Loading document...
Office of the Minister and Chief Executive
Messrs. Hill Dickinson, LLP, (Your ref: RJL.TH.DW.94040.3810) No. 1 St. Paul's Square, Liverpool, L3 9SJ.
Telephone (01624)685859 Fax (01624)685945 Email: [email protected] Contact: Margaret Clague Our Ref: ITT/MC Your ref: Date: 1st February 2011.
Dear Sir/Madam,
ON APPEAL: PA08/1931/REM – Redford Limited – Reserved Matters’ application for the erection of dwelling with integral garage, gate lodge and tennis court, Tractor Shed Site, Castletown Golf Course, Derbyhaven Road, Derbyhaven, Malew
I refer to the recent appeal hearing in respect of the above planning application.
In accordance with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, I am enclosing herewith a copy of the report of the person appointed to hear this appeal.
The Minister has considered the report, and accepts the appointed person’s conclusion that there is no longer a valid in-principle permission in place on which the reserved matters application can rely. Accordingly, he also accepts the recommendation that the appeal should be dismissed.
Yours faithfully,
I. T. Thompson, Chief Executive.
Please see over for circulation list/......
Department of Infrastructure Sea Terminal Building, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2RF
Roger Lancaster, of Counsel, he called: Charles Park, Architect
Oliver Helfrich, Attorney General's Chambers, he called: Sarah Corlett, Planning Officer Jennifer Chance, Senior Planning Officer
Martin Carter of Counsel, he called: Alastair Skelton, Town Planner
Barry Powell
Included in the conditions was the following:
Appeal No: AP 09/0186 Planning Application No: 08/01931/REM '1. This approval is in principle only and will remain valid for a period of two years within which time no development may take place until such time as details of the reserved matters (siting, design, external appearance, internal layout, means of access, landscaping) have been approved by the Planning Authority. Such reserved matters should form the subject of a single application.' 4. The period for compliance was twice extended, the second time to 31 March 2009 . 5. The application for the approval of reserved matters was submitted on 18 August 2008 but as a result of queries was not registered until 9 October 2008. 6. On 3 December 2008 the Planning Authority requested amendments so that the floor area reflected the in-principle approval. Amended drawings, which the planners recognise satisfied their concerns, were produced in early March 2009. The amendments were re-advertised on 19 March. 7. In a letter dated 1 April 2009 Stephen Abbot Associates, on behalf of a group of local residents, objected on the grounds that the approval in principle was now time expired and therefore invalid (the applicant was not informed of the objection at this stage). 8. After taking legal advice, which was received on or around 24 June 2009, the Planning Authority concluded that the in-principle approval was no longer valid and the application was refused on 10 December 2009 for the following reason: 'The approval in principle on which this application for approval of reserved matters relies, lapsed on 31 March 2009. As such the Department has no jurisdiction to approve the application which would otherwise be contrary to current planning policy'.
The proposed development would; a) have an unacceptable, damaging impact significantly greater than that of the development for which there is an extant approval under PA 02/2553 and would b) radically alter the established character of Derbyhaven; the proposed development would thus be contrary to Strategic Objectives 3.3(b) and 3.3(d) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
See documents 4 and 5, the gist of the case was: The validity of the reserved matters application. 13. The appellants strongly contend that the in-principle permission for the house under 02 / 2553 has not lapsed having regard to the custom and practice of the Planning Authority. 14. Historically the practice in operation in the Isle of Man has been that it is the date of the submission of the reserved matters that is the important date. Reserved matter applications have continued to be dealt with after the expiry of the period stated in the condition attached to an in-principle approval. Notwithstanding the wording of the standard condition, requiring the approval of details by a given date, planning officers and professional agents have worked under the understanding that provided the reserved matters application was submitted prior to the expiry of the date imposed by the in-principle permission,
Appeal No: AP 09/0186 Planning Application No: 08/01931/REM the applications were validated and determined. This is not disputed by Planning Authority and is illustrated in a number of cases referred to. 15. To interpret the condition otherwise would be impractical bearing in mind the time required to prepare the details, the time required by the Planning Authority in the consideration of the reserved matters and the possible time involved in the appeal process. Furthermore the date of approval is a matter outside the applicant's control. 16. Often, submission of the reserved matters applications was not made until the last week of the in-principle permission remaining valid, thus not even allowing the Planning Authority time to advertise the details prior to the expiry date of the in-principle permission. 17. Prior to the appeal application, the Planning Authority had never sought to argue that reserved matters applications submitted before the expiry of the in-principle permission became invalid because the expiry date of the in-principle permission had passed before their determination. In continuing to progress reserved matter applications in this way and in approving reserved matter applications after the expiry date of the in-principle approval the Planning Officer has in effect exercised delegated powers and implicitly agreed to an extension of time. 18. The Planning Authority claim that as a result of the objection to the proposal the subject of this appeal made by Steven Abbott Associates, immediately after the 31 March, which made them aware of the anomaly with the wording, the standard condition has been changed. It now requires the submission rather than approval of reserved matters by a given date and they no longer process applications the subject of the former standard condition where the in-principle permission is time expired. However this is not the case. For example in application 09/0385 relating to Southampton Farm, Port Soderick, the reserved matters were approved on 7 May 2009 notwithstanding the fact that the original approval in principle required approval of the reserved matters within two years of 28 March 2007. In the Officer's report written on 20 April 2009 it was stated that 'the reserved matters application was received before the expiry of the time frame set out in condition 1 of the approval in-principle and therefore accords with the first part of the condition'. In another case at Ballacaroon Farm, Mount Rule, where the in-principle permission required approval of details within two years of 13 July 2007, a reserved matters application was accepted on 10 July 2009, advertised on 23 July and a letter from the Planning Authority requesting an amendment was sent out on 25 August 2009. 19. The application the subject of the appeal was initially registered in October 2008, well before the expiry date of the in-principle permission on 31 March 2009 and was re-validated on 3 March 2009 when amended drawings were produced to address a point made in relation to the overall area of the house. Clearly at the time of the submission of the amended scheme there was no realistic possibility of the application being determined prior to 31 March yet the scheme was accepted by the Planning Authority and they continued to process it. In doing so the Planning Officer implicitly exercised delegated powers and
agreed an extension of time. The fact that the planners continued to process the application beyond 31 March 2009 is inconsistent with anything other than an interpretation that the reserved matters application had to be submitted before 31 March 2009. 20. It is also pertinent that although the Abbott objection was made at the beginning of April 09, the appellants were not made aware of the problem until the end of July. The planners' consultation with the Attorney General's Chambers which took place in June is no justification for the delay in informing the appellants of the situation, thus prejudicing the options open to them. 21. In cases where the in-principle permission is the subject of the old standard condition, but reserved matters have not yet been approved, the Planning Authority have written to the relevant applicants warning them of the need to secure approval of reserved matters within the two year period and advising them of options open to address the situation. No such guidance or opportunity was available to the appellants in this case. It is pertinent that these letters along with the letter of 14 October 2009 in relation to Ballacaroon Farm (document 14), which refers to the wording of the condition being 'confusing', amount to an acceptance on the part of the planning Authority that the standard condition used in the past was not clear and un-ambiguous. 22. Having regard to the policy and practice of the Planning Authority it would be manifestly unfair if a decision is not reached on the reserved matters application. A decision of the Lands Tribunal (document 13) is of relevance in relation to consideration of fairness. Among other things this indicates that where there is a change of stance on the Authority's part claimants should be given a reasonable time to make a reference to the tribunal. A similar principle should apply in this case.
Appeal No: AP 09/0186 Planning Application No: 08/01931/REM 26. The application is in accord with the in-principle permission and there is no objection to the conditions suggested by the Planning Authority in the event that the Minister is minded to allow the appeal.
See documents 6 and 7, the gist of the case was: 31. The wording and effect of Condition 1 on application 02 / 02553 / \mathrm{A} is clear and unambiguous: (a) the underlying permission remains valid for two years and (b) within the period of validity there can be no development until the Department has approved the reserved matters application. 32. The time limit for approval, as extended, has expired. Condition 1 has not been complied with and as a result the underlying permission in principle ceases to have effect. The reserved matters application is a nullity. The argument put forward by Steven Abbott Associates that permission has expired is accepted. 33. It is accepted that the condition is not happily worded and it is recognised that UK planning circular 11 / 95 advises against the use of conditions requiring approval of reserved matters within a stated period because the date of approval is outside the control of the developer. However the House of Lords have determined in Kingsway v Kent CC (1970) that a condition requiring details of reserved matters to be submitted and approved by the planning authority was
valid. The court held that when outline permission was granted the developer would know he should submit details of the reserved matters some 2 / 3 months before the expiry of the time limit. Furthermore if the view had been taken that the condition was not lawful, the outline permission itself would not have subsisted. 34. The wording of the Department's standard condition imposed on in-principle permissions had never previously been questioned and it is accepted that in the past, reserved matters applications have on a number of occasions been approved outwith the time period stipulated in the underlying in-principle permission. Providing the reserved matters were submitted prior to the expiry of the in-principle permission the applications have been accepted and processed. It was only after the objection was raised to the appeal proposal by Steven Abbott Associates and a legal opinion had been obtained, that the Planning Authority became aware thit they had acted inappropriately in dealing with reserved matters applications after the expiry of the in-principle permission. 35. The Planning Authority are sympathetic to the position that the appellants now find themselves but they cannot deal with the reserved matters now knowing that the application is a nullity over which they have no jurisdiction. Whilst the Minister will need to determine whether or not there is an extant permission, questions of fairness may more appropriately be considered by the courts. 36. The application was refused solely on the basis that the committee lacked jurisdiction over a lapsed application. It is accepted that had they the jurisdiction the reserved matters are themselves unobjectionable. The inprinciple permission indicated a dwelling not exceeding 8500 sq feet and in terms of its size, design and materials, the detailed scheme is considered satisfactory. Whilst the lodge may be marginally larger than the 1000 sq feet indicated on the application drawing, it is not significantly different from the approval in principle and this would not have been reason to reject the proposal. 37. If however the application was considered as a full de-novo application the proposal would fail to accord with current planning policy and would be considered unacceptable in the light of the policies of the recently adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. 38. Although the site is shown within an 'existing predominantly residential area' on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982, the Inspector who dealt with 5 / 2044 relating to a proposal for 21 dwellings considered the designation inaccurate. He was of the view that the site, which is mainly open land containing limited built development and hardstanding is 'largely indistinguishable from the generality of the golf course'. 39. Derbyhaven is not a settlement identified in the Strategic Plan and as such residential development would be contrary to a range of policies of the Strategic Plan which seek to protect the countryside for its own sake and ensure that as far as possible new development is directed to sustainable locations. In particular the proposal would be contrary to Spatial Policy 5, Strategic Policy 1, General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Housing Policy 4. Whilst Strategic Policy 1
Appeal No: AP 09/0186 Planning Application No: 08/01931/REM
and General Policy 3 make provision for previously developed land this proposal involves significant changes of level and a building of a greater height and around twice the footprint of the structure currently on site. The proposal would not result in an environmental gain and consequently would not be justified as an exception to the normal policy in relation to dwellings in the countryside.
An appendix to the Draft Southern Area Plan shows the site outside the settlement of Derbyhaven and the written statement states that the extension of the existing group into the airport or golf course would be undesirable. However it is accepted that the plan is at an early stage and of limited weight.
Were the appeal considered on the basis of a de-novo application it would be clearly contrary to established policy.
If however the Minister was minded to allow the appeal suggested conditions are at document 17.
The case for Malew Commissioners
See document 9, the gist of the case was:
The approval in principle under application 02/02553 expired on 31 March 2009. There can be no doubt about the wording of the relevant condition and as the original permission was granted some 7 years ago it would seem reasonable for this condition to be enforced.
However if the application is to be considered de-novo it is considered that due to its size, height and location the proposal would have damaging consequences for a rural area adjacent to an Area of Special Scientific Interest and it would fail to respect the character of the surrounding area. As such the proposal would be contrary to Strategic Policy 4b and General Policy 2b, 2c and 2g of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
It is therefore requested that the appeal should be dismissed.
The Case for Mr and Mrs Vermeulen
See documents 6 and 7, the gist of the case was;
Whether the approval in principle remains valid
The approval in principle under PA 02/02553 was granted in April 2004. The permission was twice extended. Article 13 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005 provides that a planning approval is deemed to be granted subject to a condition that the development must be begun either within the period specified in the approval, or if no period is specified within 4 years of the date of the approval. As a matter of fact the development the subject of the appeal did not commence by 31 March 2009.
Condition 1 of 02 / 02553 is not ambiguous. It is clear that the approval in principle will remain valid for a period of two years (later extended to 31.03 .09 ) and that prior to this, details of the reserved matters must have been approved by the Planning Authority. The condition can only sensibly be read that within the time limit the reserved matters must be made, approved and a lawful start be made on the permitted development. No part of the condition can be read as providing that the permission will remain extant if a reserved matters application is made within the specified time limit.
The fact that the Planning Authority has approved other reserved matter applications after the expiry of the validity of the approval in principle cannot assist the appellants. One flawed decision does not justify another. Nor can the procedural history of the application be regarded as a land use planning consideration.
There is no procedural mechanism which can be used to allow the reserved matters application to be treated as an application for an extension of the period in which the reserved matters may be sought. Article 13(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005 explicitly requires applications for extension to be made in writing during the validity of the approval. Even if the current application could be treated as a further application to extend the life of the approval in principle, issues relating to the desirability, in policy terms, of the extension would be material.
The essential question to determine is whether having regard to an explicit condition on a planning approval the permission remains extant and this is a question for the Minister. The Lands Tribunal case and the references to fairness are not of assistance in an objective assessment of whether the application has lapsed.
The approval in principle is no longer valid. It has lapsed and can not be relied upon.
Whether the reserved matters are within the scope of the in-principle approval 52. A reserved matters application must be within the scope of an approval in principle. The revised plans submitted with the reserved matters 3 March 2009 continue to be outside the scope of the permission in principle. 53. The area of the gate lodge when measured externally, exceeds the area specified in drawing B/01A of the approval in principle by 8.7 %. On that basis it is not possible for the amended plans to be treated as an application for approval of reserved matters under the terms of the approval in principle. While a note of a meeting was produced where an approximate area is referred to, extrinsic material should only be taken into account where the application is unclear and that is not the case here.
A dwelling of the size and height proposed would be inappropriate in this location.
A dwelling of the size proposed would have a damaging effect on the outlook from existing properties.
The location of the gate lodge would effectively extend development towards Castletown.
With the gate lodge there would be two separate dwellings. The proposal would have a detrimental effect on flora and fauna. Works along the road frontage would have a detrimental environmental impact. The use of a soakaway would be unacceptable. The appellants have had more than ample opportunity to bring forward a detailed scheme since the original approval in principle in April 2004.
Failure to properly display site notices. 61. Manx National Heritage request a condition requiring an archaeological assessment of the site and the Department of Transport requested visibility splays of 2 m by 45 m and the set back of the entrance gates 6 m from the carriageway.
Whether there remains a valid permission in principle on which a reserved matters application could be based. 63. Condition 1 attached to the in-principle permission for a dwelling on the appeal site granted in April 2004 states that the permission is valid for a period of two
years and that no development may take place until the reserved matters have been approved. The original permission was twice extended and remained valid until 31 March 2009. Whilst the reserved matters application was initially registered in October 2008, by 31 March 2009 the reserved matters had not been approved and the development had not commenced.
On 1 April 2009, although the issue had not been raised in their previous observations on the application, Steven Abbott Associates wrote to the Planning Authority objecting on the grounds that the original in-principle permission was no loner extant.
There is no doubt that, prior to the objection being raised to the appeal proposal, it had been the practice that applications for reserved matters were processed and determined providing they were submitted prior to the expiry of the in-principle permission, notwithstanding the wording of the standard condition. This was the general understanding of professionals involved in the planning process on the Isle of Man and was not disputed by the Planning Authority.
There are also examples of processing continuing after the expiry of the in-principle permission and after the planners had been made aware that past practice did not accord with the wording of the condition. In one case, although it was before the Planning Authority received a legal opinion on the validity of the application the subject of the appeal from the Attorney General, reserved matters approval was actually granted after the Abbott objection had been received. In respect of application 09/0385 (Southampton Farm, Port Soderick) the planning officer's report states 'This reserved matters application was received before the expiry of the time frame set out by condition No. 1 of the approval in principle and therefore accords with the first part of that condition'.
Following a legal view from the Attorney General, the planners accept that they were wrong in determining reserved matters applications after the expiry of the in-principle permission. They also accept the unsatisfactory nature of the wording of their standard condition that in the past has been applied to in-principle approvals. The condition required the approval rather than submission of the reserved matters by a specified date, the timing of which was outside the control of the applicant and also the wording only allowed two years for commencement. Although a legal matter, bearing in mind the House of Lords 'Kingsway' decision referred to by the Planning Authority, I consider the condition is probably lawful but in any event the continued existence of the permission was reliant on the condition. If the condition was considered unlawful the permission would have ceased to have effect. Notwithstanding questions of legality the wording of the condition was clearly unfortunate.
The Planning Authority have now adopted a form of wording for their standard condition that reflects that used in the U.K and relates to the submission of details within a specified period. Furthermore in cases yet to be determined where the old condition has been imposed letters have been sent to applicants advising them of the need to ensure that the wording of the condition is complied with and options that might be open to them to address the potential problem are suggested. The appellants in this case did not have the benefit of
such a warning. Indeed, although the objection letter was received from Steven Abbott Associates at the beginning of April 2009, it was not until the end of July that the appellants were made aware of the problem and during that time the Planning Authority continued to process the application. 69. The appellants argue that in continuing to process the appeal application and other applications after having been made aware of the implications of the wording of the condition, and also determining another application for reserved matters after the expiry of the in-principle decision, the Planning Authority have in effect implicitly accepted and granted an extension to the validity of the inprinciple applications. However both the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005 and the earlier Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982, which was in place at the time of the original approval in principle, require applications for an extension of time to be made in writing during the currency of the permission. I do not consider that the actions of the Planning Authority should be regarded as implicitly approving a further extension of time. 70. I have a great deal of sympathy for the situation that the appellants and their agent now find themselves. In good faith they assumed that the Planning Authority would continue with their past practice of determining the reserved matters provided they were submitted during the currency of the approval inprinciple. At the time the initial reserved matters application was made the original permission had over 5 months to run. 71. However the wording of the condition is clear in relation to the time requirements. Notwithstanding the fact that the wording of the condition may not have been followed in the past, the errors of the Planning Authority having been pointed out to them in the objection from Steven Abbott and legal advice having been obtained from the Attorney General, it would have been entirely inappropriate for them to knowingly act outside the law and approve a reserved matters application that they were aware was a nullity. 72. It is my conclusion on the first issue that there is no longer a valid in-principle permission in place on which the reserved matters application can rely. Whilst submissions in relation to fairness may be pertinent in other proceedings I do not consider that they assist in consideration of whether or not the in-principle outline permission is valid and consequently whether the current application can be considered as an application for the approval of the details of the reserved matters.
If there is a valid reserved matters application before the Minister whether the proposed details fall within the ambit of the approval in principle and whether the details are acceptable having regard to relevant policy and other material considerations. 73. Drawing B/01A accompanying the approval in principle (document 16) contains a note stating that the area of the gatehouse lodge as ancillary accommodation to the main house is to be 1000 sq ft . The detailed plans show the lodge to have an area, when measured externally, of 1086 sq ft . I do not consider that this small
increase in area takes the detail outside the ambit of the approval in principle. Whilst the location of the lodge has changed from that shown in the indicative drawing at the in-principle stage, siting is a reserved matter and again I do not consider the change takes the details outside the scope of the in-principle approval. 74. Whilst third parties raise concerns in relation to the size and height of the house the in-principle approval refers a dwelling with an area not exceeding 8500 sq ft . This inevitably means a large house. Having regard to the plot size, the proposed materials and the design, I am satisfied that the appearance of the main dwelling and the lodge would be acceptable. Whilst the building may be taller than its immediate neighbours there are other structures in Derbyhaven of a comparable height and the separation distance would be such that the proposal would not have an overbearing effect on its neighbours. 75. On the second issue if contrary to my view the Minister considers that there is a still a valid in-principle approval and consequently a valid reserved matters application before him, I consider that the proposed details fall within the ambit of the approval in principle and the proposed siting, design, external appearance, internal layout, means of access and landscaping would be acceptable having regard to relevant policy and other material considerations.
If the appeal is considered to relate to a 'de-novo' application for full planning permission whether there have been changes in policy since the previous approval in 2005 that would make the principle of development unacceptable. 76. If the Minister agrees with me on the first issue that the in-principle permission on which the reserved matters rely has expired it would be open to him to consider the appeal as relating to a de-novo application for full planning permission. 77. On the map accompanying the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982, which forms part of the Island Development Plan, the site is shown with the notation 'existing predominantly residential'. However in his report to the Minister on 02/02553 for 21 dwellings the Inspector concluded that the site comprised 'mainly of open land containing a limited amount of structures and hardstandings and as such is largely indistinguishable from the generality of the golf course'. He considered the zoning to be inaccurate. 78. Bearing in mind that the appeal site has far more in common with the long established golf course than the existing residential development at Derbyhaven I am inclined to agree with the previous Inspector that the notation was an error. The map (see document 10) shows three clusters of development at Derbyhaven with cluster A, containing the appeal site and development along Fort Haven Road, separated from B and C by a road shown as a 'principal traffic route.' I would agree that if the parcels are considered as a single whole the overall area would be predominantly in residential use, however, I am not convinced that it is appropriate to consider the parcels comprising a single zoning. In any event, bearing in mind the nature and size of the appeal site I find it difficult to accept that it would be deliberately shown as part of an existing predominantly
residential area rather than as part of the Golf Course. Having regard to the apparently erroneous designation of the site and the fact that the plan is 28 years old I do not consider that great weight should be attached to the zoning on the 1982 plan. 79. For the purposes of the recent Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 I consider that the site should not be regarded as being within an area zoned for development on an appropriate Area Plan but as being in a countryside area outside a defined settlement. In the countryside Strategic Policy 2 indicates that development will only be permitted in the exceptional circumstances identified in General Policy 3. Similarly Spatial Policy 5 indicates that development will only be permitted in the countryside where it is in accordance with General Policy 3. Among the exceptions to the embargo on new development in the countryside is previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building, where the continued use is redundant, where development 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. Whilst the proposal would involve the replacement of the existing golf course tractor shed and maintenance building the proposed building would have more than twice the footprint of the existing structure and would be very much more prominent in view of its height. I do not consider that there would be a reduction of the impact of the current situation nor would it result in an improvement to the landscape or wider environment. 80. I consider that the proposal would be contrary to a range of policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 including Strategic Policy 1, Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3, Housing Policy 4 and Environment Policy 1 (which seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake). 81. Although it is at an early stage and therefore a matter to which limited weight should be attached, the emerging Draft Area Plan for the South is a material consideration. In relation to Derbyhaven Appendix 4(f) states that the extension of the group into the airport or golf course would be undesirable and Environment Policy 9 states that new or replacement buildings should not be permitted except for uses ancillary to the operation and use of the golf club. 82. The fact that in the past it was seen as appropriate to allow a dwelling on the appeal site is an important consideration. However since this time there has been an important change in circumstances with the adoption of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan in 2007. I consider that if the proposal was considered de-novo it would be regarded as contrary to important policies of the Strategic Plan which seek to protect the countryside from unnecessary development and ensure that as far as possible new development is directed to sustainable locations.
Appeal No: AP 09/0186 Planning Application No: 08/01931/REM
application for full planning permission I consider that again it should be dismissed in view of the changed policy background primarily as a result of the adoption of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
Conditions
Recommendation
Neil A C Holt Independent Inspector
September 2010
Document 1 Document 2 Document 3 Document 4 Document 5
Document 6 Document 7 Document 8
Document 9 Document 10
Document 11
Document 12
Document 13
Document 14
Document 15 Document 16
Document 16
Letters of objection from local residents at appeal stage. Letter from Manx National Heritage of 22/01/10. Submissions on behalf of appellants from Quinn Legal. Supplementary submissions on behalf of appellants from Hill Dickinson.
Submissions on behalf of Planning Authority Planning Officer's Committee Report Evidence of Mr A J Skelton on behalf of Mr and Mrs Vermeulen.
Statement of Case of Malew Parish Commissioners. Extract from map accompanying Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 including enlarged detail.
Note of a meeting on October 2003 between appellants' architect and planners.
Plan showing reduction in floorplate of lodge to achieve area of 1000 sq ft based on external dimensions.
Report of Lands Tribunal case, Rotherwick's Executors v Oxfordshire County Council.
Documentation relating to application 09/01154/REM, Ballacaroon Farm, submitted by appellant.
Aerial photograph of Derbyhaven. Drawing B/01A relating to approval in principle 02/2553.
Suggested conditions of the planning authority in the event that the appeal is allowed.
.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
