Loading document...
agricultural buildings. The increase in size can be seen by comparing the main ridge height of the existing building relative to the existing dwelling against the height of the proposed building relative to the existing dwelling. The South Elevation (showing main house) shown on drawing no. P/2/005 rev. B can be used for such comparison exercise as this effectively shows a view that is publicly visible from both of the two public rights of way. Whilst perhaps not a general public viewpoint it is also notable that the existing development is visible to air passengers as the application site is located close to Ronaldsway Airport and passed at relatively low altitude on established takeoff and landing flight paths. To some degree the application site and adjoining large detached dwellings and ancillary buildings set in substantial landscaped grounds provide some of the first impressions or some of the last memories of the Island for air travellers. 41. In the last ten years the scale and amount of development within the application site has steadily increased. Based on an examination of the relevant planning application report it is understood that the replacement dwelling approved, and subsequently built, under previous planning application 05/01851/B resulted in an increase in footprint from 204 square metres to 426 square metres (109%). It is reasonable to conclude that the construction of the new dwelling is significantly larger than the one it replaced and with the subsequent loss of natural screening that can be seen by comparison of aerial photography this can only have had a greater visual impact than the previous situation. Furthermore, under this previous planning approval there is also extant approval to extend the existing outbuilding, which potentially increases the level of development within the application site. There also appears to be extant planning approval for the erection of significant agricultural buildings on the land directly adjacent to the application site, which would also increase the overall level of development. The impact of those previous planning applications may have been concluded to be acceptable at their respective times the publication of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 since then has strengthened planning policies that seek to protect the country and areas of high landscape or coastal value and scenic significance from potentially harmful development. In the context of both the adjoining buildings already in place plus those which already benefit from planning approval, the question is whether the proposed replacement building will have a detrimental visual impact. 42. Taking account of the above it would appear that the impact of the proposed development on the rural amenity of the landscape is acceptable as the proposed building is of a size and scale that would, or should, be reasonably expected as part of what is undeniably a private estate containing a large, high quality dwelling. Furthermore, if the principle of a larger replacement building is accepted it could also be said that the visual impact of a larger building is to some degree mitigated by the existence and existing visual impact of the two large agricultural barns that are located east of the application site. The Planning Committee may consider that it can accept such an argument and approve the planning application on the basis of it being worthy of setting aside, or at least attributing less weight, to those planning policies that are against it. 43. It is also notable that General Policy 3 includes provision allowing development outside of areas zoned for development where it is recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative. Bearing that in mind it is necessary to note that since the submission of the planning application the Minister for Infrastructure (Hon. David Cretney MHK) made a Budget Day speech (21st February 2012) regarding the role of planning within the economy and the consideration that should be given to the economic benefits of proposals to the Island, with this speech coinciding with the publication of a draft Planning Policy Statement on Planning and the Economy. As part of his speech the Minister for Infrastructure (Hon. David Cretney MHK) stated that he expected Government Departments, Planning Officers, the Planning Committee and Planning Appeal Inspectors to take account of the contents of his speech and this draft Planning Policy Statement with immediate effect when determining planning applications and appeals. The actual level of weight to be attributed to the draft Planning Policy Statement is limited by virtue of the document being a draft with the consultation response still being considered, no resolution at Department level being yet made and discussion at Tynwald yet to occur. Nevertheless, in line with Section 10 (4) (d) of the Town & Country Planning Act, it is still appropriate to take some account of its contents as it generally clarifies how an existing material planning consideration (economic benefit) should be assessed and considered. 44. In terms of considering the proposed development, in the context of the Minister for Infrastructure's Budget Day Speech and the provisions the draft Planning Policy Statement on Planning and the Economy it can be seen that the Department of Economic Development have discussed the proposal directly with the applicant. Following this discussion they have confirmed their support for the proposal on the basis of economic benefit. The exact terms of this support from the Department of Economic Development is set out within the letter from the Minister for Economic Development (Hon. John Shimmin MHK) received on the 2nd May 2012, the main points of this letter are stated earlier within the representations section of this report. 45. In line with Minister for Infrastructure's (Hon. David Cretney MHK) Budget Day speech it is appropriate to consider this response against content of his speech and the provisions of the draft Planning Policy Statement on Planning and the Economy. To do so, the following parts of the draft Planning Policy Statement are specifically pertinent to consider. Firstly, paragraph 6 defines economic development and states "For planning purposes the Isle of Man Government defines economic development as the development of land and buildings for activities that generate wealth, jobs and incomes. Economic development land uses include: the traditional employment land uses (offices, research and development, industry and warehousing), as well as retail, leisure, and public services." The question has to be asked whether the development proposed by the planning application actually fits in with this definition. This point is clarified by paragraph 9 stating that "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." Given that the proposal is more closely linked to house building and construction it is apparent that the draft Planning Policy Statement on Planning and the Economy specifically excludes such development from the definition of economic development. 46. In terms of specific assessment of proposals it is appropriate to specifically consider paragraphs 10, 13 and 14 of the draft Planning Policy Statement on Planning and the Economy. Paragraph 10 states that "In so doing, the planning system will aim to: i. Recognise that economic development can often deliver environmental and social benefits; ii. Recognise the wider benefits of economic development and consider these alongside any adverse impacts; iii. Recognise that one of the benefits of economic development will that it may attract entrepreneurs who will invest in the Isle of Man economy. iv. Through the Development Plan ensure that suitable locations are available for industrial, commercial, retail, housing, public sector (e.g. health and education) tourism and leisure developments, so that the economy can prosper; v. Provide opportunities for land and premises to enable for improved productivity, choice and competition, particularly when technological and other requirements of modern business are changing rapidly; vi. Recognise that the economy will always be subject to change; therefore planning will need to be sensitive to these changes and the implications for development and growth; vii. Work with developers and Government Departments to ensure that infrastructure and services are provided to support new and existing economic development; viii. Work with the Department of Economic Development and other Government Departments to identify opportunities for future investment to deliver economic objectives; ix. Ensure that economic and employment growth supports regeneration, social and environmental sustainability. x. Continue to apply the retail planning policy as set out in the Strategic Plan Business Policies 5, 9 and 10." It is appropriate for the decision make to consider whether the proposed development, and the support from the Minister for Economic Development (Hon. John Shimmin MHK), meets any of these ten stated aims. If so, it is then necessary to consider how much weight should be given to these in the overall consideration of the proposal. 47. Paragraph 13 states "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 on validation and assessment of appropriate and proportionate evidence and data which is relevant to the development). In assessing these benefits, the Department of Economic Development will look at a number of key factors (which take appropriate account of commercial sensitivity) including: - The numbers 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. - A consideration of the contribution to the Manx economy and local businesses." It is appropriate for the Planning Committee to consider how the proposed development does or does not accord with these stated benefits. It is suggested that it is necessary to specifically consider the representation from the Minister for Economic Development (Hon. John Shimmin MHK) in this regard. 48. Paragraph 14 states "When determining economic development proposals, the Strategic Plan and Area Plans should not be considered in isolation of other relevant material factors so as to deter economic development. 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 a 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 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." It is appropriate for the Planning Committee to consider what weight to attribute to the potential economic benefits of the proposed development against this guidance from the draft Planning Policy Statement on Planning and the Economy. 49. Taking account of the guidance provided by the Minister for Infrastructure's Budget Day Speech and paragraphs 10, 13 and 14 of the draft Planning Policy Statement on Planning & the Economy, it is appropriate for the Planning Committee to decide whether the economic benefits of the proposed development constitute a material consideration which carries sufficient weight to set aside the proposed development being contrary to the provisions of Strategic Plan General Policy 3 that is outlined earlier in this assessment section of the report. As part of that consideration it is appropriate to take account of the case put forward by the applicant and be conscious of the detailed support from the Minister for Economic Development (Hon. John Shimmin MHK). CONCLUSION 50. The assessment of this planning application is finely balanced between different material considerations. 51. On one hand, in straightforward planning terms the proposed development is contrary to established planning policy the seeks to protect the countryside from harmful development by presuming against development outside of areas zoned for development. 52. However on the other hand notwithstanding this presumption against development, it could be argued that the impact of a larger building than the existing one is mitigated by the existence and impact of existing surrounding built development. 53. Furthermore, a case has been advanced that the proposed development is of significant economic benefit to the Isle of Man. In making its decision Planning Committee is reminded that Provision does exist within legislation and within existing planning policy to allow exceptions to the relevant planning policies where there is overriding national need or the location of the development is essential. The need to give appropriate consideration to the economic benefits of proposed developments has been recently emphasised by the Minister for Infrastructure (Hon. David Cretney MHK) in his Budget Day Speech to Tynwald and the issuing of a draft Planning Policy Statement on Planning and the Economy. ### Recommendation 54. It is recommended that the planning application be approved on the basis of the reasons outlined within the assessment. ### Party Status 55. It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should be afforded interested party status: The Minister for Economic Development (Hon. John Shimmin MHK). 56. It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should not be afforded interested party status: Mr Graham Cregeen MHK; and The Manx Electricity Authority.
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
| Recommendation | |
|---|---|
| Recommended Decision: | Permitted |
| Date of Recommendation: | 26.06.2012 |
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2. This permission relates to the erection of a replacement building to provide ancillary office space, storages areas, guest accommodation, gymnasium and swimming pool as shown in drawing numbers WL/11/1224/1, P/2/002, rev A, P/2/003, rev B, P/2/004 rev B, P/2/005 rev B, P/2/006 rev C, P/2/007 rev A, P/2/008 rev B, and P/2/010 rev A all received on 13th December 2011.
C 3. The development hereby permitted may only be used in association with and ancillary to the adjacent dwelling Meary Voar as guest accommodation and a swimming pool and as an office.
C 4. All external finishes and window details must be applied as described in drawing reference P/2/004 rev B and not altered unless otherwise authorised by the Planning Authority.
C 5. In so far as is practicable, the stone from the demolished outbuilding shall be re-used for the development hereby permitted.
C 6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no extensions, greenhouses, walls, gates, fences, garden sheds, summerhouses, flag poles, decking, garages, or tanks for the storage of oil for domestic heating shall be erected at Meary Voar (other than those expressly authorised by this approval).
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
Decision Made: APPROVED Committee Meeting Date: 23.7.12
Signed: Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown