Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
16/00258/B
Page 1 of 9
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 16/00258/B Applicant : Mr Allen & Mrs Marilyn Lloyd Proposal : Erection of a building containing three staff apartments to ground floor and office accommodation to first floor with associated landscaping and parking Site Address : Land At Arragon House Arragon Santon Isle Of Man IM4 1HH
Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : 30.03.2016 Site Visit : 30.03.2016 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSAL IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN
Preliminaries The application was put to the Committee meeting of 5th September where the item was deferred pending a site visit by Committee members. This meeting is to occur on 14th September, 2016. Further correspondence has been received from neighbours and from the applicant and the report has been updated to take account of this.
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).
==== PAGE 2 ====
16/00258/B
Page 2 of 9
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a new building to accommodate staff accommodation and offices. It was not explained in the initial submission where the staff will work nor with what the office accommodation is associated. The applicant's agent has provided additional information to support the proposal (received on 7th September, 2016 but prepared in June, 2016). This describes how the office accommodation is required in respect of a significant expanding Isle of Man Business that is centred at the Arragon Estate. It describes the proposal as "modest" to compensate for existing office accommodation which is being lost to residential accommodation in the farmhouse which is being renovated under an earlier approval. It also describes the urgent need for "modest" staff accommodation which will be included within the proposed development.
2.2 They do not accept that there will be any significant impact on the living conditions within Seafield House as there will be a screen of trees between them and the development. Whislt the trees themselves create an impact, they suggest that the primary outlook from the property is towards the coastline, not towards the application building. Due to the distance between the development and Arragon Cottage, they do not accept that there will be an adverse impact on the residents of this property.
2.3 They suggest that there are clearly economic grounds on which the proposal should be supported although accept that despite approaching the Department of Economic Development, there is no written support forthcoming from them although they have been provided with no explanation as to why this support is not being provided. They draw an analogy with the Meary Voar proposal which they consider is "almost identical" and which was approved by the Council of Ministers on the basis that the economic benefits of the proposal are far greater than were recognised by the Inspector and which were considered to be of sufficient weight to outweigh the negative visual impact of the proposed building on the surrounding countryside. The applicant's agent find it difficult to believe that the Council of Ministers would not support the current application as it is not within open countryside as was Meary Voar but is within a group of buildings. They also suggest that the economic benefit of the current scheme is actual not potential as was the case with Meary Voar. They consider, having been advised that in the Meary Voar case the staff were involved in communications with others within different time zones which justified on site accommodation, that this is similar to the current case with "its Chairman often being situated in time zones considerably offset from GMT".
2.4 They also refer to an adjacent site where ancillary accommodation was considered a requirement on an estate of a similar size and nature (Arragon Mooar - PA 01/01121/B) and also at Ballaquiggin where a much smaller land holding was involved (PA 16/00351/B).
2.5 They express puzzlement at how enforcement action could be threatened for the non authorised office use of the farmhouse and yet at the same time there is a suggestion that this building could be used for offices. They also wonder how the neighbours would be less affected if the offices were accommodated in the farmhouse, which is closer to one of the objector's properties. They consider that to lose any part of Arragon Farmhouse to other uses is not economically viable and this is an economic consideration as the potential diminution of value of a building by adopting an alternative use should be given weight as a material consideration.
2.6 The building will have a footprint of 9m by just under 29m and will be 5.5m to the eaves and 7.7m to the roof. The building will be finished entirely in stone under a slated roof pitched at 25 degrees.
2.7 Internally the building will be 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.
2.8 New tree planting is to be introduced alongside the roadway and between the new building and the car parking spaces.
==== PAGE 3 ====
16/00258/B
Page 3 of 9
2.9 The applicants supports the application by a statement which explains that the applicants 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, both residential and commercial and they retain a portfolio of over 1,000 residential and commercial properties in the UK, held through their IOM holiding 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 enforcement action, 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 indicate 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 emphasise that the site is well screened from public view ("not visible from the public highway" is stated, paragraph 1.11) 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 intervisibility 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.
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 As such, there is a presumption against development here as set out in General Policy 3 and Environment Policies 1 and 2, in addition to Housing Policy 4 and the Strategic Aim, Strategic Policies 1c, 2 and 10 and Transport Policy 1.
3.3 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).
3.4 Paragraphs 10, 13 and 14 of the draft Planning Policy Statement on Planning and the Economy are relevant in this current case. Paragraph 10 states that "...the planning system will aim to: i. Recognise that economic development can often deliver environmental and social benefits; ii. Recognise the wider benefits of economic development and consider these alongside any adverse impacts; iii. Recognise that one of the benefits of economic development will that it may attract entrepreneurs who will invest in the Isle of Man economy.
==== PAGE 4 ====
16/00258/B
Page 4 of 9
iv. Through the Development Plan ensure that suitable locations are available for industrial, commercial, retail, housing, public sector (e.g. health and education) tourism and leisure developments, so that the economy can prosper; v. Provide opportunities for land and premises to enable for improved productivity, choice and competition, particularly when technological and other requirements of modern business are changing rapidly; vi. Recognise that the economy will always be subject to change; therefore planning will need to be sensitive to these changes and the implications for development and growth; vii. Work with developers and Government Departments to ensure that infrastructure and services are provided to support new and existing economic development; viii. Work with the Department of Economic Development and other Government Departments to identify opportunities for future investment to deliver economic objectives; ix. Ensure that economic and employment growth supports regeneration, social and environmental sustainability. x. Continue to apply the retail planning policy as set out in the Strategic Plan Business Policies 5, 9 and 10."
3.5. Paragraph 13 states "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 (based on validation and assessment of appropriate and proportionate evidence and data which is relevant to the development). In assessing these benefits, the Department of Economic Development will look at a number of key factors (which take appropriate account of commercial sensitivity) including: o The numbers and types of jobs expected to be created or retained on the site after the construction phase (some consideration will also be given to those jobs created through the construction phase) o Whether, and how far, the development will help meet economic growth opportunities, redress social disadvantage and support regeneration priorities. o A consideration of the contribution to the Manx economy and local businesses."
3.6. Paragraph 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."
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 No planning applications have been submitted for this particular site.
4.2 Planning approval has been granted for the site to the south west of the application site, in the applicant's ownership for the following developments:
PA 97/01468/B - Conversion of farmhouse, outbuildings and courtyards to residential use, Arragon House Farm, Santon. PA 00/02405/C - Alteration to condition 4 of approved PA 97/1468, to permit installation of uPVC windows PA 94/01296/B - Alterations and extensions, Arragon House PA 94/01295/A - Approval in principle for change of use to residential accommodation, farmhouse, outbuildings & garden area
4.3 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
==== PAGE 5 ====
16/00258/B
Page 5 of 9
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 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.
4.4 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 5.1 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services indicate that they do not oppose the application (08.03.16).
5.2 Santon Parish Commissioners object to the application on the basis that this is a new building in the country side and a large building at that and in their view the appearance is out of keeping with the countryside. They consider that there is likely to be an undesirable impact on the neighbouring properties not under the ownership of the applicant also pointing out that the plans seem to show Arragon Cottage owned by the applicant, which they do not believe it is (17.03.16 and 21.08.16).
5.3 The owners of Arragon Cottage object to the application "due to the nature of the proposal" and suggest that the site notice was not displayed at the property (17.03.16). They submit further comments received on 29th March, 2016 concerned that the site is not designated for development and noting that the applicant owns a number of properties in the area which could accommodate his proposed uses, particularly as the applicant previously used Arragon Lodge as his company office. They considered that the original proposal, which was for a half rendered, half stone building, was out of keeping with the area and also comment that the two storey building is out of keeping with its neighbour on the same side of the lane which is single storey. They are concerned about increases in traffic on the safety of those using the lane. They submit a further letter on 18th June, 2016 responding to the applicant's statement of case, querying whether someone's wealth should entitle them to different rights to others and whether the planning process, which is supposed to the fair and transparent, should be subject to influences of wealth and power? They wonder whether it would be possible, although not the applicants' wish, to have staff resident within the existing Arragon House which is a sizeable property. They query whether, if the matter of accommodation for staff is a matter of urgency, why it cannot be resolved by using the applicants' own properties in the vicinity. They query the applicant's suggestion that the development will not result in additional traffic, as, if the staff have families then there will be bound to be additional traffic associated with them which is not currently apparent. They submit further comments on 25.08.16 reiterating their objection, although accepting that the inclusion of Manx stone will improve the appearance of the building but remain unpersuaded that there is justification for the proposed building.
5.4 The owners of Seafield House object to the application, also expressing surprise that they were not advised of the proposal before it was submitted for consideration. Their understanding of planning policy is that there is a presumption against development here and they do not understand why the proposal could not be accommodated in the existing properties the applicants own or within
==== PAGE 6 ====
16/00258/B
Page 6 of 9
existing commercial buildings designated as such. They consider that the building will be imposing, out of keeping with the area and are concerned that there will be a significant increase in traffic on lanes which are not suited to such. They consider that the proposal will intrude into their privacy in terms of windows and traffic and consider that what is proposed will represent a significant increase on the amount of staff currently employed with a consequent increase in traffic. Finally, they do not believe that the amount of parking proposed will accommodate all of the vehicles which will be generated (31.03.16).
5.5 They submit a further letter on 21st June, 2016, responding to the applicant's statement of case, indicating that they had no issue with the existing building, Arragon Farm house, being used for offices and staff accommodation and wonder whether "the planning officer's objection" was the reason this was not pursued. In fact there was no objection to this and the planning officer engaging in pre-application discussions, suggested that this route should be followed, rather than one involving a completely new building. They would prefer that the office accommodation be moved to a completely new location. One of the properties formerly associated with the estate, their own, could have satisfied the need for staff accommodation and have not been approached to sell their property for this purpose. They comment that the person reported to be living on site in a portable home is there to feed the pets and is a painter and decorator who has been there for a number of years and they fail to see the urgency of a permanent solution although if there is one, there are existing houses which could be used. They consider that the proposal will result in an urbanising influence on the existing area and point out that whilst the applicant has said that the site is not publicly visible, there is a public footpath running right past it. They wonder whether the applicant is not aware of the existing traffic situation as he is not normally resident on the Island.
5.6 Finally, they clarify that five of the larger windows facing the public footpath do not have obscured glass or net curtains and would be affected by both the development and the proposed trees and reiterate their concern about increased traffic on this private road. Whilst the inclusion of stone may affect the appearance of the building, it does not affect the imposing impact of the building itself. They suggest that the position of the building will result in domestic paraphernalia being at the front of the building and thus out of keeping with the otherwise high quality and enviornmental standard which is enjoyed by residents and walkers (16.08.16 and 07.09.16).
ASSESSMENT 6.1 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.
Policy 6.2 The proposal does not fall within any of the exceptions listed in General Policy 3. Reference has now been made to the draft Planning Policy Statement on Planning and the Economy, although no information has been provided to demonstrate why the use has to be located here, nor whether there are any alternatives to the new development, all of which would be relevant to the assessment of the proposal against that draft Policy. The applicant's agent suggests that the Chairman is often in areas outwith GMT although the supporting information suggests that the portfolio of property relates to the UK. There is no information to demonstrate why the office accommodation cannot be provided in Douglas or other settlement on land which is designated for office use and where such a location would be sustainable in terms of transport and access to shops and services.
6.3 It is not accepted that the proposal at Meary Voar is almost identical as is suggested by the applicant. The later application was for a building linked to the main dwelling and half of the floors were dedicated to facilities ancillary to the main house. That is not the case here. The new building at Meary Voar was a replacement of an existing building. That is not the case here. The Meary Voar application was supported by Department of Economic Development: that is not the case here. The
==== PAGE 7 ====
16/00258/B
Page 7 of 9
Meary Voar new building was contained within an area solely occupied by the owners of Meary Voar: in the current case there are two private and separately owned dwellings closer to the building than are the owners of the application site. It is important to understand that in cases where economic benefit is the deciding factor, it is most unlikely that there will be identical circumstances surrounding different applications and each case is considered in depth by Department of Economic Development before they reach a decision whether or not to support an application. It is not sufficient to simply say because an application which may on the face of it look similar to another, that because one is approved, the other should be too. They should be considered on their own merits which has been the case here.
6.4 It is also the case that the draft Planning Policy Statement expects there to be an assessment of alternatives. In this case, there is a building available to the applicant, where the office accommodation has already been being carried out which could provide the required floorspace but the applicant is choosing to use that for an alternative purpose. Whilst the agent expresses surprise that it was suggested that this may be an alternative to the creation of new floorspace, this demonstrates a misunderstanding of the enforcement system: the "threat" of enforcement action related to the unauthorised use of the farmhouse for office use with no implication that such a use may not be acceptable if an application were submitted for it. The enforcement would seek a regularisation of the situation through cessation of a non-authorised use or an application approved for it.
6.5 Whilst the desire to have an on-site housekeeper or groundsman is understood, there is no evidence to suggest that there are not available to the applicants alternative premises in their ownership in which these staff members could be accommodated. Personal circumstances can, in some instances represent material considerations which can be taken into account in the determination of an application, but in this case there are clearly other properties in the applicants' ownership which could be used for staff accommodation, including the property which he intends a family member to occupy. It is also relevant to wonder, in that instance, if there is a need for any further on-site accommodation for staff as there would be full time surveillance of the estate from the family member living alongside, and someone on hand (actually marginally closer than the proposed accommodation) were there to be a medical reason for someone to live close by. There is no reason why people cleaning and maintaining the house and grounds need to live on site. Furthermore, if the office workers are needed to be on site outside of usual office hours, as is implied through the comment that the Chairman is often in areas outwith GMT, then these workers would be on hand outside usual office hours to assist with any residential requirements.
Impact on the area 6.6 The proposal is for a sizeable building which will have a direct and immediate impact on the area which is characterised by one principal dwelling (Arragon House) which is set down from the road, and much smaller buildings close by (Arragon Farmhouse, Arragon Cottage and Seafield House). The introduction of such a large building would have an adverse impact on the character of the area due to its size and mass.
6.7 The property would be close to but not immediately alongside Arragon House and it is not considered that there would be any direct impact on the living conditions of those in that property sufficient to refuse the application on that basis.
6.8 Whilst Seafield House is closer and directly opposite the proposed building, its closest windows appear to be either obscure glazed or fitted with obscuring curtains. The windows, including the others which are not obscured are, in any case, immediately alongside the public footpath and estate road from where there is already some degree of an invasion of privacy. It is not considered that there is an adverse impact on the living conditions of those in this property from the proposed development sufficient to warrant a refusal. It is at such a distance from Seafield House as to avoid having any direct impact on light to this property.
==== PAGE 8 ====
16/00258/B
Page 8 of 9
6.9 The owners of Seafield House are right to be concerned about the introduction of trees so close to their property as to eventually create an outlook or light problem. However, the applicant could introduce such planting regardless of whether a new building is located here. It is not considered a successful environmental solution to simply hide buildings which should not otherwise be there, by planting and as such, if the development were to be considered acceptable, the planting of a dense tree screen could, itself become intrusive and out of place in a streetscene otherwise characterised by open frontages and relatively low walls where there are some. If the scheme is considered to be acceptable, it is not recommended that a tree screen is introduced here and instead, the boundary is formed by a varied hedge of trees and shrubs through which the building may well be seen.
6.10 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, 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. Whilst the estate road is narrow and visibility at the entrance onto the A25 very limited in a northerly direction, as the Highway Services Division does not oppose the application it is suggested that the proposal should not be refused for that reason.
Conclusion 6.11 The site is not designated for development and there do not appear to be sufficient reasons to override the prevailing policy to presume against a building here, and particularly a building of this size and mass. As such the application is recommended for refusal. Whilst reference has been made to other applications where ancillary accommodation has been considered acceptable, these are not the same contexts as this current application and where the lodges would be a feature in themselves, one formed from the conversion of an existing building, at the entrances to the site and of modest form.
PARTY STATUS 7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, 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; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material, in this case Department of Infrastructure Highway Services and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.
In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13:
The owners of Arragon Cottage and Seafield House
With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.
==== PAGE 9 ====
16/00258/B
Page 9 of 9
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 12.09.2016
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 or Environment Policies 1 and 2, Housing Policy 4 and the Strategic Aim, Strategic Policies 1c, 2 and 10 and Transport Policy 1.
R 2. 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. 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 are generally visible from the road and established in a landscaped setting or with low stone walls.
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:...19.09.2016
Signed : C BALMER 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
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