Loading document...
1701205
Land at Arragon House Santon Isle of Man IM4 1HH
Allen & Marilyn Lloyd
This new Proposal originates from the refusal and dismissal on appeal of Application No. 16/00258/B which was for a similar but far larger scheme than is now proposed.
In introducing this new proposal the Applicant wishes to demonstrate how it differs from the previous scheme and how the issues that the Inspector cited as his reasons for dismissing the appeal have been overcome or were indeed an error of judgement by the Inspector.
The Applicant requests that this statement is presented to the Planning Committee as part of the application.
As above, the proposal is for the erection of a building containing two staff dwellings and office accommodation.
This proposal differs considerably from Application No. 16/00258/B in a number of ways.
Perhaps the most significant change is the reduction in the footprint and associated massing of the building proposed which has been reduced by almost thirty percent. As part of that reduction, the staff accommodation element has been reduced from three units in the previous to two units in the new proposal.
The proposal also differs from the previous scheme in that it is fully supported in detail from the outset by the Department of Economic Development, the Applicant having repeated its earlier demonstration of the economic benefits of the proposal in robust qualitative and quantitative form. This evidence has been subject to the most rigorous scrutiny as to the Applicants need for the proposal, the necessity of its location and the economic benefit generated by the proposal.
In opening his assessment of the previous application the Inspector stated that he considered the main issues to be as follows:
i. the principle of the development in the light of planning policy and guidance, ii. the effect of the proposed development on the appearance and character of the surrounding area, iii. the effect the development would have on the amenity of neighbouring residential properties and a nearby public footpath with respect to dominance, overshadowing, privacy, disturbance and the provision of car parking, iv. the needs of the business associated with Arragon House and evidence of importance to the economy of the Isle of Man, and v. in the overall planning balance, whether any harm due to the development would be outweighed by the benefits, also taking into account other permissions previously granted.
The Inspector then went on to answer those issues as follows:
The development site was identified as being, together with the associated group of buildings, within a designated Area of High Landscape Value. The Inspector went on to say that the site was surrounded on three sides by built development which, in the Applicants view, quite contradicts any reasonable conclusion that it could purport to be located within the countryside or an AHLV. Nevertheless the Inspector considered that it was and was thus subject to the restraining provisions of amongst others General Policy 3 which resist development in such locations.
However, the Inspector went on to say that the application was considered with reference to the Planning Policy Statement 'Planning \& the Economy' which carries the force of Government Policy.
He further went on to say that the development proposed in the appeal would be acceptable if, in terms of the Planning Policy Statement its economic benefits are judged, on robust evidence, to outweigh any planning harm or conflict with the Strategic Plan.
This new proposal, as with the original, does indeed demonstrate very significant economic benefits that have been judged on robust evidence. Whilst the Applicant does not agree that the proposed development would cause any harm to an AHLV, if it is considered that it did, then this must certainly be outweighed by the evidenced benefits.
The Inspector agreed that the design of the previous proposal was sympathetic in its general form and finish to the surrounding buildings but that the proposal was excessively dominant.
The new proposal is, as outlined previously, around thirty percent smaller which is not excessively dominant when compared against the surrounding buildings.
The Inspector stated that the proposal, even in its then 'excessively dominant' form, was of sufficient distance from its neighbours so as to avoid direct impact in terms of privacy or disturbance and he was not persuaded that the level of increased vehicle activity would pose any overriding risk to pedestrians.
His conclusion was that the effect of the development on local amenity would be neutral.
The Inspector opens this issue by clearly stating that there is no dispute that the business of the Applicant is of economic benefit to the economy of the Island and that such benefit must, as a matter of ministerial policy and promulgated by the PPS, be accorded due weight against any planning harm.
He also states that it is important to accord due weight to the general support for the appeal expressed by DED.
He goes on to state that the prospect that the Applicant might relocate away from the Isle of Man in order to pursue their business interests is to be avoided.
All that said, the Inspector then quite remarkably states that the written support from DED is unsupported, and lacking robust quantitative and qualitative evidence.
That was not the case. The support that was given by DED required no further scrutiny or examination by either the Planning authority or an Independent Inspector. It is that which it is and its carries the force of Government Policy. The Inspector considered that the brevity and lateness of the DED support (the support letter did not arrive until the application was in the appeal process) somehow weakened the support and confirmed his view that the support was unsubstantiated although no proof or explanation was given to justify that view.
The Inspector failed to give the full weight and due consideration that should have been given to the written support of a Government Department.
From that point (56) of his report the Inspector concluded that the appeal should be dismissed.
It was only in later points, and after his decision has been made that the Inspector fleetingly discusses and dismisses previous permissions quoted by the Applicants case that are indeed relevant to the subject appeal.
The most relevant comparable appeal at the time was that of 15/01186/B Cooil Road Braddan Jacksons (CI) Limited.
This appeal was outlined in the Applicants case. The Inspector wrote only a two line reference to this appeal stating that, in that case, there was judged to be evidence available of overriding national need and economic benefit.
Whether the creation of the many permanent construction jobs that would have arisen from the Applicants proposal could be described as 'overriding national need' remains to be explored but there certainly was a significant economic benefit in the Applicants proposal, the Inspector acknowledged that under (iv) above
Had the Inspector drawn further discerning comparison between the Applicants case and the Cooil Road permission he would have noted other important points in the appeal document, for example, at points 125,126 \& 129 where that Inspector notes that AHLV's are blanket designations and in the case of Cooil Road he 'did not consider the impact of the proposed development on the countryside would be so great as to justify the refusal of planning approval' and that 'judgment should be applied to the quality of the landscape proposed for development'.
The Inspector failed to discern that the actual quality of the landscape in the Applicants proposal was similar in context and setting to that in the Cooil Road case and preferred instead to rely on the over simplicity of blanket designation without the wisdom of further scrutiny.
Similarly, the Inspector would have been wise to look at a second comparable permission granted 14/00687/A at Kella Sheear, Sulby in a more discerning manner. He actually cites the comments in that case reiterating that the Inspector found that the proposed dwelling was surrounded on all sides by other buildings (a very close if not exact parallel to the Applicants proposal which is surrounded on three sides), and that consequently the proposed dwelling was not to be regarded as being in the open countryside and in that specific case material considerations outweighed policy matters.
It is astounding that the Inspector should quote all that without attempting to discern the reason and rationale for those findings and, having failed to do so, to then fail further by not applying similar logic to this proposal.
The final comparable permission at Meary Voar needs little comment except to say that the Council of Ministers disregarded all advices from the Inspector and approved this application on the grounds that the economic benefits for the Isle of Man were of sufficient extent to outweigh the negative visual impact of he proposed building on the surrounding countryside.
Yet again, and quite inexplicably, the Inspector could find no parallel with the Applicants proposal.
Having provided the robust evidence of the need for the proposal, its required location and having DED support, the refusal on appeal was unforeseen and starkly disappointing.
On receipt of the appeal decision the Applicant was left to take an important strategic decision as to whether to continue to invest in the built environment of the Isle of Man Economy.
On the one hand there is the option to place the liquidated proceeds from the disposal of UK assets in some other Jurisdiction with no further investment in the Isle of Man.
The other would be to approach the process again with a revised scheme and renewed support from DED
The Applicant remains committed to investing in the economy of the Isle of Man and consequently has prepared this revised scheme and sought renewed DED support based upon the robust evidence provided, support which accompanies this application.
However, it must be said in the clearest of terms that stated Government Policy must be correctly applied to this application. Further failure to gain approval would leave the Applicant with no alternative than to fully invest the circa $£ 100 \mathrm{M}$ realisation from its UK asset disposal elsewhere.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown