Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
18/00870/C Page 1 of 8
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 18/00870/C Applicant : Heron And Brearley Ltd Proposal : Change of use from Public House to residential property Site Address : Liverpool Arms Main Road Baldrine Isle of Man IM4 6AE
Planning Officer: Mr Owen Gore Photo Taken : 03.10.2018 Site Visit : 03.10.2018 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 24.01.2019 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The evidence that has been submitted or was otherwise available is insufficient to justify the loss of the public house. The applicant has not provided any evidence of attempts to market the property as a business in its current form and it has not been adequately demonstrated that the use is no longer, or cannot be made, commercially viable. The proposed change of use of the application site and conversion of building to entirely residential would therefore be contrary to General Policy 3, Community Policy 4 and Housing Policy 11 of the Strategic Plan 2016.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
39 Baldrine Park, Baldrine, IM4 6DB Hazel Cottage, Ballabeg, Laxey, IM4 7HB Green Hills, Pinfold Hill, Laxey, IM4 7HJ
As they are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy. __
==== PAGE 2 ====
18/00870/C Page 2 of 8
Officer’s Report
THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the Liverpool Arms public house on Main Road, on the north side of the bend in the highway, just before entering Baldrine when travelling from Onchan. The application building is a cottage style country inn within an attractive rural setting. The country property has been trading as a public house dating back to the 19th Century.
1.2 The ground floor of the building comprises of a large main bar with open fireplace, snug area, dining room and separate ladies' and gents' WCs. The first floor is understood to comprise several rooms as well as the kitchen and fridge room/prep area. There is also understood to be a separate manager's apartment, with living room, bedroom and bathroom.
1.3 Outside in the immediate site there is a boiler house/store, store room/electric room and enclosed rear yard that contains the septic tank and the wider site is made up of a large car parking area and a paved seating area/pub garden.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal is for the change of use and conversion of the building and wider site from a public house into a single residential dwelling.
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The Liverpool Arms is shown on the Laxey and Lonan Local Plan 2005 Lonan Map as being within the local plan area and the property is designated as 'Civic, Cultural or Other Special Use
3.2 Strategic Policy 1 specifies the best use of resources, including 'optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings'; 'ensuring efficient use of sites'; and 'being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services'. Strategic Policy 11 includes the housing needs of the Island generally, to be built over the Plan period and includes those created by conversion.
3.3 Linking to part (c) of Strategic Policy 1, Strategic Policy 10 requires new development to be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network.
3.4 Strategic Policy 2 states that new development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, which is linked to Spatial Policy 4 and Spatial Policy 5. Spatial policies 1 through 4 set out the settlement hierarchy identifying the Douglas urban area as the main employment and services centre for the Island; below this it identifies the main towns for the island, then the 'Service Villages' and then the remaining villages, of which Baldrine is one. Spatial Policy 4 states 'In the remaining villages development should maintain the existing settlement character and should be of an appropriate scale to meet local needs for housing and limited employment opportunities'.
3.5 Spatial Policy 5 states that 'New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3'. The Laxey and Lonan Local Plan 2005 define the development boundaries of Baldrine and the application site is outside of this area by a significant margin.
3.6 As the proposal is outside of the defined settlement General Policy 3 is considered to apply, as per Spatial Policy 5. The policy only permits development in such instances when they fall within the exceptions listed. These include: -
==== PAGE 3 ====
18/00870/C Page 3 of 8
'(b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11)'; and '(c) previously developed land(1) 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'.
3.7 Housing Policy 4 reaffirms the need for development (specifically housing) to be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions. Otherwise they will have to fall within the list of exceptional circumstances, which includes '(b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11'. Housing Policy 11 allows for the conversion of existing rural buildings into dwellings, where they meet the relevant criteria listed: -
'(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 zonings 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'.
3.8 Paragraph 10.8 'Retention of Existing Local Shops and Public Houses' states that: -
'The loss of facilities such as neighbourhood shops in towns and or village shops and public houses reduces customer choice and can also necessitate people travelling further to meet their needs. This is a particular problem in rural areas where village shops, post offices and public houses can be central to village life. It would be preferable to retain viable facilities, or those that can be made viable and where a change of use or re-development is proposed developers will be expected to show evidence of attempts to market the property as a business in these areas'.
3.9 This then links to Community Policy 4, which states 'Development (including the change of use of existing premises) which involves the loss of local shops and local public houses, will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that the use is no longer commercially viable, or cannot be made commercially viable'.
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 Any previous planning applications on the site are considered not to be specifically material in the assessment of the current application.
4.2 However the appeal AP18/0022 for the refusal of a planning application (ref: - 17/01189/B) for the demolition of Waterfall Hotel and erection of four terraced dwellings on site with associated parking and amenity space at Waterfall Hotel, Shore Road, Glen Maye, Isle of Man, IM5 3BG is considered to be applicable in this instance.
==== PAGE 4 ====
18/00870/C Page 4 of 8
REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that they have reviewed the proposal do not object, in the letter dated 24 September 2018. The comments continue: -
'The upper floor of the existing building has a 2 bedroom flat above the public house. The parking standards in 'The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016' require 2 car parking spaces for a 2+ bedroom dwelling and therefore the existing flat and the proposed dwelling would have the same parking demand. The total site traffic and parking demand would be reduced from the proposed removal of the public house use. The development would not change the existing site access and parking arrangements with the vehicular access to the rear site car park off Barroose Road retained as at present. Highway Services does not oppose the application'.
5.2 Garff Commissioners have commented on this application and objected in the letter dated 13 September 2018. The comments continue: -
'The Commissioners were very concerned with this application as its consequence was the loss of an important amenity that until very recently has played an important role in the community of Lonan.
The Commissioners believe that all efforts should be made by the applicant to explore the retention of its current use. It was also noted that the applicant intends to apply a covenant on any sale that prevents any future owner from operating the building as a public house.
In respect of these matters, it is clear that the applicant may not be aware of Section 10.8 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan which insists that change of use will only be permitted if the developer can show 'evidence of attempts to market the property as a business in these areas'; this dictate results in Community Policy 4.
In this respect it was noted that this change of use application was premature and should at this juncture be rejected by the Planning Officer and the Planning Committee.
The Board unanimously objected to this application'.
5.3 There have been 3 objections received from neighbouring properties
39 Baldrine Park, Baldrine, IM4 6DB Hazel Cottage, Ballabeg, Laxey, IM4 7HB Green Hills, Pinfold Hill, Laxey, IM4 7HJ.
The key planning points raised include: -
o There is scope for a well-run pub/restaurant to succeed, which would be more beneficial to the community than housing; o The only pub in the area and the only one within walking distance of Baldrine; an iconic landmark, frequently used by bikers; o Converting the property into residential would be to the detriment of the area as well as the wider island; o Liverpool Arms is an important part of the local community; it was for many years popular and well used facility; o If it is financially unviable, why is it being sold with a restrictive covenant/caveat;
==== PAGE 5 ====
18/00870/C Page 5 of 8
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The key issues are the loss of the public house, which is a community use and the conversion of a building in the countryside into a dwelling.
Principle of the Development 6.2 The proposal is zoned as 'Civic, Cultural or Other Special Use', noted specifically as a public house; it is also not located within a defined settlement. Therefore Spatial Policy 5 and Housing Policy 4 indicate that General Policy 3 applies in this instance. The proposal as described in the application is to convert, as opposed to redevelop, the building, which although it is zoned, is in the countryside and could be described as a 'rural building'; therefore part (b) of General policy 3 is considered to apply, which allows for the conversion of 'redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest' in accordance also with Housing Policy 11.
6.3 The first 'test' therefore is to establish if the existing use of the rural building is redundant. As this site/building is zoned as a public house, Community Policy 4 also ties in with the existing use, requiring that it be demonstrated that the use is no longer commercially viable, or cannot be made commercially viable. The Strategic Plan presumes against the loss of public houses unless this is adequately demonstrated; paragraph 10.8 indicates 'proposed developers will be expected to show evidence of attempts to market the property as a business in these areas'.
Loss of the Public House 6.4 As part of the current submission the applicant has provided a statement that provides some explanation as to why the premises closed and also the owner's management of the wider business and other premises; however the only statement they have made with regard to the limitations of the business consists of a single sentence and refers to the 'limited' summer trading due to location, the difficulty of recruiting staff and 'unsustainability' in the winter months. The final part of the sentence states that 'operating this site is no longer a viable option for us'.
6.5 The appeal AP18/0022 was against the refusal of a planning application (ref: - 17/01189/B) for the demolition of Waterfall Hotel and erection of four terraced dwellings on site with associated parking and amenity space at Waterfall Hotel, Shore Road, Glen Maye, Isle of Man, IM5 3BG. This appeal was dismissed by the Minister in line with the decision of the Planning Committee.
6.6 There are some key differences in the appeal site and the current application's site, in that the Inspector noted that the Waterfall Hotel 'whether by normal wear and tear or neglect, is now in a state of dilapidation, requiring substantial investment in renovation before it could be reopened'; and that the Waterfall Hotel 'is not on a well-used thoroughfare generating passing trade'. Neither of these is considered to be the case for the current application site. At the time of visiting there were no significant signs of dilapidation and indeed the building looked as though the door had closed at the end of trading and hadn't reopened; the 'front of house' areas were still set up for service with cutlery and condiments on the tables. Also the Liverpool Arms is located on one of the main arterial routes between Douglas and Ramsey, the first and second of the main service centres for the island as per Spatial Policy 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan.
6.7 In this appeal the Inspector noted that 'It is clear that the Waterfall Hotel is held in fond regard by the local community, as strongly expressed by the Parish Commissioners and individual residents. It clearly has long historic associations and, until relatively recently, has served as an important tourist facility'. It was noted that 'some rural businesses appear viable, for example, the Shore Hotel on Bay ny Carrickey, the Hawthorn in German and The Forge in Braddan, formerly the Hop Garden, some following renovation and relaunches'.
==== PAGE 6 ====
18/00870/C Page 6 of 8
6.8 In this case the appellants/applicants provided financial accounts for several years of operation and anecdotal evidence in an attempt to show that the property is not and would remain commercially unviable. The Inspector acknowledged that the appellant/applicant 'genuinely sought a suitable tenant to carry on the current hotel and public house use of the existing building on the appeal site'.
6.9 However the Inspector goes on to state that 'It is of concern that the evidence of non- viability put forward by the Appellants, whilst genuinely based on experience and certified accounts, is nonetheless limited to largely anecdotal assertion drawn from enquiries within the known business community of the Isle of Man. Importantly, no professional marketing evidence has been put forward to show that the appeal property has been advertised and promoted in a manner consistent with its apparent potential to attract international tourist interest'.
6.10 The scope of the information for this appeal was much greater than what was submitted in the current application; no accounts or more importantly in the Inspectors assessment of the above, no marketing information has been provided to demonstrate that a genuine attempt has been made to find alternative owners to take on the premises with a similar business. The 'test' for viability therefore is much greater than stating that they consider the business no longer viable for the applicant/owner and it requires appropriate marketing and promotion, potentially outside of the island, to sell the business as it is.
6.11 During the decision period the property has been advertised for sale; the sales information has been freely available on the estate agent's website and was highlighted by objectors. In the estate agent's letter it states that 'The property will be sold with a covenant preventing the use of the property in the future as licenced premises'.
'In a commercial setting, restrictive covenants have also been used as a method for land and property owners to protect their business where the owner retains other land or property in the area. In such cases an owner may sell a property with a restrictive covenant that prevents new owners from engaging in activities that might interfere with the original owner's business interests'.
6.13 The document provides examples of the reasons for the use of restrictive covenants, which include where the owner has other pubs in the area and believes that reducing the number of pubs will increase the viability of those pubs that remain; where the owner wants to reduce opportunities for external competition gaining access to a particular market; or where there is a desire to change the use of a pub, for example to residential or other commercial use.
6.14 The information submitted to support the current application seems to provide three pieces of information, that the pub closed due to the then tenant leaving unexpectedly, presumably breaking contractual obligations and not specifically because the business in unviable; that the current owner has invested in other premises on the island and does not wish to do so for the application site; and that there are some constraints to the business, which the owners have stated makes it no longer viable specifically for them.
6.15 In the absence of any evidence i.e. financial or marketing information as requested during the pre-application discussions, it is reasonable therefore to draw the conclusion that the
==== PAGE 7 ====
18/00870/C Page 7 of 8
applicant doesn't dispute that it could be made viable and indeed it seems by the use of the restrictive covenant that they believe that it is or could become viable and are taking steps to ensure that it will not operate as a viable public house in the future, and therefore reducing the opportunity for external competition gaining access to a particular market.
6.16 In terms of the reasons for using the restrictive covenant, the applicant has stated in their submission that in light of investment at other premises on the island, the Liverpool Arms 'does not feature in our plans for the managed estate'. The applicant has not acknowledged the restrictive covenants in the submission, but this is considered broadly in line with the argument above that reducing the number of pubs will increase the viability of those pubs that remain; however as acknowledged in the consultation document, 'the effect can and should be achieved through market forces or democratically-led through local [planning] authorities' plans rather than be instigated by vested interests'.
6.17 Restrictive covenants have the power to 'run with the land' meaning that it, and the restrictions it imposes, will still be in effect for subsequent buyers of the property or land. Given this, such a restrictive covenant can risk not only closing an important community asset, but also removing the potential of it returning to that use in the future. Therefore the loss of the public house as an asset to the community can only be considered in perpetuity.
6.18 In the abovementioned appeal the Inspector has identified through objections from local people and the Commissioners that there was a question regarding why the premises could not be put to one or more different uses, such as a shop or a cafe. It notes that in Dalby, the local church has been rejuvenated to include a range of additional community uses and has recently been the subject of a planning application for use as a hostel. In the marketing information taken from the estate agents website it states that 'the property may have potential for other uses, subject to beneficial planning approval'; however this has not been applied for and the applicant has not sought permission for such a change previously, but instead has gone directly for a dwelling.
6.19 The evidence that has been submitted or is otherwise available is insufficient to justify the loss of the public house. The applicant has not provided any evidence of attempts to market the property as a business in its current form (ie with a licence and without the covenant preventing its use as a public house) and it has not been adequately demonstrated that the use is no longer commercially viable, or cannot be made commercially viable. The proposed change of use of the application site and conversion of building to entirely residential would therefore be contrary to Community Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan.
6.20 It is relevant to acknowledge that the Area Plan for the East includes proposed potential development sites around Baldrine, including 7 sites for housing and 1 site for mixed use, which would be predominantly housing; the collective land that is allocated is 19.16ha. The Area Plan for the East is currently in its Preliminary Publicity stage following consultation and has yet to go through a public enquiry and finally adoption; therefore at the moment it carries little overall weight in the decision making process.
Creating a new dwelling in the countryside 6.21 The second aspect is the conversion of the building into a dwelling. Housing Policy 11 allows for the conversion of existing rural buildings into dwellings provided that they meet the requirements of the policy. The building is considered to be substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation; it is of architectural, historic, or social interest; it would be large enough to form a satisfactory dwelling; the proposed residential use would not be incompatible with adjoining established uses; and services can be provided without unreasonable public expenditure.
6.22 However as indicated in the above section of the report, it is not accepted that the redundancy of the original use has been adequately established. Indeed, it is considered that
==== PAGE 8 ====
18/00870/C Page 8 of 8
the use is important to the local community and that it is or could at least be made viable in its current use. The proposed conversion of building to entirely residential and change of use of the application site would therefore be contrary to Housing Policy 11 of the Strategic Plan.
CONCLUSION 7.1 The evidence available is insufficient to justify the loss of the public house and that the proposed conversion of building to entirely residential and change of use of the application site would therefore be contrary to General Policy 3, Community Policy 4 and Housing Policy 11 of the Strategic Plan.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Refused
Date: 24.01.2019
Determining officer
Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett
Principal Planner
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