REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION FOR THE REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE OF JOHN ARMSTRONG MADDRELL

REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE OF JOHN ARMSTRONG MADDRELL

At the sitting of Tynwald Court on 22nd January 2004 it was resolved that a Select Committee of three Members be established to -

"examine the Petition for Redress of Grievance of Mr Joint Armstrong Maddrell presented at St John's on 7th July 2003 with powers to take written and oral evidence pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876 and to report with recommendations"

Mr P A Gawne MHK (Rushen) (Caairliagh)

Mrs A V Craine MHK (Ramsey)

Mrs H Hannan MHK (Peel)

The powers, privileges and immunities relating to the work of a committee of Tynwald are those conferred by sections 3 and 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876, sections 1 to 4 of the Privileges of Tynwald (Publications) Act 1973 and sections 2 to 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1984.

Copies of this Report may be obtained from the Tynwald Library, Legislative Buildings, Bucks Road, Douglas 1M1 3PW (Tel 01624 68551.6, Fax 01624 685522) or may be consulted at www.tynwald.org.irn

All correspondence with regard to this Report should be addressed to the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Bucks Road, Douglas IMl 3PW.

To: The Hon Noel Q Cringle MLC, President of Tynwald, and the Hon Council and Keys in Tynwald assembled

REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE OF JOHN ARMSTRONG MADDRELL

Introduction

1. Your Committee have met on nine occasions to consider the Petition for Redress of Grievance presented at St John's by Mr John Armstrong Maddrell on 7th July 2003. The Petition is at Annex 1. We took evidence in public on 10th-May 2004 from the petitioner Mr J A Maddrell, and from Mr C H Faragher and Mr J M Keggin. (All three persons will be referred to in this Report simply as "Mr Maddrell', "Mr Faragher' and 'Mr Keggin'.) The Hansard record of the public evidence is at Annex 2.

2. We have, in addition, received written evidence from the Petitioner, the Department of Local Government and the Environment and from Port Erin Commissioners. This evidence has consisted for the most part of the official files of relevance to the Petition and, under Standing Order 3.23(8), it has because of its volume been deposited in the Tynwald Library.

Background

3. Mr Maddrell owns a plot of land at Port Erin, off the upper end of Spaldrick Promenade, shown as Field 6065 on the Ordnance Survey map comprising 1.23 acres. It presently has an agricultural use, but it is zoned for Tourism/Recreation (Area for Buildings) in the Port Erin Local Plan approved by Tynwald on 12Ul December 1990. This continued the previous zoning of the land.

2 4. Immediately to the south, is an area approximately three times as large designated for Tourism/Recreation (Area for Open Space), which is in the ownership of Port Erin Commissioners and was used as a pitch and putt green. The essential issues which our investigation considered were:-

(i) was it justified that development of Mr Maddrell's land should be necessarily linked with the land to the south, which he did not own, so that the two were in effect treated as a single planning unit?

(ii) did two members of Port Erin's Board of Commissioners properly declare any interest they had in the matter, and did they improperly influence the Board's decisions in connection with Mr Maddrell's planning applications?

Planning History

5. The planning history of Mr Maddrell's land is as follows.

Early applications 6. On 5th December 1984, an application for permission for roads, sewers and services for a residential development was approved, but no development took place. On 4t!l November 1988, an application for approval of a leisure park was refused on the ground that there would be a loss of open space.

7. In 1992, an application was then made again for a residential development on this land. By then, the designations in the Port Erin Local Plan had been approved and the application was opposed by the Commissioners; it was refused on 28th July 1992, on the ground that it was contrary to the Local Plan.

3 PA96/910 8. In 1997, a further application was refused, after review and appeal, though this time it was broadly within the terms of the Local Plan. This proposal, PA96/910, was for an aparthotel with sports and leisure facilities, and was supported by the Commissioners. Mr C H Faragher registered as an objector, but he was not then a member of the board. The application was refused by the Planning Committee on 18th October 1996 on the ground that it would lead to loss of open space and amenity.

9. On review, the Commissioners again supported the application, and it was approved. The application then went to appeal, and it was again supported by the Commissioners, but it was refused on 3rd July 1997 for the reasons given in the Inspector's Report.

10. The Inspector had concluded that the policy of the Local Plan “probably was" that Mr MaddrelTs land and the land to the south should be developed together, and “that any buildings required in connection with the use of the southern piece of land should be placed on the appeal site". Since the southern land was not included in the proposal, the Inspector did not consider that the use of Mr Maddrell's site “in isolation from the land to the south could be said to comply with the spirit of the intention of the Local Plan." The same interpretation of the Local Plan, as favouring the joint development of the two sites, had been expressed by the Planning Committee.

11. The Inspector, however, offered alternative grounds for refusing permission. He said that even if the Plan could be interpreted as consistent with the proposed development, it should still be refused permission for reasons connected with the design of the project itself. Thus, the need to avoid visibility problems in access to the road would necessitate such changes to provide a safe and convenient exit that the appearance of the site would be altered to so great an extent as "to make its impact to my mind unacceptable and out of keeping with its surroundings".

4 Reconsideration by the Commissioners 12. The Commissioners had consistently supported application PA96/910 at all three stages of its journey. Following the refusal on appeal, however, the Board was invited to look at the matter again. Six months after the appeal had been determined, a meeting was held on 10ih February 1998 between the Commissioners and Mr Maddrell, at the latter's request, to discuss the development of his land jointly wTith the Board.

13. Following that, a meeting with the Planning Officer was held on 3rd March 1998 by the Commissioners, and the Planning Officer discussed possible development in the context of their site being involved jointly with Mr Maddrell's. It was noted that a restrictive covenant inhibited building on the Commissioners' land. The Planning Officer described it as "a difficult site to develop" and predicted that any application would be taken to appeal by one party or another. I

i 14. A further meeting with Mr Maddrell was held on 15th December 1998, at 1

which Mr Maddrell gave the Board members, who included Mr Keg gin, j copies of a suggested layout for a hotel with associated conference and sports facilities, and displayed a scale model of it. Mr Maddrell said that, subject to a commitment from the Board, he would proceed to submit an application in principle to the Planning Committee.

15. The matter was then discussed by the Commissioners at their next meeting on 5th January 1999. The minutes of that meeting are short, but they record that it was decided to send a letter to Mr Maddrell confirming the Board's support "on the strict understanding that such support is only given to development of the land solely for tourist accommodation and amenity use and the Board would apply covenants on the land ensuring this." Mr Keggin was present at that meeting, and also when Mr Maddrell's reply was received at the Board's subsequent meeting on 2nd February 1999.

5 PA9911706 16. On 7Ul December 1999, Mr Maddrell submitted an application covering his land and part of the Commissioners' land for “a modem hotel and multi­ purpose indoor leisure and health complex and car parking“. A special meeting of the Board was called on 11th January 2000 to consider a request from Mr Maddrell to display a model of the development in the window of the Commissioners' office. The request was refused on the ground that the model did not form part of the planning application.

17. Both Mr Keggin and Mr Faragher had been present at the meeting on 11th January, and were also present at the next meeting on 18th January 2000 when the application was considered. Both had indeed written to the planning committee in their personal capacities declaring their objections, Mr Faragher on 17th January and Mr Keggin on the day of the meeting. Fourteen letters from objectors (mostly addressed to the Planning Committee) were reported; they did not include those from Mr Faragher or Mr Keggin, who had only just written to the Committee.

18. The meeting on 18th January 2000 proceeded to discuss the merits of the application, and the minutes record that “Mr C H Faragher in particular voiced his concerns and gave notice that at the next meeting of the Board consideration be given to reviewing the original decision to allow Mr Maddrell to use the 'Pitch and Putt' land [owned by the Commissioners).“ After a "full and frank discussion“, Mr Faragher moved that the plan be opposed on the ground that insufficient detail had been supplied with the application. An amendment to defer consideration until further detail had been supplied by Mr Maddrell was cai'ried, Mr Keggin and Mr Faragher being the only two commissioners to vote against it.

19. The application was again discussed at the Board on 1st February 2000, when details provided by Mr Maddrell's architects were to hand. Mr Faragher again moved that the plan be opposed, on the grounds this time that the building would be too large and that it would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Local Plan. Again there was an amendment, this time to approve the application, and it was carried, Mr Faragher and

6 Mr Keggin (with two other members) voting against. On 30th March 2000, the application was refused by the Planning Committee.

20. Mr Maddrell sought a review of the refusal and, when the Board met on 25Ul April to consider their position, Mr Faragher and Mr Keggin - for the first time - declared an interest in the application and left the meeting. In their absence, the Board voted to approve the application again, the two members who had voted with Mr Faragher and Mr Keggin on 1st February voting against. Mr Maddrell's application was unsuccessful on review, the refusal being notified on 19th June 2000.

21. The next relevant meeting was in committee (and thus in private) on 15th August 2000, when Mr Keggin was absent, and only six members were present. It was agreed to defer the matter until all members of the Board should be present, and Mr Faragher stated that he would be submitting a notice of motion requesting that a full debate be held on the use of Board land by Mr Maddrell in respect of his planning application.

22. That issue was dealt with in committee (and thus, again, in private) on 12th September 2000 on a motion by Mr Faragher that "the Board reconsider its position regarding provision of access over land at Rowany Golf Club to serve a private development". The outcome of the discussion was that the Board's policy was reversed. A motion proposed by Mr Faragher was carried that "the provision of access across the Board's land at Rowany is considered to be for the previous application and the facility will not be available for any future development of Field 6065 at Spaldrick", Mr Maddrell was so informed on 14th September 2000.

23. On 3rd November 2000, Mr Maddrell wrote to the Commissioners' Clerk requesting copies "of the minutes of recent meetings held in private", which - apparently by order of the Board, after consulting the Department of Local Government and the Environment - were refused him on 22nd November 2000.

7 Meeting with Rushen MHKs 24. On 7th March 2001, the Board held a special meeting at their request with all three Members of the House of Keys representing the constituency of Rushen, who were then Sir Miles Walker, Mrs Pamela Crowe and Mr John Rimington. The Members indicated that Mr Maddrell's problem was "tliat he did not know what would be acceptable to both the Planning Committee and the Commissioners".

25. Apart from introductory remarks by the Chairman, the Board's position seems to have been put by Mr Faragher and Mr Keggin. Mr Faragher gave a brief history of discussions that the Board had had with Mr Maddrell. The minutes record that Mr Keggin stated that "factors have changed that would affect any development of the land, namely access and being in a predominantly residential area", and said that he believed that Mr Maddrell's previous applications were too grandiose and that the size of the land dictated a smaller more sympathetic development.

PA01/419 26. Over a year later, on 23rd May 2002, the last of the applications we are concerned with was made for a hotel and conference centre with associated car parking. It was considered by Port Erin Commissioners on 25th June 2002. By this time, Mr Faragher was no longer a Commissioner, but Mr Keggin remained on the Board and was present; he declared no interest. A number of letters opposing the application were reported, among them one from Mr Faragher. After full discussion, a motion to oppose the development on the grounds that it would amount to over­ intensive use of the site and be out of keeping with a residential area was carried unanimously.

27. Nonetheless, the application was approved in principle by the Planning Committee on 30th September 2002, with a formal Note endorsed that "It is considered that the proposed hotel/conference building as submitted would result in an unneighbourly development in relation to adjacent residential properties. The applicant is advised to consult with the Planning Department PRIOR to the submission of an application for approval of Reserved Matters".

28. The Board met on 8th October 2002 to discuss the approval. The Chairman, a hotelier in Port Erin, declared an interest and withdrew from the meeting. Mr Keggin was reported as having "expressed concern at the wording of the approval in principle stating it gave no indication as to the type of premises which would be considered suitable for the site". The planning approval was noted. A review had been requested and at a further Board meeting on 22nd October 2002, at which Mr Keggin was present, it was resolved unanimously to confirm the original decision to oppose the application.

29. The review took place and the approval was confirmed on 15th November 2002, with the same Note endorsed about the designs being "unneighbourly". The Board took note of this decision at its meeting on 19th Novem ber 2002, An appeal having been lodged, the Board met on 17t!l December 2002 to consider the issue yet again, and again confirmed its opposition to the application. On 21st January 2003, the Board resolved that its Clerk should attend the forthcoming Inspector's Inquiry.

30. The Inspector's Inquiry was held on 5th February 2003, and the Commissioners' Clerk was present on behalf of the Board, commenting that the proposal would represent an over-use of the site, that it would be out of keeping in a residential area and that it was considered to be in a dangerous location.

31. The Inspector's Report observed that there was a "fundamental difference of opinion" between the Minister's interpretation of the policy of the Local Plan when determining the earlier appeal and the approach of the Planning Committee in this case, the difference being over whether the appeal site should be developed with the adjoining land of the Commissioners to the south, or whether it should be allowed to stand alone.

9 32. In the result, the Inspector preferred the Minister's earlier view, that the two sites were intended by the Plan to be developed together. But he had practical reasons also for disapproving the permission in principle granted by the Committee: the need for sensitivity on account of the adjoining residential properties; the effect on the area of any construction large enough to be viable; unacceptable noise and disturbance to the nearby houses; doubts about a safe access from the road. Even though these were largely Reserved Matters, the Inspector concluded that they were incapable of being resolved in any scheme for the development of a hotel with about 40 bedrooms (which was what was envisaged).

33. Since at the time Hon P M Crowe MLC (who had been one of the Rushen MHKs at the meeting with the Commissioners about Mr Maddrell's position in March 2001) was the Minister of the Department of Local Government and the Environment, a deputy Minister had been appointed to determine the appeal, Hon A F Downie MHK. Mr Downie decided to accept the Inspector's recommendations and the decision letter was issued on 13lh March 2003 refusing approval in principle. In this appeal, Mr C H Faragher was among those officially notified.

34. The deputy Minister's reasons for refusing the approval were: (i) the development of the land should be associated with that to the south (the Commissioners' land), (ii) any development of the size proposed would occupy most of the site and would have a harmful effect on the character of the area, (iii) there would be unacceptable noise and disturbance to those living nearby, and (iv) there was no sufficient evidence that the necessary visibility splays would be possible for the road access.

Issues i. Planning merits 35. The central issue of controversy in planning terms is whether there should or should not have been a linkage required for any development between Mr Maddrell's site and the land to the south of it. But on that issue, it is clearly not for your Committee to substitute their own judgment for that of the Planning Committee, the Inspectors who dealt with the applications or the Ministers who decided them.

10 36. It is apparent from the evidence that this contentious issue was openly and consciously considered at all stages, and that reference was made to the Port Erin Local Plan as approved by Tynwald in deciding it. It is therefore immaterial whether we would have decided it differently ourselves, or whether indeed we are sympathetic to what the Local Plan provided. To all appearances, the question was properly decided according to the planning procedures laid down by law and, if there was any fault in those procedures, the remedy of a Petition of Doleance was there to be used. But Mr Maddrell told us in oral evidence that he had not considered using it. In those circumstances the matter must rest.

37. Accordingly, we make no criticism of the planning decisions we have seen, or of the procedures followed in reaching them. Nevertheless, there remains the uncertainty, for Mr Maddrell in particular, over whether his land can ever be developed apart from the Commissioners' land, and zoe recommend that the Department of Local Government and the Environment should now take steps to clarify the situation, by proposing an amendment to the Local Plan or otherwise. ii. Conflicts of interest - general 38. Mr Maddrell complained to us that neither Mr Faragher nor Mr Keggin declared conflicts of interest, while nevertheless influencing the Board's decisions.

39. It should be noted at the outset that - as Mr Keggin correctly put it to us - in dealing with planning matters "the Commissioners only air an opinion"; no doubt it is a significant opinion, but it is not a necessary step in the planning process, and an adverse opinion from the Commissioners is not fatal to an application at any stage, any more than a favourable one is decisive in support of it. The degree of influence that any single commissioner can have on a planning application should not therefore be overstated. Although their opinion is often influential, Boards of Commissioners are not the decision makers in planning matters.

11 40. Standing Order 17 adopted by Port Erin Commissioners provides that: If any member of the authority has any pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, within the meaning of sections 11 and 12 of the Local Government Act 1985, (other than an indirect interest described in sections 14(4) to (6) thereof), in any contract, proposed contract or other matter that member shall withdraw from the meeting while the contract, proposed contract or other matter is under consideration by the authority, unless- (i) the disability to discuss that matter imposed on him by the section has been removed by the Board under section 14(1) thereof; or (ii) the contract, proposed contract or other matter under consideration by the authority is part of the report of a committee and is not itself the subject of debate; or (iii) the authority invite him to remain,

41. Though Standing Orders are binding of course on each commissioner, their interpretation is a matter for each Board, advised by its Clerk. This Order contains a technically expressed and relatively limited provision, which is not necessarily exhaustive of the circumstances in which a declaration of interest is appropriate. There is however much to be said for the more general approach Mr Keggin also put to us that "if you consider that the public perceive that you have an interest, then you should declare it". We return to this below. iii Mr CH Faragher 42. Mr Faragher's evidence to your Committee was that he considered that whether or not he should declare an interest depended upon whether or not he had, at the time in question, what is known in planning terminology as Interested Party Status (which entitles the holder of it to be heard in the proceedings).

43. Mr Faragher said that the location of his property would not itself give him a declarable interest because it did not abut the site. But Mr Faragher thought he might be eligible for Interested Party Status which, he

12 accepted, would give him a declarable interest. Mr Faragher told us: "I had decided that, were I to be granted party status in this application, then 1 would certainly withdraw from any discussion on the matter at Port Erin Commissioners".

44. When he wrote to the Planning Committee on 17th January 2000, Mr Faragher thought he then might be entitled to Interested Party Status and tlius have such an interest and, on the advice of the Clerk, he declared it accordingly at the meeting of the Board on 25th April 2000 - though he had not done so at the two meetings which followed his letter to the Planning Committee, apparently because his Interested Party Status had not at that point been confirmed.

45. The basis for Mr Faragher's belief in his Interested Party Status is uncertain, since he commented "it was my understanding that I had party status, though I do not have a letter that actually says so". The Chief Executive of the Department of Local Government and the Environment has now confirmed to us that Mr Faragher did in fact have Interested Party Status for application PA99/1706 (though he was only sent copies of the papers in PA01/419 for information). In the result, we accept that Mr Faragher acted on the Clerk's advice, and that in the period before it was received he was understandably uncertain of his position. w Mr J M Keggin 46. Mr Keggin was alleged to have had a declarable interest by reason of (a) his brother in law having had an interest in the 1999 application and (b) his brother in law and sister having had an interest in the 2001 application. But he said that the Clerk was aware of these relationships and did not advise that they be declared. As there were, Mr Keggin told us, no joint financial interests involving him, we accept that he had in strictness no interest to declare on account of these relationships.

47. In regard to his letter of 18th January 2000 to the Planning Committee, the Clerk gave the same advice to Mr Keggin as to Mr Faragher, that an interest should be declared, even though - as we have learnt from the

13 Chief Executive of the Department of Local Government and the Environment - Mr Keggin was not regarded as having party status for PA99/1706.

48. For PA01/419, Mr Keggin said: "when it came to the 2001 application, I decided that the course of action was to stay with the Commissioners and to vote accordingly through the Commissioners and express my views through the Commissioners". The Chief Executive of the Department of Local Government and the Environment has confirmed that Mr Keggin did not make representations on application PA01/419. In these two cases also, we accept that Mr Keggin acted honestly and to the best of his understanding of matters. v Declarations of interest - general 49. The Chief Executive of the Department of Local Government and the Environment told us that there is no leaflet issued to explain what criteria are used to determine what is meant by the term 'Interested Party Status' in planning parlance. The Chief Executive explained that the question is determined by the Planning Committee on a case by case basis and that the issue "depends very much on the nature of the development proposed and the extent to which the same is likely to affect those in the community". The decision as to whether a particular individual or party is to be granted Interested Party Status is determined by the Planning Committee, if and when a request is made for a review of the Committee's original decision.

50. Your committee have considered whether, in the circumstances at least of this case, Standing Order 17 of the Board, and the actual practice adopted on the advice of the Clerk, provides a satisfactory and workable mechanism to meet reasonable public perceptions of what is appropriate in modern democratic circumstances.

51. Overall, our conclusion is that the existing provisions are unacceptably technical in character and erratic in their operation. That the existence of a declarable interest should be dependant - as in both Mr Faragher and

14 Mr Keggin's cases - on whether Interested Party Status had been accorded to an individual representation, is the kind of test which is bound to produce anomalies, together with a good deal of uncertainty in its practical outworking.

52. What, for example, is the position when a commissioner's spouse or friend makes representations instead of the commissioner? On existing criteria, it would seem that there is no declarable interest, yet the situation may be the same in substance as if the commissioner in question had made the representation. A test related to the underlying connection of the commissioner himself or herself would be more useful and more realistic.

53. But the more detailed the criteria for such a test, the more difficult it will be to operate it, and the more it is likely to produce anomalies. The circumstances which may give rise to actual, or reasonably perceived, conflicts of interest will be impossible to define exhaustively; and the uncertainty which evidently surrounds the holding of 'Interested Party Status' in the planning system compounds the problem. It is however imperative for the maintenance of public confidence in the democratic process that effective mechanisms should exist to ensure that decisions are taken, and seen to be taken, by public bodies in the public interest alone and not in the pursuit of a private interest.

54. At Annex 3 are reproduced Standing Orders 10.1 and 10.2 of Tynwald Court, which (without the reference to the Register of Members' Interests, which is not relevant) your Committee believe adopt a more flexible and comprehensive model than those of the Commissioners in this case - which, we understand, are typical of those used by local authorities.

55. We recommend therefore that consideration is given to the reform of the standard wording about conflicts of interest used in local authority Standing Orders along these lines, and that the Minister of Local Government and the Environment report to Tynwald by the end of this Session on the matter.

15 vi Commissioners meetings in private 56. Although the decision of the Board to meet in private on 15th August and 12th September 2000 was understandable, we are not convinced that it was in the public interest for them to have done so. Effectively, the matter under discussion on those two occasions concerned the way in which a publicly owned asset should be dealt with and, in particular, whether it was in the public interest for that asset to be made available for development, and whether its value should be realised.

57. These are clear matters of public interest, and the commercial sensitivity of them was in the circumstances very limited, if not absent altogether. The relevant Standing Orders of the Board referring to the question - 6(16) and 9(12)(h) - do not lay down the criteria for making the decision to sit in private, and we recommend that the Department of Local Government and the Environment should provide specific guidelines for when it is or is not appropriate for public business to be conducted in private, with the presumption being against such a practice. vii Interested Party Status 58. It has been seen above (paragraph 49) that Interested Party Status is determined by the Planning Committee in any case, if and when a request is made for a review of the Committee's initial decision on an application. No leaflet setting out specific criteria used to make such a determination is, however, published. Instead, the decision as to whether a particular individual should be granted Interested Party Status is communicated by means of standard letters from the Planning Committee to those who made written submissions before the initial decision. The standard letters emphasise that the addressee's views are taken into account whether or not they have been accorded Interested Party Status, and it is pointed out that they may in any event be called as a witness by a person who has been given Interested Party Status.

59. We do not see it as appropriate in the context of this Report to examine the merits of the means by which Interested Party Status is decided, but it is evident that the criteria used by the Planning Committee to reach their

16 decision may be complex and variable, and not immediately transparent to those concerned about a planning application. In the circumstances, we recommend that the Department of Local Government and the Environment should publish a leaflet setting out clearly how Interested Party Status is determined, so that the position is understood as widely as possible by those unfamiliar with planning matters.

Recommendations

60. That the Department of Local Government and the Environment should now take steps to clarify the situation with regard to the possibility of the separate development of Mr Maddrell's land, by proposing an amendment to the Local Plan or otherwise (paragraph 37).

61. That the Minister of Local Government and the Environment report to Tynwald by the end of the current Session on the adoption of a simplified and comprehensive model for local authority Standing Orders dealing with the declaration of conflicts of interest, and the participation of members of the authority in related business (paragraph 55).

62. That the Department of Local Government and the Environment should provide specific guidelines for when it is or is not appropriate for public business to be conducted by Boards of Commissioners in private, with the presumption being against such a practice (paragraph 57).

63. That the Department of Local Government and the Environment should publish a leaflet setting out clearly how Interested Party Status is determined, so that the position is understood as widely as possible by those unfamiliar with planning matters (paragraph 59). P A Gawne (Caairliagh) A V Craine September 2004 H Hannan

17 ANNEX 1

Petition of Mr John Armstrong Maddrell

IN TYNWALD

The Humble Petition of John Armstrong Maddrell of Bradda Mooar, Tower Road, Bradda, Port Erin in the Parish of Rushen.

SHEWETH that -

The subject site of this petition fieid 6065 has been in my families ownership for at least two hundred and fifty years. In 1982 field 6065 was clearly designated in the development plan of that year as a tourist area and remains so until this day. Statement of facts:- 1) 1992 Planning application 92/0415 for residential development refused due to zoning for tourism. 2) 1992 Discussion with Mr Tom Dootson then owner of the putting green for joint venture 3) 19961 lodged planning application 96/0910. It failed on appeal. 4) December 1998 meeting with Port Erin Commissioners based on comments in the Appeal documents to develop both sites. Port Erin Commissioners agreed.( Their letter 11/01/99) 5) Application 99/1706 submitted by my architects. Refused on Appeal. 6) 14th September 2000 Port Erin Commissioners withdraw permission for their site. 7) 2001 another application PA01/419 submitted by my architects. Refused. (All applications to this date were submitted correctly ‘in principle only.’) 8) 19/01/2000 Letter to my architects from Port Erin Commissioners requesting a ‘plan and foot print' also letter dated 24/03/01from John Rimington, M.H.K. I had no other option but to request my architects to draw up suitable site plans despite the cost. Two Port Erin Commissioners C.H. Faragher and J.M. Keggin lodged objections in writing to the Planning Department in relation to application 99/1706.(January 2000) They both failed to ‘declare an interest* in subsequent Board meetings until April 2000 but were still involved in discussions after that date. Mr Keggin failed to disclose a family interest in land and unadopted road bordering my site. Mr Faraghers position as an ex M.H.K. and a past member of the Planning Department cause me concern, and living in close proximity to field 6065.

Conclusion * this site is now sterile for any development due to certain subversive activities at local and central government level. After three planning applications since 1996 and three appeal refusals on a site clearly zoned by the self same authorities.

Now therefore your petitioner prays that Tynwald Court should consider the actions of the Department of local Government and the Environment, its inspector Mr R.S. Wilson and Port Erin Commissioners in refusing outline planning permission on field 6065, Spaldrick, Port Erin this year 2003 as have two earlier applications in 1996 and 2000, in an area long zoned for tourist and leisure development, as laid down in the existing Port Erin Plan.

Wherefore your petitioner prays Tynwald to consider the planning procedures as outlined above.

And your petitioner as in duty bound will ever pray etc.

Petitioner John Armstrong Maddrell

ANNEX 2

Official Report of Oral Evidence given on 10th May 2004

TPJM, No. 1 2004

TYNWALD COURT OFFICIAL REPORT

RECORTYS OIKOIL QUAIYL TINVAAL

PROCEEDINGS DAALTYN (HANSARD)

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE OF JOHN ARMSTRONG MADDRELL

BING ER-LHEH MYCHIONE YN AGHIN SON LHIASAGHEY ACCAN JOHN ARMSTRONG MADDRELL

Douglas, Monday, 10 th May 2004

Published by the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Bucks Road, Douglas, Isle of Man. © Court of Tynwald, 2004 Printed by The Copy Shop Limited, 48 Bucks Road, Douglas, Isle of Man Price Band B 2TPJM SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 10th MAY 2004

Members Present:

Mr P Gawne MHK (Chairman) Mrs A Craine MHK Mrs H Hannan MHK

Clerk: Mr M Comwell-KeUy, Clerk of Tynwald

Business transacted

Page Procedural...... 3

Evidence of M r J A M addrell...... 3

Mr Faragher was called at 11.05 a.m.

Evidence of M r C H Faragher...... 9

Mr Keggin was called at 12.10 p.m.

Evidence of M r J M Keggin...... 17

The Committee sat in private at 12.37p.m. Oral Evidence SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 10th MAY 2004 3 TPJM

Tynwald Select Committee EVIDENCE OF MR J A MADDRELL on the Petition for The Chairman: I think if we can begin, then: obviously, we have had a fair degree of evidence from yourself already, Redress of Grievance Mr Maddrell, but if I could ask you to present any further evidence or information that you might wish. of John Armstrong Maddrell M r Maddrell: Well, there is, Mr Gawne, but my main contention is a very strong sense of grievance at the manner The Committee sat in public at 10.10 a.m. in which my original and subsequent applications have in the Millennium Conference Room. been dealt with, and I feel that there are certain factors Legislative Buildings, Douglas which are being taken, or being used, to block or oppose any application, despite the area being zoned for tourism, designated as such under the 19S2 Act, and, in fact, going [MR GAWNE in the Chair] back into the 1930s, all of the Port Erin promenade was designated for tourist development The 1982 Act was a latter official confirmation of that Procedural Since then, I have, in all honesty, submitted schemes relating to that, but in my view, there are people, and even The Chairman (Mr Gawne): I would, first of all, like to a local authority, who have been determined to stop it, welcome everybody and thank you very much for coming. starting with the very first application, which was submitted This public hearing of the Select Committee on the Petition by myself for a campsite on the site, which was vigorously for Redress of Grievance of Mr John Armstrong Maddrell opposed and it fell. I do not know the date. It was 1982-83, will take evidence from Mr Maddrell himself, from Mr C H approximately. Faragher, and Mr J M Keggin, in relation to their membership In 1983-84, there was another application for self- of the Board of Commissioners of Port Erin. contained holiday apartments submitted by South side At the hearing this morning, the Committee will adopt the Developments. The number for that was 56723. This again following procedure: if any witness - witness A, for example was rejected, I have not got the documentation because it - wishes to challenge a statement made by the witness who was submitted by Southside Developments. I do not have is giving evidence - witness B - 1 invite witness A to pass that available and I do not think the company has it. I do not a note to the Clerk of the Committee to that effect, with his know whether it would be available. question. At the close of witness B’s evidence, and not before, In 1984, under number 1126 , there was permission the Committee will then decide whether they will put that sought by Southside Developments for four dwellings, in the question to witness B. Is that clear? I hope so. light of the previous application being rejected. My mother I must emphasise that these are formal proceedings at that time was the owner of the site. There were various for the taking of evidence and that it is for the Committee objectors, including, at that time, the Keggin family, who to decide what questions to ask or not to ask. There must, have been objectors right through, from start to finish, in therefore, be no interruption to the evidence given by any various guises - the father, the daughter, and the son. witness. So, if I could ask the Clerk to read the remit of this On that particular thing, also the Society for the Select Committee. Preservation of the Manx Countryside stated it was ribbon development. Now, I cannot understand how they could The Clerk: The remit of the Committee is printed at oppose it, wh.en it was a self-contained site, zoned for the bottom of the sheet that is on the chairs. It is the motion tourism, and yet they consider it ribbon development. I am passed in Tynwald in January 2004: sorry, because later on, in a later thing, they have another comment to pass. They make another comment about it in ‘That Tynwald appoint a Select Committee to examine the Petition for another application. I will come to that Redress of Grievance from Mr John Armstrong Maddrel! presented at Si This was refused in 1984, due to zoning for tourist use. John's on 7th July 2003, with powers to take written and oral evidence pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876 and Very clearly, they refused it because it was zoned for tourist to report with recommendations.’ use. My marriage failed in 1989, and, in 1992, under number Mr Maddrell’s Petition is on the reverse of the document 415, my ex-wife sought an application for three residential handed out dwellings on the site, and this was refused due to zoning for tourist use. The Chairman: Thank you. (Interjection by Mrs Port Erin Commissioners also rejected the application as Hannan) not being zoned for residential use. The Manx Society for the Preservation objected as not The Clerk: Yes, it is on the chairs which I think... Mr zoned for residential use. That was the second objection Maddrell may not have a copy, but you will be familiar with they made. So, quite frankly, you take your pick from most this Petition? of these objections. That was refused again. In 1996,1 submitted an application under number 910 for M r Maddrell*. Yes, I am. an aparthotel with associated facilities - refused, eventually. I asked for a review, and again it was refused, and I also put The Clerk: Yes. Has everybody else got a copy? It is a Petition in to Tynwald, which lay on the table and did not certainly on the chairs. go any further

Procedural Tynwald Select Committee on the Petition for Redress of Grievance of John Armstrong Maddrell - Evidence of Mr J A Maddrell 4TPJM SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 10th MAY 2004 Oral Evidence

Then I did submit an appeal and the development of the in shrubbery and gorse. These are the misleading points that site in isolation... The reason given was: have been put forward. The top photograph... Both were as appeal, but the top ‘the development of the site, in isolation from the land to the south, one gives it That was taken in 1997, the year that their would not comply with the intention of the Port Erin Local Plan.’ inspector is supposed to have been thorough enough to make an inspection. I do not know which site he inspected Now, what that intention is I do not know, because I have - probably at the top of Bradda Head, by the sounds of it got a copy of the written authority here and, frankly, I have - but no way did he inspect my site. to say, it is a load of rubbish, because nobody can determine This was approved by Port Erin Commissioners, and from that... I have it here. then, in doing some research into this matter, which is rather Section 4.14, page 10: strange, I came across a microfiche dated 10th October 1996. Again, I question: I do not know. It is very hard to decipher ‘The open space at Spaldrick, to the west of the golf course, is considered to be appropriate to tourism and recreational use. Any it The site was visited by Y/N - whatever that means, I have building will, however, only be permitted on the northern part of the no idea - and it mentions in the reading of the microfiche... site, which adjoins the existing development’, This was an internal memo, by the way. It is not on the fact... It is an internal handwritten memo. which is my site. Now, that is the Port Erin written statement, and it still stands to this day. I sometimes wonder how far it The Chairman: From? stands, quite frankly, because I am afraid, I am very cynical about the whole thing, about the whole affair. M r Maddrell: By a member of the planning authority. They also state that an unacceptable site entrance... (The Chairman: Right) It says, to read: Despite the fact that our letters on file - you probably have them on the file I submitted earlier on - that the highway ‘Whilst the land is zoned for tourism (recreation), it is specifically authority have stated to me, by letter, after two inspections, marked "area for buildings” to complement the area for open space to the immediate south. Does this indicate, as suggested by a third party, that it was acceptable to them, that the splay and the access that the area is intended to be developed in tandem with the open was acceptable to them, but they still - this is the inspectors space, e.g. golf course?’ - came back on that There was also another reason given: that the initial I had to write this down because they will not give you a refusal was: copy from the microfiche, so I just had to write it down.

‘there was no need for further tourist accommodation, and an Mrs Craine: Sorry, could you repeat that, please? unwarranted, undesirable loss of open green space’, M r M addrell: Yes, certainly. I had to write it down in despite being right alongside 140 acres of golf course and handwriting - 3.5 acres of putting green. I must say that my 1.23 acres is minuscule, compared to what they are discussing here. It M rs Craine: No, the actual - was confirmed on approval by Port Erin Commissioners on that occasion. M r Maddrell: Certainly, yes. It reads: Now, the other thing is: 'Whilst the land is zoned for tourism (recreation), it is specifically ‘unwarranted disturbance to residential buildings to the north of the marked “area for buildings” to complement the area for open space to site’, the immediate south. Does this indicate, as suggested by a third party, that the area is intended to be developed in tandem with the open which is an old chestnut that keeps coming up. I have no space, e.g. golf course?' control over what buildings are presently there. I have no idea. I am only interested in my own site. Now, I do not know who the third party is. Why they have Also, in that appeal, under 914, the site... this is reading not put a name down to this anonymous third party, I have from the planning appeal’s statement, in which they state: no idea. I have certain suspicions, but I do not know.

‘This site is a parcel of undeveloped land, approximately 1.23 acres, The Clerk: Chairman, can I interrupt please? I am not which fronts out on Spaldrick Promenade, currently covered in gorse sure if this document has been submitted to the Committee and shrubbery. ’ as yet

I have an aerial photograph taken in the mid-1950s, The Chairman: No, I do not think it has. which shows the site under agricultural use. It had been under constant agricultural use since the mid-1950s, and, M r Maddrell; I have been ill but I only found out early prior to that, by my own family since the mid-1940s. The this week, this microfiche. Cooil family, Leslie Cooil and his two sons, had farmed it continually since that date, so this so-called inspector’s The Clerk: Could a copy of it be made for the comments are totally irrelevant, and are totally erroneous, Committee? when he states that it is covered in gorse and shrubbery. I also, to support that statement, have a copy - very The Chairman: Yes, it would be handy. This is a DoLGE kindly provided by Mr Keggin*s sister, objector - showing document? that the site at the top there, which I will pass round, if you wish to see it, showing the field which is supposedly covered Mr Maddrell: Yes.

Tynwald Select Committee on the Petition for Redress of Grievance of John Armstrong Maddrell - Evidence of Mr J A Maddrell Oral Evidence SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 10th MAY 2004 5TPJM

M rs Hannan: On what file? have withdrawn their support for any integral scheme, despite inspectors and the planning authority indicating, right M r Maddrell: It will be under number 96/910, and it is through the line, that it should be a joint venture on both on microfiche number 3 of three. There are three different units together. I am the first to agree there. microfiches on that file. They would not give me a copy. I To go back, in a historical sense, in the 1980s, a Mr had to write it down. Dootson had bought die putting green site from a Mr Holmes, who owned the site at that stage. Mr Holmes, incidentally, The Clerk: Chairman, if Mr Maddrell has finished had bought all of the site, the putting-green site and the reading it, I could have it copied for the Committee now. Port Erin golf course, the Rowany Golf Course, from the Clague family, but he sold off the... I think he was originally The Chairman: 1 think it is only handwritten. intending to develop part of the golf course, but he was told - because a very close friend of mine was secretary at the M r Maddrell: It is only handwritten here. That is only time - in no uncertain fashion, that it would be left as an as it came off the... As I say, they would not give me a copy open site for recreational purposes. of it down there, so I had to handwrite it out So, he then sold it off to the Port Erin Commissioners, That was the end of that It was rejected once more. It who in turn leased it to the golf club, the Rowany Golf Club. was thrown out Mr Dootson bought the putting green site from Holmes, who They keep emphasising that both sites should be by this stage was getting elderly and frail, and he bought it developed Now, I do not know how I can develop a site from him. He put in for two applications to build on it for a which I do not own, without Government intervention residential house for himself and family. or something. It is impossible to do it I cannot control I approached him on this, after the second application had anybody else. But I did approach Port Erin Commissioners, failed, to suggest that a joint venture for recreational facilities and I submitted an application, 99/01706/A for a hotel and and tourism would be more beneficial, and we were going conference complex, an all-weather leisure, health and into this, and had a number of meetings with MrToohey and swimming pool centre. - 1 cannot think of his name now - one of the Tourist Board This was rejected, although supported by Port Erin officials. Unfortunately, my marriage collapsed, and 1 did not Commissioners at that stage. There is a letter dated 11th do anything more about it until my ex-wife put in the 1992 January 1999, which is on file, which I have submitted. application, and I followed it up with the 1996 application This was opposed by letter by a member of the Port and subsequent applications. Erin Commissioners, Mr J M Keggin, who is present in this Having then had this total rejection from Port Erin room, dated 18th January 2000, and a second letter by Mr C Commissioners, I put in another application, PA01/419, for H Faragher, again present in this room, dated 17th January the erection of a hotel and conference centre. This, again, 2000. My contention is that they did not declare an interest was rejected, on 13th March, and the appeal reasons given at any stage at that time. were: Port Erin Commissioners gave support to that, in a letter dated 2nd February 2000. There was no declaration of ‘the site should be associated with the open area to the south, as was interest, as I say, by Faragher and Keggin, until April 2000. determined by the Minister in 1997.’ I do not know the precise date, but it is in that era of time. I then had a letter from Port Erin Commissioners, very That was on PA96/910. The second reason was that abruptly withdrawing support for the scheme and clearly ‘this would have a harmful effect on the character of the area and result stating that I was not to, then or in the future, use their land in unacceptable noise and disturbance to those living in the area.' in any planning application. That again, is on file. You have a copy of that Again, the insufficient splay, despite the Highway I also had a meeting with Mr Cubbon - again, he is Authority’s letter to the contrary. So you cannot win. present in this room today - on site - again, the one and Then the Society for the Preservation of the Manx only meeting I have had, despite numerous requests, mostly Countryside came back and said it was ribbon development verbal, but in letter form as well, over the years, from Mr again. How a self-contained site can be classed as ribbon Vannin, a past member of the planning authority, and Mr development, I do not know. LePage from the Tourist Board. That, really, is the crux of the matter. I feel I have to say Mr LePage said very little. Mr Vannin agreed in principle it. I feel that both Mr Keggin and Mr Faragher have played that... Because we were arguing about the height of the a great part, behind the scenes, in the obstruction of this, on building, and they were at that stage, I think, trying to say my planning. it should be single storey, which is totally uneconomic on an acre-and-a*third site, and he agreed, in principle, at that The Chairman: Thank you very much for your opening stage, that we could have a mansard-style roof, similar to remarks. I am sure that we have got a number of questions the Cherry Orchard, the hotel in Port Erin. which we would like you to try to answer. But I wrote a letter confirming our meeting a day or two later, and he wrote back and denied that he had ever M r Maddrell: Yes, certainly. suggested that, I think, Mr Cubbon, possibly, could support that statement I have just made. I have to say that I found The Chairman: I suppose the first... Well, there are a that Mr Vannin was not a person I would like to do much number of issues, obviously, relating to this. One of the key business with. I think his attitude was arrogant and, frankly, issues seems to be - or the contentions that you make - is appalling. that Port Erin Commissioners, together with a letter from So, we are now in the position that Port Erin Commissioners John Rimington MHK, persuaded you to put in an application

Tynwald Select Committee on the Petition for Redress of Grievance of John Armstrong M addrell- Evidence of Mr J AMaddrell 6TPJM SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 10th MAY 2004 Oral Evidence which actually had a detail of a footprint of the building and The Chairman: There is another point on the appeal more specific plan. (Mr Maddrell: Yes.) Were any of your conclusion for the 01/419.1 think at this stage, too, I must previous applications - 1 think it was 99/1706 and 96/910 make clear there seems to be a degree of confusion on the - purely for approval in principle, or did they have - ? reference for that. In some instances, it is 01/419; in other instances it is 02/419, so, I think, as long as we agree that 01 Mr Maddrell: All of them are for approval in or 02, whatever it is, we know which one we are referring principle. to, it is the same application. But, certainly, in that application, I think at point 22 of The Chairm an: Did you actually have plans, though, the conclusion: with the previous ones? ’The applicant indicated that about 40 bedrooms would be needed to M r Maddrell: No, not until this last one, but there had make for a viable development’. been requests. But I have a letter here, which I have got copies of, which Is this correct? 1 also went through in the files and dug out, and which I wrote to Port Brin Commissioners. If I may read it - 1 have M r Maddrell: Yes. I have confirmation of that, right got copies if you want I could pass them round. there. I have confirmation from my company in England, and they state... he was referring to a third party here, who I do The Chairman: Do I need to read this for Hansard? not know, I just know one of the people involved here.

‘His approach is that a 40 bed roomed hotel is a very much in-between The Clerk: Yes, I think we need to read it for the size. You are limited to the amount of conference you can take; you are Hansard, Chairman, because it is not already in the files. also limited to the amount of roofs you dare risk taking’,

The Chairman: Is this already in the file? and that is there, it is on headed paper there, and that is the reason why I went in at 40. M r Maddrell; No. It is one I came across. It must have been misplaced. I came across it... The Chairman: Just another couple of questions. I know you have indicated that, following a letter from The Chairman: Okay, thank you. Do you want to read the Commissioners and also from John Rimington, you felt it out? that you had no option but to draw up plans and footprint Is that strictly the case? Could you have not proceeded without M r Maddrell: I can read it out, but you have got copies drawings? there. I will read it out if you wish. Addressed to Port Erin Commissioners, dated 24th M r Maddrell: Well, the others - and there has been January 2000. Reference Planning PA99/1706: a number of requests for details - other applications in principle had been refused; I had little option, I am afraid. I ‘Dear Sire, had very little option, if I wanted things to progress. ‘Thank you for the copy of your letter dated 9th January 2000 to Messrs Partington, Nixon and Kinrade, regarding the above application. ‘My understanding, following a discussion with Mr Nixon, is that, as The Chairman: A final question for me, at the moment, a company of some considerable repute in their field on the Island, anyway: following the Port Erin Commissioners’ decision they have submitted this application in accordance with the accepted to actually deny access via their land, or the use of their practice for such applications.' land (M r M addrell: Yes.) for any future development, what approach have you taken to the Planning Committee That relates to a planning approval in principle, which or DOLGE, to find out what sort of development might be requires no written plans. acceptable? Have you made any progress?

‘I understand that the term “footprint", in architectural terms, is very M r M addrell: I am sorry if you have never submitted il [-defined, and the production of such information is costly and of little further use for future plans. As to the question of costs, I have included a planning application to the Planning Authority. You will a minimum - I repeat, minimum — cost of £4,000 to £5,000. Due to find you do not get very much assistance. your unusual request, I presume that your Board would be willing to indemnify me against these costs.’ The Chairman: Right

I did not get a reply. M r M addrell: Well, you do not get anywhere, quite frankly. I was amazed when Vannin agreed to come on site. The Chairman: Right. Another question that I have got: That was after a number of phone calls and verbal requests for a number of the applications you put in, you did actually and everything else. bring to appeal, but for the application 99/1706 you did not Over the years - Miss Wilkinson has been sitting behind actually go to an appeal. I think it went to a review, but not me here, she will confirm - she has been down at meetings to appeal. when I have asked, numbers of times, if they would give Was there any reason why you...? some guidelines, some encouragement, anything at all. They will not. They will not commit themselves. M r Maddrell: Well, 1999 - yes, I was suffering at that time from - and I went in for an operation for - prostate. The Chairman: Since the Commissioners withdrew

Tynwald Select Committee on the Petition for Redress of Grievance of John Armstrong Maddrell - Evidence of Mr J A Maddrell Oral Evidence SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 10th MAY 2004 7TPJM permission, you have not actually been to DOLGE.in any are not allowed to see the private minutes. I have a letter -1 way. think it is on that file - which clearly states that they would not allow me to inspect the private minutes, so I am boxing M r Maddrell: I have not gone back, because I get a with one hand behind my back there, to be quite frank with bit fed up bashing my head against a stone wall. On one you, because they will not divulge it. hand, you have got them saying that it has got to be a joint development, and on the other hand. Port Erin Commissioners Mrs Craine: So, this is your belief, but you have no have totally rejected it evidence to substantiate that

The Chairman: Mrs Craine, have you got any Mr Maddrell: 1 was just looking for, I have got a copy questions? taken from the public minutes. Unfortunately, I am not so sure where I put it, though. I can assure you I have it, that M rs Craine: If I could just make an observation, first of is for sure. all, Mr Maddrell: in my experience, I have actually found the officers of DOLGE quite helpful - perhaps that is in more The Chairman: If I can interject We have actually recent times. I have found that they are willing to come out had copies of all the minutes that the Clerk of Port Erin on site and give advice - the Area Planning Inspectors. Commissioners is aware of -

Mr Maddrell: Were you representing the Ramsey M r Maddrell: I see. Commissioners or yourself? The Chairman: - the various meetings, so... M rs Craine: No, myself, sir. M r Maddrell: You will find, on one, that Keggin and M r Maddrell: Well, I am afraid I did not; I have not. Faragher were the only opposition. I have just forgotten the details - 1 am sorry, it is here somewhere. M rs Craine: Well, maybe that is something that has evolved now. Mrs Hannan: Thank you. With regard to working with the Planning Committee of M r MaddreU: Yes, but I believe, myself, that there has the Department of Local Government and the Environment, been a hidden agenda behind all of this, to stop us. was it you that were involved each time, or where your architects involved? Mrs Craine: Well, if I could come on to that, if I might, Mr Maddrell: you make suggestion here that Mr Faragher M r MaddreU: No, two 'of them have been with the and Mr Keggin had acted improperly in their positions on architect (Mr Maddrell: Yes.) the Commissioners. Yet, very clearly, from what you have told us, and what is documented here, Mrs Hannan: So, your architects have not been able to this has been a contentious site for a very long time; would you not agree that it was in contention long before they were get very far with the Planning Committee, either? on the Commissioners? M r MaddreU: No. They do not give you any indications. M r Maddrell: The Keggin family - father, daughter and They will not agree or disagree, because they will son - have opposed this for 22 years, this site. Any - compromise themselves, possibly.

M rs Craine: I presume they have not been the sole Mrs Hannan: But they have accepted another application objectors. on the same site?

M r Maddrell: Oh, there has been a load of objectors, M r Maddrell: Yes, they have accepted it I have got of course. There is people living in the area. But most of the suspicion that they know very well it is not going to go the people living in the area, by the way, have bought their anywhere, but that is it; they have accepted it. properties, including some of the Keggin family, since the zoning in 1982. It is zoned for tourism, and they have bought Mrs Hannan: You said that there was a hidden agenda. that property in that full knowledge, or at least their - What is the hidden agenda?

M rs Craine: So, the Keggins have objected to the plans, Mr MaddreU: I feel, myself, that this site has been ear­ along with others, over the years. marked by certain people, with friends in court, who have taken steps to see that there is a course or form of obstruction M r MaddreU: Yes. been put forward.

Mrs Craine: But you are contending, in their position Mrs Hannan: What do you mean: ‘friends in court?’ as Commissioners, they have behaved improperly. What do you mean?

M r MaddreU: Yes, I contend that they have not declared M r MaddreU: It is very... I am saying, for example, Mr an interest in the thing. It is impossible, by the way; I can only Faragher was an MHK. After that, he'was also a member of go by the public records in Port Erin Commissioners’. You the Planning Committee, until 1997, and 1 feel that there is

Tynwald Select Committee on the Petition for Redress of Grievance of John Armstrong MaddreU - Evidence of M r J A Maddrell 8TPJM SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 10th MAY 2004 Oral Evidence more connection there than the average person has. Mr Maddrell: Yes, except that I would just like to emphasise the fact that how can a site - 1 am looking at the M rs Hannan: But following, on from that, if you go to copy of the plan, there - clearly designated for a ‘tourism/ appeal, it does go to an independent inspector. Does it not? recreation area for buildings’, be rejected out of hand? It has been rejected each time, and despite the inspectors’ reports, Mr Maddrell: How independent is the independent and despite the comments from the planners. inspector? How independent is he? I do not know how they have arrived at their conclusion that policy 4/14 indicates that both sites should be developed M rs Hannan: Well, I leave that to you to - together. I cannot read into that, and I defy anybody in this room to read into that - how you can read that both sites M r MaddreU; Well, yes. should have to be developed together. I have no control over your house, if I was alongside Mrs Hannan: - suggest how.., it. There is no way 1 can do it It is an obstruction. It is a There are other forms of recourse that people can take, total obstruction, this emphasis on developing both sites too, if they do not like the planning application: they can go - and when you do that, it is still turned down. Because, to Petition of Doleance, have you considered that? also, all they have got is tourism and recreation, next door, ‘tourism and recreation area of open space*. I am stymied, M r Maddrell: I have not, no. I am stymied.

M rs Hannan: If you have got any more questions; I will Mrs Hannan: Can I just... ? have another think about... M r Maddrell: Yes, certainly. The Chairman: I think, in your Petition, you mentioned a letter from Mr Rimington. There are a few points Mrs Hannan: On that, because you have had some here; obviously, I think it is also minuted in one of the planning approvals, haven’t you, along the way? Commissioners’ meetings, which Mr Rimington, Mrs Crowe and Sir Miles Walker attended, that, certainly, Sir Miles M r Maddrell: What for? expressed a degree of sympathy towards your application. (Mr MaddreU: Yes.) Indeed, in John Rimington’s letter, he Mrs Hannan: For this area. I mean they have not all been finishes up by saying: turned down, have they? I mean, at initial and at review. They have been approved; it is just that objectors have taken it to ‘1 can assure you that all three of your MHKs are. in principle, in favour appeal, which has been outside of the Department of the site being developed for a tourist facility'. M r Maddrell: Yes, yes, it has gone to appeal, but... Bearing in mind that all three MHKs are, or were, at that stage, in principle, in favour of the development, how, do M rs Hannan: But in 1997 - that would be the 1996 you suspect, could a former MHK and former member of application - there was an approval, which is: the Planning Committee influence things in a way that those three MHKs could not? ‘This permission refers only to that required under the Town and Country Planning Act and does not include any consent or approval M r Maddrell: Well, when you are on a Board like that, under any other enactment' - or anything else, you form friendships with various members of staff, whatever. I was on the Board of Education for five that means a byelaw or whatever. or six years, and I know that, for some time afterwards, you So, I mean, the Planning Committee did... it is not as if had access to people to speak to and everything else. You the Planning Committee has objected to it, all the way along knew them very well, through working with them for five the line, as you suggested, within the Department of Local or six years, so I am afraid that there are methods, ways Government and the Environment and means. But this is repeated, I have, frankly, got nowhere on the M r Maddrell: Yes. It is a system. I do not feel, personally, matter, and I do not really feel that they will do. that the question, in our area - 1 am talking about the Isle But, of course, this is only one aspect of my protest; there of Man - of bringing independent inspectors in is quite the are others yet open to me. satisfactory answer that it should be.

The Chairman: Yes. Mrs Craine. M rs Hannan: No, but you were saying before that it was the... you did not get anywhere with the Department and that M rs Craine: No, I do not have anything further, I do there was collusion and suggestion of a (Interjection by Mr not think. Maddrell) hidden agenda, when the Planning Committee did give approval at certain times; but it is within people's rights, The Chairman: Any further thoughts? do you not agree? That is what planning is: that people can object and ask for an appeal. Mrs Hannan: No. Mr MaddreU: I actually have every belief in that, frankly. The Chairman: Is there anything else that you would 1 have every belief in everybody’s right of an appeal. like to...? But I also feel that, in a case like this, where a site is

Tynwald Sclect Committee on the Petition for Redress of Grievance of John Armstrong Maddrell - Evidence of M r J A Maddrell Oral Evidence SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 10th MAY 2004 9TPJM zoned and everything else, and it has been an outline planning very recent figure; they are not even properly published yet, application, which does not require any formal plans - it just but I got permission to take copies of them - bed spaces in needs the buff coloured form to be filled in correctly - yet 2003: 6,702. And they say there is no demand for hotels! you cannot get anywhere with it... I have a copy of a letter, which I wrote in to the Examiner The Chairman: Well, thank you very much for your last year, suggesting an alternative form of planning on the evidence. I think it was very helpfiil. We are starting to run Island - there are copies here, if anyone wants to read them, over time a little bit, so if I could ask Mr Faragher to give there are copies available - in that each area of the Island... some evidence. Thank you very much for your evidence, the Island should be divided into four areas, and elected Mr Maddrell. members from the local authorities should represent, for each area, a sub-division of Planning, and then as an appeal, they M r Maddrell: These are copies of the letter I had sent in could go out to other areas and they could sit on the appeal, to the Examiner - there are three or four copies there - which instead of bringing inspectors in. indicated the concern, the feeling, that I had on the matter. That letter was published on 5th September 2003. I feel it is not the very best of systems, this of independent The Clerk: Could I ask for a copy of the microfiche inspectors. After all, they have stopped two of my notes that Mr Maddrell read from DOLGE files earlier (The submissions by refening to the splay amongst them, and the Chairman: Yes.), because 1 think that that would be useful access on the site; and yet, I have got corresponding letters to the Committee. from the Highway Authority Inspectors who have been there, we have surveyed it, we have looked at it, in the company of M r Maddrell: That is the section which I wrote out, I my architect and everything else, and they are quite happy copied out from the... - and the letters are on file to prove that The Clerk: I will have a copy made of that The Chairman: Just one final point. Certainly, the linking of the two sites by the -1 think it was - the inspector M r Maddrell: Yes, certainly, by all means, yes. in the appeal, in 1996, does make it difficult to pursue a development, and certainly, as you suggest, perhaps sterilises M rs Craine: Thank you. the site. However, I think one of the conclusions - certainly, M r Maddrell: I will be addressing who the ‘anonymous conclusion 22 - of thé appeal of the final application does third party’ is, in reference to that letter, but... Thank you suggest that, bearing in mind the need for 40 bedrooms to veiy much indeed. make the development viable, that much, or probably most, of the site would have to be developed, and this, in the view The Chairman: Thanks. of the inspector, would have a harmful effect on the character of the area. Would you agree that, effectively, to have a 40-bedroomed facility, most of your site would have to be developed, and is that, in effect, regardless of the linkage Mr Faragher was called at 11.05 am. between the two bits of land? Does that, in itself, not inhibit any chances of getting permission? EVIDENCE OF MR C H FARAGHER

M rM addrell: Well, to be quite frank with you, the likes M r Faragher: Mr Chairman, sorry if I take a moment of the Ocean Castle or the Bellevue in Port Erin, you are or two to organise myself. talking about approximately - only guesswork on my part - you are talking, on a very small area, about 70... But they The Chairman: That’s alright. are going upwards; these people are insisting on one or two stories. And say you went to three - quite viable, you still M r Faragher: Mr Chairman, I do not envy you the task have plenty of parking, plenty of access - but when they that has been handed to you of trying to ‘come up to speed’, contain it down to a single storey, on a site like that, well, it as they say, on the history of a site such as this, which has had is a non-event Nobody is going to get committed into that a such a convoluted planning history. It cannot be easy for type of development you, or for anybody else. I have to say that as a result of this You mention about sterilisation and, again, I had an inquiry, I have had to do some background reading, myself, approach, after 1996 or 1999 - I have got it here somewhere and the history of it is, indeed, even more convoluted than - from Cowley Groves, also on behalf of a client, and also I thought It cannot have been made any easier for you by from Kelly, the builders. I do not know the director’s name the fact that a lot of the evidence that has been presented to and it is a family that run it now, but this chap came, and you, not least of which has come in the form of the Petition, looked at the site. Both of them - 1 met Cowley Groves at is itself fairly fractured, and only gives a ‘snapshot’ view of their office, as a result of a phone call, but I went to see various edited highlights of the history. them - sàid that they would be willing to consider the plan, I hope, Mr Chairman, I will endeavour to give my view of but for the objections and problems that have been raised the relevant history on the site, and also any involvement that in Planning, and they would be buying, in a sense, a ‘pig in I have had in any discussions, in some sort of chronological a poke’, because they would have no guarantee to get any order, but if there is any point that you wish to pick me up approval. I have to agree with them. on, please feel free. I might add, by the way, on a question of tourism: bed I did wonder, when I first saw this petition, really, what it spaces in the Isle of Man in 1994 were 10,116-and this is a was all in aid of, and I did wonder, at some stage, why it was

Tynwald Select Committee on the Petition for Redress of Grievance of John Armstrong Maddrell - Evidence of Mr J A Maddrell Evidence of Mr C H Faragher 10TPJM SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 10th MAY 2004 Oral Evidence we were coming along here today, because the fundamental argument and hot water over planning matters. premise of this Petition - i.e. that the Petitioner’s site is In the case of keeping the ‘local’ Port Erin, shall we say, sterilised - is nonsense. It is not sterilised at all. the battle to stop the endless advance of urban sprawl behind He has made various applications over the years, and they Port Erin has become almost a lost cause. It is one field, have usually failed for a variety of reasons, not just for one then another, then another, as you will have seen yourself, or two simple reasons that he has highlighted Mr Chairman. The planning aspect on this is one matter, the other aspect However, what Port Erin does have, and does still retain, in it, which is allegations of subversive activities by myself is a frontage that has some semblance of architectural and by Mr Keggin are quite separate, which I would like to continuity to it, both in terms of the lower promenade and address separately. the upper promenade. If I might, Mr Chairman - 1 am conscious of the need of Now, in that period that I have described to you, which time - this is a complicated story, and the background to it, is the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, that was the period of serious not only the history of the individual planning applications, decline of the tourist business. Some closed at that time but the various factors that are involved, I think need to be and some have petered out since. The petering-out still has understood. not finished; it is still going on, and as you will be aware, My own background, for those who do not know me, is Mr Chairman, various parts of Port Erin promenade have that I have lived in Port Erin all my life. I was bom there. I actually been redeveloped. The building in which I was bom was bom and brought up into the hotel business, a matter of and brought up actually changed use to apartments in the not many hundreds of yards from this particular site. I was late 1980s. Thankfully, the building was able to be retained. adult and involved in the running of the business through the It was kept in good structural condition. If we had managed 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, and I have witnessed the demise of to do nothing else, at least we kept it in good order, so it was the tourist industry at first hand - not as a tenant of a building, converted and, hopefully, has another 100 years’ life. from which you can come to the end of your lease and walk Others have not been so fortunate. The promenade has had away from it, but, unfortunately, as a family freehold, where to be... Some of the buildings on it were not in particularly all the commitments and obligations and the implications of great order, and have been demolished and rebuilt - but a declining industry are very serious indeed. That does not rebuilt as apartments, none of them rebuilt as hotels. leave me with a sense of bitterness, but it did leave me with But in terms of my own interest - and I mean interest a sense of sadness, and, I would hope, a sense of realism, with a small ‘i ’ there - 1 have expressed views on virtually all in terms of the art of the possible, if you like. That is my of them - that is, as you work your way up the promenade, personal business background, if you like, in the area. there is the York House site next to the Falcon’s Nest. I have been involved in, at various times in my life, local Sorry, I was going, at this point to produce this handsome politics, briefly, national politics. It was my honour and photograph of... it’s a fairly reasonable Victorian/Edwardian privilege to serve for a time as part of the planning system, promenade. This is before it started to be redeveloped. This which I hold in high regard, actually. It is a much maligned has still got the Eagle Hotel on it function of Government, but it is one which, in the Isle of So, as you come up the promenade, you have got the Man, I think, we should be very, very grateful for, and the Eagle Hotel, which is now gone and replaced with something fact that it is there. It has served the Island very well. It is, by else; you have got the Snaefell site, which has now been its very nature, a divisive subject: if you please one person, rebuilt and replaced; coming up, you have got the Golf Links you displease another. We understand that Hotel site - same thing there; coming up a bit further, the I have never acted out of self-interest If I have ever had story goes on - the Imperial Hotel, which is at the top of an interest that I thought was a legitimate measurable interest the promenade is about to be demolished and redeveloped, of my own, I would gladly declare it, but we will come onto despite the fact that that is probably the most recent of the that in a minute. tourist premises on the promenade, and, theoretically, you I believe the planning process exists to protect the many would think that it would probably be the most easy to from the excesses of the few. I have become conversant, I adapt, adopt, retain, whatever, but that one is likely to be suppose, with a lot of the ins and outs of the planning process, redeveloped. just through experience. Part of my time, when I was a The point I am trying to make, Mr Chairman, is that I have Member of Tynwald, I served as a member, and ultimately expressed views on lots of sites on Port Erin promenade. The as Chairman, of the then Planning Appeals Tribunal, so I one that we are talking about today is no exception know how contentious these issues can be, and the coming What concerns me most about this field is not so much together of warring factions is not an easy task to have to its position, or its zoning, or anything else. I acknowledge, deal with. completely, the fact that that field has been zoned for tourist But to come back to Port Erin itself, I have long had an development of some form for some time. I have no problem interest in Port Erin, obviously. The reason that I went into with that I acknowledge the fact that it is likely to be built on politics at all was actually fired up by something that was at some time. I do not have a problem with that. I have never a planning issue, and it, strangely enough, was - in a place had a problem with that. 1 presume, because it is zoned, it the size of Port Erin, of course, nothing is that far away will, therefore, be developed. It has had the gift of ‘zoning’ - a development of a block of flats probably not more than visited upon it! a quarter of a mile away from this site, which removed a The fact that, as the Petitioner states, he finds himself in complete copse of trees, in order to do it, and this was in the a quandary because of the linkage that has occurred between early 1970s and trees in Port Erin are about as scarce as hens’ his property and the property adjacent belonging to Port Erin teeth. That really set me on the way, so I have always had Commissioners, yes, I would say as a disinterested observer, an interest in planning matters; ever since I was old enough one would have to say that the meaning and intention of the to articulate matters at all, I have been in various degrees of local plan, in respect of these two sites, is not the best, but it

Tynwald Select Committee on the Petition for Redress of Grievance of John Armstrong Maddrell - Evidence of M r C H Faragher Oral Evidence SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 10th MAY 2004 11TPJM is my own opinion - and it is only an opinion - that probably This is only in principle, but these are the things that are two successive inspectors have misinterpreted the history listed on the application form, and if a permission in principle that goes with this form of linkage, and to my recall, the two is granted, as a result of the submission of a form of that sites first became linked as a result of the application of Mr order, with that written in i t beware! It is likely to come Dootson, when he wanted to create a development on what back and haunt you, and you may very well finish up with a is now the pitch and putt site. I assume you know which site building far, far bigger than you would like to see. I am referring to - it is not pitch and putt now, but that was On most of the applications for redevelopment of Port the site that he wanted to develop. That was refused. Erin promenade that 1 can recall, an applicant would, in Now, 1 have a feeling that there was some talk of creating all probability, take on, as their first obvious hurdle in the tourism/leisure facilities on that site, and 1 believe that it is planning process, to get some notion of public acceptability as a result of that application that an inspector said, if there for the plan, if nothing else. So what tends to happen, fairly is going to be any use of that land for tourism/leisure and early on in the game, you will get an indicative layout and recreational facilities, that any buildings associated with that probably an artist's impression, because you have to go to use should be at the north end of the site, which, 1 think, try and appease the neighbours, for a kick off, before you is where they overlap onto the Petitioner’s site. What has do anything at all. You have got to reduce the number of happened subsequently is that inspectors have come along objectors that you are going to line up in front of you. and seen this and actually taken it the other way around, as Now, this particular applicant has gone out of his way though the development of the one field should be associated not to do that, so the people living in Spaldrick Avenue, with the development of the other, and I do not think that that for instance, have every right to be concerned about the was the original intention, but, unfortunately, that appears implications of any application, such as this; I do not blame to have been the result them for one second. So, it is not a very satisfactory arrangement It is not The land adjacent to this, which is owned by Port Erin clear and obviously it has not worked in the Petitioner’s Commissioners is currently, as you will, no doubt, have best interests. observed, in full use by the Rowany Golf Club. It was at one But, anyway, be that as it may, field 6065 does have time pitch and putt It was a pitch and putt course for many zoning for a tourist development. The reason why Mr years. It is not now. There is now a practice green on there, Maddrell seems unable to get planning permission each and it is the main practice ground for the golf club. They also time he applies is because, for one reason or another, his have a fair amount of car parking on site, and the decision, plans are not acceptable, and, for my money, the robustness which was made by Port Erin Commissioners, prior to me of the planning system in continuing to rebut unsuitable joining the Board, to grant access across that site to a private applications is to be commended. development I was very, very surprised at because of the Until such time as Mr Maddrell puts forward a plan implication that it would have for the golf club. It would, which is acceptable, then refusal is the only option, probably. effectively, sever a large portion of that land from them, with One has to bear in mind that the use of most of the land in all sorts of consequences. that area is residential, now, and it is relatively small-scale Anyway, Mr Chairman, I am conscious of the time here. I residential, and whilst the applicant may well have rights, presume there are two aspects on which you will be wanting under the planning system, he also has obligations, and those to ask me questions: one is the planning matter itself; and obligations include submitting plans which are compatible the other is this allegation of subversive activity. with the area in which it is situated, and that means in terms If I skip the rest, and address the particular matters, I of scale and massing, in traffic generation, in all sorts of presume the first is the matter of whether I participated in things - a difficult scheme to achieve, no doubt but not a vote at Port Erin Commissioners’, which the Petitioner impossible. alleges I should not have done, that I should have declared The danger, of course, is that the applicant keeps putting an interest in, or has put in, successively, applications in principle. Now, You will have, amongst the pile of papers that you have applications in principle, and permissions in principle, can got, Mr Chairman, probably, a copy of my submission to be quite a dangerous thing because they tend, by their very the Planning Committee on this application. That, more nature, to be vague, and, once granted, they have got a habit or less, mirrors what I verbally said at the Commissioners’ of coming back to haunt whoever granted them, because meeting: that the two were in parallel. Because of the nature they will say: ‘Ah, but, in my application in principle, it of this particular application, and because its implications was clearly intended that I would have a, b, c and d ' It are so vague, I thought it best to put my thoughts on it in does not actually say that, but before you know it, you writing to the Planning Committee, because, if nothing else, can find yourself being compromised by an application in the Planning Committee needed as much background and principle. information as possible, on which to base a judgement. It Now, this particular application in principle, if we are will make its own judgment but it can do so better with a speaking of the 99/1706, gave a shopping list of things that degree more information. were going to be included in this development - no indication So, that submission, as I say, mirrored whatever of quite how they would be accommodated, but they were comments 1 made to Port Erin Commissioners. Port Erin all going to be there - a hotel and conference complex, an Commissioners, of course, are not a hurdle that need to be all-weather leisure/health complex, swimming pool centre, surmounted by a planning applicant; far from it They merely cinema, ten-pin bowling, various other things, and we gather submit a view on the application themselves, in due course, since - 1 cannot remember when the number 40 first appeared as you will be aware. in this equation - but that the hotel owner would have 40 So, I submitted that letter to the Planning Committee. I bedrooms: a monster basically; a very, very substantial did not, and I still do not, really, consider that the submission building to accommodate something like this. of views on an application constitutes having an interest in

Tynwald Select Committee on the Petition for Redress of Grievance of John Armstrong Maddrell - Evidence of Mr C H Faragher 12TPJM SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 10th MAY 2004 Oral Evidence an application, particularly when those views are actually the a little bit, is Rowany Golf Club, with a fairly extensive same views, and one of the things that I became very much car park. You can see it on here. This is about 48 hours old, aware of, at the time of serving the Planning Committee, Mr this one. There are probably upwards of 20 cars facing my Chairman, was that, by the time a letter came through from property, and overlooking it It is not a problem. I have never Port Erin Commissioners on any sort of application, as you objected to that, and when they have busier days and the car will see from most of the letters in your file, it is extremely park spills over onto the grassed area, so be it brief. Even if it is a fairly complicated planning application, it So, I do not believe that putting an access road, probably would finish up with one paragraph, or maybe a three-liner or behind that line of cars, would have the faintest interest for a five-liner, which I am afraid I do not consider a satisfactoiy me at all, none whatever, but it is a technical matter, and way of putting evidence before a Planning Committee, albeit technically something was happening on that plot, and so, it is a sort of a condensed decision that they are transmitting. technically, I might be considered as a party to proceedings, But I thought, on something like this, that it is important that which would give me nothing other than the opportunity to they should have more background information. write to, or address, either the Planning Committee or the So, I wrote to the Planning Committee. I did not say field inspector, in due course. at the meeting at which this matter came up that I had So that was it. That was my sole reason for wanting to written to the Planning Committee. I made a note on the apply for party status. end of that letter that I would ask to be treated as a ‘party I am not aware of any provision which forbids members to proceedings’, which is not the same thing as ‘having an of a local authority from writing to the Planning Committee interest in’, but, nonetheless, 1 had decided that, were I to on a particular aspect, if they wanted to, and I felt that be granted party status in this application, then I would any comments that I made were simply giving a bit more certainly withdraw from any discussion on the matter at Port evidence to those who had to make a decision. Erin Commissioners. If that was wrong, procedurally, Mr Chairman, I was not If I was to be granted party status on this application, it aware of it at the time, and if it was wrong, then I apologise would be on a technicality, because I am not opposite the for it, but I did not believe that it was, and it was not done site, and I do not adjoin the site, but the fact that a part of in any sense of personal interest because I have no personal that application was going to be a roadway put through the interest. In any event my vote, that night, had no impact golf club site, then technically, yes, I am opposite that, so I on the decision of the Board, because the Board voted to thought, ‘Well, there is nothing ventured, nothing gained’, support the application, and that vote, in turn, by the Port so I just put that in. I did not really think that I would be Erin Commissioners, carried no weight when it got to the granted party status, anyway. Planning Committee, because the Planning Committee Just for the record, Mr Chairman, I do not know if you can refused it so where, in that was the influence of this vote? see if from that distance, but this paper indicates (a) where I do not know; it was all lost, I am afraid, but the allegation my house is, and (b) where this site is. I am not opposite made against me of an interest in this property, which, as I this site; my next-door neighbour is not opposite; neither is say, has not been substantiated, and I am not quite sure how it the one beyond that; Coniston House, strictly speaking, is has been arrived at, does not stand up to scrutiny; but 1 invite not opposite it - the building itself - but the land is, so he that scrutiny from you. That is what I am here for. probably would, by rights, get party status on that application The matter of the Port Erin Commissioners’ subsequent on 6065, so that is just... decision to withdraw right of access across their land to I am conscious of having been accused of having an this private development is a matter on which I take your interest to declare. It has not been spelt out to me quite what guidance, Mr Chairman, because I am conscious that whilst this interest is. If it is because I am abutting the site, I think you have minutes of Port Erin Commissioners - which I am that you can see from this that I am not That does not leave very happy to discuss, that is not a problem - I am aware me with... I was expecting the Petitioner this morning to that they were taken in committee, and I am not sure whether put some flesh on the bones of the allegations against me, in I am at liberty to discuss them here. I would gladly, if you terms of interest and so on, but I have not heard anything this would like me to. I am not sure how we handle this bit morning, so I am left no wiser. I could only deduce, since my (Interjection by the Clerk) understanding of ‘having an interest' means that you have a financial or other interest - financial being, presumably The Chairman: I think that it would be helpful to look in this instance, like a negative financial interest, i.e. that a at the minutes. development would be detrimental to me, or my property, or my way of life, whatever. That is the only what that I M r Faragher: Fine, well, as I say, the decision... I was could interpret it not on the Board of Port Erin Commissioners at the time, So, how is this supposed to be detrimental to me, in that when this decision to grant an access across golf club land case? I cannot see how it could be detrimental to me. This is was made. 1 was surprised by it because of the implications the east elevation of my property, which faces onto a main to the golf club, which I do not think had been taken road. It was built on the main road. You will have visited the satisfactorily into account. site of course, Mr Chairman, but if you will have noticed that The layout of the golf course, Mr Chairman: you will be the alignment of my property is north-south, the fenestration familiar with where the clubhouse and facilities are - almost on my property is sort of east-west, but all the east elevation next to that is the 18th green, so you drive in off the golf windows are obscure - all bar none, all bar the front door, course more or less towards the golf clubhouse, and the 18th which is the only plain glazed... and a small window in the green is just slightly to the north of the clubhouse, which, garage - because it is immediately next to a main road. It is more or less, immediately abuts what is now the car park. passed by Joe Public walking the dog. It is passed by double- Now, as things stand at the moment - 1 know there are decker buses, and across the road from that, and up the way certain members who decline to park their cars in that area of

Tynwald Select Committee on the Petition for Redress of Grievance of John Armstrong Maddrell - Evidence of Mr C H Faragher Oral Evidence SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 10th MAY 2004 13TPJM the car park, for fairly obvious reasons - if and when damage But the withdrawal of permission for access across does occur to vehicles there, it is fully within the scope of land was in full compliance with the Planning Committee’s the golfing fraternity, I am afraid, aqd they understand that final decision on that application. What has happened However, if that becomes a private road used by third parties subsequently, like the later application, 1 was not on the and there is damage to, injury to, anything at all, as we all Board of Commissioners at that time, but as usual, I made know, it will be a different story altogether. a submission on it, which I presume you have a copy of as The second hole, on Rowany Golf Links has had to be well, Mr Chairman, but bearing in mind that this subsequent realigned because of incidents of damage, and whatever, to planning application, and this letter that I wrote, was in June private property which lie alongside the second hole. Those 2002, which is before there was any notion of somebody properties were, incidentally, built long after the second hole trotting up to Tynwald Hill with a Petition, I was not was in place. They arrived with the problem; the problem influenced by back-tracking or covering of... making amends did not arrive with them, but nonetheless, that hole has or anything there. had to be realigned. If the 18th hole had to be realigned on The last lines of this letter state alternatives: account of this, the cost implications and the damage to the appearance and challenge of the course go without saying, ‘As previously stated, the ideal solution here would be for the site to be re-zoned for residential use, which would then enable sympathetic but it also means that any potential development, alteration development in scale, density and design.* to, extension of, or new buildings for, the Rowany Golf Gub, itself, would be compromised, and furthermore, of course, These are not the words of somebody who is trying the fact that this area of land, which at the moment is the to stifle development of the applicant’s field; I have no practice ground, would actually be severed from the rest of intention of stifling development on his field. All I would the golf course. I thought that it was a crazy idea. ever want to see is that if there is to be development on it it So, anyway, the point was that permission had been be sympathetic in scale, design and size, and I do not believe granted, and, at this time, this was the application that was that that would necessarily render it unviable. going through, was being processed. This notion of a letter by a third party about something The application came to Port Erin Commissioners. The in England which said 40 bedrooms, I mean this is... I think Commissioners had this agreement on the table, so that went we need to see something a little more specific, and a little with it The Commissioners voted to approve the application. more local, on that matter, bu t in any case, we are told, It went to the Planning Committee and, as you all know, die half the time, that viability is not a matter that the Planning Planning Committee refused it Committee shall take into account. So, on the one hand, Now, the Planning Committee then wrote back with we are being expected to take cognisance of it, and on the notice of refusal, et cetera, and correspondence thereto, and, other we are not at that point I declared an interest in the application, because And just one final point Mr Chairman, and that was: it would appear that I had been granted party status. So, I the Petitioner mentioned he had been visiting the Planning declared an interest and took no further part in the vote, when Department and had studied the microfiche down there. we were asked to submit views for the review. Well, because I thought I needed to do a bit of research as Mr Keggin also declared an interest and took no further well, I have probably looked at the same microfiche and, part in the review vote, either. obviously, a frill copy of it would be advantageous. He said So, the Commissioners, again, supported the application; he had read something that said, ‘site visited YN\ and he it went off to the Planning Committee. The review decision did not know who that was. was a confirmation of their original decision, i.e. to refuse Well, ‘site visited YN’, I think, that is: ‘Site visited? it Y/N’ - yes/no. After that one anticipated that there would be an appeal, The other thing which I noted, probably on the same but there was no appeal, and it is only when that planning document, actually, was the planning officer’s report to the application had, therefore, lapsed - that was no longer active Planning Committee, and this was on the 1984 application. - that Port Erin Commissioners took a good look at this, Again, we could sit here all day, just talking about the number which was the Planning Committee's reasons for refusal, of applications here, because that itself has been selectively stated initially, and then repeated at review. This became highlighted, and somebody coming fresh to reading this the final document regarding that planning application, and Petition would presume that the applicant has had a long and this document says: dismal history of failure of every single planning application, which is not true. ‘To the extent that the proposed development would involve either the In 1984, permission was granted for the layout of four erection of buildings, or the construction of a car park and access way, plots, for residential use, and that is despite the fact that the on that part of the site which is zoned as open space, the development field was zoned for tourist use, at the time, but the Planning would be contrary to the Port Erin Local Plan.' Committee approved it - twice. A valid approval for some development of this site lasted for a year, and because it was Port Erin Commissioners acted on this information, and not taken up by the applicant that was the end of that, and withdrew the consent to provide access across their land then on we went to subsequent applications later. to this private development Bearing in mind that there are But on the notes from the planning officer to the Planning alternative accesses to that site, this was not land-locking the Committee on this application, the planning officer said site at all. And, so that is how that came about - again these are scribbled notes, and it probably is not My vote on this matter was in the public interest, Mr verbatim, but it is as close as 1 could manage, I think: Chairman, the ratepayers' interest, Rowany Golf Club’s interest; as I said; it is not in my interest because it would not 'This represents a departure from the Development Plan’ - make a hair of difference to me, not the slightest difference to me. i.e. it was not a tourist use -

Tynwald Select Committee on the Petition for Redress of Grievance of John Armstrong Maddrell - Evidence of Mr C H Faragher 14TPJM SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 10th MAY 2004 Oral Evidence

'but understand the owner has been unable to interest any developers Obviously, you understand I have got to ask the question. ¡n a tourist accommodation scheme.' (Mr Faragher: Yes.) We have a letter here from the Clerk of Port Erin Well, it strikes me this merry-go-round has been going Commissioners explaining that members, on election to Port round for years, and we have arrived back at this same Erin Commissioners, receive copies of the Standing Orders. position, but, Mr Chairman, at the end of the line, this is a Do you recall receiving a copy? matter of an applicant who cannot get what he wants. I do not believe that he has gone about getting what he M r Faragher: Probably. wants the right way, anyway; but a reasonable application for the development of this site would probably be favourably The Chairman: And are you aware of Standing Order received, but there has not been one. It is for the applicant number 17, which describes interested members, in contracts to address those matters - not only the matters of the and other matters? Development Plan, but to have a look at all the other reasons for refusal, and actually pay some attention to them, and M r Faragher: No, but read it to me, by all means, Mr recognise that there are other issues involved here, and that Chairman. if he wants to put in a successful application he is going to have to address those reasons, as well. The Chairman: Basically this is, 1 suppose, the Standing So, that is it, Mr Chairman; sorry it has taken a long Order in question, with regards to pecuniary interest: time. ‘If any member of the authority has any pecuniary interest, direct The Chairman: Thank you very much for very full, or indirect, within the meaning of sections 11 and 12 of the Local Government Act 1985, other than an indirect interest described in comprehensive opening remarks. subsections 14(4) to (6) thereof, in any contract, proposed contract or I think that there are a few matters, just for clarity, which other matter that member shall withdraw from the meeting while the would be helpful, particularly your membership of the contract, proposed contract or other matter is under consideration by the Planning Committee, the Commissioners and membership authority, unless the disability to discuss that matter imposed upon him of the House of Keys. Could you just explain to us when you by the section has been removed by the Board under section 14.1 thereof or the contract, proposed contract or other matter under consideration were a member of each of those establishments? by the authority as part of the report of the committee and is not itself the subject of debate or the authority invite him to remain.* Mr Faragher: I will probably fail you there, Mr Chairman. So were you aware that that Standing Order exists? 1 was a member of Port Erin Commissioners, I estimate, from probably about 1973 to 1982. I was a Member of M r Faragher: Yes, I believe so, Mr Chairman. I was the House of Keys from 1982 to 1986.1 am not too sure aware, broadly, of the need, from time to time, if it was a when I joined the Planning Committee, but I was on it until necessary case, that one would declare an interest in a matter December 1994,1 think, and I served 3 years on Port Erin and withdraw, which I have done on several occasions, when Commissioners, again, terminating about 18 months ago, so I have felt it applicable. it will be 3 years prior to that As I described earlier to you, I did not feel that submitting a letter, in parallel to comments that I had made at the The Chairm an: I suppose, the suggestion has been Commissioners’ meeting, actually constituted an interest, made, so I ought to ask the question: as a former MHK and a declarable interest. It would have done, had I been in the former member of the Planning Committee, have you been knowledge that I was granted party status to the application. in a position to influence, in any way, the three applications That would up my status in the application, obviously, and I to which you objected in 1996,1999 and 2...? would declare an interest, which I did subsequently. And, as I hope I have illustrated from my description of the property Mr Faragher: Absolutely not. Absolutely not, Mr I live in, and so on, I do not, for a second, believe that I have Chairman. Only to the extent that my experience over the an interest in the applicant’s site, in that respect years has at least put me in a position to put into words, probably - more so than I could have done previously - what The Chairman: At every instance, subsequently to I thought was good, bad or indifferent about an application; you being granted party status, at every Commissioners’ that is all. meeting following that, you declared an interest; would But, certainly, in a personal capacity, absolutely not that be correct?

The Chairman: But at no time - M r Faragher: Where there was a planning application? (Interjection by the Chairman) Well, I think that the M r Faragher: Absolutely not. Petitioner alluded to the fact that there was a second item of correspondence which came to Port Erin Commissioners, The Chairman: - have you contacted members of the at which I did not declare an interest. From memory, that Planning Committee -? was the letter of notification from the Planning Committee that they had refused the application, to which the Port Erin M r Faragher: Absolutely not 1 would not influence a Commissioners discussion amounts to, and, I will probably planning application like that. I know the system better than quote, ‘noted’. I probably would not have had time to say, that, Mr Chairman. ‘Excuse me, I had better declare an interest.’ A noted letter, I am afraid, 1 do not think influences the outcome of world The Chairman: Right Thanks. events.

Tynwald Select Committee on the Petition for Redress of Grievance of John Armstrong Maddrell - Evidence of Mr C H Faraghe Oral Evidence SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 10th MAY 2004 15TPJM

The Chairman: Did anyone, at any stage prior to you should take no further part in it, 1 do not know; but, either being granted party status, advise you that, perhaps, you had way, we obviously felt it better to declare an interest and an interest or that, maybe, you should not - ? take no further part

M r Faragher: No, 1 do not think so. M rs Hannan: Right thank you.

The Chairman: Okay, thanks. M r Faragher; It was the initial consideration of the Mrs Craine, have you got anything? application - the one that came before that - if there is any contention, that is the one - the one before that But this Mrs Craine: Only a point of clarification, Mr one here, we had declared an interest and withdrew from Chairman. any discussion on it. You went on the Planning Committee, Mr Faragher, in 1994. When did you come off? M rs Hannan: And the Port Erin Commissioners actually confirmed their decision to approve the application - M r Faragher: No, no, I am sorry, I came off in 1994. M r Faragher: Yes, they did. M rs Craine: Off in 1994. M rs Hannan: - but not give any support to it; was that usual? When I say, ‘not give any support', it says: M r Faragher: Yes, off in 1994. ‘also that there be no Board representation at any future review M rs Craine: And you were on the Planning Appeals hearing’. Tribunal? M r Faragher: Yes, that is not uncommon. M r Faragher: Appeals Tribunal, probably, I am guessing here, something like 1984 to 1986, or something like that M rs Hannan: Okay. I do not think I have got anything (Mrs Craine: Right.) That will be on record somewhere, else. anyway; you will be able to find that The Chairman: Just having a look through, then, on M rs Craine: That is all, thank you. this application, particularly - 99/1706 - you objected on the 17th January and wrote your letter on the 17th January Mrs Hannan: Can I ask, Mr Faragher. you talked about 2000, and yet there was a meeting on the 19th, at which the declaring an interest, but on 25th April 2000, you did declare Commissioners, effectively, delayed making a decision. At an interest and left the meeting; what was the reason for that stage, I think, Mr Maddrell was contacted and asked to that? provide a footprint and plans. I think you have explained, really, why, at that stage, you felt that it was okay for you M r Faragher: You have me at a disadvantage. I am to make your views. not sure which minute you are referring to there. Was that discussing this planning application? I do not know. M r Faragher: Yes, I thought I had not said anything at the Commissioners that I had not said in the letter, and Mrs Hannan: Yes, would you show that to Mr vice versa. I did not think there was any conflict there. Faragher? With hindsight perhaps there was, if that was a procedural mistake on my- part. It is not a situation that I had actually M r Faragher: Thank you. Right That was a notification encountered before, and it is only with subsequent events from the Planning Committee that they had received a review that I have reflected on it anyway. request for this application. So, that was a slightly longer The Chairman: Are you aware of any other situations letter, I suppose, and the Commissioners, presumably, at when you were on the Commissioners where other that stage, would be discussing what stance they wished to Commissioners would have declared an interest? take on the application to submit a view for the review. Yes, and I declared an interest there, and so did Mr Keggin, and M r Faragher: Well, declare an interest yes; I mean, withdrew from the meeting, which I presume is the proper obviously, Commissioners declare an interest from time to thing to do. With hindsight even, that was the thing to do. time, depending on what association they may, or may not have with, in the case of a planning application, the applicant Mrs Hannan: Yes, I just wondered why - or an objector or whatever. That is not infrequent But in a place the size of the small authority, the likes of M r Faragher: Yes, I do not have this minute, Mrs Port Erin, it does arise. It does arise, it is quite... Members Hannan, otherwise I would have probably referred to it declaring interest to me is a fairly frequent occurrence, and most of the meetings are in public, all these matters are Mrs Hannan: I just wondered: what was the reason for matters for the public record, and it is not really a problem. the withdrawal? I have never had a problem declaring an interest, if I felt I had a valid interest. M r Faragher: That would be so that we could take no In this particular case, at that particular stage, I did part in the meeting. Whether we had actually been advised not feel I had anything that could Be called a declarable by the Cleric, or whether we had decided ourselves that we interest.

Tyowald Select Committee on the Petition for Redress of Grievance of John Armstrong Maddrell - Evidence of Mr C H Faragher 16TPJM SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 10th MAY 2004 Oral Evidence

The Chairm an: Have you declared interest in other a few matters which 1 think might assist the Committee. matters? First of all, in connection, Mr Faragher, with your declaration of an interest, on 25th April 2000, you said that M r Faragher: Oh, yes. you had declared an interest then because you had been accorded party status. The Chairman: So, it would not be an unusual concept for you to... M r Faragher: Yes, it was my understanding that I had patty status, though I do not have a letter that actually says M r Faragher: Oh, yes, I have no problem at all with that. declaring an interest I distance myself from any discussion that might have any personal interest The Clerk: Can I put it to you that the reasons for your being recognised as having party status always existed. The Chairman: The other matter: you refer to this Whether that was recognised by DoLGE or not, the reasons minute of a meeting that was taken in committee, which for you having entitlement to party status always existed. took place on 12th September. I think this was a minute Is that not right? of a meeting which Mr Maddrell was not actually allowed access to. Now, obviously, it is very clear from this that M r Faragher: I do not know; it is an interesting point you, effectively, brought forward the motion to move that because, from past experience, the granting of party status... the Board reconsider its position regarding the access of the there are certain criteria, of course, which normally permit land. Now, bearing in mind your interest in the application up the granting of party status, but it is sometimes a fairly to that stage, is this not something that you would consider subjective matter, that there were, and probably still are, would remain an interest? occasions where individuals will appeal to the Planning Committee, because they feel that they have not been granted M r Faragher: Not really, because that only actually status, when they should have been, and I think, equally, it is affected the land on Rowany Golf Club. That was all. Field possible that, in this case, for instance, if I was immediately 6065 had had, at various stages, proposed access off the main adjoining this golf club, and if I was immediately abutting promenade, which is the logical place to access it from, I it then there would be no question, it would be automatic. suppose. There was no plan on the table. There was no plan But once a main road becomes between you and it quite in due process, at that time, and that was the very reason for often there is a slightly different stance taken. It dilutes, if giving sufficient space and time, to wait to see if there was you like, the interest going to be an appeal, or if there was not Obviously, we would not do anything at all about that, while there was a The Clerk: May I put it to you this way: that you thought planning application in the course of consideration. you should be granted party status, didn’t you? There was not; there was no plan in the system at all, at that time, and I felt that the decision, previously, by the M r Faragher: I thought I might be, but I was far from Commissioners so prejudiced the interests of the golf club certain. that it should be rescinded. And, yes, you may well say, was that not a conflict of The Clerk: You thought you ought to be. interest? I do not believe it was. The greater interest there was, wearing my Port Erin Commissioners’ hat, ratepayers* M r Faragher: No. interests and the golf club interest. As I say, had there been a road there it would have no The Clerk: You applied for it. impact on me whatever. I would have no interest. In fact I went up there the other day, just out of curiosity: I went up M r Faragher: I did. across the practice ground, up over the top, just to make sure there had not been a roadway put in that I had not noticed, The Clerk: If you applied for it, then you must have because there could be, because I would not be able to thought that you ought to have been granted party status. see it There could be a hole appearing in that hedge and, ‘hey presto!’, there would actually be, de facto, a roadway M r Faragher: No, I thought I might be eligible for it, through, and I thought, ‘Well, this would be interesting; it which is not quite the same thing. would be funny, wouldn’t it, if there was one here and I did not know about it?’ The Clerk: At all times you had the basis on which you So that is it, Mr Chairman. 1 cannot see it thought you might be eligible for party status.

M rs Craine: Can I just ask, Mr Faragher: you mentioned Mr Faragher: Thought I might be eligible for party that you had previously gone on Port Erin Commissioners, status, yes. and it was a planning application that had driven you to stand for local politics. Was it this, or a related issue to this matter, The Clerk: Would it not follow that you ought to have that drove you to stand in 2000? declared an interest, therefore, at all times?

M r Faragher : Oh no, not at all. M r Faragher: No, because I thought that it would rest upon the granting of party status, not the application for. Mrs Craine : Thank you. The Clerk: There is one other matter, which I hope may The Clerk: Gentlemen, in the meantime, if I could raise assist the Committee.

Tynwald Select Committee on the Petition for Redress of Grievance of John Armstrong Maddrell - Evidence of M r C H Faragher Oral Evidence SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 10th MAY 2004 17TPJM

You mentioned earlier that you have been, as it were, bom comment on planning applications. Only if a Commissioner into and bred up into the hotel trade. Did you, at the time of has ‘party status’ in planning terms, has a financial interest, these applications, have any interest in the hotel trade? or the applicant is a close relative or friend, should they withdraw from consideration of the particular application. M r Faragher: We came out of the hotel trade in 1988. If I was to represent a local authority somewhere in size to the average rural authority in England, which is nearer The Clerk: So, at the time, in particular, of 99/1706, you the size of the Isle of Man, the issues of interest would still had no interest to protect in the hotel business. be there, but with many more people, greater distance and bigger issues, it would not be at a parish pump level. M r Faragher: No, oh goodness, certainly not! And 1 This is not the case for me in Port Erin. If I was to take an would not, had I been in the hotel industry business even, 1 overly sensitive approach, then I and other Commissioners would never consider having a decision influenced by the fact would declare an interest on more issues than we do. that I was in the same industry - far from it; it is probably I feel I have always acted in the interests of the public, complementary. and I have to take the risk that individuals may perceive it differently. The alternative is to be endlessly compromised, The Chairman: Anything else? Mrs Hannan? and to disappoint the public that elected you. 1 would like to speak directly to the accusation by the Mrs Hannan: No, I do not think so. Petitioner that I failed to declare an interest in relation to his application for field 6065. The Chairman: Mrs Craine? Firstly, may I state that the Commissioners are not the arbiters in relation to planning matters; they are only an M rs Craine: No, thank you. interested party, along with other parties, who are given that status by the Planning Authority. Approval and refusal The Chairm an: Okay then, I do not think we have comes from the Planning Committee, and finally, at appeal, received any questions from witness A or witness B - or from the Minister, on consideration of the inspector’s whoever it was supposed to have been - so thank you very recommendations. much for giving us your time this morning and, as soon as The Commissioners only air an opinion, and often their you have managed to clear your papers, if you could ask views are not the same as the Planning Committee, or the Mr Keggin to... inspector, as was the case with the applications in 1996, 1999 and 2001, As a member of the Board of Commissioners, I am one ninth of an interested party. Mr Keggin was called at 12.10 p.m. I am accused of failing to declare a family interest in land and an unadopted road bordering the Petitioner's site. I EVIDENCE OF MR J M KEGGIN do not have any financial interest in the land adjoining field 6065; my family and my sister’s family are separate entities, The Chairman: Thank you very much for coming along. without any joint financial interests. Sorry we are running a bit late, now, but I think, again, if I My brother-in-law, Mr G O Thomas, was an interested could ask you to give your initial thoughts on why we are party in the 1999 application, and both he and my sister here today. were interested parties in the 2001 application. As the Commissioners were also interested parties to these M r Keggin: What I have done, actually, is put together applications, I felt my connection insignificant to declare a written statement, which I will read. I am not reacting to an interest evidence I have already heard, so I will read this. I think it, The Clerk to the Commissioners was aware of my basically, addresses all the issues, anyway, as far as I am relationship, and did not advise declaration to be made. concerned. If I have an interest to declare, it is that I am Manx and I am going to go straight in regarding declaration of care strongly about Port Erin and how it is developed. My interest; I am not going to deal with the planning, or the voting record on the Board would confirm this. history of the field. I am directly dealing with... well, to I would like it to be noted that, on two separate begin with, anyway. I will just add, perhaps, a paragraph at occasions, when planning applications came in from my the end about the planning. sisters - Mrs Thomas on 16th April 2002, and Mrs Lever Okay, ‘Declaration of interest’: on 18th September 2003 - 1 declared an interest. I think it I am Manx and have lived and worked in Port Erin all is significant the difference between an applicant and an my life. Naturally, I have relatives and friends throughout interested party. the community. With that pedigree, I am well aware of The Petitioner states that I submitted written evidence a conflict of interest, when it comes to Commissioners’ to the Planning Committee for application 99/1706 and I business. The line between significant and insignificant, took part in discussions when the plan first came before the in terms of interest, is a grey area, and you are required to Commissioners. This is correct My submission to Planning make that judgement. was to inform. I did not have a personal grievance with the There are nine Commissioners in Port Erin, all living application, and I knew that I did not have entitlement to within a fairly compact geographical area. It is inevitable party status. 1 was, therefore, of the opinion that I would be that individual Commissioners will live close to ongoing allowed to air my views and vote at that Board meeting. planning applications. This is generally considered a positive The vote was in favour of this application by five to four, attribute, as there is a good body of local knowledge to and my vote did not affect the Board’s decision.

Tynwald Select Committee on the Petition for Redress of Grievance of John Armstrong iMaddrell - Evidence of Mr C H Faragher Evidence of Mr J M Keggin 18TPJM SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 10th MAY 2004 Oral Evidence

The Cleric to the Board, on learning of this letter, when road. the plans came to review stage - obviously, this letter was The Petitioner considers 40 bedrooms to be the minimum not in their possession when they initially considered it viable size for a tourist development. I would suggest that, - suggested that 1 should declare an interest On this advice, since the land has cost him nothing, even a single holiday 1 took no further part in proceedings, and it is at that point, cottage would be viable. Viability is very subjective, and actually, that Mr Faragher took no part in proceedings, as there are other uses when you talk about tourist development, well, because both letters came to the surface. other than a big hotel and conference centre, and scale can With application 2001/419,1 made no submission to come right down. Planning. I took part in discussions and voted at the various What the Petitioner is really saying, when he talks about stages. At all the stages, the Board voted against the plans, his land being sterilised, is that he cannot just have what he unanimously, and, again, my vote really did not affect the wants, i.e. a large hotel development. I think it is clear that Board’s decision. if he addressed the issues of scale and massing he could Separate from the planning applications is the issue of the develop the site, but he chooses to ignore this. Commissioners’ vote in committee, to reverse the decision The 1984 approval shows that a more modest scheme to give access to field 6065 over their land. This took place is possible. I would suggest that the issue of his land being after application 99/1706 ran its due course, the Petitioner sterilised rests purely and simply on the matter of scale, having failed to request an appeal, after refusal at review. which the Petitioner repeatedly wishes to ignore. The Commissioners gave due consideration to the Planning Committee’s findings, which showed no support The Chairman: Okay, thank you very much for those for any development on the pitch and putt, or for an access opening remarks. road. It was feltby the Board that to continue to allow access I think, if I could ask, just for the record, if you can to field 6065 would separate the pitch and putt from the remember, when did you join the Commissioners, and I golf course. This would not be in the interests of Port Erin understand...? ratepayers or the club, which had opposed the application from the start The pitch and putt would have been surrounded M r Keggin: From 1997 to 2003... 2004 - yes, where am by roads and this would have restricted its use. I? A year behind! I think six years, that is, yes... No, 1998, Also, any development in the future to the clubhouse or 1 suppose, isn’t it? facilities associated with the course would be sterilised by a public highway running alongside the present building. The Chairman: Right This was an issue about safeguarding the future prospects of the golf course, and I clearly have no interest to declare Mr Keggin: Wait 1998,2001... yes, yes, 1998. on this subject A further note: the location of my property in relation to The Chairman: Right, I notice, from the various field 6065 is, according to a submission by the Petitioner, correspondence that we have had, that you objected to the 300 yards away. I think it is a bit closer than that, but I do planning application 99/1706, but you did not actually write not adjoin, and I can hardly see it. It is not an issue. to object to the 02/419 application. Is there any reason why It has been suggested that I had a conflict of interest, you did not object to this? as I run a tourist facility. My business and the Petitioner’s proposed developments do not present a conflict of interest. M r Keggin: Well, with the first one, when I had just A bed and breakfast business is as far removed from a come on the Board, I thought I could air a general view hotel and conference facility as, say, a chip shop is from a to Planning, and not having party status, really, basically, restaurant I was airing a similar view that I would be airing in the That is my submission as far as declaration of interest Commissioners, but I think, as Mr Faragher pointed out To look at the issue of ‘is the land sterile for development?’, what the Commissioners end up actually sending to Planning I just have a short paragraph here. is three or four sentences, where if you have an overview There is no evidence to show that this land has been of how things are, you feel you want to inform. But 1 never sterilised for development I do not know why the Petitioner felt that I - perhaps, mistakenly... but certainly the Clerk did not proceed with the approval in principle in 1984.1 am picked that up when it came to review. not aware that he contested the zoning of his land when the Yes, obviously, when it came to the 2001 application, Port Erin Plan was being drawn up in 1990. He could have I decided that the course of action was to stay with requested a wider designation, to include residential. This the Commissioners and to vote accordingly through would have given a green light to the application in 1992. the Commissioners and express my views through the However, the 1992 application was not in the Petitioner’s Commissioners. name. The Petitioner took 12 years to return with an application The Chairman: Again, bearing in mind that you had after the successful approval in 1984. This does not give a declared an interest - the paper is there - on the 1999 sense of urgency or a commitment to develop the site. Scale application, you did not feel that that interest was still there and massing of his proposed development along with access, by the time we got through to the 02/419 application? was highlighted in 1996. Although die 1999 application dealt with access, the factors of scale, massing and loss of open M r Keggin: In a sense that I... well, I had written in to space were also considered. express my views on the 1999 application, which was very The 2001 application is similar to the 1996 application. distinctly... there was a lot of difference, actually, between There was no attempt to address the issues of scale and, of that and the 2001.1 mean, the 1999 was talking about not course, with scale, you have traffic volumes onto the main only the Petitioner’s field but also the pitch and putt area,

Tynwald Select Committee on the Petition for Redress of Grievance of John Armstrong Maddrell - Evidence of M r J M Keggin Oral Evidence SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 10th MAY 2004 19TPJM and I think, in my letter, which you probably will have, M r Keggin: It is correct that I have got a bed-and- that is what I largely address. I felt that once that planning breakfast establishment in that location. The ‘unadopted application had run its course, and a new one came along, road’ - 1 do not know the technical ownership for unadopted it was a new set of issues, a new application, and I did not roads. Certainly, where the unadopted road abuts the field feel that something I had said several years ago had any 6065,1 guess it is probably jointly owned by my sister and bearing, really. Mr and Mrs Atwood, I do not have any financial interest in that. The Chairman: So, you did not feel that the factors I might own - well, I might be responsible, probably - at that were there - that you had an interest, with the 1999 this point for a bit of the unadopted road that leads up to that application - were still there by the time...? point but there is a right of access over my piece of road. I could not deny anybody access across that, so I cannot see M r Keggin: Well, I never really thought I had an interest how I have got an interest there. in the 1999 application; 1 think it was a technical one: that 1 actually submitted a written statement I had not actually been The Chairman: And the first point there: your sister given party status, nor did I assume to get party status. does own property on the north boundary. Well, yes, I suppose, the course of action, really, is when you are in a Commissioners’ meeting and a planning M r Keggin: Yes, that is correct yes. application comes along in public, and you air a view, the public could be aware of that view, as long as the press The Chairman: Okay, that is great thanks. actually are there to print up what you are saying. Mrs Craine? Now, I suppose, in a sense, by writing in to Planning, I am just making sure, I am being heard a bit really, that is all. Mrs Craine: No, I do not have anything at the moment I do not feel as though... I did not feel I had an interest. thank you.

The Chairman: I suppose, I ought to ask the question M rs Hannan; I do not think I have got any questions. that I asked Mr Faragher, as well: do you recall, when you Oh, yes, I have, yes: when the land was agreed, there was were elected, that you actually were given a copy of the an outline agreement to allow the use of this land to Mr Standing Orders for Port Erin Commissioners? Maddrell; was there a price put on that?

M r Keggin: Yes, I have got them here actually, yes. M r Keggin: No, not that I am aware of. No.

The Chairman: Right, and were you aware of Standing M rs Hannan: And was it for the whole of the land or Order 17? just an access road? Can you remember?

M r Keggin: Yes, yes, I am. M r Keggin: To be honest, I would have to check that, but I mean, I just came in at that point onto the Board, and The Chairman: Yes, so you were aware of it? there had been some discussion with Mr Maddrell over the preceding months, and I think it was permission to grant Mr Keggin: Yes. him... so that he could put an application in, that could show some development of the pitch and putt and an access The Chairman: Okay, that’s great road to his site but there was no... I do not think money was involved. That would have been another issue altogether, Mr Keggin; I am certainly aware that it is an extremely because the Commissioners, then, would have had to go to grey area, and the term is that, if you consider that the Mr Dootson and would have to had come out of the covenant public perceive that you have an interest, then you should that was placed on the land, when the Commissioners bought declare it the land from Mr Dootson, which basically said, I think, But, as I am trying to point out here, when you are in a they were allowed 25 per cent of the land for a car park, small local authority, like in Port Erin, and you have relatives, and I think that is about it. I think any of the proceeds of friends and interests right across the area, you are nearly that would have probably gone to Mr Dootson, rather than compromised from the start. It is hardly worth standing, to the Commissioners. actually, to be honest! But I would say that, in the past, all the members of Port Erin Board have been bom and bred in Mrs Hannan: Okay, thank you. Port Erin, and it seemed to work for 100 years that way. The Chairm an: Again, a question that I put to Mr The Chairman: Obviously, you will be aware that Mr Faragher: in certain respects, he could, potentially, have had Maddrell has made certain statements about yourself and more influence than yourself as a Port Erin Commissioner, Mr Faragher. Certainly, in the letter to this Committee, Mr but is there any way in which you used your position as a Maddrell points out that: Port Erin Commissioner, apart from going through what you would view as the proper channels, to influence planning ‘Mr Keggin’s sister owns property on the north boundary of my decisions on this site? property. He is also a beneficial owner of Spaldrick Avenue, which terminates at my boundary. In 1996 Mr Keggin built a new bed-and- M r Keggin: No, I cannot see how I could have done. breakfast establishment, some 300 yards to the north of my site.' No, no.

Is that factually correct? The Clerk: There is one thing, Chairman. Spaldrick

Tynwald Select Committee on the Petition for Redress of Grievance of John Armstrong Maddrell - Evidence of M r J M Keggin 20 TPJM SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 10th MAY 2004 Oral Evidence

Avenue, Mr Keggin: is it dedicated to the public as a with rights of way over that would be the owners of highway? the houses adjoining it.

M r Keggin: Half of it is. M r Keggin: Yes, I guess so, or anybody visiting, yes.

The Clerk: Is the part that leads to field 6065 a public The Clerk: If someone wanted to obtain access to field highway? 6065, they could not do so?

M r Keggin: Half of it is. M r Keggin: That is correct

The Clerk: How do you mean that half of it is? The Clerk: Thank you.

M r Keggin: Well, it is just a strange quirk. If you go The Chairman: Any points, no? up Spaldrick Avenue, half of it is adopted and half of it is unadopted. M rs Craine: Thank you.

The Clerk: You mean half the width? The Chairman: Okay, well, if there is anything else you would like to add? M r Keggin: No, half the road, the first half of the road is adopted, as far as the back lane behind the Carlton - that M r Keggin: No, I think it has been fairly well aired, is an adopted road - and then from the Carlton back lane up really. No, I have got nothing more to say, really. to the top of the sort of hammerhead is unadopted. The Chairman: Well, thank you very much for coming The Clerk: That would mean then that, when you go along. I would like to thank everybody who has come along around the comer down to the field, that is unadopted. this morning, and I think from this point on, we will be meeting in private. M r Keggin: That is unadopted, yes. So, thank you very much.

The Clerk: That is unadopted, so the only people The Committee sat in private at 12.37 p.m.

Tynwald Select Committee on the Petition for Redress of Grievance of John Armstrong Maddrell - Evidence of M r J M Keggin ANNEX 3

Tynwald Standing Orders 10.1 & 10.2

Circumstances in Which a Member Shall Not Vote

10.1 (1) Subject to paragraph (2) where a matter in respect of which a Member has a direct pecuniary interest is before Tynwald or a committee/ the Member shall not vote on the matter and shall withdraw before a vote is taken.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply where the direct pecuniary interest of the Member is one which is held in common with the rest of the general public of the Isle of Man.

Oral Declaration of an Interest

10.2 Whether or not the interest has been registered in the Register of Members’ Interests, before participating in the consideration of a question before Tynwald or a committee, a Member shall first declare any relevant pecuniary interest or benefit, direct or indirect, which has accrued, or which the Member expects to accrue.

Parliamentary Copyright available from:

The Tynwald Library Buck's Road DOUGLAS Isle of Man IM1 3PW British Isles October 2004 Tel: 01624 685520 Fax: 01624 685522 e-mail [email protected] Price: £3.