Officer Report 11/01715/B Meary Voar

Application No.: 11/01715/8 Case Officer : Mr John Michael Gallagher Applicant: Meary Voar 1 Limited Proposal: Erection of a replacement building to provide ancillary office space, storages areas, guest accommodation, gymnasium and swimming pool Site Address: Meary Voar Arragon Santon Isle of Man IM4 1HJ Recommendation: To APPROVE the application Planning

Officer's Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE DIRECTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL. THE APPLICATION SITE

1. The application site comprises the residential curtilage of a detached dwelling known as Meary Voar that is located close to the coast in Santon. The site contains a recently constructed dwelling, a number of outbuildings (previously used as ancillary accommodation and office space) access driveway and associated garden areas. The distance of these various buildings from the coast line varies but based on perpendicular measurements the existing dwelling is located approximately 210 metres from the coast and the existing outbuilding that is proposed to be replaced is located approximately 200 metres from the coast.

1. The main access to the application site is via a private drive that runs from Old Castletown Road through an adjacent estate (Arragon Houlle). Two separate of public rights of way run within or close to the application site.

1. The submitted planning application identifies land adjoining the application site that is also within the ownership or control of the applicant. This land, defined by blue line on drawing no. WL/11/1224/1, contains a number of fields, access tracks (on rising ground to the North and West of the site) and two agricultural barns. The agricultural barns are located directly adjacent to eastern boundary of the application site. Based on perpendicular measurements these agricultural barns are located approximately 150/160 metres from the coast.

1. In the wider context, the application site is in a part of the Island that is characterised by a number of large detached dwellings and ancillary buildings set in substantial landscaped grounds.

THE PROPOSAL

1. The proposal comprises the erection of a replacement building to provide ancillary office space, storage areas, guest accommodation, gymnasium and swimming pool. The facilities provided within the proposed development would serve the adjacent dwelling.

1. The proposed development is technically a three storey building in dimension, but due to the design accommodating a swimming pool the external appearance of the building is two storey which is set into the rising ground. The design of the proposed building can be reasonably described as being a double gabled building with full height central projecting

gable elements on the front and rear elevations. The external finish of the proposed building would be stone, the roof would be natural slate, the windows would be timber framed double glazed units, the doors would be timber and rainwater goods would be cast iron.

1. In terms of size, based on the submitted drawings the basic footprint of the proposed building (i.e. excluding central projecting gable elements on the front and rear elevations, measures 30.6m by 13.0m, with the ridge height measuring 10.5m on the southern elevation and 9.0m on the northern elevation. The proposal involves some changes in levels, with the proposed building being set further into the ground than the existing building. These changes in levels do vary across the site of the proposed development, based on the submitted drawings the maximum reduction in ground level from existing when viewed externally would be approximately 1.1m.

1. The applicant has put forward a number of grounds to support their proposal, believing their proposal not to conflict with planning policy or result in unacceptable harm in landscape terms. It is their opinion that the existing building is in poor condition, not suitable for further conversion and no longer suitable for their needs. They highlight that whilst the proposed building is larger it is sited on the footprint of the existing building and will not be significantly higher than the existing building. They also highlight that the design incorporates the re-use of existing and the use of locally sourced stone so as to remain subordinate to the adjacent dwelling. Overall, it is their belief that the proposal is in keeping with the setting of a large detached dwelling within substantial landscaped grounds and that it meets a market need for high quality accommodation and facilities.

PLANNING HISTORY

1. The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, the following of which could be considered material to the assessment of the current planning application:

1. Planning application 94/00317/8 sought planning approval for the re-development of farm. This previous planning application was approved on the 21st July 1994. The current use of the building proposed to be replaced by this current planning application was approved under this previous planning application subject to a condition restricting residential occupation to an agricultural worker.

1. Planning application 02/02341/C sought the removal of the agricultural workers condition applying to manager's flat accommodation approved under previous planning application 94/003178. This previous planning application was refused on the 10th June 2003, on the basis that insufficient evidence had been submitted to demonstrate that no need existed for either a retired or current agricultural workers dwelling within the locality.

1. Planning application 03/01716/C sought the removal of the agricultural workers condition applying to managers flat accommodation approved under previous planning application 94/003178. This previous planning application was approved on the 12th January 2004.

1. Planning application 05/01851/8 sought planning approval for the erection of new dwelling to replace existing dwelling and extension to outbuilding to provide storage and boiler room. This previous planning application was approved on the 20th December 2005. This planning approval has been part implemented and remains live, the new dwelling was built but the extension to the outbuilding has not been constructed.

1. Planning application 07/00107/8 sought planning approval to increase to the size of first floor windows and creation of two French windows to south elevation. This previous planning application, which was approved on the 5th March 2007, basically amended design details of the dwelling approved under previous planning application 05/01851/B.

1. Planning application 11/00962/B sought planning approval for the erection of a replacement building to provide living accommodation, office accommodation and swimming pool. This previous planning application was withdrawn by the applicant on the 11th October 2011 prior to any decision being made.
2. The land adjoining the application site has been subject of number of previous planning applications that could be considered material to the assessment of the current planning application:
3. Planning application 05/00590/B sought planning approval for the construction of new 4 m wide concrete/tarmac access road on alignment of existing access track and new surface water carrier and attenuation scheme. This previous planning application was approved on the 23rd June 2005.
4. Planning application 05/01850/B sought planning approval for the erection of two agricultural buildings (one for dairy/suckler unit, one general purpose building), relocation of one building, modified to form machinery store/workshop and two bay extension to main barn and works to extend concrete yard area and erection of sludge tank. This previous planning application was approved on the 22nd November 2005. Based on comparison of aerial photography it is believed that this planning approval has been part implemented and remains live, existing barns have taken down or part taken down but the two new agricultural buildings and other elements of the approved development have not been constructed.

Planning Policy

1. In terms of land use designation the application site is not zoned for any site specific purpose and is located within a wider area of land that is classified as being of high landscape or coastal value and scenic significance under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982. The Department of Infrastructure published a draft Planning Policy Statement (PPS) on the Role of Landscape Character in Development in October 2009, within which the application site is part defined as Rugged Coast and part Inclued Slopes. Work on this Planning Policy Statement is currently progressing but at present no final version of the document has yet been issued.
2. Part of the application site is located within a wider area of land that is zoned as a nature conservation zone, nature reserve or site of ecological importance for conservation under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982. As the site of the existing and proposed building is outside of the area of this zoning it is concluded that this is not an issue in the assessment of the planning application.
3. Given the proximity to Ronaldsway Airport part of the application site is also located within an area where there are building height restrictions or other air safety regulations. As the proposal replaces an existing building and is lower than the recently constructed adjacent dwelling it is concluded that this is not an issue in the assessment of the planning application.
4. In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains seven policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:
5. Strategic Policy 1 states:

"Development should make the best use of resources by:

• (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials;
• (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards; and
• (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services." 24. General Policy 3 states: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
• (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10);
• (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11);
• (c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment;
• (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14);
• (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services;
• (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry;
• (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and
• (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage." 25. Environment Policy 1 states: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative." 26. Environment Policy 2 states: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:
• (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or
• (b) the location for the development is essential." 27. Environment Policy 16 states: "The use of existing rural buildings for new purposes such as tourist, or small-scale industrial/commercial use may be permitted where:
• (a) it is demonstrated that the building is no longer required for its original purpose and where the building is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation;
• (b) the reuse of the building will result in the preservation of fabric which is of historic, architectural, or social interest or is otherwise of visual attraction;
• (c) it is demonstrated that the building could accommodate the new use without requiring extension or adverse change to appearance or character;
• (d) there would not be unacceptable implications in terms of traffic generation;
• (e) conversion does not lead to dispersal of activity on such a scale as to prejudice the vitality and viability of existing town and village services; and
• (f) the use of existing buildings involves significant levels of redevelopment to accommodate the new use, the benefits secured by the proposal in terms of impact on the environment and the rural economy shall outweigh the continued impact of retaining the existing buildings on site.

Proposals to convert rural buildings to residential accommodation will be considered along with the advice given at Section 8.10 of this document."

1. Housing Policy 4 states:

"New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans; otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances:

• (a) essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10;
• (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and
• (c) the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14." 29. Although the planning application does not propose to convert the existing building, as this has already been done, it is still relevant to have regard to Housing Policy 11 which states that: "Conversion of existing rural buildings into dwellings may be permitted, but only where:
• (a) redundancy for the original use can be established;
• (b) the building is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation;
• (c) the building is of architectural, historic, or social interest;
• (d) the building is large enough to form a satisfactory dwelling, either as it stands or with modest, subordinate extension which does not affect adversely the character or interest of the building;
• (e) residential use would not be incompatible with adjoining established uses or, where appropriate, land-use zoning on the area plan; and
• (f) the building is or can be provided with satisfactory services without unreasonable public expenditure. Such conversion must:
• (a) where practicable and desirable, re-establish the original appearance of the building; and
• (b) use the same materials as those in the existing building. Permission will not be given for the rebuilding of ruins or the erection of replacement buildings of similar, or even identical, form. Further extension of converted rural buildings will not usually be permitted, since this would lead to loss or reduction of the original interest and character."

Representations

1. The Minister for Economic Development (Hon. John Shinmin MHC) supports the planning application and had initially submitted two separate letters of support dated 30th April 2012 and 4th June 2012. Subsequently the Minister for Economic Development sent in a revised letter of support for this application (dated 20th June 2012) to replace the two letters sent previously. Specifically, the Department of Economic Development has been in discussion with the applicant in respect of the proposed development in response to the Budget Day Speech by the Minister for Infrastructure on 21st February 2012 and the Issuing of the draft Planning Policy Statement on Planning and the Economy.
2. Within latest letter of support, dated the 20th June 2012, it is stated that the Department of Economic Development has reviewed the proposal and undertaken an assessment of the economic benefits of it to the Island's economy based on evidence provided by the applicant to them. From this they have been able to examine the estimated economic benefit created for the Mero economy from the construction costs of the project and temporary employment created and the longer term economic activity generated through the new business activity and jobs created. Whilst the representation is available to view on the application file it is appropriate to directly quote the main part of their representation to

ensure the Department of Economic Development's grounds for support are properly stated and not misrepresented: "Based on this assessment of the economic benefits, the Department would support the proposed development for the following reasons:

• Whilst the proposed development is contrary to planning policy it is situated on the site of an existing building and is proposed to be carried out to a very high standard and to a scale deemed to be appropriate to the existing main house. Mr Moore has proven his desire to employ local tradesmen previously and has a desire to work with and assist Government. It is part of Mr Moore's plans to improve his on Island facilities and should encourage more economic activity to be conducted from the Island. Indeed, his value is considerably in excess of this one development and he offers considerable potential economic benefit to the Island. The Department is particularly keen to encourage this from Mr Moore.
• The proposed development at £ 4,160,000 is a significant benefit to the construction industry at the present time. The exchequer benefit for the Isle of Man from the construction cost alone is estimated at approximately £ 432,849.
• Employment created by the construction work is estimated at 30,968 hours for IOM tradesmen, 16,590 hours for IOM unskilled labour and 6,480 hours for IOM management and office support.
• 4 new permanent jobs will be created as a result of the development in maintenance, cleaning and office administration creating an annual wage bill of £ 105,000. In addition, Mr Moore is to also employ two pilots in connection with his business activities will utilise the new building.
• Additional costs of £ 20,318 are to be incurred in relation to demolition costs of removing the existing building. Also, £ 200,000 is planned to be spent with local suppliers of soft furnishings etc. There will also be some additional annual local spend associated with the development in connection with power costs, swimming pool maintenance, etc.
• Mr Moore is of significant financial means, has resided on the Island since 2004 and conducts all his business affairs through IOM based companies. The Isle of Man is benefiting from this trading activity."

1. The Department of Economic Development then indicates that following receipt of further information from the applicant (letter from Meary Voar One Limited to Department of Economic Development dated 21st May 2012) they have looked at the applicant's development at Ronsideway Airport that is considered by the applicant and the Department of Economic Development to be intrinsically linked to the development proposed by this planning application. Again, whilst the representation is available to view on the application file, it is appropriate to directly quote the main part of their representation to ensure the Department of Economic Development's grounds for support are properly stated and not misrepresented:

"The applicant has stated in his letter that the above development goes hand in hand with the building of new aircraft hangar at Ronsideway planning permission for which has already been granted. Mr Moore has asked that the Department quantify the economic benefit of the construction and running of the hangar which he says will not take place in isolation from the above development.

The applicant has provided evidence of the construction costs of the hangar and the associated costs of registering and operating an aircraft from the Island. The Department has examined these and can confirm the following:

• The construction cost of the hangar is estimated at approximately £1,158,000. Tenders have been issued for this work broken down into ground works, structural steel, electrical etc. The intention is to use local contractors. The build cost would generate one-off economic benefit (effective VAT benefit) of £113,484. In addition there will be inspection fees for the work paid direct to Government of around £5,400;
• The applicant has negotiated a 50 year ground lease with Government and will pay annual rent initially of £8,362 which is subject to 3 yearly reviews in line with the Mana Retail Prices Index, but capped at a maximum of . The total forecast value to Government over the lease term is therefore, likely to be considerable. The lease also provides that the ownership of the building will revert to Government at the end of the 50 years;
• JDM Aircraft Registry Fees - The initial registration fee is approximately £ 5,000 paid direct to Government with the potential for this to be higher up to approximately £ 7,510 depending on where the aircraft survey takes place. There is an ongoing annual fee which is approximately of the registration fee.
• The applicant has estimated that landing fees paid at Ronaldsway paid direct to Government will be approximately £ 5,075 per annum.
• The salaries of two pilots were referred to in the Department's original letter. These have now been clarified at £ 75,000 per annum each. The combined NI and I.T.I.P contributions from these salaries is estimated at £ 49,500 annually.
• There will be annual running costs for electricity, water, insurance and fuel".

1. Mr Graham Cregeen MHK (Member for Maiew and Santen) has written in with two letters of support for the planning application on 31st January and 15th June 2012. In the 31st January letter, the grounds for his support can be summarised as a belief that the proposal represents 'a great improvement that would provide a better working environment for current employees'. He puts forward the view that the existing building has passed its 'useful life' and that the proposed development would 'provide much needed employment in the south of the Island'. It is stated within this representation that he has 'had discussions with the owner who indicated that he would be happy to have conditions placed on the development so that it could not be sold off separately'. In his second letter of 15th June, Mr Cregeen has indicated that 'I feel that the new proposed building will fit in well as a replacement existing barn'. He then goes onto state that the applicant has 'indicated that the majority of work on this development will be carried out by local contractors'. Finally he concurs with the Department of Economic Development's findings on the economic benefits of this development, he goes on to say '...I understand that the external stonework will match that the existing barn and I believe will not look out of place and would not be noticed by anyone who had not seen the old barn before or look out of place by those who had'.
2. The Mana Electricity Authority expresses an interest in the planning application. The contents of their representation relates to non-planning material considerations.

Agreement

1. The key issues to address in considering this application are whether other material planning considerations may outweigh the Development Plan Policies, in particular issues relating to:

• visual impact of the development; and
• economic benefit.

1. To properly assess the planning application it is necessary to understand the background of the application site and specifically the building proposed to be replaced as

part of the proposed development. As outlined with the planning history section of this report the existing building was converted to create a store and farm manager's flat with office. As part of the approval of previous planning application 94/00317/8 a condition restricting occupancy to an agricultural worker imposed, but this was subsequently removed by the approval of previous planning application 03/01716/C. Planning approval for the extension of this building exists through the development part implemented under previous planning application 05/01851/8.

1. The planning application proposes to replace an existing converted barn with a new building to provide ancillary office space, storage areas, guest accommodation, a gymnasium and a swimming pool. In terms of size, based on the submitted drawings the basic footprint of the proposed building (i.e. excluding central projecting gable elements on the front and rear elevations) measures 30.6 m by 13.0 m , with the ridge height measuring 10.5 m on the southern elevation and 9.0 m on the northern elevation. For comparison purposes, based on the submitted drawings, the existing building measures 27.4 m by 5.8 m , with the ridge height of the tallest part of the building measuring 5.8 m .
2. In planning terms the application site comprises the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling located within the countryside. As stated earlier in this report the application site is not zoned for development under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982. Whilst planning policy sets out a general presumption against development in the countryside there are also planning policies that recognise the existence of dwellings in the countryside and allow related development such as the extension of such dwellings. Whilst there is no provision within planning policy for detached new build development within such residential curtilages, there has been a general acceptance of such development being appropriate provided it is to a suitable scale to the existing dwelling its curtilage and setting. for example a standard size detached garage is generally seen as a reasonable expectation for an existing dwelling in the countryside.
3. To allow a full and proper assessment of the visual impact of the proposed development a site visit has been undertaken. The application site and the surrounding area has been visited as part of the preparation of this report. As stated earlier in this report two separate public rights of way footpaths run within or close to the application site. The Raad by Fallian runs through the southern part of the application site and an adjoining footpath runs inland along the western side of the application site. The application site and existing development is readily visible from both of these public rights of way, and from these it can be seen that the existing building that would be replaced by the proposed building is of a size and scale that is clearly subsidiary to that of the existing adjacent dwelling.
4. The proposed building is larger than the one it replaces, however in the wider context and setting it still has a subsidiary relationship with the existing dwelling and adjoining large agricultural buildings. The increase in size can be seen by comparing the main ridge height of the existing building relative to the existing dwelling against the height of the proposed building relative to the existing dwelling. The South Elevation (showing main house) shown on drawing no. FJ1/005 rev. 8 can be used for such comparison exercise as this effectively shows a view that is publicly visible from both of the two public rights of way. Whilst perhaps not a general public viewpoint it is also notable that the existing development is visible to air passengers as the application site is located close to Ronaldsway Airport and passed at relatively low altitude on established takeoff and landing flight paths. To some degree the application site and adjoining large detached dwellings and ancillary buildings set in substantial landscaped grounds provide some of the first impressions or some of the last memories of the Island for air travellers.
5. In the last ten years the scale and amount of development within the application site has steadily increased. Based on an examination of the relevant planning application report it is understood that the replacement dwelling approved, and subsequently built, under previous

planning application 05/01051/8 resulted in an increase in footprint from 204 square metres to 426 square metres ( ). It is reasonable to conclude that the construction of the new dwelling is significantly larger than the one it replaced and with the subsequent loss of natural screening that can be seen by comparison of aerial photography this can only have had a greater visual impact than the previous situation. Furthermore, under this previous planning approval there is also aadant approval to extend the existing outbuilding, which potentially increases the level of development within the application site. There also appears to be extent planning approval for the erection of significant agricultural buildings on the land directly adjacent to the application site, which would also increase the overall level of development. The impact of those previous planning applications may have been concluded to be acceptable at their respective times the publication of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 since then has strengthened planning policies that seek to protect the country and areas of high landscape or coastal value and scenic significance from potentially harmful development. In the context of both the adjoining buildings already in place plus those which already benefit from planning approval, the question is whether the proposed replacement building will have a detrimental visual impact.

1. Taking account of the above it would appear that the impact of the proposed development on the rural amenity of the landscape is acceptable as the proposed building is of a size and scale that would, or should, be reasonably expected as part of what is undeniably a private estate containing a large, high quality dwelling. Furthermore, if the principle of a larger replacement building is accepted it could also be said that the visual impact of a larger building is to some degree mitigated by the existence and existing visual impact of the two large agricultural barns that are located east of the application site. The Planning Committee may consider that it can accept such an argument and approve the planning application on the basis of it being worthy of setting aside, or at least attributing less weight, to those planning policies that are against it.
2. It is also notable that General Policy 3 includes provision allowing development outside of areas zoned for development where it is recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative. Bearing that in mind it is necessary to note that since the submission of the planning application the Minister for Infrastructure (Hon. David Cretney MHC) made a Budget Day speech (21st February 2012) regarding the role of planning within the economy and the consideration that should be given to the economic benefits of proposals to the Island, with this speech coinciding with the publication of a draft Planning Policy Statement on Planning and the Economy. As part of his speech the Minister for Infrastructure (Hon. David Cretney MHC) stated that he expected Government Departments, Planning Officers, the Planning Committee and Planning Appeal Inspectors to take account of the contents of his speech and this draft Planning Policy Statement with immediate effect when determining planning applications and appeals. The actual level of weight to be attributed to the draft Planning Policy Statement is limited by virtue of the document being a draft with the consultation response still being considered, no resolution at Department level being yet made and discussion at Tynwald yet to occur. Nevertheless, in line with Section 10 (4) (d) of the Town \& Country Planning Act, it is still appropriate to take some account of its contents as it generally clarifies how an existing material planning consideration (economic benefit) should be assessed and considered.
3. In terms of considering the proposed development, in the context of the Minister for Infrastructure's Budget Day Speech and the provisions the draft Planning Policy Statement on Planning and the Economy it can be seen that the Department of Economic Development have discussed the proposal directly with the applicant. Following this discussion they have confirmed their support for the proposal on the basis of economic benefit. The exact terms of this support from the Department of Economic Development is set out within the letter from the Minister for Economic Development (Hon. John Shannon MHC) received on the 2nd May

2012, the main points of this letter are stated earlier within the representations section of this report.

1. In line with Minister for Infrastructure's (Hon. David Cretney MHC) Budget Day speech it is appropriate to consider this response against content of his speech and the provisions of the draft Planning Policy Statement on Planning and the Economy. To do so, the following parts of the draft Planning Policy Statement are specifically pertinent to consider. Firstly, paragraph 6 defines economic development and states "For planning purposes the Isle of Man Government defines economic development as the development of land and buildings for activities that generate wealth, jobs and incomes. Economic development land uses include: the traditional employment land uses (offices, research and development, industry and warehousing), as well as retail, leisure, and public services." The question has to be asked whether the development proposed by the planning application actually fits in with this definition. This point is clarified by paragraph 9 stating that "Although for planning purposes, it is not defined as economic development, it is recognised that house building and construction do play a valuable role in the economy." Given that the proposal is more closely linked to house building and construction it is apparent that the draft Planning Policy Statement on Planning and the Economy specifically excludes such development from the definition of economic development.
2. In terms of specific assessment of proposals it is appropriate to specifically consider paragraphs 10, 13 and 14 of the draft Planning Policy Statement on Planning and the Economy. Paragraph 10 states that "In so doing, 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; 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."

It is appropriate for the decision make to consider whether the proposed development, and the support from the Minister for Economic Development (Hon. John Shannon MHC), meets any of these ten stated aims. If so, it is then necessary to consider how much weight should be given to these in the overall consideration of the proposal.

1. 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:

1. 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."

It is appropriate for the Planning Committee to consider what weight to attribute to the potential economic benefits of the proposed development against this guidance from the draft Planning Policy Statement on Planning and the Economy.

1. Taking account of the guidance provided by the Minister for Infrastructure's Budget Day Speech and paragraphs 10, 13 and 14 of the draft Planning Policy Statement on Planning \& the Economy, it is appropriate for the Planning Committee to decide whether the economic benefits of the proposed development constitute a material consideration which carries sufficient weight to set aside the proposed development being contrary to the provisions of Strategic Plan General Policy 3 that is outlined earlier in this assessment section of the report. As part of that consideration it is appropriate to take account of the case put forward by the applicant and be conscious of the detailed support from the Minister for Economic Development (Hon. John Shimmin MHK).

Conclusion

1. The assessment of this planning application is finely balanced between different material considerations.
2. On one hand, in straightforward planning terms the proposed development is contrary to established planning policy the seeks to protect the countryside from harmful development by presuming against development outside of areas zoned for development.
3. However on the other hand notwithstanding this presumption against development, it could be argued that the impact of a larger building than the existing one is mitigated by the existence and impact of existing surrounding built development.
4. Furthermore, a case has been advanced that the proposed development is of significant economic benefit to the Isle of Man. In making its decision Planning Committee is reminded that Provision does exist within legislation and within existing planning policy to allow exceptions to the relevant planning policies where there is overriding national need or the location of the development is essential. The need to give appropriate consideration to the economic benefits of proposed developments has been recently emphasised by the Minister for Infrastructure (Hon. David Cretney MHK) in his Budget Day Speech to Tynwald and the issuing of a draft Planning Policy Statement on Planning and the Economy.

Recommendation

1. It is recommended that the planning application be approved on the basis of the reasons outlined within the assessment.

Party Status

1. It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should be afforded interested party status:

The Minister for Economic Development (Hon. John Shimmin MHK).

1. It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should not be afforded interested party status:

Mr Graham Cregeen MHK; and The Manx Electricity Authority.

Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the conditions C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

C 2. This permission relates to the erection of a replacement building to provide ancillary office space, storages areas, guest accommodation, gymnasium and swimming pool as shown in drawing numbers , rev A, P/2/003, rev B, P/2/004 rev B, P/2/005 rev B, P/2/006 rev C, P/2/007 rev A, P/2/008 rev B, and P/2/010 rev A all received on 13th December 2011. C 3. The development hereby permitted may only be used in association with and ancillary to the adjacent dwelling Meary Voar as guest accommodation and a swimming pool and as an office. C 4. All external finishes and window details must be applied as described in drawing reference P/2/004 rev B and not altered unless otherwise authorised by the Planning Authority. C 5. In so far as is practicable, the stone from the demolished outbuilding shall be re-used for the development hereby permitted. C 6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no extensions, greenhouses, walls, gates, fences, garden sheds, summerhouses, flag poles, decking, garages, or tanks for the storage of oil for domestic heating shall be erected at Meary Voar (other than those expressly authorised by this approval).