Loading document...
| Application No.: | 13/00918/A |
| Applicant: | Mr Mark Quirk |
| Proposal: | Approval in principle for erection of a dwelling and equestrian centre |
| Site Address: | Springwaters |
| Ballamodha Straight | |
| Ballamodha | |
| Ballasalla | |
| Isle Of Man | |
| IM9 3AZ |
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE SITE HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS, SOME OF WHICH HAVE BEEN REFUSED AT APPEAL, AND THE PROPOSED DWELLING IS MORE THAN 50% LARGER THAN THE HOUSE(S) TO BE REPLACED
1.1 The site defined in red is an area of land situated to the east of the A3 Foxdale/ Ballamodha Road. The area edged red amounts to around 10 acres of land including an existing house, Springwaters, which is a traditional cottage that has a conservatory which has been added to the front elevation and a single storey side elevation to the west and a single storey flat roofed annex at the rear. The core of the cottage is a vernacular Manx cottage with a basic footprint of 9.4m by 8m. The conservatory, side and rear extensions add further floor space, resulting in a total overall floor area of 269 sq m.
1.2 In addition to the main dwelling, there is another small bungalow which has a floor area of around 44 sq m and a block of three garages attached to a former cottage and additional garage. The main dwelling sits a little distance from the other buildings which are grouped together some 10-20m to the north east. A further dwelling, Close Clark lies within the site at the junction of the access lane with the northern spur towards the application site and its other buildings. This has a collection of outbuildings alongside it.
1.3 Access to the buildings is via an existing lane which runs to the south of the buildings from the A3 towards Close Clark. The lane reaches Close Clark then turns either north towards the application site, or south along a public road to The Gate, a small collection of buildings around a crossroads.
1.4 Between Close Clark and the A3 is a field which does not belong to the applicant and which is used to house cattle and horses. There is a collection of buildings on the site - stables and a cattle shelter/hay store: planning permission has recently been granted here for a further cattle shelter (PA 12/01694).
1.5 There is no clearly defined residential curtilage visible in association with the existing buildings: there is a planted area with grass and trees to the north west and west of the buildings which have a hard straight edge facing the A3 and which is visible therefrom. To the
| Case Officer : | Miss S E Corlett |
| Photo Taken : | 10.04.2013 |
| Site Visit : | 10.04.2013 |
| Expected Decision Level : | Planning Committee |
east of the buildings appear to be grassed areas with some fencing, an area which looks as if it has been used at some time as a track, approximately 60 m by 50 to the north east of the garage block. 1.6 Along with the land defined in red, additional land is defined in blue, indicating that it is within the ownership or control of the applicant, extending the site to around 34 acres.
2.1 Proposed is the principle of the replacement of all of the existing buildings on the site, including Close Clark (which was to be retained in the previous applications) and their replacement with a new principal dwelling, garaging and equestrian facilities and a replacement for Close Clark as staff accommodation. Drawings have been provided of the proposals and it is clear in the supporting information that the applicant wishes the principle of "an equestrian centre and large house" and wishes to have a main house which has 8 bedrooms, an indoor leisure wing and garaging for 16 classic cars. Whilst the application is in principle, it is clear that the applicant has a clear idea of what sort of scale and type of development he desires and as such, significant regard will be had to the submitted drawings in terms of the scale and nature of development proposed, even though the application is in principle only. The application differs from that submitted most recently (see Planning History) in that whilst the house, garaging and equestrian facilities are the same scale and footprint as proposed previously, the house is now moved back within the existing residential curtilage, the proposal is to remove the Close Clark buildings, the equestrian facilities are further east than previously shown and there is a new dwelling(s) to replace Close Clark, but behind the proposed equestrian facilities and for staff accommodation. The residential curtilage is no longer being expanded, there is no lake or domestic development further east than is previously the case (in fact the built residential development is further west back into the site than is the case currently). 2.2 There is to be a detached garage block which is shown to be further towards the road than the existing house, the principal dwelling and further attached garaging is to be located roughly where the existing dwelling is sited and all to the roadward side of the existing lane which runs through the site, to the east of which lie Close Clark and its outbuildings and the outbuildings associated with the existing dwelling. It is these dwellings which are visible from the longer view towards St. Mark's. Existing trees are to be removed between the current Springwaters and Close Clark buildings and new trees planted to the west and north of the new principal dwelling. The new dwelling will have a backdrop of existing conifers which are to be retained. An existing overhead run of electricity line is to be undergrounded. The access through Close Clark is to be blocked off and all site traffic directed through the new access onto the A3. 2.3 The house as shown has a floor area of 1526 sq m including 266 sq m of "leisure" space and is between 8.5 m and 10.5 m in height. The building is to be finished in stonework with what looks like a slated roof which has rooflights within it: the depth of the dwelling and its height would suggest that there would be sufficient headroom in the roofspace to provide additional accommodation. The garaging proposed represents around 216 sq m attached to the dwelling and a further 200 sq m in a detached structure to the south of the dwelling. The proposed dwelling represents an increase in floor area of over and above the existing. 2.4 Also proposed is the creation of an equestrian facility for use by the applicant and his family only, which incorporates a building which is shown as being around 75 m in length and between 13 m and 21 m wide and between 8 m and 11 m in height, finished in stonework and sheeted roofing which will accommodate an indoor arena and stabling with an outdoor manege in front (to the east). The development will also include the drainage and re-profiling of the grazing land to turn what is presently scrub to fenced, useful pastures.
2.5 The application also includes proposals for the creation of a new access onto the A3 some 230 m north of the existing lane and some 50 m north of the entrance to Bay View Farm on the western side of the road. The visibility splays of 2 m by 215 m are provided through the reprofiling of the existing roadside hedges which already sit back around 1.5 m from the carriageway. These are not within the red or blue areas defined on the location plan but the applicant indicates that he has a right of access over the neighbouring land and now has a right over land within the visibility splay which was not available to the previous applicant. The re-profiling will involve the slight cutting back of the front of the hedge and building up of the rear section with the removal of existing roadside bushes. 2.6 The supporting information provided with the application explains that the applicant would like to return to the Isle of Man to live and to relocate "significant portions of his business, which is conducted on a global scale". It refers to the previous application, PA 09/01803, which in turn mentions "high net worth individuals" and the then lack of policy support for such developments. The applicant points out that since then the Department has issued a draft Circular, Planning and the Economy, on which they suggest the application should be judged. 2.7 They explain that the applicant has considered other sites with the prerequisite that he needs at least 20 acres to support his equestrian development, and has looked particularly at the draft Southern Area plans and the various sites which were identified in one of the initial drafts as being suitable as sites for Low Density Housing in Parkland, a designation introduced in the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982. The inspector considering the Southern Area Plan dismissed this concept as something which should be considered as part of an area plan, preferring that such an exercise should be an Island-wide one: "I suggest that solely for consistency purposes, the Area Plan retain the existing LDHP designations, but not to contain any additional LDHP sites. That would mean amendment to Appendix 4 to delete Proposed LDHP sites, as well as an explanation within the text of Chapter 4 to explain that the issue of LDHP sites and accommodation for "high net worth individuals" should be the subject of a transparent debate and assessment as part of the Review of the Strategic Plan. Unless this process is adopted, there would be the situation whereby the LDHP provision of this Area Plan would apply to one part of the Island and the 1982 Development Order and Circular 8/89 would apply to the remaining areas" (paragraph 4.27). 2.8 The Department accepted this general conclusion and did not identify on the proposals map any sites suitable for consideration as Low Density Housing in Parkland. The applicant has investigated those on the original list and indicates that the majority are unavailable. 2.9 The applicant also points out that the site is close to The Isle of Man Airport which is important to him as his business is global and he requires efficient access to London and the international connections therefrom. They consider that the site is not conspicuous and has a backdrop of trees resulting in what they consider is a minimal visual impact from a public perspective. They explain that three dwellings and outbuildings occupy the site currently and will be demolished. 2.10 The applicant also explains that whilst there are properties currently for sale on the Island, which would provide the amount of land required to support his proposed equestrian development, the land associated is already farmed and as such, the proposed equestrian facility would be in contravention of the Strategic Plan policy which requires that the development of equestrian facilities will only be acceptable where there is no loss of high quality agricultural land (EP 20). The application includes a list of six properties which are for sale and reasons for their rejection, including too small a landholding, limited potential for expansion, not an ideal location or the property would require considerable expansion. They
state that the site is not within an area of an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance as referred to in EP20 and that the existing access offers poor visibility but which serves three properties and a storage area for an adjacent property: the proposed new access will remove two of these properties from using this access.
Area Plan for the South 3.0 The site lies outside of any of the settlements within the countryside.
Isle of Man Strategic Plan 'Towards a Sustainable Island' June 2007 3.1 Given the land-use designation, there is a presumption against development as set out in General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1:
General Policy 3: Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10) b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historical, or social value and interest (Housing Policy 11) c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of buildings where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environmental and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14) e) location-dependant development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services; f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative and h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage".
Environment Policy 1: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative." 3.2 In addition, Strategic Policy 1 states: "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 re-using scarce, indigenous building materials; b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards and c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services". 3.3 Strategic Policy states 2: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3". 3.4 Spatial Policy 5 states: "New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3."
3.5 There is specific provision for the replacement of existing dwellings with new residential properties in Housing Policy 14 and the Plan explains the reasoning behind this as follows:
Paragraph 8.12.2 "Extension to properties in the countryside As there is a general policy against development in the Island's countryside, it is important that where development exists, either in an historic or recently approved form, it should not, when altered or extended detract from the amenities of the countryside. Care therefore, must be taken to control the size and form extensions to control the size and form of extensions to property in the countryside. In the case of traditional properties, the proportion and form of the building is sensitively balanced and extensions of inappropriate size or proportions will not be acceptable where these destroy the existing character of the property In the case of nontraditional properties, where these are of poor or unsympathetic appearance, extensions which would increase the impact of the property will generally not be acceptable. It may be preferable to consider the redevelopment of non-traditional dwellings or properties of poor form with buildings of a more traditional style and in these cases, the Department may consider an increase in size of the replacement property over and above the size of the building to be replaced, where improvements to the appearance of the property would justify this."
Housing Policy 14 states: "Where a replacement dwelling is permitted, it must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, unless changes of siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement; the new building should therefore generally be sited on the "footprint" of the existing, and should have a floor area which is not more than greater than that of the original building (floor areas should be measured externally and should not include attic space or outbuildings). Generally the design of the new building should be in accordance with Policies 2-7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91 (which will be revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement). Exceptionally, permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact; designs should incorporate the re-use of such stone and slate as are still in place on the site, and in generally, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building.
Consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling where which involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design and or siting, there would be less visual impact." 3.6 The Strategic Plan contains policies specifically guiding the development of equestrianrelated facilities as follows:
Environment Policy 19 states: "Development of equestrian activities and buildings will only be accepted in the countryside where there will be as a result of such development no loss in local amenity, no loss of high quality agricultural land (Classes 1 and 2) and where the local highway network can satisfactorily accommodate any increase in traffic (see Environment Policy 14 for interpretation of Class 1 and 2)."
Environment Policy 20 states: "There will be a presumption against large scale equestrian developments, which includes new buildings and external arenas, in areas of an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance unless there are exceptional circumstances to override such a policy."
Environment Policy 21 states: "Buildings for the stabling, shelter or care of horses or other animals will not be permitted in the countryside if they would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside in terms of siting, design, size or finish. Any new buildings
must be designed in form and materials to reflect their specific purpose; in particular cavitywall construction should not be used." 3.7 Previously developed land is referred to in General Policy 3 and by the applicant in the description of their site. This is defined in the Plan as: "Appendix 1: Previously Developed Land Previously-developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. The definition includes defence buildings, but excludes,
There is no presumption that land that is previously-developed is necessarily suitable for housing development nor that the whole of the curtilage should be developed."
3.8 The Area Plan for the South includes reference to the draft Planning Policy Statement on Landscape Character Assessment. This identifies the site as within a much wider area of Incised Slopes where the following advice is given: "Overall Strategy 7.14 The overall strategy for the protection and enhancement of the Incised Slopes Landscape Character Type is to conserve and enhance: the remote and rural character; the relatively sparse settlement pattern of traditional hamlets and scattered farm buildings; the network of sunken and enclosed rural roads; and the substantial hedgerows and sod banks dividing irregularly-shaped pastoral fields." 7.15 The Landscape Character Policy Strategy that will be applied in relation to the protection and enhancement of the Incised Slopes is as follows: "Landscape Character Policy Statement 4: Approach routes, key views, and gateways to settlements within these landscapes should be enhanced. New farm buildings must not compromise the pattern and scale of farmsteads across the undulating Incised Slopes landscapes. New development must be located so that it avoids the suburbanisation of river valleys and stream corridors.
D Incised Inland Slopes Key Views 7.16 When assessing the impact of development or forming proposals for the Area Plans consideration will be given to the following key views...
D14 Ballamodha and St Mark's
3.9 The draft PPS was the subject of consultation but no further draft has been issued nor the document adopted.
DRAFT PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT ON PLANNING AND THE ECONOMY 3.10 The Department published a draft PPS on Planning and the Economy in February 2012. Various submissions were made and have been considered by the Department but as yet no further revised draft has been issued and the PPS has not been adopted. 3.11 The document states that the Government "is committed to promoting a strong, stable and productive economy that aim to bring jobs and prosperity for all" and that the Government is committed to continue to deliver further economic growth and diversification (paragraph 1). It states that the planning system should make appropriate provision for the identified national needs of the entire economy and assists in steering economic development to the most appropriate locations and that the economy should not be constrained by a shortage of land for economic development uses. It states that there is a general presumption in favour of development and that proposals will be considered on their merits bearing in mind the Development Plan and the need to protect the island's unique character, natural environment and quality of life (paragraph 4). 3.12 The draft PPS draws attention to the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 which states that in dealing with applications for planning approval, the Department should have regard to the provisions of the development plan as far as it is material to the application, such other considerations as are material to the application and all other material considerations. The draft PPS provides guidance in relation to this, that "the Department will seek proposals to be supported by evidence that demonstrates that the proposed development would secure sustainable long term economic growth of Island wide benefit, which meets the wider objectives of sustainable development by weighing market and other economic matters alongside environmental and social costs and benefits" (paragraph 5). 3.13 The draft PPS defines economic development as "the development of land and buildings for activities that generate wealth, jobs and incomes. Economic land development land uses include: the traditional employment land uses (offices, research and development, industry and warehousing) as well as retail, leisure and public services" (paragraph 6). 3.14 The draft PPS advises that if development proposals are outside of areas designated for that type of development, "it must be demonstrated that alternative sites have been considered and rejected as not appropriate for the proposed use" (paragraph 7) but that wherever possible, the planning system should seek to promote economic development, as defined in the Planning Policy Statement, to facilitate regeneration and promote social and environmental stability. 3.15 It refers specifically to housing development, stating, "Although for planning purposes, it is not defined as economic development, it is recognised that house building and construction do play a valuable role in the economy." It then goes on in paragraph 10 to recognise that housing development can often deliver environmental and social benefits, can attract entrepreneurs who will invest in the Isle of Man economy and encourages the planning system to work with the Department of Economic Development and other Government Departments to identify opportunities for future investment to deliver economic objectives. It identifies an importance for Planning Officers, the Planning Committee and Inspectors to adopt a "positive and constructive approach" in determining planning applications for economic development, taking account of advice on the indicated economic benefits of such development alongside social and environmental issues" (paragraph 11). It advises that potential applicants should liaise with Department of Economic Development prior to submitting any planning application for development to ensure that the economic benefits associated with a proposal are clearly demonstrated and assessed, enabling adequate consideration to be given to economic matters along with social and environmental issues in the decision making process (paragraph 12). The applicant and his architect have had a number of meetings with various officers of Department of Economic Development and the Planning Office prior to submitting this application.
3.16 The draft PPS advises that "in determining applications for economic development uses, account will be taken of the likely economic benefits of the development using appropriate advice from the Department of Economic Development (based upon validation and assessment of appropriate and proportionate evidence and date which is relevant to the development). In assessing these benefits, the Department of Economic Development will look at a number of key factors (which takes appropriate account of commercial sensitivity) including: the number and types of jobs expected to be created or retained on the site after the construction phase (some consideration will also be given to those jobs created through the construction phase), whether and how far, the development will help meet economic growth opportunities, redress social disadvantage and support regeneration priorities and a consideration of the contribution to the Manx economy and local businesses". 3.17 It goes on to state that "Planning will look favourably on applications for economic development uses which may not be in accordance with the development plan, but only if based on robust evidence base (which can withstand scrutiny, testing and cross examination) and the economic benefits of the development are demonstrated to outweigh adverse impacts on the economic, social or environmental sustainability. Planning will give adequate weight to economic development issues even though these applications may not be in strict accordance with the Strategic or Area Plan. Such proposals will have to demonstrate a high quality design" (paragraph 14)
4.1 There have been three planning applications on this site which are relevant to the consideration of this current application. 4.2 PA 06/01915 proposed alterations and extensions of the main dwelling. The amount of floor space to be provided was 877 sq m . The Inspector considering that case looked both Housing Policies 14 and 15, both of which generally constrain enlargements to of the existing floor area. The Inspector felt it appropriate to consider the existing floor area calculation to include both dwellings on the site (ie 313 sq m of floor space) but concluded that an increase of over double this size was not justified as the main house which was effectively to be lost in the proposed extensions was "of traditional form and it is only the replacement of unsympathetic additions which is of benefit". He considered that the "vast scale" of the proposed replacement/enlargement - set it aside from traditional design" (paragraph 31). He concludes that the appeal proposal "fails to take sufficient, if any cognisance of the policy approach to rural building, due to its scale and failure to respect the traditional style of rural building" and goes on "As to whether there are any exceptional reasons to permit an increase of more than in the floor areas on the site, taking a flexible approach still leaves a building twice the size of that which would normally be permitted under the policies. It is claimed that the Government approach to encouraging wealthy new residents to the Island is a reason for making an exception to the policies of the SP. However, the SP is of very recent approval by Tynwald. It would be unreasonable to assume that Tynwald was not being consistent in its policy making, and thus the policy to attract wealthy new residents (if it be such) should not be seen as overriding to policies of the SP (paragraph 35)." 4.3 That application was refused for the following reasons: "In terms of size and scale, the proposed development fails to comply with the Strategic Plan policies in respect of either extension to dwellings in the countryside or replacement dwellings in the countryside", and "The design of the proposed extensions would be inconsistent with the appropriate policy guidance in the Strategic Plan and Planning Circular 3/91; the development would thus adversely affect the character and appearance of the area." 4.4 A further application was then submitted, by a different architect with a different architectural approach. PA 09/01803 proposed a replacement dwelling with a floor area of
78% larger than the existing (excluding the attic space above the garage shown as being accessible) and would have been 2m higher than the existing. That application also included the creation of a new access similar to that proposed in the current application.
4.5 The Inspector considered that "the normally accepted threshold of 50% would be significantly exceeded and I do not consider that the circumstances of the case would justify an exception to the normal requirements of Housing Policy 14" (paragraph 29).
4.6 He refers to the floorspace calculations and states, "I would agree with the Planning Authority that it is inappropriate to take account of the area of the abandoned cottage when calculating the existing residential area". He states that "Although the existing house has been extended its basic form is traditional in appearance. The same cannot be said of the outbuildings but these are low rise ancillary structures and whilst they can be seen in distant views from the east, their visual impact is small. Whilst care has been taken in the detail and materials of the proposed replacement house to reflect traditional building techniques the end result would not be a traditional Manx farmhouse but a much grander structure. Furthermore, although in time the impact may be reduced by additional planting, with the proposed siting I consider that a building of the footprint and height proposed would be more clearly seen in distant views from the east than is currently the case with the existing low rise ancillary buildings and the visual impact on the rural scene would be greater" (paragraph 28).
4.7 He comments on the proposed new access and states, "I have concerns in relation to the appearance of the proposed new vehicular access, which would involve significant works at the junction with the A3, including the removal of a length of Manx hedge. This would also impact on the rural scheme. Whilst the visibility that would be provided by the new access would be superior to the existing, the existing track to the south provides access to other properties and would remain if development was to proceed" (paragraph 30).
4.8 More recently, a planning application was submitted for the erection of a replacement dwelling. PA 13/00339 proposed a dwelling very similar to that proposed here but in a different location and with a number of other changes and was refused by the Planning Committee at its meeting of 29th May, 2013 for the following reason:
"Due to the planning history of the site and the inability to guarantee the off-site economic benefits which could result from this development as outlined by Department of Economic Development, it is concluded that the application should not be permitted as it is contrary to the provisions of Environment Policy 1, Housing Policy 14 and Environment Policy 21 through the creation of a greater visual impact than what currently exists on site and particularly through the extension of the residential curtilage into open countryside."
5.1 Malew Parish Commissioners have no objection to the application.
5.2 Manx Electricity Authority raise concerns regarding existing electricity supplies, some of which are overhead and run parallel with the road approximately 50m from the A4. Energy Policy 2 relates to the protection of high tension overhead electricity lines: "Land within 9m either side of an overhead High Tension power cable will be safeguarded from development." In this case the only development proposed within 9m of the overhead line is the creation of the access way into the site.
5.3 Department of Economic Development submit a letter of support for the application. They emphasise that they are "working hard to further the Government's strategic aim of economic growth and diversification, and resources are focused upon attracting and developing business prospects which will benefit the Island's economy" and consider that "it is vital for Government to allow new and developing existing businesses the opportunity to flourish and
display their full potential whilst also being mindful of the environmental impact of new development". 5.4 The applicant has had a series of meetings with DED in respect of his prospective business proposals and the proposal for his dwelling and equestrian facilities. They acknowledge that the applicant is Manx born and is keen to return to the Island to a property which meets his and his family's aspirations and requirements which require him to be close to the airport. They describe the applicant as an entrepreneur and has a track record of generating economic activity from his various global business interests. The Department recognises the benefit which could accrue from this development in terms of: the Exchequer benefit (VAT) for the Island from the construction cost alone including the estimated direct tax benefit (NI and ITIP) from the temporary local labour element is £ 519,719 the project fees with local professional firms are estimated at £ 884,040 from which further employment taxes will be applicable additional spend with local suppliers will also be required which is estimated at around £ 392,000 per annum. 7 full time and 1 part-time job will be created as a result of the proposed development creating an annual salary bill to the applicant of around £ 157,000 (stable hands, gardener, housekeeper and general maintenance). 5.5 They also indicate that they have reviewed the applicant's financial information and are confident that he has the resources and access the finance to be able to satisfactorily complete the proposed development. They are also aware that the applicant has significant business interests on the Island and has indicated that more of these will be conducted from the Island if and when he has become resident. He is one of the founders of a financial services company which already employs 14 people in Douglas for which the aim is to grow by a further 11-25 people by the end of the year. The Department of Economic Development is acutely aware of the need to foster opportunities such as this which offer the opportunity for growth and are often less risky ventures than brand new start up ventures. The Department would not wish to lose the opportunity for grown or see the business decline altogether should the applicant decide not to live in the Island. 5.6 They advise that the applicant has indicated his intention to set up two further business on the Island - one Corporate Service Provider to exploit new opportunities generated from some of his other existing business activities including an established group involved in providing wealth management, investment management and trust and fiduciary services to a worldwide business and individual client base. The group has a base in London and other offices worldwide and employs in these businesses over 150 people from which new opportunities are continually emerging. 3 new jobs would be required as a start for this business with the potential to grow it much further. The second business would be a worldwide recruitment business creating 4 new jobs again leveraging links and connections from his existing other business activities and has made reference to other possibilities for new businesses but these are as yet undeveloped. 5.7 They consider the application worthy of their support and consider that the proposal will generate "significant economic benefits to the Isle of Man" and hopes that the application will be supported. They acknowledge that the development will create not only a high level of Exchequer benefit from the one-off construction cost but also from the ongoing sustainable economic benefits from employment and business activity from the occupation of the new dwelling and from potential business activity associated with the applicant's various business interests.
5.8 Manx National Heritage express concern that great weight is being placed upon the support for the scheme from Department of Economic Development in terms of its economic benefit but that this evidence is not part of the application nor in the public domain until such times as the evidence is submitted. Without such evidence they consider it unlikely that an inspector would judge the merits of the case. 5.9 Highways Division require that the new access is constructed before any other work commences and must be the only access to serve the site during construction. They also require that the visibility splays of 2.4 m by 215 m are provided in both directions from the edge of the carriageway. They consider that it would be beneficial to have a slip lane incorporated to clear traffic turning in from the highway. They recommend that the width of the driveway is a minimum of 6.5 m wide not including the grass verge.
6.1 It is important to clarify that whilst the conclusions of the earliest two applications are highly relevant to the consideration of this current application, and the importance of the need to achieve consistency within the decision-making process will not be lost on the Planning Committee, particularly in this case when the site and the buildings to be demolished are the same as that which has been the subject of two previous and unsuccessful applications, there are some differences which could justify a different conclusion to those previous applications. There are also differences between the current application and the most recent in terms of both the proposed development itself and the supporting information which has been provided by the Department of Economic Development. 6.2 The application includes the provision of a large equestrian facility which has steered the applicant's decision to choose this site for his new dwelling. The earliest applications were solely for a replacement dwelling. The Strategic Plan clearly states that there is a presumption against large scale equestrian facilities in areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance and this site does not lie within such an area. If there is policy advice in support or which at least allows for large scale equestrian facilities, then there is logic in the identification of this site for the development, on the grounds that the site is not located within an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance and that there are in existence on the site dwellings which confer residential status on at least some of the site. 6.3 Secondly, this application includes Close Clark within the area of land owned and controlled by the applicant. There is now a specific proposal in this application for the blocking off of the access up the existing lane to the A3 and the previous Inspector's concerns that the existing substandard access would continue to be used by other properties, would not be applicable as the replacement for Close Clark and the application dwellings could have only the new access as a means of getting into the site, leaving the lane access used only by the user of the adjacent fields to the lane - largely agricultural and equestrian uses. 6.4 Whilst the Circular on Planning and the Economy is not yet formally adopted, it is nevertheless a statement of Departmental intention and was not available when the earliest two applications were considered. The application is supported by DED with a clear connection to Government's Strategic objectives and with a number of direct financial benefits to the Island. The proposal is a development which could create employment, unlike the earlier applications which were purely for housing, in the form of positions for stable hands, housekeepers, landscape gardeners and general maintenance (around 7 posts). Department of Economic Development also refer to the development securing the potential for the expansion of local businesses and creation of new ones with the resultant benefits accruing to the Island. 6.5 On the counter side, the dwelling is significantly larger than the dwellings which are to be replaced and larger again than those dwellings which were previously refused, the Inspectors
making consistent comment on the increased size and the resultant impact on the landscape. An approval to a dwelling of the size indicated in the plans, along with the proposed equestrian building would therefore be at odds with those previous conclusions as the buildings are greater in size and scale and are positioned more prominently in the landscape than is Springwaters, although the current application removes both the existing unattractive buildings and places the new dwelling further back into the trees and will result in the removal of Close Clark and its outbuildings which are not unattractive, but which add to the scattering of individual buildings in the landscape as viewed from the St. Mark's direction. It is relevant however that the drawings indicate that the majority of the buildings will be finished in stone which will considerably reduce their impact compared with that of the previously proposed dwellings which were to be finished in render. 6.6 Also, the proposal for the access will result in a similar impact to that which was proposed in the most recent previous application. The applicant stresses however that the position of the existing hedge means that the provision of the visibility splays will involve minimal change to the existing hedges, simply building out at the back of parts of the existing hedge and the cutting back of the front, resulting in what the applicant considers will be minimal visual change from the front. 6.7 The benefits of the development all hinge upon the applicant being the person to implement the approval. It is an established tenet of planning that permission for development runs with the land not the applicant and that only in special circumstances should planning permission be granted subject to a personal implementation. Even if a condition were attached to the permission, requiring that the first occupation of the property and use of the buildings were by the applicant in this case, it would not be possible to require that he live there in perpetuity. 6.8 Similarly, whilst there are to be monetary benefits accruing directly to the Manx Treasury from the development as highlighted above, and whilst the applicant, through the Department of Economic Development have provided more details of the further expansion of local businesses and the new business developing from the applicant being based upon the Island, it would not be possible to require by any planning condition or legal agreement that that expansion or new businesses were effected. However, what is certain is that if the applicant cannot establish a large dwelling of the size shown in the application, and the associated garaging and equestrian facilities then this investment is very unlikely to happen and the Department of Economic Development is aware of this potential lost opportunity for the Island. 6.9 An important consideration which should not be overlooked is the actual impact of the proposal. The development will change what is currently the curtilage and land alongside an existing dwelling and outbuildings which are not all of particular merit but which are small in scale and impact and where the main house cannot be easily seen from further afield, none of the buildings can be seen from the A3, to a large house with large equestrian building alongside with a new access which is visible from the A3 and which allows a passer-by to be aware that there is development beyond the existing conifer screen. The Planning Committee has considered other applications for developments in the countryside which would change the character of existing sites. In the case of Ballamona Farm, Quine's Hill, Braddan, a series of applications resulted in a former farm being transformed into a business and equestrian facility with very large dwelling (PAs 12/01245, 12/01067, 12/01285 and 12/01069) ). In that case the large dwelling would not be seen by the public and the large equestrian facility was to be set within a low point within the site, visible from the A25 Old Castletown Road but not such that the Planning Committee felt that it would be detrimental to public amenities or the character of the countryside. Ballaveare was the subject of an application for a replacement dwelling which an Inspector considered was not appropriate to the context of the site and was refused for this reason (PA 11/01551)). A proposal for the replacement of an existing
dwelling at Ballacomish in Ballabeg was approved which created a much more formal and grander dwelling within more extensively landscaped grounds (PA 10/00807). In that case, the dwelling is no more prominent or visible than the existing (arguably less so) but it was considered that the existing dwelling was of poor form and the proposed replacement (which was larger than the existing with approved extensions) was considered to be an environmental improvement. It is clear then that replacement dwellings which are greater than larger than the dwelling which is being replaced can be considered acceptable if the environmental impact is considered acceptable. 6.10 However, it is clear from the previous application for smaller dwellings that Inspectors have not considered that a greater than larger replacement dwelling was acceptable. The proposal does differ in that the proposed buildings would be finished in stone which would reduce their visual impact in the landscape however, as is clear from the photomontages, it will be clear from people looking in the direction of the site from the B35 Ballasalla Road and the B30 Bayrauyr that there are buildings there which are significantly larger than what existed previously. The applicant has done as much as possible to reduce that impact in terms of finish materials and massing of buildings. 6.11 It is also clear from a site visit that the site is much larger than one may expect to accommodate a property of the scale and character of Springwaters and what may be appropriate to ask is not just whether what is proposed on the site is more visible than the existing but whether it is more appropriate or whether it is acceptable in the landscape. Whilst there is little evidence of recent maintenance, the grounds associated with Springwaters are more extensive than would normally be associated with a modest traditional cottage and if there are to be large houses in their own grounds, then it could be argued that this site has many merits - an established large curtilage with a backdrop of tall evergreens which will completely screen any new development from the A3 and the proposal will bring about a safer access for two existing dwellings and potentially a greater amount of traffic associated with the equestrian facilities. It is unlikely that the land associated with the residential curtilage would ever be productive farmland and grazing for horses is perhaps the most appropriate use for it. 6.11 The Planning and the Economy Circular is a material consideration and it is helpful that the applicant has indicated that they have considered alternative sites which may comply more closely with Housing Policy 14, none of which are either suitable or available and has highlighted the reasons for choosing this site. The site is infinitely more preferable for this form of development than a site with no buildings on it all and it is also relevant that some of the buildings to be replaced are of poor form and these are the ones which are visible from the B30 and B35. It is relevant though that some of the economic benefits highlighted by the DED cannot be guaranteed by this approval. It is also probably relevant that without the planning approval, the benefits are highly unlikely to transpire. 6.12 This assessment is very complex and highlights the difficulty in weighing policies against economic benefit. What makes this more difficult still is the fact that there is a planning history on this site which indicates that a larger replacement dwelling and new access are considered harmful to the environment and contrary to Housing Policy 14 and as such much of the consideration in favour of this application is the circumstances surrounding the applicant, rather than the development itself. 6.13 It is sometimes helpful in cases such as this to consider whether the site would be considered appropriate for a Low Density Housing in Parkland (LDHP)designation. In considering this in the Southern Area Plan the Department considered the context of which sites did appear appropriate for this type of development and concluded that there are sites which either have a dwelling of considerable size or standing, or formal or extensive grounds or both, whose character is not of a modest dwelling in the countryside but one of a large
house in its own grounds, and for which the application of Planning Circular 8/89 is a more appropriate policy than Housing Policies 14, 15 and 16. The fundamental difference between the policies is that PC 8/89 requires dwellings to be substantial and set within grounds of at least one acre whereas Housing Policies 14, 15 and 16 seek to control and reduce the impact of development, not least of all by the size of the property. In the Southern Area Plan exercise this site was not identified as one to be designated as LDHP. It is likely that this is because the access is shared and of limited width and status, the area in which the existing buildings are located is limited in area and the surrounding grounds whilst partly formalised by planting and lawns, do not have the extensive landscaped quality which would more normally be associated with a LDHP site. However, this is likely to be created if a new access were to be created and what is effectively the back garden of Springwaters became the principal landscaped entrance to the new dwelling. It is important to understand that large houses in their own grounds are part of the Manx countryside and have been for a considerable time (Great Meadow, Billown Mansion House, the Nunnery) and that specific provision for them is made in the planning policy system, subject to the comments above made in respect of the Southern Area Plan.
7.1 The recommendation in this case is very finely balanced. The adopted policy position is clear: the site is not suitable for a dwelling which is greater than larger than the existing dwelling and only some of the buildings on site may be taken into account in the calculation of the additional floor space. By relocating the new buildings and increasing their size they would be more prominent in the landscape none of which can be said to comply with HP14. The introduction of a new access onto the A3 will, as the previous Inspector commented, "involve significant works at the junction with the A3, including the removal of a length of Manx hedge. This would also impact on the rural scheme." 7.2 However, the guidance Planning and the Economy provides an exception to planning policies where it can be demonstrated that there is sufficient economic benefit from the development to justify non accordance with the planning policies if there is a departure from established policy. There is no formula for calculating when such exceptions are justified and, as is the case here, some of the benefits are not guaranteed and there is no way of tying the approval for larger dwellings to the expansion or start up of businesses. What is likely is that without the approval these potential benefits are less likely to happen and if the development is permitted, regardless of any other off site developments or investments, there will be employment opportunities created as outlined by the applicant in the proposal. 7.3 The applicant has gone to significant lengths to reduce the impact of the proposal and it is not suggested that there are any other ways in which a dwelling and equestrian development of the size desired could be accommodated in full compliance with the policy, although it might be possible to re-site the proposed dwelling such that it is less visible from the A30/A35 although there would be less impressive views from the dwelling and increased tree loss would be likely and the proposal would still be contrary to HP 14. It should be noted that it is the dwelling which falls further outside policy than the equestrian development, for which there is some policy support, albeit it will be visible by the public with a resultant increased visual impact over and above what currently exists. It is not accepted that the site should be developed as it complies with the policies guiding the development of previously-developed land as there would be an increased impact from the proposal and it is not demonstrated that the existing buildings are redundant for their original purposes: the proposal involves a different version of the existing use. 7.4 Due to the additional information provided by the Department of Economic Development since the previous application, and the modifications which the applicant has made to the proposal, such that the proposed dwelling and its curtilage no longer encroaches into land outwith the residential curtilage of Springwaters and that the proposal involves the
replacement of Close Clark and its outbuildings, it is considered that the Committee could consider that the visual impact of the equestrian building is no greater than that which will result from the development approved at Ballamona, and that the economic benefits which could accrue from the proposal are sufficient to set aside HP14 and the planning history of the site in respect of the replacement dwelling and that the overall visual impact from the proposed new dwelling is acceptable in the landscape, bearing in mind its design and finish and the character of the site.
8.1 The local authority, Malew Parish Commissioners are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status. 8.2 The Department of Economic Development and Manx National Heritage raise material planning considerations and should be afforded interested party status in this case. 8.3 The Manx Electricity Authority raises material planning considerations and should be afforded party status in this case. 8.4 The Highway Authority is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the Planning Authority is part. As such, the Highway Authority cannot be afforded party status in this case.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of 02.09.2013
Recommendation:
C 1. Approval of the details of siting, design, external appearance of the building, internal layout, means of access, landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.
C 2. The application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Planning Authority before the expiration of two years from the date of this permission.
C 3.
The development to which this permission relates shall begin within 4 years of the date of this permission or within two years of the final approval of the reserved matters, whichever is the later.
C 4. Notwithstanding condition 1 above, the elevations of the proposed buildings which face east must be finished in stone, as shown in the submitted drawings.
C 5. This approval relates to the principle of the demolition of the buildings on site and their replacement by a new dwelling, staff accommodation and equestrian facilities, and associated garaging, landscaping and new access all as shown in drawings SC1197-P-10-01, 02A, SC1197-P-12-01A, SC1197-P-10-02, SC1197-P-10-03B, SC1197-P-10-04, SC1197-P-10-05, SC1197-P-10-06 all received on 31st July, 2013.
C 6. The application for the reserved matters must include provision for the blocking off of the access from the site including Close Clark such that all access from the site is through the new access proposed as part of this application onto the A3.
C 7. The development hereby approved may be taken up only by the applicant, Mr. Quirk and the first occupation of the house and equestrian facilities hereby approved must be by the applicant described above together with any dependants thereof.
C 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012, no garage, shed, greenhouse, polytunnel, car port, flagpole or extension to the dwelling may be undertaken without written permission from the planning authority in the form of a planning approval.
C 9. Prior to the commencement of any other works on site, the new access, complete with visibility splays of 2.4 m by 215 m in each direction must be formed and available for use and the existing access from the site to the lane alongside Close Clark must be closed off to vehicular traffic. All construction traffic and occupants and users of the site must thereafter only use the proposed new access as a means of entering and exiting the site.
C 10. The equestrian facilities hereby approved may be used only as private facilities incidental to the occupation of the main dwelling, and may not be used by the public or for commercial purposes.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
