Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
20/01050/B Page 1 of 16
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 20/01050/B Applicant : Mr Allen & Mrs Marilyn Lloyd Proposal : Erection of building to provide three units of staff accommodation with associated landscaping and parking Site Address : Proposed Apartments At Arragon House Arragon Road Arragon Santon Isle Of Man
Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : 15.10.2020 Site Visit : 15.10.2020 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 19.10.2020 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The site is not designated for development on either the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982 on which the site lies within an area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance or the draft Area Plan for the East and as such, the proposed erection of three dwellings would be contrary to Environment Policies 1 and 2, General Policy 3, Housing Policy 4 and the policies which suport sustainable development - the Strategic Aim and Strategic Policies 1, 2, 9 and 19 and Transport Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan. It is not considered that there is in this case, justification for setting aside these policies.
R 2. The design of the proposed dwellings would be out of keeping with this rural area due to their suburban appearance and would harm the character and appearance of the countryside, contrary to Environment Policies 1 and 2, Strategic Policy 5 and the Landscape Character Appraisal.
R 3. Contrary to Transport Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, 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 such movements would have an adverse impact on the desirability of the public footpath. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
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 ====
20/01050/B Page 2 of 16
matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4) (or 4(2)):
Arragon Cottage and Seafield House
as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status. __
Officer’s Report
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, as with earlier applications, 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 have been objections from these parties in the past and indeed in this current case (see later).
1.4 It should be noted that the application site is exactly the same as that for two previous applications for the development of offices and staff accommodation (see Planning History).
1.5 Public Right of Way 321 links the A25 to the eastern corner of Arragon House's curtilage where it divides into PROW319 which continues past the application site and PROW318 which turns down to pass down the eastern boundary of the Arragon House curtilage to link to Harbour Road, Glen Grenaugh.
1.6 At the time of the site visit (mid afternoon on 15.10.20) there was a wheeled excavator, a small dumper and a trailer in the parking area alongside the development site with a small number of peafowl on the site and in the lane.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a new building to accommodate staff accommodation. The building will have a footprint which is 22.2m long at its longest and 5.8m wide. The drawings do not appear to be consistent in terms of scale so it is not possible to measure the height of the building which is arranged as a terrace of three dwellings with each having an eaves level peak, two windows each on the ground and first floors, a stone plinth up to the cill level of the ground floor windows and a pitched roofed porch. The rear elevation is more plain, without
==== PAGE 3 ====
20/01050/B Page 3 of 16
stone details and with three windows per floor and patio doors. All the windows have brick cills. Each property has a slim chimney on or near its southern gable. The dwellings are all two bedroomed properties.
2.2 The property will be served by 8 parking spaces which lie to the north west of the proposed building. Each space is 4.8m long and 2.4m wide although there is space to enable these to be widened to 2.5m as is requested by Highway Services (see later).
2.3 The supporting information provided refers to the two previous applications for combined offices and living accommodation and suggests that they have carefully considered the recommendations of the inspectors and has removed the office element. The remaining living accommodation is required for "essential staff accommodation in respect of the applicant's medical needs and the security and maintenance of the Arragon Estate". They state that the applicant is willing to have the office away from the application site but that there were elements of the previous two applications which dealt with essential needs that are separate from the applicant's business and which are required to be located within the estate and close to the house.
2.4 They explain that the previous applications sought an enabling consent to support the applicant's plans for significant expansion of its property and construction holdings in the Island and written support of this proposed expansion was provided from Department for Enterprise at that time. The applicant intends to continue with this investment in the Island.
2.5 They suggest that whatever the location of the offices, the applicant still has a defined need for staff accommodation on site and within a short distance of the house. They state that in the previous applications, the inspectors found no harm to either of the adjacent dwellings, even with the office element. Following previous suggestions that the applicant would use Arragon Lodge, they suggest that there is an intervening watercourse which in the ever- increasing periods of abnormally high rainfall, suffers from localised flooding which effectively isolates the two properties from each other and such events are unpredictable in terms of timing and duration.
2.6 They consider that there are essential requirements for the staff accommodation for the good of the applicant's health and the security of the estate and note that prior to them being sold, the two adjacent properties were associated with Arragon House and provided staff accommodation.
2.7 They suggest that the objection on highway grounds to the earlier application was contrived and that there had been no objection from Highway Services prior to the decision being taken and it was the inspector's conclusion that there would be no highway safety concerns from the proposed development including the offices.
2.8 They refer to Meary Vooar and Arragon Mooar as having been granted permission for staff accommodation, assuming that both were considered at the time to make a positive contribution to the area of High Landscape Value and Scenic or Coastal Significance. The applicant believes that what is now proposed also makes a highly positive contribution.
2.9 They reiterate that they do not consider that the site is not a stand alone site surrounded by and area of High Landscape Value and Scenic or Coastal Significance and is at best described as "an enclosed, unused patch of forgotten land that is surrounded to three of its sides respectively by a road, a car park and a substantial agricultural barn".
2.10 They note that previously the Planning Committee members made a site visit to the property and would ask that they do so again and consider its position in relation to open countryside. They add that if the site was not walled or gated it "would certainly be properly
==== PAGE 4 ====
20/01050/B Page 4 of 16
categorised as a 'gap site' and the previous proposals would have been measured against different criteria and looked at very differently".
2.11 They consider that the inspector dealt with the applicant's statement of personal need in a single paragraph and are cursorily and inequitably dismissed and they do not believe that the applicant's medical needs should be required to be evidence based or require proof. Whilst the inspector suggested that there were alternative solutions to people needing nursing care but does not identify what these are and the applicant believes that a solution could be guest or ancillary accommodation as have been approved at Meary Voar and Arragon Mooar but in this case the need is specifically defined and not generalised. The ongoing pandemic illustrates the overwhelming need for staff accommodation to be on site and any argument made in the last application about the generalisation of nursing care "is swept away by its effects". They refer to the applicants being in their early seventies with one or both suffering coronary issues and Type 1 Diabetes. The applicant's mother is over 90 years old and lives in a care facility in Douglas and the applicants wish for the Arragon estate to become a bubble in pandemic vernacular terminology, reducing the risk of transmission of infection in the wider community. In the case of the Arragon estate, the lack of movement of people on and off the estate even and only for essential purposes, will minimally require on site accommodation for a health care provider, a housekeeper, estate/animal keeper and a driver.
2.12 The applicants state that they have made strong efforts in ensuring that the proposed buildings fit in entirely with the vernacular and mass of the surrounding buildings and holds the firm belief that harm to the wider countryside is entirely absent from this proposal.
STATUTORY PLANNING POLICY 3.1 Development Plan 3.1.1 The site lies within an area not designated for a particular purpose 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. This document is at the time of writing, the only adopted document for this part of the Island. However, the Cabinet Office which is the part of Government with the statutory responsibility for preparing development plans, is putting before Tynwald the draft Area Plan for the East which includes this site.
3.1.2 The draft Area Plan for the East designates the site as not for a particular purpose (Map 3) and abuts but is not within a draft Area of Ecological Importance. The site falls within an area where they may be height restrictions (associated with the operation of the Isle of Man Airport). The draft Plan adopts the draft Landscape Character Appraisal as far as it applies to the study area and includes the site within an area of Incised Inland Slopes with the following general advice:
Character Area Santon (D13) Landscape Strategy Conserve and enhance: a) the character, quality and distinctiveness of the area, with its wooded valley bottoms and wooded horizons; b) its scattered settlement pattern; c) its Victorian garden and the railway.
Key Views Open and expansive views from the higher areas along the rugged coast in the east and inland towards the upland areas over Braaid. Incinerator chimney forms a notable landmark in the immediate area. Glimpsed views framed by vegetation in the valley bottoms and along the main roads where they follow the wooded valley bottoms. Views in the northern part of the area up to the Transmitting Masts on top of Douglas Head hill top. Views from Isle of Man Steam Railway.
==== PAGE 5 ====
20/01050/B Page 5 of 16
Landscape Proposal 7 (Santon) In cases where new development is proposed, applications must demonstrate that it can be suitably integrated into the surrounding landscape setting through reasonable mitigation measures and considering siting, colours, materials, finishes and the general scale.
3.1.3 The draft Plan explains that Earlier statutory plans in the East used the landscape classification 'Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.' This Plan replaces this designation taking account of the Landscape Character Assessment Report 2008. This Assessment was commissioned in 2005 to examine and assess the countryside of the Isle of Man with a view to classifying the various types of landscape. The aim was to describe the qualities and characteristics of each type and identify the special features worthy of protection and enhancement. The landscape 'Types' were then used to identify 59 Landscape Character 'Areas'. (paragraph 4.1.2). The Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance will no longer be applicable in the study area if the draft Plan is adopted by Tynwald in
3.2 Strategic Plan 3.2.1 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.
3.2.2 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."
3.2.3 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 locate new employment close to existing public transport routes.
3.2.4 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 5: New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make positive contribution to the environment of the Island. Inappropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies.
Paragraph 4.3.8: "The design of new development can make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Island. Recent development has often been criticised for its similarity to developments across the Island and elsewhere - "anywhere" architecture. At the same time some criticise current practice to retain traditional or vernacular designs. As is often the case the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. All too often proposals for new
==== PAGE 6 ====
20/01050/B Page 6 of 16
developments have not taken into account a proper analysis oftheir context in terms of siting, layout, scale, materials and other factors. At the same time a slavish following of past design idioms, evolved for earlier lifestyles can produce buildings which do not reflect twenty first century lifestyles including accessibility and energy conservation. While there is often a consensus about what constitutes good and poor design, it is notoriously difficult to define or prescribe".
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 in areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
Housing Policy 4 states that new housing will be located primarily within existing towns and villages, or sustainable urban extensions.
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.
3.3 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 3.3.1 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
3.4 Draft Planning Policy Statement on Planning and the Economy 3.4.1 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
==== PAGE 7 ====
20/01050/B Page 7 of 16
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).
3.4.2 The draft 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 supported by evidence that demonstrates that the proposed development would secure sustainable, long term economic growth of Island wide benefit' (para 5).
3.4.3 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)
3.4.4 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.'
3.4.5 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.
3.4.6 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.
3.4.7 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."
3.5 Climate Challenge Strategy:
==== PAGE 8 ====
20/01050/B Page 8 of 16
3.5.1 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.
3.5.2 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.
3.5.3 The Government has continued progressing a strategy to combat climate change, introducing the Climate Change Bill in 2019 (GD 2020/0041). This aims to provide for the mitigation of climate change, set a target year of 2050 and make provision for the setting of interim targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, with the aim that the Isle of Man will reduce its net carbon emissions to zero or less than zero by the year 2050. This also, specifically requires the development plan to take into account climate change policies specified in the Act; and to require a national policy directive to be issued before 1 January 2025 that takes into account climate change policies specified in the Act and will require certain applications for planning approval to include information demonstrating that the application is made having regard to climate change policies set out in the Act.
3.6 Residential Design Guidance 2019 3.6.1 The Department introduced this guidance to provide greater assistance to those preparing development schemes to encourage better design. The document deals with all kinds of housing development, not only those in designated areas and the context of each site is referred to consistently as being an important consideration:
2.2.3 The character and context of any residential development is created by the locally distinctive patterns and form of development, landscape, culture and biodiversity. These elements have often built up over a considerable time and tell a story of the site's history and evolution - the creation of a 'sense of place'. The character and context of a site should influence design positively so that development does not simply replace what was there but reflects and responds to it, for example by allowing the long-term retention of existing mature landscaping features or water features. The initial site context should also identify established building heights, lines and orientation of buildings that are adjacent to the site and should have a positive relationship with established housing and other development, including ease of pedestrian and vehicular movement.
2.2.4 If the context to a development has been compromised by earlier development, this should not be seen as a reason to perpetuate what has been done before. Opportunities should be sought to deliver high quality sustainable development that reflects up-to-date technologies and aesthetics and creates a strong "sense of place".
PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The most relevant planning applications are those both for the erection of a building which would accommodate three staff apartments and office accommodation above with associated landscaping and parking, 16/00258/B and 17/01205/B.
16/00258/B 5.2 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 ====
20/01050/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 understood 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 explained 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 believed that the site is constrained by Strategic Plan policies which aim to protect the countryside and promote sustainable settlements.
5.4 He referred 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 went 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 concluded 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 had no issue with the design but considered 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 did not consider that the increased activity would be unduly harmful to the use of the footpath.
5.7 Whilst acknowledging the applicants' business, he considered the actual economic benefit to be unsupported by quantitative or qualitative evidence and he pointed 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 refered to the other cases that were referred to by the applicant, he distinguished Meary Voar from that application as that application was for a replacement building linked to
==== PAGE 10 ====
20/01050/B Page 10 of 16
the 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 did 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.
17/01205/B 5.12 This application too proposed residential accommodation and offices and was refused at appeal. The reasons for refusal were as follows:
The site is not designated for development and there are 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 19 and Transport Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan.
The proposed development, by virtue of its scale, form and the proposed uses therein would have an adverse effect on the landscape contrary to Environment Policy 1 and 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
==== PAGE 11 ====
20/01050/B Page 11 of 16
3. Contrary to Transport Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, 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 such movements would have an adverse impact on the desirability of the public footpath.
This notice was issued on 05.02.19.
5.13 This decision is relevant inasmuch as whilst the proposed development was for offices and residential accommodation, the inspector makes a number of observations about the latter which are applicable to the current proposal.
50 Section 1.4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 makes it clear that those parts of the Isle of Man, which are not the subject of approved Local Plans, are covered by the land use zones in the 1982 Development Plan. That plan continues to have effect as an Area Plan. The appeal site is not zoned for development in the 1982 Development Plan, but is shown as being within an Area of High Landscape Value. As it is not within a defined settlement, and is not zoned for development, the appeal site is in the countryside.
51 Strategic Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan states that development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in General Policy 3. A similar provision is contained in Spatial Policy 5. General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan indicates that development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development in the appropriate Area Plan, subject to eight specified exceptions. Exceptions (a) to (f) and (h) are plainly not relevant to the present case. Exception (g) applies where development is recognised to be of over-riding national need in land use planning terms, and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative.
52 The development plan provides no definition of 'over-riding national need', and it has generally been accepted that a common sense approach to this matter must be adopted. My own view is as follows. First, to meet a 'need', the development would have to rectify a deficiency in current or future provision. Second, the term 'national need' implies that that deficiency would have to affect the Island as a whole. It could not simply apply to a particular locality, or to a particular person or group of people. Third, the adjective 'overriding' implies that the 'national need' must be strong enough to outweigh the general policy presumption against the development of un-zoned land in the countryside.
53 Turning to the present case, it is not clear to me that the proposed development is 'recognised to be of over-riding national need'. Although the Department of Enterprise confirms that this development would be of significant economic value to the Island, it does not suggest it would meet any over-riding national need. Almost any commercial development in the Isle of Man will be of benefit to the Island's economy. However, providing an economic benefit is not the same as meeting a national need.
60 Housing Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan provides that new housing will be located primarily within existing towns and villages, or in sustainable extensions to those settlements as identified in adopted Area Plans. New housing will be permitted in the countryside only in exceptional circumstances, if it is required for agricultural workers; or if it would entail the conversion of redundant rural buildings or the replacement of existing rural dwellings. The housing element of the proposed development would not accord with this policy.
68 Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan provides that the countryside will be protected for its own sake; and that development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted, unless there is an over-riding national need for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative. Environment Policy 2 indicates that, within AHLVs, the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration.
==== PAGE 12 ====
20/01050/B Page 12 of 16
69 The appeal site consists largely of undeveloped and unused grassland, in an attractive and tranquil rural area. In my view, in its present condition, it makes a positive contribution to the landscape of this AHLV. The erection of offices and housing on this land would inevitably give this area a more built-up appearance. The additional activity and traffic associated with the proposed development would detract from the peace and quiet which currently characterise this part of Santon.
70 The protection of the countryside for its own sake means that that protection would apply even if there were no public access to the area of countryside in question. However, the fact that the appeal site is adjacent to the route of a public right of way adds weight to the need to protect this land from development.
71 I have previously concluded that there is no over-riding national need for the development now proposed; but that if there were, there would be a reasonable and acceptable alternative means of meeting that need. I have nothing to add in relation to that matter.
72 The protection of the AHLV applies to the whole of the area so designated. I do not consider it appropriate to divide that area into small parcels, and consider whether any particular parcel, taken in isolation, has a landscape quality that is, in itself, worthy of protection. Such an approach could result in the AHLV being peppered with buildings on isolated parcels of land which failed to meet such a test. As a result, the overall character of the protected area would be destroyed. In my view, it is essential that the appeal site should not be considered in isolation, but as part of a wider tract of protected landscape.
73 I am not familiar with the background to the decision to grant approval for the two barn-like structures to the north of the appeal site, and it is not for me to comment on that matter. However, the presence of those structures does not seem to me to justify the erection of another large building on adjacent open land in the countryside. If it did, there would be no end to the pressure for development on land adjacent to existing buildings in rural areas. The Isle of Man's unique countryside would rapidly be eroded.
74 My conclusion on the second issue is that the proposed development would have an adverse effect on the landscape, contrary to Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan.
75 Transport Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan provides that, where possible, new development should be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes. Plainly, the proposed development would be a considerable distance from the nearest bus stop. People using the proposed building would be likely to access it predominantly by car. This would run counter to the Strategic Plan's objective of promoting sustainable alternatives to car transport.
77 I note that [the applicant] has health problems, and feels the need to have a nurse on call within two minutes response time. Such a person would live in one of the proposed residential units. [The applicant]'s health is clearly a matter which demands sympathetic consideration. However, no evidence from a medical practitioner has been submitted in support of the appellants' case. Furthermore, in my view, personal considerations of this sort seldom, if ever, justify the erection of a permanent building in contravention of development plan policy. Such a building would be likely to remain in existence indefinitely; and its effect would be apparent long after the personal circumstances in question had ceased to be material. Many people require nursing care as they grow older. There are generally alternative solutions to this problem, which do not entail the erection of new dwellings in the countryside.
78 I also note that the appellants' insurers consider that a responsible person should be permanently present on the Arragon Estate, for security reasons. That may reduce the insurer's risk and/or the appellants' insurance premium. However, I do not consider that it provides
==== PAGE 13 ====
20/01050/B Page 13 of 16
justification for the erection of residential accommodation on the appeal site, contrary to development plan policy.
REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 Santon Parish Commissioners object to the application as it appears to clearly contradict the presumption against development in the Countryside. (28.09.20).
6.2 Highway Services make reference to 19/01396/B but consider that the proposal is acceptable in highway terms reducing the scale and form of development to three dwellings without the addition of the office use as previously. There is adequate space to accommodate six parking spaces to accord with the Strategic Plan parking standards at two per unit. Spaces, if marked should be dimensioned at 5 x 2.5m to meet current highway requirements. The amount of vehicle movements would be relatively low due to fewer commuting trips and unlikely to cause inconvenience or a hazard along the private lane or to users of it, including walkers on the Public Rights of Way. Separate covered storage should be provided for bicycles and other items and electric vehicle charging points considered to further aid sustainable and low emission travel. Accordingly, the proposal does not raise significant highway safety or network efficiency issues allowing Highway Service to not oppose this proposal subject to appropriate conditions to cover bicycle and car parking. (30.09.20).
6.3 The owners of Arragon Cottage object to the application (09.10.20), referring to the earlier applications, stating that the development is for new development on "virgin agricultural land in the country, not zoned for development". They feel that the proposal falls well outside the current Strategic and Planning Policies. If the Department considers the suggested exceptional circumstances to support the application, they suggest that there is no doubt that the applicant is a wealthy individual and supports the economic position of the Island but this in itself should not entitle the applicant any more rights than have his neighbours. They suggest that the applicants' home is a substantial property which previously accommodated staff quarters (a caretaker's flat) which is used by the current housekeeper to live in when the applicants are off Island. They suggest that the applicant has informed them that it is his choice not to have staff living within the main building and given this, it should not be a reason to allow the building of more dwellings here. Arragon Lodge is within the applicants' ownership and is almost equal distance to Arragon House to the application site and is in three separate residential units and rented out. There is no reason, in their view why this property could not be used for the required staff accommodation. Whilst there is a water course running between Arragon Lodge and Arragon House, they have never, since their first occupation of the property in 1988 been prevented from using the lane by flooding.
6.4 It is their view that the proposal is not in keeping with the rural area nor the buildings that surround it. The access lane is used by walkers, people with animals and children and the conversion of Arragon Lodge into three units and the work on and use of Arragon Barns has significantly increased the traffic flow. The proposal would have a dramatic impact on the quality of their lives and would blight the environment. They sugges that the Planning Committee visits the site to see the available accommodation.
6.5 Manx National Heritage comment on 12.10.20 that there is no form of ecological assessment of the impact of the development on the area and ideally a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal should be submitted to highlight any ecological or environmental impacts or constraints. EP4 cannot be satisfied without such information and they recommend that an Environmental Impact Assessment be undertaken.
6.6 The owners of Seafield House (15.10.20) object to the application, considering that the development will have an adverse impact on the character of the area, the amenities of their property and would obscure their view of the trees which would result in an urban effect on their outlook. They believe that there is a principal objection to the erection of dwellings here
==== PAGE 14 ====
20/01050/B Page 14 of 16
and that the proposal is as unacceptable as were the two previous applications, even though the application involves a smaller scheme.
ASSESSMENT 7.1 The issues in this case are whether the proposal accords with the relevant planning policies
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. There have been no changes to the site or the surrounding area since the latest decision; there have been changes in policy in terms of the introduction of further stages of the Government's Climate Change legislation and the Department has introduced Design Guidance both referred to above. The impending Area Plan for the East is also a material change although it does not change the designation of the site although it introduces Landscape Guidance Assessments in place of the Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance in the 1982 Plan.
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.
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 applicant is no longer proposing offices so the notional support of economic benefit to the application is no longer relevant as the proposal relates solely to the development of housing (see 3.4.3 above).
Residential Need 7.6 The Department's position in respect of the residential element of the previous applications was that 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 previously indicated there is a need for accommodation to assist in his day to day living although this is not specifically referenced in the current application. This included 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 could potentially be appropriate if there was a demonstrated 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 and reference is also now made to an animal keeper. 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
==== PAGE 15 ====
20/01050/B Page 15 of 16
be imminent, nor is it evident that the need will arise in the future. It is noted that the applicant does not consider it necessary or appropriate for them to provide this information.
7.7 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 and closer to the main house than the application site. Approval to convert the farmhouse, its outbuildings and courtyard was given in 97/01468. The conversion was started in 2001 but does not yet appear to be complete. The property is substantial, and had been earmarked for the applicant's brother in earlier applications. There is no reason why this property could not be utilised for estate staff.
7.8 The applicant also owns Arragon Lodge (which contains 3 units), which is nearby. The applicants have indicated that Arragon Lodge is unsuitable due to flooding incidents making access between it and the main house impassable. The occupants of Arragon Cottage suggest that this has not occurred to their knowledge since they moved to their property in 1988 and indeed there is no evidence from the applicant on the frequency or severity of such flooding.
Highway Implications: 7.9 The previous applications were refused for reasons relating to the increase of traffic in an unsustainable location contrary to Transport Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, 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 such movements would have an adverse impact on the desirability of the public footpath. Even although the current proposal is not for the office element of the scheme, it would incorporate three new dwellings which would generate additional movements from the occupants, their families and friends who may visit or be visited and as such, the current scheme fails the test of TP1 as did the previous applications.
Impact on Character of the area 7.10 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 and the style of the building appears to be something more akin to a modern suburban housing estate than a site in the countryside.
Ecology 7.11 A concern has been raised regarding the lack of information on ecological impact of the development. Whilst this is in principle a valid concern, it is relevant that no such comments have been received from DEFA who are responsible for the administration of the Wildlife Act 1990 and no such comments were raised with either of the previous applications which proposed larger buildings with more potential impact from a greater number of persons on site and greater traffic movements. The area to be developed is presently grassed and the development will not result in the removal of any existing vegetation. As such, it is not considered that the absence of a PEA or EIA is not a valid reason for refusal in this case.
Conclusion 8.1 The proposal is for development of new housing in the countryside within an area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance contrary to Housing Policy 4, Environment Policies 1 and 2 and General Policy 3. Access to the site can only be made by car, via a long, narrow, single lane road which is also a public footpath. The proposal would be damaging to the visual character of the area both in terms of the principle of the introduction of new buildings and also the specific impacts of a building which appears out of keeping in this rural area. Whilst not in the open countryside, the site is still within a rural area which is not designated for development and the presence of other existing buildings nearby does not undermine this policy position.
==== PAGE 16 ====
20/01050/B Page 16 of 16
8.2 As in the earlier applications for development on this site, reference is made by the applicants to compare the proposal with other sites that have been approved in the countryside for various reasons. Such comparisons are rarely useful as proposals usually differ for a variety of reasons and indeed the accommodation proposed at Arragon Mooar and Meary Voar were based upon existing buildings which were either renovated or replaced or a combination of both, neither of which is the case in this current application.
8.3 It is considered that if there is a need for further accommodation on this site, there are available properties which could be utilised (Arrangon Lodge and/or Arragon Farmhouse) and that there is no justification for the erection of new dwellings on this site. The current COVID 19 pandemic is an usual situation which does not justify an exception to policy in this case.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage which has made written representations that the Department considers material and (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Refused Date : 02.11.2020
Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
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