Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
20/00605/B Page 1 of 17
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 20/00605/B Applicant : Jim Limited Proposal : Demolition of existing hotel and erection of four terraced dwellings with associated parking and amenity space Site Address : Waterfall Hotel Shore Road Glen Maye Isle Of Man IM5 3BG
Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 21.12.2020 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The previous refusal of 17/01189/B is clear that the loss of the public house should not be accepted "without very clear evidence that any such use is unlikely to be commercially viable.". Given that an offer was made it is clear that at least someone is of the view that it could be worth investing in. Added to this, the price at which the property is being marketed does not seem reasonable given other commercial properties on the market at the current time or which have been recently. Also, it would appear from the likes of Close Leece Farm and Grenaby Studios that the remoteness of a location is not prohibitive in establishing a quality business which will attract customers. It has not been demonstrated that any consideration has been given to a new form of commercial use or mix as has been seen in other parts of the Island such as Sulby and St. John's. For these reasons it is considered that the development involves the loss of a local public house and it has not been demonstrated that the use is no longer commercially viable, or cannot be made commercially viable so the proposal is contrary to Community Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should not be given Interested Person Status on the basis that although they have made written submissions these do not relate to planning considerations:
Manx Utilities
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject
==== PAGE 2 ====
20/00605/B Page 2 of 17
matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4) (or 4(2)):
Waterfall House as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status.
It is recommended that the following agency and the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
5 and 6, Glen Close, 3 and 11, Glen Maye Park, the Coach House, Strooan Sound, Casa Cascada and 6, Oak Road in Peel, the Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society and the 221 signatories to the petition received on 22.07.20 as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy, as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. __
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
THE SITE 1.1 The site is the curtilage of the existing Waterfall Hotel public house and restaurant which is located in the heart of Glen Maye, to the west of the main road (A27), to the north of a narrow road which passes a number of houses and Ballakerkey Farm before becoming a public footpath which runs through the glen to the beach at Glen Maye.
1.2 The site has a frontage to the minor road, of 25m and immediately to the east is Glen Close, a cul de sac of seven modern bungalows which skirt around and above the application site. Also included with the application land, defined in blue which indicates land which is owned or controlled by the applicant, is the car park associated with the existing public house.
1.3 The public house has the appearance of two traditional Manx cottages sitting alongside each other, similar to the adjacent property to the west, Waterfall House. Beyond that, to the west are more dwellings, mostly new but designed with a traditional flavour and with a modern bungalow situated within Ballakerkey Farm being the last residential property on the road before the beach. The property has two traditional chimneys - one in the centre of the ridge and the other on the eastern gable and the other half of the pitch has two modern rooflights in its front pitch. The two halves of the building are at slightly different levels with the eastern part slightly higher than the other.
1.4 Both the public house and Waterfall House are set back from the road with small front gardens, the public house having low boundary walls enclosing the garden which has seating within it, Waterfall House having no boundary walls and two small palm trees. A lane separates the two buildings. The site wraps around the rear of Waterfall House where there is a two storey structure which is linked to the main building by a single storey open storage area whose roof continues to join the western gable of the main building. The rear of the building backs onto a small rear path beyond which the land slopes upward, with a higher level area closest to the estate road at the rear. The building also forms the boundary of the gardens of
==== PAGE 3 ====
20/00605/B Page 3 of 17
Waterfall House and 7, Glen Close. The rear boundary has a number of shrubs which screen the majority of the rear of the building from view.
1.5 Opposite the public house is a car park which is hard surfaced and bounded by a hedge alongside the road with a small grass paddock with wooden benches and tables, fenced off on the south western side, which is annotated as "beer garden" on the application plans as existing. Outwith the site but alongside the car park is a small unit which has previously been used as a cafe and retail unit. This building has permission under 12/00904/B for redevelopment as tourist accommodation and these works are currently being undertaken.
1.6 At the time of the site visit in respect of the previous application (1100hrs on Wednesday 6th December, 2017) the car park accommodated around 10 vehicles, two unattached trailers and three horse boxes. It is not understood that there has been any significant change in the use of the car park since then.
1.7 Planning permission was sought for the demolition of the existing building and its replacement with a terrace of four dwellings under 17/01189/B. This was refused at appeal (see Planning History) and this application attempts to address the reasons for refusal.
1.8 The premises are currently being marketed for sale with Dean Wood at a price of £650,000. There are two photographs of the property and the following description:
"The property was built circa 1860 and was formerly operated as a popular restaurant and pub renowned for its hospitality offering. It is set in a picturesque location within the village of Glen Maye and the surrounding countryside. The property offers an excellent business opportunity for an individual with the foresight and ability to rejuvenate this potential country pub/restaurant location. The property benefits from its natural surroundings along with it [sic] immediate proximity to a National Glen leading down to the scenic coastline of Glen May [sic] beach and there is ample car parking in the front of the property. The property would benefit from some modernisation and refurbishment but represents a fantastic opportunity to re- establish one of the foremost country locations on the island for food and drink".
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the demolition of the public house and the erection of a terrace of 4 two storey dwellings in its place. The scheme now proposes four dwellings without any integral garaging or parking and where parking spaces will be provided in the car parking area opposite (as was suggested by a number of objectors), the design of the properties has been amended to reflect more of the traditional elements of the older properties nearby and the height has been reduced.
2.2 The existing store alongside the existing building and adjoining Waterfall Cottage, which was formerly used as a store associated with the hotel is to be completely demolished and the space used for bin storage for the new properties and the boundaries with the adjacent properties formed by 1.8m high close boarded timber fencing.
2.3 The houses are traditional in general form although wider than would normally be the case (9.8m compared with the 5.5m recommended in Planning Circular 3/91). The houses are identical to those refused in the earlier application other than that they now have pitched roofed dormers in the front pitches.
2.4 The applicant explains that the building is presently vacant and the business was last used three years ago (this was also stated in the 2017 application so it is assumed that the building has not been used for six years and in fact later in the statement it describes the site as not having been used for five years) which followed previous unsuccessful attempts to revitalise the business. They refer to General Policy 2, Strategic Policies 1, 2, 3, 10, Housing Policy 14 and are aware of Community Policy 4 and suggest that despite costly attempts by the owner to
==== PAGE 4 ====
20/00605/B Page 4 of 17
make the business work, these have been unsuccessful. They also suggest that the catering trade has taken a different route over the past ten years, especially after the most recent recession and drink driving awareness has further affected trade. This means that not as many people are going out to eat and drink and in the case of Glen Maye, people choose Peel as somewhere to go due to the relative ease of access and public transport. Competition from Peel significantly affects Glen Maye which has a relatively small catchment area. Other businesses in the village have closed - the village shop, post office and cafe which has permission to be changed to tourist accommodation. They also refer to the Liverpool Arms and Ballacallin Hotel.
2.5 The applicant also states that the village is not of a sufficient size to sustain a public bar in high or low season 7 days a week and is not on a well-used thoroughfare so as to generate passing trade.
2.6 They refer to comments made after the last application which suggested that the applicant simply wished to make a quick profit, suggesting that the applicant has multiple high profile trading companies which employ around 60 people on the Island with a lot being in the hospitality sector. They explain that they have a large amount of money invested in the site - some £200,000 from trading losses over the years and many attempts have been made to run it successfully.
2.7 They describe the building as slowly creeping into a bad state of decay and would require a considerable financial investment to do that. They explain that the existing building would have to be carefully stripped right back to the bare internal walls and from brief inspection at least the internal walls, floors and roof construction are not up to current Building Regulation standards if converted. The introduction of secondary stud walls would encroach into the usable space.
2.8 Conversion to one dwelling would not be financially viable to cover the costs of the renovation and conversion. If conversion were considered, a rear extension would be required to bring it up to two storeys in height. This work would require disruption to the surroundings and create something that was not as efficient and would have a limited life span. They consider that the existing building has minimal architectural interest - asymmetrical chimneys, uPVC framed windows and rooflights and is considered to be an amalgamation of bad design and does not have any intrinsic value in their view. The proposed dwellings would exceed the U values set out in the Building Regulations, would be thermally efficient and could work alongside modern energy systems to completely minimise energy consumption. This could not, in their view, be achieved through a conversion of the existing building. They estimate the cost of conversion to be very similar to new build but with greater maintenance costs. The demolition and rebuild option is considered to be more practical, feasible and efficient for the applicant, the surroundings and potential purchasers. They were unable to obtain public liability insurance for the building from local insurers and the cover they did achieve, from a UK insurer was on the basis that a further renewal was unlikely due to the condition of the building.
2.9 They consider that the development complies with GP2b and c.
2.10 They assess the character of the area as comprising a mix of modern and traditional properties, individual properties, terraces and estates. The proposed dwellings will be visible and have been designed to be aesthetically pleasing, particularly in comparison to some other existing properties.
2.11 The proposal meets the requirements of the Strategic Plan in terms of car parking. The adjacent car park which provides 45-47 spaces owned by the applicant and used solely for use by patrons of the hotel and glen: it will still be available to users of the glen. It is their intention to retain and refurbish the car park including landscaping to make it more aesthetically pleasing.
==== PAGE 5 ====
20/00605/B Page 5 of 17
2.12 The applicant explains that the front eaves level has been lowered from that of the existing building by 350mm and the rear eaves are 2.7m higher and the ridge has increased by 800mm with no resulting impact due to the distance from the nearest properties and them being higher than the application site.
2.13 Foul drainage will be connected to the existing mains system in the main road and the amount of load will not be more than with the existing use of the building when in operation.
2.14 Following a request for further information to overcome the reasons for refusal provided in the case of the previous application, the applicant provided a letter from Dean Wood Estate Agency which states:
"Further to out last update we can confirm that the above property has been marketed locally for sale on our website and that of our UK designated property site partner, Zoopla which exposes to their associated worldwide site and the property has now been on the market for nearly a year.
I am sorry to say that there has been very little interest and only two viewings which sadly did not materialise. The high risk investment involved in such a venture as a country pub on the island has shown that within this segment of the hospitality market it is very difficult to achieve a sustainable business of this nature. Several factors which may contribute are the overall considerable investment needed the limited market segment/week day business lack of and the drink drive approach to country destinations.
Even within the UK the number of public houses/country inns owned by breweries and others has seen a decline. I hope this has been of some assistance to you and I await your further instructions". (27.01.20).
2.15 The applicant was contacted by the Planning Officer on 16.07.20 to suggest that the information received did not address the issues raised in the appeal and a deadline of 20.11.20 was finally agreed for this information to be received. Information was received on 20.11.20 which provides further statements from Dean Wood and making reference to the correspondence on 16.07.20 which drew reference to the inspector's report paragraphs 71, 72, 86-88. It also includes a passing trade traffic survey dated 4th, 7th and 11th September, 2020 and information from Zoopla, the internet marketing agent.
2.16 They clarify that when the applicant purchased the property in 2009 it had already closed as a public house and did so with a mind to revitalise the business and they invested significant time, effort and expense in trying to create a commercially viable public house including the refurbishment of the property and the installation of an experienced, professional management couple. None of their efforts were met with success and concluded in 2014 that changes in society and its behaviour meant that a public house in this location is not a viable commercial venture. 2.17 Dean Wood report on 26.08.20 that the marketable value as defined by RICS is "the estimated value for which an asset or liability should exchange on valuation date between a willing Vendor and a willing Purchaser in an arms length transaction after proper marketing where the parties have each acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion. To represent the price that would most likely be achievable as an asset but specifically ignoring any special or marriage value".
2.18 They provide a description of the property in terms of work which needs to be undertaken but state that this is not an exhaustive list of faults and that they have not carried out a structural survey nor examined any hidden parts of the property, nor have they tested any drainage, heating or electrical services and "cannot comment on the specific condition thereof, nor the effect such condition may have on the present day market value of the property".
==== PAGE 6 ====
20/00605/B Page 6 of 17
2.19 They state that they "have received no serious interest of acceptable offers to the Vendor which have successfully proceeded to Advocates. They acknowledged that they did receive an offer from an interested party who had a property to sell which amounted to in the region of £300,000. But no formal offer was advanced due to the requirement for the purchaser to sell their property.
2.20 They provide hit rate statistics for this listing and suggest that the demand for this type of business and unit is currently very limited and it is accepted that the majority of interested parties will normally approach agents directly in contrast to casual media interaction. They refer to other public houses - Liverpool Arms, Britannia, Bay View which are in their view, no longer viable.
2.21 They refer to Glen Maye as a single destination village with a limited population which is not a thoroughfare between any urban areas. They refer to the reduction in comparative value and competitive pricing of off license sales with a greater tendency for home consumption, increased range of choice in eating establishments, increasing costs of regulatory compliance and taxation and they suggest that proximity to urban locations is "absolutely essential" for sustainability and refer to The Forge and the Creg na Baa as examples. They suggest that there is an absence of branded pub chains on the Island and the most successful mixed units are purpose built low maintenance units in high density residential locations such as the Wagon and Horses (this reference is not understood as this property is now a residential property), Cat With No Tail, Highwayman, Queen's Hotel and Woodbourne Hotel. They also refer to the Glen Mona Hotel which is presently being marketed.
2.22 They conclude by explaining why the premises are unlikely to be commercially viable and that "in accordance with the definition of market value the property when sold is without compulsion which indicates it's the Vendors [sic] choice not to accept a derisory low offer which is unacceptable". 2.23 A Passing Trade Traffic Survey was undertaken in September of the application site and the Hawthorn in Greeba demonstrating that significantly more traffic passes the Hawthorn than does Glen Maye.
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site is within an area designated on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as Existing Predominantly Residential. As such, there is no objection to the principle of the residential use of the site subject to the general standards of development set out in General Policy 2 below. However, as the proposal involves the loss of a public house, the following policy is also applicable and needs to be satisfied prior to any alternative development being considered.
Community Policy 4: "Development (including the change of use of existing premises) which involves the loss of local shops and local public houses, will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that the use is no longer commercially viable, or cannot be made commercially viable."
General Policy 2: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:
(b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
==== PAGE 7 ====
20/00605/B Page 7 of 17
(h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
3.2 The applicant also refers to the following policies:
Strategic Policy 1: Development should make the best use of resources by: (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under- used land and buildings, and reusing scarce indigenous building materials; (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space(1) and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services.
Strategic Policy 2: New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3.
Sustainable Urban Extensions Involves the planned expansion of a city or town and can contribute to creating more sustainable patterns of development when located in the right place, with well-planned infrastructure including access to a range of facilities, and when developed at appropriate densities.
Strategic Policy 3: Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by: (a) avoiding coalescence and maintaining adequate physical separation between settlements; and (b) having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character.
Strategic Policy 10: New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to: (a) minimise journeys, especially by private car; (b) make best use of public transport; (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and (d) encourage pedestrian movement.
3.3 Housing Policy 14 is not considered to be relevant as this deals with the replacement of a dwelling with another dwelling and what is proposed here is the replacement of an existing public house/house with multiple dwellings. This policy also applies to development in unzoned areas whereas this site is designated as Predominantly Residential.
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The application site has been the subject of a number of applications for alterations and signage. PAs 09/02097/B and 09/02098/D for a new, glazed frontage and illuminated signage were both considered at appeal, the extensions and alterations to the building being approved and the signage refused. The inspector makes a number of comments about the site which are relevant to the current application:
"10. As the Parish Commissioners point out, the Waterfall Hotel looks like a terrace of two Manx cottages. Seen from the front, the "stepped" alignment of the windows gives the front
==== PAGE 8 ====
20/00605/B Page 8 of 17
elevation a rather quirky appearance but it is an attractive building with some historic character. This quality is not particularly special or outstanding, and the building is not a Registered Building. Nor is the site within a designated conservation area. Nevertheless the Parish Commissioners' concerns about the effects of the proposal are understandable and have some force." He goes on to note again at his paragraph 19 that the property is not within a conservation area and recommends that the scheme is approved, having balanced the objections to the scheme against the application against the applicant's case, which includes the inspector's understanding that as a general principle it is desirable to encourage small businesses which are trying to develop their services in the tourism and leisure sector of the local economy (his paragraph 12). 4.2 4.3 Subsequent to these applications, and of most relevance to the current application is 17/01189/B which was for an almost identical proposal; This was refused at appeal for the following reason:
"It has not been demonstrated that the premises are not commercially viable or could not be made so. As such, the proposal is in conflict with Community Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016." (09.10.18).
4.4 The inspector considering the appeal makes the following observations:
"65. It is clear that the Waterfall Hotel is held in fond regard by the local community, as strongly expressed by the Parish Commissioners and individual residents. It clearly has long historic associations and, until relatively recently, has served as an important tourist facility, serving a National Glen, with a reputation reaching beyond the shores of the Island.
However, the building itself is neither Registered, nor in a conservation area and, whilst retaining its essential vernacular character, is not of such apparent architectural quality or interest as to warrant retention for its own sake.
Crucially though, it would be against CP4 of the SP for the Hotel to be lost to residential use unless it is demonstrated that this or an equivalent use of the site is no longer commercially viable and could not be made so.
I respect the views and local knowledge of the Appellant company, which evidently has experience of several successful catering and other businesses on the Island and which has genuinely sought a suitable tenant to carry on the current hotel and public house use of the existing building on the appeal site. It is evident from the financial accounts for several years of operation that these attempts have been to no avail.
It is also evident that the Hotel building, whether by normal wear and tear or neglect, is now in a state of dilapidation, requiring substantial investment in renovation before it could be reopened.
There is some force in the argument of the Appellants that the Island catering trade has changed over the years of recession and drink-driving awareness, leading to a reduction in potential trade in Glen Maye. That may be linked to the comparative ease of access to the facilities of Peel. It is noteworthy that other businesses in Glen Maye have already closed and the properties concerned converted into dwellings or tourist accommodation. This reflects a trend in other parts of the Island, suggesting that Glen Maye may not be able to support the Hotel business any longer, as it is not on a well-used thoroughfare generating passing trade.
On the other hand, as noted by the Planning Authority, some rural businesses appear to remain viable. Fundamentally, every individual case is to be judged on its own merits and, in
==== PAGE 9 ====
20/00605/B Page 9 of 17
the present case, the Hotel at one time provided a stopping place for visitors from far and wide. It is not to be ruled out that it might do so again, albeit in a different guise, without very clear evidence that any such use is unlikely to be commercially viable.
It is of concern that the evidence of non-viability put forward by the Appellants, whilst genuinely based on experience and certified accounts, is nonetheless limited to largely anecdotal assertion drawn from enquiries within the known business community of the Isle of Man. Importantly, no professional marketing evidence has been put forward to show that the appeal property has been advertised and promoted in a manner consistent with its apparent potential to attract international tourist interest.
I agree with the Planning Authority that the evidence available is insufficient to justify the loss of the Hotel and that the proposed residential redevelopment of the site would therefore be contrary to CP4 of the SP."
4.5 He goes on to make comments on the design and visual impact of the development ultimately considering that this is acceptable. He also concludes that there would be no adverse impact on the living conditions of those in nearby housing as a result of the proposal.
4.6 In respect of the car park he finds no issue and neither with the impact on the beer garden or civil issues raised and his conclusion is:
"86. From the foregoing assessment it is concluded that the proposed redevelopment of the Waterfall Hotel site for four terraced dwellings would be acceptable in terms of adopted planning policy but for the need to demonstrate that the loss of the Hotel would be justified in terms of CP4 of the SP.
Overall, the failure of the Appellants to provide sufficient marketing or other evidence to demonstrate that the Hotel use is not commercially viable, and could not be made so, is the overriding consideration in the appeal.
The appeal should therefore be dismissed and the refusal of the application by the Planning Authority upheld." 4.3 The Department has considered a number of applications for the change of use or redevelopment of existing public houses to other uses, including the following:
i) 11/00665/B sought approval for the redevelopment of the Bridge Inn in Laxey for apartments. This application was refused for the reason that "The proposal represents the loss of a facility that is of benefit to Laxey and the wider community. No evidence has been submitted with the planning application to satisfactorily demonstrate that the existing use is no longer commercially viable, or cannot be made commercially viable. As such, the proposal is contrary to the provisions of Community Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007." A further reason was added that there would be insufficient car parking provided.
ii) 14/00349/B was approved for the redevelopment of the New Inn in Laxey for four dwellings. This was accepted as there is another public house directly opposite this site and its loss was not considered to be detrimental to the provision of local services.
iii) 08/01962/B for the conversion of the Cornerhouse public house in Douglas, to offices was approved on similar grounds, that the existing public house was not considered local as it was within a town centre location and also that there are many other public houses in the vicinity.
iv) 08/00470/B proposed the redevelopment of the Forester's Arms public house in Douglas to offices. No reference was made to Community Policy 4 as the site lay within an area designated as Offices.
==== PAGE 10 ====
20/00605/B Page 10 of 17
v) 08/01551/C saw approval granted on appeal for the conversion of the Ballacallin Hotel in Dalby to a private dwelling. This application was opposed by a number of local residents, the Commissioners and the Department of Tourism and Leisure, on the basis that the premises offered a facility of great importance to the local community and tourist accommodation which contributed to the local tourist infrastructure. The inspector considered that the hotel was the primary use of the building and that the bar and restaurant were ancillary to that and as such, Community Policy 3 or 4 did not apply. He accepted the experience of the applicant and their assessment that it was no longer viable to operate the premises as a hotel.
vi) When the Howstrake Hotel in Onchan was considered for redevelopment in the 2000s, the site had already been cleared of its buildings so the issue of the loss of a local facility was not discussed.
vii) The Liverpool Arms in Onchan/Lonan was the subject of two relatively recent applications, both to change the use of the site to residential. The most recent, 20/00967/C for change of use of the property to residential was refused on 28.10.20 for the single reason that: "The application fails to demonstrate the loss of the public house and would be contrary to General policy 3, Community Policy 4 and Housing Policy 11 of the Strategic Plan."
viii) the application prior to that, 18/00870/C was refused at appeal for the single reason that: "It has not been adequately demonstrated that the use is redundant and viable no longer or cannot be made commercially viable or that there has been sufficient evidence of attempts to market the property as a public house/restaurant to justify the loss of the public house. The proposal is therefore contrary to General Policy 3, Community Policy 4 and Housing Policy 11 of the Strategic Plan 2016".
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1.1 Patrick Parish Commissioners object on 15.07.20 on the basis that the building has historical value and are embarking on the procedure for it to be considered for Registration. [The Registered Buildings Assistant Officer has no knowledge of any approach from the local authority in this respect]. They suggest that the applicant has not been fortunate in terms of the people who have managed the site in the past and prior to it changing hands 12 years ago the site was very popular. They consider that there has been no real effort by the owners to try and regenerate the business and even a scheme to convert the premises into a bistro which was approved was not pursued. They accept that if the application is refused, this does not oblige the applicant to reopen or even sell it to someone who may wish to. However, they are aware of an expression of interest from The Grill Pit dated 29.07.20 and as such they believe that the reason for refusal of 17/01189/B remains valid. They are aware of other premises such as the Liverpool Arms which was refused for a change to residential and other businesses in rural areas which have opened and are successful - Close Leece Farm and the Forge are referred to. They consider the development to be overdevelopment of the site and it is not clear how the car parking would work. They consider that the development falls foul of General Policy 2 a, b, c and g and should be refused.
5.1.2 They submit further comments on 29.07.20 after the submission of the Dean Wood letter, suggesting that the reference to viewings which did not materialise makes no sense and isn't clear whether the viewings did not materialise or whether they did not result in an offer. They also suggest that the offer from The Grill Pit contradicts there statement that no offers or interest had been expressed.
5.1.3 They provide a further response on 11.08.20 stating that they have been informed of two further offers which were made on the property which are not referred to by the applicant.
5.1.4 They advise on 02.12.20 that their next meeting is not until 14.12.20 and they would appreciate any consideration being deferred until the end of that week. They confirm on 16th
==== PAGE 11 ====
20/00605/B Page 11 of 17
December, 2020 (received on 21st December, 2020) that offers have been received for the site and that the refusal of the offered price by the applicant demonstrates them seeking to maximise their own interested by neither operating the hotel nor allowing anyone else to do so. They note that the Glen Mona Public House has recently sold and these two points alone indicate that there is an appetite for operating businesses in a rural area. They suggest that the passing trade survey is meaningless as the site was previously a popular venue without the level of passing trade that the Hawthorn has and if people are not prepared to travel to eat or drink, this undermines the success of places like the Hawthorn which is no less remote than the application site.
5.2 Highway Services raise no opposition subject to conditions to allocate and retain eight parking spaces for residents, and for the provision of bicycle parking storage and ECVP's (11.06.20). They comment further on 23.11.20 that the traffic survey related to a much busier highway with more potential for passing custom and have no further comments to make.
5.3 DEFA Senior Biodiversity Officer raises the same points as in the 2017 application, namely that there should be a survey for the presence of bats before the building is demolished. (16.07.20).
5.4 Manx Utilities requested a deferral on 14.07.20 to carry out further investigations. An internal e-mail within Manx Utilities, dated 08.07.20 has been provided to the Department which explains difficulties which they have encountered trying to locate manholes and the route of sewers. They comment on 23.11.20 that they still have not received the information they requested in August so maintain their objection to the application.
5.5 Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society comment on 20.07.20 giving a history of the village and suggest that the existing building is of architectural, historical and social interest and should be considered capable of renovation as no information has been submitted to the contrary. They consider the replacement building to be out of keeping with the area due to its greater height and bulk and constitutes overdevelopment of the site. While the age of the property concerned may not make it a candidate for Registration, it still forms part of the street scene of one of the older parts of Glen Maye village and this should not be destroyed by the design of redevelopment now proposed. Spatial Policy 4 states that "In the remaining villages development should maintain the existing settlement character --" While it goes onto say "and should be of an appropriate scale to meet local needs for housing and employment opportunities", it does not say this should be at the expense of destroying the local character which, as above, the current proposal by virtue of its design does. They submit further comments on 05.12.20 including a postcard showing the site before the car park was cleared and the more modern housing was built, suggesting that the building sits comfortably in its surroundings and that what is proposed would be taller and top heavy, over-intensive and alien in this environment.
5.6 Objections from local residents 5.6.1 The owner of 5, Glen Close objects to the application, considering a preservation order should be placed on the site to protect it and Glen Maye from losing the focal point of the village. They refer to the fate of the shop within the village which was run into the ground as has been the Waterfall Hotel where opening hours were sporadic and thus business failed. They consider the area to be busy and a business could succeed here and there is no evidence that this could not be a commercially viable business (15.07.20 and 13.07.20). They comment further on 07.12.20 stating that they would have expected a more aggressive marketing campaign for the property given the experience of those involved and also note the contradiction between the advert which describes the building as benefitting from some modernisation and refurbishment whereas the application states that it requires a significant injection of capital, suggesting that the building is probably somewhere between the two with good and bad points, all of which would have been known to the owner before they purchased it. It also undermines the statement by the applicant that they have spent money on
==== PAGE 12 ====
20/00605/B Page 12 of 17
maintaining the building. They suggest that it is difficult to allege that the building cannot be viable if it hasn't actually been open for several years.
5.6.2 The owner of the Coach House, Glen Maye comments that the area is historically a commercial one for the Village and for an important Manx beauty spot, tourist attraction. A commercial building cafe/shop should be made available. The building itself has probably been two semi detached double fronted, two storey properties. If it must be residential this would be more in keeping with the Village. Four, three storey houses is an over development for the site and is out of character with the Village (27.06.20).
5.6.3 The owner of Waterfall House which sits alongside the property comments on the management history of the property and the financial calculations provided in the application, suggests that no for sale sign has been displayed on the property and the premises have not been registered with any other agents. They express concern at the management of the car park, having previously experience difficulty finding a space due to mechanics carrying out business there, untaxed vehicles parked there. They refer to a covenant relating to public access to the car park and glen and during COIV it is clear that there are enough people to visit the area to make a viable business. The express concern at the change of the food storage area to a store for bins and bicycles will affect their privacy and will create noise. They clarify that they have offered to buy the store but this was rejected. They query how the drainage will be provided and suggests that the height of the building are not in keeping with the existing or their property and query how the beer garden will be managed. They refer to the unauthorised porch which links the food store with the main building (undated).
5.6.4 The owner of Strooan Sound objects to the application on the basis that the Grill Pit made an offer for the property after viewing the premises twice, once with a building contractor. They felt that the offer reflected a true and current value given the capital needed to bring the property back to a habitable standard. The potential of the beer garden has never been fully realised and they consider that the proposal will adversely affect the amenity of local residents as it has been a central space where the community can congregate and enjoy. They created the Grill Pit as they felt the village had lost something very special when the site closed several years ago. The Grill Pit now functions as an outside catering business. The quality of food at the application site over the years has been intermittent. They are aware of a shift to locally produced foodstuffs, demonstrated by Close Leece Farm (29.06.20).
5.6.5 The owner of 11, Glen Maye Park states that the offer has been sporadic and irregular at the premises and the business has not been successful due to the way it has been operated and there is potential for the premises to become a successful pub, cafe, shop, tearoom and/or visitors' centre and has been allowed to enter a semi-dilapidated state and the purchase price is unrealistic (07.07.20)
5.6.6 The owner of 2, Glen Close objects to the application on the basis that the pub has been running since 1868 and the area is a tourist attraction. The proposed houses are not well designed and the car park is often full. They refer to various planning policies which they consider are not satisfied by the proposal, and there are a lot of new business which have been established on the Island - South Barrule Coffee Shop, Dovecote Tearooms and gift shop in Kirk Michael. Two Fellas Micropub in Peel, Knockaloe Farm cafe and this suggests that people will travel for food. They have heard that the applicant property operates a take away food service on the Island. The current asking price is considerably more than was paid for (29.06.20). They submitted a similar letter to the Minister of Department for the Environment, Food and Agriculture who pointed out that he could not be involved in planning applications as he would ultimately be the decision maker for any appeal. They submit further comments on 30.11.20 noting that there is no for sale sign on the property and the condition described in the sales particulars does not demonstrate that the building has been kept in good order. They also wonder whether a structural report has ever been undertaken for the property and if so, if they could see it. They note the selling price as £650,000 compared with the Bay View Hotel in Port
==== PAGE 13 ====
20/00605/B Page 13 of 17
St. Mary which has six hotel bedrooms and a restaurant/bar in a large settlement. They note that the Glen has been busy during the COVID situation and surely anyone experienced in the catering business would be aware that it is seasonal and to take appropriate steps to maintain sufficient cash flow. Finally, they note that the timing of the passing traffic survey was on a day with poor weather and where it was the last day of the summer holidays where parents may have been doing school shopping or involved in indoor recreation with their children. They suggest that it is incomparable to contrast a site which is not open for business and one that is.
5.6.7 A petition is also submitted by the owner of 2, Glen Close on the basis that the proposal does not comply with Community Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan. The petition states there are 221 signatories including residents of Glen Maye and further afield in Onchan, Port Erin, Ballaugh, Peel, Douglas, Port St. Mary, Andreas, Bradford, Kirk Michael, Ramsey, Braddan and other parts of the Island.
5.6.8 The owner of 6, Oak Road in Peel objects to the application suggests that the building is historic and poor management, neglect and lack of care should not be a reason for changing the function of the building as it deserves to be a welcoming hub for the community and visitors run by people who are passionate about high quality Manx produce and who care about people and the community (15.07.20).
5.6.9 The owner of Casa Cascada, Shore Road objects to the application as the proposed development is not in keeping with the village environment and is contrary to Community Policy 4, they note that the waterfall was recently voted one of the top ten waterfalls in the world. They consider that there is potential for the successful and viable operation of the site and note that the Liverpool Arms was recently marketed at £310,000, half what is being asked for the application property (16.07.20). They also submitted a letter to the Minister of the Department in his capacity as MHK for the area, asking for his support to oppose the application. He responded explaining his position as Minister for the planning process and as such could not be involved (16.07.20 and 17.07.20).
5.6.10 The owners of 6, Glen Close suggest that the application has not significantly changed since the 2017 application. They believe that the premises could be successfully run and has been left to fall into a state or disrepair (15.07.20).
5.6.11 The owner of 3, Glen Maye Park suggests that the application is misleading in that it has not been vacant for 5 years as it only closed in November, 2015. They believe that the application is still in conflict with Community Policy 4 (16.07.20).
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issues in this case are whether it is acceptable to lose the public house as a local facility having regard to Community Policy 4 and if so, whether the form and appearance of what is proposed to replace it is acceptable; whether the development has any adverse impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent property and finally whether the proposal is adequately provided for in terms of access and parking. The findings of the inspector and accepted by the Minister are relevant in this respect.
6.2 Loss of the existing building 6.2.1 Planning approval would be required for the demolition of the existing buildings as they are attached to Waterfall House and boundary walling associated with it and 7, Glen Close. The building is not otherwise protected or noted for its architectural merit or interest although it is old and a familiar landmark within the village. Despite its modern windows and the western section not having a gable chimney stack, it retains its vernacular character, like Waterfall Cottage but very different from the modern properties in Glen Close. It is not considered that the building is of such quality or interest to warrant refusal of the application on the basis of the loss of the building and the inspector's comments in respect of the building are noted (see paragraph 4.1 and 4.4. above) and it is not considered that there have been material changes
==== PAGE 14 ====
20/00605/B Page 14 of 17
which would justify a different conclusion in this current case. Whilst the IOMNHAS have objected to this application, they did not comment on the previous application and it is not considered that this additional objection is persuasive in rejecting the application for this reason, given that the inspector and Minister both agreed in the previous application that this should not be a reason for refusal.
6.3 Loss of the public house 6.3.1 This was the principal reason for refusal in the last case. It is therefore necessary to revisit the evidence provided by the applicant to counter this reason. To recap, the Strategic Plan presumes against the loss of public houses and suggests that this should be allowed "only if it can be demonstrated that the use is no longer commercially viable, or cannot be made commercially viable." The applicant has provided financial and anecdotal information to try to demonstrate that it is not and could not be commercially viable but this is not accepted by some local residents who question why it could not be sold or leased to someone who could make it work, possibly as a different, or a variety of different uses.
6.3.2 The applicant's case is that the condition of the building requires a considerable financial investment - whether this be through conversion or rebuild and that this could not be recouped from a commercial use. Whether a new building could recoup such a cost is unknown: the applicant does have experience of trying to operate the existing building as a restaurant and public house and this is that it is not commercially viable. This is not dissimilar to the Ballacallin Hotel in Dalby, referred to above, although some rural businesses seem able to remain open - the Shore Hotel on Bay ny Carrickey, the Hawthorn in German and The Forge in Braddan, formerly the Hop Garden. Many of the latter have had renovations and re-launches over time which have perhaps helped their survival. In Dalby the local church has been rejuvenated to include a range of additional community uses and has recently been the subject of a planning application for use as a hostel.
6.3.3 Since that last decision, there have been businesses emerge and which appear to be successful, or certainly busy. The Grenaby Studios, Ballabeg, a complex of old and newer buildings which are used by local artists for the production of goods and where pop up events to sell these goods are usually oversubscribed with, on the November event, a one way system through the complex having to be introduced so that everyone could pass through the complex safely. Close Leece Farm has also emerged as a cafe and opportunity for the sale of local products, as has a mobile shop at Kirk Michael Goats. Pooilvaaish have recently opened a shop at the Ballasalla Airport Garage to sell their local stone and stone products. In addition, since the COVID lock down on the Island in March to May, a number of local premises have diversified into selling groceries - Sulby Glen Hotel and the Tynwald Inn being two which have sought and gained planning approval for continuing this additional use into the future.
6.3.4 It is relevant that the local shop in the village was converted to a dwelling in 2003 (03/01043/B) and the church hall was more recently approved for redevelopment as a dwelling (10/01455/B). This, along with the choice of the redevelopment of the cafe and retail unit in the car park to tourist accommodation, could go towards supporting the case that the local community is of such a limited size as to support local facilities such as this. However, it also increases the need for a local shop facility and perhaps supports the case that in this modest village, such a facility needs to be combined with another use to make it viable as with Sulby and St. John's. There is no evidence that this has been attempted here or indeed marketed as having the potential for this.
6.3.5 The premises are being marketed by a single agent as a potential public house/restaurant. There are just two photographs of the premises. No images of the glen, the substantial car park, waterfall or beach which may have painted a truer and more colourful picture of the context of the site and the reason why this site could be considered different to others on the market. The premises are offered at £650,000. It is not known at what price the property was purchased. However, the Liverpool Arms another public house in the countryside
==== PAGE 15 ====
20/00605/B Page 15 of 17
which has had permission refused for its redevelopment for residential purposes, is presently being marketed at £310,000 with a covenant which prevents the use of the site as licensed premises or £450,000 without it. This too has a large car park alongside and has a larger footprint and floor area than the application property. 6.3.6 Despite the additional information being sought and provided, it is still the case that "no professional marketing evidence has been put forward to show that the appeal property has been advertised and promoted in a manner consistent with its apparent potential to attract international tourist interest." The evidence is that it has been advertised as described above with two photographs and two paragraphs which purport to demonstrate its potential to attract international tourist interest. Similarly there is no evidence that the property has been considered for a mix of uses which, cumulatively may result in the premises being viable. There is no mention at all of the premises being considered for redevelopment for commercial purposes which would address the suggestion that purpose-built units are made more easily viable and no reference to the fact that the premises could accommodate living in accommodation for the operators with or without additional tourist accommodation.
6.3.7 It is not clear whether the offer of the region of £300,000 was from the Grill Pit. There seems to have been a rejection of the offer as it was associated with the sale of another property and as the price was too low. It is not clear if any attempt was made by the vendor to keep in contact with the potential purchaser to see if the other property had sold. It is interesting that the offered price was very similar to the offer price for the Liverpool Arms, a premises in a rural location and with a larger footprint. It could be concluded from these two factors that the Waterfall Hotel is being marketed at too high a price and there is no evidence to support this value other than this is what the Vendor seeks. A property is worth only what someone is prepared to pay for it and it is clear that someone was prepared to pay the equivalent price of a similar property elsewhere on the Island. This is far from demonstrating that there is no interest in the property being acquired for a commercial operation. If an owner does not accept a lower offer and the price being asked is considered overly high, this is not the same as saying that the property is unmarketable. Comparisons with other commercial properties currently and recently for sale suggest that the asking price is too high, and this is supported by the offer which appears to have been made but rejected.
6.4 The form and appearance of the proposed dwellings 6.4.1 The revised scheme proposes a terrace of buildings which is traditional in form and character although with a wider gable than would normally be the case, and reflects the traditional characteristics - the substantial chimneys, vertically proportioned windows and some stonework and now with pitched roofed dormers. The terrace will not replicate the existing or Waterfall Cottage but will certainly be more traditional than the properties in Glen Close or the new building being built across the road in the car park. Given the mix of building types in the area, it is considered that the proposed terrace is acceptable. It is also relevant that the inspector and Minister considering the previous application did not cite the appearance or visual impact of the proposed dwellings as a reason for refusal.
6.5 Amenities of the proposed dwellings 6.5.1 The dwellings will have small front gardens but spacious rear gardens with space in the car park for vehicular parking (see later). It is considered that the proposed dwellings will have adequate levels of privacy. Again, it is relevant that neither the inspector nor Minister considering the earlier application found fault with this aspect of the development.
6.6 Impact on neighbouring property 6.6.1 The properties most affected will be Waterfall Cottage and 7, Glen Close which abut the site to the west. Both properties will be most affected by the loss of the food store building. If this building were to be retained then its physical presence would obscure much of the proposed building and reduce the potential for a perception of overlooking from the new dwellings. The retention of the store would also remove the concern about the structural impact on the two adjoining gardens. Clearly, if the store is to be retained, it will be used and
==== PAGE 16 ====
20/00605/B Page 16 of 17
this may have an impact on the occupation of Waterfall Cottage and it is important that no approval is implied or granted for the use of this as habitable accommodation. Again, neither the inspector nor Minister considering the earlier application found fault with this aspect of the development.
6.7 Impact on access and parking 6.7.1 As the car park is within the ownership of the applicant, there is ample space available to provide eight car parking spaces in accordance with the Strategic Plan and it is most unlikely that vehicles associated with the occupation of the proposed dwellings will be parked on the adjacent roads, given that the car park is directly opposite and already used for parking by people who do not live directly opposite it. It is more likely that the condition of at least some of the car park will be addressed if it is allocated to particular dwellings and if the condition and appearance of the car park is of concern, the local authority have powers under Section 14 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1984 to seek to remedy this:
"14 Maintenance of open land (1) If it appears to a local authority that any garden or vacant or other open land in its district is by virtue of lack of cultivation, the presence of anything on the land, or for any other reason in such a condition as to be detrimental to the amenities of the neighbourhood or that such detriment is likely to occur or recur, the authority may by notice require the owner or the occupier of the land within the time specified in the notice to take such steps as are specified in the notice for abating the detriment, or, as the case may be, to prevent the detriment from occurring or recurring."
6.8 Neither the inspector nor Minister considering the earlier application recommended refusal on this basis.
Other matters 6.9 Manx Utilities have objected on the basis that there is still information which they await which will enable them to remove their objection. It is not clear whether this information is in relation to the capacity of the system, loading, infrastructure or another reason. Manx Utilities did not object or comment on the previous application and given that there is a property on the site at the moment which has been drained and that the site is within a settlement, and comparing the existing and proposed levels of usage, it is not considered impossible to be able to provide an adequate means of draining the site. It is not considered therefore appropriate to refuse the application for this reason.
CONCLUSION 7.1 The previous refusal is clear that the loss of the public house should not be accepted "without very clear evidence that any such use is unlikely to be commercially viable.". Given that an offer was made it is clear that at least someone is of the view that it could be worth investing in. Added to this, the price at which the property is being marketed does not seem reasonable given other commercial properties on the market at the current time or which have been recently. Also, it would appear from the likes of Close Leece Farm and Grenaby Studios that the remoteness of a location is not prohibitive in establishing a quality business which will attract customers. It has not been demonstrated that any consideration has been given to a new form of commercial use or mix as has been seen in other parts of the Island such as Sulby and St. John's. For these reasons it is considered that the development involves the loss of a local public house and it has not been demonstrated that the use is no longer commercially viable, or cannot be made commercially viable so the proposal is contrary to Community Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
==== PAGE 17 ====
20/00605/B Page 17 of 17
(b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 4(2) who should be given Interested Person Status.
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.
__
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : ...Refused... Committee Meeting Date:...04.01.2021
Signed :...S CORLETT... Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal