Dept Decision

Chief Secretary'S Office

Oik yn Ard-Scrudeyr

Planning Appeals Office

Government Office DOUGLAS Isle of Man, IM1 3PN Direct Line: (01624) 685280 Fax Number: (01624) 685710 E-mail: [email protected]

CHIEF SECRETARY M Williams, CPFA

Our Reference: L16NEW/DF10/0003

14th July 2010

Secretary Planning Committee Department Of Local Government, Enviironment Murray House Douglas

Dear Sir/Madam,

Town And Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005

Application: DF10/0003 10/00126/B

Applicant: Estates And Housing Directorate

Proposal: Erection of four bungalows with associated parking, access footpaths and infrastructure landscaping, Land Adjacent To St Patrick's View Bretney Estate Jurby Isle Of Man

In accordance with paragraph 10 of the above Order, the person appointed by the Government in Council to consider the application has submitted his report.

After consideration, the Council of Ministers has accepted the recommendations contained in that report and the application is approved subject to the conditions attached to the report.

In accordance with paragraphs 10.3(a) and (b), a copy of the appointed person's report is enclosed.

Yours faithfully,

A Johnstone

Planning Appeals Administrator Encl.

RECEIVED 04

15 JUL 2010

REPARTMENT OF ASSOCIATION

The Council of Ministers

Government House

Your Excellencies, Planning Application: 10/00126/B Applicant: The Department of Infrastructure Estates and Housing Directorate (previously a division of the Department of Local Government and the Environment)

Application: Erection of four bungalows with associated parking, access footpaths and infrastructure landscaping adjacent to St. Patrick's View, Bretney Estate, Jurby

1. I have the honour to report that I have examined the proposals, set out above, under the provisions of Article 10 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005. I inspected the site on 10th May 2010 and held an inquiry on 13th May 2010.

The site and surroundings

1. The site is comprised of open land to the south of the government owned Bretney housing estate. It forms part of a large swathe of cleared ground formerly occupied by the Jurby army camp. Southeast of the former camp is the Jurby primary school and the Threshold housing estate and to the north, the Bretney housing estate. Immediately to the north of the site there is a terrace of three elderly persons' bungalows accessed from Bretney Close. To the northwest is a small self-contained development of private housing at St. Patrick's View. To the east there is a play area and cricket pitch and beyond this there is farmland. Currently two open-ended culs-de-sac, St. Patrick's View and Bretney Close, connect the site via the adjacent housing areas to the B3 Bretney Road. A footpath leads from the site through the former camp to the A14 and connects with Jurby primary school, the village shop / post office and planned community facilities on the former site of the Jurby Hotel. Jurby Industrial Estate and the Isle of Man Prison occupy large areas of the Jurby airfield south of the A14. Apart from grass and gorse there is little vegetation on the site and the wider area is largely devoid of trees and hedgerows.

The recent planning history and the proposed development

1. Circa 2002 approval was granted for the erection of the three elderly person's bungalows adjoining the northern boundary of the site together with the erection of eight other dwellings and the layout of five building plots that subsequently were developed as St. Patrick's View (PA02/00585/B and PA02/00585/B). More recently, several applications have been approved for dwellings on building plots at St. Patrick's View.
2. The most significant application of particular relevance to the current proposal is PA08/02216/B. This DoLGE application was referred to an independent inspector under Article 10(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005. This process culminated in a decision by the Council of Ministers in April 2009 to refuse permission for a scheme for four elderly persons' bungalows on the application site.
3. The current proposal only differs from PA08/02216/B in minor elevational and landscaping details. It is proposed to erect four 2-bedroom elderly persons' bungalows in the form of two pairs of semi-detached properties. Each bungalow would have a width of 8.9 metres, a depth of 9.3 metres and a ridge height of 6.1 metres. Each would have a front and rear garden. The façades would face south affording an open aspect over the former Jurby camp. Ten car-parking spaces are to be provided in a courtyard accessed via the cul-de-sac connecting to Bretney Close. The parking courtyard and an area of landscaped open space with a timber pergola are proposed in the space between the proposed dwellings and the three elderly persons' dwellings to the north. A further six spaces are provided nearer to the junction with the estate road.
4. The application is accompanied by a Planning Application Statement submitted by Estates and Housing Directorate that provides a detailed account of the background to the proposed development, including its emergence in a succession of master plans for the former camp area prepared in consultation with residents on the foot of the Business Case and Initial Development Master Plan approved by loM Treasury in September 2006. The statement makes the point that the four bungalows can be developed independently of the rest of the housing proposed in the master plan and responds in detail to the independent inspector's concerns that led him to recommend that application PA08/02216/B should be refused. The view is expressed that it would be unreasonable to have to wait for the emergence of the new Area Plan for the North, the commencement date for the preparation of which has yet to be published. The Planning Application Statement concludes with a request for a hearing to enable the Department to present its case directly to the appointed person. A Housing Needs Statement is appended to the Statement.

Reports on file

1. Department of Infrastructure (Planning and Building Control Directorate):

• The site lies within an area zoned as Airfield under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982 (the Development Plan 1982).
• Regeneration planning for Jurby village has evolved since the 1990s. The North Western Sector of the Island Strategic Plan (Planning Circular 11/91) identified the need for a study in depth (policy NW/RES/P6). A study was undertaken in 1996 as part of the preparation of a local plan for the area but the plan was not adopted. In 2002 the Council of Ministers instructed DoLGE to progress a study of Jurby aimed at the regeneration of the area. The Jurby Study published in 2003 included a vision for creating a village with a centre and co-ordinated facilities. A master plan showed 200-300 houses and a pub and a shop on the site of the former army camp.
• In the Strategic Plan 2007 Jurby is identified as a Service Village (Spatial Policy 3) and as a Major Employment Area and Regeneration Area (see key diagram on page 27). Environment Policy 43 supports 'proposals that seek to regenerate run-down urban and rural areas' adding that 'such proposals will normally be set in the context of regeneration strategies identified in the associated Area Plans.' The Spatial Vision section of the Plan includes 'regeneration of Jurby in line with the Jurby Study'.
• The site is not currently zoned for residential use but is in a sustainable location given the proximity to shops, school, local employment and public transport links.
• The bungalows will provide suitable accommodation for elderly persons currently living in the Bretney estate thereby releasing family housing for reallocation to families.
• The report seeks to address the concerns of the independent inspector who recommended that application PA08/02216/B should be refused.
• Whilst the previous inspector considered the design of the dwellings uninspiring the proposal is an improvement compared to the existing properties in the Bretney estate. Further improvements have been incorporated in the latest proposals. The proposed layout and landscaping will provide quality housing, a pleasant outlook and external amenity space designed to foster a sense of community.
• The ten parking spaces comply with the Strategic Plan.
• The proposal would not adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbouring properties. The elderly occupants of the three existing bungalows would benefit from the amenity space.
• The proposal accords with the general residential nature of the surrounding area and should be approved. Standard conditions should be attached restricting the life of the permission to four years, specifying the approved plans, requiring the submission of samples of the proposed roof tiles and full details of the hard and soft landscaping works with an implementation clause.

1. Department of Infrastructure (Highways Division): No objection.
2. Department of Infrastructure (Drainage Division): No objection.
3. Manx Electricity Authority: No comment.
4. Jurby Parish Commissioners indicate that they do not object.
5. There are no other reported representations.

Inspector's Report of the Inquiry held on 13th May 2010

1. As it involved representations from one party only, the case did not lend itself to the normal loM inquiry format and I indicated in writing to the Department on 10th May that the inquiry would be conducted as an informal hearing. The hearing took the form of a structured discussion under my chairmanship. Mr J Payne, Project Architect, Estates and Housing Directorate and Mr C Balmer, Planning Officer, Planning and Building Control Directorate, represented the Department at the inquiry.
2. The main points that emerged during the hearing are as follows:

(i) There have been no changes in planning policy since the Ministers' decision to refuse application PA08/02216/B. The Department acknowledges that it failed to provide "enough ammunition" to the inspector to support a recommendation of approval. (ii) Since the decision:

• In July 2009 Tynwald approved a sewerage plan for the north of the Island that includes a replacement sewage treatment works and outfall at Jurby. This will designed for a population of 900 in 2033, an increase of 411 occupants from the current 489.
• In December 2009 an amended Jurby Master Plan, which no longer requires the major involvement of a private developer, was discussed with officers of the Planning and Building Control Directorate. It has not been presented to the Planning Committee and currently has no planning status.
• Ownership of Jurby Hotel has been transferred to the Department of Health and Social Services. DHSS is lodging a planning application to replace the hotel with a medical centre and community resource building.

(iii) In assessing application PA08/02216/B the independent inspector was not made aware of the following:

• That the regeneration of Jurby in line with the Jurby Study is a key element of the Island Spatial Strategy for the North (Strategic Plan paragraph 5.10);
• Spatial Policy 3 identifies Jurby as one of the Island's nine Service Villages where housing should be provided to meet local needs. (Strategic Plan paragraph 5.24);

• The evidence of a local housing need in the Housing Needs Statement appended to the current application;
• The Masterplan for the Jurby Village Development, which was "received" by Tynwald as part of the 2006 Business Case document;
• The document "Jurby Village 'towards a sustainable future'"; and
• The document "Jurby Housing Master Plan - Planning Guidelines and Considerations for Self Builders and Small Contractor-Developers" April 2007.

(iv) A decision to switch the access from the spine road to the existing spur off Bretney Close allows the four bungalows to be developed independently of the rest of the master plan and liberates the proposal from the expense of constructing part of the spine road. (v) The inspector prefaced his assessment of application PA08/02216/B with the statement: "It is a legal requirement of a decision maker that a planning application such as this is determined according to the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise." Section 10(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 appears to fall short of such a prescriptive approach. (vi) When considering what weight should be attached to the airfield zoning in the 1982 Development Plan it must be borne in mind that the airfield was still operational when the plan was being prepared. Airfield use has now ceased. Jurby prison and industrial estate have been established in the same zoning and the Department is encouraging further industrial development there. Infrastructural improvement has been undertaken to enhance accessibility. (vii) The Department is promoting the Jurby Master Plan as housing authority and planning authority as well as from the perspective of economic development. The master plan has been to public consultation and has been received by Tynwald. The Department as planning authority supports the master plan and did not consider it necessary or appropriate to undertake a separate planning consultation exercise. In the Department's view it is a material consideration, which should be given considerable weight alongside the policy framework and spatial strategy of the Strategic Plan. (viii) In criticising the proposed elderly persons' bungalows as piecemeal development the previous inspector was unaware of advice that they could be developed independently of the larger project (Architects Design Statement 3.1). The scheme is seen as the first piece in an emerging plan, which for economic reasons is still being shaped to meet the needs of the village. (ix) The previous inspector was influenced by a lack of evidence that the siting was the most sustainable location for the development.

The site is within easy walking distance of a primary school, village shop, a planned health and community resource centre and a public bus route. The scheme is brownfield development and represents a sustainable approach to village planning. (x) The scheme constitutes a small extension to the existing estate. However, in terms of sequential development it is located centrally to the village. It will broaden the range of housing and release under-utilised family housing accommodation. (xi) Since the previous inspector expressed concern at the lack of energy saving design features in the scheme the Department has introduced a policy to require the harnessing of renewable energy and passive solar heat in family housing. However this does not apply to elderly persons' accommodation; the policy instead is to insulate above building regulation standards and double glaze. His criticism regarding the lack of shelterbelt planting and enclosure on the wind swept site has been addressed in the current proposal. (xii) An electricity substation is no longer required as part of the scheme as a suitable site is available elsewhere. (xiii) Estates and Housing Directorate has no problem with the suggested planning conditions.

1. Asked what features of the proposal, if any, distinguish it from other proposals that might undermine General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan, Mr Balmer made the following points:

(i) The site is within the settlement of Jurby, which has Service Village status under Spatial Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan. (ii) It has access to public transport, connections to services and is within easy walking distance of shopping and community facilities. (iii) The site is zoned as "airfield" but there is no air traffic control for Jurby and the runway is unusable. The only other "airfield" zoned as such in the 1982 Development Plan is the loM Airport at Ronaldsway. Therefore the site is unique in land use zoning terms and approving the application would not undermine General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan.

Inspector's Assessment, Conclusions and Recommendation

1. Drawing from Section 10(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999, General Policy 1 of the loM Strategic Plan 2007 requires the Government as planning authority to have regard to the provisions of the development plan and all other material considerations. The development plan for the area is comprised of the loM Strategic Plan and, pending the preparation and adoption of the Area Plan for the North, the 1982 Development Plan provides the detail at the local level. The key issues in determining the application are (i) whether the proposal accords with the development plan

APPEAL NO: DF10/0003 PLANNING REFERENCE: 10/00126/B and (ii) whether there are other material considerations, including housing need and the Government's strategy for the regeneration of Jurby, that justify the granting or refusal of planning approval.

(i) The development plan

1. The site lies within an area zoned as "Airfield" in the Development Plan

1982 and, unlike the adjacent farmland east of The Bretney and north of the Threshold estates, it lies outside any area notated on the plan for proposed residential use. IoM Strategic Plan General Policy 3 prohibits development outside areas zoned for development and no argument has been made that exception (c) applies. Consequently, I find that the proposal does not accord with the development plan.

(ii) Other material considerations

1. Flying activity at Jurby airfield has much diminished over the 28 years

since the adoption of the Island Development Plan and according to the Department the runway is now unusable. In keeping with the Government's strategy for village regeneration in recent years large areas of the airfield have been released for employment-related uses and the development of the Isle of Man prison. According to paragraph 4.2 of the Jurby Study the then Department of Transport wished to safeguard the main runway as an emergency facility. However, the site of the former army camp has not been an operational part of the airfield for a very long time and is separated from it by the A14 main road. Consequently, there is very little prospect of the site being required in connection with airfield use. Therefore, in assessing the planning policy implications of the proposed development, minimal weight should be attached to the "Airfield" designation of the site in the Development Plan.

1. The report of the Tynwald debate on 19 November 2003 leaves no doubt

as to the importance the Government attaches to the regeneration of Jurby village along the lines suggested in the Jurby Study. The approval in July 2009 by Tynwald of a sewerage plan for the north of the Island that includes a replacement sewage treatment works that will cater for an increase of some 410 persons in the population of Jurby reinforces and underpins the commitment to regenerative housing in the village.

1. Regeneration of Jurby in line with the Jurby Study is a key element of the

Island Spatial Strategy for the North (IoM Strategic Plan paragraph 5.10) and Strategic Plan Spatial Policy 3 identifies Jurby as one of the Island's nine service villages. However, Spatial Policy 3 adds that Area Plans will define the development boundaries of such villages. In the absence of any authoritative indication otherwise, it is arguable that this requirement applies equally to Jurby as to any of the other eight villages. Since it is not zoned for development it is also arguable that the application site lies outside the development boundary and consequently that its development would be premature pending the approval of the Area Plan for the North. It may be that this issue can only be satisfactorily resolved by the Area

Plan or perhaps in the shorter term by a revision by Tynwald of the land use allocations for Jurby in the 1982 Development Plan. This procedural matter lies outside the remit of the current inquiry but it raises the issue of prematurity and affects the weight to be attached to the Jurby Study as an instrument of land use zoning. However, if it can be established that the proposed dwellings are distinguishable and severable in planning terms from the remainder of the housing envisaged in the Study prematurity is less of an issue. Also it would allow greater weight to be attached to the strategy to regenerate Jurby and to the strategic role of the village in the supply of local housing land.

1. Since 2006 a series of Jurby Study master plans has shown elderly persons' dwellings on the application site. The independent access now proposed from Bretney Close avoids any prejudice to the spine road and ensures that the development is severable in planning terms from the remainder of the housing envisaged in the Jurby Study.
2. As an identified Service Village, Spatial Policy 3 assigns Jurby the role of providing housing to meet local needs. There is clear evidence in the Housing Need Statement of a local need for elderly persons' dwellings. The development would provide the elderly occupants with purpose-designed accommodation close to the support network of family and friends and would release larger dwellings for much needed family housing. This clearly distinguishes the proposed development from the generality of the housing mooted in the Jurby Study.
3. Whilst peripheral to the Bretney estate, the site is centrally located in relation to the rest of the settlement. It is within easy walking distance of the village shop / post office, the proposed medical centre and a bus service to Ramsey. The proximity to the three existing elderly persons' bungalows would assist the efficiency and effectiveness of medical and domiciliary care services. There is adequate capacity in the local sewerage system and all the necessary utilities are available. In short, the site is a very good location for elderly persons' accommodation.
4. As well as meeting an identified local housing need, the proposed four bungalows would contribute in a modest way to the overall scheme of regeneration for Jurby without prejudicing the wider planning of the area.
5. The following factors taken together clearly distinguish the application from other housing proposals outside of areas zoned for development:

(i) The key role for Jurby regeneration in the Island Spatial Strategy. (ii) The fact that the site adjoins the Bretney estate where there is an established local need for elderly persons accommodation. (iii) The locational advantages of the site for elderly persons dwellings close to village centre facilities. (iv) The former use as part of the Army camp, which distinguishes the site from others in the open countryside. Consequently I agree with the Department that approving the application would not undermine General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan.

APPEAL NO: DF10/0003 PLANNING REFERENCE: 10/00126/B

1. Consistency in decision-making is important in ensuring a transparent and

robust regulatory system. Therefore, the decision your Excellencies made in April last year to refuse an almost identical proposal is a significant material consideration. However, as you are well aware planning decisions are made in their own evidential context and in this case the Department acknowledges that on that occasion it failed to provide the inspector with "enough ammunition" to support a recommendation of approval. In particular, Ministers will note that the inspector was not made aware of significant information identified in paragraph 14 (iii) above. Furthermore, the inspector's concerns regarding the appearance of the development and the lack of shelterbelt planting and landscaping have been addressed in the latest proposals.

1. I have taken into account all the other matters in the documents on file but

none is of such significance as to affect the outcome of my assessment.

Conclusions and Recommendation

1. The airfield zoning of the site in the development plan is of minimal weight

and is far outweighed by the local need for elderly person's housing and the modest but material contribution the proposal would make to the regeneration of Jurby in accordance with the Island Spatial Strategy. Being readily distinguishable and severable from the rest of the housing mooted in the Jurby Study, approval can be granted for the proposal at this time without prejudicing the wider planning of the area. For the reasoning outlined in paragraph 25 above approval of the proposal would not undermine General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan. Finally, I am satisfied that there are no material considerations that would justify refusal.

1. Given the information now available, your Excellencies are not obliged to

adhere to the decision that you made last year to refuse an almost identical proposal.

1. Accordingly, I recommend that planning approval be granted subject to the

four conditions set out in paragraph 9 of the report of the Planning and Building Control Directorate.

I have the honour to be, Sirs, your obedient servant

G Farrington Independent Inspector