Department of Local Government and the Environment

Rheynn Reiltys Ynnydagh as y Chymmyltaght

Isle of Man

Government

Reillys Ellan Vannin

File copy - please do not remove

Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2SF. email: [email protected] Tel: (01624) 685859 Fax: (01624) 685873 Chief Executive: R. A. Hamilton, AIPD, MCMI

Please reply to the Chief Executive

Our ref: RAH/MC

31st October 2006.

Dear Sir/Madam,

ON APPEAL: PA05/1277 - Peel Town Commissioners - Approval in principle for a hotel leisure complex, residential apartments, and parking spaces, former swimming pool site, Marine Parade, Peel

I refer to the recent appeal hearing in respect of the above planning application.

In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 7(5) of Schedule 1 to the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982, I am enclosing herewith a copy of the report of the person appointed to hear this appeal.

The Minister has considered the report, but does not concur with all of the appointed person's conclusions. However, he does accept that the application fails to demonstrate what the impact of these proposals would be on public views from the network of footpaths on the headland.

In these circumstances, and having noted that the appointed person is "convinced of the need for a development of this sort somewhere in the locality," and that he accepts "the benefits of the location to the economy of Peel," the Minister has directed that there should be granted approval for the principle of a hotel leisure complex and residential apartments on this site, but without implying approval either to the particular numbers or mix of hotel rooms and apartments, or to the indicative height and massing shown in the submitted drawings.

Accordingly, he has directed that the appeal should be dismissed and that the Planning Committee's decision to grant approval should be confirmed, albeit without commitment to the particular formula proposed in the application. Formal notice of this decision is attached to this letter.

Yours faithfully,

Mallie

for Chief Executive.

Please see over for circulation list/......

Circulation List - PA05/1277

1. Peel Town Commissioners, Town Hall, Derby Road, Peel, IM5 1RG;
2. Ms. S. Bosch, Flat 3, Creg Malin View, 6 Mount Morrison, Peel, IM5 1PN;
3. Ms. S. Brennan, 3 Victoria Terrace, Peel;
4. Mr. A. W. Faragher, Grand View, Mount Morrison, Peel, IM5 1PN;
5. D. Callister, Seabourne House, Mount Morrison, Peel, IM4 1PN;
6. D. Mackay, Flat 1, Creg Malin View, 6 Mount Morrison, Peel, IM5 1PN;
7. Highways & Traffic Division, Department of Transport;
8. IOM Water Authority, Tromode Road, Douglas, IM2 5PA;
9. Disability Access Officer, Manx Foundation for the Physically Disabled, Masham Court, Victoria Avenue, Douglas;
10. Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and the Environment, Glebe Cottage, Church Road, Maughold, IM7 1AS;
11. Manx National Heritage;
12. Mr. J. Washington, Fernleigh, 7 Marine Parade, Peel;
13. Mr. D. J. Ross, Waldick Hotel, Marine Parade, Peel;
14. Miss B. Dennis, App 6 Chapel Court, Christian Street, Peel, IM5 1NR;
15. Mrs. Hazel Hannan, Brottby, Peveril Road, Peel;
16. Secretary, Planning Committee;
17. Chairman and Members of the Planning Committee;
18. Secretary, Planning Appeals Inspectorate;
19. Mr. T. O'Hanlon, Treasury;
20. The Editor, Isle of Man Newspapers, Peel Road, Douglas;
21. Manx Radio Newsroom, Douglas Head, Douglas;
22. Ms. J. Green, Apt 5, Greenhill, Stanley Mount West, Ramsey, IM8 1LR;
23. Radio 3FM, 45 Victoria Street, Douglas, IM1 3RS;
24. Energy FM, 100 Market Street, Douglas, IM1 1PH;
25. Tynwald Members Room;
26. Tynwald Reference Library.

Application No. 05/1277 - ON APPEAL Ref: RAH/MC

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACTS 1934-1981

ISLE OF MAN PLANNING SCHEME (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) ORDER 1982

TO: Peel Town Commissioners, Town Hall, Derby Road, Peel, Isle of Man, IM5 1RG; [Copies as per Circulation List]

In pursuance of his powers under the above Acts and Order the MINISTER for Local Government and the Environment, following report by the appointed person, does hereby APPROVE the application by - Peel Town Commissioners - Approval in principle for a hotel leisure complex, residential apartments, and parking spaces, former swimming pool site, Marine Parade, Peel, subject to compliance with the following conditions:-

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.
2. No approval is hereby implied to the number of bedrooms or apartments, or to the height or massing of the buildings as indicated in the submitted documents.
3. The application for Reserved Matters must include an assessment of the use, location and layout of the parking facilities, and detailed design of a turning area on Marine Parade and of the Walpole Road/Marine Parade junction; these should be prepared in consultation with the Department of Transport.
4. The proposed hotel must be completed prior to the occupation of any of the proposed apartments.
5. Public access to the rocky cliff forming the north-east boundary of the site must be maintained; disturbance or engineering of the Cliff should not take place; the application for Reserved Matters must illustrate compliance herewith.
6. All services including electricity and telephone where installed must be laid underground.

Application No. 05/1277 - ON APPEAL Ref: RAH/MC

7. The application for Reserved Matters must include details of the proposals for relocating the skateboard park and the five-a-side pitch.
8. This approval relates to the submitted site plan date-stamped 6^{\text {th }} July 2005.

NOTE: It is recommended that the designer should consult with the Department's Conservation Officer during the preparation of the Reserved Matters application.

Dated this 31st day of October 2006

By Order of the Minister

Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas, Isle of Man.

Mithllall <br> for Chief Executive

Note 1: This permission refers only to that required under the Town and Country Planning Acts and does not include any consent or approval under any other enactment, byelaw, order or regulation.

Note 2: A copy of the report of the appointed person is appended hereto.

APPEAL NO 06/00123 PLANNING APPLICATION 05/01277 Appeal made by appeal made by Messrs Bosch, Brennan, Farragher, Callister, and Mackay against a grant of permission (in principle) to Peel Town Commissioners for a 40 bedroom hotel leisure complex with up to 14 two bedroom residential apartments with complementary parking at the former swimming pool site, Marine Parade, Peel, Isle of Man

1. I held an inquiry into the appeal on 8 August 2006. The Appellants were represented by Mr A Farragher, the Planning Committee by Mr B Sinden, and the Applicant by Mrs P Harman and Mr P Leadley.

THE APPEAL SITE AND SURROUNDINGS, AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

2. The appeal site stands at the western extremity of the seafront at Peel and contains the Marine Hall, a skateboard rink, and tennis courts. Above the site the land rises steeply, being a grassy area laced with footpaths. Above the slope are Victoria Terrace, Peverell Terrace and Mount Morrison, terraces of Victorian dwellings built facing the sea. The area of steep land having public access curves round the site to the north eastern end of Peel Bay.
3. The appeal proposal is as described. Information submitted with the application illustrates a possible layout for the hotel and its car parking, whilst an elevational montage indicates that the buildings are proposed to adopt similar ridge and eaves levels to the substantial terrace which faces the sea south west of the site on Marine Parade. This information is extended to a section which shows the proposed buildings to have a ridge height 15.21 m above Marine Parade, whilst Mount Morrison has a street level of 30.76 m above the same point.

THE CASE FOR THE APPELLANTS

The material points are: 4. The building of residential units on the land would be contrary to the legislation contained within the 1982 Development Plan Order and the Peel Local Plan; and structures of the height and scale proposed would have a serious detrimental impact upon public views from the headlands. 5. The area was designated solely for tourist uses in the Local Plan. The Member of the House of Keys for Peel, Mrs Hazel Hannan was of the opinion that the planning committee had no choice but to refuse permission since the residential units would be in conflict with the Local Plan. The Commissioners reasons for including residential development in the application were inconsistent. They had earlier stated that there was enough demand for quality

hotel space to fill a 50 bedroom hotel throughout the year. Now they were saying that hotel development was highly speculative, and it was a widely recognised planning synergy to offset the building cost with residential apartments. However, apartments in other parts of Peel were proving difficult to sell. There was a greater need for affordable housing. 6. The proposed buildings would be situated within the vision of those who used the extensive network of footpaths along the Headlands, and up to the terraces behind at Mount Morrison. This was a most spectacular view of the bay and Peel Castle, which would be seriously impeded by a hotel of the height proposed. 7. The Appellant's had produced photographs to demonstrate their concerns, which demonstrated that the building would be directly within the views across the bay to Peel Castle for those using footpaths below Mount Morrison. If the development were to have the same frontage as the terraces at Marine Parade, and the section shown on the drawing approved in principle by the Planning Committee, it would form a very substantial intrusion in these important views. If however the apartments were set well back from the building line and made lower, as indicated in other illustrations, the impact would be less. 8. The application should have been accompanied by a business plan. As it was, there was a suspicion that the proposal was simply a means of building the more profitable apartments.

THE CASE FOR THE PLANNING COMMITTEE

The material points are: 9. The appeal site was zoned on the Peel Local Plan for tourism, and approval for a hotel had existed at the time the plan was drawn up in 1988/9. The Department of Tourism was supportive of the plan, and the Island Tourism Strategy had identified a clear need for additional bed spaces, with provision of 3 to 5 star facilities to cater for the merging mix of business conferences, short stay breaks and special interest visits. The proposal would go towards meeting this need. 10. The present application indicated that the building would be some 14 m high to the roof ridge, and that the apartments would not be built without the hotel. Steps leading down the brooghs would be diverted, and that although the roadway would be part of the scheme, public access to the cliff and rocks would be maintained. 11. The Planning Committee had concluded that adequate parking could be provided for staff, visitors to the hotel and for the apartments. The leisure centre aspect of the application referred only to function room, restaurant, bar and spa, normal ancillary functions of a hotel.

12. The drawings showed a building which would sit well below the cliff top. Buildings of the size indicated would have an impact in public views, both across the bay towards the site, from the promenade, and from the brooghs and coastal footpath. Whilst design would have to be of a high standard, the indicative drawings indicated that the impact would not be so adverse as to warrant refusal.
13. Local Plans were, until recently, approved by Tynwald, but written statements were issued as planning Circulars. Regard had to be paid to both, but the greater weight was given to the zoning map. Land use zoning was one of the considerations when assessing a planning application, but exceptions could be made if there was a planning reason. The Planning Committee had supported the provision of a hotel for 18 years, but nothing had happened. In these circumstances the Committee had been prepared to accept the apartments as part of the development, but subject to a condition that the apartments should not be occupied before the completion of the hotel. The flats were not a major factor in the decision - had the hotel been proposed to be larger, and the flats omitted, it was likely that an approval would have been forthcoming.

THE CASE FOR THE APPLICANT

The material points are: 14. The Commissioners had a duty to the ratepayers to make the best use of the town's assets. Numerous benefits would accrue to the town in creating jobs, providing enjoyment for residents, and attracting tourists with the attendant economic benefits. The sale of the site would also generate funds which would be used for the benefit of ratepayers. 15. There was an acknowledged shortage of hotel beds and quality hotels on the Isle of Man, with the film industry alone seeking 50 bedrooms throughout the year, and demanding a better quality of service than generally available. There was a strong growth in heritage and activity holidays, for all of which Peel was ideally suited. The hotel would provide a continuing asset to the town. 16. The site was already zoned for tourism uses, but in order to reduce the risk of a highly speculative development for a hotel alone, the proposal included 14 apartments. Every expression of interest in the development had made this a requirement The Commissioners sought a condition preventing the apartments from being constructed alone, since this was not their aim. Present facilities on the site would be relocated so that they were not lost to the town, and hopefully some of the funds released from the development would allow improved provision. 17. Views towards the site from Peel Castle and the breakwater would be unaffected as the hotel complex would be below the skyline, and its ridge height would be no greater than that of the Victorian terrace on Marine Parade. Sea views from Mount Morrison would be maintained, and the proposed two buildings would be set apart, so that the sea views would still be glimpsed

from the footpaths which criss crossed the headlands. The hotel would be set facing Peel Castle, making it a desirable place to stay or hold a function. Whilst some of the roadway would be incorporated in the site, full public access would be maintained to the sea front. Steps down from the headland would be relocated.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

18. The Department was content with the proposal, subject to conditions requiring that there should be an assessment of parking facilities to the satisfaction of the planning authority; and that there should be an acceptable detailed design of a turning feature on Marine Parade, and alterations to the junction at Walpole Street/Marine Parade.

MANX NATIONAL HERITAGE

19. The northern part of the site was of geological interest, regularly visited by professional earth scientists and visiting amateur groups. Ease of access to the rock face helped this, and the feature was included in a recent interpretation map of the Island's geological heritage. The applicants should consider retaining public access to the feature. (Note: this is a matter which is the subject of a condition on the permission granted in principle).

INSPECTOR'S CONCLUSIONS

20. The Appellants raise two main issues. However, the first objecting to the inclusion of apartments, is founded upon a misconception of the planning system which operates on the Island. It is not correct that the Peel Local Plan, either its written statement or the proposals map is law in the sense that it sets out the only development which can be permitted on land within the plan. Under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Order) 1982 as amended, the Department has to have regard amongst other things to the zones and notations on the plan (that is the 1982 development plan); the Circulars issued from time to time by the Department (which will include the Local Plan Written Statement), and another 4 matters relating to the principle of land use, which include the character, amenities and the existing a future land uses in the area. There are then included four other general headings. None of these directly relate to the variation of proposals from the zoning given on the Plans, and notably do not include the economic effects of development. However, the fact that the listed considerations are prefaced by "amongst other things" means that any other consideration relevant to the use of land may be taken into account in considering a planning application.
21. The Peel Local Plan, in its introduction, states the intentions of the plan, and states that the Town Plan has been prepared to illustrate the policies, proposals and recommendations which are considered to be appropriate to the future of the town. Policies are statements of attitudes or intentions towards existing or postulated situations which require action; proposals are intended actions which the Planning Committee feel confident will be implemented. Neither of these statements is to my mind a statement of legal requirement. Further, the

Town Plan, being illustrative of the policies and proposals, even though approved by Tynwald, cannot have any greater strength than the matters it illustrates. 22. I do not therefore consider that the inclusion of apartments in the proposals, though not being in accord with the notation shown on the plan of "Tourism", or the policies which accompany that notation would be unlawful. Nothing else that I have read or heard leads me to the view that apartments would be inappropriate as a secondary part of the development. The Planning Committee added a condition which would ensure that the apartments did not become the only development to take place if permission was granted. 23. I turn then to the issue of substance of the Appeal - whether the proposed development pays adequate regard to the special qualities of public views in the area. The Isle of Man is a country of spectacular land and seascapes and heritage. In common with a number of other parts of the Island, Peel Bay and its Castle and harbour are, in my view, one of the outstanding illustrations of this important facet of the Country. 24. Whilst the Peel Local Plan concentrates upon the present built fabric of the town, and makes no special recognition of the importance of views of the Castle headland, or the views out from the principal public open spaces listed in Section 13.0 of the Plan, it is my view that that developments which would feature in these landscapes should be very carefully analysed so as to ensure that they add, rather than detract from the view. 25. In approving a proposal in principle, the Planning Committee or Minister must nevertheless be able to be confident that the development, as far as it is described in the application or can be limited by condition, will not have adverse effects on matters of importance. The control at the stage of detailed plans submission is limited by the requirement not to negate the benefit of the permission in principle. The Committee clearly felt from the information given that they could be confident in making such a judgement. The Appellants disagree. 26. I find the information given by the Commissioners in the application to be extremely limited. It is not possible to tell from the plans submitted what would be the effect on views from the network of footpaths on the headland of the proposed buildings. I appreciate that a permission in principle is aimed at giving potential developers the best indication of what would be acceptable, within the parameters set by the permission. However, I have not been able to find that I can be satisfied that from the information given I am able to make a judgment of the effect of likely effect of the development in this landscape. 27. Thus, whilst I am convinced of the need for a development of this sort somewhere in the locality, and I accept the benefits of the location to the economy of Peel, without a more detailed assessment of the impact of the proposals I cannot advise that there would not be significant harm to this important land and seascape. I recognise that this may require the design to be more advanced before a decision to approve in principle is made.

Conclusion

28. In my view the Minister should allow the appeal, and withhold permission. However, the applicant should be advised that the proposed development, including apartments is not considered to be defective in principle, but a closer assessment of the land and seascape impacts, including montages from all important view points and indication of the extent of use and importance to the public of the viewpoints is necessary before the Planning Committee can be seen to have taken full account of all the planning considerations.

Recommendation

29. I recommend that the appeal is allowed, and permission in principle refused. The Minister's attention is drawn to my conclusion in paragraph 28 above.

David Ward BSc(Hons) CEng MICE FIHT Inspector.