Loading document...
Olk Coonceil ny Shirveishee
CABINET OFFICE Government Office DOUGLAS Isle of Man IM1 3PN Direct Line (01624) 685280 Fax Number (01624) 685710 Email [email protected] CHIEF SECRETARY Mr Will Greenhow ACMA
12th May 2016
Planning Secretary Planning & Building Control Division Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas
Our Reference: DF15/0004
Dear Sir/Madam,
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE) (No2) ORDER 2013
| Applicant | Meary Voar Developments Limited | | --- | --- | | Application | 15/00124/B | | Proposal | Demolition of existing outbuilding and erection of a building housing swimming pool, gym, spa, staff and office accommodation | | Address | Meary Voar Arragon Santon Isle Of Man IM4 1HJ |
I refer to the abovementioned planning application.
At its meeting of 3rd May 2016 Council considered the planning application and determined to approve the application by Meary Voar Developments Limited.
In accordance with Article 10(9) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, I herewith give notice of the decision as follows.
Council considered a report by the Independent Planning Inspector regarding the above application by Meary Voar Developments Ltd and the further advice requested from Mr M Ash, Independent Planning Advisor to Council, in connection with the application.
Council noted the Inspector's Recommendation set out in his report that planning approval be refused for demolition of existing outbuildings and erection of a building housing a swimming pool, gym, spa, staff and office accommodation at Meary Voar, Arragon, Santon, Isle of Man, for the following reasons:
The site lies in the countryside outside of those areas which are zoned for development, and the proposed development would be contrary to the provisions of General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan as it does not fall within any of the exceptions listed in that policy which may be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development.
By virtue of its architectural form, detailed design and size and scale, including its build and massing, the proposed building would constitute an alien and obtrusive feature which would cause significant harm to its countryside surroundings in terms of its visual impact. It would thereby conflict with the intentions of Environmental Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, which amongst other matters seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake.
Council considered the relevant Strategic Plan (the "SP") policies that are referred to in the Inspector's report. Council noted the Inspectors recommendation that the development did not comply with the provisions of the SP. Council further noted that in accordance with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999, that Council shall also consider all other material considerations relevant to the application.
Council also noted that the Inspector accepted that the draft Planning Policy Statement on Planning and the Economy 2012 ("the PPS") remains relevant and concluded that no less weight should be attached to this document than was done in approving the previous application for development of this site. The PPS requires the planning system to recognise the wider benefits of economic development and consider these alongside any adverse impacts. The Inspector in his report noted this requires a balance to be made between the economic benefits of the application scheme and the environmental harm identified. Council considered the draft PPS to be a material consideration and attached weight to its provisions.
In discussing the matter Council considered that the economic benefits of the proposed development were far greater than as recognised by the Inspector in his report as had been confirmed to the Inspector by the Department of Economic Development in its evidence and concluded that these economic benefits outweigh the adverse effects. Council considered that the economic benefits of the proposed development to be a material consideration and attached substantial weight to this.
Council noted:
The draft Planning Policy Statement on Planning and the Economy makes clear that planning will look favourably on applications involving economic development uses which may not be in accordance with the development plan if the economic benefits are demonstrated to outweigh any adverse environmental impacts.
The proposed development includes office and other accommodation for the growing number of employees of the applicant's company that has global interests.
Having reviewed the evidence Council considered that greater weight should be given to the potential longer-term economic benefits for the Isle of Man of the proposed development and that, overall, these economic benefits for the Isle of Man were of sufficient extent to outweigh the negative visual impact of the proposed building on the surrounding countryside.
Accordingly Council determined to grant approval to the planning application subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of 4 years from the date of this notice.
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
The development hereby permitted may be used only in association with and ancillary to the adjacent dwelling Meary Voar as guest accommodation and a swimming pool and as an office.
Reason: To prevent the creation of separate accommodation which would be contrary to the principles of the Strategic Plan.
Mr Will Greenhow ACMA Chief Secretary
Date of Issue: 12th May 2016
In accordance with Article 10(10)(c) of the Order, please be advised that the decision of the Council of Ministers is binding and final (subject to the possibility of judicial review by Petition of Doleance).
The Planning Inspector's report, upon which the decision was determined, may be viewed by visiting https://www.gov.im/planningapplication/services/planning/search.iom or by contacting the Cabinet Office for a paper copy (please telephone 685204 or please email [email protected]).
Yours faithfully,
A Johnstone Planning Appeals Administrator On behalf of the Chief Secretary
.
The Department of Infrastructure has taken the view that it has an interest in this site. As a result the application has been referred to the Council of Ministers for determination under Article 10 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 ("DPO"). On receipt of the file I raised queries as to what the interest entailed. The Department does not own any of the land involved, but has "responsibility for the finish of the footpath which runs through the site". The Senior Planning Officer's ("SPO") response to my queries included "Mr Killip has stated quite clearly from the start that the Department has an interest in this application, which is why the application was referred to Council of Ministers rather than resolved under delegated authority" (Inspector's Note: Mr Killip is an objector). The SPO also stated "I can fully appreciate that as owners of the footpath we do not have an actual interest in the application although it could be said, probably by the applicant, that if the recommendation is for refusal, this could be based upon a perceived adverse view from property which the Department has responsibility for and as such we are biased and should not influence the decision making". (Inspector's Note: there is no evidence that the Department enjoys any ownership rights.)
I am not qualified to advise on points of law, but in the light of the above I am not convinced that this application properly falls within the scope of Article 10 of the DPO. The Department is not the applicant or the agent, and there is no evidence to show that any part of the land subject of the application is "vested in" or "occupied by or controlled by" the Department. Insofar as the existence of the public footpath might be a relevant consideration, previous applications on the same land, including one approved as recently as 2012, were not referred to the Council of Ministers for determination.
Notwithstanding the above matters, having been appointed to do so I held an inquiry into this proposal on 17 June 2015 after a site visit on 15 June. I gave the parties the opportunity to comment on whether the application properly fell within the scope of Article 10 of DPO. The appearances at the inquiry are listed at the end of my report. The transitional provisions in the Transfer of Planning and Building Control Functions Order 2015 would provide that the Council of Ministers should continue to deal with the application. This report provides brief descriptions of the site and the proposal; summaries of the cases put forward; details of responses to consultations and other representations; details of answers given to some questions at the inquiry; and my assessment, conclusions and recommendation. My recommendation is qualified as to whether determination in accordance with Article 10 of the DPO would be lawful. The Department has confirmed that planning applications involving land crossed by public footpaths are not normally referred to the Council of Ministers.
The application site is the residential curtilage of a dwelling house known as Meary Voar, located to the west of Santon Head in the Arragon area of Santon to the south of the A25. The curtilage is an irregularly shaped elongated site which falls southwards. Further areas of land in the applicants' ownership lie to both the east and the west of the defined residential curtilage, and are said to amount to some 195.3 acres. The dwelling is sited a little over 200 m to the north of the Raad ny Foillan coastal footpath, from which a spur public footpath runs north westwards through the applicant's land. The route of that path as it exists on the ground adjoins the residential curtilage of Meary Voar along a length of about 30 m , to the north and south of which the path runs a short distance to the west of the residential curtilage. It subsequently runs along the access road to Meary Voar, and connects to another public footpath which heads north westwards to join the A25 Old Castletown Road.
The house is of quite recent construction. It was approved under PA05/0 1851/B and PA07/00107/B. The first of those approvals included a 2 -storey extension to the former bam which is now proposed for demolition. That extension was not built. The dwelling is a substantial Neo-Georgian country house, of mainly 2 -storey form plus rooms in the roof. Its main body has walls of self-coloured render and a slate roof. Small pavilion elements to each side have stone faced elevations and slate roofs. The main elevation faces roughly south south east towards the sea. On its east side, and about 11 m from the house, there is a large 2 -storey outbuilding of stone construction with a slate roof, which runs south eastwards from the house. This is said to be a Manx stone former bam, which was converted to a farm manager's unit under PA94/00317/B. It is now vacant but its authorised use included staff and guest accommodation, offices and storage. A condition which restricted occupation of the living accommodation and a farm office in this building to a farm worker was removed under PA03/01716/C. This building has lengthy main elevations of some 27.2 m . It steps down the slope with a break in the levels midway along. Another outbuilding lies at right angles to this first outbuilding, to the east of it. This outbuilding is single storey and built of Manx stone but is of more utilitarian appearance. It is said to be used for agricultural purposes. These 2 outbuildings lie within the defined residential curtilage. Further to the east there are 2 large agricultural sheds, which are outside the residential curtilage.
There are a number of mature trees to the south, south west and south east of the house, in 2 groups which frame views of the house from the Raad ny Foillan. The area of the residential curtilage which runs south eastwards from the house is mostly well mown grass. The area between the defined curtilage and the route of the footpath as it exists is of the same character. There is no boundary demarcation between the parts of the mown grassland which are inside and outside the residential curtilage. Central to the area of mown grassland, but very close to the western boundary of the defined curtilage, there is a large pond. There is boundary fencing along the existing route of the footpath to the west of the mown grassland. To the south west of the house, and approximately 70 m from it, there is an area of land which has been quarried. There are other large houses in extensive grounds in this area, including Arragon House, some 500 m to the north west, and Arragon Moar, some 2 km to the west.
It is proposed to demolish the outbuilding to the east of the house and to erect a replacement building with 3 floors. The lower ground floor would house a swimming pool, changing facilities, plant room and gardeners' mess. The ground floor would have a void over the pool, a gym, treatment rooms and utility/laundry/WC and store facilities. The 1st floor would provide offices, a boardroom and associated facilities, and a 3-bedroom residential unit. The offices/boardroom would replace the use of rooms in the house for those purposes. There would be a central circular void within the 1st floor, with a lantern light above to admit light down through the building. There would be a mainly glazed, single storey link from the ground floor of the house to the upper ground floor level of the proposed building.
The Department's planning statement provides the following dimensional information. The proposed building would be set at lower levels than the building to be demolished, by between about 0.34 m and 1 m on the southern elevation. It would be 12.35 m tall to the ridge of the roof, and 13.9 m to the top of the central lantern light, as measured on the southern elevation. The difference in height between the existing and proposed buildings would be as much as 5.91 m , plus 1.5 m for the lantern light, but taking account of the lower grounds levels from which the building would be erected the maximum difference would be 5.62 m , plus I .5 m . The footprint of the proposed building would be 33.5 m by 13.2 m , compared to the footprint of the building to be demolished of 27.2 m by 6 m .
The upper floor of accommodation would be mostly within a mansard-style roof of natural slate, but central projecting sections on the main north and south elevations would be faced in Manx stone, with a hipped slate covered roof above. Below the mansard the 2 other floor levels would both be visible on the south elevation. At lower ground floor level this elevation would be faced with Manx stone. Apart from the projecting central stone section, the upper ground floor level would be faced with render to match the house. On the north facing elevation the lower ground floor level would be below ground. Only the other 2 floors would be seen. Except for the central stone faced section, the upper ground floor level on this elevation would continue the render at the same level on the south elevation. The end elevations facing west and east would have the same finishes at the respective levels. The hardwood windows would have dressed natural stone surrounds to match the surrounds on the existing house.
The main points made in the proofs of evidence and at the inquiry are: 10. The principle of demolishing this building and replacing it with a larger building has been established. There is a valid planning approval for a replacement building comprising a 3-storey leisure complex with staff and office accommodation. (PA 11/01715/B). That scheme did not provide some of the required accommodation, including mess facilities, accommodation for essential ventilation plant for the swimming pool/spa, a disabled accessible lift and a covered link to the house. Other deficiencies included unacceptably low ceiling heights and inadequate structural floor depths. The architectural approach was unsatisfactory. Due to its large scale and the regular nature of the openings, that building would not have been true to the design of vernacular barns. It would not have been complementary to the architecture of the house. The current proposal is a redesign to provide the required accommodation using an architectural approach preferred by the applicant, with increased ceiling heights. It would be difficult to provide the necessary facilities in a smaller building. 11. The matter for consideration is whether the slightly larger footprint, increased height and different architecture would have any greater impact than the approved scheme. The design seeks to minimise the impact. The form of the building, including the mansard roof and the materials, would break down the mass and minimise the visual impact. Taking into account also the lowered ground levels to the south elevation and the raised ground levels adjacent to the north elevation, the effective height would be reduced to 2 -storeys when viewed from the south and to a single storey from the north. The mansard roof profile would echo the shape of the roofs of the single storey pavilions on the house, and the eaves of the building would be below the eaves of those pavilions. As a result, the proposal would have a lower visual impact than the extant approval building despite being marginally larger. It would sit well into the space between the house and the larger agricultural buildings. The visual impact of the building on the surrounding area would primarily involve the whole grouping of buildings. It would sit comfortably within this grouping. It would be subservient to the house, both in visual terms and with respect to the uses accommodated. The house would still have the dominant visual impact, and the proposed building would be architecturally related to the house in materials and detail. 12. The Manx stone and roofing slates :from the building to be demolished would be reused in the development. If necessary any previously quarried stone within the quarry area would be used after reusing the recovered stone. Small material mounded in the quarry would be used to alter the ground levels around the building. This would accord with Strategic Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan ("SP") with respect to reuse and effective use of precious resources. It would also reduce the number of HGV movements, and resulting noise and disruption for adjacent residents and property owners.
With respect to the comparative heights:
There is no Area or Local Plan for this area. The Development Plan comprises the SP and the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 ("1982 Order"). The site is not zoned for development, but is part of an area of open space and an Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance ("AHLVSS"). The proposed building does not adversely impact or materially affect any other 1982 land use designations.
There is support for the proposal in SP Strategic Policy 1 as the site is previously developed land. For the same reason there is support in exception (c) of SP General Policy 3, given that the approved use of the building to be demolished is not for agricultural purposes and that this building is redundant as it suffers from dampness and is unsuitable for occupation. There is also support in exception (d), as an existing rural dwelling in the form of the manager's flat would be replaced as part of the scheme. SP Housing Policy 16 is relevant, as the proposal is an extension to the house which is of non-traditional design. The proposal is an extension because it would be linked to the house and its function would be subsidiary to the house. The scheme would not conflict with that policy, as the impact of the building as viewed by the public would not be increased. As SP Housing Policy 15 relates to extensions to traditionally styled properties, it is not relevant.
Environment Policy 1 ("EP1) is the most important SP policy. It seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake. There would be no conflict with this policy, given that the proposed building would appear as an extension to the house, would mostly be on the footprint of the existing building, and its design and external appearance would be improvements. The building would not be in open countryside, but would be on land occupied by an existing building and next to a group of other buildings.
The view taken of the importance of EP1 was supported in a recent appeal decision (PA14/00687/A). The Inspector stated the view that the part of EP1 which "seeks to ensure that development would not have an adverse visual effect on the countryside" allowed "consideration to be given to proposals in the countryside which are not strictly in accordance with zoning and other policy requirements". The Minister accepted the Inspector's recommendation for approval; a recommendation that was based on the particular material circumstances outweighing the strict policy interpretation. In the current application, the siting and size of the proposed building would not harm the surrounding landscape, and the character of the countryside would be preserved. The proposal would comply with SP EP I.
The economic development benefits of the scheme would be considerable. The benefits would encompass the construction costs, employment opportunities created and potential future investment. At the time of the last approval, the Director of Planning stated in the Committee report that the proposed development was contrary to established planning policy, but that it would have significant economic benefits for the Isle of Man, and that provision existed in Isle of Man legislation to allow exceptions to policy where there is an overriding national need based on economic benefits. The current proposal would not only allow improvement of the facilities for the main house, including provision of a link to allow the leisure facilities to be used without going outside, but more importantly would also provide accommodation for the applicant's worldwide businesses. Staff involved in administration of the estate would also be accommodated. The economic benefits are now greater due to the recent approval of a large development scheme in Edinburgh, the company for which would be run by staff accommodated in the proposed building. OED has submitted a letter of support for the proposal and its economic benefits. With respect to these benefit, there is an important other material consideration to be taken into account in the form of the Draft Planning Policy Statement on Planning and the Economy of February 2012 ("draft PPS"). The objector to the proposal is wrong in suggesting that no weight should be given to that document, which has not been withdrawn.
In further information regarding economic matters, the following main points are made:
significant investment is being made in a hangar under construction at Ronaldsway Airport; this will accommodate a private aircraft on order, which will be registered and operated from the Island, with the pilots employed via the Island with consequent tax revenues; the apartment in the proposed building would accommodate the pilots when not flying;
staff employed in the businesses have increased from 3 to 6 in the last 2 months; these are all Isle of Man residents and workers, resulting in further contributions to the
exchequer;
further employment increases for Isle of Man residents and workers are expected in the next year; the need for the offices as part of the house arises from the nature of the businesses, which can require conference calls/e-meetings to take place during the day and night, often at short notice;
the scheme's investment value is £3.5m to the local construction economy; the contractor will be a long-standing Manx company; other specialist local sub-contractors would be involved; the construction would take about 2 years; materials would be sourced locally.
the location of the footpath is remote from the siting of the proposal, and so it is not accepted that the application cannot be considered without the perceived footpath diversion being resolved first;
it is not accepted that the Minister for Economic Development would have a potential conflict of interest when the application is determined; it would be normal practice for the Minister to abstain from voting to avoid such a conflict;
the application plans are not incomplete or misleading;
a drawing of the building to be demolished detailing ground, eaves, and ridge heights has been provided; the submitted drawings show the height of the proposed building, including relative to the other buildings;
the height of the roof lantern has been specified; the drawings, photos and photo visualisations provide clear information to allow proper consideration of the application; the application drawings indicate the same residential curtilage as shown in PAOS/0 1851/B under which the house was approved; they show all the roads and tracks;
there is no validity in the assertion that a member of the public cannot make a valid judgment regarding the proposal;
the application does not seek approval of matters relating to quarrying, extension of the residential curtilage and creation of a single pond from 3 ponds to which Mr Killip refers; retrospective applications for those matters were previously submitted, but were withdrawn to allow issues relating to the line of the public footpath to be resolved (PA13/91438/B and PAB/91454/B); those matters are not relevant to the determination of the current application;
the quarry is a long-standing use which was in operation before the applicant purchased the property; no stone has been sold or removed from the property during the applicant's ownership; Mr Killip's contentions that the building would have a strong visual impact from the coastal path and the spur path, in breach planning policy, are not accepted for the reasons already detailed; no specific policies which it is alleged would be breached have been specified by Mr Killip.
an application was made for diversion of the footpath in 1993 and diversion was recommended following a public inquiry;
there are conflicts in the documentation for this footpath (PRW320); the records comprise the Definitive Map held at the General Registry -which does not reflect the footpath as it is on the ground; the Copy Definitive Map held at the Highways Division which does not accord either with the Definitive Map or the footpath as it is on the ground; the Map of Diversion (Santon)(Meary Voar) Order 1994, which is the map of the legal diversion of part of the route of the footpath made in 1994 - this accords with part of the footpath as is it is on the grounds, but does not accord with the Definitive Map or the Copy; and the 1973 Inspection Report and accompanying Map -this identified issues with walking the legal route, which was wet, and recommended diversion into the adjacent field;
the 1994 diversion was formally passed by Tynwald but was not recorded onto the Definitive Map, which is regarded as showing the legal route;
the PROWO has acknowledged that the footpath as it exists is well defined, is kept clear and has been used for many years without complaint or comment; as a result no formal action with respect to this matter had been progressed; because Mr Killip has raised the matter, it is likely that steps will be taken to regularise the issue;
it is understood that the Department intends to seek to bring the Definitive Map in line with the footpath as it exists rather than seeking to insist on the Definitive Map route being reinstated; the legal process to achieve that is lengthy and has not been completed;
the issues with the footpath date back to well before the applicant bought the property in 2004; nobody other than Mr Killip has raised any issues with its location or condition; the applicant has no wish to prevent use of the path, and has sought to ensure it is maintained and kept clear; stiles, fencing and pass gates have been replaced at the applicant's own expense.
The main points made in the Department's planning statement and at the inquiry are: 23. An objector has suggested that the Department has an interest in the application, and so it is not appropriate for the Department to make a formal recommendation. (Inspector's Note: in response to questioning the SPO gave her personal professional opinions. I will return to this matter later.) 24. The objector's suggestion that the application should not, or cannot, be considered is not accepted. Sufficient information has been provided to allow assessment of the relative height of the building, including a drawing of the existing building to be demolished. The lantern light (referred to as a "cupola") would be quite a modest part of the overall building, set back from the front so as to be receding in views of the building. The scale of that lantern light is understandable without dimensions, and it is not so important as to render the scheme incomprehensible. Although there are issues about the route of the public footpath, the various positions of the path in the relevant documents are not so far apart as to make a difference to how the development would be seen sufficient to justify non- consideration of the application. The position of the
footpath does not affect, and would not be affected by, the currently proposed development. Although works have taken place on the site without planning approval to form a single pond from smaller ponds, it is likely that the date of those works was sufficiently long ago as to prevent the issue of an enforcement notice. This is not a matter which would prejudice or prevent consideration of the current application. The residential curtilage shown on the application is the same as was shown on the approved application for the now existing house. There is no evidence on site to suggest that domestic paraphernalia has spread beyond that defined curtilage.
With reference to planning policy, the site lies within an area designated as "open space not designated for a particular purpose" and as an AHLVSS on the 1982 Order. As a result it is in an area where there is a presumption against development under SP General Policy 3. In the 1982 Order it is also at the edge of a small area of designated woodland and on the edge of areas "where there are building height restrictions or other air safety regulations" and also identified as "a nature conservation zone, nature reserve and sites of ecological importance for conservation". (Inspector's Note: it was confirmed at the inquiry that none of these designations had any direct bearing on the proposed development.)
As the proposed building would be attached to the house, it is appropriate to have regard to the SP policies relating to extensions to dwellings, although the proposal is for a sizeable building linked to a dwelling rather than an extension in the sense of a smaller and integral or ancillary part of the main house. Although the existing house is not in the Manx vernacular, SP Housing Policy 15 is best fitted to this scheme rather than Housing Policy 16. Paragraph 8.12.2 relating to "Extension to properties in the countryside" is also relevant. So too is the draft PPS on Planning and the Economy. Details are provided of the extensive planning history of the site. (Inspector's Note: the most relevant applications have already been referred to in summarising the applicant's case above.)
The key issues are whether the proposal complies with relevant SP policies, and, if not, whether there are any other considerations to justify approval. The proposal does not accord with any of the exceptions to the restrictions on development in undesignated areas in SP General Policy 3. It does not accord with SP Housing Policy 15, as it would not respect the form and appearance of the existing dwelling due to the different design approach, and it would have significantly more than 50% of the floor area of the house. It does not accord with SP Housing Policy 16, as its visual impact would be greater than that of the building to be demolished, due to its size and materials. Consequently, the success or otherwise of the application depends on assessment of the other material considerations. In that respect the assessment is similar to the one undertaken in the case of PA 11/01715/8. With reference to the critical parts of the assessment made in that case, the following points are made. The impact of that proposal on the landscape was adjudged to be acceptable, as the building was of a size/scale that would or should be reasonably expected as part of a private estate such as this one with a large, high quality, dwelling. The assessment also took account of the economic benefits of the scheme with the context of the draft PPS. The visual impact of the current proposal would be different, due to the changes in the size of the building and in the design approach. The impact of
the building now proposed is "perhaps less capable of being mitigated by the presence of buildings on each side than was the previous proposal for a shorter building which was to be finished in natural stone".
The applicant's views that the proposed design has successfully minimised the impact of the proposal, and that the existing house would still be the dominant feature in the landscape, are subjective ones. However, if the applicant does not wish to construct a replacement building finished in stone and designed to resemble the building to be demolished, and wishes instead to have a more domestic looking building taking its design lead from the existing house, then the design approach and use of the materials now proposed have "quite possibly reduced" the visual impact from public vantage points as far as is possible for a building of this size and in this location.
With the context of the draft PPS, it is open to argument whether there is an economic argument to justify approval of the application. (Inspector's Note: this part of the Department's Planning Statement was written prior to the receipt of the letter of support for the application from DED.)
Two conditions are suggested if the application is approved. The first is the usual requirement for the development to be commenced within 4 years. The second would restrict use of the building to specified purposes associated with and ancillary to the dwelling at Meary Voar.
CASE FOR MR H KILLIP (OBJECTOR)
The main points made in writing and at the inquiry are:
This application has correctly been referred to the Council of Ministers as there is a serious conflict of interest within the Department of Infrastructure. This relates to the prolonged failure of the Highways Division to deal with the unauthorised diversion of PRW320 and to maintain the Definitive Maps and Statements. To prevent any appearance that the planning decision could be influenced by the need to play down the shortcomings of the Highways Division, it was essential that the determination process was taken out of the Department's hands. Further conflicts of interest may arise when the Council of Ministers considers the application, for example as a result of DED's support for the proposal.
Mr Killip does not own any land related to the applicant's land. His interest in the application arises from a number of matters: as a walker/user of rights of way, with an interest in the Manx countryside; as a person who alerted the Planning Committee to unauthorised works on this site; and as a believer in compliance, equity and transparency in public life, with concerns about the history of this site.
The major concern is about the handling of the application, which cannot be determined until various dependent matters are resolved. It is impossible to make a proper determination due to:
proposal; the application only shows the site as it now is, with respect to matters including levels, drainage, watercourses and boundaries, and it is impossible to distinguish between what has been approved and what has taken place without approval; this is not acceptable, taking into account that enforcement action is pending; the application should be determined as if unauthorised development had not taken place;
the impact of the proposal cannot be properly assessed because of uncertainty about the route of PRW 320; as the path provides the closest public vantage point, its location is a key factor when assessing the impact of the proposal; the definitive route is below the level of the unauthorised path and closer to the proposed development;
there is an unresolved issue over unauthorised engineering works on the site, including in the form of a lake which is under construction and earthmoving which has taken place; the height of the building is not shown on the drawings; although the roof ridge is dimensioned, no dimensions are given of a lantern/cupola above the roof line, which would be prominent;
the height and massing of the building would be considerably larger than the building previously approved; this would have a strong visual impact from the coastal path and PRW 320, in breach of planning policy.
legal problems relating to the Department's misuse of working copies of rights of way maps as the Definitive Maps and failure to maintain or refer to the actual Definitive Maps and Statements; in the case of PRW320, there are significant differences between these maps;
the unauthorised diversion of PRW320 should be tackled; it should at least be known where the definitive route of this path runs before the application is determined;
it should be established what the actual curtilage of the site is; the curtilage shown on the application plans does not accord with the site as it exists on the ground;
other matters require resolution, including the unauthorised creation of a lake and the operation of a quarry; the Department has not pursued these matters and their current status is queried.
it is untrue to say that the lawful position of PRW320 is unclear; the path is shown unambiguously on the Definitive Map and Statements; the legal route has been obstructed and a new route created on farmland;
it is agreed that the previous approval under PA11/01715/B is a material consideration; it is arguable that this earlier approval should now be regarded as "unsafe" because the
Planning Committee in making its site visit was instructed to stay on what was referred to as "the public footpath", which is now known to be an unauthorised path; the Planning Committee made its determination never have seen the proposed development from the legal route;
the approval of that application was also based on the Planning Committee giving weight to a draft policy which has not subsequently been adopted- the draft PPS on Planning and the Economy; that document was heavily criticised in the report on the consultation regarding it, and has not been progressed towards adoption; as the draft PPS has stalled it should not now be given any weight; it has no status as planning policy;
at the time of that approval, the Minister for Economic Development reinforced the draft PPS by submitting letters which implied that refusal of the application would have serious economic consequences for the Island, and that the development was urgent and crucial; that the development has not been implemented 3 years later speaks for itself; it is also relevant that the property was advertised for sale shortly after the approval was granted.
The determination of the application should be based on consideration of the impact of the proposed development from the legal path and policies relating to development in the countryside. The provisions of the draft PPS should be discarded.
(Inspector's Note: As well as the matters detailed above, Mr Killip has expressed concerns about the way in which the Council of Ministers deals with planning applications referred to it, and the associated processes. These matters lie outside the limits of my role, and so I do not provide a summary of these points. These comments are part of Mr Killip's "Further Submission" included in the case file)
RESPONSES TO CONSULTATIONS/OTHER REPRESENTATIONS
the Government has a strategic aim of economic growth and diversification, focusing on attracting and developing business prospects which will benefit the Island's economy; it is vital to attract new businesses and develop existing ones, whilst being mindful of the environmental impact of new development;
the applicant has satisfied DED of his reasons for not progressing the approval under PA11/01715/B, and has stated his commitment to the now proposed development and to growing his significant business interests on the Island;
the running of the businesses from the family home at Meary Voar cannot continue as the business interests and staffing levels grow; an office adjacent to the house provides the most efficient solution in cost and convenience terms;
the old barn is beyond repair and a demolition certificate for it has been received;
the estimated development cost of £3.875m is a significant benefit to the construction industry and associated businesses; the exchequer benefit from this alone would be significant; in addition, estimated demolition costs are £50,000 with estimated soft-furnishing/fitting out costs of £50,000, to be spent with local suppliers;
additional annual spend would include £8,000 for electricity, £15,000 in heating oil, £5,000 for swimming pool maintenance and £10,000 for general cleaning and maintenance; 3 administrative staff with total salaries in excess of £105,000 are
currently employed; the applicant has recently registered an Isle of Man company, and
appointed a Managing Director and Chief Financial Officer; 2 further senior appointments are imminent with total salaries of £397,000;
construction work on the applicant's new hangar at Ronaldsway is progressing well; build and fit out costs and fees estimated at £1.59m are further evidence of the applicant's commitment to the Island; 3 pilots and an aircraft engineer are employed with annual salaries of £255,00, and would become Isle of Man residents once the development is completed;
Mr Moore (proprietor of the applicant company) has indicated to DED the potential of further considerable investment on the Island, which could provide a significant boost to the construction sector; there are plans to improve his on Island facilities which should encourage more economic activity; his value is considerably in excess of the one development proposed in this application;
Mr Moore is of significant financial means, has resided on the Island since 2004 and conducts all his business affairs through Isle of Man Based companies;
whilst the proposed development is contrary to planning policy, it is situated on the site of an existing building, is appropriate in scale to the main house, and would be carried out to a very high standard; the visibility of the site is very limited.
in the light of further information provided, together with the Inspector's indication that he had viewed the site not only from the footpath as it exists on the ground but also from as close as possible to the definitive and other routes given in the evidence, Mr Killip accepted under questioning that sufficient information was available to allow the application to be determined;
Mr Killip confirmed that he was a member of the Planning Committee at the time of the previous approval on this site, and that except for him all the Committee members voted in favour of the recommendation for approval of that scheme; he confirmed that there had been no legal challenge to that approval;
Mr Killip accepted he had made no assessment of the proposal against planning policy; he felt that was a matter for others to deal with; his concerns were about matters of procedure;
Miss Corlett for the Department confirmed her view that sufficient information was available to allow the application to be properly determined;
the Department did not consider that the proposal accorded with SP General Policy 3; with respect to part (c) it was agreed that the site was previously developed land containing a significant amount of building, but although the building to be demolished may be redundant its use was not redundant; with respect to part (d), although a replacement building was proposed, and that building incorporated living accommodation, the proposal did not involve the replacement of an existing rural dwelling; in applying General Policy 3 (c) the Department had previously taken the
approach that all the clauses of that section were to be complied with;
the Department accepted that weight could still be attached to the draft PPS, as it had not been withdrawn; similar weight should be attached as when the previous approval was granted; following receipt of the letter from DED, the economic support for the proposed development was accepted to be stronger than when the Department's planning statement was written;
for the applicant it was stated that construction of the hangar at Ronaldsway had not progressed to the erection of steel work; further work is pending the decision on this current application.
Under questioning to ascertain her own professional opinion of the proposal, Miss Corlett stated that the design previously approved was better, as the building then proposed would have been more like an agricultural building. Within the restrictions imposed by the brief given to the architect, which was not to create a building of agricultural appearance, she considered that the proposed design was as good as possible. However, she considered that the band of render material would make the building stand out, and increase its adverse visual impact. The remaining question was whether the economic benefits of the scheme outweighed that impact. She felt that this was finely balanced, but on balance she would have said that the application should not be approved. However, subject to the attachment of a condition to secure the use of Manx stone in place of render on that part of the building, she would then have considered that approval should be recommended.
For the applicant it was stated that, if it was considered that more Manx stone should be used in place of the areas of render on the elevations, this would be acceptable and could be required by condition.
The main issues are (i) the impact the proposal would have on this area of countryside; (ii) the extent to which the proposal would comply with relevant development plan policies; and, (iii) if harm is identified in other respects, whether there are any other material considerations to justify approval.
There are a number of preliminary matters. I do not accept the objector's contention that the application should not be determined. The application has been submitted, and it was accepted and registered by the Planning Authority. It has been deemed to be a valid application, no legal challenge to its validity has been made, and a decision must be reached with respect to it.
I turn now to the matters which the objector has argued should be resolved before the application is decided. I have not found any of these to be justifiable impediments to a decision being reached. The application does not seek approval of any of the works which the objector has alleged have been undertaken without planning approval. The footprint of the proposed building is at significant distances from the quarry and the pond/lake to which the objector has referred. The quarry is outside the application site. Insofar as unauthorised changes of levels and of drainage arrangements have been alleged, there is no evidence to suggest that these involve the immediate siting of the
proposed building. Determination of this application would not prevent the Planning Authority taking action to resolve any breaches of planning control which may exist, should the Authority decide that such action is appropriate. In short, the determination of this application is an entirely separate matter, and it is my view that the application could not legitimately be refused on the basis that breaches of planning control in other respects might have taken place.
There is some uncertainty about the route of PRW320 which crosses the applicant's land. The most significant discrepancy is between the route as it exists on the ground and the route as shown on the Definitive Map, but the siting of the proposed building does not infringe either of those routes. Nor does it infringe any of the other routes referred to in the evidence. Determination of this application would have no implications for any action which the Department might choose to take in future to seek to change the route of the footpath as it exists. That would include any action to return the footpath to the route shown on the Definitive Map, although that is not apparently the Department's present intention. I have not found the uncertainty about the route of this footpath to be a matter that stands in the way of the application being determined, and it is not a matter that would prevent a decision to approve the application.
The only matter relating to the footpath which is of direct relevance is the effect that any changes of route would have on the views which members of the public would have of the proposed building. I ensured during my visit that I not only assessed the siting of the proposed building from the prospective of persons using the footpath as it exists on the ground, but I also viewed it from points as close as possible to the route of the path shown on the extracts from the Definitive Map provided in the evidence. I have taken account of the different potential viewpoints there would be along those routes, although in general terms I find the differences there would be in the views would at most be marginal to the assessment of the visual impact of the proposed development.
I do not accept the contention that the application is deficient in how it shows the height of the proposed building. The application drawings are annotated with the heights of the floor, eaves and ridge levels. Although the height of the proposed lantern light is not stated as a figure on the elevation drawing, this is a scaled drawing from which the height of this element can easily be ascertained and appreciated. The relative height of the building previously approved is illustrated on that drawing, and another drawing has been provided which, although not drawn to scale, indicates by annotation the heights of the existing building which is to be demolished. I have not found there to be any deficiency in the information provided such as to prevent a proper assessment of the proposed development.
Moving to the first main issue, although portrayed as an extension the proposal would be perceived as a substantial building, albeit linked to the house by a low-level glazed connection. The main views of it for the general public would be northwards and north eastwards from the coastal path and PRW320 (whatever its route). It is also said to be visible to air passengers due to its location close to the airport. The main public views
would be of the south elevation which would be set at lower ground levels than the house, with the ridge of the roof of the building some 2.63 m below that of the house. Nevertheless, it would present an elevation of greater mass and bulk than that of the house as seen from that direction. This south elevation would be about 33.5 m long, slightly less than the length of the main elevation of the house of about 34.5 m , but the extent of the visual impact would be greater than this suggests, given that the bulk and mass of the house is reduced because a length of some 14 m or so of its main elevation comprises 2 single-storey pavilions, the roofs of which taper to pinnacles slightly above the main eaves. The apparent scale of the house is also lessened by the 2nd floor being within a hipped roof, with side facing dormers. By contrast, the accommodation on the upper floor (3rd level) of the proposed building (the 1st floor on the drawings) would be largely within a mansard roof. The sloping side planes of that roof would reduce the mass and bulk to some extent, but that effect would be less than has been achieved by the hipped roof form of the house. Moreover, a central forward projecting element would not be within the mansard, but would have a hipped roof with a ridge connecting to the mansard. The visual impact from the north would be less, as the lowest floor would be below the amended ground levels there, but that elevation would not be readily visible from points accessible to the general public. 50. There is no dispute that the proposed building would be considerably larger than the building to be demolished. Even allowing for the extension approved to that building at the time of the approval of the house, the existing building is much less in its mass and bulk than the proposed building would be. Although it was used for non-agricultural purposes, the present building has the form of a vernacular agricultural building, with stone walls, gable-ended slate roofs and a narrow footprint. On the figures given, the ridge of its roof is between 4.75-5.62 \mathrm{~m} below the ridge level of the proposed building. The larger replacement building of non-traditional design now proposed would considerably increase the visual impact relative to the present situation. In my view, the proposed building cannot reasonably be regarded as being subservient to the existing house in visual terms, as the applicant has claimed. 51. It is appropriate to make the comparison in the paragraph above, because the evidence is indicative that the building previously approved on this site is unlikely to be built, given the applicant's own evidence that it does not meet the requirements and would be deficient in terms of accommodation and usability. Nevertheless, that scheme does provide a fall-back position, as that approval could be implemented if the current application is refused. Compared to the current proposal, that approved scheme would have produced a building of significantly lesser mass and bulk. That is illustrated by the current application drawings, which include the outline of the approved building. In the most important elevation from public viewpoints, the south elevation, that building would have had a length almost 3 m less than the building now proposed. Its roof ridge would have been about 1.5 m lower. The appearance of the building in the important views from the south would have been more akin to a vernacular Manx agricultural structure, with stone walls, 1st floor windows and ground floor arched openings based on traditional references, and
with a forward facing slate-covered roof plane ending in gables. That is not to say that the building would have been wholly vernacular in character, as it would have had quite a deep footprint, necessitating a flat crown roof between the sloping planes and double gables.
The size/scale of the proposed building is not the only matter of significance to its visual impact. The architectural approach taken and the detailed design are also relevant. Save for the choice of walling and roofing materials - Manx stone, render and natural slate tiles - the design approach takes little if any reference from traditional Manx rural buildings. Whilst the choices of a mansard roof-form, and the proposed banding of the stone and render finishes across the elevations, have been made in an effort to reduce the apparent size/scale and visual prominence of the building, this approach has created a building which would be out of keeping in its appearance with the Manx countryside in general and this area in particular. Whilst mansard roofs are frequently found in urban situations in the UK, my attention has not been drawn to any comparable designs in the Island's countryside, save for the roofs of the pavilions which are part of the house at Meary Voar. Those pavilion roofs are of a much smaller scale, with a consequent subtlety of profile, and are not directly comparable to what is now proposed.
Although the applicant has suggested that the house with which the proposed building would be viewed is of a non-traditional form, it is of a much more conventional domestic design, having in its main core section hipped slate roofs above rendered walls. With that context, together with the further context provided by the agricultural buildings close by to the east, it is my assessment that the proposed architectural approach/detailed design would create a building that would be an alien and obtrusive feature within this area of countryside. Taking account of both the size/scale of the building, and these matters of architectural approach/design, I have concluded that the proposal would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of this area of countryside in terms of its visual impact, even making allowance for the location within the existing group of buildings. In reaching that conclusion I have taken into account the suggestion that the visual impact would be improved by replacing the rendering on parts of the building's main elevations with further Manx stone walling. In my view that would have no material benefits in visual terms, and could serve to increase the degree of intrusion by giving the proposed building a heavier appearance, and creating a visually unfortunate contrast with the render finish of the existing house.
Turning to the second issue, the proposal does not fall within any of the exceptions in SP General Policy 3 to the usual restrictions on development outside of areas which are zoned for development. I have noted the contention that the proposal finds some support from parts (c) and (d) of that policy. Although the proposal would replace living accommodation which occupies part of the existing building with an apartment within the proposed building, neither of those units of accommodation is a dwelling in the terms of part (d). With respect to part (c), and also part (a) of SP Strategic Policy 1, the siting of the proposed building would involve the use of previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building. However, with respect to other elements of part (c), it is debatable whether the continued use of this previously developed land is redundant,
since the proposal seeks to provide alternative accommodation for some of the uses formerly operated within the existing building, including offices. More significantly, based on my assessment above, the proposed redevelopment would not "reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment" and the proposed development would not "result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment". I have concluded that the proposal would not comply with SP General Policy 3.
Having regard to matters I have already referred to, and taking into account that the proposed building would contain more floor-space than the existing house, and that some of the uses to be accommodated would not be truly ancillary to the residential use of the main house - for example the use of offices for purposes other than the administration of the Meary Voar estate - I do not consider that the proposal can be properly regarded as an extension to a property in the countryside. Consequently, I do not consider that the proposal accords with either SP Housing Policy 15 or Housing Policy 16. However, even if a different conclusion were to be reached on the relevance of those policies, this proposal would not comply with them. If Housing Policy 15 is considered relevant, this proposal would conflict with it as the proposed building would not respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property. In addition, the proposal would exceed the 50% increase in floor-space limitation which applies other than in exceptional circumstances. If Housing Policy 16 is considered to apply, the proposal would be contrary to that policy because the impact as viewed by the public would be substantially increased.
The application site clearly lies in the countryside for the purposes of SP Environment Policy 1, which seeks to protect the countryside and its ecology for its own sake. My assessment of the first issue leads me to the view that this proposal would have a significant adverse effect on the countryside. However, I must defer my full assessment of the proposal against this policy until I have considered the third main issue, because the policy does allow for approval of developments which would adversely affect the countryside if 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".
On the third issue, the proposal's economic benefits constitute a material consideration. I have detailed these benefits as they were explained in the cases in paragraphs 19 and 38 above. In considering those benefits I have taken account of the Consultation Document of February 2012 relating to the Draft Planning Policy Statement- Planning and The Economy ("draft PPS"). I am unable to agree with the objector that no weight should be given to this draft PPS. Although it has not been progressed through the "next steps" detailed at the end of the document it has not been withdrawn. Consequently, I find no reason to attach less weight to it than was attached when PA 11101715/B was approved. In so doing, I have noted that in a speech at the time of its issue the then Minister for Infrastructure stated that he expected Planning Appeal Inspectors, amongst others, to take account of the draft PPS with immediate effect when determining applications/appeals. I have been given no evidence to suggest that this Ministerial entreaty has been withdrawn. I have taken into account also that the representations from OED on this application include a statement that "it is vital to attract new businesses to the Island and help existing
businesses display their full potential, whilst also being mindful of the environmental impact of any new development". That seems to continue and accord with the theme of the draft PPS.
The weight to be attached to the economic benefits of the proposal with the context of the draft PPS is limited to some extent by the contents of the scheme. The draft PPS defines economic development as the development of land and buildings for activities that generate wealth, jobs and incomes. It indicates that economic development land uses include offices, research/development, industry/warehousing, retail, leisure and public services. Conspicuous by its absence from that list is residential development. Therefore, much of the floor-space proposed in this case does not constitute economic development in the terms of the draft PPS, as it seeks to provide accommodation/facilities for purposes ancillary to the residential occupation of the house. The draft PPS provides that house building and construction are not defined as economic development for planning purposes, although they are recognised as playing a valuable role in the economy. Nevertheless, some parts of the building, particularly the office and residential accommodation on the upper floor, probably do constitute economic development, as they are intended for use in connection with the running of the applicant's businesses.
Paragraph 10 of the draft PPS specifies what the planning system will aim to do with respect to economic matters. The aim within the list given which seems to me to be key to the determination of the current application is aim (ii), which states "recognise the wider benefits of economic development and consider these alongside any adverse impacts". That aim requires a balance to be made between the economic benefits of the application scheme and the environmental harm I have identified. In considering this balance, I have taken into account that paragraph 13 of the draft PPS expects account to be taken of the likely economic benefits of development using appropriate advice from DED, and indicates that OED will look at a number of key factors. These include the numbers and types of jobs expected to be created or retained on the site after the construction phase - with some consideration to also be given to those jobs created through the construction phase - and whether, and how far, the development will help meet economic growth opportunities, redress social disadvantage and support regeneration priorities. They also include a consideration of the contribution to the Manx economy and local businesses.
In those terms, the benefits of this scheme during the demolition, construction and fitting out phases would be substantial, but that is a matter to which pursuant to the advice in the draft PPS only "some consideration" should be given. That comment also applied to the potential benefits of construction work on an aircraft hangar at Ronaldsway, in addition to which the evidence available to me does not provide a clear consequential linkage between the approval of the current application and the continuation of work on the hangar. With respect to employment at Meary Voar, the available evidence indicates that 6 staff members are currently employed, and that this can be expected to increase by 2 senior posts. In addition to that, the evidence indicates a relationship between the proposed development and the employment of 3 pilots and an aircraft engineer, though the extent to which those posts are dependent on the currently proposed development is unclear from
the available information. I have also taken account of the consequential benefits that the proposed development would have in economic terms in terms of continuing expenditure on matters such as power, heating oil, cleaning and maintenance. In addition, I have noted that the applicant has indicated to DED that potential exists for further considerable investment on the Island, which could provide a further significant boost to the construction sector. However, the available evidence does provide any certainty about any such further investment, and consequently I do not consider that it is possible to attach any significant weight to that prospect in the balancing exercise that I must undertake.
Bearing all these matters in mind, having weighed the available evidence concerning the suggested economic benefits of this proposal, I am not convinced that these benefits outweigh the very substantial harm which the proposal would cause to the character and appearance of this area of countryside. In assessing the economic benefits, it is my view that regard must also be had to the fact that the quality of the countryside is a major asset which contributes significantly to the attractiveness of the Island, including to persons seeking to set up and expand businesses as well as to tourists and other visitors. Therein lies part of the importance of balancing the economic advantages of particular developments against the value of protecting the environment including the quality of the countryside. I have concluded in this case that the environmental harm that the proposal would cause, and the consequent conflicts with the intentions of relevant development plan policy, outweigh the other material considerations, including in particular the suggested economic benefits of the proposal. With reference to SP Environment Policy 1, it is my view that the evidence regarding the economic benefits of the proposal falls well short of establishing that there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect the countryside. I have found the proposal to be contrary to the intentions of that policy, including the protection of the countryside for its own sake.
In reaching my conclusions on the balance, I have noted that paragraph 14 of the draft PPS includes an expectation that, in cases where planning will look favourably on applications for economic development which may not be in accordance with the development plan, such proposals "will have to demonstrate a high quality of design". It is my assessment that this proposal fails to provide the necessary quality of design, taking into account that the design should have adequate regard to the context of the area of Manx countryside in which the building would be located. In that regard, it seems to me that the accommodation which the applicant seeks in this proposal could be provided on this site in a building of a more suitable design for its context.
I have taken account of all of the other matters raised, but I have found nothing of overriding significance. I have concluded that the application should be refused for the reasons given in my recommendation below. I do not consider that the harm I have identified could be overcome by the imposition of conditions. However, if the Council of Ministers resolves that the application should be approved, the conditions recommended in the Department of Infrastructure's planning statement would be reasonable and necessary. I list these conditions in the Appendix below.
Subject to it being decided that this application can lawfully be dealt with in accordance with Article 10 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, I recommend that planning approval be refused for demolition of existing outbuilding and erection of a building housing swimming pool, gym, spa, staff and office accommodation at Meary Voar, Arragon, Santon, Isle of Man, for the following reasons:
The site lies in the countryside outside of those areas which are zoned for development, and the proposed development would be contrary to the provisions of General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan as it does not fall within any of the exceptions listed in that policy which may be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development.
By virtue of its architectural form, detailed design and size and scale, including its bulk and massing, the proposed building would constitute an alien and obtrusive feature which would cause significant harm to its countryside surroundings in terms of its visual impact. It would thereby conflict with the intentions of Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, which amongst other matters seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake.
Stephen Amos MA (Cantab) MCD MRTPI Independent Inspector
For the Applicant:
Mr G Steele QC, who called:
Mr DR Kay (Chartered Architect) Mr K Ryzner (Chartered Town Planning Consultant) With Mr J Moore and Mrs P Moore in attendance
For the Planning Authority: Miss S Corlett
For the Highway Authority:
Mr B Corlett Ms A Goldsmith Interested person:
Mr H Killip
In addition Mr W R Tomlinson was in attendance as an observer
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of 4 years from the date of this notice. (Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.)
The development hereby permitted may be used only in association with and ancillary to the adjacent dwelling Meary Voar as guest accommodation and a swimming pool and as an office. (Reason: To prevent the creation of separate accommodation which would be contrary to the principles of the Strategic Plan.)
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
