properties on the Island, both residential and commercial and they retain a portfolio of over 1,000 residential and commercial properties in the UK, held through their IOM holding companies with the income from those lets routed to the Island. The applicants also have their own construction company which employs a range of workers. The office element is currently taking place from the adjacent Arragon Farmhouse which has approval for renovation for residential use. This has been the subject of an enforcement investigation, following a complaint about the use of the building. It is the applicants' intention to use this property as a residence for a family member. No application was sought for the use of this building as offices.
2.6 The applicants indicated in the earlier application that they would like to enjoy assistance in future years in the form of staff accommodation - a housekeeper, handyman and nurse due to the particular circumstances of one of the applicants. There is currently no on-site staff accommodation which, in their view is inappropriate for a property of this size. They emphasised that the site is well screened from public view and even if seen they would form part of a group of buildings. The applicants have considered the impact on adjacent neighbours and consider that the distance between them would avoid any inter-visibility and they also consider that there will be no increase in vehicle movements as those to be occupying the new building have been visiting the site for the last 15 years.
2.7 In the current application, the applicants explain that the present scheme is a reduction in footprint of the building and associated massing which has been reduced by 30% and there are only two residential units, not three. It also differs in that the scheme has the support of Department of Economic Development and evidence of the applicants' need for the proposal, the necessity of its location and the economic benefit generated by the proposal has been the subject of "rigorous scrutiny".
2.8 The applicants are critical of the inspector's conclusion that the site lies in an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance and is surrounded by built development which, in their view quite contracts any reasonable conclusion that it could purport to be within the countryside or an area of High Landscape Value or Scenic Significance. Nevertheless, the inspector goes on to judge that the development could be acceptable if, in terms of the Planning Policy Statement its economic benefits are judged, on robust evidence, to outweigh and planning harm or conflict with the Strategic Plan. They believe that this new proposal demonstrates very significant economic benefits that have been judged on robust evidence and whilst they do not believe that there would be any harm to the area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance, even if there were, the economic benefit would outweigh this.
==== PAGE 4 ====
17/01205/B Page 4 of 16
2.9 As the inspector considered that the design was acceptable but that the size would be excessively dominant, as the current scheme has been reduced by 30% this will result in a building which is not excessively dominant compared with the surrounding buildings.
2.10 The inspector did not consider that there would be any adverse impact on the living conditions of those in neighbouring property.
2.11 The applicant reiterates the inspector's comment that there is no dispute that the business of the applicant is of economic benefit to the economy of the Island and that such benefit must, as a matter of ministerial policy and promulgation by the PPS, be accorded due weight against any planning harm. They also reiterate his comment that it is important to accord due weight to the general support for the appeal expressed by DED and that the prospect that the applicant may relocate away from the Island in order to pursue their business interests is to be avoided but then concludes, "quite remarkably" that the written support from DED, which was submitted only during the course of the appeal, is unsupported and lacking robust quantitative and qualitative evidence and they do not believe that this was the case. They believe that the support provided by DED required no further scrutiny or examination either by the Planning Committee or the inspector and no proof or explanation was given to justify that view. He therefore failed to give the appropriate weight and due consideration that should have been given to the written support of a Government Department.
2.12 They believe that the references to other cases that they propounded in support of the application were not properly considered. When they referred to the case of the creation of a car showroom and repair development on Cooil Road in Braddan, 15/01186/B, where the inspector wrote only a two line reference to this, stating that in that case, there was judged to be evidence available of overriding national need and economic benefit. They suggest that the creation of the many permanent jobs that would have arisen from that proposal could be questioned as representing overriding national need but nevertheless it was a significant economic benefit which was acknowledged. They believe that the inspector considering their appeal failed to make the comparison in landscape quality between their site and the Cooil Road site, both areas of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance and that inspector refers to "blanket" designations of areas of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance and did not apply any further scrutiny.
2.13 Similarly, the reference made to Kella Sheear (14/00687/A) was also given inadequate consideration, that inspector noting that that site was surrounded on all sides by other buildings - just like the application proposal) and that as such, that site was not considered to be in the open countryside and that overrode policy matters.
2.14 They suggest that "it is astonishing that the Inspector should quote all that without attempting to discern the reason and rationale for those findings and, having failed to do so, to then fail further by not applying similar logic to this proposal". Again, in the case of Meary Voar the inspector finds no parallel with the applicants' proposal. This application was approved by the Council of Ministers who resolved that the economic benefits for the Island were sufficient to outweigh the negative visual impact of the building on the surrounding countryside.
2.15 The applicant believes that they provided robust evidence of the need for the proposal, its location and having support from the Department of Economic Development, the previous refusal was "unforeseen and starkly disappointing". After this, the applicant was left to take an important strategic decision whether to continue to invest in the built environment of the Island economy. They suggest that there is an option to place the liquidated proceeds from the disposal of UK assets in some other jurisdiction with no further investment in the Island or to approach the process again with a revised scheme and support from Department of Economic Development. The applicants remain committed to investing in the Isle of Man economy and consequently has revised the scheme and sought reviewed advice from DED based upon the robust evidence provided which accompanies this application. They conclude by stating "It
==== PAGE 5 ====
17/01205/B Page 5 of 16
must be said in the clearest of terms that stated Government Policy must be correctly applied to this application. Further failure to gain approval would leave the Applicant with no alternative than to fully invest the circa £100M realisation from its UK asset disposal elsewhere". They ask that their submission and that of DED be circulated to each member of the Committee before their consideration of the application. These are appended.
Additional information received on 22nd January, 2018 2.16 The applicant provides further information to explain that in terms of the use of other buildings in the applicants' ownership is problematical: Ballaquiggin is too far away and not directly accessible and whilst there is a mile's length footpath access this is muddy and unlit. Arragon Lodge, which is around 250m away was previously used, 17 years ago as temporary office accommodation but was seriously lacking in space and facilities and would be too far from Arragon House for the necessary cabling, communications and IT links to work effectively. They consider also that the proposed use of Arragon Lodge for staff accommodation is impractical to be able to get to Arragon House within a required two minute response time. Use of this property for staff accommodation would lead to an increase in pedestrian movement between the Lodge and Arragon House where the existing lane is considered extremely dangerous and is an unacceptable risk to staff.
2.17 Arragon Farmhouse currently provides temporary and inadequate office accommodation with a poor layout and it, like Arragon Lodge, has no lift and the building could not easily provide one. They do not consider is acceptable that it would no longer be a detached dwelling and it would have two units of staff accommodation conjoined with but not part of it.
2.18 They state that the cost of using existing premises would lead to a diminution of value of them and if any of the uses have to be located in an existing building, it is unlikely that the future investment will proceed at all.
2.19 The Arragon estate is considered to be the hub of the applicant's economic activity and over the past 22 years the applicant's portfolio has increased to a level of over 330 units and it is inconceivable that the group's offices could be located outside of the estate in the same way that it is inconceivable that the main IOM Government Departments could be located outside Douglas. The offices coordinate the entire maintenance and construction elements of the business and the estate which involve day to day meetings between the management and maintenance teams. The offices manage both the house and the estate staff, where on-site contact and supervision is essential.
2.20 The proposal involves one fewer unit of residential accommodation, the housekeeper now being accommodated within Arragon House: the remaining two are for an out of hours groundsman/security guard and "other staff required to be on site over a 24 hours period".
2.21 The applicant has offered to re-orientate the building in order to appease neighbouring properties, but has determined not to submit this plan at the current time as the case officer indicated it would not alter the recommendation.
STATUTORY PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated as open space and of high landscape value and scenic significance on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 and just within the zone where there is a height restriction on development, associated with the operation of the Airport.
3.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 provides the basis for how planning applications are considered and is prepared in order to implement Government's wider aims and objectives. Chapter 3 sets out what the overarching aim and the Strategic Objectives are and they should be considered in respect of this application.
==== PAGE 6 ====
17/01205/B Page 6 of 16
3.3 Strategic Aim: "To plan for the efficient and effective provision of services and infrastructure and to direct and control development and the use of land to meet the community's needs, having particular regard to the principles of sustainability whilst at the same time preserving, protecting, and improving the quality of the environment, having particular regard to our uniquely Manx natural, wildlife, cultural and built heritage."
3.4 The Strategic Objectives include: the efficient use of resources; to guide development to existing settlements, making optimum use of existing infrastructure and services; to reduce the need to travel, especially by car; to protect the environment; to promote urban regeneration and the re-use of derelict sites; to maintain and improve the viability, vitality and diversity of the economy by enabling improved employment opportunities; to ensure sufficient land and property in terms of location, size and type is available for employment purposes; to maintain and enhance the viability and vitality of town centres by controlling the location and nature of new retail and commercial development; to locate new employment close to existing public transport routes.
3.5 In addition the following policies are relevant:
Strategic Policy 1: This seeks to optimise the use of previously developed land and redundant buildings; ensure efficient use of sites; be located so as to utilise existing infrastructure;
Strategic Policy 2 and Spatial Policy 5: These policies direct new development to existing town and villages. It states development will be permitted in the countryside only in exceptional circumstances identified in General Policy 3 (see below).
Strategic Policy 9: This states that all new office development must be sited in town and village centres on land zoned for these purposes in Area Plans.
Strategic Policy 10: encourages new development to be located so as to minimise journeys, especially by car, make best use of public transport, encourage pedestrian movement;
General Policy 3 allows for some development in the countryside provided it meets the following criteria: essential housing for agricultural workers; conversion of rural buildings (subject to further criteria); re-use of previously developed land; replacement of existing rural dwellings; development associated with minerals, agriculture or forestry; development of overriding natural need for which there is no reasonable alternative; buildings required for interpretation of the countryside.
Environment Policy 1 protects the countryside for its own sake.
Environment Policy 2: seeks to prevent development that would harm the character and quality of the landscape, prevent unnecessary development.
Housing Policy 4 states that new housing will be located primarily within existing towns and villages, or sustainable urban extensions.
Business Policy 1 supports the growth of employment opportunities throughout the Island provided that development proposals accord with the policies of the Strategic Plan.
==== PAGE 7 ====
17/01205/B Page 7 of 16
Business Policy 7 directs office floorspace to town and village centres, but allows for Headquarters on approved Business Parks; or in buildings of architectural or historic interested where it represents the most appropriate way of securing a future use.
Business Policy 8 requires new office buildings, in terms of height and mass, to respect the scale and character of adjoining and nearby buildings and to accommodate parking spaces in accordance with standards in Appendix 7 of the Plan.
Transport Policy 1 New development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes
Transport Policy 4 The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan.
OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 The Programme for Government was agreed in Tynwald in January 2017. It sets three strategic objectives:
o An inclusive and caring society o An Island of enterprise and opportunity o Financially responsible government
The are 20 outcomes grouped into five themes:
o Enterprise and Opportunity Island o Responsible Island o Sustainable Island o Inclusive and Caring Island o Healthy and Safe Island
4.2 The draft Planning Policy Statement on Planning and the Economy was issued in 2013 and has been neither adopted nor withdrawn. It remains something to which consideration should be given (reference to a recent decision in respect to the development of a car showroom with associated facilities on Cooil Road, Braddan is useful: paragraph 134 of the Inspector's report states: "There is also a national need for economic development, which is reflected in the draft PPS on "Planning and the Economy", as issued for consultation in 2012. The weight to be attached to that document would obviously be greater if the review promised in paragraph 26 of the "Initial Summary of Responses" had been carried out; and if a final PPS had been laid before Tynwald and published in accordance with section 3(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999. I also consider that the weight to be attached to the draft PPS would be greater if paragraph 14 of that document recognised the primacy of the development plan (as required by section 3(4)of the 1999 Act) rather than suggesting a less onerous test than is contained in General Policy 3(g) of the Strategic Plan. Nevertheless, the general thrust of draft PPS remains a material consideration, which reinforces Business Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan).
4.3 The PPS recognises the importance of giving sufficient weight to the importance of the economy is consideration of applications. It states 'the Government is committed to delivering further economic growth and diversification' (para 1). The PPS supports 'sustainable growth whilst protecting the countryside and enhancing the quality of the natural and built environment...alongside regeneration, social and environmental sustainability' (para 2). 'Proposals will be considered on their merits bearing in mind the Development Plan and the need to protect the island's unique character, natural environment and quality of life' (para4). In considering applications, the PPS says that the Department will 'seek proposals to be
==== PAGE 8 ====
17/01205/B Page 8 of 16
supported by evidence that demonstrates that the proposed development would secure sustainable, long term economic growth of Island wide benefit' (para 5).
4.4 The PPS defines economic development as the development of land and building for activities that generate wealth, jobs and incomes. Economic development land uses include offices. Residential uses are not included. (para 6)
4.5 Paragraph 7 recognises the role of planning to ensure that there is not a shortage of land for economic uses. It states that if 'development is outside locations zoned for that purpose, it must be demonstrated by the applicant that alternatives sites, including available land zone for that purpose, have been considered and rejected as not appropriate for the proposed use.'
4.6 Para 13 states that in determining applications for economic development uses account will be taken of the likely economic benefits of the development, using appropriate advice from the Department of Economic Development (now the DfE). DED will look at a number of key factors including; the number and types of jobs to be created; whether and how far the development will help meet economic growth opportunities, redress social disadvantage and support regeneration priorities; and the contribution to the Manx economy and local businesses.
4.7 The PPS does emphasis that the Development Plan should not be considered in isolation of other relevant material factors so as to deter economic development and that Planning will look favourably on applications for economic development uses where they are demonstrated to outweigh adverse impacts on social or environmental sustainability.
4.8 Para 14 states "When determining economic development proposals, the Strategic Plan and Area Plans should not be considered in isolation of other relevant material factors so as to deter economic development. Planning will look favourably on applications for economic development uses which may not be in accordance with the development plan, but only if based on a robust evidence base (which can withstand scrutiny, testing and cross examination) and the economic benefits of the development are demonstrated to outweigh adverse impacts on economic, social or environmental sustainability. Planning will give adequate weight to economic development issues even though these applications may not be in strict accordance with the Strategic or Area Plan. Such proposals will have to demonstrate a high quality design."
Climate Challenge Strategy:
4.9 In 2016 Tynwald agreed a Climate Challenge Mitigation Strategy for 2016-2020. It set out hierarchical principles for reducing emissions by 1) eliminating energy demand, 2) improving energy efficiency, and 3) substituting fossil fuels with sustainable alternatives.
4.10 It highlights that there are two main areas within which there is the ability for Government to deliver a reduction in emissions, one of which is through more efficient buildings, and the other is surface transport. It recognises that emissions from vehicles can be eliminated where the need to travel can be avoided.
PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The most relevant planning application is that for the erection of a building which would accommodate three staff apartments and office accommodation above with associated landscaping and parking, 16/00258/B. This application was refused by the Planning Committee and this refusal was confirmed at appeal.
This refusal, issued by the Minister contained the following advice:
"While the Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Hon G Boot HMK, accepts that your client will be disappointed by this decision, he has asked that I direct you in particular to
==== PAGE 9 ====
17/01205/B Page 9 of 16
the Inspector's comments at paragraphs 52, 53 and 55 of the report re the provision of robust evidence of economic benefit. As such, and if your client is therefore minded to submit any new planning application, the Minister has asked that in advance of any submission your client contacts both the Planning and Building Control Directorate and the DED to discuss with the relevant Officers, on a without prejudice basis, the type of appropriate economic evidence which might usefully be presented, such as to be capable of potentially being considered as 'any other material consideration' in respect of any new planning application".
5.2 The Minister refused that application for the following two reasons:
The site is not designated for development and there would appear to be no policy or material reasons to set aside General Policy 3, Environment Policies 1 and 2, Housing Policy 4, the Strategic Aim and Strategic Policies 1c, 2 and 10 and Transport Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
The introduction of a building of the size and mass as proposed would adversely affect the character of the area through which a public footpath passes, contrary to the principles of Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. Even if the building were to be hidden through the introduction of new planting, this planting itself would be out of keeping in an area where existing buildings were generally visible from the road and established in a landscaped setting or with low stone walls."
5.3 The inspector understands the policy status of the site, together with the associated group of buildings of the Arragon estate, lie outside any town or village within an area of High Landscape Value. He explains that even though the site is surrounded on three sides by built development, it itself is undeveloped save for part use as a car park and is adjacent to open fields to the west. He believes that the site is constrained by Strategic Plan policies which aim to protect the countryside and promote sustainable settlements.
5.4 He refers to the draft Planning Policy Statement - Planning and the Economy and considers that despite it standing for several years without formal adoption, it carries the force of Government policy consequent upon its original public introduction by the Minister in 2012 as having immediate effect. He goes on to suggest that whilst not bearing the weight of the Strategic Plan 2016, subsequently adopted following public examination, the draft PPS is a strong material consideration in the assessment of the appeal proposal. He concludes that the development would be acceptable if, in the terms of the draft PPS, its economic benefits are judged on robust evidence, to outweigh any planning harm or conflict with the Strategic Plan.
5.5 In terms of visual impact, he has no issue with the design but considers that the size of the building would be excessively dominant at the edge of the estate, adjacent to open countryside and would result in a harmful increase in urban character of the location in this area of High Landscape Value. He considered that this objection carries substantial weight in the overall planning balance.
5.6 He considered that the proposed building would be sufficiently far from existing dwellings to avoid direct impact and whilst there would be an impact on the outlook on Seafield House, its primary view towards the coast would be unaffected. He does not consider that the increased activity would be unduly harmful to the use of the footpath.
5.7 Whilst acknowledging the applicants' business, he considers the actual economic benefit to be unsupported by quantitative or qualitative evidence and he points out that there is no evidence of why the accommodation is truly necessary or why it could not be provided in existing estate buildings on or off site in a sustainable settlement.
5.8 He refers to the other cases that were referred to by the applicant, he distinguishes Meary Voar from that application as that application was for a replacement building linked to the
==== PAGE 10 ====
17/01205/B Page 10 of 16
house in an area solely occupied by that applicant whereas at Arragon House the site has other properties in separate ownership round about. Similarly he does not considered the Kella Sheear or Cooil Road developments to establish a precedent for the approval sought as for Kella Sheear he found that there were houses on all sides by other buildings and was not to be considered to be in open countryside and for Cooil Road, there was judged to be evidence available of overriding national need and economic benefit.
5.9 The two agricultural buildings to the north east of the site were approved on appeal under PA 98/00809/B. The purpose of these buildings was to accommodate plant used in the maintenance of Arragon House and its gardens and the provision of an indoor base for this maintenance activity. A condition was imposed upon the approval requiring that this be the only authorised use of the buildings as the inspector considered that other uses would not necessarily be appropriate for this area. He considered that given the size of the Arragon House lands and the fact that the buildings would be screened by the conifer belt, the visual impact would be minimal and the need would override the presumption against development here.
5.10 Other applications in the vicinity in ownership or control of applicant:
Arragon Farmhouse: PA 97/01468/B - Conversion of farmhouse, outbuildings and courtyards to residential use. Approved
Arragon Lodge: 01/00119/B - Extension to dwelling, conversion of part of dwelling to create a separate dwelling and conversion of garage to create separate dwelling. - approved
Ballaquiggin: Approval in principle for the redevelopment of the site to create a single large dwelling with associated accommodation for staff and guests, including a gate lodge together with access, landscaping and a new expanded residential curtilage. The application was approved on a number of occasions, most recently in 2012 but has not been taken up.
5.11 Reference is also made to an adjacent site - Meary Voar where planning approval was granted for the replacement of an existing stone barn with an extension to the dwelling. This was first approved in a form which went towards replicating the building to be demolished and was later approved in the form of a formal extension to the dwelling in a similar architectural style (PA 15/00124/B). Both applications were approved and both involved support from Department of Economic Development on the basis that there was economic benefit from the proposal and the links to the creation of an aircraft hangar and employment of staff. Both applications involved the replacement of an existing building although neither proposal complied directly with Strategic Plan policy. The most recent application proposed a building which was physically attached to the main house and which proposed a board room, office reception 2 offices a store and kitchen and then three bedrooms, lounge, bathroom, kitchen and dining room all on the same floor above two floors of swimming pool and associated gym and facilities.
REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 Department for Enterprise state that it is working hard to further the Government's strategic aim of economic growth and diversification, supporting the Programme for Government "Our Island - a special place to live and work" and their resources are focused upon attracting and developing business prospects which will benefit the Island's economy. In this respect they consider that it is essential that Government allows new and existing businesses the opportunity to flourish and display their full potential whilst being mindful of the environmental impact of new development. The Department supports the current application as they consider it provides significant economic benefit and matches the aims of the Programme for Government which was approved unanimously by Tynwald.
==== PAGE 11 ====
17/01205/B Page 11 of 16
One of its three strategic objectives is "An Island of Enterprise and Opportunity" within which is a number of outcomes - we have an economy where local entrepreneurship is supported and thriving and that we have a diverse economy where people choose to work and invest and with policy statements that focus on sustainable job growth and to continue to invest in and support businesses at all stages of growth and work to attract new enterprise.
They confirm that the applicant, Mr. Lloyd, has been known to the Department for a number of years and the Department has worked with his management team on a number of occasions. The applicant is the founder of Lloyds Chemists and has built his business empire to a portfolio of 1,400 outlets before exiting the business in the mid 1990s. He moved to the Island 21 years ago from where they state he has continued to be economically active, owning and operating 305 residential lettings on the Island and a UK property portfolio valued at £79m all of which is managed from the Island. The disposal of the UK assets is underway and provides him with the means to fund the expansion of the business on-Island without recourse to borrowings.
The applicant currently employs 40 staff on-Island creating direct exchequer benefits of approximately £200,000 per annum, maintaining and managing the local property portfolio. They state that the applicant wishes to significantly extend his property portfolio and expand his workforce to a maximum of 185 (FTEs and sub-contractors) in 5 years. DFE welcome this increase in the construction sector and will bring additional tax and national insurance contributions, estimated in broad terms to be approximately £350,000 with the potential to rise to £1m pa in 5 years. After new developments, the workforce will reduce to around 130-140 and in managing and maintaining the property although reinvestment could result in employee numbers rising again to around 180. There would also be additional benefit to the economy through freight, local suppliers and professional services.
At present, they suggest that the business functions from unsuitable premises on the Arragon estate and with the property portfolio concentrated in the east of the Island, this site is central to that portfolio. The proposed purpose-built premises will host the management functions and allow the business to scale up significantly to meet the anticipated growth projections. DFE supports the business principle of having the residential property, management and construction business functions on a single site owned by the applicant.
DFE State that they are keen to maintain this economic activity on the Island and indeed increase it in line with the applicant's intentions of bringing more business to the Island. They respectfully request that the significant economic value to the Island of the application and his proposed on-Island business expansion be given significant weight in determining this application alongside the usual environmental and social considerations. They add that their comments re restricted to the economic benefits that this development support and has not commented on the site specifics, the location or planning policy matters as these will be addressed by the Planning Committee (14.12.17)
6.2 Highway Services: The 21-space car park (PA form 2i and drawing PNJ201- 3 Rev B) would be adequate to cater for the use of the building which is proposed to accommodate four bedrooms and circa 132msq office space. As the proposed development is to be used to redeploy a number of existing workers already accommodated elsewhere on the site, any increase in vehicle movements and parking or noise and disturbance in the vicinity would be minimal, when compared with the effects of the traffic already utilising the access road. Therefore, Highway Services has no objection with respect to traffic movements and vehicle parking and does not oppose this application.
6.3 The owners of Arragon Cottage which sits across the lane from Arragon House and adjacent to the car park associated with the proposed development, objects to the application, considering that the application is still for development in an area not zoned for such and would change the character of the area. Their property is subject to a covenant which restricts its height to single storey in order to maintain the rural integrity of the area and they accept
==== PAGE 12 ====
17/01205/B Page 12 of 16
this as they value the rural look and feel of the area. They see this application as nothing more than a desire to acquire more residential property in the area and not in any way aligned to the needs of the applicant as it suggested in the application. They remain of the view that the additional traffic generated by the use of the farmhouse for offices has already had a marked impact on the use of the lane which is also a public footpath. As the work on the farmhouse commenced in 1997 they wonder how long, if approved, this scheme would take. Whilst they appreciate the obvious financial benefit of the residency status of the applicant but they fail to see the relevance of this to the application and consider that such a claim will in no way impact on the integrity of the planning process and fairness for all neighbours concerned. They believe that the applicants have a number of options available to them to accommodate staff and office facilities in existing buildings without the need for more (22.12.17).
6.4 The owners of Seafield House which sits opposite the proposed building, object to the application, considering the application to be only a minor revision of the earlier application and will still be a two storey block on a greenfield location opposite their house. The presumption against development in this location in accordance with planning policy: it is still an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. If they had wished to live in an urban environment they would have bought a house in such an area. Despite being reduced in size, they still see no reason why this should be sited here in the countryside. They consider that the building remains imposing in a relatively elevated location and will stand out as one approaches it. The lane is also a public footpath. They are concerned that the proximity (20m away) will result in a loss of outlook over green space and overlooking from the first floor windows of the new building. The commercial traffic associated with the building will pass their property, introducing into their privacy. They do not believe that there will be enough parking: there is a need for 7 parking spaces for the office workers plus 4 for the flats and visitors and existing estate staff spaces. They believe that the spaces shown are too small - 2m by 4m for an average car. If the building is constructed, it may outlast the applicant and the new owners may not exert the same controls on usage as the applicant. They do not know or fully understand the economic arguments in favour of the application but cannot see the direct benefit to the Island economy. They appreciate that in some instances where there are overriding reasons to approve a development if the impact is low and the benefit is high, However in this case they do not see how offices would provide any more economic benefit here than if they were somewhere allocated for that use as well as being less sustainable. (15.12.17)
6.5 Santon Parish Commissioners comment that the applicant has demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to make progress on another site in his ownership (Harbour Road). They believe that another building at this site is unwarranted and undesirable even if it has been reduced in size from what was proposed and refused previously. They "take a jaundiced view of the former DED's support of applications by wealthy owners on the grounds of National Interest/Benefit as this could all too easily be abused".
ASSESSMENT 7.1 The application should be considered on the basis of whether the development constitutes any of the exceptions listed in General Policy 3 or whether there is any other policy or material consideration which would support the approval of this development. It is also relevant to consider whether there would be any material harm to residents nearby or the character and appearance of the area from the proposed development.
7.2 Material to the consideration of this application is the recent decision made on the previous application and whether there have been any significant changes in circumstance, or different evidence put forward.
7.3 The previous application was found to be unacceptable as the proposal was contrary to policy, being not designated for development, and because it would adversely affect the character of the area through which a public footpath passes.
==== PAGE 13 ====
17/01205/B Page 13 of 16
7.4 In his decision the Minister suggested that the applicants consider what appropriate economic evidence might usefully be presented such as to be capable of potentially being considered as a material consideration.
Economic Benefit 7.5 The Department for Enterprise has supported the application stating that the development would be of economic benefit (see above). The history and standing of the applicant is not relevant from a planning perspective, however his business is. The business includes owning and operating over 300 residential lettings on the Island and a UK property portfolio valued at £79m all of which is managed from the Island. The disposal of the UK assets is underway and this is to provide the funds to expand the business on-Island. It is stated that the business currently employs 40 staff on-Island and that he wishes to expand the workforce to around 180. The office is to host the management functions and allow the business to scale up significantly to meet the anticipated growth projections. DFE supports the business principle of having the residential property, management and construction business functions on a single site owned by the applicant.
7.6 The application seeks to build an office and employ personnel. As such it is a development with economic benefit. Due weight should be afforded to this. However all offices and new commercial uses that employ people are of economic benefit. That alone cannot be reason to grant approval in an area not designated for development and in such an unsustainable location, otherwise all development would be acceptable anywhere. This is clearly not the intention of Government. There would need to be other reasons why the development cannot be located within a settlement where employees would not have to drive and where there would be less impact on the countryside.
7.7 The nature of the business is property development, letting, sales and maintenance. The applicants have indicated that this must be located within the residential estate as the management of the estate and the management of their other properties cannot be disaggregated. It is clear from visiting the estate that it is likely that it requires day to day management by gardener/s, maintenance staff and so on. However, it is not accepted that all office workers or maintenance staff who deal with the remainder of the portfolio need to be located here. The applicants have indicated that the site is central to their portfolio, most of which is in the south-east of the Island such as Castletown and Ballasalla. They argue that offices in Douglas would be too far from the majority of their portfolio leading to an increase in travel. They indicate that 'it would be nonsensical to imagine that the accommodation could be accommodated anywhere other than here. If it were not here, then wherever it was, every other aspect, function and building in connection with the applicants business (including their own home) would have to be located there.' 'To move the entire business, operational base and personal residence of the applicant from the present location to some other location to accommodate offices necessary for a planned expansion would be nonsense in the minimum and, in the extreme, would cause such enormous costs as to bring any planned expansion in the Isle of Man very sharply out of viability.'
7.8 Information provided states that there are 4 people currently employed in the office, which will increase to 8 and that there are 35 (trade employee and subcontractors) and 11 FTE management staff at the current time. It remains unclear where all of the staff are located or where the proposed 180 staff would be located. The applicants indicate that 'the offices coordinate the entire maintenance and construction elements, an essential part of which are, amongst other things, daily face to face meetings between the management and maintenance teams. Such meetings are essential to the effective running of the applicant's activity. Additionally the offices manage the house and estate staff where onsite contact and supervision is obviously essential. The maintenance and construction facility of the group's activities can only be accommodated from the estate hub which means that the offices must also operate from the estate.' The supporting information further states that 'even at present
==== PAGE 14 ====
17/01205/B Page 14 of 16
activity levels, any attempt at decentralisation would cause significant damage to an established business model. The Applicant has consequently decided that if this proposal cannot proceed then it cannot justify any further investment in the economy of the Isle of Man.'
7.9 Although the comments strongly suggest that the management of the house and estate staff cannot be separated from those managing the portfolio, there is no explanation as to why this is the case. The argument that all activity needs to be in this location suggests that the majority of the proposed 180 staff would need to travel to and from the site. This would represent unsustainable development, inappropriate to the character of the area and the nature of the access.
7.10 In looking at the economic implications of development, the reason uses such as offices are directed towards town and village centres is not just because they are accessible by public transport, but also that having a mix of uses improves the vitality and viability of that location, the mix of uses enables cross fertilisation of money and services though the economy - supporting local shops, cafes and restaurants etc. Isolating offices damages town centre uses and often results in a negative impact on the economy as such centres are not seen as thriving active locations. The recent Select Committee on Unoccupied Sites comments on this aspect of policy.
7.11 It is not accepted that the offices cannot be in a town or village centre, nor that it would require the applicant to move to be located directly adjacent to the office. No information has been provided in respect of the business to suggest that the applicant needs to live in close proximity to the offices. They could be located in Castletown, Douglas, Port Erin, Port St Mary or other settlements, where there are vacant and under-used buildings and where the impact of the offices would improve the long term economy of the island in a more sustainable way.
Residential Need
7.12 The establishment of new residential units in the countryside is plainly contrary to policy. This includes 'ancillary' accommodation. While an argument can be made for their necessity, particularly in support of a large estate, there is no direct policy support for this and therefore all material considerations should be taken into account. The applicant has indicated there is a need for accommodation to assist in his day to day living. This includes nurses (3 to cover shifts), a chauffeur, a housemaid and a gardener/estate manager. Whether there is a need for all these employees to live on site is a debateable issue, although it is accepted that accommodation for a nurse would be appropriate if there was a need. Should a nurse be required for medical assistance, then further questions would need to be asked about whether that accommodation should be within the house itself. In this instance the applicant has states that two nurses/carers will be required in the near future as well as a driver/general assistant and an additional housekeeper. No other evidence has been provided in respect of this medical need and given that the applicant continues with his business on and off-island, the need does not appear to be imminent, nor is it evident that the need will arise in the future.
7.13 Ancillary accommodation for staff or guests has been accepted in the case of very large estate houses. However, the estate already hosts a number of additional buildings which could provide this function. The applicant owns or has control of Arragon Farmhouse that sits directly adjacent. Approval to convert the farmhouse, its outbuildings and courtyard was given in 97/01468. The conversion was started in 2001 but is not yet complete. The property is substantial, and has been earmarked for the applicant's brother.
7.14 The applicant also owns Arragon Lodge (which contains 3 units), which is nearby. The applicants have indicated that Arragon Lodge is unavailable, because to use that would lessen the value of the property and that at 250m it is too far for a 2 minute response time and would
==== PAGE 15 ====
17/01205/B Page 15 of 16
increase pedestrian movement along a dangerous lane. The 2 minute response time is as yet unexplained, and if such were necessary it is argued that accommodation for immediate assistance should be within the main dwelling. Accommodation for other workers would not require an immediate response time. In terms of the comments in respect of putting staff at unacceptable risk of safety as they would have to travel along the access road, it is agreed that this is narrow, unit and winding. It is also a public footpath, but it would be significantly safer to use should the offices be located elsewhere.
7.15 Opposite the house are some garages, currently in poor condition and apparently used by workers as a site office of sorts. Subject to a full assessment and planning approval these garages could potentially be converted to accommodation to support any future needs of the applicant.
Highway Implications:
7.16 The proposed building will result in an increase in traffic: whilst the applicant suggests that this will be no different to what currently occurs as the workers are or were already on site in the farmhouse, that use is not lawful and the intention of the application is to increase office space to accommodate more staff. Furthermore the erection of a new building will free the occupancy of the farmhouse for residential occupation, bringing traffic from occupants of and visitors to that property which does not presently occur. The increased traffic arising from employees will have an impact on the character of the area and the use of the public footpath.
7.17 The lack of objection from Highways is predicated on the existing office use being lawful and that any increase in vehicle movement would be minimal. They are satisfied that the 21 space car park would be adequate to cater for the needs of the development.
7.18 Access to the site is via a winding single lane road. There are some passing places, nevertheless, the road is not designed to be used by a large number of vehicles. The road is also a public right of way upon which walkers would expect to pass in relative safety.
7.19 Despite the lack of objection from Highway Services, it is concluded that the development would result in increased traffic on a narrow, single lane road and would have an adverse impact on highway safety.
Impact on Character of the area
7.20 The proposed building has been reduced in size relative to the size of the previous building, in order to address the Inspector's concerns about its impact on the countryside. However the building would still have the appearance of a large principal building, rather than a building which is subservient to an estate home.
Conclusion
7.21 While the proposal is one which is of some economic benefit in that it is to be used for additional staff to support an expanding business, there is no real evidence to suggest that the offices should be located here and cannot be located within a sustainable settlement. Access to the site can only be made by car, via a long, narrow, single lane road which is also a public footpath. Additional activity, which is set to increase would result in increased danger to users of the highway and would have an adverse impact on the rural nature of the area. Consequently, while economic benefit should be given some weight, the lack of evidence in respect of locational need, the unsustainable nature of the development, the adverse impact on the character of the area and on highway safety outweigh any benefits.
7.22 Request was made by the applicants to compare the proposal with other sites that have been approved in the countryside for various reasons. For example one where the Inspector
==== PAGE 16 ====
17/01205/B Page 16 of 16
felt that being surrounded by other buildings meant that the proposal was not truly in the countryside, or others of economic benefit such as Jacksons. Such comparisons are rarely useful as proposals usually differ for a variety of reasons. Examples suggested differ in terms of either ease of access to a main road, the scale of development, the number of vehicle movements, the number of people to be employed and impact on neighbours. Applications need to be considered on their own merits.
PARTY STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; I Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and I The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
8.2 The decision-maker must determine:
__
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : Refused
Committee Meeting Date: 03.09.2018
Signed : J CHANCE Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal