Report of the Select Committee of Tynwald on the Development of Unoccupied Urban Sites 2017-2018

PP 2018/0108

REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE OF TYNWALD ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNOCCUPIED URBAN SITES 2017-2018

REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE OF TYNWALD ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNOCCUPIED URBAN SITES

On 17th April 2018 it was resolved:

That a Select Committee of three members be appointed to investigate the options available to encourage and prioritise the development of unoccupied or previously developed urban sites ahead of building on green fields in the Manx countryside and to report its findings and recommendations by July 2018.

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.

Committee Membership

Mr W C Shimmins MHK (Middle) (Chairman)

Mr C R Robertshaw MHK (Douglas East)

Mrs M M Hendy MLC

Copies of this Report may be obtained from the Tynwald Library, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas IM1 3PW (Tel: 01624 685520) or may be consulted at www.tynwald.org.im

All correspondence with regard to this Report should be addressed to the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 3PW.

Table of Contents

I. THE COMMITTEE AND THE INVESTIGATION ...... 1

II. THEORY AND PRACTICE: THE CURRENT SITUATION ...... 2

ISLE OF MAN STRATEGIC PLAN 4

REFORM OF THE PLANNING SYSTEM 4

III. ECONOMIC CONDITIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ...... 5

GROWING THE POPULATION 5

MAKING THE TOWN AN ATTRACTIVE PLACE TO LIVE 5

IV. DEVELOPMENT ZONES ...... 6

V. STRATEGIC CONTROL OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED PROPERTY ...... 10

VI. A MANX DEVELOPMENT AGENCY ...... 11

ALL-ISLAND REGISTER OF KEY BROWNFIELD SITES 13

VII. URBAN INCENTIVES ...... 14

INTERVENTIONS TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT 14

Taxation ...... 14

Rates ...... 16

Investment Loans ...... 16

Licensing ...... 17

Planning ...... 17

INTERVENTIONS TO DISCOURAGE LEAVING SITES VACANT OR UNUSED 19

Taxation ...... 19

Rates ...... 20

Compulsory Purchase ...... 20

Planning ...... 22

VIII. RURAL INCENTIVES ...... 22

Taxation ...... 22

Planning ...... 23

IX. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 24 ANNEX 1: NOTES FROM MEETING WITH ERIKA RUSHTON, DIRECTOR/CHAIR OF BALTIC CREATIVE ...... 26

UGLY BUILDINGS 26

START WITH ONE PLACE 26

INVESTMENTS, NOT GRANTS 26

HIGH QUALITY BROADBAND IS ESSENTIAL 27

DON’T GET TIED UP WITH RULES 27

PARTICIPANTS MUST TAKE OWNERSHIP 27

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS, TIMETABLE AND OUTCOMES ...... 29

PARTICIPANTS 29

TIMETABLE 31

VOTING RESULTS 32

ANNEX 3: BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 35

LEGISLATION 35

Acquisition of Land Act 1984 ...... 35

Building Control Act 1991 ...... 35

Town and Country Planning Act 1999 ...... 35

PLANNING 35

The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016...... 35

Draft Area Plan for the East ...... 35

Central Douglas Masterplan (GD 2014/0083) ...... 35

Reform of the Planning System ...... 36

DEVELOPMENT ZONES 36

Urban Renewal Scheme in Ireland ...... 36

Enterprise Zones in England ...... 36

Regeneration Zones in Jersey ...... 37

Regeneration Areas in the Isle of Man ...... 37

JERSEY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 37

ORAL EVIDENCE ...... 39

11TH JUNE 2018 41 COUNCILLOR DAVID CHRISTIAN, LEADER, MR CHRIS PYCROFT, ASSISTANT CHIEF OFFICER (REGENERATION) AND MS DANA EYNON, DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND REGENERATION, DOUGLAS BOROUGH COUNCIL; 45

MR CALDRIC RANDALL, FINANCIAL CONTROLLER, MR PAUL MARTIN, DEPUTY ASSESSOR OF INCOME TAX, AND MR ANDREW SIDEBOTTOM, ACTING HEAD OF VALUATION AND ASSET MANAGEMENT, TREASURY; 57

HON. CHRIS THOMAS MHK, MINISTER FOR POLICY AND REFORM, MS DIANE BROWN, PLANNING POLICY MANAGER, CABINET OFFICE; MISS JENNIFER CHANCE, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL, DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 64

WRITTEN EVIDENCE ...... 85

APPENDIX 1: 29TH APRIL 2018 SUBMISSION FROM MR NIGEL TAYLOR 87

APPENDIX 2: 6TH MAY 2018 SUBMISSION FROM MR TIM CULLEN MBE 93

APPENDIX 3: 8TH MAY 2018 SUBMISSION FROM MR ADRIAN CAIN 105

APPENDIX 4: 8TH MAY 2018 SUBMISSION FROM MRS KERRY SHARPE MLC 109

APPENDIX 5: 8TH MAY 2018 SUBMISSION FROM MR KIM MOUGHTIN 113

APPENDIX 6: 9TH MAY 2018 SUBMISSION FROM MS CATRIONA LIVINGSTON MRICS 117

APPENDIX 7: 9TH MAY 2018 SUBMISSION FROM DR KATHY KILMURRY 121

APPENDIX 8: 9TH MAY 2018 SUBMISSION FROM MR LAWRIE HOOPER MHK 127

APPENDIX 9: 12TH MAY 2018 SUBMISSION FROM MR WILFRED TOMLINSON 131

APPENDIX 10: 17TH MAY 2018 SUBMISSION FROM MR PETER HORSTHUIS 135

APPENDIX 11: 17TH MAY 2018 SUBMISSION FROM MR JOHN HORSTHUIS 151

APPENDIX 12: 2ND JUNE 2018 SUBMISSION FROM MR BILL HENDERSON MLC 159

APPENDIX 13: 4TH JUNE 2018 SUBMISSION FROM MANX NATIONAL HERITAGE 181

APPENDIX 14: 8TH JUNE 2018 SUBMISSION FROM MR DAVE CHAPMAN MRICS 191

APPENDIX 15: 9TH JUNE 2018 SUBMISSION FROM MR KEITH KERRUISH 199

APPENDIX 16: 12TH JUNE 2018 SUBMISSION FROM MR PETER YOUNG 203

APPENDIX 17: 14TH JUNE 2018 SUBMISSION FROM THE CABINET OFFICE 207

APPENDIX 18: 14TH JUNE 2018 SUBMISSION FROM MR KEITH LORD 213

APPENDIX 19: 15TH JUNE 2018 SUBMISSION FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 217

APPENDIX 20: 19TH JUNE 2018 SUBMISSION FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR ENTERPRISE 223

APPENDIX 21: 21ST JUNE 2018 SUBMISSION FROM THE CABINET OFFICE 227

APPENDIX 22: PRACTICE NOTE 192/16: LAND DEVELOPMENT TAX HOLIDAY, ISSUED BY THE TREASURY ON 16TH FEBRUARY 2016 245 APPENDIX 23: 22ND JUNE 2018 SUBMISSION FROM CAROL GLOVER INCLUDING ‘DEPARTMENTS TO APARTMENTS; IMPLICATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES IN LIGHT OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS’ 251

APPENDIX 24: EXTRACTS FROM HANSARD RE COMPULSORY PURCHASE POWERS 307

APPENDIX 25: 22ND JUNE 2018 SUBMISSION FROM DOUGLAS BOROUGH COUNCIL 313

To: The Hon Stephen C Rodan, President of Tynwald,

and the Hon Council and Keys in Tynwald assembled

REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE OF TYNWALD ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNOCCUPIED URBAN SITES 2017-2018

I. THE COMMITTEE AND THE INVESTIGATION

1. This Committee was established on 17th April 2018 by the following resolution of Tynwald:

2. We issued a public call for evidence on 24th April 2018 to which we received 14 responses. We received further written evidence later in our inquiry. We have published as much as possible of the written evidence we have received.

3. We held a private, informal meeting with Ms Erika Rushton, Chair of Baltic Creative, on 16th May 2018, during her visit to the Island for ISLEEXPO 2018. Baltic Creative CIC (Community Interest Company) has played a major role in the development and regeneration of the area in Liverpool known as the Baltic Triangle. The meeting was recorded and, with the assistance of the Hansard team, transcribed; relevant excerpts have been published as Annex 1 to this Report.

4. We held a half-day workshop in the Legislative Buildings on 25th May 2018. The workshop was attended by 66 invited participants drawn from the private,

1 public and third sectors. After brainstorming and refining ideas in syndicate groups, participants were asked to vote for their top five recommendations. The voting results, along with a timetable of the event and a list of participants, can be found as Annex 2 to this Report.

5. We heard oral evidence in public on 11th June 2018 from the following witnesses:

 Councillor David Christian and Mr Chris Pycroft, Assistant Chief Officer (Regeneration), Douglas Borough Council, with Ms Dana Eynon, Director of Environment and Regeneration;

 Mr Caldric Randall, Financial Controller, Mr Paul Martin, Deputy Assessor of Income Tax, and Mr Andrew Sidebottom, Acting Head of Valuation and Asset Management;

 Hon Chris Thomas MHK, Minister for Policy and Reform, Ms Diane Brown, Planning Policy Manager, Cabinet Office, and Miss Jennifer Chance, Director of Planning and Building Control, Department for Environment, Food and Agriculture.

6. A list of sources consulted during our investigation but not published with this Report can be found at Annex 3.

II. THEORY AND PRACTICE: THE CURRENT SITUATION

7. In recent years, we have witnessed certain trends in the use and development of our urban and rural spaces. Jobs have migrated from town centres to business parks on the outskirts, particularly in the Douglas area where the majority of jobs in the Island are located. At the same time, large residential estates have sprung up on greenfield sites on the outskirts of towns and in the countryside.

8. We understand some of the reasons behind these trends. Businesses require modern office space, which tends to be most easily achieved with a new, purpose-built structure. Many homeowners aspire to large, detached houses with gardens and countryside views, and those getting onto the property ladder for the first time can find it easier to buy a new build. It is more straightforward and commercially attractive to develop on green fields, which has resulted in

2 fewer brownfield new builds in towns available for purchase. The Cabinet Office has provided us with residential statistics for the last decade.1

9. Councillor Christian outlined the impact that these trends have had on Douglas in particular:

Clearly, as more development takes place on the outskirts, and mainly the area around the Cooil Road area, that is a concern because it is diluting the available spend within the town centre by moving people out. We have been around and we have spoken to retailers, to the public house sector, to the taxis: they have all seen an impact on these people moving out of the town centre. Quite clearly, it is cheaper and it can more beneficial for someone to develop a greenfield site rather than one of the many redundant brownfield sites that we have currently got around the town centre, some of which are probably dating back now to 20 years of lying empty. So the impact that has on the overall impression of Douglas is a very poor one.2

10. The Cabinet Office suggested to us that the concerns identified by Councillor Christian and others should be considered in the context of such development as is already taking place in both urban and rural settings. In her oral evidence, Ms Brown said:

We do monitor what happens in terms of the planning approvals and the take- up of those approvals … The residential land availability study … supports the containment policy … that was the Island Spatial Strategy for the East. The amount of approvals that have taken place in Douglas in particular have been significantly higher than other … There are limited opportunities to develop in the east, in terms of what land is available, what land is allocated now. So that has encouraged in recent years quite a lot of regeneration in the Douglas area in particular … We have tracked the planning approvals right back to 2001 and so we can see what the trends are … Even though there has been a limited land supply in the east in the last 17 years, the amount of approvals that are carrying on in the east in terms of those urban developments has been relatively high.3

11. We agree with Ms Brown that it is important for discussion of the issues in this report to be founded on objective data. In particular we believe that it would be both practicable and useful for the Government to publish at regular intervals

1 Appendix 21. 2 Q2. 3 QQ 63-64.

3 data on planning approvals given and taken up in brownfield and greenfield sites respectively. In the “Recommendations” section of this Report we have included a recommendation on this point.

Isle of Man Strategic Plan

12. Some of these concerns are acknowledged in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, which was approved by Tynwald in March 2016. This document sets out a plan for the sustainable development of the Island. It contains a number of policy statements that support the development of unoccupied urban sites, such as:

Strategic Policy 1: Development should make the best use of resources by: (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and reusing scarce indigenous building materials;

Strategic Policy 2: New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances;

13. However, though we feel that the Strategic Plan is well intended, there have been some unfortunate outcomes. Development has taken place utilising sustainable urban extensions whilst the town centres have been hollowed out with vacant plots and unoccupied buildings. We hope with this Report to be able to support and develop the original aspirations of the Strategic Plan.

Reform of the Planning System

14. We are aware that reform of the planning system is underway. The results of the public consultation on the action plan were published the day before this Committee was established, and there was a statement on this topic at the May 2018 sitting of Tynwald.

15. We note that many of the responses to the consultation were largely supportive of the aims of this Committee. For instance, there was support for the idea that ‘areas should be divided into rural (where virtually no development should be allowed) and urban (where virtually all development should take place)’,4 and that there should be ‘more encouragement to develop brownfield sites’.5

4 Summary response report – April 2018, p. 6 (see Annex 3). 5 Summary response report – April 2018, p. 6 (see Annex 3).

4 16. Although the planning system has a key role to play in encouraging the development of unoccupied urban sites, we believe that it is not the only solution to the problem. Planning must be considered in combination with a range of other measures. III. ECONOMIC CONDITIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT

17. While directly addressing these issues goes beyond the remit of this Committee, it must be acknowledged that certain economic conditions must be met in order to support and sustain any development of urban areas.

Growing the population

18. It goes without saying that we cannot expect the private sector to invest in any development if there is not perceived to be sufficient demand for the end product. The importance of growing the population was stressed at the workshop: there were 23 votes in favour of this recommendation, putting it in third place. There needs to be a credible economic strategy in place that will deliver this population growth.

19. The Government continues to rely on population projections of a net inward migration of 500.6 At the same time, it is recognised that the average household size is declining, partly due to an increase in the number of people living alone and also the ageing population.7 We believe that a higher proportion of these housing requirements could be met by developing on urban brownfield sites if Government changes the operating context to encourage this to happen. If the status quo is maintained it is likely that we will see continuation of the current trends.

20. An important part of growing the population is creating an attractive environment in which people want to live and work. We would argue that revitalizing our town centres is one of the keys to achieving this goal.

Making the town an attractive place to live

21. Some of the evidence we received and heard at the workshop was in favour of encouraging certain age groups to live in town.8 Young people were particularly felt to be beneficial to the regeneration of urban areas. For instance, one recommendation that received strong support at the workshop was the idea of

6 Household size and population projections, p.3 (see Annex 3). 7 Household size and population projections, p.3 (see Annex 3). 8 Appendices 5, 10, 11.

5 attracting a satellite university to be established in the Isle of Man, and thereby benefitting from the development required to support this.

22. Mr Moughtin suggested that the older generation could be encouraged to move to urban areas by emphasising the benefits of living in town environment, such as easier access to public transport and various amenities.9

23. While we recognise the benefits of living in town centres for both of these age groups, we do not believe that our town centres should become enclaves for certain groups of society. Our towns should be desirable places to live and work for everyone.

24. The town environment appears to have become a less desirable place for people to live in recent years. We realise that this is partly because of what this Committee is aiming to protect: the beautiful Manx countryside. However, if we are serious about encouraging active travel and protecting our natural heritage, we must make our towns attractive places to live.

25. This will require investment in the infrastructure of our town centres. This includes the provision of public transport, ways to encourage active travel, and adequate car parking facilities, along with high speed internet, high quality community spaces, and urban green infrastructure.

IV. DEVELOPMENT ZONES

26. This idea would involve creating one or more special zones in which development might be stimulated by a number of policy levers available to Tynwald. This concept has been deployed in a number of towns and cities in neighbouring jurisdictions.

27. For instance, from 1986 onwards the development and regeneration of cities in Ireland, particularly Dublin, was stimulated by the Urban Renewal Scheme.10 This scheme relied on fiscal incentives to encourage the private sector to develop certain sites. More specifically, the incentives allowed the construction and refurbishment costs of commercial and residential premises to be offset against income or business tax. Initially this applied to designated inner areas of Ireland’s five cities, but it was later applied to declining city suburbs and parts of large towns. These incentives ‘were distinguished by very high take-up rates and

9 Appendix 5. 10 Prunty, ‘Residential Urban Renewal Schemes’, passim (see Annex 3).

6 consequent success in driving the physical development of target areas and combating dereliction’.11

28. There are currently 48 Enterprise Zones located across England. These are geographically defined areas, hosted by Local Enterprise Partnerships, in which commercial and industrial businesses can receive incentives to set up or expand. These include a business rate discount of up to 100% over a five year period, allowances for the purchase of machinery and equipment, as well as access to funds to support enabling works and infrastructure projects. Other measures include ‘radically simplified planning approaches’ through Local Development Orders, the provision of superfast broadband, tax increment financing to enable borrowing against future increases in business rate receipts, and support for inward investment and trade opportunities. There are also zones for University and Food specialisms.

29. Jersey has designated Regeneration Zones. Here the input from the States is limited to the provision of infrastructure or the release and development of key sites.

30. We believe that this concept could be usefully applied to designated areas in our towns. These areas do not necessarily have to be restricted only to sites classified as brownfield, though we would of course expect brownfield sites to form the centrepoint of the designated area. We would envisage a range of financial and other incentives to encourage investment in these sites. These incentives are discussed in further detail in section VII of this Report.

31. The basis for the concept of development zones in the Isle of Man already exists in the form of the Regeneration Areas. Under the Town and Village Centre Regeneration Scheme 2013, there was provision for grant assistance for the purpose of enhancing and regenerating town and village centres in designated regeneration areas. The grant fund will, however, close in the near future once existing commitments have been met.12

32. There also exists the concept of Comprehensive Treatment Areas in Section 4 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999. This provides that:

(1) An area plan may designate any land specified therein as an area selected for comprehensive treatment by development, redevelopment or improvement, or partly by one and partly by another method.

11 Norris et al, ‘Property-led urban, town and rural regeneration in Ireland’, p. 5 (see Annex 3). 12 Isle of Man Budget 2018-19, p. 117 (see Annex 3).

7 (2) If an area is designated under this section by an area plan, the plan shall —

(a) describe the treatment which is proposed by the Cabinet Office; and

(b) specify the period, which shall not exceed 5 years beginning with the date on which the plan is adopted, within which that treatment is to begin.

As Mr Thomas explained to us, ‘Treatment is not specified, so this is really quite a powerful tool that has been available for 20 years and Cabinet Office has now had the confidence to use that tool at least by specifying the possibility of its use inside a Draft Area Plan for the East’.13 We are therefore encouraged by the use of these Areas in the draft Area Plan for the East.

33. We believe that it is important with an initiative like this to test the concept in one area first rather than attempt to roll it out Island-wide from the start. We believe that the failure of the Town and Village Centre Regeneration Scheme to revitalize our towns has been partly due to the lack of focus.

34. This view was shared by Councillor Christian:

…when the Regeneration Fund was first set up […] I think the then Treasury Minister who then became Chief Minister stated that the fund had £8 million in it and the majority of that would be spent on Douglas; if we get Douglas and the capital right, the rest of the Island will follow. Well, we know that fund was then diluted down and spread around the towns and villages around the Island, so Douglas did not get the investment that we believe it should have got.14

35. Ms Rushton advised us to focus on one particular area at first:

I would start with one place to build a little bit of critical mass. I would pick a couple of urban centres where you know they are overheating and people cannot get space, and I would put a call out and say, ‘Ideas for the Island – have you got them? They have got to be good for the Island and they have got to be viable. We might donate some space but we will charge you rent. We might give you a good quality of life, but give us your ideas.’ Then pick some.15

36. We would favour an initial test in Douglas not only because it is the capital, but more importantly it already has the groundwork for the concept laid in the form

13 Q76. 14 Q4. 15 Annex 1

8 of the Central Douglas Masterplan and, in time, the Area Plan for the East. One of the eight Character Areas identified in the Masterplan could offer the basis for the Island’s first Development Zone. Similarly, one of the Comprehensive Treatment Areas identified in the draft Area Plan for the East could also offer the basis for a Development Zone.

37. We would, however, like to stress that we see an important distinction between our idea of Development Zones and the concepts of Character Areas and Comprehensive Treatment Areas. It is of vital importance that the boundaries of any Development Zone remain flexible, in order to be able to react quickly to changing circumstances. The incentives applied to a particular Development Zone must also remain flexible.

38. Ms Brown agreed with us that flexibility is important, saying with regard to the Comprehensive Treatment Areas:

I think we are open-minded. I think a lot of the basis came from the Central Douglas Masterplan, which has been integral in the development of the Draft Plan. So a lot of the ideas and a lot of the areas that are mentioned in the comprehensive treatment areas are familiar. They do cross-reference quite nicely to the Central Douglas Masterplan.

The boundaries that were shown on the plans were open-ended, in a way. They were not a solid external edge to those areas. The whole idea is to stimulate debate really about the treatment areas, as we have marked them on the plan. It is the first time that they have been show on a development plan in this manner. The provision has been in the Act for some time.

So I would not say that we are fixed, but what we have tried to set out quite clearly in the Draft Plan is that very nature that it is not fixed. And because we are having quite a lot of consultation as well, that is an opportunity for you responses to come back in and for us to really think through what the implications are of using them.16

39. Though we recommend an initial focus on Douglas, it is clear that the principle would be easily transferable to other areas of the Island. We would expect a rapid roll-out to other areas.

16 Q66.

9 V. STRATEGIC CONTROL OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED PROPERTY

40. Government Departments own a lot of property in the Island, some of which is classified as brownfield and is currently unoccupied. If we want to encourage the development of privately-owned brownfield sites, it would be hypocritical not also to encourage the development of Government-owned brownfield sites.

41. At present, however, each Department has its own portfolio of property. This arrangement represents a risk to any coordinated approach to developing or otherwise utilizing Government-owned brownfield sites.

42. Mr Sidebottom confirmed that although there has been some consideration given to a strategic plan for Government-owned property, there is currently no overall strategy in place:

It is something that we have been looking at and talking about and trying to build together an overview of how it is held and what happens with it. So a strategic asset management plan, really, is something that is being investigated and worked through at the moment, some of the options and ideas, with a view to taking that further and seeing if there is a policy desire to proceed with it.17

43. Mr Thomas also acknowledged that strategic control needs to move up a level:

At the highest level, obviously Government needs to be joined up and work better together. So it cannot be right that DEFA, DoI, Treasury, Planning in its various parts operate independently without proper co-ordination and proper prioritisation and proper focus. That is something we have to address at the higher level.18

44. The idea that attracted the most votes during the workshop was placing all Government property in the control of one entity, which would be responsible for strategy and policy in relation to this property.19 We believe that this would help to encourage strategic thinking about how best to utilize this property for the benefit of the Island as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one particular Department. This work could be done in partnership with a development agency.

17 Q43. 18 Q76. 19 Annex 2.

10 VI. A MANX DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

45. There was clear support at the workshop for the concept of a development corporation, body or agency for the Isle of Man, with 17 votes putting the idea in joint sixth place.

46. A body of this type already exists in Jersey. The Jersey Development Company, established in 1996, is owned by the States of Jersey, with the Minister for Treasury and Resources as its shareholder. Since 2010 it has been responsible for regenerating States-owned property that is no longer required for the delivery of public services. It is run by an independent board which has no policy-making functions or remit to develop masterplans, and is required to deliver policies agreed by the States of Jersey. Its business aims are set out in a Memorandum of Understanding:

 Develop detailed development proposals for specific projects of regeneration of property and infrastructure mainly within Regeneration Zones for consideration by the Regeneration Steering Group;

 Provide forward funding for preparing the detailed development proposals;

 Procure the services of appropriate design and development consultants;

 Manage and develop detailed designs for specific sites;

 Submit detailed planning applications to the Minister for Planning and Environment;

 Procure and manage project implementation of development plans within and outwith Regeneration Zones agreed by the Regeneration Steering Group either directly or via a joint venture with a third party developer;

 Provide quarterly progress reports to the Regeneration Steering Group with regard to agreed Development Plans;

 Procure and manage project implementation as agreed by the Minister either directly or via a joint venture with a third party developer;

 Provide quarterly progress reports to the Minister in respect of development taking place.20

20 Memorandum of Understanding, pp. 1-2 (see Annex 3).

11 47. Mr Hooper outlined to us his vision for a development body:

Firstly it would have a role akin to that of an investment fund – to generate an acceptable financial return to Government from its land, either through rental or sale. This financial return could be measured in simple ‘cash terms’ or, as I would prefer, it could also incorporate a measure of benefit to the economy so that surplus land and properties could be used to help generate employment or receipts to Treasury.

Secondly it would use government land and property to support government objectives and local communities. For example Government owns and leases out a large number of sports fields at nominal rents and it is in everyone’s interests that it continues to do so, supporting local sports clubs and local communities. So it makes sense that some government owned land should be used for these sorts of ‘social’ purposes and not to generate financial returns.

As part of the first objective government land and property in urban centres could be used to help jump start, incentivise and encourage development and redevelopment of our towns.21

48. Mr Thomas warned us against the idea of a development agency on the basis that it could be subject to political whims:

I just want to float one last idea before I close which is I think the experience of some cities around the United Kingdom, and perhaps Jersey, suggests if you go down the development corporation route and put it out to some sort of agency, you have not actually taken away the risk, because what you have created is a new risk that any new incoming politicians do not like what has previously been done by the development corporation and they review the political decisions about the development corporation. So therefore I strongly urge you to think about whether or not a legal route inside the Town and Country Planning Act for comprehensive treatment is not actually a less risky, safer route because it is inside existing law, rather than politicians taking the view of setting up a development corporation that can always be questioned by subsequent politicians and the next administration, which seems to me to be what has happened in many places around the United Kingdom and even perhaps in Jersey, with its waterfront development and so on.22

21 Appendix 8. 22 Q76.

12 49. However, Mr Thomas seemed to conflate development zones and development agencies. We do not consider the two concepts to be linked. While an agency may be tasked to develop a particular designated zone, this does not mean that the agency and zone are mutually inclusive.

50. Our view is that an arms-length development agency or corporation would be more nimble than a Government Department. It would also have the benefit of focus on delivery of the defined remit rather than juggling the various competing demands inside Government. It also may be more practical for an agency to enter into joint ventures with local authorities and private contractors.

51. We believe that any political risk can be successfully mitigated by ensuring the development agency quickly proves its worth. As long as our successors can see the value of the agency, they will have no reason to reverse our decisions.

52. We envisage that the agency would take the form of a public-private partnership, including both central and local government. Central Government’s contribution to that partnership could include, for instance, the making available of publicly-owned land and buildings to be used in partnership with local authorities and the private sector.

53. It has become clear to us during this investigation that there already are a number of incentives available to encourage the development of brownfield sites. The problem is that it can be difficult to find this information as there is no single department or body responsible for promoting and supporting this sort of development. We would expect an important part of the Development Agency’s role to be the provision of this information and advice to interested developers.

All-Island register of key brownfield sites

54. We also recommend that one of the tasks of the Development Agency would be to create and maintain a register of key brownfield development sites in the Island. It became apparent during our investigation that no such register exists, meaning that we do not have an overview of the extent of the problem.

55. Mr Cullen suggested what form this register might take:

The register should include location plans, site plans, information about the site area, planning status, ground conditions, contamination report (where applicable), any development brief, land ownership/agents details etc...As part of this process, a critical appraisal of sites could be undertaken to understand

13 the obstacles to development and the potential for environmental improvement of the site and adjacent areas if such action would improve the marketability of the site.23

56. We have concerns that maintaining a fully comprehensive register may prove to be a very large administrative burden. We therefore suggest that local authorities would submit the key priority brownfield sites in their areas which in their view are overdue for development. Local residents could approach their local authorities in this regard creating an inclusive approach.

VII. URBAN INCENTIVES

57. This theme covers specific interventions intended a) to encourage the owners of brownfield sites actively to develop those sites and b) to discourage the owners of such sites from leaving them vacant or unused for long periods. It is envisaged that these incentives would apply initially to designated Development Zones.

Interventions to encourage development

Taxation

58. As Deputy Assessor of Income Tax Mr Martin explained, tax can easily be manipulated to create incentives, if there is the political will to do so:

… you really can do anything with tax to reduce it. It is a matter of policy and it is the cost of what that is.24

59. There was strong support at the workshop for reviewing taxation, including rates, for particular designated development zones, with this recommendation coming in joint sixth place with 17 votes.

60. In oral evidence to us, the Treasury highlighted the existence of the Land Development Tax Holiday, a measure that was introduced with the 2016 Budget.25 The holiday provides an exemption from income tax for any relevant income or profits for up to 60 months. The conditions for the holiday are that the development is a) in the interests of the economy of the Island; b) it is necessary for the purpose of establishing or developing any “eligible business” in the Island; and c) it will enable the business to provide additional productive

23 Appendix 2. 24 Q30. 25 Appendix 22.

14 employment in the Island. It is not available for the development of residential property. The Treasury explained that there has been little uptake to date, but they do not know the reasons for the lack of uptake.26

61. We agree with Mr Hooper that a slight amendment to this tax holiday could be a simple way to incentivise the development of brownfield sites:

Treasury currently have in issue income tax relief for eligible businesses from profit made on ‘new commercial development or improvement to an existing commercial development which will provide additional productive employment in the Island’ – and it may be that simply updating this current exemption to apply solely to urban redevelopments could be an appropriate incentive that would require little in the way of resources to put in place.27

62. In the 2015 Budget, there was an increase in tax on income from land and property from 10% to 20%. At the workshop, we heard that this is perceived as one of the impediments to brownfield development. Mr Kerruish also drew our attention to the fact that ‘…other sectors pay 0% or 10%. No major property companies in the UK or Ireland or Real Estate Investment Trusts pay such a high rate’.28 We are aware that comparing taxation rates across jurisdictions is not straightforward due to capital allowances and other factors. We also note that the Isle of Man Government’s taxation strategy is committed to being competitive and that overseas property investors have recently made significant acquisitions on the Isle of Man. Nevertheless, we believe that this deserves reconsideration for brownfield development.

63. We would like to highlight that it is possible, using existing legislation, to provide more attractive tax treatments by rate and holiday either restricted to Development Zones or to encourage brownfield development more widely. Conversely the taxation holidays could be removed on greenfield developments and/or taxation rates increased. We invite the Treasury to consider these measures as part of the 2019/20 budget planning process.

64. Tax relief on mortgage payments in order to encourage the purchase of dwellings on developed brownfield sites also received strong support at the workshop, coming in fifth place with 20 votes. This was part of a range of initiatives included in Ireland’s approach. Again, Treasury may wish to consider this measure in the next Budget.

26 Q31. 27 Appendix 8. 28 Appendix 15.

15 Rates

65. We received several suggestions for rates holidays for developed brownfield sites. For instance, Mr Cullen felt that:

[t]o positively incentivize development of brownfield sites in preference to greenfield sites, consideration should be given to generous rate holidays of five to ten years for initial occupiers of the completed development. This measure would greatly improve the marketability of the sites where a developer is seeking pre-lets before commencing development and in theory, should lead to faster uptake and development of the sites.29

66. The idea of a residential rates holiday in order to encourage the purchase of dwellings on developed brownfield sites also received strong support at the workshop, coming in fifth place with 20 votes.

67. When we asked about the idea of rates holidays, Douglas Borough Council was supportive of the idea:

It is something the Council has discussed in the past. I am not too sure whether under legislation we are actually permitted to grant that as a local authority or whether we would need to have a change through a Local Government Act to actually allow us to grant any rates holidays, but we certainly believe, yes, that is part of an overall package that could be another initiative that could be put forward, to actually provide that at the time when a site like this was being developed.30

There appears to be consensus on this type of measure for brownfield commercial development.

Investment Loans

68. A popular recommendation from the workshop was the idea of development grants for filling empty buildings. This received 26 votes, putting it in second place. Other related recommendations were that such grants should include assessments of the environmental impact and community gain, and that there should be grants for repair and maintenance in urban areas. In written evidence to us, Manx National Heritage also outlined some ideas for financial aid in the form of grants.31

29 Appendix 2. 30 Q6. 31 Appendix 13.

16 69. However, Erika Rushton’s view was that grants do not work in the long term:

A grant is for someone who is always going to come back for more, whereas with an investment – it really filtered out for us. There was always a whole load of people who always turned up when there was a grant around in Liverpool. Liverpool had a big grant mentality and they would call themselves social enterprises but they were not; they were, quite rightly, voluntary organisations. I have nothing against them, but they were going to need more and more. As soon as we said it was an investment we got a whole different stream of people – people who want to run a business and do good in the world, though the age range is very mixed. A completely new set of faces. …

The biggest risk is those people who want a grant.

70. We would prefer to see a focus on investment loans rather than grants.

Licensing

71. One idea arising from the workshop was that licensing requirements could be relaxed in designated areas, in order to attract business. This, along with other ideas for reviewing taxation and regulation, received 17 votes, putting it in joint sixth place.

Planning

72. Making it easier to achieve permitted change of use had strong support at the workshop with 17 votes (along with other ideas for reviewing taxation and regulation). It is clear that this would be beneficial for adapting the many empty office spaces around our town centres. Elsewhere many towns and cities have successfully converted redundant offices and other commercial premises to residential. There is also a flexible approach to reuse retail buildings to reflect the changing shopping trends using the internet. We believe these attractive options should be considered by planning policy to help reenergise the town centres. A detailed discussion of the implications and opportunities of allowing this permitted change of use can be found at Appendix 23 to this Report.

73. We believe that a review of the car parking policy for urban developments is necessary. This was a view expressed at the workshop, and also by Douglas Borough Council in oral evidence.32 The current situation, as Miss Chance explained, is that:

32 QQ 6-7.

17 The Strategic Plan indicates that lower parking requirements would be expected in town centre redevelopment sites. Developers are asked, though, to demonstrate why they can produce less parking than on greenfield sites, so the onus does go on to the developer rather than the Planning Office, and that is something that could be looked at but the flexibility is still there at the moment for having lower provision both for offices and for residential.33

We were advised by industry that the car parking provision for Isle of Man town centre developments was much higher than neighbouring jurisdictions. This has the effect of increasing cost and reducing commercial returns which impedes brownfield development. We recommend that planning policy reconsiders the approach in this context.

74. We would also like to see a focus on the provision of adequate car parking facilities in the towns, so that there is less of a requirement for private parking on-site. This would have the effect of lowering the cost of any brownfield development. More multi-storey carparks, perhaps with commercial elements, could, of course, also be an appropriate development for brownfield sites. It would also improve the appearance of towns with less on-site parking and vacant site gravel car parks.

75. At the workshop we heard that Section 13 Agreements can be perceived as an impediment to development. Section 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 states that:

(1) The Department may enter into an agreement with any person interested in land for the purpose of restricting or regulating the development or use of the land, either permanently or during such period as may be prescribed by the agreement; and any such agreement may contain such incidental and consequential provisions (including provisions of a financial character) as appear to the Department to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the agreement.

These agreements can include, for example, the provision of affordable housing, parking, and open spaces, or a commuted sum paid in lieu of that provision.

76. Miss Chance emphasised that brownfield sites subject to Section 13 Agreements are very few in number,34 and that the requirements are always negotiable.35 We would therefore like to see a light-touch approach applied to brownfield

33 Q83. 34 Q82. 35 Q81.

18 sites. We hope that this will help to change the perception that Section 13 will be a hindrance to any proposed development on these sites.

77. We would also like to stress that the application of Section 13 requirements or, in future, community investment levies should not be allowed to inhibit the development of brownfield sites where viability is more challenging.

78. Making it easier to renovate older buildings could also be explored. Dr Kilmurry, for instance, suggested that:

Category 1A Refurbishment initiatives seem particularly disadvantaged and more financial ‘carrots’ should be explored to encourage this sustainable reuse. In short, policies should be sympathetic to older properties. Dubbing an existing building ‘not fit for purpose’ should be challenged by examining specifically why not and what would be necessary modifications. This would be the sustainable approach. Any demolition should demonstrate the lack of sustainability of the existing structure and be coupled with a sustainable redevelopment proposal. There must be meaningful financial penalties for allowing decline to prevent the all-too-common gradual deterioration from lack of maintenance.36

Treasury confirmed that there could be scope to offer a tax rebate for works to older properties.37

Interventions to discourage leaving sites vacant or unused

Taxation

79. Mr Hooper offered the suggestion of a tax on deemed income:

In simple terms this proposal is that a property owner would be taxed at the prevailing tax rate for income from land and property at the amount of income they would be generating if the property were rented out. This would usually be the higher of either the ‘market rate’ of the property or the actual amount it is being marketed at. This would encourage property owners to fill their properties with tenants as they would be getting taxed on the income even if they were not currently receiving it. The side benefit of course would be it would generate returns to Treasury from properties that currently provide no economic contribution to the Island.38

36 Appendix 7. 37 Q53. 38 Appendix 8.

19 80. Another suggestion was a tax on houses that sit unoccupied for more than a year.39

Rates

81. A review of the rating system for unoccupied sites was suggested by one respondent to our call for evidence.40 At present, though all rated property receives a rates demand whether occupied or unoccupied, a dilapidated property that is incapable of rateable occupation after reasonable repair expense may have its rates valuation temporary reduced to zero.41 Land that has no property on it has no rateable value.

82. At the workshop, the idea of a rates holiday (along with other measures) for developments in designated zones attracted strong support, with 17 votes.

Compulsory Purchase

83. Several respondents to our call for evidence proposed that consideration should be given to compulsory purchase where necessary, and that there should be sufficient threat from the proposition of compulsory purchase to incentivise development.42

84. All Government Departments and Local Authorities currently have compulsory purchase powers. The current provisions for compulsory purchase are contained within the Acquisition of Land Act 1984. Tynwald approval is required under Section 2 of the Act. In response to a Question in the Keys on 14th February 2017, Mr Harmer explained the current situation with regard to local authorities in greater detail:

Under section 24 of the Building Control Act 1991, local authorities can serve notice on a property owner, requiring action to deal with a dilapidated or ruinous building. In the event of a failure to comply with such an order, the local authority is able to carry out the necessary work and reclaim the cost from the property owner.

39 Appendix 6. 40 Appendix 2. 41 Submission to the Select Committee on the Domestic Rating System (Petition for Redress), tynwald.org.im/business/committee/DRS/Public%20Evidence/300514MC-JK.pdf (accessed 22nd June 2018). 42 Appendices 2, 3, 5, 6, 10.

20 Local authorities were given additional powers on 1st December 2016, to allow them to issue fixed penalty notices where a property owner has failed to comply with a notice served under section 24 of the Building Control Act 1991.

Further to these measures I have highlighted, the Department will also consider whether it is appropriate to extend compulsory purchase orders to local authorities in respect of dilapidated and ruinous properties. Local authorities do have some compulsory purchase powers, but would obviously need to consider legal aspects of each case.

My aim remains to give local authorities the tools they need to make property owners attend to these issues.43

85. Councillor Christian explained that local government sometimes felt constrained by these provisions:

One of the areas where we really feel that we are held back is in relation to compulsory purchase. That has really got to be a matter that comes through the Department and through to Tynwald, and we know that consecutive Governments have been very reluctant to use compulsory purchase, but we believe in some of these areas – and you know from a site we are currently talking about for car parking – there may be a need for compulsory purchase, but we are always advised that it must come from the Department and through to Tynwald. They are reluctant.44

86. Councillor Christian did not, however, advocate for local authorities to be given greater powers in this regard; rather he wanted to see a greater willingness on the part of the Government to make use of compulsory purchase:

So just being prepared to use the legislation that is already there; but for some reason, consecutive Governments have just shied away and we have basically been to told stay away from it, ‘because you won’t get it through Tynwald’.45

87. Treasury explained that there is no specific budget for compulsory purchases. Mr Randall said:

The answer is there is not a specific fund that says ‘compulsory purchases’. As and when any purchases would come along we would identify the appropriate place for it to come from. Simple as that.

43 Appendix 24. 44 Q18. 45 Q20.

21 We have got the Property and Land Acquisition Fund, which is used for cases where opportunities …. It was used quite recently to purchase some Government land. So if there is immediate need for something, we will be able to access that. So that would be where it is; but there is not a pot that says, ‘This pot is specifically for compulsory purchase.’46

88. We feel that there is a lack of clarity surrounding compulsory purchase. In the “Recommendations” section of this report we have therefore included a recommendation on a review of compulsory purchase law and funding.

89. We note that the Acquisition of Land Act 1984 provides at section 5(1)(1) for a 10% premium on market value for the purchase price. This needs to be factored into consideration.

Planning

90. One suggestion in this area was that there could be penalties for leaving sites undeveloped when planning permission has been granted.47

VIII. RURAL INCENTIVES

91. This theme covers interventions intended to discourage greenfield development and, as a knock-on effect, to encourage brownfield development.

Taxation

92. Dr Kilmurry suggested that any increase in greenfield land value, gained with a designation for a change in use, should be subject to a ‘windfall tax’ when a planning application is approved or a sale takes place after the re-designation.48

93. When we asked about the possibility of using the registration fee—the Island’s equivalent of stamp duty—to incentivise brownfield development, the Treasury explained:

…as a comparator on the initial purchase prices, UK equivalent stamp duty in the lower bands of transactions is slightly lower than locally, but very quickly as prices get to £250,000, our equivalent of stamp duty – so the transaction charge for want of a better description – falls much lower in terms of that being flexed to make development more attractive, I do not think we have got many

46 Q55. 47 Appendices 7, 11. 48 Appendix 7.

22 levers there, because we are already significantly lower than many places. Certainly at the higher levels.49

Nevertheless, we believe that consideration could be given to adjusting the amount of registration fee payable for properties on greenfield developments in order to make properties on brownfield sites more attractive.

Planning

94. We feel that Section 13 Agreements could be utilised to discourage the development of greenfield sites. Suggestions in this area coming out of the workshop included a levy on greenfield development to offset any pollution caused by it and an increase in the social housing component required for greenfield developments.

95. In oral evidence to us, Miss Brown explained that the Government has committed to a new community infrastructure levy that is to take effect in early 2020; however, the term has yet to be defined:

I agree there is a considerable amount of work to do on firstly making sure that the legislation is in order, what we mean by ‘community infrastructure levy’. It is a term that is being introduced elsewhere but we might want it to look at: is it more for community purposes or is it …; what type of infrastructure are we looking at; how do we balance when that is going to be used? So there is a lot of work still to be done on that.50

We suggest that consideration should be given to applying this levy only to greenfield sites, which generally require much more additional infrastructure than brownfield sites that are located within easy reach of a town’s amenities.

96. We received several suggestions in this area from respondents to our call for evidence. Mr Cullen suggested that:

…for greenfield sites, imposing significantly larger planning fees for planning application for developments over a certain size would help to reduce the incentive to develop such sites, whilst recouping some of the “betterment” in land value generated by the grant of planning consent.51

97. Dr Kilmurry felt that the cost of any new infrastructure for greenfield developments should demonstrably be met by the developer:

49 Q57. 50 Q96. 51 Appendix 2.

23 There is a perception that developers do not contribute the full cost of drainage, roadworks, utilities, communications, expanded public transport, school, etc. and such impacts on the community need to be more demonstrably considered and incorporated in the planning process.52

98. Dr Kilmurry also felt that the implications of greenfield development for the Island’s natural and culture heritage should be more rigorously assessed.53

99. Ms Livingstone suggested that there should be a –

…burden of proof on the developer to demonstrate that there is a need for them to develop on greenfield sites. Their planning application would have to include a listing of all the properties they own - including brownfield sites and unoccupied buildings. The presumption should be that permission will not be granted for greenfield development where the beneficial owner of brownfield sites has not yet developed these. The aim would be to reduce the amount of brownfield which developers are land banking.54

The creation and maintenance of an all-Island register of brownfield sites would support the implementation of this idea. IX. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

We conclude that there is a lack of a register of brownfield sites and a lack of readily accessible data on the number of planning approvals given and taken up in brownfield and greenfield sites respectively.

We conclude that there is significant support in principle for the encouragement and prioritisation of the development of unoccupied or previously developed urban sites ahead of building on greenfield sites in the Manx countryside.

We conclude that despite that support, we have seen a considerable amount of development on greenfield sites in recent years and that the pace of development in our towns – Douglas in particular – has been disappointing.

We conclude that Tynwald has at its disposal a range of policy levers which have the potential to reverse the trend and breathe new life back into the Island’s towns.

52 Appendix 7. 53 Appendix 7. 54 Appendix 6.

24 Recommendation 1

That the Cabinet Office should publish at regular intervals data on planning approvals given and taken up in brownfield and greenfield sites respectively.

Recommendation 2

That Tynwald calls upon the Council of Ministers and all Departments to use every means at their disposal to encourage and prioritise the development of unoccupied or previously developed urban sites ahead of building on greenfield sites in the Manx countryside; and in particular that Tynwald is of the opinion that urgent action should be taken –

(i) to set up flexible Development Zones in Douglas;

(ii) to transfer control of all Government land and buildings to a single strategic body;

(iii) to set up a Development Agency in partnership with local government and the private sector;

(iv) to use the planning system, taxation and other potential incentives to discourage greenfield development;

(v) to use the planning system, taxation and other potential incentives to encourage brownfield development in Development Zones in Douglas and in other urban areas.

Recommendation 3

That the Department of Infrastructure in consultation with the Treasury and local authorities should review the legislative framework for compulsory purchase and options for funding thereof.

W C Shimmins (Chairman)

M M Hendy

C R Robertshaw

June 2018

25 ANNEX 1: NOTES FROM MEETING WITH ERIKA RUSHTON, DIRECTOR/CHAIR OF BALTIC CREATIVE

Ugly buildings

We have mostly taken buildings. So working in Salford on the edge of Manchester now, we are about to take some land and buildings there but there are some buildings, and the same on the Wirral.

Sites that have got disused offices which are not that old but not up to really modern standards, that might be convertible into residential accommodation within Douglas again, would be ideal. When we took some of the makers around a place called Hamilton Square in Birkenhead, the artist crowd looked around and said ‘Give us that building on the corner – that really ugly one, we will do something with that’. She did not pick any of the Georgian stuff. She picked the ugliest building because she thought no-one else would want it. And she knew nobody would care what she did with it.

One has a car park – it is not even a car park, it is a kind of space underneath. They immediately said,’ Great, we can put on music here’ – reacting to their surroundings. Whereas there was another space that the Chamber had taken. They had kitted it all out and spent £350,000 on kitting it all out in order that somebody would rent it. Nobody did. When we took the artists in there said, ‘Oh, it is a bit corporate’.

People like to make their own space.

Start with one place

Investments, not grants

Run it as a competition, put a bit of money in, but put it in as an investment, not a grant. You might never take that investment back, you could leave it in there forever.

26 but they were going to need more and more. As soon as we said it was an investment we got a whole different stream of people – people who want to run a business and do good in the world, though the age range is very mixed. A completely new set of faces.

People can pay us back in two ways. They can pay us back in money, or they can pay us back in social return, so in number of jobs created. We have got somebody independent who is negotiating that with them and then the board will agree or not agree to do that.

The biggest risk is those people who want a grant.

High quality broadband is essential

We kitted it out, there are little kitchens, there are public seating areas, there are places to congregate, there is an open space café kind of workspace thing. But in the units themselves, that was down to the tenants. We put the broadband in – the telecoms and electricity – so it has got very good Wi-Fi.

We do not have moveable partitions but we have very small, little sheds within a warehouse, like a garden shed right through to a full warehouse. Our most popular ones are warehouses where we have taken the front out and they have got a glass front which has been really important for making it feel like a community, because we have got a glass front on two sides of the road.

Don’t get tied up with rules

I think there is an awe in the public sector about the private sector that is not held in the private sector, and we have adopted all measures and traffic light systems, measuring everything – and they don’t even use it anymore! They know it does not work.

Local communities are the worst! I support community involvement, but if you let self-appointed community representatives rule the world, we would be drowning in rules. You need to take some risks, because otherwise you are not going to achieve very much.

We have got some rules in our agreement with people. It says we will never take money out of a business if it puts people out of a job or it moves your business into the red. So we will leave our money there. We will not do damage.

Participants must take ownership

Space is important, money is important, but essentially we are giving people space to grow their own confidence and self-belief as a community. We get them to start

27 small, to do that little thing, whatever their business is. If you are baking cakes, bring cakes to every session. Do the thing that you are saying you are going to do.

Make sure you like it. I have made it all sound easy; it is really hard. Some of them have been through some really tough times, we have had to put extra working capital in to three of the bigger businesses, because they got to the wire. They had spent too much setting up and they did not have cash flow.

28 ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS, TIMETABLE AND OUTCOMES

Participants

Sticks Facilitator: Jonathan King, Deputy Clerk of Tynwald Mr Anthony Allen Onchan Commissioners Mr Andrew Bentley Isle of Man Green Party Mrs Sally Bolton Corlett Bolton Mr Clive Callister Colas/Auldyn Mr Charles Corden Retired Chartered Surveyor Mr Michael Crowe Grant Thornton Mrs Viv Davies Manx Wildlife Trust Mr Charles Garside Deanwood Estate Agents MrAndrew Newton Cains Ms Caren Pegg Appleby Mr John Quaye Manx Independent Carriers Mr Caldric Randall Treasury Mrs Kerry Sharpe MLC Member of the Legislative Council Mr Edmund Southworth Manx National Heritage

Planning Facilitator: Marlene Hendy MLC Mr Stephen Bradley Chamber of Commerce Mrs Jen Chance Director of Planning and Building Control, Department for Environment, Food and Agriculture Mr Michael Chapman Chapman Chartered Surveyors Mr Gordon Clarke GCA Architects Mr Richard Daley Regal Property Mr Lawrie Hooper MHK Member of the House of Keys Mr David Long Capital International Mr David Monks Sefton Group Mr Chris Quirk Onchan Commissioners Mr Ross Stephens Social Security Hon Chris Thomas MHK Member of the House of Keys, Minister for Policy & Reform Mr Michael Tushingham Treasury Mr Tim Woakes Manx Utilities Authority

29 Carrots Facilitator: Chris Robertshaw MHK Hon Alf Cannan Member of the House of Keys, Treasury Minister Mr David Chapman Chapman Chartered Surveyors Mr Gary Crittenden Stewart Clague Services Limited Mr Mike Hennessy Sancus Mr Andrew Jessop Braddan Commissioners Mr Colin Leather Castletown Commissioners Mr Mark Lewin Chief Executive, Department for Enterprise Mr Ashton Lewis Haven Homes Mr Keith Lord Mannin Hotel Mr Paul Martin Deputy Assessor of Income Tax Mr Kristen McDonald Manx Technology Group Mr Niall McGarrigle McGarrigle Architects Ltd Mr Adrian Moore Department for Enterprise Mr Roger Raatgeever Microgaming Mr Neil Taggart Chrystals Estate Agents Mr Lee Vowles Bramdean, Plan.com

Development Facilitator: Bill Shimmins MHK (Chair) & Francisca Gale, Assistant Clerk to the Committee Mr Steve Butler Planning, Department for Environment, Food and Agriculture Mr Tim Groves Black Grace Cowley Mr Ken Haggerty Regal Property Mr Peter Horsthuis Robinson's Mr James Maska Student in Town Planning, Oxford Brookes University MrStephen Moore Department for Enterprise Mr Seamus Nugent Dandara Mr Darrin Oldham Social Security Mr Clive Parrish Sefton Group Mr John Payne Department of Infrastructure Mr Ralph Peake MHK Member of the House of Keys Mr Chris Pycroft Assistant Chief Officer (Regeneration), Douglas Borough Council Mr David Sharp Chapman Chartered Surveyors Hon Laurence Skelly MHK Member of the House of Keys, Minister for Enterprise Mr Stephen Smyth Island Aggregates, Chamber of Commerce Mr Martyn Thomas Horncastle Thomas Mr Dan Williams Johnston Press Mr Brett Woods Department of Infrastructure

30 Timetable

8.30 am Registration

8.50 am Welcome by Bill Shimmins MHK Powerpoint by Marlene Hendy MLC Address from Chris Robertshaw MLC 'What happens next' - Bill Shimmins MHK

9.15 am Brainstorming Delegate exercise in groups

10.15 am Presentation Group move: Development and Planning (Millennium Room) Carrots and Sticks (Members' Room)

10.55 am Refinement Groups return to group rooms to refine ideas

11.15 am All groups back to Barrool Suite for coffee, sharing of results Voting

12.00 pm Finish. Thanks to participants

31 Voting Results

WORKSHOP OUTPUT "ROUND THE ROOM"

Serial Idea Votes 1 Planning consent for all floors on High Street 0 2 No demolition without due cause 4 3 Legislative change: Business Tenancy Act 0 4 Legislative change: Protection of Tenancy Act 0 5 Utilise Government-owned brownfield sites: create all-Island register; possible 15 exchange of sites; sell or utilise sites for development fund 6 Confidence and creating a positive environment environmentally and economically 1

7 Levy on greenfield to equate to pollution caused 5 8 Island development fund (including bond option) 22 9 Temp site upgrade incentives 0 10 Public private (IoM style!) partnership 1 11 Simple and flexible planning (and fast track option) 1 12 Special zones (tax/rate/change of use/compulsory purchase/time limited) 1 13 One stop shop 3 14 Development Agency 17 15 Immigration controls to better suit IoM 0 16 Grow population 23 17 Brake on large scale new housing estates 0 18 Development of community hubs so people can feed into larger plans 3 19 Grants - repair and maintenance in urban areas e.g. for energy efficiency and 1 disability access 20 Refreshed planning policy for urban sites 2 21 Grants - including environmental impact assessments and community gain 9 22 Development brief for critical sites 2 23 Development grants for filling empty buildings 26 24 Incentives for urban green infrastructure 5 25 Encourage residential purchase in urban areas by reviewing tax relief for mortgage 20 payments and rates holiday 26 Increased sanctions on dilapidated sites (?compulsory purchase) 3 27 Rates escalators on vacant/derelict sites vs rates holiday later 1 28 Establish development zones to encourage development by attracting a satellite 16 university 29 Establish development zones to encourage development by reviewing car parking 4 strategy e.g. lowering requirements for residential, or multistorey with commercial elements 30 Establish development zones to encourage development by improving 7 infrastructure: internet, public transport, encouraging active travel in towns

31 Establish development zones to encourage development by reviewing taxation and 17 regulations to create a level playing field of development: rates holiday, licensing, permitted change of use 32 Establish development zones to encourage development by encouraging 8 institutionally funded build to rent schemes 33 Put all Government property in control of one entity to support and encourage 28 strategic thinking and policy development 34 Vision: dynamic management and single point of responsibility 1 35 Planning: flexibility, change of use, parking 2

32 WORKSHOP OUTPUT "RANKED BY VOTES"

Put all Government property in control of one entity to support and 28 encourage strategic thinking and policy development Development grants for filling empty buildings 26 Grow population 23 Island development fund (including bond option) 22 Encourage residential purchase in urban areas by reviewing tax relief for 20 mortgage payments and rates holiday Development Agency 17 Establish development zones to encourage development by reviewing 17 taxation and regulations to create a level playing field of development: rates holiday, licensing, permitted change of use Establish development zones to encourage development by attracting a 16 satellite university Utilise Government-owned brownfield sites: create all-Island register; 15 possible exchange of sites; sell or utilise sites for development fund Grants - including environmental impact assessments and community 9 gain Establish development zones to encourage development by encouraging 8 institutionally funded build to rent schemes Establish development zones to encourage development by improving 7 infrastructure: internet, public transport, encouraging active travel in towns Levy on greenfield to equate to pollution caused 5 Incentives for urban green infrastructure 5 No demolition without due cause 4 Establish development zones to encourage development by reviewing car 4 parking strategy e.g. lowering requirements for residential, or multistorey with commercial elements One stop shop 3 Development of community hubs so people can feed into larger plans 3 Increased sanctions on dilapidated sites (?compulsory purchase) 3 Refreshed planning policy for urban sites 2 Development brief for critical sites 2 Planning: flexibility, change of use, parking 2 Confidence and creating a positive environment environmentally and 1 economically Public private (IoM style!) partnership 1 Simple and flexible planning (and fast track option) 1 Special zones (tax/rate/change of use/compulsory purchase/time limited) 1

Grants - repair and maintenance in urban areas e.g. for energy efficiency 1 and disability access Rates escalators on vacant/derelict sites vs rates holiday later 1 Vision: dynamic management and single point of responsibility 1 Planning consent for all floors on High Street 0 Legislative change: Business Tenancy Act 0 Legislative change: Protection of Tenancy Act 0 Temp site upgrade incentives 0 Immigration controls to better suit IoM 0 Brake on large scale new housing estates 0

33 WORKSHOP OUTPUT "CATEGORISED AND RANKED"

Category no Category name Idea Votes 0 Macro Grow population 23 0 Macro Confidence and creating a positive environment environmentally and 1 economically 0 Macro Vision: dynamic management and single point of responsibility 1 0 Macro Immigration controls to better suit IoM 0 1 Development zones Establish development zones to encourage development by reviewing 17 taxation and regulations to create a level playing field of development: rates holiday, licensing, permitted change of use 1 Development zones Establish development zones to encourage development by attracting a 16 satellite university 1 Development zones Establish development zones to encourage development by encouraging 8 institutionally funded build to rent schemes 1 Development zones Establish development zones to encourage development by improving 7 infrastructure: internet, public transport, encouraging active travel in towns 1 Development zones Establish development zones to encourage development by reviewing 4 car parking strategy e.g. lowering requirements for residential, or multistorey with commercial elements 1 Development zones Special zones (tax/rate/change of use/compulsory purchase/time 1 limited) 2 Government-owned property Put all Government property in control of one entity to support and 28 encourage strategic thinking and policy development 2 Government-owned property Utilise Government-owned brownfield sites: create all-Island register; 15 possible exchange of sites; sell or utilise sites for development fund

3 Manx Development Corporation Island development fund (including bond option) 22 3 Manx Development Corporation Development Agency 17 3 Manx Development Corporation Public private (IoM style!) partnership 1 4 Incentives rural Levy on greenfield to equate to pollution caused 5 4 Incentives rural Brake on large scale new housing estates 0 5 Incentives urban Development grants for filling empty buildings 26 5 Incentives urban Encourage residential purchase in urban areas by reviewing tax relief for 20 mortgage payments and rates holiday 5 Incentives urban Grants - including environmental impact assessments and community 9 gain 5 Incentives urban Incentives for urban green infrastructure 5 5 Incentives urban No demolition without due cause 4 5 Incentives urban Increased sanctions on dilapidated sites (?compulsory purchase) 3

5 Incentives urban Grants - repair and maintenance in urban areas e.g. for energy efficiency 1 and disability access 5 Incentives urban Rates escalators on vacant/derelict sites vs rates holiday later 1 5 Incentives urban Planning consent for all floors on High Street 0 5 Incentives urban Temp site upgrade incentives 0 6 Other One stop shop 3 6 Other Development of community hubs so people can feed into larger plans 3 6 Other Refreshed planning policy for urban sites 2 6 Other Development brief for critical sites 2 6 Other Planning: flexibility, change of use, parking 2 6 Other Simple and flexible planning (and fast track option) 1 6 Other Legislative change: Business Tenancy Act 0 6 Other Legislative change: Protection of Tenancy Act 0

34 ANNEX 3: BIBLIOGRAPHY

Legislation

Acquisition of Land Act 1984 legislation.gov.im/cms/images/LEGISLATION/PRINCIPAL/1984/1984- 0009/AcquisitionofLandAct1984_2.pdf. Accessed 22nd June 2018.

Building Control Act 1991 legislation.gov.im/cms/images/LEGISLATION/PRINCIPAL/1991/1991- 0021/BuildingControlAct1991_7.pdf. Accessed 22nd June 2018.

Town and Country Planning Act 1999 legislation.gov.im/cms/images/LEGISLATION/PRINCIPAL/1999/1999- 0009/TownandCountryPlanningAct1999_5.pdf. Accessed 22nd June 2018.

Planning

The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016

‘Strategic Plan’, Isle of Man Government, www.gov.im/categories/planning-and- building-control/planning-policy/development-plan/strategic-plan/. Accessed 22nd June 2018.

Draft Area Plan for the East

‘Draft Area Plan for the East Consultation 2018’, Isle of Man Government, www.gov.im/categories/planning-and-building-control/planning- policy/development-plan/area-plan-for-the-east/draft-area-plan-for-the-east- consultation-2018/. Accessed 22nd June 2018.

Area Plan for the East: Draft Plan – Household size and population projections paper (Evidence Paper No. DP EP5), published by the Cabinet Office on 25th May 2018, www.gov.im/media/1361671/5-household-projections.pdf. Accessed 22nd June 2018.

Central Douglas Masterplan (GD 2014/0083)

‘Central Douglas Masterplan’, Isle of Man Government, www.gov.im/categories/business-and-industries/business-support-and- assistance/town-and-village-centre-regeneration-scheme/central-douglas-masterplan/. Accessed 22nd June 2018.

35 Reform of the Planning System

‘5. Reform of the Planning System – Statement by the Minister for Policy and Reform’, Hansard Extract, Tynwald Court, Tuesday 15th May 2018, www.tynwald.org.im/business/OPHansardIndex1618/2092.pdf.

‘Action plan to improve the planning system’, Isle of Man Government Consultation Hub, consult.gov.im/environment-food-and-agriculture/improve-the-planning- system/. Accessed 22nd June 2018.

Summary response report – April 2018, Isle of Man Government Consultation Hub, consult.gov.im/environment-food-and-agriculture/improve-the-planning- system/supporting_documents/PLANNING%20REVIEW%20%20SUMMARY%20of%20 CONSULTATION.pdf. Accessed 22nd June 2018.

Development Zones

Urban Renewal Scheme in Ireland

Norris, Michelle et al: ‘Property-led urban, town and rural regeneration in Ireland: positive and perverse outcomes in different implementation contexts’, UCD Geary Institute Discussion Paper Series, 2013, www.ucd.ie/geary/static/publications/workingpapers/gearywp201311.pdf. Accessed 22nd June 2018.

Prunty, Jacinta: ‘Residential Urban Renewal Schemes, Dublin 1986-1994’, in: Irish Geography 28(2), 1995, www.irishgeography.ie/index.php/irishgeography/article/viewFile/422/376. Accessed 22nd June 2018.

Enterprise Zones in England

HM Government, Enterprise Zones, 2018, enterprisezones.communities.gov.uk. Accessed 22nd June 2018.

‘What are Enterprise Zones?’, Enterprise Zones, 2018, enterprisezones.communities.gov.uk/about-enterprise-zones/. Accessed 22nd June 2018.

Ward, Matthew: Enterprise Zones, Briefing Paper Number 5924, House of Commons Library, published 17th March 2016, researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05942. Accessed 22nd June 2018.

36 Regeneration Zones in Jersey

‘Regeneration Zones’, Revised 2011 Island Plan, 2014, consult.gov.je/portal/policy/pd/ip2011?pointId=1405696217824#section- 1405696217824. Accessed 22nd June 2018.

Regeneration Areas in the Isle of Man

‘Town and Village Centre Regeneration Scheme’, Isle of Man Government, www.gov.im/categories/business-and-industries/business-support-and- assistance/town-and-village-centre-regeneration-scheme/. Accessed 22nd June 2018.

Isle of Man Budget 2018-19 (GD 2018/0001), http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/opqp/sittings/Tynwald%2020162018/2018- GD-0001.pdf. Accessed 22nd June 2018.

Jersey Development Company

Jersey Development Company, 2018, www.jerseydevelopment.je. Accessed 22nd June 2018.

‘Memorandum of Understanding between the Minister for Treasury and Resources and the States of Jersey Development Company Limited’, www.jerseydevelopment.je/media/14859/sojdc_mou_final_22-07-11.pdf. Accessed 22nd June 2018.

Council of Ministers: Property and Infrastructure Regeneration: The States of Jersey Development Company Limited (P73/2010), www.jerseydevelopment.je/media/14856/p73-2010.pdf. Accessed 22nd June 2018.

37 38

ORAL EVIDENCE

11th June 2018 Evidence of

Councillor David Christian, Leader, Mr Chris Pycroft, Assistant Chief Officer (Regeneration) and Ms Dana Eynon, Director of Environment and Regeneration, Douglas Borough Council;

Mr Caldric Randall, Financial Controller, Mr Paul Martin, Deputy Assessor of Income Tax, and Mr Andrew Sidebottom, Acting Head of Valuation and Asset Management, Treasury;

Hon. Chris Thomas MHK, Minister for Policy and Reform, Ms Diane Brown, Planning Policy Manager, Cabinet Office;

Miss Jennifer Chance, Director of Planning and Building Control, Department for Environment, Food and Agriculture

S E L E C T C O M M I T T E E O F T Y N W A L D C O U R T O F F I C I A L R E P O R T

R E C O R T Y S O I K O I L B I N G E R – L H E H T I N V A A L

P R O C E E D I N G S D A A L T Y N

Development of Unoccupied Urban Sites

HANSARD

Douglas, Monday, 11th June 2018

PP2018/0102 DUUSC, No. 1

All published Official Reports can be found on the Tynwald website:

www.tynwald.org.im/business/hansard

Published by the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 3PW. © High Court of Tynwald, 2018 43 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

Members Present:

Chairman: Mr W C Shimmins MHK Mrs M M Hendy MLC Mr C R Robertshaw MHK

Clerk: Mr J D C King

Assistant Clerk: Miss F Gale

Contents Procedural ...... 3 EVIDENCE OF Councillor David Christian, Leader, Mr Chris Pycroft, Assistant Chief Officer (Regeneration) and Ms Dana Eynon, Director of Environment and Regeneration, Douglas Borough Council ...... 3 The next witnesses were called at 3.15 p.m...... 15 EVIDENCE OF Mr Caldric Randall, Financial Controller, Mr Paul Martin, Deputy Assessor of Income Tax, and Mr Andrew Sidebottom, Acting Head of Valuation and Asset Management, Treasury ...... 15 The Committee adjourned at 3.38 p.m. and resumed its sitting at 3.50 p.m...... 22 EVIDENCE OF Hon. Chris Thomas MHK, Minister for Policy and Reform, Ms Diane Brown, Planning Policy Manager, Cabinet Office; Miss Jennifer Chance, Director of Planning and Building Control, Department for Environment, Food and Agriculture ...... 22 The Committee sat in private at 5.05 p.m...... 41

______2 DUUSC 44 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

Select Committee of Tynwald on Development of Unoccupied Urban Sites

The Committee sat in public at 2.30 p.m. in the Legislative Council Chamber, Legislative Buildings, Douglas

[MR SHIMMINS in the Chair]

Procedural

The Chairman (Mr Shimmins): Good afternoon and welcome to this public meeting of the Select Committee of Tynwald on the Development of Unoccupied Urban Sites. I am Bill Shimmins MHK. and I chair this Committee. With me are: Mr Chris Robertshaw MHK and Mrs Marlene Hendy MLC; Jonathan King, Deputy Clerk of Tynwald and Francisca is also from 5 the Tynwald team. Please can I ask you to ensure that your mobile phone is off or on silent, so that we do not have any interruptions and for the purposes of Hansard I will be ensuring that we do not have more than one person speaking at once. So on 16th January this year, it was resolved that a Select Committee of three members be 10 appointed to investigate the options available to encourage and prioritise the development of unoccupied or previously developed urban sites ahead of building on green fields in the Manx countryside and to report its findings and recommendations by July 2018. Today we will be hearing oral evidence from Douglas Corporation, the Treasury and the Cabinet Office.

EVIDENCE OF Councillor David Christian, Leader, Mr Chris Pycroft, Assistant Chief Officer (Regeneration) and Ms Dana Eynon, Director of Environment and Regeneration, Douglas Borough Council 15 Q1. The Chairman: First of all, we are delighted to welcome Douglas Corporation, and I would like to ask the witnesses to identify themselves for the record.

Councillor Christian: Councillor David Christian, Leader of Douglas Borough Council. 20 The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr Pycroft: Chris Pycroft, Assistant Chief Officer (Regeneration).

25 Ms Eynon: Dana Eynon, Director of Environment and Regeneration.

Q2. The Chairman: Thank you, great. Well, I think if we are all sitting comfortably, we shall start.

______3 DUUSC 45 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

Perhaps I could ask initially that it has been suggested to the Committee that it is not a level 30 playing field for development on the Island, in that it is said to be cheaper and easier to build on green fields than urban sites. Do you agree with that; and if so, what do you think should be done to rebalance and prioritise the towns, and Douglas in particular?

Councillor Christian: Yes, thank you, Chairman. We do agree and the Borough Council does 35 have a very serious concern with development on the outskirts of the town centre. Clearly, Douglas has been going through some major regeneration in recent years. Lots of the infrastructure that has been neglected by consecutive Governments for a very long time has now seen investment and the Council has been matching some of that investment to the tune of nearly £3 million, to try and improve the infrastructure around the town centre. 40 Clearly, as more development takes place on the outskirts, and mainly the area around the Cooil Road area, that is a concern because it is diluting the available spend within the town centre by moving people out. We have been around and we have spoken to retailers, to the public house sector, to the taxis: they have all seen an impact on these people moving out of the town centre. Quite clearly, it is cheaper and it can more beneficial for someone to develop a 45 greenfield site rather than one of the many redundant brownfield sites that we have currently got around the town centre, some of which are probably dating back now to 20 years of lying empty. So the impact that has on the overall impression of Douglas is a very poor one. So yes, we certainly do agree and we believe initiatives need to come forward to find ways of getting people to be more proactive in developing those brownfield sites. 50 Q3. Mr Robertshaw: I just wondered if Chris had any further contributions to make to that comment by the Leader?

Mr Pycroft: Yes, certainly I think we are all aware that there are some fairly major and 55 prominent sites around the town centre in Douglas particularly that have not been developed, as the Leader says, for many years. I think it is clear that the starting point for investment and development needs to be a thriving economy. I know that is not the remit of this Select Committee, but that needs to be the foundation that underpins development. But beyond that, I think the important thing is to make sure that there is a level playing field 60 and that the current reasons not to develop in urban brownfield sites are removed as much as possible. I think largely they are going to be economic reasons. There are issues like reclaiming previously used land, rather than digging up green fields with no previous foundations and contamination and that sort of thing, which is likely to be an added cost. There are then issues to do with infrastructure, whether it is electricity infrastructure or car parking and those sorts of 65 things, that make it easier to build and then to rent or to sell property in the outlying areas. So I think fundamentally there are three things. The first thing is to make it economically viable to develop the brownfield sites; secondly, I think it has to be easier to develop the brownfield sites than the greenfield sites; and then perhaps thirdly, it needs someone proactively to put together the schemes for the brownfield sites, whether it is site assembly or 70 getting planning consents and those sorts of things that make it as easy as possible for developers to develop those sites.

Q4. Mr Robertshaw: Thank you. You touched obviously on the concept of it being easier and cheaper to develop out of town. 75 How would you see us approach the concept of levelling it off? You touched specifically on ground conditions: do you want to expand on that? Have you had thoughts about what might be done to achieve a presentation to a developer, with the difficulties of ground conditions ameliorated or dealt with in some way, as is the case in some areas away? Have you had any thoughts on that?

______4 DUUSC 46 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

80 Councillor Christian: I think, Chairman and Mr Robertshaw, looking at what the working group came up with on the 25th – and obviously, I was not able to attend it – the creation of development zones is very important and a good way forward, and we certainly do endorse that approach. We believe any development zone should be focused on Douglas initially, and the reason why 85 I say that, because it may seem a bit strange when we are talking about brownfield sites within Douglas, is that when the Regeneration Fund was first set up – and Mr Robertshaw, you may remember that – I think the then Treasury Minister who then became Chief Minister stated that the fund had £8 million in it and the majority of that would be spent on Douglas; if we get Douglas and the capital right, the rest of the Island will follow. Well, we know that fund was then 90 diluted down and spread around the towns and villages around the Island, so Douglas did not get the investment that we believe it should have got. The boundary we believe should be wider than the current regeneration boundary that we have all been operating to. So if there is a development zone set up, we believe it should be extended wider than what the current regeneration zone is and perhaps looking at – and again, I 95 keep referring to Mr Robertshaw, but you have been there with us throughout this whole journey! – the Central Douglas Masterplan, which we think is still a very good concept, a good document that was put forward, a lot of work went into that. We believe it needs somebody to co-ordinate that and that could possibly be a project manager funded between Government and the Council, to try and move some of those things forward within that. 100 I think, for utility companies in particular, when we are talking about the actual sites and what we can achieve, utility companies should be encouraged and supported to deliver improvements. That is electricity, faster Wi-Fi – all these elements are part of what needs to be required to encourage people to develop some of these brownfield sites. Obviously, for some of them, we believe there could be difficulties in clearing the sites. The 105 Council used to own the whole of the Lake Road site opposite Tesco’s and of course there is only one small element of that has ever been developed. Further down, there was an old abattoir, it was our garage, and we believe just to actually excavate and to develop that site is quite costly. So some of the other brownfield sites around the town may need some sort of initiatives and incentives brought forward, or assistance and grants, to actually clear those sites to make them 110 more viable to develop.

Mr Robertshaw: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you. 115 Marlene.

Q5. Mrs Hendy: Chris, you mentioned trying to make it easier to develop brownfield sites. Would you see this possibly as a vehicle for a special planning policy that applies to brownfield sites, to give an incentive for that kind of development? 120 And also when you talk about planning briefs you would see that specifically relating to individual sites, again so that someone looking at that site is incentivised to maybe pick it up and run with it?

Mr Pycroft: Yes I think, as the Council Leader mentioned, we do have the Central Douglas 125 Masterplan, which has already identified sites that would benefit the town by being developed and there are sort of mini sketch schemes in the Central Douglas Masterplan. So I think they make obvious targets which could have development briefs prepared for them and perhaps even take them further, to planning consent or land assembly – acquisition and assembly and that sort of thing – which would then move one of the disincentives, one of the hurdles for 130 developers to have to cope with.

______5 DUUSC 47 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

In terms of regulations, I think planning perhaps is one of those. There are things that potentially could take place within these special development zones, so perhaps extended permitted development rights, but then other regulatory issues as well perhaps – things like perhaps the licensing laws could be looked at to make it easier to develop licensed premises. 135 Certainly, if you look at areas like the Baltic Triangle in Liverpool, the local economy there is really flourishing and it is because young entrepreneurs are setting up bars. They do not have to demonstrate need for a licence, like I think is generally the case in the Isle of Man, so it allows that entrepreneurial spirit to flourish. Then there could be added incentives, so things like reduction on land and property tax, 140 which as Members will be aware went up from 10% to 20% in 2015. So perhaps that should be reviewed. Rates holidays perhaps – in the Local Government Act, there is an opportunity for special rates areas, so maybe that is something that could be looked at as well.

Mrs Hendy: Thank you. 145 Q6. The Chairman: Just in terms of those rates holidays, it is clear, I think, that the Council is indicating support for a development zone in Douglas, and there is a proven track record elsewhere of regeneration being practically driven by this. Would the Council support rates holidays within that zone and if so, for how many years would you look to do that? 150 Councillor Christian: It is something the Council has discussed in the past. I am not too sure whether under legislation we are actually permitted to grant that as a local authority or whether we would need to have a change through a Local Government Act to actually allow us to grant any rates holidays, but we certainly believe, yes, that is part of an overall package that could be 155 another initiative that could be put forward, to actually provide that at the time when a site like this was being developed. I think other areas where we think in planning policies there could be a relaxation include car-parking standards of what is required within the town, particularly within these brownfield sites. Obviously that relies on a really good public transport system, but we think there could be 160 relaxation there; and also possibly the requirement for the 25% for affordable homes within some of these developments as well. Perhaps that is another relaxation that we could look at specifically on targeted sites, because certainly having spoken to some developers over a number of years, they do see that now as becoming an issue, particularly if they hit a major problem on the site. The profit margin is cut to the bare bone because they have got to provide 165 25%. I think that could be putting a few people off looking at one or two of the more redundant sites in the town.

Q7. The Chairman: Thank you very much for that. So just to drill down a bit more detail on that: rates holidays you are supportive of; there is a 170 question mark about the technical ability to do that, where that sits. In terms of car parking, would you just like to enlarge a bit more that issue and how you see that as being a barrier to regeneration for developers?

Councillor Christian: Well, I think they have got to provide so much of the land for car- 175 parking spaces, where I think if we can provide sufficient good standard car parking around the town – i.e. multi-storey car parking – it can be, if it is close enough to a development, that there is sufficient park within an area, rather than having to take up a large chunk of a site; and quite often the car park is underground which adds to the cost of developing. So if there is sufficient car parking nearby, then I think that should be taken into account, rather than having to be 180 provided on site. I think another initiative that we could look at as well is in relation to the building regulation fees. Whilst in the scale of a major development, they may not be a lot of money, but we are

______6 DUUSC 48 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

aware of some of the fees that we have to impose at the present time, that it is not costing us anywhere near that amount to provide that service, but we have to impose that level of fee. So 185 again, that is just another one of a package that could be put together as an incentive

Q8. The Chairman: Would you see it as a package, then? There is a range of different incentives to –

190 Councillor Christian: We certainly feel so.

Mr Pycroft: Perhaps I can go back to Councillor Christian’s point about the car parking. I think one of the disincentives at the moment is the fact that the public car parking in Douglas is almost at capacity at the moment. There was a study done by Amey Consultants for the 195 Department of Infrastructure a few years ago that made it very clear that we were very close to reaching capacity. So one of the things the Council is looking at, at the moment, is the potential for more public car parking. That, I think, almost needs to be a requisite for some development. The other thing, of course, we need to bear in mind is that a lot of the car parking in the town centre at the moment is on sites that are likely to be developed in the future. So a very broad 200 calculation is that there could be around 1,000 existing car park spaces that are likely to be lost if those sites are then developed. So obviously, we need to replace those somewhere or the situation will be made worse.

The Chairman: Thank you. 205 Chris.

Q9. Mr Robertshaw: Sticking with the issue of multi-storey car parks, as you have both mentioned, for a company who might be inclined to migrate out of town, for their staff there is an attraction, I suppose, about parking close to their office free of charge. I presume that these 210 companies do not charge their staff to park their cars in their own car park. Would you agree that whatever is tried or whatever we try to achieve with regard to improving car parking in Douglas, that we have to be incredibly careful about ensuring that in that construct the price of parking in that space for either leisure visitors or office workers or the like is kept within bounds? 215 Councillor Christian: Without a doubt, I think the whole concept of public transport and car parking within the town needs to be far more joined up than it is. We have attempted and there have been certain changes with the Council taking on responsibility for Drumgold Street and Chester Street car parks, but I still believe we are still a long way off. The car parks are still 220 owned by central Government, the infrastructure is maintained by them, the cleaning contracts are by them, but the Council runs the car parks and we have to set the level of fee within those car parks, for example, to recover grant funding that was removed from Government. It has all got very messy and I think we need to sit down and everybody needs to come together and look at the overall car-parking provision, costing, running of it, how that ties in with 225 public transport, how that can connect in with any new development within the town centre and although different car-parking studies have been carried out over the years. I believe we are still not there. There are still elements of that missing when you look at previous reports.

Q10. Mr Robertshaw: Are you saying that the cost construct at the moment for parking in 230 one of these car parks delivers you a break-even position or slightly better than that?

Councillor Christian: What would you say on the one we are looking at, at the moment?

______7 DUUSC 49 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

Mr Pycroft: I would say, without going into too much detail, (Councillor Christian: Or where it 235 is.) the car parks that are owned by the Council generate a small surplus and the car parks which we license from Government, do not.

Mr Robertshaw: Right.

240 Q11. Mrs Hendy: May I ask: would you think that parking is an absolutely vital factor in resolving these issues, that achieving this balance in terms of parking – even if parking at the moment, say, is too expensive or if we put levies on brownfield sites used as temporary car parks – that would actually push people to the outskirts of the town again? And so would you see parking as being a really main critical factor in resolving this balance? 245 Councillor Christian: I think it is one of the factors. I think it is a case of making sure that there is an overall good public transport policy and engaging then with companies who are looking to develop, speaking to them, seeing what their requirements are, how many people they employ and how the public bus network or public transport network could work with them. 250 I think that is something that is missed time and time again. We have looked at one company that has recently moved from Atholl Street up onto the business park, and you look at the multi-storey car park they have put alongside, but if you drive around that area now first thing in the morning or at five o’clock at night, those roads are clogged up. All we have done is move one problem from one part of the town to the outskirts of 255 the town, to clog those roads up at five o’clock at night. If we had a good co-ordinated public transport system – I still say we are a good way off that – we can encourage more people to leave their car at home and find other ways to get to the workplace.

The Chairman: I think active travel perhaps has an important role to play, allowing people or 260 encouraging people to cycle and to walk into work. That is great, okay.

Mrs Hendy: Thank you, Chair.

265 Q12. The Chairman: Perhaps we can move on now to derelict buildings and the long-vacant sites. What penalties, if any, do you feel should be applied to these eyesores in the town?

Councillor Christian: I think one of the problems we have got is with lots of the sites that have already been cleared, they have been allowed to just be used as level car parking now for a 270 long number of years, so there is a considerable income being achieved on some of those sites, with very little actually being paid out in costs. So there is no real incentive there for the people to remove the car park. I know it has been suggested now that there is going to be a time limit on how long people can actually use these car parks. We would say it is absolutely essential that that is brought in 275 sooner rather than later, and that for any other sites being cleared, we seriously do look as to whether they are going to be allowed to be used as car parks. Maybe also look to rate these brownfield sites that are being used as car parks, but rate them as if they have got a building on them, right from day one. They are making an income from them from car parking: let’s rate them as if they have already got a full building on them, so they 280 have actually got to pay more out. Maybe there would be more of an incentive for development to take place.

The Chairman: Okay, thank you.

______8 DUUSC 50 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

285 Q13. Mr Robertshaw: I think I understood you correctly: you would look at that sort of initiative very much hand in glove with the idea of multi-storey car parks being built so that the two were tied together and we did not end up damaging the very thing we are trying to protect.

Councillor Christian: Yes, and I think that is why we feel we must be moving on now at 290 looking at the carpark provision. As Chris has already indicated and as you know, Mr Robertshaw, we are looking at another site now for another 450 within Douglas, but if just a couple of these brownfield sites go, that could fill that car park straight away. So we need to be really moving ahead now, to determine the right location for those levels of carparks.

295 Q14. The Chairman: Thank you. And so in terms of the sorts of suggestions you made there, in terms of an increased rate burden, a time limitation of the time that they can be used as gravel car parks, would you see those changes effectively happening at the same time as a range of incentives to encourage people to get on and regenerate as part of a development zone initiative? 300 Councillor Christian: Most certainly. It has got to be part of the overall package. It is no good coming in now and saying, ‘Well, that site you’ve been paying £900 on, now you’re going to be paying £110,000 in rates on it.’ It has got to be part of the overall packages that come forward. (The Chairman: Great.) 305 I think it was in one the documents that came forward on the 25th. It is the carrot-and-stick approach, isn’t it?

Q15. Mr Robertshaw: I was going to ask this question before; it sort of links into this one. After this session, could you perhaps drop the Committee a line as to how you saw that high- 310 level degree of co-operation being delivered through a development agency concept and how you might see Douglas Council fit in with that, in terms of whether that agency then had broader responsibilities around the Island, and how it would relate to Douglas? Of course, whatever we settle on as a Committee, we have to get through Tynwald as a whole. Would you give that matter some thought and communicate with us, please? 315 Councillor Christian: Yes, certainly. We have got a paper with us today, because we had a meeting a few weeks ago, after I met with yourself, Mr Chairman, and then met with the officers and we put together many of the thoughts. We looked at the various different areas that were discussed at the workshop. Our copies have all been scribbled on today, so we are quite happy 320 to actually forward these to the Committee as well, because we do look at the development corporation or development agency. Again, as Mr Robertshaw knows, that has been discussed time and time again in Douglas Regeneration, previously the Douglas Development Partnership. For whatever reason there has never been a will to move forward with that type of an agency on the Island. 325 I think from the Council’s point of view, we could see our roles and responsibilities being diluted and transferred to a development agency, and perhaps some of the roles of central Government, particularly DoI, being transferred to a development agency. I think that is why there has always been a reluctance politically for that to move a stage forward, because we have seen some of our roles diminishing. 330 So yes, we would be quite happy to expand on that further and submit that to the Committee.

Q16. The Chairman: That would be helpful. Just touching on that perhaps a wee bit further, central Government owns a number of 335 vacant sites in Douglas and has other sites which may become available in the future. What

______9 DUUSC 51 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

would you see as the best way to reuse these Government-owned sites to encourage regeneration?

Councillor Christian: I think it is twofold, to be honest with you. We do know of other 340 businesses who could be looking at moving outside of the town centre or who are currently on another part of the outside of a town centre and moving further out. We would like to see you encourage them in, and we think if Government have got brownfield sites, where they could be encouraged to develop in town and providing any necessary partner they need, that should happen. 345 I think Government should also be prepared to possibly swap sites. There could be a site outside of Douglas that a developer has got that is far more valuable for Government, maybe in housing terms or whatever, providing the housing policy, where they could swap land. So I do not think that should ever be off the equation. The Council is just going to put out a press release, asking developers to show interest in 350 relation to lots of our older property in lower Douglas – I am talking about Lord Street, James Street, King’s Street, all of those. Those properties are starting to come to the end of their useful life and we are going to have to start to plan now to rebuild. Those people do not want to move out of Douglas town centre. The vast majority will be mortified. They do not have cars, they use the public transport system, they work in the town. So we are actually putting shows of interest 355 next week for any developer that may own any of these brownfield sites to come forward who maybe want to work with the Council to possibly develop new local authority housing. The one thing we have got to be very careful about then is that we will be looking to demolish some of our older housing stock and the last thing we want to do is swap one brownfield site for another. But we will be looking to see where there are any incentives there 360 where we could discuss with a developer that may have a site in this part of Douglas; we have one right in the centre which may be more valuable – there may be a deal that can be done there. We need the free hand on the reins to be able to discuss that and sometimes we are tied up by local government legislation. 365 The Chairman: Okay.

Q17. Mrs Hendy: Leading on from that, out of the workshops, there seemed to be a consensus in favour of repopulating town centres with residential development, possibly 370 converting existing properties, for accommodation for younger people who might be on the housing waiting list; people maybe who would be key workers coming into the Island or returnees; and also possibly sheltered housing, because it is in the middle of town. From my own experience, I know it is favoured by our older generation, that they do not need a car then, everything is accessible. 375 Would you see this as possibly some type of partnership, maybe exchange in terms of looking at a development corporation or exchanges of sites etc.? Would this be something you would favour?

Councillor Christian: Yes. Most certainly. We believe that the economy needs to grow 380 within … well, it needs to grow in the Island, but certainly it needs to grow within the capital, within Douglas, and having more people living in the capital will definitely give that economy a boost. Our night-time economy is very poor. We need to see a boost in that. People living in the town centre will create that. 385 I know one of the things that was discussed at the workshop was the possibility of a satellite university. As a governor of the UCM, I would certainly hope that if we are going to be going down that road, we should be looking to develop what we have already got – the UCM – but if

______10 DUUSC 52 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

we can encourage more students to come to the Isle of Man, then have them living in the town centre; create the type of accommodation that they require in the town centre. They have good 390 spend power there, day, night, weekends – that is a good boost to the economy. Elderly people more certainly do not want to be put up at the back of Anagh Coar and Ballavagher or at the top of Willaston. They want to be in the town centre for all the reasons that you have said. So yes, we should be able to talk about that and I think that is one of the reasons we are 395 going out with this expressions of interest next week, to see what developers come forward.

Mrs Hendy: Thank you.

Mr Pycroft: I think, if I may just say, we do need to be careful, though, that we do not just 400 swap things around and we get people moving in to live in the town centre and business moves out to the outskirts. It needs to be a healthy mix. So it needs to be a healthy population throughout the day, so people working and living together, because the last thing we want is those two things to swap over.

405 Q18. Mr Robertshaw: I just want to come back at a point you made a few minutes ago – this is to the Leader. You have touched on regulation fees and licensing, but you just mentioned local government legislation as being somewhat restrictive. Could you point us, through a memo perhaps afterwards, as to what those specific issues are that you find are binding your hands, if I have not misunderstood you? 410 Councillor Christian: Yes, most certainly. There are times where we are constrained by the local authority legislation. One of the areas where we really feel that we are held back is in relation to compulsory purchase. That has really got to be a matter that comes through the Department and through to Tynwald, and we know that consecutive Governments have been 415 very reluctant to use compulsory purchase, but we believe in some of these areas – and you know from a site we are currently talking about for car parking – there may be a need for compulsory purchase, but we are always advised that it must come from the Department and through to Tynwald. They are reluctant. I think there have been times when the Council would have been more proactive in using the 420 compulsory purchase powers to move some things on in Douglas. We are happy to expand on that, though, Chairman.

Q19. Mr Robertshaw: Thank you. Would you also include any commentary where you feel your hands are tied on dilapidation 425 issues on properties as well, please?

Councillor Christian: It could be quite a long paper, but yes, we are quite happy to supply that.

430 Mr Robertshaw: We will be delighted to hear it and see it! Thank you.

Q20. The Chairman: Just on the subject of compulsory purchase, what changes would you like to see to compulsory purchase?

435 Councillor Christian: I think just being prepared to use it; for Government not being prepared to just kick it into the long grass and shy away from compulsory purchase. Publicly, a month or two ago – it was in a Council debate so to a certain degree, it was taken out of context when it was reported – but I named the Villiers site as one site in particular that I know would probably be an expensive site to compulsory purchase, but for the best part of it to

______11 DUUSC 53 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

440 be now lying empty for 20 years … The site that was developed was very futuristic for Douglas – completely different from the rest of Douglas Promenade; it made a statement. There is a large element of it, at the moment, trying to be let again. Let’s hope that will fill up soon, because that will certainly give us a boost down there; but the rest of the site – that is the first thing people see coming in from the boat! It just drags Douglas down and I think 10 years ago we should have 445 been prepared to step in and turn round and say, ‘That site now strategically is very important, not just to Douglas but to the Island’, because that would have given us the opportunity to look at Regent Street, Duke Street, possibly creating a proper town square, a proper heart to our town centre in the centre, not on the outskirts of some buildings looking back onto grotty old buildings of Duke Street. 450 So just being prepared to use the legislation that is already there; but for some reason, consecutive Governments have just shied away and we have basically been to told stay away from it, ‘because you won’t get it through Tynwald’.

Mr Pycroft: I think that site is a perfect example of a site where one of the obstacles to 455 developing it is that just developing the Villiers site on its own is going to be very problematic because of the geographic nature of the site. What it really needs is land assembly to acquire the property or some property in the vicinity, to allow it to go to a site that is much easier to develop, that benefits the town centre, there is potential for open space, like a town square and all sorts of things that could make a massive difference. But logistically, for any developer it is 460 going to be a huge headache. I think where Government can step in is to start to pull the scheme together by acquiring the sites and developing sketch schemes to then start to talk to developers. So the public sector does the very difficult first stages.

Councillor Christian: One of the contributions that could come from the Council there, for 465 that particular site, is: what was always envisaged was that when the final town square was created … So they would develop around, then what is currently called a town square, that would be the yard for the final part of development. That would then be completed and where the Council could come in then would be to actually take that over and maintain it, so it removes that obligation from the owner or anybody running that site. 470 So there is another incentive that could be there, that any final thing that is put on in planning, the local authority could look at then adopting that and taking it over and having the future costs.

The Chairman: Thank you. 475 Q21. Mr Robertshaw: So we have talked through brownfield sites, derelict properties, compulsory purchase; but bearing in mind the time is now flying past and we are enjoying ourselves so much here, would you agree that it is very important for us to focus on how we are going to use an increasing number of empty office properties that are themselves fundamentally 480 sound, but that need reinventing? Would you offer your thoughts on that increasingly large subject?

Councillor Christian: It is.

485 Mr Pycroft: I think this is a perfect example where it can be more cost effective to build something from scratch on a greenfield site than to renovate an existing building that as you say is sound, but where services and insulation and modern requirements need upgrading to make the building habitable, whether it is to be used for existing or previous use – offices, say – or whether it is for new use. I think this is where financial incentives in the form of gap funding, to 490 plug that gap between the cost of doing something on a greenfield site and the cost of doing it on a brownfield site, really would come into play.

______12 DUUSC 54 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

Where that funding comes from is obviously a difficult matter. But I suggest that it needs to be public funding as an investment to try and keep these buildings in profitable economic use.

495 Mr Robertshaw: Thank you.

Q22. The Chairman: Would the Council support an automatic change of use for office to residential within certain zones?

500 Mr Pycroft: I think that is a difficult one. I think in principle it is a good idea, but there may be … Without looking at specific buildings, specific sites, I think it is very difficult to say, as a blanket sort of automatic approval, it would be appropriate. I think it is certainly something worth investigating.

505 Q23. Mr Robertshaw: We have talked in general about Douglas and we have talked specifically about development zones, as well as the agency concept. Do you have some fear that if we go down the development zone route that something then becomes set in stone and do you think that we should be trying to think about how it might be possible to be fairly flexible about a development zone being in a particular place and after a period of time, when we have 510 achieved that, then move it on and be fairly flexible; or do you think that is going too far?

Councillor Christian: I personally do not think it is going too far, but I mentioned this to the officers before I came up. I think if you had an overall development zone – say it was the current Central Masterplan Zone – but I do not think, although that would be classed as a zone, we 515 should be focused on specific sites where the incentives apply to within a zone. So it is a zone within a zone, I think we should be looking at, rather than opening up the whole overall site as the development zone that a whole range of incentives could come together. I think because we have got problems, we know where the problems are in lower Douglas, we would love to see the regeneration extended, but it is particularly sites we want to see 520 developed. So I would say a zone within a zone is where the incentive should lie and if that is completed and it is successful and it is developed, well then, yes, there may be the opportunity then to look and move on. But I think flexibility: we should always be prepared to be flexible. We tie ourselves up too often. 525 Q24. Mr Robertshaw: That is an interesting point, and I share your sentiment there because one can never quite tell where the next opportunity might suddenly arise out of the sort of sky- blue position and to be locked into a situation that cannot deliver leaves our hands tied. Thank you. 530 Mr Pycroft: I would certainly support flexibility but on the other hand, it is important not to dilute effort and resources. We do have a limit of resources and a limit of effort and I think if boundaries become too wide, it just dilutes any attention. I think sometimes you are much better to have a tight focus on something and get that bit improved and then allow that benefit 535 to spread from the improved bit.

Q25. Mr Robertshaw: Does that relate to what the Leader just said: that you would be comfortable with the Central Masterplan being a development zone? Is that what you said?

540 Mr Pycroft: Yes, I would, and as the Leader said, there are character areas already within the Central Masterplan area. So it might be that certain incentives are only focused on one character area within the Masterplan area, and then when that bit is improved, you can then start to

______13 DUUSC 55 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

expand beyond that bit. But if you try and do everything in one go, it can be just too much and you do not get the benefit of the more focused approach. 545 Mr Robertshaw: Thank you.

Q26. Mrs Hendy: That actually takes me back: we had a conversation with Erika Rushton from the Baltic Triangle and one of the lessons she told us to try and learn was to start small and 550 focus on one site, to make that really work successfully and then move on. My question leading on from Mr Shimmins’: not automatic change of use but, out of the workshops again, quite strong favour was in terms of permitted development from residential to office and vice versa might help some of the barriers and the length of time it can take to get through the planning system. No blame on the planning system because I know the planning 555 system is overloaded most of the time, but would you be in favour of that? Would you think that that might help?

Mr Pycroft: I think so broadly. The reason I just voiced a slight word of warning before was that I have been involved in a project previously, in a coastal town where there was actually a 560 development corporation improving the town and there was a high street of obviously retail units, some of which were empty. They allowed a change of use from retail to residential, to the point that the number of shops had reduced so much that once the town started to develop and become more viable as a place for development, actually there was no capacity left to develop more retail units, because they had all been converted to housing. 565 So I think it is a good idea in principle, but there needs to be some sort of control still in place, so that – and this is over the top; this would never happen – we would not want the whole of Douglas town centre to become a housing estate and for there to be no other uses in there. So there needs to be some control to stop things going too far. So perhaps there should be some sort of percentage allocation, so that there was permitted 570 change of use up to a certain percentage, but then it could not go beyond that.

Q27. Mrs Hendy: Or for instance, the living over the shop incentive possibly to get the right balance and mix? (Mr Pycroft: Possibly.) Again, to be looked at?

575 Mr Pycroft: Again, this is something I have had a look into in the past and living over the shop is great in principle, but it can be very difficult to deliver for all sorts of reasons – not just the architectural and property reasons, but it can be difficult. In some cases it might be better to actually think, ‘Well, we are going to redevelop a site with retail on the ground floor and new apartments, purpose built, on the upper floors.’ 580 Mrs Hendy: Thank you.

Q28. The Chairman: In terms of that retail/residential mix, do you think that we need to reassess that, given the overwhelming trend to internet shopping? Some of the assumptions 585 that perhaps were valid, even as little as five years ago, are no longer valid in terms of retail.

Councillor Christian: I think we would say most certainly. I think if you look at the retail area within Douglas now, from Market Hill right through to the end of Castle Street, is that sustainable into the future? I think my view is it certainly is not. I think it will struggle. I really do. 590 Mr Pycroft: But some of those retail units could be replaced by other uses that are not necessarily residential. There could be more leisure uses, more lifestyle-type uses.

______14 DUUSC 56 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

We have already seen growth in things like hairdressers and beauty salons and those sorts of businesses. Maybe there is scope for more gyms and those sorts of informal leisure 595 developments.

Councillor Christian: But to make those successful, you want more people living in the town centre as well.

600 Mr Pycroft: Yes, absolutely.

The Chairman: Any more?

Mrs Hendy: I am fine, I think, thank you. 605 The Chairman: Thank you very much. That concludes our questions for the Council. We are most grateful for your input, and clearly your passion and enthusiasm to regenerate Douglas has come through strongly today. So thank you again.

610 Councillor Christian: Thank you for the opportunity and we will make sure we forward any other information we have said we will.

The Chairman: Thank you.

The next witnesses were called at 3.15 p.m.

EVIDENCE OF Mr Caldric Randall, Financial Controller, Mr Paul Martin, Deputy Assessor of Income Tax, and Mr Andrew Sidebottom, Acting Head of Valuation and Asset Management, Treasury

615 Q29. The Chairman: We welcome colleagues from Treasury. It is pretty warm in here, so feel free to make yourself comfortable. Perhaps first of all I could ask you to introduce yourself for the record.

Mr Randall: I am Caldric Randall. 620 Mr Sidebottom: Andrew Sidebottom.

Mr Martin: And Paul Martin.

625 The Chairman: Thank you.

Q30. Mrs Hendy: Good afternoon, gentlemen. I would like to start off by asking: what taxation measures could be employed to encourage urban development rather than building in the Manx countryside? 630 Mr Martin: We currently have a land development tax holiday, so for corporate taxpayers that is a reduction of … well, an exemption of tax for five years. That is there now. But it is not just for, obviously, urban; it is for everywhere.

______15 DUUSC 57 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

But it is not used very much at all, so since it came in, in 2016, we have had very few 635 applicants. So that is there now. Over the years we have had various different schemes. If we go back to the late 1990s/early 2000s we had a commercial buildings allowance that was introduced and that introduced zones within Douglas, Peel, Port St Mary and Ramsey. So there were enhanced capital allowances within those zones. Again, in Douglas from what I remember – and it is a long time ago – it was 640 taken up a little bit but the rest were not taken up at all. The other schemes we have had of a similar nature: we had a tax holiday for national insurance not long ago. Now that was not specifically for urban regeneration, but that was for new employment, but of course that could be used within a zone just the same as reduced income tax. 645 So the answer is you really can do anything with tax to reduce it. It is a matter of policy and it is the cost of what that is.

Q31. Mr Robertshaw: Paul, you say there have been these various initiatives and they have not been taken up. Can you recall asking people why they did not take it up and where it was not 650 working when you imagine it should?

Mr Martin: I do not remember the early one, if we go back to the 2000s.

Mr Robertshaw: Not old enough to remember that! 655 Mr Martin: Well, I remember it, but I was not involved in it that much! I was surprised with the recent one. So when we had the working party a couple of weeks ago, I was surprised that actually there were not many developers there that realised that land development tax holiday was there. There were a couple because they have used it, but 660 otherwise it seemed that they did not know. It was well publicised in 2016 when it was introduced. It was taken up by other radio stations – I had a good look online – but it seems to be something that maybe has drifted off. But it is still there. It still can be used.

665 Q32. The Chairman: So are you saying, then, it is possible to introduce a number of taxation holidays or incentives, but target them to specific areas? Previously that was done in town boundaries?

Mr Martin: It was not town boundaries; it was specific boundaries within the towns. It was 670 trying to do exactly what you are doing now. (The Chairman: Specific zones?) Yes, it was specific zones. So Douglas 2000, I think was the original one based on it. But of course, yes, that that can be done. I think that was done in Ireland. I think Ireland had a specific zone and they gave tax incentives within that zone as part of an overall package. 675 Q33. The Chairman: That was in Dublin?

Mr Martin: In Dublin.

680 Q34. The Chairman: So if that has been done in the past, would you envisage any difficulties, technically, in introducing a range of fiscal incentives limited to a particular boundary in any zone on the Island?

Mr Martin: Technical difficulty? Other than time and effort, no; and obviously it is a political 685 issue. But no, technically, you can reduce tax in many ways.

______16 DUUSC 58 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

Q35. Mr Robertshaw: That is zones, but one of the things I think, Paul, you might recall came out of the workshop was the feeling that whereas developers might go to other jurisdictions or other areas and have a go-to place that effectively encapsulated all the various component parts that were co-operative and all identified the initiative to drive things forward the feeling that I 690 got from the workshop was that actually people felt that yes, various things existed, but they were all over the show and one had to go to different parts of Government and perhaps get slightly different stories, and in the end the developer feels somewhat exhausted by the whole process and not sure where they sit. So how do you feel about Treasury interacting in a fairly close way with a development 695 agency or development corporation or a development body which was able to draw all this together? Would you see any problem about contributing and engagement in that regard?

Mr Martin: I think from our workshop, it was clear that that was actually quite important. I think that came out of it quite highly. 700 As far as Treasury talking to the others, that is not really my area in tax. It is more Andrew’s.

Mr Sidebottom: Yes, I guess, there is an element of that already in the work we do in the asset management section. We try and pull relevant information together and work with the relevant departments. I think that DEFA already holds much of that central resource in terms of 705 the planning, the health and safety work and some elements of it. So there is a mixed bag, really. The marketing side of things I think ties into that to make sure that it is very, very clear at the outset what an expectation is from a site if it is a Government site. But I think there is a role there. How key that role is … It is more of a co-ordinating role, I think.

710 Q36. Mr Robertshaw: But you accept the fact that we need to do something more than we are? You seemed a bit hesitant in that answer. Would you agree, we have to grasp this? We have to find a way of bringing everybody together in a pretty coherent way and give the developer surety – you would agree with that?

715 Mr Sidebottom: I would, yes. It is doing it in the right way. Where it is Government site, it is pulling the right people together, isn’t it? Where it is non-governmental land, it is more challenging, in terms of it is literally the advice in terms of the controls of a development as opposed to actually the site itself. But if we can find ways to support development, then it has surely got to be for the good. 720 Mr Randall: I think in general terms, though, Treasury would support anything that made interaction between the developers and ourselves easier.

Mr Robertshaw: Thank you. 725 Q37. The Chairman: Okay. Currently on the Island, residential development for more than eight units incurs section 13 contributions as either public housing units built by the developer or a cash sum – a commutation, if you like – and the vast majority of these developments in the last 20 years have been on the Manx countryside. Very few have been on brownfield land. 730 Which Government Department benefits from these section 13 contributions? Is there a budget for that? What happens to those receipts? Who controls those sums and who has the strategic mandate?

Mr Sidebottom: The section 13 agreements come through the planning process. Obviously 735 that come through DEFA. I am afraid I do not know where those sums go but we can certainly find out and provide further advice on that.

______17 DUUSC 59 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

Mr Randall: I think some of the section 13s, in relation to affordable housing, etc, that will be managed through DoI through the housing section, so they will be monitoring that, looking to 740 ensure that those social benefits are delivered.

Q38. The Chairman: So who has the strategic mandate on that? Who has the budget and the mandate to say how much are we going to get; what will we do with that money?

745 Mr Randall: That will be Infrastructure. I know it is not the Treasury.

The Chairman: Okay, so it is not a Treasury mandate. Thank you.

Q39. Mrs Hendy: I think just the clarity, it goes in to the housing pot, really, to further 750 affordable housing in the future. I think that is my understanding;

Mr Randall: That would depend on the planning policy around where they saw the social benefits –

755 Mrs Hendy: But that is through DoI.

Mr Randall: They would manage any benefits coming off that, yes.

Q40. The Chairman: And which area of Government owns and controls the land and 760 buildings?

Mr Randall: At present, it is spread out between the Departments so each of the Departments holds land and buildings. I think it is something that we have identified that there might be a benefit in future of looking at the opportunity for single ownership within a particular 765 Department – so in the Department of Infrastructure, for example. The benefits from that would be a reduction of bureaucracy internally, in terms of legal requirements, transfer of land, but also to enhance strategic asset management. So it is something that we are looking at the opportunities to deliver.

770 Q41. Mr Robertshaw: So there is a fairly clear picture coming through here about different things being in different Departments and that maybe it should be in one. So how would you see that one, as you suggest, Caldric, placed in one Department then interact with a development agency? Wouldn’t you see it appropriate to stick all the land, be it local authority or departmental land, in one place with one agency? 775 Mr Randall: There are a range of ways you could do it. That is one extreme, isn’t it, to put everything outside and leave it to be managed in that particular way? Another one is to have a Government organisation itself that runs that. There are advantages and disadvantages of each of those things. 780 But in terms of development corporations, as I understand, generally they work on development of a particular area. It is a planning matter and they sit outside of the normal planning rules, when they are looking to develop an area, rather than pushing the whole of Government. People can be cynical about the administration of Government but given our size and the co- 785 operation that we have between Departments in terms of strategic and joining things up and making sure it all works seamlessly together, we should be able to do that within Government.

Q42. Mr Robertshaw: But in fact it has not happened, has it? We have had for example Lord Street for nearly 25 years sitting derelict and others for a long time. So it is a reasonable criticism

______18 DUUSC 60 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

790 that we have got to find new ways forward to make things happen. Would you not agree with that?

Mr Sidebottom: I think we do need to find ways to make sure that things move forward and there are a lot of different ways of actually doing that. I think one thing that we as Government, 795 in terms of Government land, are short of is having really that key property data to make sure that we are in a position to grasp opportunities as and when they arise – just to be to be aware and ready, and does that necessarily mean a change in the ownership or the holding of that property? Not necessarily. We have just got to be better at holding the information that we need. 800 Q43. The Chairman: Can you just enlarge on that a wee bit, Andrew, in terms of explaining who has the strategic overview to ensure that Government property assets are re-used for the national good, rather than Department fiefdoms.

805 Mr Sidebottom: In terms of the disposal process, it obviously goes through financial regulations, so compliance with –

The Chairman: More the strategic overview, rather than the day-to-day nitty gritty.

810 Mr Sidebottom: It is something that we have been looking at and talking about and trying to build together an overview of how it is held and what happens with it. So a strategic asset management plan, really, is something that is being investigated and worked through at the moment, some of the options and ideas, with a view to taking that further and seeing if there is a policy desire to proceed with it. 815 Q44. Mr Robertshaw: Is that a Treasury initiative or are you working with others on … ?

Mr Sidebottom: We will work with others.

820 Q45. Mr Robertshaw: You will or you are?

Mr Sidebottom: No, we will. At the moment, it is in its early stages. We are developing the foundations of how it would work, so that we can roll out the principle of the procedure, getting the buy-in hopefully with other Departments. 825 Q46. Mr Robertshaw: Because you would agree, it would need whatever it was, it would need to be able to interact quite quickly with new economic initiatives that were coming forward, rather than just get lost, as the Chairman just said, perhaps in fiefdoms and by the time a range of views appear, the initiative or the opportunity has gone. So, okay – you would accept 830 that?

Mr Sidebottom: I would.

Mr Robertshaw: Okay, thank you. 835 Q47. Mrs Hendy: At the outset of this Select Committee operation, I tried to identify the all- Island brownfield sites. No such collective list or schedule exists. Would you be in favour? Would it help everybody, do think, if there was a comprehensive register of those sites, both Government and private sector, so that if there are to be special policies that attach and apply 840 to brownfield sites it might enable a more strategic overview to be taken?

______19 DUUSC 61 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

Mr Sidebottom: Yes, I think it certainly would be helpful if there were a list of Government sites that we keep a list of assets there. The wider sites would also probably be helpful to hold and have a knowledge of. It is not necessarily always easy to get that information out because 845 some people are quite cautious of what information they release, but I think in the property areas of Government, there is a general awareness of where they are, so it would not be a desperately hard list to pull together from knowledge probably.

Q48. Mrs Hendy: Would you agree that if that existed, then maybe, with this discussion of a 850 possible development agency or corporation, that might then inform the workings of that corporation as to how they might assist in developing the appropriate policies?

Mr Sidebottom: It certainly will not do any harm in that. You have got to know what you have got, before you can start to consider it properly. 855 Mrs Hendy: To get clarity. Thank you.

Q49. Mr Robertshaw: You say you are looking at this area. I wonder would you be kind enough to analyse in those processes what Jersey has done to form its development corporation 860 and what we might perhaps learn from them in their actions and perhaps decide we wanted to do something similar or different? So you would look at that and perhaps other examples of where this sort of thing is working?

Mr Sidebottom: Yes, we will certainly try and factor that in and use them as examples where 865 we think they work. It is early days in terms of that at the moment but I will try and include case studies in them as examples.

Q50. Mr Robertshaw: Okay, and do you have a timescale for this initiative? 870 Mr Sidebottom: Not at the moment. It is work in progress. But work in progress at some speed.

Q51. The Chairman: This subject of Development Agency / Development Corporation 875 received a lot of support from a number of submissions that have been received by the Committee. What would you see as any obstacles to setting up a Manx Development Corporation to kick-start this urban regeneration.

Mr Randall: The main obstacle is creating demand for the development and the site, just to 880 make sure that you have got something that is sustainable and also being able to deliver something within a reasonable time frame. So I think there is a risk in identifying an area, putting in a development corporation, then you get inertia and trying to get things moving. There are opportunities there for Government to support things in that way, so there are investments that can be made from it from assets into property. Government could take some rental from sites, 885 depending what they are. But you still want to leave a sustainable site because, okay, you might improve, I guess, a brownfield site, and turn it into something that has a temporary delivery, but if it is not a sustainable property, it is always going to be reliant I think on Government funding.

Q52. The Chairman: It definitely needs to be sustainable. 890 Would it be possible for Government to inject land and buildings into a kind of Manx Development Corporation potentially looking at joint ventures with the private sector?

______20 DUUSC 62 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

Mr Sidebottom: I think anything is possible if there is a policy will there to do it. It is understanding how that works through financial regulations and the like. There are 895 opportunities there, I am sure.

Q53. Mrs Hendy: It is probably too specific, but I am also interested in historic grants that used to exist to help people purchase and renovate older properties. I do remember when there was a relaxation in VAT, especially for works to older properties. In my past life, there was an 900 upsurge in people purchasing and regenerating older properties. Might there be scope in terms of not interfering with the VAT agreement, but some kind of rebate to the value of what VAT would have been within a Treasury scheme, if there was a pot of money there?

Mr Martin: Yes. 905 Q54. Mrs Hendy: So it would not interfere with the VAT agreement, but there could be a rebate –

Mr Randall: We would have to obviously check that there was not anything that we can 910 could not do. I cannot comment on the specifics, I do not have the detailed knowledge but in terms of it is something that could be considered.

Q55. The Chairman: Okay, perhaps we could move on to compulsory purchases. Again that has been quite a keen area of interest. Perhaps you can explain how compulsory purchases are 915 funded? Is there a budget for that? How does it work from a financial perspective?

Mr Sidebottom: I don’t know the answer to that.

Mr Randall: The answer is there is not a specific fund that says ‘compulsory purchases’. As 920 and when any purchases would come along we would identify the appropriate place for it to come from. Simple as that. We have got the Property and Land Acquisition Fund, which is used for cases where opportunities …. It was quite used quite recently to purchase some Government land. So if there is immediate need for something, we will be able to access that. So that would be where it is; 925 but there is not a pot that says, ‘This pot is specifically for compulsory purchase.’

Q56. The Chairman: Thank you. In terms of other fees and costs: are you aware how planning fees and other costs compare on the Isle of Man with other neighbouring jurisdictions? 930 Mr Sidebottom: I think that is probably one that colleagues in DEFA would have answered far better than we could – well, certainly than I could, anyway.

Q57. The Chairman: Okay, and in terms of land tax, so the initial stamp duty tax – ? 935 Mr Sidebottom: Yes, as a comparator on the initial purchase prices, UK equivalent stamp duty in the lower bands of transactions is slightly lower than locally, but very quickly as prices get to £250,000, our equivalent of stamp duty – so the transaction charge for want of a better description – falls much lower in terms of that being flexed to make development more 940 attractive, I do not think we have got many levers there, because we are already significantly lower than many places. Certainly at the higher levels.

______21 DUUSC 63 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

Q58. Mr Robertshaw: In terms of getting the strategic mindset, from the Treasury’s perspective, from your perspective as officers, does the National Strategy Group play a 945 particular or significant role in thinking at the moment, in your view?

Mr Randall: Unfortunately, none of us are on that committee.

Q59. Mr Robertshaw: You have answered my question, thank you. 950 Mr Randall: The Chief Financial Officer would represent Treasury on National Strategy.

Mr Martin: And the Assessor.

955 Q60. Mr Robertshaw: You are not aware of feedback that would come down from them? No, okay. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. 960 That concludes the Committee’s questions for you this afternoon. We very much appreciate your wisdom in these important matters.

The Committee adjourned at 3.38 p.m. and resumed its sitting at 3.50 p.m.

EVIDENCE OF Hon. Chris Thomas MHK, Minister for Policy and Reform, Ms Diane Brown, Planning Policy Manager, Cabinet Office; Miss Jennifer Chance, Director of Planning and Building Control, Department for Environment, Food and Agriculture

Q61. The Chairman: Good afternoon and welcome to the reconvened Select Committee. Welcome to your guests. Perhaps you to introduce yourself for the record.

965 Miss Chance: I am Jennifer Chance. I am the Director of Planning and Building Control for DEFA. I am here today at Minister Thomas’s invitation.

The Clerk: You are here at the Committee’s invitation.

970 Miss Chance: At the Committee’s invitation.

The Chairman: Which was extended by Mr Thomas! (Laughter)

Miss Chance: As opposed to being a representative of DEFA. 975 The Chairman: Yes. Thank you, good to see you.

The Minister for Policy and Reform (Mr Thomas): Chris Thomas, Minister of Policy and Reform, with delegated reports in Cabinet Office for planning policy. 980 The Chairman: Thank you, Chris.

______22 DUUSC 64 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

Ms Brown: My name is Diane Brown. I am the Head of Planning Policy and we are based in Cabinet Office.

985 Q62. The Chairman: That’s great. Thank you, Diane. Perhaps if we start. If I could ask you all, would you accept that there has been a disconnect with the worthy statements contained within the Strategic Plan and the practice over the last 10 years and beyond, particularly on strategic policies 1 and 2, which indicate a desire to prioritise re-use and urban development; but the reality has been that the vast majority of all 990 development has been on Manx green fields. What can planning do to redress this balance?

The Minister: Okay, well, the officers will give information as requested from the Town and Country Planning Act, which is one framework for our work, I think, from the Strategic Plan, which is a very important part of the work of planning policy and development management. 995 If you are particularly interested in Douglas issues, which you seem to be relatively interested in, we have obviously got the Draft Area Plan for the East, which we can reference with numbers from that and policies in that. I obviously beg you to recognise that that is a draft document which we can only talk about in the context of it being a draft document. And finally, you have got a recently approved Tynwald document, which is the Planning 1000 System Review, which sets out a number of actions to revisit planning. So I think I heard in your opening remarks a statement about a long period of history and I think the way to deal with that statement is actually to verify it. We can provide that information, because for instance I think you might find it quite interesting, how many, what percentage of proposals for housing, for instance, there are on brownfield sites in the Draft Area 1005 Plan for the East compared to greenfield sites. But you have asked about it retrospectively, and I think we would need to provide you with information from the residential land development – unless any of the officers can do it here and now?

Miss Chance: I can provide a brief comment. 1010 First of all, though, I think it is very good for us to go back and look at the facts and see what has happened, rather than there just being an idea that there has been a disconnect. I think to a certain extent, you could say that is correct but the development that has happened on greenfield sites is on sites that have been allocated for development, as opposed to being necessarily sites that are in the countryside. So there may be one or two developments of sites 1015 that were not designated for development, but most of the development that has occurred in the last 10 years has been on land that has been designated for development.

Q63. The Chairman: That may be, but it is still green fields. The point is that the strategic policies 1 and 2 talk about prioritising urban re-use ahead of 1020 green fields. So the question is what can planning do to change that trend, which has been green fields as opposed to brownfield?

Ms Brown: I think it is worth pointing out that we do monitor what happens in terms of the planning approvals and the take-up of those approvals and it was hinted at just earlier about the 1025 residential land availability study. It does show quite clearly and supports the containment policy almost that was the Island Spatial Strategy for the East. The amount of approvals that have taken place in Douglas in particular have been significantly higher than other … In terms of the settlements, what our residential land availability study shows is that there are limited opportunities to develop in the east, in terms of what land is available, what land is allocated 1030 now. So that has encouraged in recent years quite a lot of regeneration in the Douglas area in particular.

______23 DUUSC 65 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

The Minister: So May 2018, from memory, is the date of the most recent update for residential land availability and we will take your statement as a hypothesis, which we will test 1035 and then we will provide you with data on a 10-year basis – is that what you would like us to provide you with? – to see whether or not the assertion that you made, to what extent it is true or not. So they are very valuable points made by both the officers, but I do not want to give the impression that that is fact just because it is asserted. I want to actually establish the facts behind that 10-year trend and we might be surprised with what we see. 1040 Q64. Mr Robertshaw: I am surprised, Ms Brown, by your comment and I just want to drill down a little bit. You seem to indicate that you were satisfied with the rate of redevelopment of sites in East Douglas. Have I misunderstood you?

1045 Ms Brown: What I tried to start to talk about is the statistics that we keep. We have tracked the planning approvals right back to 2001 and so we can see what the trends are in terms of where those developments are, the levels of conversions, and you can see by looking at that data that there is … and by comparing that with the amount of land that is available in Douglas, just the high amount of applications that have related to development approvals in terms of 1050 housing in the Douglas area. So within the settlement of Douglas. So even though there has been a limited land supply in the east in the last 17 years, the amount of approvals that are carrying on in the east in terms of those urban developments has been relatively high.

1055 Q65. Mr Robertshaw: Okay. I appreciate the comments that the Minister made a couple of minutes ago about the Area Plan for the East being a draft, and I recognise and honour that; but I would be very grateful and the Committee would be grateful if you could talk through, walk us through the special zones that you have identified in the plan, how you see them working and what hopes and aspirations have you got for them? 1060 Ms Brown: Are you talking about the comprehensive treatment areas that we have identified?

Mr Robertshaw: I did not use the title because I could not remember it, but thank you, yes, 1065 that is the one!

Ms Brown: Yes, the Area Plan for the East, the Draft Plan, has been a long time in coming, but what we have tried to do is really explore the town centre in itself and think about the opportunities there. So the idea of comprehensive treatment areas comes initially really from 1070 the Town and Country Planning Act, section … (The Minister: Four.) I think it is section 4, thank you, Minister, of the Act and that gives power to the Cabinet Office when doing the Area Plans to identify areas that might require treatment in terms of development, redevelopment or improvement. So in terms of looking at the Douglas town centre, a lot of work went into thinking about the 1075 relevance of using the comprehensive treatment area as a means to improve the vitality of the town centre and what we have tried to set out in the Draft Plan is what it might mean. It might mean improving access to a particular site; it might mean relieving a blockage in the whole development cycle, which might be hindering sites coming forward. It is there not necessarily to drop in from a great height and redevelop these areas; it could be a range of mechanisms to 1080 improve those areas. So what the Draft Plan does at the moment is set out a brief treatment plan for those areas which we have said we will look into further as the development plan takes a bit more shape.

Q66. Mr Robertshaw: Thank you.

______24 DUUSC 66 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

1085 Where would the strategic drive to interpret these comprehensive zones lie? Is it purely with Planning? You will be aware of the Committee’s interest in development agencies/corporations, whatever. Have you got a very fixed idea about how the comprehensive development zones would be enabled, or are you at this stage fairly open-minded about how that can be interpreted? 1090 Ms Brown: I think we are open-minded. I think a lot of the basis came from the Central Douglas Masterplan, which has been integral in the development of the Draft Plan. So a lot of the ideas and a lot of the areas that are mentioned in the comprehensive treatment areas are familiar. They do cross-reference quite nicely to the Central Douglas Masterplan. 1095 The boundaries that were shown on the plans were open-ended, in a way. They were not a solid external edge to those areas. The whole idea is to stimulate debate really about the treatment areas, as we have marked them on the plan. It is the first time that they have been show on a development plan in this manner. The provision has been in the Act for some time. So I would not say that we are fixed, but what we have tried to set out quite clearly in the 1100 Draft Plan is that very nature that it is not fixed. And because we are having quite a lot of consultation as well, that is an opportunity for you responses to come back in and for us to really think through what the implications are of using them.

Q67. The Chairman: Thank you, Diane. It was most interesting to read about the 1105 comprehensive treatment areas in the Eastern Area Draft – and I understand it is a draft – but certainly the Committee has received a lot of suggestions about creating development zones and they seem very similar types of beasts. How as planning professionals what you feel about auto-change of use, in certain zones, to take account of changing trends that we see in the world around us? For example, office to 1110 residential, retail to leisure, within those boundaries.

Miss Chance: We have been thinking that it would be a good idea. Listening to the industry there are some, I would say, perceived blockages, because I do not think they are actual blockages, but there are perceived blockages that ‘you might need planning permission for that’, 1115 and even if you are likely to get it, that may at the outset be something that puts somebody off. I think we very much need to think of Manx-based solutions. The problems that we have on our Island are very different from what there is certainly in England. Certainly our pressures for housing are very different. We are already seeing in the planning press some of the difficulties that some of the 1120 permitted changes of use, certainly from offices to residential, are having on the office markets. So whilst they are a good idea, we need to make sure that they are right for the Island. So DEFA is working obviously in tandem with Planning Policy to look at what areas we might do a permitted development/amendment to the use classes order, to bring that forward.

1125 The Chairman: Thank you.

Q68. Mrs Hendy: Given that it would seem our population is reducing, would you agree that it would be wise and strategically important to encourage redevelopment or revitalisation of brownfield sites in our town centres – not just Douglas; across the Island – in terms of housing, 1130 before we then look at going beyond the town boundaries into greenfield areas that may not have been designated in the past for housing?

Miss Chance: If I can answer, I think there are pros and cons for that solution. The Island does want to grow its population and that is also key. We need to make sure that we provide for what 1135 people who may want to move here want. So if you start restricting sites and restricting development, that obviously has an impact on supply and demand. It could have an impact on

______25 DUUSC 67 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

prices. Very much, if we are wanting to encourage young people to come here, they are going to want somewhere nice and affordable to live. So we need to think about that, just as much as we need to think about having investment in 1140 our towns, which is usually where younger people want to be. They want to have somewhere that is active and vibrant. So there are positives to doing that, but there are also negatives, and I think we need to think very carefully about what we are doing. My view is that you want to provide for an Island or a situation where people want to move to town centres and not go there because that is the only place, it is the only thing that is open 1145 to them because you may end up discouraging something, when they would otherwise go somewhere else. That would be the same for residential and for offices. It is a fine balance.

Q69. Mrs Hendy: So might that be that an imaginative and vibrant re-use of, say, redundant office buildings might be one way of approaching accommodation for young people, where it is 1150 in the heart of what is going on, (Miss Chance: Absolutely.) rather than be remote and that would mean less parking restrictions or conditions, and there might be potential there? There has been talk about permitted development and an exchange of use within maybe a development zone. Do you think that such policies might be explored and feed into the plans that are in draft form and out of consultation at the moment? 1155 Miss Chance: Absolutely. And that is what we have been thinking. We have been trying to think of ways as part of the Planning Action Plan to help revitalise the town centres, by having a flexible use of upper floors, for instance. We are also aware of other things that are going on in other jurisdictions, such as there is a 1160 similarity to employment hubs where you have got a number of smaller start-ups, but they share facilities – they share a concierge or larger offices, machinery and equipment and things. But there are also moves that there is residential accommodation that is similar, so it has a much larger communal area that people can use, and use Wi-Fi and things, with smaller residential in there. We could do all of that and it would probably be very appropriate, particularly for the 1165 Island when people come over for more short-term stays sometimes, as well.

Mrs Hendy: Thank you.

The Minister: Mr Chair, perhaps I could just state categorically, though, that there was 1170 another statement that the population is falling, which is not factually correct. In the last 12 months, it has actually been rising slightly. So that is important for the record, but it also gives me a chance to state some fundamental truths about where we are in terms of these things. The first one is that there are only six macro-indicators for what this Government is trying to do, and one of those is to increase the economically active population. So it might be that the 1175 population has had a certain trend for some months, if not a couple of years, but it is a fundamental principle of Government’s policy to increase the economically active population. That leads onto the second fundamental truth which is that this is a difficult job, planning. It is about looking forward to 2026 and allowing opportunities to be taken; in fact helping create opportunities for people to take. So it is not for us to react to short-term negativity; it is for us to 1180 actually make sure the grey infrastructure is right, the green infrastructure is right and everything else that needs to be right for Government’s and society’s objectives to be realised in that sort of time span. And the third truth I just wanted to make sure was on record is that section 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act has a much more expansive definition of the role of planning 1185 compared to the one that you used, Mr Chair, when you were asking about planning questions. Planning is not just a couple of officers doing backroom stuff, calculating a few numbers. It is quite clear in the Town and Country Planning Act, section 1, that planning takes into account the economy of the Island, the principal physical characteristics of the Island –

______26 DUUSC 68 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

The Chairman: Let me just interrupt you there – 1190 The Minister: – the size, composition and distribution of the population –

Q70. The Chairman: Let me just interrupt you there, Minister. We are talking about strategic policy 1 – 1195 The Minister: Yes, but the Town and Country Planning Act, number 1 –

The Chairman: – of the Strategic Plan, not –

1200 The Minister: And planning could perhaps have been underestimated by previous administrations and by previous politicians, because it is very important, if we are going to achieve objectives like growing the economically active population, that we have the right opportunities in terms of the right environment around brownfield sites, but also land inside the settlements to take advantage of – 1205 Q71. The Chairman: We definitely agree that planning is very important –

The Minister: Thank you very much.

1210 The Chairman: – and we are delighted that you are here to answer questions on that, because we, like many people on the Island, are concerned about the trend that we have seen. So I think the Committee has received a number of suggestions about planning granted on greenfield sites and potentially that they should only be provided if there is not a suitable alternative urban site. 1215 Some people have proposed point-scoring systems, penalising large-scale greenfield development, alongside incentives for urban development. So we are just interested in the planning perspective on that.

Ms Brown: Could I add to that, to my colleagues’ here? In terms of the way that the Draft 1220 Plan is prepared, there is a lot of work that goes in to looking at the availability of sites, the constraints on those sites, the deliverability of those sites, and development distribution scenarios. In the conclusions that were made during the Draft Plan, we did look at various development scenarios and the settlement hierarchy set out a Strategic Plan which focuses development on 1225 Douglas as the main centre and then through service centres and villages, that settlement hierarchy scenario does give you the best opportunities to maximise brownfield site development. I think that it is worth perhaps referring back to the initial point I made about the population. We did also provide an evidence paper which looked into the findings of the 2016 census and 1230 particularly the household projections, the household size, and what that would mean in terms of household numbers in 2026.

Q72. The Clerk: May I interrupt, sorry, Chairman? When you say you provided an evidence paper, is that something you have provided to this 1235 Committee?

Ms Brown: No, that is as part of the Draft Area Plan for the East.

Q73. The Clerk: Is it something that this Committee can see? 1240

______27 DUUSC 69 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

The Minister: It is a public document.

Ms Brown: Yes, it is certainly something that I can direct you to, we can provide copies. It does start to in terms of the projections that were set out in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan in 1245 2016, once you take into account the difference in the household size, the resulting household number that you will still have to provide for is very similar. So that is why we still have that confidence in the Strategic Plan figures, which trickle down to the east in terms of the housing need in the east, up to 2026. So in terms of, just to conclude that section on the scenarios, we did find that there would be 1250 insufficient sites within the existing settlement boundaries to accommodate the overall level of housing and employment growth that is needed.

Q74. The Chairman: I guess the question is the prioritisation. So there is definitely slack on brownfield, and the challenge that many people have put to this Committee is why are we not 1255 developing brownfield ahead of the green fields? So what you are saying is you cannot do all the brownfield –

The Minister: That is correct.

1260 Q75. The Chairman: So I guess the question that would come back, given some of the uncertainties we have, is why are we not at this moment in time prioritising brownfield?

Miss Chance: Can I … ? I find the whole subject interesting, obviously!

1265 Mr Robertshaw: I hope so! (Laughter)

Miss Chance: I think when Ms Brown alluded to the fact that there has not been an Area Plan for the East for some considerable time, and so there has not been development allocated, or certainly housing development allocated, outside of the town. That has led to a number of 1270 redevelopments within Douglas. I think when we start drilling down to the amount of brownfield site there is available in Douglas, there are a number of large sites that we all see every day and I think that that gives us a little bit of a disproportionate view on the amount of brownfield sites that there are available for people. 1275 I also think that it is a much wider issue than planning. Every one of those brownfield sites has got planning approval on it and I think that you asked the question earlier, Mr Robertshaw, about whether Planning should act alone in this and I certainly think that with the comprehensive treatment areas and any solution that the Select Committee come up with, it needs to be cross-Government, it needs to be wider than Government, it needs to be public and 1280 private. In my view, a lot of it is not to do with the planning restrictions that are on the sites; it is to do with a number of other economic factors that have caused some of those sites not to come forward. I believe planning is just a small part of that.

Q76. Mr Robertshaw: Thank you, that is very clear. 1285 This question is addressed to the Minister. It is a sort of top-end political issue. We are getting a very clear narrative here from your colleagues about what you are trying to achieve in planning and in the Area Plan, and that is appreciated. But I want to really follow up Jennifer’s comment about planning sits within something that is much bigger than it. One of the very clear messages that came from the workshop that we recently had, and subsequently, and even today 1290 in other commentary made during this oral session, has been one of a sense of developers not feeling there is a place to go to where they could get a comprehensive response that would give the developer confidence that the message they were getting was from Government in its

______28 DUUSC 70 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

entirety. There is a sense of different aspects and different elements of this existing around different fiefdoms in Government, as the Chairman said earlier in another session. 1295 How does the Planning Section feel it could improve or get more traction if it sat in an arrangement which was more comprehensive in its ability to deliver? Chris, is that too vague a question?

The Minister: No, not at all. At the highest level, obviously Government needs to be joined up 1300 and work better together. So it cannot be right that DEFA, DoI, Treasury, Planning in its various parts operate independently without proper co-ordination and proper prioritisation and proper focus. That is something we have to address at the higher level. I will bring to your attention something that Douglas Council I believe gave you evidence about, which was that they believe that we could perhaps have a process of zoning inside zones 1305 to encourage specific development, then we can move on. I just want you to focus on what the law actually says about these comprehensive treatment areas, which have been quite widely designated, because that comprehensive treatment allows for the Cabinet Office to describe the treatment which is proposed. Treatment is not specified, so this is really quite a powerful tool that has been available for 20 years and Cabinet Office has now had the confidence to use that 1310 tool at least by specifying the possibility of its use inside a Draft Area Plan for the East. But obviously there are all sorts of things around this. There are private property rights from the landowners – there are people actually working together. The sorts of sticks and carrots that you have talked about are quite powerful, but potentially very threatening, so the right way to consider the use of such important but potentially really useful powers is I think in the process 1315 that has been laid out under statute inside the planning process, so we do not make any mistakes. Compulsory purchase law is just one of the areas of law that has been suggested to you needs to be revisited. I have got quite an extensive briefing paper about that already. You will probably have noticed on page 111 of our Draft Area Plan, we look at Government-owned land 1320 and we actually end that recommendation, residential recommendation 1, with the fact that we welcome your recommendations from your Select Committee to help us take that forward. So I think in a roundabout way, I have answered your question by agreeing with you, Mr Robertshaw, which is that we are on the cusp of something very valuable. Not every site in Douglas needs to be residential or even should be residential. Many of the sites that are under- 1325 developed will have other purposes. I think the public now understands that. I think the public and politicians understand that the public want something to be done, and I think it can be done inside law. I just want to float one last idea before I close which is I think the experience of some cities around the United Kingdom, and perhaps Jersey, suggests if you go down the development 1330 corporation route and put it out to some sort of agency, you have not actually taken away the risk, because what you have created is a new risk that any new incoming politicians do not like what has previously been done by the development corporation and they review the political decisions about the development corporation. So therefore I strongly urge you to think about whether or not a legal route inside the Town and Country Planning Act for comprehensive 1335 treatment is not actually a less risky, safer route because it is inside existing law, rather than politicians taking the view of setting up a development corporation that can always be questioned by subsequent politicians and the next administration, which seems to me to be what has happened in many places around the United Kingdom and even perhaps in Jersey, with its waterfront development and so on. 1340 Q77. Mr Robertshaw: Thank you for that succinct answer. I take your point, it is an interesting one but how can we ensure – how can you ensure – that given that we arrive at a particular position and a desire to achieve certain things, it does not then get tripped up within

______29 DUUSC 71 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

our various component parts of Government? Where is the driving strategic head that is going 1345 to say, ‘We will do this’? Could you come to that one, Chris?

The Minister: I think so. I think that your Committee will be reassured that professionals from different Departments have talked about the need to make sure that we have got arrangements that are currently working, to make sure that we are joined up. So we have thought about 1350 planning and whether it is good to have divisions in planning between somebody in the Department for Enterprise being involved in working with developers and planning policy where it is and so on; and also we have thought about linking up enterprise activities and support for enterprise activities and the support for planning policy and the support for infrastructure activities. So I think it is work in progress. I think the work, Mr Robertshaw – 1355 Q78. The Chairman: Who has responsibility for the strategic leadership of it?

The Minister: I think ultimately it is the Isle of Man Government and it is how we organise the Isle of Man Government, and the Isle of Man Government has got to work with the landowners 1360 and the people who have got the money to make development happen.

Q79. The Chairman: Who in Government just now is in charge of this? Who is driving it?

Ms Brown: In charge of …? 1365 The Chairman: In charge of making sure everyone is working together?

The Minister: The Chief Minister, as Minister for the Cabinet Office in particular, and the Chief Minister I think understands that it is important to make sure that Government works 1370 together and he might well have delegated those responsibilities. I think it is very important that Government comes together to capture the fact that we need grey infrastructure, green infrastructure, we need to make sure the law is complied with in terms of public sign-up to all these things and I think it is very much a cross-Government one. The last point I would say is that is why the national policy directives for planning are very 1375 important in the planning system review, because if there are some things you want us to capture, say with section 13 agreements, we could do that in terms of the national policy directive which is in our review of the planning system.

Q80. Mr Robertshaw: Following the Chairman’s question there, perhaps if you were 1380 uncomfortable with a development agency – or at least you had reservations, put it that way – would you see a much enhanced role for the semi-dormant National Strategy Group and give it extra powers; rather than have different Departments arriving at different solutions or conclusions to things, that there was, again as the Chairman said, one point which you go to and get a yes or a no? What sympathy would you have with that suggestion, Chris? 1385 Ms Brown: Could I?

Mr Robertshaw: Please.

1390 Ms Brown: I would just like to add a little response. I do not know if it will answer that question specifically, but in terms of ownership issues ultimately Tynwald gives its approval to the development plan. The Isle of Man Development Plan is a statutory document and from that we know about the Strategic Plan and how that filters down to the area plans. So from Cabinet Office’s perspective, in putting this Draft Area Plan together, such as for the 1395 east, there are many stakeholders involved. We certainly do not do it alone and we certainly talk

______30 DUUSC 72 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

to all other Government Departments. We do various rounds of public consultation. It is examined at public inquiry. Ultimately it is adopted by the Cabinet Office and the Minister has responsibility for that, but ultimately it is Tynwald that gives its approval to the plan. You mentioned earlier about who has responsibility, how does it all happen, who is in charge 1400 of the organisation – I think done well the development plans can really help in that situation because, in terms of development briefs, ideally they can iron out a lot of the uncertainties for everybody, whether it is the decision-makers, the developers, the landowners or the public, and I think that worked well, particularly in some cases in the south where a lot of the difficulties, concerns and complexity were worked out ahead of the development plan. Certain sites were 1405 allocated, development briefs were put in place and it helps the whole system run more smoothly. So ideally the development planning system, which does have the support of Government generally through the action plan for the planning review … The opportunities through the development plan system are quite significant, really, and we are excited about the 1410 opportunities presented by not only this Draft Plan but future area plans, and the ideal situation is to remove all of those older development plans and have an up-to-date Island-wide planning system, development plan system.

The Chairman: Given the way that we will live and work – 1415 Miss Chance: Sorry, if you don’t mind, I just want to build on what Ms Brown has said, in that the Strategic Plan is not meant to be a plan for planners to work to; it is meant to be the tool for wider Government to implement its spatial strategies, and one of the reasons it is in the Cabinet Office is so that it provides that link to all of the other Government Departments and so all of 1420 the other Government Departments will feed into that. I would hope that that message would get across. I am not here to comment on the structure of Government – that is definitely well beyond me – but I do not necessarily think that we need to be all in one place. That is a means to do it, but everybody needs to be of one mind. Government needs to have a vision and then a plan to implement that, and then they need to be 1425 fairly resolute in continuing to implement that. They have got to make those decisions in accordance with that, and some of those will be difficult decisions.

The Minister: I think it might be helpful for you if we actually send you some information about how we put together the Planning Review Programme and also the Area Plan for the East. 1430 Both of those clearly were across Government in their approach and I believe they were successful, so I would like to send to you the experience that we have had to demonstrate that where we are now has been put together through cross-departmental, intergovernmental views to come up with that common vision.

1435 Q81. The Chairman: We will be pleased to receive that. I think we need to move on from cross-Government working. If I could ask you perhaps, Jennifer – you explained very eloquently that it is not all about planning; there are other drivers to why development might take place on a green field or on a more difficult urban site. I would be interested in your views on section 13 contributions, community investment levies; and how 1440 could those be used to prioritise a strong desire to develop urban sites ahead of greenfield?

Miss Chance: I think there are in the Strategic Plan general policies about when and where we would seek either affordable housing or parking or other contributions as part of section 13. They are always negotiable, so if there are situations where somebody feels that it is not viable 1445 to provide those, then the Department is open for discussion. I think if we actually look at the evidence on the ground of how many brownfield sites with permissions are subject to section 13, there are some and they are quite historic, they are very

______31 DUUSC 73 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

old. I believe that if there was a will to develop them the developers would have come back in, and if that was just the issue that stopped them developing then we would certainly be open to 1450 discussion.

Q82. The Chairman: So there is some flexibility in there. I guess what we are talking about is the feedback we have received from many people that it is much easier and more economically attractive to develop a greenfield than a difficult brown site, and section 13 is a part of that, so 1455 could we increase section 13 or the sill that you might wish to apply on a green field and remove it from a brown field, for example, to rebalance that economic equation?

Miss Chance: Absolutely, and I think it is a good idea. I do not think it is the total solution. I think there possibly are literally only two or three brownfield sites that have section 13s on 1460 them. That is not to say it is not a good idea to do it, but I think if there are lots of people saying that that is what the issue is, I would want to counter that as the argument as to that being the issue.

Q83. The Chairman: I guess it moves us on to some of the other aspects of the feedback we 1465 have got that economic attractiveness of building in town is more challenging. There are things like planning requirements for car parking for apartments, for example. What we have been told is elsewhere an apartment block would have potentially one car space for every three units, whereas generally here it is a much higher requirement for car parking, which increases the cost for the developer and makes it less likely that people will build in turn. 1470 What are your views on that?

Miss Chance: Again, it is flexible. The Strategic Plan indicates that lower parking requirements would be expected in town centre redevelopment sites. Developers are asked, though, to demonstrate why they can produce less parking than on greenfield sites, so the onus does go on 1475 to the developer rather than the Planning Office, and that is something that could be looked at but the flexibility is still there at the moment for having lower provision both for offices and for residential.

Q84. Mrs Hendy: Just as a supplementary to that: is that flexibility often exercised or 1480 applied?

Miss Chance: Yes.

The Minister: Perhaps it would just be helpful to remind ourselves, from a Douglas East or 1485 Douglas Central point of view, that often the feeling around the area where some of this discretion has been used is that in practice people do have more cars than people assume they would have. This cannot be seen outside the Active Travel policies as well and I do think that there are issues – because the Strategic Plan, as far as I remember, does specify 25% for housing, so there would have to be some sort of political statement along these lines, perhaps in 1490 one of the comprehensive treatment areas or in the national policy directives, because it allows for discretion that there is actually something in the Strategic Plan about affordable housing. So we will need work on that. I also just wanted to remind you, given something that you have got – Answers, 22nd November 2012, which are about the use of section 13 for affordable housing agreements. 1495 So all of the law and all of the amounts up to 2012 are already set out for you, as Clerk, inside Tynwald Answers. Zac Hall asked lots of questions and I am sure it will be very quick to actually update some of the information. I can see from the list that quite a few of these section 13 agreements for housing and community sums were actually in urban areas – Quay West; land at

______32 DUUSC 74 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

South Quay and so on – so there are quite a few examples of urban uses where things have been 1500 in the past.

Q85. Mr Robertshaw: Was that commuted or –?

The Minister: It was commuted sums, but that is another way of approaching it. 1505 Q86. Mr Robertshaw: But I think the question was beyond commuted, just cancelling it, and requirement within a particular zone for a particular given reason, but it is not requiring a commuted sum, because one would reasonably assume that on a brownfield site the ground condition costs are significantly greater than a greenfield site and therefore special 1510 circumstances need to apply. The answer is you agree with that?

Q87. The Clerk: Would it be right to infer that the Department is saying, ‘If you don’t like the section 13 conditions, ask us to change them case by case’, rather than ‘We don’t want to change the overall general framework in which those are requested’? 1515 Miss Chance: The Strategic Plan – which I have not got a copy of in front of me at the current time – does have a paragraph that sets out the circumstances in which you can negotiate the viability of a development. We would probably expect a full contribution on sites that are greenfield sites because they do not have those barriers and costs that are unknown that 1520 brownfield sites do; and on greenfield sites, prior to a developer purchasing that site, for instance, they would know that they would need to be providing affordable housing, whereas on brownfield sites there would be lots of issues about the ground conditions, the cost of buying the land to start with, potentially demolition and all of those things that will add costs. If you will bear with me for a half a minute, I will find … 1525 The Minister: In terms of housing, I had delegated responsibility for housing and it is very active, the negotiation between the Housing department for commuted sums, but also for how the 25% would be interpreted on specific schemes is very active. They have officers who are constantly negotiating with the developers. 1530 Q88. The Chairman: Who sets that strategic direction?

The Minister: Well, as delegated Member for Housing I was very involved in it. It was not a Council of Ministers – 1535 Q89. The Chairman: Right, so there are active negotiations on each site?

The Minister: On each site around a general policy that is the responsibility of the Housing Division, in my view at that time, but I believe it should now be higher up Government policy. 1540 Q90. The Chairman: So you feel it should be a higher strategic view?

The Minister: And different decisions made: 25%, is it social tenants, is it older tenants, and so on. There are lots of choices to be made. 1545 Q91. The Chairman: And in principle, Chris, are you saying then that really it is flawed to have 25% on prime Manx farmland? Beautiful location – it is much more attractive for a developer than 25% at a difficult site in town and really policy should reflect that, because otherwise we are just going to see a continuation of the existing trend? 1550

______33 DUUSC 75 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

The Minister: I am saying that it is really helpful that your Committee is thinking about this and I can confirm to you that the Government is thinking about this. Key worker housing, all those sorts of things need to be incorporated. We need a national housing policy and that national housing policy has got to relate to the Population Action Plan that is work in progress 1555 for December 2018, no later than.

Q92. Mr Robertshaw: Something that Jennifer mentioned on viability studies: my understanding – and please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that where you have the equivalent of section 13 in the UK there is a requirement to produce a viability study, 1560 and if the viability study viewed by an independent examiner showed that the viability was not there to provide the equivalent of section 13, that would be sufficient evidence to remove that requirement. My understanding is we do not have those viability study provisions within our system. It seems to be application of section 13 almost on a more intuitive basis and may end up in the 1565 wrong place for the wrong reason. Do you think we could learn a lesson from the UK here?

Miss Chance: I think we can learn lessons from what is going on in the UK. I think we need to do a bit of work about it. This is my opinion. In the UK they have had a sort of open-book approach to affordable housing. It has not been as open perhaps as it ought to have been. It has 1570 worked, in that there will be some developments where a lesser amount of affordable housing is accepted or even none at all. There have been problems recently, they believe, with misuse of viability schemes and the UK is bringing out a new draft planning policy on the use of viability in housing development. I think the draft was either published at the end of last year or the end of the year before, but it has not been implemented. I think the Island does need to do something 1575 similar, but we need to set out all of the things that you are talking about today, about when it is and when it is not appropriate, and it can build on this policy. I found the paragraph, if you don’t mind indulging me for a second –

Q93. Mr Robertshaw: Before you say that, would you be kind enough to send Jonathan that 1580 draft proposal, the link? Thank you. Sorry to interrupt.

Miss Chance: That’s okay. It says:

In the current circumstances the Department considers that approximately 25% of new housing provision should take the form of affordable housing. In assessing the appropriate percentage in each instance, the Department will have regard to the fact that the figure is a target over the Plan Period as a whole; to evidence of local housing need; to the nature of the land and viability of the scheme; and to the nature of existing adjacent housing. The 25% provision will be monitored and reviewed as part of any review of the Strategic Plan.

So there is flexibility built within that policy.

1585 Mr Robertshaw: Thank you.

Q94. Mrs Hendy: It kind of ties in with this, but one of the feedbacks from the workshops was that developers were saying that for them to invest in brownfield sites and take up that challenge there were obstacles. One of them was the section 13 agreement, which added an 1590 extra layer of encumbrance and difficulty. Another was the length of time it can take to get through the planning system. There is no blame being attached; this was just what came out. Compared with the UK, it could take three times longer. This is what came out of the workshop. And the other thing was developers were saying for them to again invest in brownfield sites and take them forward they needed this air of confidence. That was an overall feedback factor. 1595 Can we think how we can instil this confidence to encourage developers and owners to put that investment into these very important inner town sites?

______34 DUUSC 76 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

Miss Chance: Well, Ms Brown might want to expand on this, but in looking at the Area Plan for the East and how the designations have been made, they have been more flexible than they have in the past as to a wider range of uses that might be appropriate. Obviously it is a draft at 1600 the moment. There may be discussions that come out of that and we do not know what is going to come out at the other end of it, but if you have got an area plan that gives almost a little bit of a green light to certain types of development, if we have some permitted development for other types of development that sits alongside that, then I think we are beginning to build on an understanding that developers can have as to what is likely to be acceptable. I am not sure how 1605 much further beyond that you can go. Certainly the idea of enterprise zones could be explored.

Mrs Hendy: Thank you.

Ms Brown: I think Miss Chance is absolutely right. Yes, it is about flexibility and balancing the 1610 needs of one sector against another, and that is always the question that is in our minds when we are allocating sites in putting draft development plans together. If they are done properly and the evidence is there to support those proposals and policy statements, then that does give the confidence for people to invest. You have only got to think of Strand Street and the Town Centre First policy in terms of late – certain retail operators have come to town because it was 1615 strongly suggested that the planning policies were very clear about what would be allowed. I think what we try not to do is be overly prescriptive on certain sites about exactly what needs to go on those sites, unless it is necessary, but the development briefs ideally are drafted so they give confidence, allow flexibility and clearly sit within the framework that is currently set out in the Strategic Plan. 1620 Talking about section 13 agreements and where … you also need to bear in mind that there was strong support to look further into a community infrastructure levy as part of the action plan for the planning review. So it is worth bearing in mind that there might be some occasions where we do want to get more out of developers in terms of whether that is affordable housing, whether that is for community uses or some other infrastructure that we have still yet to see 1625 clearly defined, but it is about recognising that those changes are happening and Government possibly cannot fund all of the development going forward.

Miss Chance: Coming back to certainty when you submit planning applications, planning is not meant to be there to just be a barrier to things. I believe that there is a value in the planning 1630 process in ironing out problems that a development might result in. I also think it is a check and balance on standards that the Government wants to apply. One of the things that came out of the workshop that I attended was that there were comments that we need to make sure that the environment of Douglas and other towns remains attractive or becomes more attractive and that we need to make sure that the 1635 architecture is of a sufficient quality. It is very easy when a town is at a certain economic point that it just wants to accept anything and there is a problem long term when you start lowering some standards, because then that has a long-term impact. It is a difficult balance because you do not want to make it very difficult for people, you do not want to start seeking things that are of such a high quality that they are never going to be delivered, but there also does need to be 1640 some aim of what standard you want to reach for the long term.

Mrs Hendy: Thank you.

The Chairman: Chris. 1645 Q95. Mr Robertshaw: Thank you. Ms Brown touched on the infrastructure levy just a couple of moments ago. I am somewhat troubled by this concept insofar as what the Island is looking for is the injection of more

______35 DUUSC 77 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

investment. How would you see the infrastructure levy working? Because in a sense it is a form 1650 of section 13, in a way. That presumably would happen in conjunction with a viability study – it would not just happen in isolation, would it, because there are all sorts of issues, like cycle ways and school provision and such like and one would not like to think that … Taking literally the point that because Government cannot do everything and therefore the developer would, we might end up back at square one and absolutely nothing happening. 1655 Ms Brown: Exactly, yes.

Q96. Mr Robertshaw: Could you expand your thoughts on that?

1660 Ms Brown: It is worth just noting what Tynwald had a look at in May in terms of the action plan to improve the planning system. A considerable amount of work and a couple of workshops with the Council of Ministers went on ahead of the publication of the action plan. We have committed to a new community infrastructure levy taking effect in early 2020. Why is this important? It is set out here, to help me and you, that it is to ensure that new developments 1665 help fund the accompanying wider changes, which bring economic, environmental and social benefits. I agree there is a considerable amount of work to do on firstly making sure that the legislation is in order, what we mean by ‘community infrastructure levy’. It is a term that is being introduced elsewhere but we might want it to look at: is it more for community purposes or is 1670 it …; what type of infrastructure are we looking at; how do we balance when that is going to be used? So there is a lot of work still to be done on that. At the moment, yes, we have got our section 13 agreements, which are generally used, as Miss Chance said, for affordable housing, for parking, for open space as well, and those requirements are set out in the Strategic Plan, so you have to be very clear about where the 1675 legislation is, what is guiding what. We need to make sure that the Town and Country Planning Act sets out the powers we want it to set out and then any regulations follow on from that, which may well be further advice about the community infrastructure levy going forward. So it is very difficult to say what that shape is going to take ahead of the Town and Country Planning Bill. 1680 Q97. The Chairman: I think what we have heard this afternoon is that there is not that much differential in our approach on many things comparing greenfield and brownfield, because we have other commentary in evidence that has been provided. Do you think that Government should set targets for the number of housing units to be 1685 provided in urban areas versus greenfield new build, and should Government monitor those and use planning to ensure delivery of a desired objective?

Ms Brown: It is worth just noting that the word ‘target’ … When we did the Strategic Plan Review, we took out all reference to an actual target simply because of the confusion that it 1690 caused in terms of … If we are looking at housing, and you talking about a housing target –

Q98. The Chairman: Or even a ratio: brownfield to greenfield.

Ms Brown: Yes. There is a presumption against development in the countryside. That is quite 1695 clear through our –

Q99. The Chairman: It is written down, but it does not seem to be working.

Ms Brown: In terms of the development plan process, this is what we are doing now. We 1700 have looked at our urban settlements, what the capacity is of those; we have looked at the

______36 DUUSC 78 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

needs that we need for housing; and we have to, through various assumptions, look at what, for instance, Douglas can provide. Inevitably what we have found is that you cannot fit all of the need for housing that we have set out in our Strategic Plan, that is in line with the Government population projections, within our existing settlements. 1705 So, what I can say in terms of the Draft Plan and the figures that are set in there – I did do a very quick calculation that may well help you – is in terms of the housing need set out in the Strategic Plan for the East it was 2,440. The residual need, having discounted some that have already been completed, is just over 2,200. The Draft Plan could deliver 2,408 within the Plan Period, and that is taking into account various adjustments. Within the existing settlement 1710 boundaries, 40% would be provided; outside of the settlement boundaries it is around 60%. But I think it is important to bear in mind that there are within both of those categories, within and outside our existing settlement boundaries, some that would be on brownfield sites. I was thinking earlier that that further breakdown might well help you in terms of what the Draft Plan for the East, for example, is showing in terms of what types of sites they are, in terms 1715 of brownfield.

Q100. The Chairman: Do you have that readily available, in terms of brownfield versus greenfield?

1720 Ms Brown: Yes, we do.

The Minister: Previously developed land versus … we do, don’t we?

Ms Brown: Yes, we do have the statistics that went into all of the land supply information 1725 which does include that, but I would prefer to come back to you and deliver that specific breakdown of the brownfield sites to help the Committee in its judgements.

The Chairman: Great, thank you.

1730 Q101. Mrs Hendy: Just leading on from Ms Brown’s helpful further information: if we have got this additional need for housing on greenfield sites, where are the people coming from that will occupy those?

Ms Brown: As I sort of pointed to earlier on, that space … the population projections, even 1735 bearing in mind the 2016 interim census, show us when you take into account the changing household size, and there is a recognised assumption still that we are to expect 500 net migration. Yes, there is debate. Clearly an interim census is going to produce that debate, so we are very mindful of that and that is why we have tried to look at those figures. But the assumption is that 1740 there will still be net migration and that is that is the real key. That is where the numbers really change, when you take into account fertility rates and death rates. It is the migration figures that really make a big difference to housing need, basically.

Q102. Mrs Hendy: Thank you. I have read the housing projections and the household 1745 projections in the Eastern Area Plan. The concern I have is that the migration will also be from our town centres into these new-build dwellings on the outskirts of our settlements, and that is a concern to me. And a question maybe for the Minister: would it be something that could be considered that some kind of grant/loan assistance might be made available in the future to address the issue that we have that older properties are no longer as attractive as they might 1750 have been, because there has been no assistance to help people with those purchases, whereas that kind of incentive and assistance may well help balance the take-up of older properties in the centre of our settlements?

______37 DUUSC 79 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

The Minister: Thank you very much, Mrs Hendy, for a very helpful question. Obviously economic factors, population trends, how much people have got in their back 1755 pockets, are fundamentally important for all of this. If we go back, you asked about confidence and it all goes down to what people perceive as their life opportunities, their career opportunities and so on. So that is absolutely at the heart of all of this. The second point is I am a big fan of the suffragette slogan which is: ‘Deeds, not words’. I really hope that Government can work, following your Committee’s recommendations, to make 1760 sure that we actually have policies that lead to actions quickly, because we need to decide what it is we want and then actually do something to deliver it. But then to speak to your specific question, of course we could reintroduce grant schemes for conservation or we could do it for household improvements, but they are down to Government, Tynwald and initially Treasury, and a lot of what I have concluded during the last 1765 few months is that the Treasury has had some massive projects. There are only so many policy- related civil servants these days and we have got to prioritise what those civil servants are working on. Personally, I believe the sorts of suggestions you are making need time applied to them and need expertise applied to them by those few civil servants, so I do hope that with Treasury 1770 colleagues, across Government, in Council of Ministers and then into Tynwald, we do actually answer those questions that you have raised one way or the other. We either have got money for some sort of incentive, carrot approach, or we have not, and we need to establish that quite soon. I would hope your Committee would make recommendations along those lines.

1775 Q103. Mrs Hendy: Thank you. I can remember historic schemes that did help with repairing older properties and it would be really good to think that that was a positive incentive.

The Minister: We had them till 2013, didn’t we? I think so. I think Mr Quayle took them out, 1780 when he was Minister.

Mrs Hendy: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Okay, so I am conscious of time. Perhaps if we just ask closing questions? 1785 Q104. Mr Robertshaw: Just for from me – it is just the population issue. Initially when you spoke, Ms Brown, you were talking about the change of household size and that led to a certain amount of your conclusions in terms of expansion of the number of households. And then later on in answer to Marlene’s questions, you spoke about the presumption of the 500 increase and 1790 that that was under review. What are the timescales for that and how would that inform the Area Plan that is currently under consideration?

Ms Brown: Yes, I will just see if what I say next clarifies the situation. In terms of the figures that are in the approved Strategic Plan, we as a policy team rely on the 1795 Government population figures provided by Economic Affairs. So all of that information was debated at the public inquiry for the Strategic Plan. So they are Government population projections. That is what we had in 2015 when we did the Strategic Plan. The acceptance, the Government policy was that it was 500 net migration. That was current through the population projection model. 1800 I think further figures have been drafted, which look at different types of scenarios – whether there was a static migration, it was zero, it was 500, it was 1,000. The advice is that the 500 net migration – that is 500 coming into the Island per annum – is the right scenario to look at. So they are the figures that we in the policy team and on behalf of Cabinet Office, through the Area Plan, those are the figures that we have looked at as well.

______38 DUUSC 80 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

1805 So yes, in terms of what we have said in the Draft Plan, we do not think there is any need to go back to the Strategic Plan and review those figures. We are quite content that the need figures of 5,100 for the Island over the Plan Period, which is 2011 to 2026, and what we have set out in the Area Plan for East, in terms of the need figure for the east, we are quite content that those are the right figures, and the right need figures, that we are working towards. That is even 1810 taking into account the Isle of Man Census.

Q105. The Chairman: Okay. The question from me would be still about migration. We have talked a bit about migration to the Island and we have also heard about the migration from the town centres to the outlying residential estates. That has created a daily migration, as people 1815 drive from the south, they drive from the west, they drive from the north into the main employment hubs around Douglas. So the question I think is: does it still make sense to plan on an area by area basis, when you have got that mass migration happening each morning and evening?

1820 The Minister: Well, I do not think we plan – correct me, officers … We plan on the sort of spatial hierarchy around settlements and then we have allocated things like houses on an area basis, but the primary, principal thing around that is about the spatial hierarchy, which is not quite the same as you suggest, I think. But I wanted to just go back to something that Ms Brown said, which is that: your question 1825 was when can that come up for reconsideration? Well, strictly speaking, this is a consultation on the Area Plan for the East. So if your focus and other people’s focus is on the east, you can raise questions inside that consultation. Subsequently, when the independent inspector is in place, my understanding is the independent inspector might raise questions, but exactly what the scope of the independent inspector’s work is for that person and that role to determine, rather 1830 than … It is an independent inquiry, that is what I am saying. It is not for somebody to dictate the questions that they ask. When we go to look at area planning processes, as I understand it, the strategic reserves and things like that are triggered by certain conditions being met, which are laid down at a later stage in the process. 1835 But I go back to the point, Government only has six macro-indicators. We are spending a lot of money on things like Locate.im and a new economic strategy and a new housing policy and making sure that the quality of life in the Isle of Man and the careers that are available here to increase our population. So therefore it would be fundamentally wrong for the Planning Policy Unit and people involved in joining up Government to make the Island continue to be a special 1840 place to live and work, and for more people than it currently is, it would be wrong to assume anything other than that migration. Otherwise, at zero migration our population begins to decline down to 77,000 by 2036 and it ages hugely. So we are not planning for that. We are planning for a healthy population and for a healthy Island, healthy society and a healthy economy. 1845 The Chairman: Thank you. Marlene, any questions?

Q106. Mrs Hendy: I am conscious as well that the Enterprise Development Scheme exists. Would you think there is any scope which might link the policies that might arise from the 1850 planning consultation that is going on and the reform of the planning situation. Do you think there might be scope for joined-up thinking and feeding into that pot of money, if it might prime the pump, so to speak?

The Minister: I think it would be complicated to look to modify the Enterprise Development 1855 Scheme because that has got a very specific purpose under a very specific Act, but Government is not short of a penny or two. Government has got straitened times. Another of our six macro-

______39 DUUSC 81 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

indicators is to make sure we are financially responsible and we reduce our structural deficit. But if Treasury was able to respond positively to any recommendations that you were to make, I think I heard from Treasury officers that a scheme could be worked up. So I think you have got 1860 to encourage this, if that is what your deliberations lead you to as a conclusion.

Q107. Mrs Hendy: Just one: would you say that if people who may be listening today, if they want to feed into the Eastern Area Plan consultation, if they have got major thoughts, they can respond to that and that will all feed into that process and hopefully be very helpful in taking us 1865 forward if they have got major points to make?

Ms Brown: Yes, major or minor. And even if you are in support, for any reason, of what is in the plan, it is also important to get involved, because we were discussing only this morning, it is a two-way street. We are not at the end of the process. We may well have included sites or not 1870 included sides that others will be continuing to put forward and support at the next stage. So it is important to stay involved. We are doing a 12-week consultation. We happened to launch just before our wonderful TT. So we have just given ourselves and everyone time before we do particular exhibitions, but the consultation hub is being made use of. Anybody can get in touch with us and say any point really. That is what we are hoping for. 1875 Mrs Hendy: It is a really good opportunity.

Ms Brown: Yes, that is right.

1880 The Minister: Very specifically – Ms Brown hinted at it – we will have the maps on display soon for public engagement. All of the Commissioners and Councillors have got copies of the documentation. We do welcome public input and organised public input, but we want calm reflective input. We do not want just immediate gut reaction; we want considered reaction because planning is at the heart of so much that Government does and that is why we have left 1885 it open for 12 weeks and welcome input.

Mrs Hendy: Thank you very much.

Ms Brown: Sorry, just to add, it is important for us to talk to the other Government 1890 Departments as well. We have set things out now. We have had those discussions, but we really want to … We will be engaging with our colleagues across Government as a matter of course.

The Chairman: That is great. I think it is important also just to state, this is not just about the east. This remit of this Committee is looking at all the urban areas and also the greenfield areas 1895 on the Island. Many of those have not been lost in the east; they have been lost in the south and the west –

The Minister: We believe that very strongly. We were hoping that you would not focus on the east in your Committee’s deliberations. 1900 Q108. The Chairman: So that is great. So thank you very much for answering all the questions so well. We look forward to receiving that additional information. Thank you again and the Committee will sit in private.

1905 The Minister and Ms Brown: Thank you.

Miss Chance: Thank you. Will there be an opportunity for us to provide further written submissions to the Committee at all?

______40 DUUSC 82 SELECT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 11th JUNE 2018

The Chairman: Yes, there will, but they need to arrive this week because we are running a 1910 very tight deadline. Thank you.

Miss Chance: Okay, thank you.

Mrs Hendy and Mr Robertshaw: Thank you.

The Committee sat in private at 5.05 p.m.

______41 DUUSC 83 84

WRITTEN EVIDENCE

APPENDIX 1: 29th April 2018

Submission from Mr Nigel Taylor

88 Archived: 23 June 2018 10:39:10 From: [Nigel Taylor] Sent: 29 April 2018 22:48:14 To: committees Subject: Brownfield sites - Select Committee Response requested: Yes Importance: Normal

For attention Mr Bill Shimmins, MHK. Dear Bill, This responds to the article in this week's Manx Independent and the invitation for public views on encouraging and prioritising the development of unoccupied buildings. Over the course of the last 9 years we have invested over £2 million in creating four hospitality businesses in central Douglas, where we now employ 60 people. Our customer base is heavily reliant on the business community and so we are aware of the impact of the migration of jobs away from the city centre. We are also disproportionately affected by a declining population, given that many of those who have left the island were employed in financial services etc., worked in central Douglas and were from a population demographic that enjoyed our restaurants. Seeking to both diversify our own business interests and expand the island's economy I responded, three years ago, to the DoI's request for expressions of interest in a brownfield site. The site in question is the former Marine Biological Station in Port Erin, which has been derelict throughout my ten years on the island. It remains an eyesore located in a place of extraordinary natural beauty. I have pasted below the key parts to my submission, which was then directed to Minister Gawne. I received an acknowledgement that my letter had been received and then heard nothing further. To say that this was disappointing would be an under statement. The scheme that I outlined had the potential to revitalise the south of the island. What follows is extracted from the proposal: I think it would be disappointing if this very special site is simply redeveloped as an apartment complex and without recognising the broader potential to create sustainable economic benefit to the island. This could well be a once in a century opportunity and at a time when the island needs to embrace ideas for the expansion of our economy. The development opportunity that arises at this location is unique, but its fullest potential will only be realised if the defined area can be developed in conjunction with the adjoining land and foreshore.The 'sale particulars' state that additional land may be available. All of the land that I contemplate should be included in a development is, I believe, Government owned. Development should aim to provide Port Erin with an amenity that can be the cornerstone for regeneration of the area and can provide both Government and the private sector with economic benefit. As regards nautical matters I have received input from Captain David Greenhalgh, who has studied the options from a maritime perspective and is known to some of your colleagues. The deep water that abuts this location is probably the most suitable location on the island for a marina. The island’s existing marinas are inferior by reason of tidal restrictions on movements in Douglas (operation of the swing bridge being limited to the two hour period either side of high tide)and a serious silting problem in Peel, for which there is no permanent solution. In contrast, a well located marina in Port Erin would be accessible 24 hours a day and could even accommodate cruise ships alongside a rebuilt version of the former breakwater. Facilities could be developed that would be capable of providing 24/7 access to the largest of modern sailing and motor yachts and with an unrivalled location in the middle of the Irish Sea this would provide a leisure amenity that would be unique and for which there could literally be no

89 competition. Ancillary facilities could include a slipway and a small boatyard that would provide maintenance and repair facilities to visiting yachts. The likelihood is that a cluster of marine related businesses would be attracted to Port Erin. By creating a high quality facility for the larger yachts there may even be spin off business for the further registration of super yachts under the Manx flag. The ideal marina design would not be based on the indicative plan that forms a part of the particulars that have been drawn up by Black Grace Cowley. Such particulars show a breakwater drawn out of scale, virtually damming off Port Erin Bay. The replacement breakwater that Captain Greenhalgh has previously discussed with your Department would keep to the scale and position of the previous Victorian breakwater. This would not be intrusive in terms of Port Erin Bay, and when viewed from the area at the seaward end of Station Road the marina would be largely concealed behind the existing Raglan Pier. It would be necessary to place a lighter floating wave breaker at the northern extremity of the marina, but this would not be intrusive. I would mention that rebuilding of the original Victoria breakwater may not be as daunting an engineering project or as costly as appears at first sight. It has been the subject of preliminary technical consideration. The optimum build method would involve prefabricated units that would be constructed in Holland, with the floating breakwater being towed into position and sunk onto the seabed. This process is cost efficient, involves a quick build time and has minimal impact on the marine environment. On the adjoining land, including that which is the subject of this tender, a range of mixed use facilities could be constructed that would ideally be anchored by a high quality boutique hotel – an amenity which is presently lacking on the island and which would, by virtue of its special location, have the potential to attract high spending visitors to the island. Being known on island for our high quality hospitality offerings (we own and operate 14North, Little Fish Café and the bath & bottle) it is the design and operation of the hotel that has been the main driver of my interest. I am very concerned that any project will involve a protracted, costly and energy sapping fight with the Planning Commissioners and those residents who oppose any change to their community. For those of us outside Government it is both baffling and disturbing to read that our Chief Minister considers the island's planning policy to be unfit for purpose. (Manx Independent April 30th, 2015, reporting on his comments to Tynwald). I don't doubt the truth of this statement. I respectfully suggest that this is an issue that Government needs to address as a high priority. There is little point in DED seeking to articulate a message that the island is 'open for business' if the reality is that ambitious development projects are likely to be still-born. I think it would be a mistake to undertake such a project in isolation. It should form part of a larger scale public/private partnership with a shared vision for the revitalisation of the south of the island. Ideally this would include plans for both Port Erin and Port St Mary, including a range of marine leisure and industry initiatives that will attract investment and deliver employment opportunities. To be quite honest, at the present time I am not sure that the site in question is right for an upscale boutique hotel. Will the high spenders and larger yachts come to Port Erin? Could it deliver the range of facilities they would expect? Would local residents see and grasp the opportunities? The project needs to be much more than a land and sea based property development. It needs to be a catalyst for the revival of the south of the island. The above mentioned is just one of many brownfield sites that merit attention. My understanding is that the site in question has been the subject of previous proposals which foundered because of opposition from various other stakeholders. Hence I would submit that plans involving redevelopment of brownfield sites do need to be given special treatment. If private sector investors are willing to risk their capital on regenerative projects that will benefit the economy they need to be actively encouraged and their passage through the planning formalities needs to be made easier. Regrettably, I feel that the island today is less investable than it was three years ago. The site I refer to is nevertheless crying out for redevelopment and a less ambitions scheme which would nevertheless be a catalyst for regeneration and job creation is a matter that I would be willing to discuss, but only with strong Government support.

90 Your sincerely Nigel Taylor Director Rock Food Concepts Limited

91 92

APPENDIX 2: 6th May 2018

Submission from Mr Tim Cullen MBE

Derbyhaven residents’ society Ltd

Founded 1974

6 May 2018

Mr Jonathan King Clerk to the Committee Legislative Buildings Finch Road Douglas IM1 3PW

Dear Mr King

SELECT COMMITTEE ON DEVELOPMENT OF UNOCCUPIED URBAN SITES

On behalf of Derbyhaven Residents’ Society Ltd (DRS), we very much welcome Tynwald’s focus on this issue in response to a number of well-publicised concerns about the blight caused by long-term development sites and developers’ preference to undertake development on greenfield rather than brownfield sites.

DRS, originally formed in 1974, aims to protect the interests of Derbyhaven and its environs and to preserve its character and amenity. As the community that is closest to Langness, the DRS is committed to fight against inappropriate development on this iconic peninsula of great natural and historic importance to the Isle of Man and its people.

In our corner of the island, the Castletown Golf Links Hotel site, neatly encapsulates many of the issues associated with the cycle of decline and dilapidation of buildings and sites as a precursor to redevelopment. The Select Committee’s remit refers to the “development of unoccupied urban sites” by which it is inferred that the Committee’s remit includes both unoccupied potential development sites and unoccupied buildings. Any brownfield site might be considered to be “urban” in nature but for the avoidance of doubt, we respectfully suggest that the ambit of the Select Committee should include consideration of unoccupied sites which are in rural locations, such as the Castletown Golf Links Hotel site. Both unoccupied urban and rural sites share many issues, impacts and challenges and any differentiation between these types of site would appear to be artificial and unnecessary.

By way of a case study of the Castletown Golf Links site as a backdrop, DRS wishes to highlight the issues faced by communities and businesses when confronted with an unoccupied development site

Background

Although a timber building preceded it, a stone-built five-bedroom hotel, known as Castletown Golf Links Hotel had been established by 1894. Over the subsequent decades, the hotel was progressively extended to eventually provide 50 hotel bedrooms, swimming pool

95 and function rooms. With its panoramic views of Langness, Derbyhaven and Castletown Bay and its well-respected and internationally ranked golf course, the hotel was a popular venue for weddings and was popular for family holidays and with visiting golfers.

By the late 1990s, the hotel was starting to suffer from the impact of changing visitor requirements and had become somewhat dated. However, the seeds of its further decline were sown by the acquisition of the hotel and golf course circa 2000 by Mr Graham Ferguson Lacey. With a track record of buying up “trophy” buildings around the island and then attempting to extract favourable development consents while the existing assets fell into decline, the Golf Links Hotel and golf course also followed this familiar pattern. By 2007, the hotel had closed and within a relatively short period of time, the shabby appearance of the hotel was worsened by petty vandalism.

Following the receivership of Mr Ferguson Lacey’s company, the golf course was acquired by the Vermeulen family’s Langness Golf Course Ltd in late 2011 and shortly later, the former hotel was acquired separately by FI Developments Ltd, part of the Dandara Group. Over the following six years, the fortunes of the respective interests that were acquired are starkly contrasting.

Langness Golf Course Ltd embarked on an investment programme running into hundreds of thousands aimed at restoring the reputation of the Castletown Golf Links to its rightful position as a top course after years of under-investment. This saw the refurbishment of the former Pro Shop building to provide a new clubhouse and restaurant facilities, purchase of new green keeping machinery, construction of a new green keeper’s facility and golf course improvements.

Meanwhile, the condition of the former hotel rapidly deteriorated under Dandara’s ownership and with inadequate security, the building was vandalised, windows broken, entry forced and a dangerous building has become a magnet for young people. The resulting eyesore is naturally of great concern to the golf course owners who are striving to attract custom to their much-improved facility but this is very challenging when it is located immediately adjacent to a very unattractive wreck. Local residents are also deeply frustrated that no action has been taken by the relevant authorities to deal with the increasing dereliction of the site.

After much prompting from DRS over a number of years and repeated assurances from the developer of an imminent application, a planning application for redevelopment of the hotel site was finally submitted by Dandara in December 2017. The planning application, currently under consideration, is very contentious and seeks consent for a 40-bedroom hotel and 40 apartments. The development site, occupying a dominant position in Derbyhaven Bay and surrounded by an ASSI and designated bird sanctuary and within close proximity to ancient monuments, is very sensitive and consequently any planning application for redevelopment will be challenging. There is no dispute among the parties that given the dilapidation that has occurred to the building under successive owners, the existing structure has reached the end of its economic life and should be demolished and replaced. It is very likely that once the planning application has been determined, a planning appeal will follow. As matters stand, demolition of the existing structure and redevelopment of the site could remain several years away allowing the current status quo to further entrench the negative impact on tourism, the Island as a whole and Derbyhaven, users of the Raad Ny Foillan (coastal footpath) and the owners of the golf course specifically.

96 Issues

Progressive deterioration of existing buildings on a brownfield site

As part of a land assembly process for larger developments, it is not uncommon for less responsible property developers to cause blight to neighbours and the local community by suspending all maintenance activity on the buildings/site acquired. The process of land assembly has not been an issue in the case of Castletown Golf Links Hotel but for other development sites, acquiring parcels of land as part of a larger development site and then subsequently securing planning consent may take many years to come to fruition. As the process of deterioration takes hold, it is likely to have a negative impact on the interests of nearby businesses and property owners, potentially causing a reduction in property values, deterring other local investment and encouraging existing businesses to relocate if the blight persists for an indeterminate period. A cleared brownfield site, whilst also unattractive, is likely to have much less impact provided it is properly managed, screened and secured against anti-social activities.

Developer’s progress the development at their own pace

Once in possession of the site/building, the developer dictates how quickly the development is brought forward. In some cases, the acquisition may be speculative land banking and the developer may not even have any intention of carrying through the development. The developer’s intentions may also be shaped by market conditions and demand by end users/buyers, the financial resources available to the developer in terms of lending and the availability of staff resource to plan, project manage and build the development.

Interest Rates

A low interest rate environment may act as a drag on the pace that development is brought forward. During periods of higher interest rates, rolled-up interest on the acquisition costs of the site/building and any on-going management and design costs will be of much greater concern to the developer as higher finance charges will erode their development profit. In the current era of low interest rates, this may be a negative influence in the pace of development.

Rates

Under Section 8 of the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) Act 1991 rates relief for unoccupied property was abolished. However, “if a dilapidated property is incapable of occupation after reasonable repair expense, then the rates valuation may be temporarily reduced to zero1”.

On the basis of the source quoted and although the legislative basis for the temporary relief granted appears uncertain, it is assumed that Dandara and other owners of dilapidated properties incapable of occupation are not paying any rates. Accordingly, there is a positive incentive for the developer to ensure that the property is not capable of occupation and hence, if the property is vandalised, this may not necessarily be contrary to their interests. In the case of Castletown, this also creates an anomalous situation. The rate-paying owners of the golf course and clubhouse, employ twelve staff and are striving very hard to ensure that their

1 http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/committee/DRS/Public%20Evidence/300514MC-JK.pdf

97 business is successful. Meanwhile, their very close neighbour presides over an increasingly dilapidated hotel building, presumably rate free, to the complete detriment of their rate paying neighbours! In addition, given that the golf course and hotel share common private service infrastructure (water, electricity and sewerage), the maintenance burden is solely carried by the golf course as the hotel owners have no immediate need of the services and refuse to contribute. An inward investor from South Africa must find the Isle of Man’s Freedom to Flourish promise rings very hollow:

“The Isle of Man is a land of possibility where people and business will find the right environment in which to reach their full potential, whatever they feel that may be.”

Limited pool of Developers

With a UK town size population of circa 85,000, the Isle of Man has a limited pool of resident developers with the necessary skills and resources to undertake larger or more complex developments. A site such as the Golf Links Hotel is particularly challenging due to its conservation constraints and demands a level of expertise that smaller developers are unlikely to possess. Developers of brownfield sites also often have to contend with other difficulties, such as contamination, restricted access to tight urban sites, over-sailing of cranes, adverse ground conditions, re-routing of services and so on. These potential problems all increase the developer’s risk and it is no surprise therefore that developers will opt to carry out greenfield rather than brownfield development when the opportunity arises. In the context of the Isle of Man, unless developers are attracted here from the UK to undertake a site specific development, it does mean that the island is reliant on a very small pool of developers to undertake more problematic site development. In turn, this may dictate that a fine line has to be drawn between regulation and over-regulation as if the balance is tipped too much one way, development of these sites may be further constrained or take even longer to reach development stage.

Demolition of Buildings

As already referred to, successive owners of the Golf Links Hotel have allowed the existing structure to deteriorate, the decline being unchecked during Dandara’s ownership. Irrespective of condition, it is accepted that the existing hotel complex is of an unattractive, piecemeal nature and there is no debate that a replacement building of an appropriate design and scale is required on this site. DRS has previously requested Dandara to progress with the demolition of the building. I attach E-mails between DRS and Dandara, starting in June 2015, urging demolition of the existing structure. Furthermore, in March 2017, we asked Malew Commissioners to exercise their powers to initiate a demolition order but nothing came of these proposals.

The owners of the golf course, Langness Golf Course Ltd, wrote to Malew Commissioners on 5 November 2012 and most recently on 2 April 2018. Copies of these letters and Malew Commissioner’s response dated 10 April 2018 are attached. The manager of the clubhouse, Mr Ged Powers, contacted MHK Mr Graham Cregeen on 13 January 2015 reporting criminal behaviour in the hotel building and copied in Malew Commissioners. Despite the impact of the dereliction on the rate paying adjoining business, the Local Authority has declined to use the powers vested in it under the Building Control Act 1991. As already noted, despite the current as yet undetermined planning application, the developer is under no obligation to progress any development and the current blight may remain for many more years.

98 Elsewhere in Malew Parish, plans have recently been announced for a new bypass in Ballasalla and which subject to planning consent, will be undertaken by Dandara as the bypass will open up housing land for the development of 300 homes. With the eventual development of several hundred homes, this will have a substantial and very positive impact on the rates revenue of the Local Authority. In these circumstances, it is understandable if the Local Authority wished to avoid taking any action that may prejudice their relationship with the developer. Equally, a small Local Authority with limited resources may conclude that there is too much risk inherent in pursuing a well-resourced developer under the Building Control Act 1991 should the matter find its way to court.

Where a development site has an existing dilapidated building, this may be used as a bargaining chip by the developer. Eventually, the developer may anticipate that neighbours will become so frustrated with the developer’s eyesore that they will capitulate and cease to challenge inappropriate new development on the basis that anything is better than the current situation. Even more telling is that from correspondence between the Planning Department and Dandara on 28 July 2015 (attached) the Department proposes in the second paragraph “We wondered whether you were proposing to include an assessment option of "doing nothing" with the site, compared with the proposal. There may be benefit to your case in doing this as continued dereliction of the site may not be considered to be in the public interest ……” It is very unsatisfactory that developers can influence development outcomes in this way.

Planning Application process

As already described, a brownfield site development may take many years before it reaches planning application stage, the pace being largely dictated by the developer. For neighbours and communities, this is normally a very one-sided process. In many cases, having spent many years “sitting” on the site, for a large and complex development, the developer will submit a voluminous planning application comprising of many plans, statements, reports and supporting documentation. Neighbours and/or the community affected by the development proposals are then permitted only 21 days to respond with comments or objections. In the case of the hotel site, site notices of the development were posted on 15 December 2017 so that technically, the consultation period was due to close on 5 January 2018. Cynics may argue that the timing of the submission of the planning application was carefully timed to coincide with a period when people are away or busy with Christmas festivities. The Planning Department in this case, after a request for an extension of time from Langness Golf Course Ltd, showed commendable flexibility by extending the consultation period until 31 January 2018. There is no guarantee that such flexibility would be offered in other cases.

Having received the feedback from representations, the process may then revert again to the applicant dictating the pace should they decide to present amended proposals, with no time limit set in the planning process for submission of amendments under the original application. Meantime, at Castletown the hotel building’s deterioration continues unabated and neighbours are powerless to bring about any resolution of an unacceptable situation.

Development of a brownfield site such as the Golf Links Hotel site can also become a process of attrition. Local residents and businesses affected by a development may eventually be worn down by multiple planning applications/appeals which a developer will generally be better equipped to service because it is their core business. Eventually, this may result in a poor, sub-optimal development because those who stand to be most affected have simply run out of steam and financial resources to demand better. 5

99 Planning Consent

Gaining planning consent will considerably aid the marketing of a proposed development to prospective tenants/buyers. However, the applicant’s consent will normally be conditioned with a requirement to commence the development within four years. Even then, a developer is only required to make a relatively token start on the development for this hurdle to be removed. For an undeveloped site or more particularly, one containing derelict buildings, the planning consent fails to prompt a developer to make an early start on their development so that post-approval, the developer can choose to landbank or sit on the development site for several years. Again, for neighbours and the local community who may be affected by the continuing dereliction of the site, this seems to be unreasonable and greater pressure should be placed on the applicant to make an early start on the development.

Possible Solutions

With specific reference to Castletown Golf Links Hotel, DRS’s and the adjacent owners’ concerns revolve around the speed of redevelopment of a brownfield site, including the removal of dereliction. In order to bring about a positive change in developers’ approach to such sites, it is suggested that a combination of “carrot and stick” is required:

1. Statutory Nuisance

Among other matters, the Public Health Act 1990 defines statutory nuisance as:

“any premises in such a state as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance”

The Act provides a clear framework for abatement of nuisance and where necessary, for the Local Authority to take action to abate the nuisance, recharging the property owner for any expense incurred. In practice, it appears that most statutory nuisance functions are undertaken by the Environmental/Public Health Unit on behalf of Local Authorities.

It is not clear in which circumstances the condition of a property constitutes a nuisance in the Isle of Man but guidance from Scotland provides a useful summary of the operation of statutory nuisance in the adjacent jurisdictions. In Scotland, to constitute a statutory nuisance, 2“the matter must be either a “prejudice to health” or a “nuisance”. The guidance further explains:

“Nuisance is not defined in the 1990 Act but can be regarded as interference that ordinary decent people would consider unreasonable with the personal comfort or enjoyment or amenity of neighbours or the community.”3

However:

“the statutory nuisance regime, unlike common law nuisance, does not deal with harm to property; a statutory nuisance must interfere with personal comfort in a manner that affects their wellbeing for example dust affecting cars would not be nuisance but the same dust in a persons eyes or hair would

2 Guidance to Accompany the Statutory Nuisance Provisions of the Public Health etc (Scotland) Act 2008, p 5

3 Guidance to Accompany the Statutory Nuisance Provisions of the Public Health etc (Scotland) Act 2008, p 6

100 interfere with personal comfort even if there were no adverse health impact (Wivenhoe Port Ltd v Colchester Borough Council 1985).”4

Due to the similarity of the Public Health Act 1990 to English and Scottish legislation, it is assumed that interpretation of the Isle of Man’s legislation would closely follow English and Scottish case law.

For an alternative approach, in the US in the state of New Jersey, the definition of nuisance as it affects property is more explicit and specifically :

“A nuisance as a legal term is a condition or use of a property that interferes with neighbors’ use or enjoyment of their property, endangers life, health or safety, or is offensive to others. Under the Abandoned Property Rehabilitation Act, abandoned properties are presumed to be nuisances, because of their negative effects on nearly properties and the residents or users of those properties. Because of the harm they do to others, New Jersey law authorizes local governments to use their police powers to compel the owners of nuisance properties to correct those conditions. If the owner fails to do so, the municipality can step in and correct or abate the conditions itself.”

DRS suggests that the Select Committee seeks clarification about the operation of statutory nuisance in the context of private property. If insufficient safeguards for property interests are currently available, consideration should be given to widening the current scope of statutory nuisance to encompass derelict properties that have an adverse impact on neighbours. Due to the wider social impact of dereliction on the community, it seems unreasonable that an individual property owner should have to resort to a private civil action for nuisance in an attempt to defend their interests.

2. Demolition

In the case of Castletown Golf Links Hotel, the Local Authority has declined to use its powers under section 24 of the Building Control Act 1991 to require the property owner to either carry out amenity work or to demolish the building. As already described, there may be circumstances where a Local Authority may find itself conflicted in its dealings with a developer. In the event of failure of the property owner to undertake the work, the Local Authority may step in and undertake the works. For larger development sites and demolitions, the cost may be considerable and the Local Authority may not be willing to accept the risks of being unable to recover the costs. For all of these reasons, if Local Authority use and enforcement of the provisions is ineffectual, consideration should be given to stripping Local Authorities of these powers and placing the responsibility for enforcement with the relevant Government Department.

In a case such as Castletown Golf links, requiring the developer to undertake demolition may also be beneficial to the planning application process. Removal of the developer’s bargaining chip – the indefinite presence of an eyesore – will be generally advantageous.

4 Guidance to Accompany the Statutory Nuisance Provisions of the Public Health etc (Scotland) Act 2008, p 7

101 3. Compulsory Purchase

In cases where developers fail to take steps to deal with dereliction and are not actively pursuing redevelopment, consideration should be given to bringing the site into public ownership through the exercise of compulsory purchase powers. Costs may then be incurred by the public purse through the removal of dereliction/contamination etc to bring the site into brownfield condition but particularly for important strategic sites, it would allow a development brief to be created to create greater planning certainty for developers, identify preferred uses for the site and to improve the quality of any eventual development. After being brought into a readily developable condition, the sites would be sold at market value.

4. Improved Uptake of Brownfield Sites

To assist with improved uptake of brownfield sites in preference to greenfield sites, if not already in place, a regularly updated register or inventory of available brownfield sites should be maintained by the Department for Enterprise. The register should include location plans, site plans, information about the site area, planning status, ground conditions, contamination report (where applicable), any development brief, land ownership/agents details etc. In responding to inward investment/developer enquiries, ready access to such information might help to secure greater interest in vacant sites. As part of this process, a critical appraisal of sites could be undertaken to understand the obstacles to development and the potential for environmental improvement of the site and adjacent areas if such action would improve the marketability of the site.

The Department for Enterprise runs the STEP summer placement programme for second year undergraduates and the initial creation of such a Register could provide a useful placement opportunity.

This footnoted 5paper about brownfield site incentives in British Columbia, provides a useful summary of the issues surrounding brownfield sites and some of the tools that have been used elsewhere to promote development. It should be noted that the North American definition of “brownfield” differs from the UK interpretation, the former implying that the site is in need of remediation/decontamination, while for the UK, it generally means that it is previously developed land, but not necessarily handicapped by contamination.

Although it focuses on EU support mechanisms, the 6report of a conference regarding re-use of brownfield sites and buildings, contains some helpful references and links.

5. Planning Application process

Short deadlines are placed on neighbours/the community to respond to planning applications in the interests of speed of planning application determinations. In the case of the Castletown Golf Links Hotel application, the Planning Department showed flexibility by extending the deadline for submissions reflecting the extent of documentation included in the planning application and the timing of the application. For larger, more complex developments,

5 Brownfield Renewal Incentives – Tools for Local Government The British Columbia Experience – Douglas Backhouse

6 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/conferences/sustainable-growth/doc/rfec_brownfield_en.pdf

102 consideration should be given to formalising longer periods for representation. Equally, where the applicant wishes to submit supplementary information in response to representations received, to be fair to all parties, similar rigor should be applied in terms of a timetable for the applicant’s response to avoid the application falling into stasis, to the continuing detriment of site neighbours being adversely affected by continuing dereliction. To maintain momentum, if practical, a long-stop date should be set for applicant’s supplementary submissions, failing which the planning application would be rejected and the applicant required to submit a fresh application.

6. Other Fiscal Measures

As noted above, “temporary” rates relief may be granted although it is understood that the relief is not time-limited. It is recommended that further research is undertaken to identify if there is a statutory basis for such relief or whether the concessions have arisen through more informal practice.

Because rates relief acts as a positive incentive to render the condition of an existing building such that is not capable of occupation, it is recommended that relief in such cases is abolished. If it is necessary to incentivise developers to tackle brownfield sites, it is preferable to explore mechanisms that actually encourage development activity rather than ones that promote dereliction.

The rating status of cleared, undeveloped sites should also be reviewed.

To positively incentivise development of brownfield sites in preference to greenfield sites, consideration should be given to generous rate holidays of five to ten years for initial occupiers of the completed development. This measure would greatly improve the marketability of the sites where a developer is seeking pre-lets before commencing development and in theory, should lead to faster uptake and development of the sites. The use of some type of tax credit for development of brownfield sites may be worth investigating, although this may simply artificially inflate the land value without necessarily helping to bring forward development.

Conversely, for greenfield sites, imposing significantly larger planning fees for planning application for developments over a certain size would help to reduce the incentive to develop such sites, whilst recouping some of the “betterment” in land value generated by the grant of planning consent.

Conclusion

The Government has loudly trumpeted the successful award of Biosphere status and also designated 2018 as Year of Our Island:

“This year is an opportunity for us to value our environment, our culture, our heritage, our community”.

As this case study shows, for a site such as the Golf Links Hotel site which occupies a highly scenic location, amidst a valued ASSI and bird sanctuary designation and in close proximity to important heritage and tourism assets, these designations appear to be very tokenistic at best. Visitors to the area must be perplexed and wonder why the appalling condition of the building is allowed to persist. Clearly, the combination of the current system of planning, building control, local authority powers and fiscal measures are not working cohesively to 9

103 exert pressure on developers to behave responsibly and urgent action is necessary to address the situation.

DRS and Langness Golf Course Ltd would be pleased to meet on site with the Select Committee so that they may see at first hand the impact that a derelict, brownfield site is having on our community.

Yours sincerely,

[Signed Tim Cullen]

TIM CULLEN MBE

Chairman Derbyhaven Residents’ Society Ltd

104

APPENDIX 3: 8th May 2018

Submission from Mr Adrian Cain

105

106 Archived: 23 June 2018 10:40:48 From: [Adrian Cain] Sent: 08 May 2018 15:53:33 To: committees Subject: Select Committee on Development of Unoccupied Urban Sites Response requested: Yes Importance: Normal

Bannaghtyn

I'm not sure whether the following is germane to what you will be discussing but I thought I'd say it anyway! I’m unfortunate to live next to an unoccupied house in Port st Mary, this house is one of five houses owned by the same person in Port st Mary. Four of these houses are unoccupied and have been for between 20 and 30 years each. I’m not sure if any rates are paid on these properties but they are all an eyesore and, in mine and at least one other case have caused damage to neighbouring buildings. I have been through the courts with the Commissioners to get some redress but there are so many loopholes that this system clearly doesn’t work and is a direction the commissioners are reluctant to go down given the time and costs involved. All four of these properties could be developed by local, small builders (they are of no interest to the likes of Hartford Homes) and could provide a home for four different families in the port. I have over the years talked to my MHKs but I can say that the situation is no better than it was six or seven years ago when I went through the courts. Unless radical actions such as the threat of compulsory purchase of such buildings then the situation won’t change. I realise that this option is unlikely to be adopted but I'd like it to be noted that such properties cause a great deal of distress to property owners such as me; not to mention the financial costs involved. There needs to be some real deterrent for property owners such as this particular person for them to change their behaviour. I wish you all the best with your discussions but accept that my current situation will not change in the foreseeable future; however, I look forward to future candidates for the keys promising the impossible.

Gura mie ayd and best wishes Adrian Cain

107 108

APPENDIX 4: 8th May 2018

Submission from Mrs Kerry Sharpe MLC

109

110 Archived: 23 June 2018 10:41:18 From: [Kerry Sharpe MLC] Sent: 08 May 2018 15:55:24 To: committees Subject: Urban Site Development Importance: Normal

Dear Sir or Madam

With reference to the call for ideas regarding the options available to encourage and prioritise the development of unoccupied or previously developed urban sites ahead of building on green fields in the Manx countryside:

I wonder whether a previously developed urban site (eg Chester Street car park or Chester Street Shoprite) could be tied in with the cross-departmental Active Travel Strategy, the aim of which is to ‘put in place a series of mechanisms which will help to facilitate the vision [active travel] being realised’?

For example, either of the above urban sites could be turned into flats aimed at individuals or couples who are working in town but who are also committed to a healthy lifestyle and a sense of overall wellbeing.

On the ground floor, there could be a cycle hub which would contain cycle racks, secure storage, lockers, showers and a laundry service. This would encourage people to cycle to work, even if their workplace does not yet have shower facilities. The laundry service could launder cycle clothing but operate as a laundrette as well. The ground floor could have a Noa Bakery offshoot (or similar) offering breakfasts – again, an incentive for people to cycle to work. Cyclists could have loyalty cards which they swipe in each day. If cyclist cycle every day for a month, say, companies (eg Microgaming) sponsor a free breakfast for that person. In order to encourage larger numbers of cyclists, a Cycle Bus (similar to a walking bus) could be started from eg Peel and Ramsey. Cyclists unwilling to cycle alone could wait at a cycle bus stop for the ‘peleton’ to come past. Volunteers (retired people or unemployed) could help at the front, back and sides of the ‘peleton’. The ‘peletons’ would all have the cycle hub as their final destination. This would encourage support and comradery.

On the ground floor, there could also be units for physios and psychologists offering eg cognitive behavioural therapy or counselling. Perhaps this would be a good place for the NHS to offer a counselling service. This would also help to break the taboo surrounding mental health ie people would begin to regard an appointment with a therapist or counsellor as ‘normal’ because it would all be part of the wellbeing hub.This would also be an ideal place to have a gym.

Best wishes

Kerry Sharpe MLC Member of the Legislative Council Tynwald Legislative Buildings Finch Road Douglas IM1 3PW

111 Isle of Man. Giving you freedom to flourish

WARNING: This email message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. You must not copy or deliver it to any other person or use the contents in any unauthorised manner without the express permission of the sender. If you are not the intended addressee of this e-mail, please delete it and notify the sender as soon as possible.

No employee or agent is authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of any of the Departments or Statutory Boards of the Isle of Man Government with any party by e-mail without express written confirmation by a Manager of the relevant Department or Statutory Board.

RAAUE: S’preevaadjagh yn çhaghteraght post-l shoh chammah’s coadanyn erbee currit marish as ta shoh coadit ec y leigh. Cha nhegin diu coipal ny cur eh da peiagh erbee elley ny ymmydey yn chooid t’ayn er aght erbee dyn kied leayr veih’n choyrtagh. Mannagh nee shiu yn enmyssagh kiarit jeh’n phost-l shoh, doll-shiu magh eh, my sailliu, as cur-shiu fys da’n choyrtagh cha leah as oddys shiu.

Cha nel kied currit da failleydagh ny jantagh erbee conaant y yannoo rish peiagh ny possan erbee lesh post-l er son Rheynn ny Boayrd Slattyssagh erbee jeh Reiltys Ellan Vannin dyn co-niartaghey scruit leayr veih Reireyder y Rheynn ny Boayrd Slattyssagh t’eh bentyn rish.

112

APPENDIX 5: 8th May 2018

Submission from Mr Kim Moughtin

113

114 [Address redacted]

[Signed Kim Moughtin]

115 116

APPENDIX 6: 9th May 2018

Submission from Ms Catriona Livingston MRICS

117

118 Archived: 23 June 2018 10:42:18 From: [Catriona Livingstone] Sent: 09 May 2018 15:02:51 To: committees; [Jonathan King] Subject: Tynwald Enquiry Re: encouraging development of brownfield sites Response requested: Yes Importance: Normal

I am submitting this email in response to your invitation for comments on the issue of how to encourage development of brownfield sites.

Stating the obvious, stop allowing development on green fields in areas where there are empty properties in the vicinity – such as the housing development in Crosby right now. This should include putting the burden of proof on the developer to demonstrate that there is a need for them to develop on green field sites. Their planning application would have to include a listing of all the properties they own - including brownfield sites and unoccupied buildings. The presumption should be that permission will not be granted for greenfield development where the beneficial owner of brownfield sites has not yet developed these. The aim would be to reduce the amount of brownfield which developers are landbanking. It would be informative to undertake a survey of all unoccupied properties on the island and find out why they are vacant. The data from such a survey could be used to develop a regime which nudges behaviour with incentives for using the existing estate and disincentives for practices such as leaving homes or sites empty. This might include: • Developing a fiscal regime which discourages leaving empty brownfield sites undeveloped eg Imposing a tax on owners of houses that sit unoccupied for more than a year. • Considering compulsory purchase of homes or land vacant for more than a specified period of time – perhaps 3 years. Rent out those homes as local authority rentals • Financial incentives for prompt redevelopment of brownfield sites such as the old Athol Garage on Peel Road - provided a proportion of homes were affordable housing Catriona Livingstone MRTPI (Ret)

119 120

APPENDIX 7: 9th May 2018

Submission from Dr Kathy Kilmurry

121

122 Archived: 23 June 2018 10:43:49 From: [Kathy Kilmurry] Sent: 09 May 2018 00:04:08 To: committees Cc: [Bill Shimmins] Subject: How to prioritise developmen of brownfield sites Response requested: Yes Importance: Normal Attachments: HOW TO PRIORITISE DEVELOPMENT OF BROWNFIELD SITES.docx ;

Dear Committee Members

I am very pleased the Committee is exploring this important subject. Please find attached some thoughts for your consideration.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Kathy Kilmurry

123 124 HOW TO PRIORITISE DEVELOPMENT OF BROWNFIELD SITES

Thank you for highlighting this important issue. I would suggest rephrasing the discussion from ‘development’ to ‘sustainable development’ as that is truly what our aim must be. By continually referring to ‘sustainable development’ the message will be reinforced that the Island values the three dimensions of sustainable development – economic, social and environmental (encompassing both our natural and cultural environments). This in itself supports the principle of brownfield development as more sustainable. A shift in balance can be achieved with mechanisms including both incentives and financial costs. Sustainable development can be achieved via three routes: 1. ‘Brownfield’ developments A. Refurbishment of existing structures (which could actually be in town or countryside) B. Redevelopment of cleared town sites 2. ‘Greenfield’ developments The following incorporates work done by The Heritage Alliance (HA) in the UK which seems relevant. 1A. REFURBISHMENT There should be a major initiative to tackle empty properties. The Government can alter behaviour with financial ‘nudges’ noted by HA: ‘MPs debate new legislation to bring long-term empty homes back into use. The Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Bill which will allow councils to charge double the rate of Council Tax on homes left empty for years has been debated in Parliament. Local authorities can currently levy a 50% premium. Housing Minister Dominic Raab said: 'Owners of long-term empty homes should be incentivised to bring them back into use and that is why in 2013 we enabled councils to charge the full rate of council tax on empty properties. We have also put in place powers for local authorities to charge a council tax premium of up to 50% on homes that have been vacant for two years or more'. Measures to bring homes into use should prevent heritage assets from falling into disrepair.’ Category 1A Refurbishment initiatives seem particularly disadvantaged and more financial ‘carrots’ should be explored to encourage this sustainable reuse. In short, policies should be sympathetic to older properties. Dubbing an existing building ‘not fit for purpose’ should be challenged by examining specifically why not and what would be necessary modifications. This would be the sustainable approach. Any demolition should demonstrate the lack of sustainability of the existing structure and be coupled with a sustainable redevelopment proposal. There must be meaningful financial penalties for allowing decline to prevent the all-too-common gradual deterioration from lack of maintenance. Such maintenance and building preservation would also create jobs. Government itself must set a good example here and not hold back on repairs from revenue budgets to then create large-scale capital schemes. In the UK, the HA has highlighted for example how Government energy policy is failing older houses. ‘Multiple Heritage Alliance members including the National Trust, the Church of England, Society for Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB), Historic Houses Association (HHA), Institute of Historic Building Conservation (IHBC) and the Country Land and Business Association (CLA) have written to the Government to explain that the one-size-fits-all approach to energy efficiency fails to recognise the unique nature of heritage properties. The conservation coalition writes that current policy to address the energy efficiency of the nation’s building stock is “overly simplistic” and “designed from the perspective of modern construction and materials, ignoring fundamental building physics, such as how traditional materials and structures ‘breathe’, resulting in inappropriate and potentially damaging measures.” “We share the Government’s concern on climate change and

125 agree that energy efficiency is central to tackling it but there are substantial flaws in the policy which left unaddressed have the potential to damage homes, cause disruption in the property market and fail to achieve the Government’s energy efficiency objectives.”’ https://www.cla.org.uk/sites/default/files/CLA%20energy%20performance%20report.pdf There is also scope to revisit the structure of VAT to encourage this giving new life to pre-existing structures. Again the HA have commented to the UK Government about the UK VAT regime. The IOM regime has less differential, but this tax certainly has scope to affect behaviour.

‘Heritage Update 359 : OTS calls for review of the 0% VAT rate

The Office of Tax Simplification (OTS) has published its VAT review which offers a range of proposals for simplifying the tax. The report follows a Call for Evidence at the start of 2017, to which the Alliance submitted a detailed response, following a meeting with OTS officials. A core recommendation is that ‘HM Treasury and HMRC should undertake a comprehensive review of the reduced rate, zero-rate and exemption schedules, working with the support of the OTS’. This was a key request in our evidence which highlighted the disparate VAT treatment of new build construction which has a 0% VAT rate and the repair and maintenance of historic or other buildings which has a 20% VAT rate.’ 1B. REDEVELOPMENT OF CLEARED URBAN SITES These should also be incentivised financially as infrastructure is presumably already in place, the areas are already part of a populated community and environmental issues have presumably largely been addressed previously. These sites seem perceived as more problematic to develop and hopefully others will have more specific ideas of the constraints on such development and how these can be eased. Perhaps VAT can be used as a tool here too. However, there must be meaningful financial costs for not proceeding with developments which have had planning permission granted. 2. ‘GREENFIELD’ DEVELOPMENTS These developments permanently reduce the finite landbank of our small Island and because of that are inherently harder to demonstrate sustainability. New build on open fields might seem easier for development, but that is only because the true costs – to the Island’s economy, the community and the environment - are not taken into account. Methods must be devised to factor these in, in hard financial terms. The first impact is the way the value of the land asset instantly increases with designation for a change in use – either from an Area Plan or planning application. This uplift should be subject to a ‘windfall tax’ when a planning application is approved or a sale takes place after the re-designation. The true cost of infrastructure needs to be identified and funded as part of any development. There is a perception that developers do not contribute the full cost of drainage, roadworks, utilities, communications, expanded public transport, school, etc and such impacts on the community need to be more demonstrably considered and incorporated in the planning process. Likewise the implications of our natural and cultural heritage needs to be more rigorously assessed. Consideration of archaeological impacts in particular are much weaker in the Island than the UK, where developer-funded archaeological work is common. The impact of light pollution on our valued ‘Dark Skies’ designation needs to be explicitly assessed. Developments on higher ground and ridges have a disproportionate effect on the landscape. The cost of contributing to infrastructure and mitigation of impacts on the community and environment should ‘level the playing field’ and the windfall tax would further balance the financial scales towards brownfield sites.

126

APPENDIX 8: 9th May 2018

Submission from Mr Lawrie Hooper MHK

127

128 Archived: 23 June 2018 10:44:57 From: [Lawrie Hooper MHK] Sent: 09 May 2018 15:44:54 To: [Bill Shimmins MHK] Cc: [Jonathan King] Subject: Urban Centres Committee Importance: Normal

Dear Bill

I’m e-mailing you in your capacity as Chair of the Select Committee on Development of Unoccupied Urban Sites.

Whilst the Tynwald debate surrounding the motion to set up this Committee revolved heavily around the planning system I would like to touch on alternative ways in which developers could be incentivised or encouraged to develop unoccupied or derelict urban sites. I have not included a lot of detail here but would be happy to discuss further with the Committee should you wish.

Rates

I’ve heard suggestions of rates holidays or increasing rates on unoccupied sites as being potential measures that would encourage development. I have had recent discussions with a number of business owners and the general consensus was that these sort of arrangements would be ineffective. I don’t have any empirical evidence to support this assertion but felt I should share this anecdote with the Committee and you may wish to follow up with the Department for Enterprise to see if they have any data on the subject.

Land Development Tax Holiday

Government Development Corporation

Government itself owns a substantial land portfolio – although at present this is spread across a number of government departments and statutory bodies. Consideration should be given to placing all surplus government property, as well as any government property that is not in use by departments (i.e. property or land that is just rented out) into a single government owned development body.

The purpose of this corporation would be twofold.

Firstly it would have a role akin to that of an investment fund – to generate an acceptable financial return to Government from its land, either through rental or sale. This financial return could be measured in simple ‘cash terms’ or, as I would prefer, it could also incorporate a measure of benefit to the economy so that surplus land and properties could used to help generate employment or receipts to Treasury.

129 communities. So it makes sense that some government owned land should be used for these sorts of ‘social’ purposes and not to generate financial returns.

As part of the first objective government land and property in urban centres could be used to help jump start, incentivise and encourage development and redevelopment of our towns.

There are clear advantages to a consistent management approach for government land and property as well as taking the properties outside of departmental control (and therefore outside whatever interdepartmental politics might be at play). DfE have pioneered an Agency model and this sort of structure may be appropriate for a development body.

Deemed Income Tax

It is my view that as well as the ‘carrot’ of tax breaks / incentives to develop property there needs to also be a ‘stick’. This could be in the form of a tax on deemed income, to encourage property owners to fill or develop empty properties and not simply leave them empty.

If the reason a property is not tenanted is that it isn’t attractive to tenants then this would also encourage property owners to redevelop their properties. Care would have to be taken to ensure that the ‘market’ rate is appropriate and also that property owners couldn’t avoid or minimise the tax by allowing properties to become dilapidated, thereby reducing their prospective rental value.

I am happy to discuss some of these concepts further if they would be of interest to you

Kind regards

Lawrie

Lawrie Hooper BSC (Hons) MRES ACA MHK for Ramsey Legislative Buildings Finch Road Douglas Isle of Man IM1 3PW British Isles Office Tel | (01624)[Redacted] Office [Redacted] | www.tynwald.org.im | Privacy |

Isle of Man. Giving you freedom to flourish

130

APPENDIX 9: 12th May 2018

Submission from Mr Wilfred Tomlinson

131

132 From: wilfred tomlinson Subject: Select Committee on Development of Unoccupied Urban Sites Committee Members Date: 12 May 2018 at 11:47 To: [email protected]

For the attention of Jonathan King, Clerk to the Committee Purpose of the Committee: To investigate the options available to encourage and prioritise the development of unoccupied or previously developed urban sites ahead of building on green fields in the Manx countryside and to report its findings and recommendations by July 2018 ------

My submission illustrates an inconsistency in recommendations made by Planning Officers and the decisions of the Planning Committee when considering Planning Applications for a green field and a brownfield site.

At the meeting of the Planning Committee, 23rd April 2018, two applications 18/00197/B (green field) and PA18/00029/A (brownfield) were considered

PA18/00197/B (greenfield) Gatekeepers Cottage Douglas Road Ballasalla Isle Of Man Demolition of existing dwelling (Gatekeeper Cottage) and erection of replica building on part of Field 434107 adjacent and erection of replacement dwelling and new access drive and associated landscaping incorporating part Field 434112 and associated works to existing access lane (amendment to PA 17/01076/B)

Recommendation : Permitted

The application was referred to the Planning Committee owing to the nature of the proposals, the recent application for a similar development on the sited the proposal is a departure from the Development Plan

One of the comments of the Planning Officer is: "The proposal is clearly not in conformity with the Strategic Plan policies on housing in the countryside" The application proposed amendments to a recently approved scheme, 17/01076/B, for the erection of a dwelling and the construction of a replacement for the existing Ballawoods Gatekeeper's Cottage.

That scheme (17/01076/B) was approved (3 votes for, 2 against) by the Committee on 27th November 2017, despite the Planning Officer’s Report declaring: “The proposal does not comply with any of the Strategic Plan policies.”

Your own Committee member Mrs Hendy (then a member of the Planning Committee) voted against the scheme.

PA18/00029/A (partially brownfield) Palm Court And Jurby Garage Coast Road Jurby Isle Of Man IM7 3ET Approval in principle for the residential development of site including siting, design and means of access

Recommendation : Refused

It was referred to the Planning Committee as it has the potential to result in a development of 8 or more residential units.

133 The Planning Officers Report states "The former Jurby garage site is considered to be previously developed land; therefore a proposal for the clearance of this site and the two new dwellings would make good use of resources by optimising the use of previously developed and under-used land, as per Strategic Policy 1” Jurby Parish Commissioners commented that they approve of the proposed development in principle; however they have requested that a condition be included to seek the demolition of buildings, the clearance of the site and removal of all vehicles currently parked/stored on the site as well as preventing them in the future. The Clerk addressed the Planning Committee about the site being local eyesore. The Committee rejected the Application

Public opinion is critical of such inconsistencies in the Planning System.

I welcome and support the sentiments of the Chair of this Select Committee which he expressed, on April 17th, in Tynwald

W R Tomlinson

134

APPENDIX 10: 17th May 2018

Submission from Mr Peter Horsthuis

135

136 Paper for Discussion at Douglas Regeneration Committee The Future of the Office Market in/around Douglas

introduction

1.1 There has been discussion at Douglas Regeneration Committee over a call to Government to introduce a "Policy of Protectionism" for Douglas Town Centre that would prevent office accommodation being provided outside Douglas Town Centre. I have serious concerns on the extremely harmful effects of such a policy on the future Island Economy, hence this personal paper.

1.2 On the contrary the Island should embrace choice to maximise growth of office based jobs. For many businesses looking to set up or expand on the island, it is not a choice of out of town or in town. It is a choice of out of town or no investment at all. Businesses like Pokerstars, RL360, Canada Life, First Names and many others could not have been accommodated in Douglas Town Centre and the jobs would have been lost if a protectionist policy had been pursued. The Island should be planning for success of our office based businesses and growth, not failure of this sector to grow.

Research and Data

1.3 GL Hearn, a UK based economic consultancy team, along with Black Grace Cowley, were recently commissioned to undertake an assessment of the need for future employment land on the Isle of Man. Amongst the outputs of the study was some insightful information on the office market and its importance to the Island's Economy.

1.4 The study confirmed that the office-based sector is the most important employment sector to the Isle of Man Economy. The focus has historically been in the following sectors:

- Insurance, banking, finance and business services; and

- Professional, educational, medical and scientific services.

1.5 In 2016 these sectors respectively accounted for 24% and 23% of total employment on the Island. They have seen strong continuous growth over the past 40 years and the most recent evidence shows strong recent performance in the new emerging sectors of e-gaming and e- commerce, as well as insurance.

1.6 The report confirms that Douglas and the East is the core location for the office sector and indeed shows that 85% of future demand for offices on the Island will be focussed in the East region. The GL Hearn study estimates that over the 20 year period 2014 - 2034 the office requirement for the east of the Island will amount to some 94,000 sq.m (1 million sq.ft). Existing supply is just under 50% of this figure so the 'supply gap' is some 52,000 sq.m (538,000 sq.ft).

1.7 Vacant sites in Douglas only have capacity to accommodate about 10% of the gap identified between the demand and supply of space. The remainder of demand will need to go somewhere else. Failure to provide for this need would fundamentally damage the Isle of Man's future economic growth. It is absolutely critical the Island's economy is given every opportunity

137 Paper for Discussion at Douglas Regeneration Committee The Future of the Office Market in/around Douglas

to grow in order to address the structural deficit, particularly with the fiscal challenges ahead with funding of pensions and government capital expenditure.

1.8 The report also provides commentary on the current office market in Douglas which is failing to keep up with modern business requirements. It finds that there is a significant gap between the quality of available space and business needs. A considerable proportion of the office stock in the town centre is refurbished Victorian stock of poor quality and unsuitable for modern occupier requirements. Much of the stock has shared access/entrances, bad neighbour issues, and split level facilities. Much of the stock also lacks any car parking and lack of general town centre parking in Douglas is also a key problem. Douglas town centre suffers from traffic congestion at peak times. All these factors have resulted in a considerable proportion of available space being difficult to let and resulting in long-term vacancies.

1.9 Further to this, the market is not strong enough to viably support comprehensive redevelopment of existing premises for continued office use. Prime rental values are £24 psf but most asking rents are generally lower at around the £20-22 psf range. This level of value is not enough to support comprehensive office redevelopment of sites in the Town Centre which comes with a considerable premium.

1.10 It has been noted that a large proportion of leases have come up for renewal in recent years which has revealed that the demand from traditional financial service sectors (as opposed to the emerging sectors of e-business) is no longer as strong as it has been previously, and that occupier requirements have changed. This has meant that banking and financial businesses are less willing to take premises which are dated or suboptimal to requirements in order to remain in Douglas, and so businesses have looked elsewhere, evidenced by the relocation of the likes of Manx Utilities, Manx Telecom, Canada Life, Zurich and Scottish Provident to the Isle of Man Business Park have taken office headquarter premises there. There are a number of key factors attracting businesses to this location including the modem purpose built accommodation in a spacious environment, on site car parking and accessibility to the airport.

Conflicts of Interest

1.11 It is important that I declare my conflicts of interest. My family has an interest in land to the south of Cooil Road which has been put forward for consideration to the Eastern Area Plan as employment land. However, perhaps of greater economic value is the family's investments in Douglas Town Centre — Jubilee Buildings, 26-30 Strand Street (New Look, Holland & Barrett) and 48 Strand Street (W H Smith). I believe my opinion on this issue is both fair and balanced.

1.12 If this issue is to be considered by Government, a wider representation is required to ensure an appropriate representation of views. In particular, the views of our experienced commercial agents is required to greater understand the Isle of Man office market and the dynamics which drive office choice (or worse a choice not to locate or grow on-island!).

138 Paper for Discussion at Douglas Regeneration Committee The Future of the Office Market in/around Douglas

The Way Forward and Conclusion

1.13 From the above research and evidence, two points are clear:

The need for office accommodation outstrips supply in Douglas;

The existing supply is in any event of poor quality and failing to meet business needs.

1.14 The environment of Douglas Town Centre should continue to be improved, including the environment for offices (suitable buildings, car parking, and infrastructure) to make Douglas Town Centre as attractive as possible for a business location. For many companies, it will be first choice in view of the range of on-town facilities and neighbouring businesses. However it would be counter-productive for Douglas and contrary to the national economic interest if companies were not allowed a choice on location of offices, in-town or on a business park.

1.15 Many of the vacant office premises are unsuitable for modem offices and an alternative use should be encourage. A few of the vacant offices were formerly Victorian residential and have been converted into offices when the needs of office users were different. The Douglas Regeneration Committee should be encouraging ideas for regeneration of these buildings. More residential and leisure usage would stimulate the vitality and viability of Douglas Town Centre which in turn encourages more visits to the Town Centre. I intend to submit a separate paper with my views on this issue.

Peter Horsthuis Douglas Regeneration Committee Member 26 April 2018

139 140 Paper for Discussion at Douglas Regeneration Committee

Regeneration of "Inner Douglas"

1. Introduction

1.1 "Inner Douglas", perhaps identified loosely as the area from Prospect Terrace to South Quay, continues to be in need of further investment and regeneration. This paper is supplemental to my discussion paper on "The Future of the Office Market in/around Douglas".

1.2 GL Hearn, a UK based economic consultancy team, along with Black Grace Cowley, recently undertook an assessment of the need for future employment land on the Isle of Man. Amongst the outputs of the study was some insightful information on the current levels of office vacancies in Douglas Town Centre, and the reasons for this.

1.3 The report notes that the current office market in Douglas is failing to keep up with modern business requirements. It finds that there is a significant gap between the quality of available space and business needs. A considerable proportion of the office stock within Inner Douglas is refurbished Victorian stock of poor quality and unsuitable for modern occupier requirements. Much of the stock has shared access/entrances, bad neighbour issues, and split level facilities and a lack of car parking. This has resulted in a considerable proportion of available space being difficult to let and resulting in long-term vacancies. Further to this the market is not strong enough to viably support comprehensive redevelopment of existing premises for continued office use.

1.4 Given the above reality, this paper attempts to take forward GL Hearn's view was that Government should explore approaches to support and stimulate alternative uses within Inner Douglas. Such alternative uses could ensure the current large quantum of office stock is brought back into active use as well as significant improvement of other inferior buildings and vacant sites. With a particular focus on young people, alternate uses could include:

• Increase significantly residential occupancy • Enhance and expand leisure/community facilities • Create university style educational facilities with associated student accommodation

2. Overall Target Objectives for Regeneration of Inner Douglas

2.1 To overcome the many challenges, including funding, there needs to be a clear consensus between Government and all key stakeholders over regeneration targets to be achieved and timescales. There can be no quick fix and timescale expectations have to be realistic.

2.2 A starting point could be the drawing up of a revised and much wider regeneration area map for Inner Douglas. As suggested above, this could designate land between Prospect Terrace and South Quay. This area, much

141 Paper for Discussion at Douglas Regeneration Committee

Regeneration of "Inner Douglas"

wider than the currently designated regeneration zone, would include all the refurbished Victorian office stock which is currently vacant together with many other properties which are below modern acceptable standards.

2.3 The February Cabinet Office white paper on "Meeting our Population Challenges" presents dire demographics for the Island, and particularly with our current and forecast lack of young people. There is a risk that the demographic challenges identified in the white paper could translate into major economic challenges for the Island and a break down in our ability to finance future pensions, health, social services and other needed Government expenditure. The regeneration of Inner Douglas represents an opportunity to address the worrying demographic of lack of young people clearly identified in the white paper. A specific objective of any regeneration project could be for Inner Douglas to become significantly more cosmopolitan, young, vibrant and consequently attractive for investment and commitment by young people.

2.4 The importance of succeeding with the regeneration of Inner Douglas is of national interest. Douglas is the business and economic capital of the Island and should be the leisure capital. As such, it should attract major government funding to succeed in improving the attractiveness of the Inner Douglas regeneration area.

2.5 Other than retail, it would be against the national interest to implement protectionist measures in an attempt to stimulate an area by restricting investment in more attractive locations. Ultimately protectionist measures are a market distortion and tend to fail in a true market economy where individual and corporate decisions are driven by positive choice. Choices should be influenced positively by financial and other incentives to improve the environment within a target area. It would be an error for Government to influence the market by attempting to restrict choice leading to artificial scarcity, loss of efficiency, medium and long-term costs and ultimate damage to the economy through negative multiplier effects. There is always a choice - and we need to ensure the choice for businesses and individuals is the positive choice to invest. The alternative negative choice is for businesses and individuals to leave the Island or fail to move to the Island.

2.6 The failure to date of planners to follow the economics of business centralisation and agglomeration economics has led to disproportionate allocation of residential development in other towns and villages which only adds to the traffic congestion into and out of Douglas at peak hours. The return of residential to the Inner Douglas regeneration area presents an opportunity to address this failure.

142 Paper for Discussion at Douglas Regeneration Committee

Regeneration of "Inner Douglas"

3. Viable Use of Buildings within Inner Douglas

3.1 My view is that the most viable use for many buildings would be for the following uses, subjectively ranked in terms of their relative importance to improving the vitality and viability of Inner Douglas:

• Residential, with a particular focus on young people • Leisure • Student facilities • Offices

Each of the above is discussed in more detail below together with suggestions for Government incentives to achieve success in the regeneration objectives for the area.

Residential, with a particular focus on young people

3.2 Residential use is comfortably the most viable use for buildings within Inner Douglas, which in many cases was the original use of such buildings. Residential conversion or redevelopment can not only secure regeneration of the land or building, but also brings with it improved vitality and viability to the retail core and support for the evening economy. This phenomenon has been seen across the UK for example in Cities like Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester and even London.

3.3 The regeneration of towns and cities inevitably takes time and strong leadership. The transformation of Cities like Manchester and Birmingham has for example taken 3 decades. But in these case housing led regeneration has been the cornerstone of the strategy, as has the use of compulsory purchase powers.

3.4 A clear vision will be required for the future of the wider regeneration area to excite interest, thereby stimulating the investment and commitment of new residents, particularly young people. Central to this is a sense of community and a vibrant leisure scene.

3.5 The problem is exacerbated by "Inner Douglas" losing population over many years. In the period last 5-year Census period' 2011-2016 the population of Douglas fell by 3.5%, significantly more in number than any other town or village on the Island. Housing led regeneration presents an opportunity to reverse this trend.

1- 2015 Isle of Man Census Report, Economic Affairs Division

143 Paper for Discussion at Douglas Regeneration Committee

Regeneration of "Inner Douglas"

3.6 Transport is critical as we encourage Inner Douglas residents to move away from cars. These residents will be well-placed for public transport as the bus network (hopefully expanded) naturally radiates out the town centre across the Island. However this should be supplemented with an improved cycling environment and infrastructure. Electric bikes flatten the hilly nature of Douglas and we should strive for the same bike usage as cities such as Bristol which is on target for 20% of commuters cycling to work (recently voted best City to live and work in the UK). Inner Douglas can copy the public bicycle docking schemes which work successfully in other towns and cities and prepare for such bikes to inevitably switch to electric in the future.

3.7 Additional car parking for new residents will also be required, although perhaps not in the future in current ratios with changing modes of transport. Imaginative Govemment schemes could make a difference with perhaps purchase of appropriate sites throughout Inner Douglas for conversion to small multi-storey car parks. A specified allocation of cars spaces for reduced rent could be offered to developers to allocate to tenants or freeholders of new residential developments. Particular incentives could be offered to developers who propose apartment service charge arrangements which incorporate a building "car sharing club" (which perhaps could be small electric cars).

3.8 Affordability of housing is often an issue with young people. Shared equity schemes (perhaps with Government or Douglas Council) and shared ownership schemes (with housing associations) could be encouraged and incentivised with the regeneration zone. Isle of Man legislation could be reviewed and changes made as required to assist young people into the housing market within Inner Douglas.

3.9 Schedule 1 sets out a menu of possible incentives to encourage and stimulate suitable residential development within Inner Douglas.

3.10 A wide range of leisure uses are essential for the vibrancy and vitality of Inner Douglas, again with a particular focus on the desires of young people. Inner Douglas scores well for access to sports and sporting facilities, so the focus should be on improving the range of evening and weekend leisure activities.

3.11 The provision of greater leisure venues such as night clubs, live music venues and bowling alleys could be stimulated by financial incentives.

3.12 Government could be more proactive in use of compulsory purchase powers to acquire key leisure sites within Douglas Town Centre. Compulsory purchase legislation should be reviewed as its lack of use strongly indicates the current legislation is not fit-for-purpose.

144 Paper for Discussion at Douglas Regeneration Committee

Regeneration of "Inner Douglas"

3.13 The provision of a wider range of cafes and restaurants would be greatly stimulated by a reduced or zero rate of VAT. This sector of the domestic economy is struggling and only marginally profitable, hence the frequent closures. Many employees are on minimum wage and zero hours contracts which is all the operators can afford to pay. A reduction of VAT would be a great boost to this sector of the economy and assist with the wider provision of facilities.

3.14 A particular issue for the Island is a tendency to only eat out at weekends. A reduction in prices arising from a reduction in VAT would also assist with encouraging individuals to also go out earlier in the week which would help the viability of the businesses.

University/Student facilities

3.15 The environment of Inner Douglas could be transformed if young adult educational establishments and student accommodation could be encouraged to establish in the regeneration zone. Students have played a key role in the improvement of many UK city centres.

3.16 The economic benefits of attracting students to study on the Isle of Man are well stated in the chapter on Emigration of Young Adults within the recent Cabinet Office white paper2 - "Many universities provide significant benefits to host areas, as highlighted by Oxford Economics3 who conducted a study into the value of universities to the UK economy. Most notably they stated that universities have a gross value added multiplier of 2.17 (for every pound of gross value added, £1.17 is supported elsewhere in the economy) and an employment multiplier of 2.07 (for every 100 jobs, 107 are supported in other industries)."

3.17 The economic multipliers identified by Oxford Economics are based on UK universities providing educational facilities to UK students. The economic benefits are even greater for international students studying in the UK which would be the appropriate categorisation if the Isle of Man was able to attract UK students to study on-Island. Oxford Economics calculated for 2014-15 that EU students studying in the UK generated £42,000 in gross output economy and students from outside the UK generated £66,000 in gross output for the UK.

3.18 More difficult to quantify is the boost to an economy's productive capacity from graduating students and their potential to boost the stock of human capital. However this represents a significant opportunity for the Island with post-graduation retention of students, particularly if the fields of study were

2 Meeting our Population Challenges, Isle of Man Cabinet Office, Feb 2011 3 The Economic Impact of Universities in 2014-15, Oxford Economics

145 Paper for Discussion at Douglas Regeneration Committee

Regeneration of "Inner Douglas"

focussed on specialisations most relevant to the Island such as finance, technology and hospitality studies.

3.19 If the Isle of Man was able to provide UK and international students with university degrees or similar, there is an economic argument worthy of exploration that the boost to the economy is such that Government should not need to charge tuition fees. This would be a unique selling point for many English and Welsh students with many graduates potentially facing a lifetime of debt. The mood swing amongst young people was very clear at the last UK election with Jeremy Corbyn's pledge to scrap tuition fees encouraging many student voters to turn out in their droves to vote for Labour.

3.20 A number of the currently vacant office buildings would be very suitable for conversion to university or teaching faculties in the very heart of the town. Equally certain office buildings are suitable for conversion to student flats and halls of residence which are of similar structure.

Offices

3.21 For many businesses Douglas Town Centre will be the first choice. As the capital town Douglas provides a wide range of in-town facilities and complementary neighbouring businesses and advisers. However the environment for offices is challenging with a shortage of car parking. Government or Douglas Corporation will need to provide additional multi- storey town centre car parking if current office occupancy were to increase.

3.22 Converting existing vacant offices to alternate uses will reduce the current surplus of existing office space which is currently depressing office rents. The office market will naturally readjust and economics dictates that a reduction in supply will assist the office rental market to achieve realistic rental levels which allow for comprehensive redevelopment of sites. In spite of the current surplus of long term vacant offices, commercial agents are reporting a shortage of new offices with large floor areas constructed to modern business requirements.

3.23 Office use will continue to be an important for Inner Douglas. However Douglas has seen a disproportionate fall in population with its remaining population increasingly moving away of Inner Douglas to suburban housing estates. This relocation of housing has impacted Inner Douglas which is evidenced by traffic congestion at peak times. Office workers are not big spenders in the area around their offices during their work hours preferring to spend during their leisure hours. For this reason, I would rank offices as lower than residential, leisure and student facilities in terms of priority for regenerating Inner Douglas.

146 Paper for Discussion at Douglas Regeneration Committee Regeneration of "Inner Douglas"

4. Conclusion

4.1 The importance with succeeding with Inner Douglas regeneration is a national issue with Douglas being the economic capital of the Island. All visitors, both business and tourism, will visit Douglas which is key to their impression of the Island. Douglas regeneration should attract major government funding with a focus on young people.

4.2 This issue is too important for decisions to be taken based on individual points of view. Research is required to assist with Government taking the correct, evidence-based decisions.

4.3 A number of Working Groups of key stakeholders could be established to review the issues in detail and consider incentives to encourage residential, leisure and student development.

4.4 Measures could include financial support such as tax holidays, grants, rates reductions, reduced tax on rental income, as well as encouragement through the planning system. One example used in England to address empty office stock has been to allow change of use from office to residential without planning permission. A suite of complementary measures like this could be introduced to stimulate investment.

Peter Horsthuis Douglas Regeneration Committee Member 8 May 2018

147 Paper for Discussion at Douglas Regeneration Committee Regeneration of "Inner Douglas" Schedule 1 — Potential Incentives to Stimulate Investment

Residential Leicure Student offices

Financial incentives (Developer) Grant assistance towards construction Grant assistance towards new Government within zone construction or conversions construction/conversion to provide teaching faculties Tax holiday on development profits Reduced/zero rate of VAT for catering establishments Grant assistance towards Tax holiday on rents arising following constructing student new construction of apartments within accommodation zone Tax holiday on student rents within regeneration zone

Financial Incentives Rates reduction for new (Regeneration Zone New build/conversions within regeneration Residents) zone

Shared equity scheme with Government of Douglas Council

Share ownership scheme with housing association

Legislative changes to make financial assistance to first time buyers easier

Environmental Improvements Government construction of small Government/Council purchase of Public bike docking schemes (in GovernmenVCouncll multistorey car parks within land within Inner Douglas to time electric) construction of further multi- regeneration zone with subsidised create green space storey car parking allocation of spaces to new apartments Compulsory purchase of key Public bike docking schemes (in time leisure sites electric)

148 Paper for Discussion at Douglas Regeneration Committee Regeneration of "Inner Douglas" Schedule 1 — Potential Incentives to Stimulate Investment

ResiS Leisure Students Offices

Other Grant assistance to car sharing clubs Permitted development for within regeneration zone planning to convert offices to educational use or student Permitted development for planning to accommodation convert offices to residential

149 150

APPENDIX 11: 17th May 2018

Submission from Mr John Horsthuis

151

152

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the “development of Brownfield sites ahead of Greenfield sites”. I write these comments with three suggestions.

I fully recognize my comments mostly relate to Douglas and the Eastern Area.

 Firstly, whilst supporting the urgent development of Brownfield sites, care should be taken not to restrict development on justifiable Greenfield sites where the need is critical and thereby restrict much needed growth in the economy.

 Secondly, Government should give immediate consideration on penalising the owners of brownfield sites who leave them undeveloped or as a car park or in a land bank.

 Finally, I urge Government to widen the horizon on the future development of Douglas away from office and retail development and actively promote living in the Town Centre and if possible create educational uses within the centre whereby students could play a role in the nighttime economy. As an aside, government should consider the possibility of encouraging a Hospitality and Tourism College.

I would urge that Brownfield sites within Douglas should be redeveloped primarily for Residential.

Firstly my background, I grew up living above the shop in Strand Street for the first 24 years of my life at a time when there were many people living in the centre of Douglas. Our playgrounds were the promenade, the beach and Nobles Park. We went to the cinema, swimming pool, snooker hall which were nearby and this opportunity for local amenities could still be there today.

There were Doctors, Dentists, Primary Schools and Community Halls nearby and within walking distance.

We often made journeys by bus or car to towns outside Douglas. Naturally, this still happens today and is a car or bus journey wherever you live.

People who lived in the town centre, my parents and other town dwellers, shopped daily and in the vicinity creating a local sustainable economy for butchers, bakers, newsagents cafes etc. There was indeed a thriving Town Centre.

I am sure as you are no doubt aware, there is again a strong trend to buying more often in convenience shops, buying local and a movement away from the bulk buy.

Our quality of life was excellent and living locally meant there were less Car journeys to school or work and less need for bulk shopping.

This movement to living in the Centre and redeveloping the Centre is being encouraged successfully in the UK .

Robinson’s Limited Ballapaddag ◦ Cooil Road ◦ Braddan ◦ Isle of Man IM4 2AF E-Mail [email protected] Website www.robinsons.im Chairman: JE Horsthuis BSc ◦ Managing Director: JC Williamson ◦ A Horsthuis BSc ◦ NG O’Reilly ◦ MJ Mathieson-Nelson ◦ R Williamson VAT Reg No 000 0641 59 153

Indeed, we can learn from others centre’s where there exists employment opportunities shared with in town living.

I have attached a link to the Executive Summary for the Redevelopment of Belfast which strongly features attracting more people to live and work in the centre, and suggests the central area is most suitable for smaller incubator business’s and many other relevant topics from which we are able to learn. http://www.belfastcity.gov.uk/buildingcontrolenvironment/regeneration/Regenerationandinvestme ntplan.aspx

I would ask you to note Belfast took a 20 to 30 year view on this project and realistically Douglas should take a 10 to 15 year view and not see the proposal as a quick fix.

Today Douglas has lost its lifeblood and yet the opportunity to reinvigorate the town Centre has ever been greater.

Summerland, the Lord Street Site, the CastleMona, the AXA site have all laid derelict for years, and now there is an opportunity with the Chester Street and the Royal Bank of Scotland sites.

To force business to settle in the Town Centre will be self-defeating. Traffic, car parking, an empty night time economy, lack of leisure facilities and most importantly a lack of investment will continue.

These brownfield sites should be developed by bringing people young and old back into the Centre.

We should create a community who live and work nearby.

Yes there should also be offices because many young would love to live within walking distance of work, which is where there are easily accessible amenities if they were living nearby.

No tiresome car journeys, no problems parking, and no need to avoid peak hours and significant cost of living savings.

The older retired community would not have far to walk to shops ,cafes and live in an area teeming with vitality and live with young people and people their own age and with similar circumstances which will reduce loneliness and isolation

There might also be the easy opportunity for part time employment.

My personal comments to you are driven not from a business point of view but from a genuine belief that this is the way forward. Since writing this independantly, I have read my brother’s submission and believe attention should be paid to the evidence included in that submission.

Brownfield sites should be developed for the right uses and not at the exclusion of the requirement for sites that might be more suitable to attract business even if such sites were greenfield. We have between 500,000sq ft. and 380,000sq ft. of vacant office spaces within the centre. A great deal of this office space was created from buildings people lived in and a policy to encourage the conversion back to living space would help create a new balanced future for modern living in a prosperous Douglas.

At this point I should declare my interests.

My family owns half the Eden Park Development on the Cooil Road. I ask you to please balance this with our ownership of WH Smith, Holland and Barratt, New Look and 4 parcels of land at Hills Meadow and the large award winning office site Jubilee Buildings.

As Robinson’s, we were the first business in 1980s to redevelop our Strand Street site for a UK multiple when there were 23 empty shops in the Main Street. These empty shops were owned in landbanks owned by off island interests.

We moved because the demand for local shopping was changing as people moved out and there was a total lack of investment in the Town Centre.

My personal comments to your committee are that certainly develop Brownfield sites as a priority but for the right uses and do not try and reinvent an economy that has moved on.

Please do not be persuaded that Brownfield should be mostly only for Retail and Offices and exclude consideration that there is a need for a degree of greenfield development to encourage the growth and investment the Island needs.

There is still a critical need to allow business to situate where they are most efficient, in the right premises with easy access, easy car parking. Many of the offices and businesses on the Island are mobile and will move if they have not suitable sites.

More importantly many existing MANX based businesses are growing off Island because of work permits (which is being addressed) and premises that are unsuitable for growth.

The simple facts are that if we as an Island do not give business what they need they will go elsewhere.

I have sat on the Chamber of Commerce Council for probably 30 years and been Chairman of the Retail Committee for possibly 10 years and also a Director of Douglas Development Partnership for 10 or more years.

I now recognise the needs of Retail have changed and the challenges to traditional retail with the arrival of the internet, in particular, have never been greater.

The arguments I supported as Chairman of Retail, although still partly relevant now require flexibility taking account of the proposed use and the size of our local market.

In particular care should be taken that one major retailer cannot destroy the critical mass of all others to compete in whichever industry that may be. Serious consideration should be given to the question of whether our shopping areas are too big and clumsy and better uses could be made of sections of those areas.

Retailing has changed forever. The major shopping centres in the North are only a flight or boat journey away. Even more threatening easy shopping is only a “click away”.

Your committee should quite rightly pressurise for brownfield sites in Douglas to be redeveloped for the right reasons and future uses in particular encouraging old and young to live within central Douglas.

I am sure you all recognise this argument but positive action, encouragement by all available incentives and increasing the cost of leaving a site derelict should be considered.

Restrictions by forcing investment into unsuitable areas never has worked and will not in the future and could threaten future opportunity for local companies to grow and change and for the Island to attract new companies

There never was room in the Town Centre for Isle of Man Breweries, Graylaw, TDL, Robinsons, Agrimark , G4S, Douglas Corporationto name a few to have their logistics base. There never was the modern office facilities for Manx Telecom, Skandia, Royal London, Poker Stars.

Was there the room for B&Q, B&B, Tynwald Mills, Lifestyle Furniture , Cubbon and Bregazzi to name a few to be in the Town Centre?

Imagine the chaos on the roads, the parking issues the access issues if not part of a major long term masterplan which would take optimistically 15 to 20 years to implement. The Island simply cannot stand still. Many of these companies would not have grown or would simply not be on the Island.

Slightly tongue in cheek, two possible proactive suggestions.

 Could the Government buy Tynwald Mills and put it on the AXA site with car parking above?

 Could the Castle Mona be bought and a partner found to build a good hotel with restaurant, gym swimming pool which could be shared with apartments aimed at over 50s, who shop below and in the town and enjoy the company of others and the promenade facilities?

My major comment is yes encourage, incentivize the development of “Brownfield sites” and penalize those who landbank such sites, but do not restrict the opportunities for growth in other areas.

Douglas could and should be a major Town where it is a pleasure to live and work with a largely self- sustaining economy.

John Horsthuis Chairman Robinson’s Fresh Foods Ballapaddag Cooil Road Braddan Isle of Man IM4 2AF Telephone: Landline 01624 690020

APPENDIX 12: 2nd June 2018

Submission from Mr Bill Henderson MLC

159

160 Evidence Paper to the Tynwald Select Committee Development of Unoccupied or Previously Developed Urban Sites Ahead of Building on Green Fields

By R. W. Henderson, MLC May, 2018

Following the successful motion by Mr. Shimmins, MHK, on the use of brown field sites before committing development to new, green field sites and the formulation of a Tynwald Select Committee to look into these matters: The Committee placed the following media release –

On 17th April 2018 Tynwald appointed a Select Committee to investigate the options available to encourage and prioritise the development of unoccupied or previously developed urban sites ahead of building on green fields in the Manx countryside, and to report its findings and recommendations by July 2018.

The Committee would like to invite written submissions from anyone who would like to comment on this issue. Please note that Committees may publish evidence. Submissions should be sent by Wednesday 9th May to the address below. Email is preferred but hard copy is equally acceptable.

The Members elected to the Committee are Mrs Marlene Hendy MLC, Mr Chris Robertshaw MHK, and Mr Bill Shimmins MHK. The Committee has elected Mr Shimmins as its Chair.

For further information contact:

Jonathan King

Deputy Clerk of Tynwald

Legislative Buildings, Douglas, IM1 3PW Tel: (01624) 686303 Email: [email protected]

I would like to respond to this request as laid out below in this paper – which is in note format.

Firstly I will illustrate some of the vacant, empty plots or derelict buildings around our capital – brownfield sites which have been vacant or derelict in some cases for I would guess decades in Douglas. These undoubtedly helped in generating the Chairman’s interest and concerns –

161 The Castle Mona Hotel

Summerland Site

Imperial Hotel – Queens Promenade

162 Howstrake Holiday Camp Site, King Edward Road, Onchan

Property and land in front of Manx Radio Building, Douglas Head

Quayles Garage, Peel Road, Douglas – adjacent to the Brown Bobby Petrol Station

163 Lake Road, various sites – opposite Tesco, Douglas

Property at Bridge Road, North Quay, Douglas

Property across Bridge Road and to the South, on South Quay, almost directly opposite the roundabout

164 Circular Road

Villiers Site, Loch Promenade, Douglas

These are some of the more well known ‘eye sore sites’ within the capital and main business / industry / commercial sector of the Isle of Man. There are many others, many being empty properties which I think adequately illustrate concerns; empty / vacant for a long, long time and a blight on our town. I am highlighting Douglas as this is where I live and being a former Douglas constituency MHK. Other towns and villages around the Island will have no doubt similar examples. All these illustrations are either in Government or private ownership and ideal locations for ‘brownfield development.’

I fully support Mr. Shimmins initiative on this and that brownfield sites should be developed first, ahead of any ‘green field site development’ as far as practicable. This should be reflected in planning policy – a critical area that has the fundamental, key influence and positive effect to any

165 development and in respect of the ‘brownfield issue’. Planning permission for greenfield sites should be conditional on there being no suitable brown field land available – again which should be reflected in government planning policy. A request for planning approval to develop on a greenfield site should carry a weighting mechanism embedded within any planning policy to reflect the availability of brownfield sites. In other words, in basic terms if an application for development on a greenfield site ‘scores low’ then it will not receive approval if it is measured against a series of indicators or criteria.

Much of the IOM planning policy in the past has been based on UK National Planning Standards and professionally / officer driven in determining what is good policy for the Isle of Man. This being coupled with public consultation. Area plans then being ratified by Tynwald, or planning law approved through the branches of Tynwald (1999 Town and Country Planning Act as an example). This has had the effect of setting in stone a seemingly inflexible system that directs what is approved and what is rejected by way of any development. A set of national strategic government policy initiatives which sit above planning policy and any Acts – but have the effect of shaping and informing planning policy and any legislation are required. We certainly require national policy on how we address the length of time brownfield sites and empty properties are being left empty and vacant.

Nearly all planning processes and procedures are driven from the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act and subsequent amending development orders. I feel this Act requires full revision as it is nearly twenty years old. What was pertinent and relevant in 1999 has changed considerably over time since then. Community, Economic and environmental factors are entirely different in 2018 compared to 1999. In my view a rigid, inflexible enforcement of outdated planning policies based on an outdated Act being applied to a completely changed socio-economic landscape is now inappropriate and having negative consequences - hindering the kinds of development we need – such as prioritising brownfield development and far (than we have been doing) more environmentally sensitive approaches respecting our Biosphere status and natural heritage.

Further to that, empty properties, or vacant plots of land that have been cleared of buildings or cleared of whatever any previous uses were, should attract a sliding scale of penalties going forward with every year they are left vacant or unused. Unless it can be shown that there is a definite, time bounded real intention to develop them. Further to that, land and property owners who fall under this category – including Government should in the first instance be compelled to tidy sites up, board them if necessary and paint the exteriors / perimeter screening so the ‘eye sore’ effect is diminished or extinguished. This requires amended Building Control legislation and should attract penalties if not adhered to. Should government be in the business of buying some of these plots for a strategic development land bank? To be released at appropriate times for realistic property development?

I feel very strongly that Local Authorities should be given greater powers to bring land / property owners ‘to book’ in cases where they have dilapidated or derelict land or properties leaving them in a ‘ruinous / derelict state for extended periods of time. I know we did ‘beef up’ some powers for

166 Local Authorities in this regard in the recent past, but I think we need to consult with the LA’s, especially Douglas as to how effective the current Act and regulations are and do we need to change them further1. Douglas Corporation have been complaining for years that because of the ineffective regulations they have at their disposal, it is very hard to bring a property or land owner to court in relation to something like this. Stronger regulations may provide the ‘incentive’ to free up / sell or regenerate the effected property or land and more quickly.

There is a need to examine why properties / land / plots of land / derelict land are being left vacant. I can see why say, in the instance of Lake Road, Douglas – where old buildings have been cleared and the vacant land has been turned into very profitable car parks. Yes that is entrepreneurial, or a move by the land owner to make money until and when they decide to sell the land or develop it (car parking issues are discussed further on). Why are such plots of ‘derelict land’ being left for so long? Are there ways to encourage regeneration here? We need development, not car parks. I also understand about private developers ‘land banking,’ waiting for the right time, waiting for the advent of area plans etc., but in the meantime how many years will this take? To me ‘sitting on your investment’ for years is not the right way forward for a Town, its regeneration and to ‘keep it healthy.’ It is land that could be used sooner, land that need not be an eye sore. Again – are there ways of entering into negotiations with land or property owners in these circumstances to see if there is a quicker way forward, or initiatives which could produce a resolution. Could planning be made to be more flexible here, under these circumstances – where planning policy is informed by strategic government objectives? Should our towns and villages be held hostage to fortune in these circumstances? Or should in fact there be new legislation / planning regulations / building control regulations which could modify or change this investment behaviour?

Should private developers / investors be allowed to dictate national strategic policy as to how our towns look and development occurs? Or should we have a set of government national strategic polices which drive the direction of our towns development for the greater good of our community?

It is usually cheaper to develop on greenfield sites as there are no preparatory works required as is usually the case with brownfield sites. Government by way of a range of initiatives could introduce as but one - grant schemes to encourage brownfield development – especially for the clearance of such land or buildings, making it safe and or associated groundworks, clearing of any hazardous substances or debris to be included in such schemes; works that would not be required on a greenfield site.

If a site is viewed as too cramped by developers, not enough room for future expansion, traffic issues, then we need to address that as well – looking for ‘ niche developers’ or grants /schemes to make a specific area attractive or effective for redevelopment, or a completely different idea that would work. I cite Micro Gaming on circular road and the Premier Inn development at the back of Marks and Spencer’s being excellent examples of how to achieve this. Or specific planning regulations / policies constructed to apply to brownfield sites. This could allow certain flexibilities for brown field site development (such as dropping of certain planning conditions – number of required car parking spaces as one example) as incentives just to get the development going, where other

167 wise it may not receive planning permission. Or to allow for further site arrangement, relaxing of certain regulations or rules (Building Control Regulations for example) to allow for the development – within reason, but say to recognise the site is cramped and may need enlarging – for example - access or some car parking.

There is one certainty from a Douglas point of view that these vacant, derelict plots or vacant and derelict properties are a blight on the town, and bring the whole environment down. Douglas is the gateway to the Island and our capital. Dereliction does not look good, especially when it is in the heart of the business and industry hub – it sends out the completely wrong message. Particularly when the Town Centre is ‘dying’ as identified recently by Leading Douglas Councillor David Christian. Why would anyone want to live next to an eyesore if they don’t have to, or develop a business? The illustrations I have provided of brownfield sites ( although not definitive) represent huge tracts of land within the capital and surrounds could provide a large percentage of current development need. And provide much needed development opportunities – and regeneration of the Town.

I feel there are boundless opportunities within our capital to develop brownfield sites. I recommend a Government / Private Sector Partnership be set up to examine brownfield development in detail with a remit to produce workable development ideas and strategies. It will also mean there has to be Government Strategic Policy on this to direct planning and other associated matters that would cause more use, speeded up use and freeing up of brownfield sites. We can see the UK Government policy below in the attached references which lays down specific targets in % terms as to how much development will be on brownfield sites. We should be aiming for such a policy ourselves. The UK brown field strategies could be converted for use in any new IOM Government Policy reinforcing the use of brownfield sites. A further incentive could be that the use of greenfield sites should attract a penalty / premium levied on developers to encourage more development or use of brownfield sites.

Car parking / traffic congestion / use of vehicles in towns - this must be acknowledged as an issue, certainly for Douglas – a separate but associated topic. There is an increasing need to provide proper park and ride schemes that have full connectivity with the Town centre, skipper buses meeting the Towns needs. This will become more of a problem the more we develop our town or free up brownfield site car parks.

My view is that brownfield sites should be maximised for housing, urban regeneration, city and town regeneration, business and commerce reasons. We need to take the pressures off our limited greenfield areas and recognise their hugely important conservation value, biodiversity and significant amenity value they provide.

I agree with many of the reasons outlined below in the references with regards to why we should maximise development on brown field sits as a first resort. This is especially so for conservation reasons and protecting our finite natural heritage resource. Least of all protecting our Biosphere status.

168

Recommendations –

 Establish national strategic government policies to inform legislation and direct planning policy  Review the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act and subsequent development orders  Review and strengthen - Local Government and Building Control (Amendment) Act 2016  Review current Planning Policies and development orders  Government to establish a Brownfield Site Policy  Levey’s / charges for development on greenfield sites  Levey’s / charges on vacant brownfield sites / empty properties  Grant schemes for development on brownfield sites  Flexible planning policies for brownfield site development  Establish a joint government private sector working party  Policies to encourage the release of brownfield sites or properties - so as they cant be left empty or vacant for decades  Car parking review and strategy for Douglas – it is accepted that private car parks solve Douglas car parking, but that’s a quick and easy fix. We need to be looking more long term at these sites – strategies to free them up, and lock in the ideas on ‘park and ride’ above

169

Reference Section

1 The relevant Act that strengthened LA powers being the Local Government and Building Control (Amendment) Act 2016.

The Act amended certain enactments in relation to local government, rating and building control and to provide for the introduction of fixed penalties in connection with certain statutory notices and byelaws.

link to the Act - https://legislation.gov.im/cms/legislation/acts-of-tynwald-as-enacted/category/21-primary- 2016.html?download=269:local-government-and-building-control-amendment-act-2016

Also, it should be noted that the Rating and Valuation Act 1953 was also amended to allow certain buildings that are not capable of being occupied to still be treated as a rateable hereditament and not be exempt from zero rating.

References which have been reviewed by the Author –

Politics UK – Brown Field Site Development – looks at the positives and negatives for developers, government (UK) and conservationists – link to article – http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/brownfield-development

Sustainable Build – why not ‘greenfield’ http://www.sustainablebuild.co.uk/greenfieldsites.html

Guardian Newspaper Article

Forget about greenfield sites, build in the cities

Richard Rogers

170 This housing crisis calls for new ways of planning that bring vitality to urban centres, not more commuter dormitories

Tue 15 Jul 2014 08.00 BST First published on Tue 15 Jul 2014 08.00 BST

'We need to make more of what we have, unlocking a million brownfield sites rather than churning out identikit housing estates.' Photograph: Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Cities are the engines of innovation and the heart of our culture. We will destroy their vitality if we build new towns while there is still space in urban areas.

In the 15 years since the Urban Task Force, which I chaired, published its report, our cities have bounced back remarkably. It was called Towards an Urban Renaissance, and it argued for well- designed, compact urban development, on previously developed ("brownfield") sites and around public transport hubs, alongside excellent public spaces and social amenities. It marked a move from suburban sprawl to urban regeneration, and the centres of cities like Manchester and Birmingham have been transformed.

But we are still failing to provide enough well-designed homes for our fast-growing population, together with the public spaces and mix of uses that create decent places to live. The latest government forecasts suggest we need about 250,000 new homes every year in England. We haven't built anywhere near that many since 1975, and over the past 20 years, as construction of council housing has ground to a halt, it has been about 150,000 a year. The recession caused a further slowdown: last year we built fewer than 110,000 houses, the second lowest annual total since 1923.

We can't go on like this. The housing shortage threatens both the economy and our quality of life. The government has called for a new generation of "garden cities", and recent reports from Sir Michael Lyons' housing review suggest that the Labour party is considering "urban extensions" modelled on the postwar new towns. These policy responses ignore the fragility of the urban renaissance, and overlook the damage that careless relaxation of planning controls could do to our cities and our countryside. And they underestimate how much our cities can still offer. A panicked retreat to the 20th-century solutions of suburban sprawl and new towns is not the answer.

The original garden cities turned their back on the grim industrial centres of their day, seeking healthier, happier lives for their residents in a green setting. This was understandable given the appalling conditions most city dwellers endured 100 years ago. But it set in train a process of urban depopulation from which our cities are only just recovering. Middle-class people moved out by choice, and working-class communities were disruptively transplanted to the new towns that emerged after the second world war.

Opening up greenfield sites for new towns (even rebranded as "garden cities") will create commuter dormitories, without the critical mass to sustain local shops or services. What is more, we will divert investment away from complex urban brownfield sites, and will deprive existing urban and suburban

171 centres of the vitality they need. Why develop Ebbsfleet as a new town, when east London still needs investment and offers brownfield land to accommodate tens of thousands of new homes?

We do not need to repeat the mistakes of the past. Our cities industrialised earlier and more extensively than many others in Europe; and as heavy industry continues to decline, our stock of brownfield sites is replenished. These derelict sites tear apart the urban tapestry of our cities, creating threatening voids, and making local services and infrastructure, from schools to shops, unviable. Building on greenfield sites does not just waste land, but also undermines urban amenities and the communities that depend on them.

The government's last estimates, published in 2009, identified 30,000 hectares of brownfield land in England suitable for housing, which could provide nearly 1.5 million new homes. You can debate the suitability of particular sites, but there is clearly no urgent need to abandon the principle of "brownfield first". For example, London, which needs 42,000 homes a year, already accommodates 98% of new development on brownfield land (reflecting the policies set out in the London Plan).

But the biggest opportunity may not be in large sites, but in intelligent retrofitting and redevelopment, adapting existing buildings and working outward from high streets and neighbourhood centres – the places with best access to public transport, shops and other amenities. Using London as an illustration, if 600 high streets and town centres took 500 extra homes apiece, this could provide 300,000 new homes, as well as shoring up and protecting the prosperity of existing places. King's Cross and Stratford are examples of how new towns can be built in urban centres.

So, we have the space. The question is, why we are not able to build faster, in the face of such overwhelming demand? Briefly put, our housing market is dysfunctional. Landowners – from housebuilders to supermarket chains – have huge land banks, but rising land values give them no incentive to release these for development. Councils should be in control of planning their cities, not the Treasury or housebuilders.

We need new ways of planning and building more homes. We must put elected councils back in the driving seat, with the tools and financial resources to plan for their towns and cities, and to make development happen (through, for example, enhanced compulsory purchase powers or new property tax arrangements). We should also be seeking a richer mix of developers and builders, including housing associations, small builders, long-term developers and community groups, as well as the big housebuilders. Off-site manufacture, with British and foreign firms developing standardised components, can dramatically quicken construction, with houses being built on site in hours or days rather than weeks.

With intelligent design and planning, we don't need to overflow into new towns on greenfield sites; doing so would damage the countryside and – more importantly – wreck our cities. We do need to make more of what we have, unlocking a million development opportunities, and building new

172 places that mix uses, tenures and people, rather than slowly churning out identikit housing estates. Our urban renaissance does need new towns, but they must be new towns in our existing cities.

Richard Rogers is an architect and a former chair of the Urban Task Force

Discussion Paper from the Geographical Society –

Downloaded from www.geography.org.uk/projects/ks4ict/idea16 Author: Mark Bamford

Brownfield vs Greenfield Sites: What are the issues involved?

- A site that has been built on before. Normally associated with urban areas.

- Sites that have not been built on before. Often rural / countryside areas.

As a decision maker you are faced with two options:

1. Develop existing Brownfield sites

2. Develop new Greenfield sites

However, there are issues associated with both land options, some of which are discussed below (all mixed up):

and cities and may have better access, have less congestion, be in a more pleasant environment and have more space and room to expand might mean that local people can not afford the houses, and the council will have the problem of providing for them

- in Greenfield sites new drainage, electricity, roads etc. would all have to be produced

like Science Parks favour out of town locations on Greenfield sites-they prefer them to

Brownfield sites, and crucially so do their workers who are happier to live away from urban areas

housing can lead to gentrification (old housing done up- area becomes more trendy and affluent) so the area will improve and things like crime rates will improve

173 use do not need to be cleared and is more attractive to retail parks, housing developers etc. high- investment is focussed in central areas

sue of contamination and making sites safe for development, given what the land may have been used for before

- redevelopment results in more people coming to the area, which helps local businesses. Building on Greenfield sites ‘sucks’ out the core from towns as shop etc. locate on the edge of tons/cities

- there is too much pressure on the rural-urban fringe and the use of Brownfield

GOV.UK

New measures to unlock brownfield land for thousands of homes

Councils will have new tools to speed up development of derelict and underused land for new homes.

Published 3 April 2017

From:

Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government and The Rt Hon Gavin Barwell

Councils will have new tools to speed up development of derelict and underused land for new homes, Housing and Planning Minister Gavin Barwell confirmed today (3 April 2017).

Local authorities across the country will now have to produce and maintain up-to-date, publicly available registers of brownfield sites available for housing locally.

174 The new registers will help housebuilders identify suitable brownfield sites quickly, promising to unlock land for thousands of new homes.

Communities will be able to highlight local derelict or underused building sites that are primed for redevelopment. This can bring investment to the area and increase the number of new homes in the area.

As set out in the recently published Housing White Paper, the registers are part of the government’s ambitious programme to speed up house building, promote brownfield sites for development and release land to deliver many more new homes.

Housing and Planning Minister Gavin Barwell said:

We need to build more homes in this country so making sure that we re-use brownfield land is crucial. We want to bring life back to abandoned sites, create thousands more homes and help protect our valued countryside.

These new registers will give local authorities and developers the tools to do this.

Brownfield registers were first piloted in 2016, when 73 local planning authorities across the country pioneered the measures.

In addition, the £3 billion Home Builders Fund will be used to support the development of brownfield sites, with an additional £1.2 billion provided to unlock at least 30,000 Starter Homes on brownfield land.

Permission in principle

The government has also introduced a new way of obtaining planning permission through these new registers. It will make it easier for developers to deliver housing in the places where people want to live.

‘Permission in principle’ will simplify the planning process for developers. It will give them more certainty over whether a site is suitable for development ahead of working up costly proposals to obtain full planning permission. This will encourage new development and increase the amount of land available to build on, helping to boost housing supply.

Further legislation will follow this year to roll-out ‘permission in principle’ more widely through the planning system.

175

Further information

The government’s response to the technical consultation on the implementation of the Housing and Planning Act, chapters 2 and 3 on permission in principle and brownfield registers, has been published today.

The regulations implementing brownfield registers and permission in principle through brownfield registers have been laid in Parliament as part of secondary legislation relating to the Housing and Planning Act. They will come into force 21 days after being laid.

tatutory guidance for local authorities will follow to explain the role of brownfield registers and permission in principle in more detail.

Office address and general enquiries

2 Marsham Street

London

SW1P 4DF

Contact form http://forms.communiti...

General enquiries: please use this number if you are a member of the public

030 3444 0000

Media enquiries

Email [email protected]

Please use this number if you are a journalist wishing to speak to Press Office

0303 444 1209

Social media - MHCLG

Twitter - https://twitter.com/mhclg

Flickr - http://www.flickr.com/photos/mhclg

176 LinkedIn - http://www.linkedin.com/company/mhclg

Press release

Brownfield sites to be prioritised for development

Thousands of homes could be built on brownfield sites available for development.

Published 28 October 2014

From:

Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, Homes and Communities Agency, and The Rt Hon Brandon Lewis MP

This was published under the 2010 to 2015 Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government

Planning aerial view

Thousands of homes could be built on brownfield sites available for development according to figures published today (28 October 2014) by the Homes and Communities Agency.

Following reforms of the planning system, more than two thirds of all homes are built on brownfield land – with ambitions to go even further.

And earlier this month the government issued new guidance to councils on using Local Plans to safeguard their area against urban sprawl and protect the green lungs around towns and cities.

Housing Minister Brandon Lewis said:

This government has been very clear that when planning for new buildings, protecting our precious green belt is paramount. Local people don’t want to lose their countryside to urban sprawl, or see towns and cities lost to unnecessary development.

177 We have put Local Plans at the heart of the reformed planning system, so councils and local people can now decide where development should and shouldn’t go.

Support for new housing is growing, because communities welcome development if it is built in the right place and does not ignore their needs. That’s why planning permission for 230,000 homes was granted by councils in the last year alone, while official statistics show that green belt development is at its lowest rate since modern records began in 1989.

Councils will play a critical role in bringing forward brownfield land and government wants to see permissions in place for homes on over 90% of suitable brownfield land by 2020. This could pave the way for up to 200,000 new homes while protecting our green belt.

In addition, 20 new housing zones on this brownfield land in London will benefit from £400 million funding from the government and the Greater London Authority.

There will be £200 million of additional government funding available for 10 zones outside London.

The government has also stated that councils should consider how they will protect and preserve important sites in their area, especially green belt sites.

Other considerations include:

sites of special scientific interest areas of outstanding natural beauty heritage coastline national parks and the Broads

Further information

The government published new guidance on Monday 6 October, which reaffirmed how councils should use their Local Plan, drawing on protections in the National Planning Policy Framework, to safeguard their local area against urban sprawl, and protect the green lungs around towns and cities.

Office address and general enquiries

2 Marsham Street

London

178 SW1P 4DF

Contact form http://forms.communiti...

General enquiries: please use this number if you are a member of the public

030 3444 0000

Media enquiries

Email [email protected]

179 180

APPENDIX 13: 4th June 2018

Submission from Manx National Heritage

181

182 Select Committee on the Development of Unoccupied Urban Sites

Submission on behalf of Manx National Heritage

Executive Summary

Our firm view is that brownfield sites, whatever their individual characteristics, are unlikely to be an ‘easy win’. Nevertheless, there is undoubted merit in seeking to reduce the risk of development on greenfield sites and instead maximise the use of suitable land within urban contexts.

As with many aspects of planning policy, however, it is rarely a matter of simply maximising development, and we would therefore suggest that a responsible route towards achieving a solution that stakeholders can have confidence in requires:

 Agreed assessment criteria  The identification of potential sites  Site evaluation according to assessment criteria  Identification and quantification of constraints  Identification of mitigation where required  Production of site development briefs

Unoccupied Urban Sites

International law – and conventions that the Isle of Man is signatory to, such as the European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (Valletta) and the European Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage (Granada) – enshrine the concept that the ‘polluter pays’. Building on greenfields is conceptually a kind of pollution, in that the landscape, defined in European terms as a common ‘good’ is adversely affected and reduced, and so developers may legitimately be expected to compensate for its loss through some kind of indirect mitigation, or through direct financial levy.

A derelict or cleared site, therefore, may arguably also be viewed as a form of pollution. Policy might usefully be developed which encouraged its positive re-use, from a range of perspectives: environmental, economic, societal, visual etc. Such policy might involve a range of sticks and carrots to drive or encourage action to be taken.

Some of the ‘Sticks’ might include:

Rates charges

Introduction of rising charges on certain types of empty sites - ‘escalator rates’ - whereby a commercial developer is encouraged by a form of financial penalty to bring forward redevelopment in a timely or expeditious fashion. This might actually commence with a rates ‘holiday’, thereby allowing funds saved to be spent on pre-development costs. There is however a practical issue that a developer could have recourse to the courts if they felt that the planning system did not for its part deliver a timely approval and left them to foot additional rate charges.

An alternative way to consider this issue is that we should expect developers to bank land (why should it be viewed any differently from Government doing the same?), and to sweat it for an income whilst awaiting the appropriate time to develop. If some sectors have a problem with temporary car parks, shouldn’t they also acknowledge that the Island has a chronic shortage of parking space?

183 Surely the simpler answer is to require a developer to gain planning permission to clear a site and to prepare it to a minimum set of standards appropriate to a temporary car park, and to limit the period of permission for its use as a car park, all of which could be governed by planning condition? A developer then has clarity about the timescale within which they must move to redevelop the site.

Empty and unoccupied sites may also include derelict sites. In urban contexts these may become dangerous and/or unsightly. A developer may feel encouraged to demolish buildings if they are deemed to be a potential legal and H&S liability. Care should be taken to ensure that historic buildings are recorded ahead of destruction, or to avoid them getting into a condition where demolition appears the only option. Early consideration of new and alternative uses, and the rejuvenation of older buildings – it is a form of maintenance after all – may avoid costlier repair and redevelopment later. Local authority powers and Town & Country Planning legislation both offer the means already to encourage owners to keep their properties in good repair, but appear to be seldom used.

Compulsory Purchase

Compulsory purchase powers already exist, but might be strengthened as a means of encouraging owners to redevelop sites. Again, this might be viewed from an alternative perspective, namely that compulsory purchase powers should be used in exceptional circumstances to empower Government to acquire critical plots of land that thereby allow the redevelopment of larger areas. Anecdotally, so-called ‘ransom strips’ have acquired inflated value and prevented timely redevelopment.

Planning consents

Those parts of our settlements most in need of re-use tend to lie in the older areas where a mix of uses already exists. There is opportunity through the careful application of existing or new policy to encourage greater and more imaginative use of upper storeys of both new and existing buildings for a range of uses, including office and residential; too often, upper storeys, usually over commercial ground-floor premises, are under-utilised.

Changes to the Strategic Plan

The recent review of the Strategic Plan provided new guidance on the requirements for residential development, the demand for which is significant. Whilst early amendment of the Strategic Plan may be deemed ‘too difficult’, there is no reason why a stand-alone policy statement cannot be brought forward to reduce large-scale housing development on greenfield sites.

Greenfield development has in the past been preferred over brownfield redevelopment precisely because it is deemed simpler; the assessment process for new sites instigated under the Area Plan for the East reminds us that few ‘easy’ sites now remain and that those being brought forward now are more constrained and require environmental assessment and mitigation. A policy statement that clarifies such requirements would be a timely and entirely justified means of applying a brake to greenfield development.

Restriction on demolition

Demolition currently has various restrictions under legislation; it is currently constrained in Conservation Areas, and where H&S or engineering concerns impinge. There is, unfortunately, a

184 longstanding perception that buildings tend to be demolished at weekends or on public holidays where public concern over their destruction might be expected.

Given that demolition on many urban sites tends already to require some measure of oversight, it would appear simple conceptually to link demolition with immediate after-use (eg parking) and eventual redevelopment and for the various activities to be governed by planning conditions as suggested above. Planning conditions might also be used to impose requirements to record more historically significant structures ahead of destruction.

Some of the ‘Carrots’ might include:

Planning policy

The first and most obvious incentive towards the redevelopment of urban sites is for planning policy to be clear on the preferred uses to which a site should be put. This relies on clarification of use classes, and also the development of outline development briefs or guidelines. It seems to us that the latter is a natural progression from the kind of assessment process that has already been undertaken as part of TAPE, and should be developed and followed through for the remaining Area Plans.

Guidance

A second outcome of these assessments should also be the development of policy for Conservation Areas which clarifies conservation area character, and specifies guidance on re-use and good design of redevelopment. Providing developers with greater clarity will avoid delay and disappointment in the planning process.

Aid

A third opportunity to incentivise redevelopment of urban sites is to provide a greater level of aid to developers. This should range from the provision of training and awareness, particularly for professionals servicing developers, through pre-planning advice, to financial aid.

The latter might take many forms, such as:

 grants for environmental investigations for cultural and natural heritage, archaeology, biodiversity etc.;  grants to reinstatement and repair for heritage buildings;  grants for sustainable energy and energy efficiency in historic buildings.

General considerations

There is, we would argue, a balance to be struck between the appropriate redevelopment of our urban spaces and the loss of our countryside. In finding that balance, we need to be ever-mindful that urban redevelopment is rarely straightforward, and before committing to it to a greater extent than we have done in the past, we need to understand the potential extent and scope of its consequences and our existing statutory, social and environmental responsibilities.

185 ‘Unoccupied or previously developed urban sites’ is a phrase which potentially covers a considerable range of sites, for instance:

 large and small green spaces, including allotments, former plant nurseries etc  public open spaces  lock-up garages  disused and underused outbuildings  large buildings set in extensive grounds  Georgian, Victorian and Edwardian terraces  former guest houses and hotels  disused and underused public buildings  vacant and underused upper storeys  former industrial sites  demolition sites  unlet, system-built, modern blocks capable of conversion and multiple use

It may seem surprising, but from the perspectives of cultural and natural heritage, only the re-use of the last category is unlikely to have potential impact.

The above list ranges from green sites through underused and historic buildings, to former industrial sites, and concludes with modern structures.

Green sites

Green spaces in particular are important for wildlife and biodiversity on its own account, but also contribute to social well-being and sense of place; they often bring a sense of calm, quiet and escape from the noisier aspects of urban living. In this respect they are a public ‘good’, much in the same way that our wider rural landscape is felt to have tangible and intangible assets beyond simply being ‘countryside.’

Under-used sites

The same is true of what might be called ‘back-land’ spaces – ranging from areas of gardens and allotments accessed by public routes through to garages and outbuildings with a greater proportion of paved surfaces but not completely without greenery. It is sometimes easy to over- generalise and regard such spaces as unkempt, unnecessary or unwanted. The worst scenario is that such spaces are left to become unsightly, but there are usually local authority powers to counter this – providing they are enforced – and so this should not be used as an excuse for wholesale redevelopment.

Many of the Island’s towns have examples of substantial houses surrounded by established gardens, which again contribute to our often green and wildlife-friendly urban environment. These can be breathing spaces every bit as valuable as the formal squares and public gardens that characterise parts of upper Douglas for instance, and must be conserved. Nevertheless, it would be remiss, when contemplating the overall opportunities for development in the urban landscape, if such sites, or portions thereof, were not at least put to the test to assess their developability – or lack of.

Historic built environments

Moving on to the more formal built streetscape, and the Island as a whole – and Douglas in particular – has a substantial stock of 19th and 20th century buildings, many of them constructed to

186 foster the growth of the mass-tourism industry of the era, and in reaction to growing urbanism and rural depopulation. In many cases, they make an outstanding contribution to the Island’s sense of place, particularly if they are well-maintained, and well-presented.

It would be dishonest, however, to avoid acknowledging that they are increasingly aged, can be difficult to maintain (exacerbated by periods in the past when they have been neglected during times of economic doldrums), and alas, were not always built to the highest standards in the first place. An unhappy combination of Manx Series ‘slate’, lime mortar, Portland cement render, central heating and the Manx climate can make the perfect recipe for dry rot.

This is not an excuse for wholesale demolition, but, particularly where Conservation Area status has been, or may be conferred, it is about finding ways to grant-aid the care and maintenance of the best examples. It is also time to recognise that the L-shaped, terraced seaside hotel-cum- boarding house does not easily lend itself to the provision of the kind of space or domestic services to which the modern visitor aspires. There is surely opportunity to preserve characteristic and landmark facades but dispense with dingy rear outlets with one or two shared bathrooms per landing.

Our retail streetscapes in particular are dominated by buildings at least a century old, where in many cases the original upstairs use for domestic occupancy has been lost. Our town centres are for the most part empty, especially at night, and it cannot be an exaggeration to say that this is one of the single biggest contributory factors to the paving of our green fields. We must look for ways to encourage the reoccupation of upper storeys and the concept of ‘living over the shop’.

This requires the imaginative implementation of fire regulations to protect occupants, whilst ensuring the security of retail shops and their contents. Greater domestic occupancy of urban areas on a twenty-four hour basis has been shown to have the happy consequences of reducing crime and antisocial behaviour.

For all urban redevelopments affecting existing buildings which may be of historical interest or value there are a number of measures which should be followed. These include an assessment of a building’s cultural significance and a recommendation whether or not recording is required and to what level, should its demolition be intended (demolition within a Conservation Area does in any case require planning permission).

Where retention of the building is justified, its re-use and repurposing also has the benefit of preserving the historical character and ambience of the immediate area.

Industrial sites

The Isle of Man has a significant industrial past, one which is not confined to the extraction of zinc and lead at Foxdale and Laxey. Areas of Douglas, Ramsey, Peel and Castletown were used in coal-gas production, tanning, iron-founding and chemical production, to name some of the more noxious industrial activities. Coal-gas production also took place elsewhere, for instance between Port Erin and Port St Mary. We have seen very little recognition, in either planning policy or planning approvals, of the potential environmental and public health issues surrounding former industrial uses, such as the need for measures including the safe controlled removal or capping of deposits. These are significant issues that impinge on easy redevelopment of certain sites, and contributed to our thinking when previously commenting during the consultation on the review of planning, where we advocated the enhancement of Government purchasing powers to facilitate the preparation of sites for redevelopment that could then be sold on to private developers at increased value, recouping the cost of making the site safe.

187 Demolition and cleared sites

Demolition sites pose a separate set of unique problems; a ‘clearance’ site gives the unfortunate impression to some that there are no hurdles to its redevelopment – that it is, in effect, a blank canvas. This is often not the case as hard foundations and soft, unconsolidated demolition deposits survive below the surface: these are not only a potential problem for the engineering of a redevelopment, but also represent unique and irreplaceable evidence for the early development of the Island’s major settlements dating back through the medieval period to the time of the Viking kings of Man and possibly earlier. The investigation of urban archaeological remains can be time- consuming, but such difficulties can be overcome by drastically limiting the areas that will be unavoidably affected, and by the careful design of foundations. Sites such as Lord Street would benefit from archaeological evaluation of the remains of ‘old Douglas’ which was cleared, but not entirely removed, in the 1930s. The 17th, 18th and 19th century buildings demolished – but not entirely removed – at the time stood on top of the older medieval settlement.

Re-purposing modern buildings

We have deliberately avoided explicitly referring to our final category of building as office blocks, as their repurposing might be seen in some quarters as indicating the Island’s failure to attract enough of the appropriate business tenants. Instead we should be recognising that the Island’s economy is diversifying and is instead attracting different types of business from those requiring the traditional open-plan corporate office space. In this context such buildings may become redundant and it is therefore appropriate that in a timely fashion we contemplate their conversion for other purposes. This may include smaller office units, or conversion for other uses, and even domestication. The movement of larger office activities to business park locations opens up significant opportunities for the re-use of these more central sites for other purposes.

Good practice elsewhere

This select committee is being asked to report within a very brief timescale. We believe that its subject is highly complex and that there are few easy answers. It will consequently be unfortunate if rapid decisions are made based on a cursory examination of the issues, and it would be wise to recognise that a mixture of broad-brush ideas and finer-scale recommendations for further investigation and initiatives would be a safer and yet still positive outcome.

Taking stock of existing good practice elsewhere offers a substantial means of getting up to speed on this issue. In terms of considering some of the heritage and conservation opportunities that can unlock urban sites for renewal and regeneration, we draw attention to the following:

Townscape Heritage Initiatives: https://www.hlf.org.uk/townscape-heritage-initiative-evaluation

Historic England Advice Note 1: Conservation Area Designation, Appraisal and Management: https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/conservation-area-designation- appraisal-management-advice-note-1/heag040-conservation-area-designation-appraisal-and- management.pdf/

Historic England Advice Note 2: Making Changes to Heritage Assets: https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/making-changes-heritage-assets- advice-note-2/heag023-making-changes-to-heritage-assets.pdf/

188

Historic England Advice Note 3: The Historic Environment and Site Allocations in Local Plans: https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/historic-environment-and-site- allocations-in-local-plans/heag074-he-and-site-allocation-local-plans.pdf/

Historic England Advice Note 7: Local Heritage Listing: https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/local-heritage-listing-advice- note-7/heag018-local-heritage-listing.pdf/

Historic England Advice Note 8: Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment: https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/sustainability-appraisal-and- strategic-environmental-assessment-advice-note-8/heag036-sustainability-appraisal-strategic- environmental-assessment.pdf/

Heritage Works: A toolkit of best practice in heritage regeneration: https://www.bpf.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Heritage-Works-14July2017-for-web.pdf

submitted on behalf of Manx National Heritage 4th June 2018

189 190

APPENDIX 14: 8th June 2018

Submission from Mr Dave Chapman MRICS

191

192 193 194 195 196 [Signed Dave Chapman]

197 198

APPENDIX 15: 9th June 2018

Submission from Mr Keith Kerruish

199

200 From: Ballafayle Date: 9 June 2018 at 10:25:11 GMT+1 To: [Bill Shimmins] Cc: [Marlene Hendy] [Chris Robertshaw] [Chris Thomas] [Laurence Skelly]] [Alfred Cannan] Subject: Brownfield Sites Review

Dear Mr Shimmins MHK,

I read the Manx Independent on Thursday 7th June that a hearing will take place on Monday 11th. As a retired Chartered Surveyor and 40 year Registered Estate Agent I would like to submit some thoughts to your committee. a. Commercial Sites Mr Eddie Teare as Treasury Minister introduced 20% tax on property rents – Mr Paul Martin then chaired a meeting at which property developers and other interested parties protested, in vain, that other sectors pay 0% or 10%. No major property companies in the UK or Ireland or Real Estate Investment Trusts pay such a high rate. This and our very small population means that none have shown an interest in the Villiers/AXA, Summerland, The Palace Hotel or downtown Police Station / Middlemarch site. Exceptions are the recent sales of Government land adjacent to the Harbour, Castle Mona Hotel and Premier Inn – in the back streets of Douglas! How embarrassing to have tourists stay in a back alley of this “Gem of Gods Earth”. Government have £50m, ‘hard to spend’, development fund: If we are serious about tourism (?) then Government must incentivise hotel development on the seafront? Major office users are abandoning the high cost town centre to lower rates in Braddan so that there is more than 250,000 sq. ft of empty office space in town (source Dandara) and other than e-gaming users, few prospective tenants. Planners must encourage return to residential of terraced housing currently used as offices. Monster units like empty NatWest on Villiers site do not have residential potential. Out of town offices also mean less lunchtime spend in town and with UK and IOM retail shrinking and ‘online’ surging ahead the retail sector is under threat. b. Residential Population is static and Government are anxious to encourage new residents to expand the workforce to pay our pensions. ‘Dodgy figures’ have been issued by Government in support of this:-

a) House prices have been stated as competitive against UK. Fact is that UK figures include South East and hot spots such as Cheshire when 80% of the UK is much lower. b) That mortgage costs have reduced to multiple of 5/7 of earnings–the historic average being 3 or 4!

So why is it hard to attract new residents to work here? 1. Relatively high house prices 2. Living costs led by electricity (17p/KW) and gas prices 3. The cost of family outing to the UK for sport, concerts, travel etc. £500 +

Returning to your focus on brownfield sites

201 1. Families want gardens NOT flats In the 1940’s/50’s the Parker Morris Standard gave good quality family housing such as Willaston . Since then Planners have pressured Developers onto high density low square footage pokey sites such as Scarlett, Castletown and Phase 2 at Royal Park Ramsey. Please take a look – given a choice would you choose one of these or cheaper house with garden in the UK counties? Planning has so restricted development for 40 years that we are constantly high cost with a higher proportion of renters than ever before. Successful economy? 50% of our population choose to live in Douglas and Onchan but the lack of Eastern plan means that buyers have been driven to Peel or South with knock on commuter effect. The planning system is constantly “under review” but little changes – it is the tail wagging the dog. Glen Truan Bride is a current classic – Government says it wants tourist accommodation but with refusal imminent a leading successful developer has chosen to walk away: a negative caution to would be developers in our 15 week tourism season -30% of the year when UK resorts have 10 month season.

c. Douglas The Promenade is confounded by flats but to take 1 brownfield example – Government Prison Site, Victoria Road. Years have now elapsed – please could you lead by example and get it developed as per the development at Willaston.

In conclusion I hope that 1) Brownfield Site will be developed with family houses and gardens not even more inappropriate flats or new building by Government such as Demesme Road / Westmoreland Road 2) tax on rentals will be reduced to incentivise developers.

I look forward to reading your Report.

Kind regards Keith Kerruish C H K Kerruish Ballafayle Management Limited Unit 5, West House, West Street, Ramsey IM8 1AE Tel/Fax: 01624 [Redacted] Registered Company No. IOM 123182C

This office is manned on a limited basis – please contact Keith Kerruish on [Redacted] if you have an urgent query

202

APPENDIX 16: 12th June 2018

Submission from Mr Peter Young

203

204 Archived: 23 June 2018 11:00:13 From: [Jonathan King] Sent: 15 June 2018 16:41:16 To: [Tim Baker] Cc: [Alex Allinson] [Peter Young] [Francisca Gale] Subject: RE: Brown field sites Importance: Normal

Mr Baker

Many thanks – this will be circulated to the Select Committee, whose members are Mr Shimmins (chair), Mrs Hendy and Mr Robertshaw.

Jonathan

From: Baker, Tim (MHK) Sent: 15 June 2018 16:39 To: Jonathan King Cc: Alex Allinson; Peter Young Subject: FW: Brown field sites

Jonathan I understand from Roger that you are the Clerk to the Select Committee which is looking into the development of Brown Field sites.

Please find attached an email from Peter Young who is a member of the Planning Committee and has served in that role for many years. This experience has provided him with a real insight into the issues involved and he asked that I pass on his personal thoughts below which may help the Committee in formulating their response to the issues under consideration.

I am sure Mr Young would be happy to talk directly with the Committee if they found it helpful.

Regards Tim

TIM BAKER MHK for Ayre & Michael Legislative Buildings Finch Road Douglas Isle of Man IM1 3PW British Isles Office Tel | (01624) [Redacted] [email protected] | www.tynwald.org.im |

From: Peter Sent: 12 June 2018 09:22 To: Baker, Tim (MHK) Subject: Brown field sites

205 Hi Tim, Just a quick note to pass on to Alex if you think necessary. These are my personal recollections and not these of the committee .

For a long period of years we have been requesting cross government action on purposeful dereliction, there are many examples where developers have bought housing and some significant building only to leave them over many years with windows open etc so that the fabric of the building is damaged and there is no option but demolition. My understanding is that empty premises do not attract rates charges - this should be the other way where empty housing attract a higher rate.

I have had serious concerns about the brown field sites where planning permission is effectively ‘rolled over’ every 4 years, or a new plan comes forward to replace the existing that is approaching expiry. This appears as a method to maintain a balance sheet value on the land rather than be a real intent to develop. There should be a way to financially impact any company that holds land and leaves it derelict. The Loch Prom site is a very good example. I have lost count of how many plans we have seen, the off island company simply holding it as an asset. On one site we put a condition of development must start within 2 years with a note that it would not be renewed, we sadly failed as we were told we did not have the power to do this!!

There is quite a considerable amount of land for commercial development held by one company for many years and when other investors want sites but not from that developer we are pushed to develop green field sites for the betterment of the island.

Car parking on brown field sites – this provides the developer with an income and no incentive to sell or develop. Currently there are no standards applied for temporary car parks, the owner simply spreads some aggregate and sometimes puts a gate on. I wonder whether temporary car parks on brown field sites should be subject to some proper standards of having drainage, proper surfaces, security in the form of CCTV and spaces marked etc. Again empty sites should be subject to heavy rating process.

I think the powers for tidy up orders are complicated and sit with the local authority. With the best will in the world the majority of authorities are not equipped to deal with the process and as we have seen recently it is easily circumvented. The powers should be stronger and easier to follow, allowing the local authority to take more direct action earlier.

I have put these thoughts in the planning review process, but with the current review of brown field sites I thought it was worth repeating some of the points . The planning committee have discussed this with various officers and politicians over many years, I hope Alex has more luck than we have had.

Best wishes.

Peter

Peter Young. Tech IOSH. LCGI.

[Redacted]

Isle of Man. Giving you freedom to flourish

206

APPENDIX 17: 14th June 2018

Submission from the Cabinet Office

207

208

Supplementary evidence provided to the Select Committee appointed to investigate various matters associated with the development of i. urban/brownfield sites and ii. greenfield sites

Oral Hearing – 11th June 2018 Supplementary Evidence provided 13th June 2018

1. How a development plan is put together:

The process followed is set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 (Schedule 1).

There are opportunities for the public/stakeholders to engage throughout and for cross- government working.

The following table sets out what has happened to date in terms of the East

Date Stage Main Activities

2016 Call for Sites Evidence gathering Public Consultation Internal talks/workshops with Government Departments, Boards, other stakeholders etc. Opportunity to submit sites for consideration

February 2017 Preliminary Publicity Setting out of matters to be addressed in the plan. Public Consultation Publication of:  Baseline information  Draft Site Assessment Reports  Base maps  Supplementary Consultation on 35 additional sites

May 2018 Publication of Draft Publication of: Plan for the East  Draft Written Statement Public Consultation  Draft Maps  Supporting Evidence Papers  Summary of issues raised during the preliminary publicity consultation During 3 month consultation - Follow up with all Departments and Boards Meeting with MUA 12th June 2018 on drainage modelling. Further meetings planned throughout consultation. Future Stages

Examination at Public Inquiry

Adoption of Draft Plan by Cabinet Office

Approval of Area Plan by Tynwald

Publication of Final Area Plan

209

Points to Note

 The Call for Sites is not a statutory process but it is very useful. Anyone can put forward sites they would like to be considered for development in the Plan. Responses made general points, highlighting sites that could be considered which weren’t necessarily owned by the respondent and those areas that should not be developed.

 Every site is assessed through a Site Assessment Framework.  The Preliminary Publicity is the first formal stage in the preparation of the Draft Area Plan. The Cabinet Office produced a report entitled 'Area Plan for the East – Preliminary Publicity.' This set out the matters which were intended to be dealt with by the Plan and included:  A Site Identification Report explaining how sites for assessment were identified

 The Site Assessment Framework which explained the methodology and assessment process  A Scenario Testing Report which examined the implications of different development approaches on infrastructure in the East

 The Preliminary Publicity did not identify any preferred sites, but explained how all of the sites were identified and initially assessed. It set about identifying and drawing together planning issues and outlining what matters the new Plan will address during the planned growth and change. Comments were invited on any of the issues raised in this document.

 All comments received during the Preliminary Publicity were taken into consideration and summarised into the published Evidence Paper Summary of responses received.

 There were a number of topic areas that required collaborative work between Officers before the publication of the Draft Plan and this will continue.

210

2. Sites in the Draft Plan for the East which are ‘brownfield’ and have an element of housing.

Evidence Paper 3 states in Section 3.6 ‘Potential Development Sites’ that 2408 new dwellings could be delivered within the Plan Period. It goes on to state that of the 2,408, 658 housing units would be on brownfield sites. A further breakdown is provided in Appendix 1 of the 658 figure. The figures are based on a number of assumptions and so are indicative only.

3. Available statistics on residential land – Residential Land Availability Study

Update 10 2001-2017 has now been published (RLAS 10) https://www.gov.im/media/1352637/1-rlas-update-10-2001-2017-written-report.pdf

The purpose of the Study is to understand net increase in housing units over time and looks at approvals and take up of approvals. Distinctions are made between:

 Approvals on land that is allocated for development (proposed) in the approved development plans  Approvals on land zoned as predominantly residential (normally within existing settlement boundaries)  Approvals by conversion; and  Single approvals in the countryside.

Appendix 2 shows the summary tables. Alongside is a first attempt to give a broad figure on the distinction between ‘brownfield’ and ‘greenfield’ although it should be noted that further interrogation of our existing data set would be required to check these numbers.

Diane Brown on behalf of Cabinet Office 13th June 2018

211 212

APPENDIX 18: 14th June 2018

Submission from Mr Keith Lord

213

214 Urban Regeneration – Committee Members

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Further to the workshop forum and select committee of the 11th June, may I make the following comments. First, I must tell you that I have property interests and I have been a builder/developer and landlord and MD of Hesketh Investments for almost 46 years. Having said that, the Isle of Man is dear to me and my expressions are in the interest of the Isle of Man and not my own.

The need for regeneration is a fundamental priority and needs addressing urgently. Douglas especially is a disgrace and a large percentage is dying with empty commercial and office buildings, poor infrastructure by way of traffic management and parking requirement.

There have been too many conversions, especially Victorian properties into flats and HMO’s (houses of multiple occupation). These seem to have been a quick fix rather than a renewal of purpose-built accommodation. Older housing stock is often not compliant nowadays with fire and bylaw requirements. There is some possibility of redundant office conversions into residential apartments. This again should bring more life back into the town and ease the demand on green field sites.

With the draft eastern plan now out, it is now time to take a hard look. Forward vision is required, and there are many people who can contribute locally with a good understanding of the problems that exist. It was good to hear the planning personnel contributions. Realising the need for flexibility especially towards areas allocated for mixed use. These areas often gain many benefits such as working near to your home requiring less car movements and parking requirement. It also brings life back to the town centre and saves the using of green field land. I feel it is vitally important to progress regeneration as soon as it can be implemented. The appointment of a development agency/management team is essential to drive the projects forward.

With regards to planning, the use of section 13 agreements needs to be negotiable as this can often be an obstacle to developers on brown field sites, especially when the developer is asked to pay commuted funds or provide a percentage to first time buyers housing. The comments by Miss Brown that a proposed infrastructure development levy is due in 2020, is again another negative to developers and is seen as a tax on developments to be paid by developers. I have personally undertaken many developments and our company has always been responsible for bringing utilities, installing utilities, roads, paths, parkland, planting and parking etc and have always been of benefit to the utilities and local authorities. I have endless examples of this in the past.

The promenade scheme is certainly a good starter and I personally feel a good all-weather family facility is a vital project, such as Centre Parcs have proved to be an enormous success. The Island presently has a considerable amount of heritage products, village settlements etc to offer.

215 Financing schemes is more than often an obstacle as funders will not go ahead on speculative projects. I think the government may have to bear a lot of cost to be the catalyst for essential schemes. These schemes need not be financial burdens but future investments towards the economy. The use of tax and rate breaks would also give encouragement to the private sector. It was interesting that Mr Mason from the Tax office made it clear that a 5-year tax break for holiday accommodation was already on the table.

At committee, Douglas Corporation representatives seemed to be well versed on the requirements of regeneration. They were also conscious that some of their by-law fees were charged at a higher rate than they needed to be, again as you will appreciate there is considerable cost in bringing a suitable scheme forward with designers, architects engineers etc

Also, at committee it was evident that Treasury offered limited input into the regeneration debate. Treasury will inevitably have to be involved in major investment and decision making and will probably need to be represented at the development agency/management team meetings in order to have some degree of certainty and not to end up as a talking shop not being able to deliver.

I personally feel unless there is a high degree of political support and commitment by members then any regeneration momentum will just stagnate and revert to the status quo. I remain optimistic and enthusiastic about improving our Island and its economy for future generations. If I can help in any way, please do not hesitate to give me a call.

I would be grateful to receive any feedback you may wish to comment on.

Kind Regards

Keith John Lord

Lady Isabella House

Laxey

Isle of Man

IM4 7NN

216

APPENDIX 19: 15th June 2018

Submission from the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture

217

218 Development of Unoccupied Urban Sites

Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture submission to Select Committee:

1. Recommend that step one be to identify and quantify the issue. Is the issue at hand to be limited to ‘unoccupied urban sites’, or to be extended to vacant buildings? These are different issues, although possibly as a result of the same cause. However different solutions may be required in respect of each.

2. If the Committee’s remit is limited to unoccupied urban sites it would be useful to identify these and understand their characteristics. In Douglas town centre the prominent unoccupied sites at first glance can be identified as Summerland, Lord Street, Fort Street, Cambrian Place, part of Loch Promenade. The prominence of these sites could provide a disproportionate view of the extent of the problem. The number of vacant sites is low relative to some areas within the UK. That is not to say the problem should not be addressed, but the quantity of vacant urban land is not sufficient to fulfil all the development needs as projected in the Plan Period (The draft Area Plan for the East).

3. Many vacant sites are in Government ownership and consequently an understanding of why they are unoccupied could be sought from Government sources and interested parties.

4. The Committee are aware of the emerging Area Plan for the East being prepared by Planning Policy within the Cabinet Office, and the identification of Comprehensive Treatment Areas. The Island has not tried to utilise Section 4 of Part 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act previously and it is hoped this will generate some discussion and ultimately action in respect of those sites identified as being candidates for comprehensive treatment. The sites were suggested as it was acknowledged we need a step change in our approach to town centres and to provide a driver for change.

5. In the UK compulsory purchase powers have been more widely used in conjunction with either Government funded regeneration schemes or public/private partnerships. Government owned land is crucial to the regeneration of lower Douglas. This is an aspect identified for further consideration in the recent Council of Ministers action plan for Planning.

6. The Action Plan also identifies that temporary planning permission for car parking and zero Rate values attributed to vacant sites are both likely to inadvertently contribute to reduced short term incentives to develop sites and may even increase site values, through reducing the business risks associated with owning undeveloped sites on an ongoing basis.

7. Consideration needs to continue to be given to how land is used, for the wider social and strategic economic needs, rather than necessarily simply for the best price. The lower Douglas Master Plan set the scene for this vision.

8. In terms of the identified larger unoccupied sites, many have been vacant for 10-20 or more years and have had a series of planning approvals for redevelopment. Further work should be carried out to establish why these were not taken up. This

219 suggests that issues reach beyond planning to legal, financial or economic factors.

9. It has been suggested that Planning should relax requirements for affordable housing and parking as these are seen to be the ‘straw that breaks the camel’s back’. There are few sites in town centres where affordable housing has been sought. The Planning Directorate has not been approached by developers seeking to re-negotiate these, although this is possible. Some of the approvals have lapsed, suggesting a wider reason for not progressing. In other instances contributions have been sought and provided for by development that has taken place, e.g. Quay West.

10. Consideration could be given to removing any requirement for affordable housing in town centre sites, and that requirements are weighted so that greenfield sites contribute a greater proportion, to reflect the lower build costs typically associated with greenfield sites. However, the concept of providing a proportion of affordable housing on each new development is to enable a good social mix. It would be inappropriate to push all low income households out of town, particularly as it is those groups who need greater access to facilities.

11. It is possible to think of different approaches to this, such as using contributions to top up affordable housing in brownfield areas, or a ‘short term stay of execution’ provided permissions are implemented to completion. Paragraph 8.6.3 of the Strategic Plan 2016 (https://www.gov.im/media/1350906/the-isle-of-man-strategic- plan-2016-approved-plan-15_03_16.pdf) allows for the Department to have regard to local housing need, the nature of the land and viability of the scheme, when considering the level of contribution sought. If necessary it would be possible for Government to expand on this through an advice note; a Planning Policy Statement or a National Policy Directive* (*as proposed in the Action Plan, for introduction through the imminent T&CP Bill).

12. It perhaps ought to be noted that there has been recent concern in England in respect of how viability appraisals have been used and consideration has been given to adopting a Planning Practice Guidance for Viability which would emphasise the need for site purchase to take full account of all foreseeable planning policy obligations such as social housing, rather than seek to negotiate reductions in these types of obligations. A link to this is here: http://cached.offlinehbpl.hbpl.co.uk/NewsAttachments/RLP/Draft_viability_guidance. pdf

13. Consideration could be given to relaxing parking standards, in order to adjust the balance between development profitability and impact on the surround area’s parking availability. Paragraph A.7.1 (Appendix 7) of the Strategic Plan indicates that ‘In the case of town centre and previously developed sites, the Department will consider reducing this requirement having regard to: (a) the location of the housing relative to public transport, employment, and public amenities; (b) the size of the dwelling; (c) any restriction on the nature of the occupancy (such as sheltered housing); and (d) the impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.’ In respect of offices paragraph A.7.2.1 states that ‘In the formulation of an Integrated Transport Strategy (objective 3.5a.), it will be appropriate to consider a variety of options, including the possibility of restriction the provision of parking spaces with new town centre office developments.’

220 14. It is acknowledged that the onus is put on developers to demonstrate a reduction in parking needs. Government could have a clearer comprehensive parking/transport and pricing strategy in respect of town centres, particularly Douglas, that reflects Government’s wider goals and addresses competing interests such as shoppers, commuters and residents.

15. There are a variety of views on whether the lack of parking in town centres is the cause of businesses wishing to relocate their offices to out of town locations, though it is probably a significant factor. This view somewhat contradicts the desire to reduce parking standards in town centres. Many vibrant towns in other jurisdictions do not have the entire parking needs dedicated to each development and rely instead on public parking, or other forms of transport. A town or city with large areas dedicated to parking could take up a disproportionate amount of space, require people to walk further, can be visually unattractive and therefore can be a negative in itself. Discrete multi-story and underground parking can reduce the visual and special impacts. However, expectations of most staff driving to work may contribute to congestion into and out of towns. Ease of access is important and importantly it ought to be joined up in its approach. Attractive pedestrian routes, cycle paths with good cycle parking, out of town parking with fast and reliable links to town centres could all help allow more comprehensive and profitable development of sites, with less parking required on site.

16. It is important that alternative or active transport facilities do not inadvertently slow other vehicular transport, which could risk increased emissions per vehicle and a net reduction in air quality.

17. In terms of Development Zones, or Enterprise Zones, there are a number of these in the UK. Many are themed to take account of, or advantage of, a particular characteristic of an area. For example near Oxford the EZ is medical and research based, in Kent is it media based; and in Hull it is manufacturing/industry based. https://enterprisezones.communities.gov.uk/enterprise-zone-finder/

18. Historic EZ’s attempted to address economic problems of particular areas and hence had different solutions, be it trying to attract workers (so provided cheaper housing); investment (so had financial incentives); comprehensive redevelopment (so needed purchase powers or provided infrastructure). These had varying degrees of success and there is much academic work done in respect of the reasons for success or failure.

19. It is important that if Government choose to identify sites that it has a unified vision and actively sets out to achieve that vision and not be distracted from it. All Government Departments would need to adhere to the principles of the vision.

20. It is acknowledged that Planning plays a small part relative to confidence in the economy and availability of finance, so cross Government working in terms of taxation, rates and transport are needed.

21. We need to listen to ongoing issues elsewhere and accept that the Island is not alone in respect of some of these issues. UK confidence in retailing is fragile with many of their retailers citing that business rates in town centres are crippling (e.g.Tesco).

221 22. There is suggestion that there should be restriction on development of greenfield sites, to incentivise existing site development. This would be possible if that were the favoured approach. The Strategic Plan already favours development within or on the edge of towns, but additional land is assessed and considered where it would be necessary to meet projected residential or commercial demand. This approach is a balance and caution should be exercised as the consequences of reducing land availability could result in a lack of choice of housing for people who wish to relocate to the Island or within the Island, and increased house prices. Older property in town centres is not always available to prospective buyers and banks may be more cautious in their willingness to lend on them. If we wish town centre property to be re-used prior to development out of town, then alternative financing solutions may need to be considered.

23. There is suggestion that targets or ratios for town centre/greenfield sites should be considered. Again, caution should be exercised in respect of expressing a desired ratio without greater understanding of the underlying issues. The reason for developing on greenfield sites is not always because it is cheaper. A developer may wish to build within a town centre but is unable to acquire the size of site needed, there may be land ownership issues, restrictive covenants or access problems. It would be better to understand and assist with these issues, to create a level playing field and make the town centre the place where people want to be.

24. Suggestions were made in respect of promoting a more flexible planning regime in terms of permitted development. To a certain extent this is unrelated to the Select Committee’s consideration of the Development of Unoccupied Urban Sites. Nevertheless, the Government could give consideration to widening Use Classes thereby reducing the need for planning permission for changes of use in certain circumstances. The impact of this will be limited (as evidenced from the number of applications for changes of use in towns), but it is considered that it will provide for a positive message. The draft Area Plan for the East also suggests a greater variety of town centre type uses.

222

APPENDIX 20: 19th June 2018

Submission from the Department for Enterprise

223

224 DEPARTMENT FOR ENTERPRISE Isle of Man Rn••y-rn Goslid Del!a Government

Chief Executive Mark Lewin 19th June 2018

Direct Diat No: (01624) [Redacted Reception (01624) 686400] Mr Jonathan King www.gov.imicIfe Deputy Clerk to Tynwald Email: [Redacted] Legislative Buildings Douglas IM1 3PW

Dear Mr King

I would like to thank you and your committee for a really positive workshop on in relation to Urban Redevelopment and thought, as you had asked for comments to be submitted, that I should respond as Chief Executive of the Department for Enterprise in terms of some of the key themes and priorities that were discussed at the workshop.

Firstly it is worth stating that the Department has a key role in stimulating and supporting redevelopment - and to that extent has a permanent seat on the Chief Minister's Regeneration Committees and the Douglas Regeneration Committee. Having sat on these committees, it is clear that much of what the Department can do is only through influence and coordination. The Department has very little employment land and cannot directly stimulate regeneration other than operational grants, in the way other jurisdictions might approach this.

It is however clearly a priority for this Department to encourage and support development that sustains and develops the Island's economy and the Department has been involved in many separate discussions and forums to try and support initiatives that would protect and develop the case for urban redevelopment ahead of greenfield development. The Department is aware of many significant redevelopments in adjacent jurisdictions - often funded by European money, but in all cases locally led and focused on creating the right infrastructure.

One of the main challenges to developing this topic is that of ownership and resourcing.

Consequently I believe the priority points emanating from the workshop that I am aware of have been discussed before and would welcome further discussion on include:

Development Agency - a single body that is resourced to understand, promote and actively put together development briefs that can be taken forward - either by Government, the private sector or through a public private partnership approach.

The Department is currently establishing the four executive agencies that will be responsible for the key macro sectors of the economy and would wish to be involved in any development agency discussions as they progress.

Department for Enterprise • 1st Floor, St George's Court • Upper Church225 Street • Douglas . Isle of Man • IM1 1 EX By placing delegated powers all in one place as in other jurisdictions, this could radically improve the commercial viability of specific development opportunities and move at pace to stimulate regeneration.

These powers could include:

• Funding (especially at a time of constrained commercial lending from Banks) • Planning (delegated powers or permitted development orders or master plan approval in principle) • Grants (targeted at economic outcomes - the Department's powers at present are focused on operators and businesses rather than developments) • Tax incentives (expanding on the existing Land Development Tax Holiday and recognising the difference between new development and redevelopment rates) • Tenant incentives (to encourage stronger yield / underwrite initial void risks) • Government Properties (either as part of a broader plan within a specific zone, or as a revenue source to fund further developments) • Single Vision Et Promotion - ability not just to commission a develop plans in principle but the powers and funding to drive the development to completion including appropriate powers to assign lease, commit spend and appoint prime developer contracts or procurements.

The above form the anchor of what other jurisdictions appear to have successfully used to deliver significant redevelopment (Jersey Development Company used for waterfront development Et Merseyside Development Corporation being two obvious examples).

Aside from this the other main topic that could stimulate regeneration of the urban areas as a priority is clearly that of growth in the economically active population, and again the Department has a key interest in this.

The Department regularly encounters suggestions around this topic and is working on a new Locate.im strategy to support this ambition and will work with other areas of Government to progress cross Government suggestions that relate to this important topic.

The Department welcomes the committee's interest and the workshop and would like to be involved as the discussions progress and if it would help the committee the Department would be willing to expand on any of the above points.

Yours sincerely

[Signed Mark Lewin]

Mark Lewin Chief Executive, Department for Enterprise

226

APPENDIX 21: 21st June 2018

Submission from the Cabinet Office

227

228

Area Plan for the East: Draft Plan Supplementary evidence paper on statistics relating to ’brownfield sites’ and ‘greenfield sites’

21st June 2018

Evidence Paper No. DP EP8 (DP EP 1-7 Published 25th May 2018) Cabinet Office 229 Evidence Paper: DP EP8

1.0 Purpose of this Evidence Paper

1.1 The timing and content of the publication of this paper has been influenced by the Select Committee appointed by Tynwald on 17th April 20188 and the subsequent oral hearing on 11th June 2018.

1.2 The Select Committee was appointed to:

“investigate the options availaable to encourage and prioritise the development of unoccupied or previously developed urban sites ahead of building on green fields in the Manx countryside, andd to report its findings and recommendations by July 2018.”

1.3 Given that the Draft Area Plan for the East has recently been published and is out for public consultation and that the Select Committee seeks infformation on particular data sets, the Cabinet Office has released this paper as part of its wider evidence base.

2.0 This paper aims to:

i. Help explain the figurees contained within Evidence Papeer 3 published on 25th May 2018 (DP EP3) specifically relating to the “658” figure referred to on page 6 of Paper DP EP3. This represents the number of potential housing units that woould be provided on brownfield sites within the plan period. ii. Provide a breakdown of the residential approvals between 2007 and 2017 (extracted from the Residential Land Availability Study Update 101) which shows the differentiation between brownfield sites and greenfield sites and the underlying assumptions for this data.

3.0 Further breakdown of staatistics set out in Evidence Paper 3

3.1 Evidence Paper 3 states in Section 3.6 ‘Potential Development Sites’ that 2,408 new dwellings could be delivered within the Plan Period. It goes on to state that of the 2,408, 658 housing unnits would be on brownfield sites. The figures are based on a number of assumptions and so are a reasonable ‘best guess’ ahead of sites being built out on site. The table set out in Appendix 1 sets out more detail to explain how the figure of 658 was reached.

1 https://www.gov.im/evidencebase

230 4.0 Breakdown of residential approvals between 2007 andd 2017 in terms of brownfield versus greenfield

4.1 The data set out in Appendix 2 has been extracted from Residential Land Availability Study Update 10; a long term study with a data set now spanning a 17 year period from 2001. The tables represent data for the 10 year period between 1st July 2007 and 30th June 2017.

4.2 The purpose of the original study was to provide informattion regarding the number and take-up rate of planning approvals for residential dwellings (net increase) across the Island, in addition to identifying land which was zoned for development but not yet identified as having planning approval.

5.0 The need for caution wheen extracting data from RLAS

5.1 The original RLAS Study was created to provide data for partticular purposes. It is possible to interrogate the data set however to produce sstatistics but when doing so it is important to identify baseline caveats and assumptions:

5.2 The tables set out in Appendix 2 assume the following:

5.2.1 The meaning of “greenfield”

Greenfield for the purpose of this data set is typically agricultural land or informal open space, in, on, abutting or close to existing settlement boundaries that are proposed within the 1982 Development Plan, Area Plan for the South or other Local Plan.

5.2.2 The meaning of “brownfield”

All land which has been prevviously developed for industry or reesidential purposes as well as ‘virgin’ land that represents ‘infill’ development within existing settlements that would otherwise be known as greenfield in the conventional sense. This does not include that which is described as greennfield above and is typically smaller in area.

5.2.3 Net figures

The RLAS data only records (in full) applications which have a net loss or gain. Straight replacements are generally not recorded. Where there is no net loss or gain, some of the applications may have been recorded over the years but it is accepted that generally straightforward replacements make no impact upon the figures within the overall approvals tables. The following example helps to explain how the countingg is undertaken: PA 15/01168/B proposed the replacement of a habitable residential unit with three dwellings. The net increase is two units not three. Pulrosse in recent years has undergone replacement of a

231 number or public sector units involving a number of applications. For instance PA 10/00700/B was for 36 new units. But 24 were replacements so the net gain was only 12 units. So what might seem to be a small increase in fact represented a much larger area of redevelopment on the ground.

5.2.4 Application types

Agricultural farm dwellings, ancillary living accommodation, tourist units and care homes have not been included.

5.2.5 New dwellings in the countryside

The new dwellings in the countryside figures in the tables have been counted as greenfield development.

232 Appendix 1 Breakdown of sites identifiable as 'brownfield sites' in the Draft Area Plan for the East

Scenario Scenario Testing - % Testing - Notes (for Net Likely Housing Site Within ESB Probability % Relevant Planning Applications / Existing Site ID Site Name Brownfield Outside Scenario DRAFT PLAN STATUS Developable Density (taking account Size (existing of coming Housing Allocations/Notes Flood Testing Report) Area of % probability) settlement forward Zone? boundary?)

Mannin Infirmary BH034 1.46 Yes Yes Yes Assume 40dph Housing Site 1.46 80% 100% 20 23 Site Former 18/00176/B - Proposed construction of 24 Farmhouse, two bedroom apartments and 6 one BH043 0.22 Yes Yes Yes Assume 15 DPH Housing Site 0.22 80% 100% 20 4 Snugborough bedroom apartments with associated car Farm parking and landscaping DH001 (Westmorland Road) Originally assumed 50% of site developed at 40dph = Assume 40 Westmoreland 49 but reduced to 0 as uncertainty during DH001 2.46 Yes Yes Yes DPH over 50% Mixed Use Site 2.46 0% 50% 40 0 Road, Douglas plan period. Housing on this site would be a site bonus through some conversion/redevelopment (Mixed Use site) Submission 31 - 39 South 16/01013/A - Approval in principle for DH004 0.24 Yes No Yes states 35 - 40 Housing Site 0.24 80% 100% 100 19 Quay Douglas residential development units. DH005 Better assessed through a planning Assume 40 Wash as Windsor Terrace, application as uncertainty about ownership DH005 0.30 Yes Yes Yes DPH over 50% Predominantly 0.00 0% 0% 40 0 Douglas and potential – very small site – Assume 0. of site Residential (Washed as Pre Res) RLA Site. Pending 18/00350/B - Provision for 46 temporary car parking spaces and three self-servicing car washing machines for a period of 2 years. 14/00615/B - Variation 2 PAs - 53 and of condition 1 of approved application PA DH019 South Quay 0.58 Yes Yes Yes Housing Site 0.58 80% 100% 100 46 33 07/02169/B (re-development of site to provide 53 residential apartments and one commercial unit including use of adjoining scrubland as garden) in order to extend period of permission by four years Westmoreland RLA Site. DH020 In use as multi-storey car DH020 0.54 Yes Yes Yes Wash as Mixed Use 0.54 0% 100% 100 0 Road, Douglas park. Assumed 0 delivery in plan period. RLA Site. 13/91222/REM - Reserved Matters AiP. Have Application to replace existing DH021 South Quay 0.09 Yes No Yes assumed 100 Housing Site 0.09 80% 100% 100 7 industrial/commercial units with a new office DPH building DD 19.10.2015 PA for 52 and AiP for Corner of Cirular 13/91517/B - Re-development of site with remainder. DH022 Road and Peel 0.79 Yes Yes Yes Housing Site 0.79 80% 100% 100 63 residential scheme of seventy three (reduced Assume 100 Road by amendment) apartments DD 02.06.2017 DPH over whole site.

233 1 Appendix 1

17/00746/B - Conversion of ground floor from various current uses (changing area, Wash as salon and storage) to an extension of DH023 Demesne Road 0.49 Yes Yes Yes Assume 15 DPH Predominantly 0.00 0% 100% 40 0 existing nursery facility, including alteration Residential to parking/drop off area DH023 Demesne Road – currently in use – assume 0 (Washed as Pre Res) 17/00526/D - Installation of non-illuminated Fairfield Junior signage in connection with the Salvation DH025 0.28 Yes Yes Yes Assume 40 DPH Housing Site 0.28 80% 100% 40 9 School Army's proposed temporary use of the premises 17/00317/C Assume 100 14/01131/B - Erection of an office building DH026 Masterplan SG1 0.29 Yes Yes Yes DPH over whole Mixed Use Site 0.29 80% 50% 100 12 with integral car parking - 0.13Ha site Assume 100 DH027 Government Office Car park – DH027 Masterplan SG3 0.13 Yes Yes Yes DPH over whole Mixed Use Site 0.13 0% 50% 100 0 assumed 0 in plan period (Mixed Use Site) site. RLA Site. Refused - 04/00032/B- Erection Wash as Stanley House, of a block of six apartments with ground DH028 0.08 Yes Yes Yes PA for 6 Predominantly 0.08 80% 100% 100 6 Douglas Head floor parking to replace existing dwelling Residential

RLA Site. 16/00614/B - Variation of condition one of PA 11/00435/B, Erection of 34 Castlemona DH029 0.01 Yes Yes Yes PA for 4 Wash as Mixed Use 0.01 80% 100% 100 1 a 4 apartment block on vacant plot, with Avenue associated car parking and access, to extend period of permission Motorcycle RLA Site Lapsed - 07/02160/B - Erection of PA for 6 DH030 showroom, 11 0.02 Yes Yes Yes Wash as Mixed Use 0.02 80% 100% 100 2 a block of six apartments with ground floor additional Castlemona parking to replace existing building RLA Site. Refused - 14/01219/B- Extension Wash as PA for 6 to existing apartment development to DH031 Block 1, Oakhill 0.22 Yes Yes Yes Predominantly 0.22 80% 100% 40 7 additional provide ground floor garages and first floor Residential apartment RLA Site. 17/01032/CON - Registered building application to vary condition 1 of PA for demo of PA13/91226/B for the demolition of existing Wash as Vine Villa, 8 1 and buildings and construction of four duplex DH033 0.08 Yes Yes Yes Predominantly 0.08 80% 100% 40 3 Derby Square. construction of apartments each with double garages, to Residential 4 (3 net) extend the period of approval for a further four years (in connection with application 17/01031/GB) Wash as 28-30 Derby RLA Site. 17/01083/B - Erection of three DH034 0.06 Yes Yes Yes PA for 7 Predominantly 0.06 80% 100% 40 2 Square. new houses and garages Residential

234 2 Appendix 1

Warehouse Store Wash as RLA Site. 14/01034/B - Erection of a block And Lock Up DH035 0.15 Yes Yes Yes PA for 8 Predominantly 0.15 80% 100% 40 5 of eight apartments with landscaping and Garages Falcon Residential parking to replace existing buildings Cliff Terrace Lane

Wash as RLA Site. 16/00227/B - Erection of five DH036 Tennis Road 0.20 Yes Yes Yes PA for 5 Predominantly 0.20 80% 100% 40 6 terraced dwellings with parking to rear of Residential properties and associated landscaping Park Rd School & 15/00922/C - Change of use of site to DH039 Bowling Green 0.84 Yes Yes Yes Assume 40DPH Housing Site 0.84 80% 100% 40 27 provide a temporary building materials PH storage area Wash as Reayrt Ny Baie, DH043 0.09 Yes Yes Yes Assume 15 DPH Predominantly 0.09 80% 100% 40 3 Albert Terr. Residential Victoria Road Prison and Edale DH046 1.39 Yes Yes Yes Assume 40DPH Housing Site 1.39 80% 100% 40 44 (including Eastcliffe) Pending 18/00144/B - Construction of a 60 bed residential care home and day care unit DH048 Glenside 1.21 Yes Yes Yes Housing Site 1.21 80% 0% 0 0 for older residents DH048 Glenside – potential care home so assume 0 (Housing Site) Wash as DH054 Manor Hotel Pulrose – in use as DH054 Manor Hotel 0.49 Yes Yes Yes Assume 15 DPH Predominantly 0.49 0% 100% 40 0 public house – assume 0 (Washed as Pre Residential Res)

Form has 'employment' as proposed use but in detail Demesne Road / Wash as states 7 Town DH056 Orry Street, 0.06 Yes Yes Yes Predominantly 0.06 80% 100% 40 2 Houses or 21 Douglas Residential Flats. Therefore re- coded from DE003

Yield - 1.1 hectares 'high density Land at Lake apartments'. DM002 1.15 Yes No Yes Housing Site 1.15 80% 100% 100 92 RLA (Part) Road, Douglas Have assumed 100 DPH. Have assumed 0 yield of employment 235 3 Appendix 1

Assume 0.3 site RLA Site. Lapsed 13/00163/B - Erection of a at 100DPH and six storey residential development with Loch Promenade - remainder retail DM003 0.42 Yes No Yes Mixed Use Site 0.42 80% 50% 100 17 underground parking and ground floor retail Masterplan SS2 (therefore 0 space on the remainder of the Villiers Site employment (comprising amendments to PA 04/00418/B) yield)

Leisure Lord Street / development on Parade Street - DM004 0.52 Yes No Yes part so Mixed Use Site 0.52 80% 50% 100 21 In Pre Application Talks Masterplan QS1 Residential on and 2 50% at 100DPH

Exact uses TBC, Hanover St. have assumed DM005 0.12 Yes Yes Yes Wash as Mixed Use 0.12 0% 100% 100 0 School 50% site area at 100 DPH

Exact uses TBC, 14/00891/GB - Alterations and refurbishment have assumed works to building, erection of an outdoor DM006 Customs House 0.09 Yes Yes Yes Wash as Mixed Use 0.09 0% 100% 100 0 50% site area canopy and creation of an internal retail area at 100 DPH (in association with 14/00892/CON)

Leisure and transport uses. Some resi Masterplan TF1 DM007 1.94 Yes No Yes potential so Mixed Use Site 1.94 80% 50% 100 78 and TF2 assume 100 DPH over 30% site area

Leisure and retail development Masterplan TF3 but potential for DM008 0.83 Yes No Yes Mixed Use Site 0.83 80% 50% 100 33 and TF6 Resi on upper floors. Assume 100 DPH on 50% site

236 4 Appendix 1

17/01067/B - Erection of temporary facility to provide stabling for tram horses, Exact uses TBC, comprising a stable building, hay store, staff assume 50% and welfare facilities and parking for a period site area at 100 DM012 Summerland 1.45 Yes No Yes Mixed Use Site 1.45 10% 50% 100 7 of 5 years DPH and 0 17/00787/B - Variation of condition 3 of employment PA12/01359/B to extend Derby Castle MER yield Depot, to extend the period of approval for a further 5 years

Have assumed 40 DPH on 50% 15/00723/B - Erection of four small office of site. Assume units with associated car parking, drainage, DM013 Little Switzerland 2.20 Yes Yes Yes other uses don’t Mixed Use Site 2.20 80% 50% 40 35 hard and soft landscaping works include (resubmission of PA 11/00178/B) employment for ST purposes.

18/00113/B - Alterations, erection of front extension to provide entrance porch and The Milestone, Assume 25% change of use from retail of electrical goods DM014 Peel Road, 1.22 Yes Yes Yes Mixed Use Site 1.22 80% 50% 100 49 resi at 100dph (Class 1) and warehouse to retail of wine Douglas and liquor (Class 1), warehouse and deli / cafe (Class 3) RLA Site. 17/00006/B - Demolition of Cliffside & End existing dwellings, garage and outbuildings GH022 Café, The 0.07 Yes No Yes PA for 4 (3 net) Wash as Mixed Use 0.07 80% 100% 20 1 and erection of four dwellings - Approved by Promenade Minister Former Prince's Motors Site, Assume 100 GH023 adjacent to MER 0.18 Yes Yes Yes Housing Site 0.18 80% 100% 20 3 RLA Site DPH line & A2 Ramsey Road Wash as RLA Site. Refused - 14/00349/B - New Inn, New GH024 0.19 Yes Yes Yes PA for 4 Predominantly 0.19 80% 100% 20 3 Replacement of Public House with four Road Residential detached dwellings with associated parking RLA Site 15/00017/A - Approval in principle 35 New Road AiP for resi. for demolition of existing Commissioners GH025 And Adjacent 0.07 Yes Yes Yes Wash as Mixed Use 0.07 80% 100% 20 1 Assume 15 DPH Offices and replace with a residential Land. development 17/01269/B - Alterations and erection of extension to existing agricultural building / Close Veg Glen, Wash as Existing use is workshop (forming amendments to PA ME001 Darragh Road, 0.29 Yes Yes Yes Predominantly 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0 employment 16/00892/B) However, considered more Glen Vine Residential appropriate to allocate as PR, noting this doesn’t prevent existing use continuing 237 5 Appendix 1

Implemented PA and Permitted 16/01316/A - Approval in principle Ballabeg, Main surrounding Housing Site (Jointly to construct 7 detached dwellings with MH018 0.70 Yes Yes Yes 0.70 80% 100% 20 11 Road, Glen Vine Resi area. 7 with MH023) garages (including details of internal site (net) based on layout, means of access and landscaping). P.Apps RLA Site. Permitted 15/00082/B, Implemented Wash as 15/00081/B, 14/01192/B - Variation of Off Glen Vine PA and MH020 0.39 Yes Yes Yes Predominantly 0.39 80% 100% 20 6 condition one of approved dwelling (PA Drive surrounding Res Residential 14/00441/VAR) to extend permission for one area (net 4) year Former Follies Cabaret RLA Site. 13/00575/B - Erection of sixteen OH016 0.45 Yes Yes Yes PA for 16 Housing Site 0.45 80% 100% 28 10 Restaurant. dwellings Harbour Road Total Brownfield 658.45

238 6 Appendix 2, 2007-2017

All Island, 1st January 2007 to 30th June 2017 Parish New dwellings on land New dwellings on New dwellings Conversions Hotel conversions New dwellings in Parish Totals designated 'proposed' land designated approved on land the countryside on 1982 Plan or 'predominantly zoned other than i.e. on land not relevant Local Plan residential' residential (apps. zoned for including land subject (includes mixed of less than 25 development to specific use) units taken as development briefs* 'windfalls')

North 80 220 94 65 0 18 477 South 232 182 50 69 0 10 543 East 148 411 51 231 137 6 984 West 367 87 5 50 0 15 524

Totals 827 900 200 415 137 49 Total new builds 1976 Total new + conversions 2391 Total new + conversions + 2528 hotel conversions

* Land designated as Predominantly Residential on the Braddan Local Plan 1991, the Douglas Local Plan 1998 or the Area Plan for the South 2013 which was still open land / agricultural at the time their approval, has been taken to be 'Proposed Residential' for the purposes of this study (Greenfield).

Summary Total Percentage New builds on greenfield 876 34% New builds on brownfield 1100 44% Conversions 552 22% Brownfield + conversions 1652 66% Total 2528 100%

All Island (2007-2017) 1 239 Appendix 2, 2007-2017

North, 1st January 2007 to 30th June 2017 Parish New dwellings on land New dwellings on New dwellings Conversions New dwellings in Parish Totals designated 'proposed' on land designated approved on land the countryside i.e. 1982 Plan or relevant 'predominantly zoned other than on land not zoned Local Plan including land residential' residential (apps. of for development subject to specific (includes mixed less than 25 units development briefs use) taken as 'windfalls')

Andreas 0137213 Ballaugh 010539 Bride 0203510 Jurby 0854219 Lezayre 05510525 Maughold 1606114 Ramsey 79 197 81 30 0 387

Totals 80 220 94 65 18 Total new builds 412 Total new + conversions 477

Summary Total Percentage New builds on greenfield 98 21% New builds on brownfield 314 66% Conversions 65 14% Brownfield + conversions 379 79% Total 477 100%

Applications of Note: 16/00232/B - Fields 131047 & 134069, Royal Park Phase 2, The Vollan - 81 Units (Greenfield) 13/91461/B - Creation of new Dwellings on site of old Gas Works - 30 Units (Brownfield) 12/01041/B - Site Of Former Grand Island Hotel - 35 Units (Brownfield)

Additional Notes: Revised applications to previous permissions subsequently reduced the net number of dwellings on land 'proposed' on.

North (2007-2017) 2 240 Appendix 2, 2007-2017

South, 1st January 2007 to 30th June 2017 Parish New dwellings on land New dwellings on New dwellings Conversions New dwellings in Parish Totals designated 'proposed' on land designated approved on land the countryside i.e. the Area Plan for the 'predominantly zoned other than on land not zoned South (SAP) 2013* residential' residential (apps. of for development (includes mixed less than 25 units use) taken as 'windfalls')

Arbory 47 8 0 7 0 62 Castletown 2 51 0 22 0 75 Malew 93149356 Port Erin 161 33 1 6 0 201 Port St Mary 0 50 45 14 0 109 Rushen 13 9 0 11 7 40

Totals 232 182 50 69 10 Total new builds 474 Total new + conversions 543

* Land designated as 'predominantly residential (proposed)' in the 1982 Development Plan or other specific development briefs has been transferred to 'predominantly residential' in accordance with the Area Plan for the South 2013. Summary Total Percentage New builds on greenfield 242 45% New builds on brownfield 232 43% Conversions 69 13% Brownfield + conversions 301 55% Total 543 100%

Applications of Note: 13/00777/B - Fields 411529, 414546, 414214 & 414532, Part Of Footway To Church Road And Small Parcel Of Adjoining Land- Port Erin- 155 Units (Greenfield) 15/00870/B - Demolition of redundant gas works and construction of dwellings - Port St Mary - 20 Units (Brownfield)

South (2007-2017) 3 241 Appendix 2, 2007-2017

East, 1st January 2007 to 30th June 2017 Parish New dwellings on land New dwellings on New dwellings Conversions Hotel conversions New dwellings in Parish Totals designated 'proposed' land designated approved on land the countryside on 1982 Plan or 'predominantly zoned other than i.e. on land not relevant Local Plan residential' residential (apps. zoned for including land subject (includes mixed of less than 25 development to specific use) units taken as development briefs* 'windfalls')

Braddan 32 6 20 12 0 -3 67 Douglas 21 319 5 172 137 0 654 Laxey 1 14040019 Lonan 3229050369 Marown 3020770468 Onchan 32 23 18 29 0 1 103 Santon 0 012014

Totals 148 411 51 231 137 6 984 Total new builds 616 Total new + conversions 847 Total new + conversions + 984 hotel conversions

* Land designated as Predominantly Residential on the Braddan Local Plan 1991 or the Douglas Local Plan 1998, which was still open land / agricultural at the time when the Local Plans were approved, has been taken to be 'Proposed Residential' for the purposes of this study.

Summary Total Percentage New builds on greenfield 154 16% New builds on brownfield 462 47% Conversions 368 37% Brownfield + conversions 830 84% Total 984 100%

Applications of Note: 14/00615/B - Redevelopment of site to provide 53 residential apts. Former Manx Petroleum Depot - 53 Units (Brownfield) 16/00775/B - Redevelopment of Willaston Police Station Site - 41 Units (Brownfield) 16/00946/B - Conversion and erection of extension to former nursing home to provide residential apartments - 32 Units (Brownfield)

East (2007-2017) 4 242 Appendix 2, 2007-2017

West, 1st July 2007 to 30th June 2017 Parish New dwellings on land New dwellings on New dwellings Conversions New dwellings in Parish Totals designated 'proposed' on land designated approved on land the countryside 1982 Plan or relevant 'predominantly zoned other than outside of Local Plan including land residential' residential (apps. of settlement subject to specific (includes mixed less than 25 units boundaries development briefs* use) taken as 'windfalls')

German 24317127 Michael 11006219 Patrick 78 1 0 11 12 102 Peel 286 72 2 16 0 376

Totals 367 87 5 50 15 Total new builds 474 Total new + conversions 524

Summary Total Percentage New builds on greenfield 382 73% New builds on brownfield 92 18% Conversions 50 10% Brownfield + conversions 142 27% Total 524 100%

Applications of Note: 13/91289/B, 14/01326/B, 14/01323/B - Fields 311826, 311827 And 314444 - Peel - 144 Units (Greenfield) 10/00544/B - Field 311825 & parts of fields 315097 - Peel - 100 Units (Greenfield)

West (2007-2017) 5 243 The information in this leaflet can be provided in large print or audio

Cabinet Office Government Office Bucks Road Douglas IM1 3PN 244

APPENDIX 22:

Practice Note 192/16: Land Development Tax Holiday, issued by the Treasury on 16th February 2016

245

246 INCOME TAX DIVISION The Treasury Government Office, Douglas Isle of Man, British Isles Yn Tashtey IM1 3TX

Assessor of Income Tax Telephone: (01624) 685400 Nicola Guffogg Fax: (01624) 685351 E mail: [email protected] Website: www.gov.im/incometax

PRACTICE NOTE

PN 192/16 Date: 16 February 2016

LAND DEVELOPMENT TAX HOLIDAY

INTRODUCTION

In his statement in July Tynwald, the Chief Minister announced the introduction of a tax holiday for certain land developments that are carried out in the interests of the economy of the Island. This Practice Note provides details of how the holiday will work in practice and the developments to which it will apply.

The legislation providing for the tax holiday is contained within section 2A Income Tax Act 1970.

QUALIFYING CONDITIONS

The conditions for the application of the holiday are:

i. it is in the interests of the economy of the Island; and ii. it is necessary for the purpose of establishing or developing any “eligible business” in the Island; and iii. it will enable the business to provide additional productive employment in the Island.

The Assessor will consider the development of commercial property to be “in the interests of the economy of the Island”.

The definition of an “eligible business” is contained in the Enterprise Act 2008 (Eligible Businesses) Regulations 2014. Where the company applying for the holiday is not itself an “eligible business”, it will be treated as an eligible business provided its customer i.e. the tenant or purchaser of the property is establishing or has established an “eligible business” in that property. The Assessor will consult with the Department of Economic Development to determine whether a company meets this condition.

The Assessor will require a company applying for the holiday to provide evidence in its application (see below) that it will enable the provision of additional productive employment in the Island.

EFFECT OF THE HOLIDAY

The holiday will provide an exemption from income tax for any relevant income or profits of a company for up to five years (60 months).

1 247 Relevant income or profits which will be exempt under the holiday are:

• the profit made on any new commercial development, or improvement to an existing commercial development which will provide additional productive employment in the Island; and/or • rental income received on a new commercial development, or improvement to an existing commercial development which will provide additional productive employment in the Island.

The tax holiday will apply to income that commences after 16 February 2016. It will begin on the first date income is earned from the development and will continue for a period of up to five years.

Commercial Property Development

Where the company is constructing a new commercial development for sale, or improving an existing commercial development for sale, the income eligible for the holiday will be the proceeds of sale. In those cases the holiday will cease in the year of sale, as there will be no other relevant income or profits.

If the company is undertaking more than one commercial development for sale, it is possible that on certain developments income from sale could be staggered, and in these cases the Assessor should be contacted in order to determine the start date for the holiday.

Commercial Property Letting

Where the company is constructing a new commercial development for letting, or improving an existing commercial development for letting, the holiday will start on the date on which the first rental income is received, after which the exemption will continue for a period of up to five years.

It is possible that one company could receive an exemption from tax on the profit from the sale of a new development while another could receive an exemption for the rental income from the same development for up to five years.

The tax holiday will not be available for:

• the development of residential property; or • any business that is beneficially owned by an individual who has elected for the tax cap.

APPLICATION OF THE TAX HOLIDAY IN THE COMPANY ASSESSMENT

The relevant income or profits of a company which is subject to the tax holiday will not be charged to the 20% company rate applicable to income from land and property in the Isle of Man. Whilst this is referred to in the legislation as a temporary exemption, the company must still make a return of that income to the Assessor as this information is required for national statistical purposes. Companies which have been granted the tax holiday will therefore continue to be required to declare all of their taxable income on their income tax returns for the duration of the holiday.

The application of the holiday will appear on a company’s income tax assessment as a “tax holiday” deduction equal to the taxable income that is subject to the tax holiday.

Where the company only has a single source of income, the application of the holiday in the assessment will be relatively straightforward, and income tax computations for the duration of the holiday should be prepared in the normal manner.

Where a company has multiple sources of income, only some of which are subject to the holiday, the income tax computation will need to be split.

2 248 • Expenses that relate specifically to the income source subject to the holiday can be claimed only against that income source.

• Expenses that relate to all income sources can be claimed against all income sources, but should be pro-rated in the ratio of the income sources.

Companies will remain able to claim capital allowances for qualifying expenditure on plant and machinery, or on specific buildings which qualify as industrial buildings, agricultural buildings or tourist premises, in a tax efficient manner.

For companies with multiple sources of income, only some of which are subject to the holiday, the capital allowances claimed will need to be split between income sources.

• If the capital asset is used solely in relation to the income source subject to the holiday, capital allowances can be claimed only against that income source.

• However, if the capital assets are used in relation to all the income sources, they can be claimed against all income sources, but pro-rated in the ratio of the income sources.

• If the actual use of the asset is different, the Assessor may agree a different ratio based on the actual use of the asset in relation to each income source.

DISTRIBUTIONS

Income or profits that have benefited from the holiday will, on distribution to shareholders, be treated in the same way as a distribution of income from a company subject to the zero rate of tax.

REVOCATION IN CASES OF ABUSE

If the Assessor is of the opinion that the holiday is being used to avoid or reduce the liability to income tax of any person resident in the Island, other than that of the “eligible business”, she may rescind the exemption.

The exemption will also be rescinded if, within six years of the granting of the holiday, a commercial development becomes residential. This would include the change of use from tourist accommodation to letting of rooms for residential or long stay purpose.

Any person who does not agree with the Assessor’s decision to rescind an exemption, shall be entitled to appeal to the Income Tax Commissioners on the ground that the exemption was not being used to avoid or reduce the liability to income tax of any other person and the Commissioners may reverse, vary or confirm any such decision.

APPLICATION FOR THE HOLIDAY

An application for the tax holiday should be made in writing to the Assessor of Income Tax in respect of new commercial property development or improvement income that commenced after the date of this Practice Note.

The application should include evidence that the development meets the qualifying conditions and should also provide full details of the development and the beneficial ownership of the company.

3 249 If the Assessor is satisfied that the development meets the qualifying conditions, she will consult with the Department of Economic Development and, if the criteria for an eligible business are met, the Assessor will grant an income tax exemption for a period of up to five years.

The tax holiday will apply only to the proportion of taxable profit relating to the development or improvement commencing after 16 February 2016.

Nicola Guffogg Assessor of Income Tax This Practice Note is intended only as a general guide and must be read in conjunction with the appropriate legislation. It does not have any binding force and does not affect a person’s right of appeal on points concerning their own liability to income tax. Comments and suggestions for improvements of issued Practice Notes and suggestions for future Practice Notes are always welcome.

4 250

APPENDIX 23: 22nd June 2018

Submission from Carol Glover including ‘Departments to Apartments; Implications and opportunities in light of proposed changes to permitted development rights’

251

252 From: Carol Glover Sent: 22 June 2018 15:06 To: Shimmins, Bill (MHK) Subject: Brownfield sites idea

Hi Bill

I attended a workshop this morning at UCM called “Re-thinking Higher Learning”.

An issue that come up from the group I was in, when considering a number of different issues around this topic, was the absence of affordable rental accommodation for Millennials, as students)local and international) studying here and as returning graduates.

In the role I fulfil as a Property Director, I am aware of the shortage of such accommodation – yet when we visit my husband’s hometown of Coventry, these days, I note it is full of city centre tower blocks of young person’s accommodation.(like many Uni towns in UK)

Given we are reputed to have over 300, 000 square feet of vacant office accommodation in Douglas currently(and limited supply of outdated tourism accommodation), I wondered if anyone had suggested tax breaks to stimulate redevelopment of larger units as studio apartments and alongside this , zoning of areas for such development, to ensure planning permission is achieved, maybe via a PDO ( I have attached a UK report on this subject for info that I found), to encourage the private sector to re-develop into “affordable rental stock”.

It was generally considered by parents in the group I was in, that the safety record of the IOM, could be a great attraction to overseas students, however, the youngster in our group said straightaway “where are they going to live” and he is correct.

Apologies if this is duplicating info you already have, but thought it was interesting.

Regards

Carol

Carol Glover Corporate Strategy & Projects Isle of Man Enterprises plc T:01624 [Redacted]

Please click here to read our email disclaimer

253 Consider the environment before printing this email

Isle of Man Enterprises plc is registered in the Isle of Man No. 9827V Registered Office: Centre House, Little Switzerland, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM2 4RE

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

254 converting office buildings to residential opportunitiesin Implications and light proposed of development rights 255 changes permitted to Departments to Apartments to

Departments to Apartments Mercer Building commercial to residential conversion. Child Graddon Lewis Architects

256 Departments to Apartments to residential office buildings converting Contents

1 Executive summary 2

2 Introduction 6

3 What is the scale of the opportunity? 10

4 Realising the opportunities 22

5 What are the planning policy implications? 38

6 Developers’ toolkit 40

A Appendices 44

257 1 Executive summary

The UK, its government and the property industry are faced with an unprecedented challenge: our housing shortage is reaching crisis point while an estimated 18% of commercial building stock lies empty.

258 2 1 Executive summary 1

The UK, its government and the property Exclusions industry are faced with an unprecedented There are, of course, a number of caveats and challenge: our housing shortage is reaching exclusions. Listed buildings and proposals on crisis point while an estimated 18% of contaminated land are expected to be excluded. commercial building stock lies empty. A number of responses have suggested that buildings in areas designated as central activity The planning proposals zones, in strategic employment locations, or large schemes creating over 50 dwellings, ought The Government has consulted on proposed to be excluded. The potential impact on the changes to relax planning rules1 for buildings and provision of affordable homes and the loss of land in England. This would allow the change employment space are clearly a concern to local from offices, research & development and light planning authorities. industrial properties (B1) to residential (C3) without the need for a planning application. As part of the The opportunities changes to permitted development rights, it is CLG figures2 suggest that a potential 22,000 also proposed to allow the development of more (net additional) new homes could be created as a than one residential unit over retail (A1) premises. result of the relaxation of rules on commercial (B1) The Consultation also acknowledges the case for to residential space alone. However, the reality is allowing change of use from general industrial (B2) that the availability of commercial buildings in the and storage & distribution (B8) to residential. right locations, built to an appropriate format and Following the end of the Department for with financial viability, will limit the quantity of new Communities and Local Government (CLG)’s change of use projects coming forward. consultation on 30th June this year, the changes Nevertheless, this does leave a significant quantity could take effect by the end of this year. of commercial space that could – in theory – be converted. This report examines the implications of the changes and opportunities for the property industry that could come about as a result. Our analysis indicates that locations that are likely to present the greatest opportunity for development are in established centres or residential environments, particularly within the commuter belt areas around central London such Figure 1 as Kingston, Merton and the wider South East. Average national land values (£/hectare) However, regional town and city centres such as Bristol, Harrogate, Norwich and Southampton also 2,000,000 present opportunities in light of current under- 2,000,000 1,800,000 supply of housing and increases in projected 1,800,000 1,600,000 households, and therefore demand, over the 1,600,000 1,400,000 next 20 years. 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 800,000 800,000 600,000 600,000 400,000 400,000 200,000 1 i.e. permitted development rights 200,000 0 2 Presented in the CLG’s consultation document – 0 Residential Commercial Industrial http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/ Residential Commercial Industrial (C3) (B1) (B2) planningandbuilding/pdf/1883189.pdf (C3) (B1) (B2) 259 3 Case study: A worked example of a typical office building converted to residential.

260 4 Executive summary 1

Practicalities Anticipated changes to the building regulations in 2013 will make it mandatory to achieve an Attractive The most likely types of commercial buildings to additional 25% improvement to energy efficiency be appropriate for conversion are post-war office buildings with and carbon reduction. In any case, future-proofing buildings built pre-1970 (though the requirement to a development makes economic sense given sustainability comply with current building regulations then also the payback periods for sustainable technology adds to the complexity of the process). benefits in the and the reduction in the need for retrofitting to In order to update office space from the 1945-1970 meet targets further down the line. And attractive form of reduced period to current building regulation standards, buildings with sustainability benefits in the form energy bills, it is likely that re-cladding will be necessary. With of reduced energy bills, and which are safe re-cladding comes the requirement for a planning and in accessible locations, will always appeal and which application for external alterations to the building, to occupiers. and therefore under the government’s proposals, are safe and a reduced form of planning application could be The business case in accessible made concerning only external alterations. This With planning restrictions removed and could leave planning targets that are currently practicalities taken care of, the decision to convert locations, will enforced through applicants entering into s106 will rest on the business case. planning obligations, e.g. for affordable homes and always appeal EcoHomes / BREEAM, to be sought and agreed to This report includes a case study forming the basis only on a voluntary basis. of four cost scenarios to illustrate the potential to occupiers. options available to decision makers (Figure 2): With sustainable development forming a key part of government policy, underpinned by its commitment • The cost of upgrading an existing (older) to becoming ‘the greenest government ever’, a commercial building to meet current standards holistic approach that considers social as well as and occupier requirements. economic and environmental factors is needed • Conversion to residential to meet existing to create developments that are desirable in the building control regulations (B1 to C3). long term. • Conversion to residential to meet 2013 building control regulations (B1 to C3). • An equivalent new build residential development.

Figure 2 An analysis of the cost options, summarised in Development options and cost comparison Figure 2, highlights: Cost per square metre of development • An approximate cost increase of 20% between refurbishing older office stock and converting the £2,500 same building to residential£2,500 use; £2,000 • A further 17% would be£2,000 added for equivalent new build development. £1,500 £1,500

£1,000 Given that average national£1,000 commercial land values are less than half those of residential – added to the £500 removal of costs and risk £500associated with obtaining planning permission and other approvals – there is £0 £0 Ofﬁce Residential Residential New Build a strong business case for conversionOfﬁce schemes. Residential Residential New Build Refurbishment Conversion to Conversion to Refurbishment to Conversion to Conversion to to to Part L 2010 Part L 2010 to Part L 2013 Part L 2010 Part L 2010 Part L 2010 Part L 2013 Part L 2010 261 5 Introduction

The pressure for housing remains high due to low levels of supply combined with recent economic influences on affordability and finance.

262 6 2 Introduction 2

The pressure for housing remains high This is generally intended to apply to land that has due to low levels of supply combined with been built on. By necessity the redevelopment of recent economic influences on affordability land will bring with it a far wider range of planning and finance. issues, effecting in particular, the supply of strategic employment sites. The focus of this study has, At present, the use of land and buildings is defined therefore, been on the change of use / conversion by the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) of buildings. Order 1987 (as amended), and the planning system requires that changes of use between ‘classes’ are Removing the burden and costs associated with subject to a planning application for development. such planning applications and establishing the The Town and Country Planning (General principle that change of use between these classes Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) is appropriate could encourage developers to bring (the GPDO) is the statutory instrument by which forward more proposals for housing. It is proposed certain changes of use are granted a general that any external alterations, on the other hand, are permission, such that an individual planning still likely to need approval under normal planning permission need not be applied for. application procedures. The government’s consultation proposals would This report focuses on the implications and relax planning rules which apply to England, such opportunities with regards to the conversion of that changes of use of buildings and land from existing buildings, and provides practical advice in Use Class B1 (offices, research and development this respect. This focus also reflects the fact that and light industrial) to the residential use class there are many more planning issues at stake in (C3) would be permitted without the need to allowing greater freedoms to convert land, and that apply for planning permission. The consultation the outcome of this debate is far more uncertain at proposals also suggest that there is a strong this time. case to also allow permitted development rights from B2 (general industrial) and B8 (storage The following exemptions from the proposed and distribution) to C3. Other proposals include changes to permitted development rights are allowing development of more than one residential identified in the government consultation (albeit this unit over retail (A1) premises. may be subject to changes): These proposals relate to the change of use of • Listed buildings buildings and land with existing designated use • Contaminated land classes with the proposal that a property should be able to revert back to its original use should it • Schemes requiring Environmental prove unsuccessful as residential, and provided it Impact Assessment. is undertaken within five years. The government’s own figures suggest that the proposed changes could theoretically release a stock of B1, B2 and B8 premises to create almost 60,000 homes each year. The outcome of the consultation, and the government’s final proposals have yet to be These proposals relate to the change of use of buildings revealed; for example, it remains to be seen whether the government will attach criteria, and land with existing designated use classes with the conditions or thresholds to the new permitted proposal that a property should be able to revert back to development right, and what these might be. its original use should it prove unsuccessful as residential, and provided it is undertaken within five years. 263 7 Conversion of existing canalside office building in London to private residential. Child Graddon Lewis Architects

264 8 Introduction 2

Converting commercial buildings to residential is The report is structured to answer the not a new concept. There is, in theory, nothing following questions: to stop a landowner applying for change of use, but in practice many local planning authorities often safeguard ‘employment uses’, and seek to What is the scale of the opportunity? resist change of use that will not retain or directly How could the opportunities be realised? generate employment. Conversion schemes are feasible within the existing controlled policy What are the implications for policy? environment, but the government argues that changing the law will encourage implementation. In some instances there are legitimate reasons for The final section draws on the conclusions to local authorities to protect employment use; for these questions, and presents a guide for decision example the City of London feels it should be able makers in the form of a developers’ ‘toolkit’. to compete with other world cities in providing the best commercial space available and this policy The consortium is led by Child Graddon Lewis would frustrate efforts to achieve this. There are (CGL) Architects together with Nathaniel Lichfield also numerous examples of areas where there is & Partners (NLP) planning consultants, Gifford a strong need for employment land to meet the (part of Ramboll) environmental engineers, needs of business. In these cases, there is a good Robinson Low Francis (RLF), cost consultants. case for such land to be rightfully protected. The NHBC has provided advice and guidance on the content. Nevertheless, other areas exist where redundant and obsolete commercial buildings lie empty, whilst severe housing need is prevalent, and it is this part of the opportunity that is the focus of this research. There is no doubt that there are opportunities to be had – and important benefits to come from this, not least in the supply of housing but also through There is no doubt that there are breathing new life into old buildings and revitalising townscape. This is in addition to the question opportunities to be had – and of the sustainability benefits of reusing existing important benefits to come from this, building stock. This report has been prepared by a consortium not least in the supply of housing of industry experts and examines in detail the but also through breathing new life implications of the government’s proposals, as they relate to building conversions. The report provides into old buildings and revitalising an assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed legislative change and outlines practical townscape. This is in addition to the issues in relation to architecture, planning, building question of the sustainability benefits regulations, cost and sustainability issues facing potential conversion projects. of reusing existing building stock.

265 9 What is the scale of the opportunity?

The government has made some ambitious estimates for what the proposal might achieve in housing terms. Clearly, these estimates are not based on market testing or subject to more detailed analysis of the data or the types of property on which these statistics are based. They can therefore only be considered as a starting point.

266 10 3 What is the scale of the opportunity? 3

The government has made some ambitious CLG estimates suggest that if conversion rates estimates for what the proposal might achieve in of B1 space increase from 0.2% to 1% of stock housing terms. the number of homes generated would increase from 3,900 to 25,830 per annum. If the proposal Clearly, these estimates are not based on market extended to B2 and B8, an increase from 0.4% testing or subject to more detailed analysis of to 1% of stock would increase the number of new the data or the types of property on which these homes from conversion by 58,983 per annum. statistics are based. They can therefore only be considered as a starting point. The CLG consultation document states that the average vacancy rate in the commercial sector What we are able to forecast is the type of space (B1, B2 and B8) in England is between 7% and 9% that is more likely to be suitable, where in the based on 2005 data. Based on the assumption country this type of space is concentrated and that 50% is long-term vacant, and that only these some of the practical barriers that might stand spaces are converted, the maximum number in the way of conversion. The following sections of dwellings built could be around 262,880 examine these issues in more detail. new dwellings.

3.1 Most commentators believe the assumptions point to an overly ambitious estimate for conversion The government’s estimates of buildings. The figures also ignore the scale The CLG consultation document provided high of the opportunity that exists for undeveloped level figures to illustrate the potential impact of the employment land for which the potential in new proposed permitted development right. It quantitative terms may be greater, particularly stated that: for greenfield employment allocations in attractive locations. • On average across 08/09 and 09/10 there were around 15,135 dwellings which came from Indeed, the factors driving the take-up of any change of use, of which: proposed change will inevitably relate to a series of supply and demand factors, linked to the way • 3,900 were from change of use from B1 to C3. in which the policy will be applied and the varying This represents 0.2% of the stock of B1 floor circumstances of different localities. space per annum. • 8,300 were from change of use from B1, B2 and B8 to C3. This represents 0.4% Mercer Building (interior) of the stock of B1, B2 and B8 floor space per annum. Child Graddon Lewis Architects

The factors driving the take-up of any proposed change will inevitably relate to a series of supply and demand factors, linked to the way in which the policy will be applied and the varying circumstances of different localities. 267 11 Figure 3 71% 71%Biggest increase CLG Household Projections 2008-33 40% 40%71% Source: CLG / NLP analysis 40%

30% 30%

30% 20% 20%

Smallest 6% increase6%20%

268 12 What is the scale of the opportunity? 3

3.2 Together, affordability, the crunch of mortgage Residential demand and the need availability and requirement for large deposits; all for housing dampen demand for properties. In some cases the over-supply of new-build apartments and collapse The need for housing in England in the context in the speculative buy-to-let market in some central of household growth and affordability problems locations, has made it difficult to secure mortgages remains acute and in the post-war period the for those dwellings. How long it will take for this shortfall in the supply of new homes has never been situation to resolve is uncertain, but most analysts greater. The government has instigated a change expect it to continue for a number of years. Some in how local areas plan for housing, including the expect new financing models, including institutional proposed abolition of Regional Strategies, freeing up investment in private renting to be a solution, local authorities to set their own housing targets. but the scale of this is untested. Combined, these factors act to limit realisable demand for Growth in households conversion of office space in all but the strongest Based on the government’s 2008-based market locations. household projections, the number of households Regional variations in England is likely to grow to 27.5 million by 2033, an increase of 5.8 million (27%) from 2008 creating Looking longer term, there will be large variations in 232,000 additional households each year. Low the pattern of future growth in households across levels of annual housing completions (totalling just England. In general terms, London and the wider 107,220 ) in England during the past 12 months South East, parts of the South West, East Midlands may be down to the economic recession, but and M62 Corridor are projected to see some of prior to 2007/8 completions did not exceed the largest proportionate increases in households: Based on the 160,000. This shortfall is part of the explanation for of up to 71% over 25 years. (This is illustrated in affordability problems and the relatively high prices Figure 3). And in absolute terms it is the cities government’s for residential property in the UK. – Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Nottingham, Manchester and of course London – that will 2008-based Of course the demand and need for housing is not see some of the largest increases in number of uniform in type or location. household households, alongside other high growth locations Around four million of the new households will – Milton Keynes and Colchester – or larger counties projections, be single person households (many of them – Durham, Cornwall and Suffolk. the number of elderly). This puts pressures on newly-formed younger couples and families. Owner occupation So, in terms of demand for residential households has fallen over the past decade from 73% to just accommodation, the following picture exists: 68%, and is forecast to drop further to 63%. The in England is proportion of young householders aged 25-29 • The immediate and long-term need for who were private renters rose from 19% to 38% in housing generally is strong and likely to persist, likely to grow the period between 1993/4 and 2007/8. Renting particularly in metropolitan and urban areas and to 27.5 million is more synonymous with smaller and flatted in the south of England. accommodation, the supply of which increased • Realisable demand however, is dampened by 2033, an dramatically over the same period, particularly in by current market factors, except in the urban areas. And in some urban areas, affordability strongest markets. increase of pressures have priced households into locations 5.8 million (27%) previously considered less attractive, potentially in • There is an increase in demand for rental areas where employment space is situated. properties and accommodation for from 2008. smaller households.

269 13 3 What is the scale of the opportunity?

3.3 Type and condition of buildings It is generally considered that the Although in most urban areas there are space most suitable for conversion examples of vacant commercial space that theoretically create opportunities for residential to residential will be office space (B1), conversion, there simply is not the evidence to rather than general industrial use and accurately quantify how many have genuine practical potential. warehousing (B2, B8).

Office space It is generally considered that the space most suitable for conversion to residential will be office space (B1), rather than general industrial use and warehousing (B2, B8). This is because office buildings have been designed for occupation, placing greater importance on issues such as daylight and ventilation than many typical industrial or warehouse buildings. Because the requirements of office buildings have a greater similarity to those of residential, and are generally in more accessible locations, we agree with the CLG that change of use from B1 to C3 would be the ‘key proposal’. Figure 4 The increase in depth of insulation required However, the age of any existing building is likely to be a key determinant. In broad terms, office since the u-value limits introduced in 1965 buildings can be grouped into three categories: (mm)

A: pre-1945 buildings; 300

B: 1945-1970s; and 250 C: 1980s to present day.

200 Generally speaking, the shift in format and design between these vintages has an impact on the 150 practical viability of conversion potential.

100

0 1965 1975 1985 1990 1995 2002 2013

270 14 Example of an existing building in Paris, re‑clad with winter gardens and balconies by Lacton and Vassal Architects

271 15 Mercer Building mixed use conversion of load bearing masonry building. Child Graddon Lewis Architects

272 16 What is the scale of the opportunity? 3

A: Pre-1945 buildings Although in theory there is a reduced risk in taking forward pre-war buildings, there are still Pre-1940s construction, buildings types such as some challenges: Victorian warehouses, are likely to differ to the typical post war office building in the way they • Supply – a smaller supply of such building types can be converted. Often, the building will have compared to post-1950s B1 stock will limit the load bearing masonry walls instead of a framed scope of these types of buildings contributing structure, which is more typical post war. any significant development opportunities. For these buildings, compliance with current • Internal disruption – internally insulating to regulations for improved thermal performance sufficient standards can take up significant of the building envelope would most likely floor space (as indicated byFigure 4 on the result in applying new insulation internally and previous page). replacement windows. • Flexibility – designing a residential layout within Because the potential to insulate internally is existing window openings of a commercial unlikely to require significant alteration to the building can be limiting to the proposed layout. building’s external appearance (beyond window This may cause fewer individual dwellings to replacement, landscaping etc) such schemes be created from the equivalent floor space are less likely to trigger the requirement for a of a re‑clad project where openings may be planning submission. Conversion schemes that more flexible. can be internally insulated may therefore have • Energy consumption – high level energy reduced standards placed upon them by planning efficiency is more difficult to achieve when authorities. It is nonetheless still possible that a renovating internally. Issues such as cold planning application for external amendments will bridging and air tightness are likely to more be required if, for example, the building has historic problematic than in a re‑clad approach. value. However, in this scenario, the character of the existing building often makes these types of • Heritage Issues – many pre-war buildings conversion projects more desirable to buyers. may have heritage constraints that limit conversion potential. Listed buildings come with additional sensitivities that can constrain the opportunities for conversion, while being located in a Conservation Area could create added complication and expense.

Kean Street, London. Conversion of Victorian commercial building to residential. Child Graddon Lewis Architects

273 17 3 What is the scale of the opportunity?

B: 1945-1970s buildings C: 1980s to present buildings The design of post war office buildings has Office buildings post-1980 tended to be created developed to accommodate changes in relation to on a deep plan format (between 15-18m) which servicing and information technology. The format are not easily adapted to suit residential layouts, of offices built over the past 60 years fall into principally due to the ratio of floorspace versus two distinct typologies – 1945-1970s, and 1980s façade which restricts the positioning of windows onwards. Of these, the former perhaps present to habitable rooms. All things being equal, the more opportunity for conversion, being more likely higher floor to floor heights (between 3.7-4.2m) A typical 1945-1970s to have reached the end of use cycle or be in a are still more likely to accommodate modern building location where the market has moved on. office servicing requirements, therefore reducing the likelihood of these types of office buildings In practical terms, the key characteristics becoming vacant in situations where the market for of commercial buildings built between 1945 office space remains reasonable. and 1970 are: • Framed structure – generally concrete, as opposed to masonry load bearing walls. Industrial buildings • Shallow plan width (approx. 10-14m). These Although there are likely to be a number of are more suitable to accommodate apartment buildings with potential, the government’s view layouts as depth of plan and orientation of is that general industrial or warehousing (B2 and existing floor plates are more adaptable allowing B8) type buildings are often in the ‘wrong’ location adequate daylight for residential layouts. or physically unsuited for adaptation and would • Slab to slab floor heights of approximately generally require rebuilding, thereby triggering a A typical 1980s to present full application. building 3m, and constraints on floor loadings means that servicing requirements for modern office Often located in single-use industrial estates, occupiers are not easily accommodated, unless the scale of conversion is comprehensive, or meaning that these buildings are more likely to the plot is on the periphery, market forces are likely remain vacant. to limit potential. However, even in a favourable • Looking to the future, increasingly stringent location, the construction of many industrial energy efficiency requirements will add further buildings are often unsuitable for conversion due pressure on costs of upgrading older office to factors such as access to daylight, and longevity stock. A recent report from the British Council of materials (portal frame buildings such as the of Offices suggested that as F and G rated image below). properties are banned from 2018 onwards, more than 60% of private sector office buildings in London could become obsolete. Although post-war / pre-1970s commercial buildings are most likely to be viable in terms of conversion to residential, and are in some cases perhaps most likely to be vacant, most of these buildings in a conversion project are likely to require significant upgrades to the facade, which will usually require planning permission for the operational development.

Industrial building portal shed type 274 18 What is the scale of the opportunity? 3

3.4 Figure 5 highlights the following: Where is the available space and how i) London, the South East and East of England does this relate to the market? combined represent over half (55%) of the office space in England. Together with its currently So if office space remains the best opportunity stronger residential market as a whole, this part for conversion work, and of this, the 1945-1970s of the country has the greatest overall potential space is perhaps the most available, and suitable, (although local markets elsewhere will have where are they most likely to be found? Published some opportunities). and reliable national data is not widely available. However, Figure 5 below uses Valuation Office ii) The North and the Midlands have seen relatively Agency (VOA) data from the mid‑2000s (the most limited office development over the past four recent publicly available) to show the distribution of decades, meaning that (based on mid-00 figures) office space by age and region. pre-1970s space represented almost two-thirds of total office space. It is therefore more likely to be performing a role in meeting demand in local office markets and, with lower rates of new build office development, is perhaps more likely to be refurbished for continued commercial use. The residential market is also weaker, particularly for apartments, given the impacts of mortgage rationing on first-time buyers who remain key Age of Ofﬁce Space by Region segments of the market for such products in those locations. However, it is likely that these Figure 5 areas may be the focus of future demand, as Office space according to age and region considered earlier.

North East And clearly values remain critical. The greater the potential residential premium above the existing North West use value, the more potential there is for conversion Yorkshire and Humberside to be attractive. This might mean that areas with cheaper commercial space are more attractive East Midlands for conversion, particularly if the ‘affordability’ of West Midlands commercial space is due to an over-supply. But East clearly there is a potential positive correlation in some locations between high residential and high commercial property values: Figure 6 highlights that London has by some margin the highest London rateable values for commercial floorspace (just as it does for residential values) but CLG’s evidence base indicates that Ealing and Croydon in outer London have lower multiples of residential to South East industrial values compared with locations like Oxford or Plymouth. It is a positive differential that matters, coupled with locations where residential South West markets are capable of driving demand for the

2000s 1991-2000 1981-90 1971-80 1940-70 Pre 1940 Unknown types of housing product likely to arise from commercial property conversion. Equally, high value differentials arising from low commercial rents may be symptomatic of a poorly performing

275 19 3 What is the scale of the opportunity?

local economy or poor quality local environment Areas of greatest potential for this diminishing pool – both factors that in many locations will deter of post-war / pre-1970 office space are now likely to residential demand and conversion projects. There be in outer London centres and London’s satellite is, therefore, a need to look at sub-district property towns where post-war town centre office space market dynamics in order to understand the was built at a time of post-war decentralisation, genuine potential. but has to some extent, been superseded by modern out of town business parks and the shift of gravity back into the agglomeration benefits of So what does this mean for availability of the Central London. ‘most likely’ 1945-1970s stock of office space As the complex dynamics of economic uncertainty for conversion? and supply and demand play out, it seems likely For the three southern regions, particularly the that the greatest potential will be in office buildings South East, the relatively higher proportions of the post-war period, in established centres or of new space coming onto the market might residential environments in London and the wider mean that older space becomes redundant South East (e.g. Guildford, Sevenoaks), and this more quickly, if total demand for space does not provides the basis for the case study that is the match gross supply. The relatively high rate of subject of this report. office development, the past rates of residential But other centres may also provide localised conversion of 1940-1970 space in London, and opportunities over the next five or so years. a stronger office market (particularly in London), Centres likely to have one or more buildings ripe for means that the availability of older space is now conversion and where the market circumstances a relatively small proportion of total stock. For might just bring together opportunities for example, there is more space dating from just ten conversion include not just the major conurbations, years 1981-90 in the three southern regions than but also towns and cities like Harrogate, from the three decades 1940-1970. Nottingham, Northampton, Norwich, Bristol, Southampton and Exeter.

Figure 6 Rateable values for commercial floorspace: 2008 (£/sqm)

160 Source: VoA 140

120

100

80 England & Wales average 60

0 North North Yorkshire East West East of London South South Wales East West & Humber Midlands Midlands England East West 276 20 What is the scale of the opportunity? 3

3.5 other region; by contrast, many regional urban centres that Limitations have seen past rates of high-density residential development are widely believed to have reached market capacity for the The potential opportunity at one level appears to be significant. foreseeable future due to mortgage rationing and the reduction If just a fraction of available B-class space can be converted to in speculative buy-to-let activity for small, high-density residential, the residential output could be large. This matches apartments. Securing development and mortgage finance a growing need for new residential accommodation to deal with for residential products of this type is currently challenging. the increase in the number of households over the next 25 years. Planning is unlikely to be the barrier to increasing conversion That’s the theory. It may also be that the reservoir of employment rates in these latter locations. land provides a real opportunity (albeit with a series of economic and local policy ramifications that need very careful thought). • Rather than freeing up capacity in the commercial market for residential conversion, the recession is likely to have tightened But the reality is that the potential opportunities from conversion the situation: in many locations, a reduction in the pipeline of of buildings need to be set against the following constraints: new commercial space onto the market is driving up rents and reducing vacancy rates back towards the pre-recession level. • Not all, or even most, buildings are suitable for conversion. In some centres this is more likely to drive refurbishment of Many industrial buildings are in the wrong place or have a existing office space than free it up for residential conversion. structure that simply is not right for conversion – demolition and redevelopment is the issue here – and that requires • In most locations, the circumstances where it is possible planning permission. Many office buildings also have to convert commercial buildings to new housing that has limitations. Both pre-war and the most modern office buildings sufficient residential amenity, in the right type of location, with have constraints that limit the scope for immediate or straight the right product to meet demand, and can be delivered in a forward conversion. cost-effective way, are not numerous. • Post-war 1945-1970s buildings perhaps have the most obvious • The conversion of office space is less likely to give rise to ‘fit’ with residential requirements and there remains a definite family homes where in market terms over the next few years reservoir of opportunities, but such buildings do have specific at least, it is this type of product for which there is the greatest requirements that we explore later in this document. realisable demand. • The residential market drivers for conversion of commercial • Legislation governing conversion projects (see list below) will space to residential vary by territory: with its thriving housing impact costs and viability. In particular, building regulations market, it is no surprise that London is estimated by CLG to (Part L) is expected to tighten requirements for energy have twice the rate of conversion of commercial space as any efficiency / carbon emissions in 2013.

Legislation The key statutory and voluntary legislation governing conversion to housing is as follows:

Voluntary Statutory Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP); BREEAM Domestic Refurbishment. National Part L of the Building Regulations; Energy Performance Certification Scheme. Certification Scheme for refurbishment to be Since June 2007, all homes (and other buildings) Other regulations may be applied such as launched on 31st October 2011. Buildings will be in the UK require a Energy Performance London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939: rated according to the amount of improvement Certificate (EPC) before they are sold or let. Section 20. If the building is over 30m in height, achieved relative to the original situation. It and within Inner London, extra fire-safety is likely that refurbished older buildings will measures are usually needed and these therefore achieve a high score as they are likely include fire suppression systems (for example, to have required significant improvements to sprinklers), smoke ventilation and access to the the building fabric to satisfy current building site by fire brigade personnel. regulations standards.

277 21 Realising the opportunities

Having considered the broad supply and demand factors governing the potential of the opportunity arising from the government’s proposed change, this section of the report explores some of the practical and site- specific factors that may arise in taking forward conversions with reference to a case study.

278 22 4 Realising the opportunities 4

Having considered the broad supply and demand factors governing the potential of the opportunity arising from the government’s proposed policy change, this section of the report explores some of the practical and site- specific factors that may arise in taking forward conversions with reference to a case study. A redundant 1960’s office in Hillingdon was identified as being a typical building that is available in many locations and might be considered appropriate for conversion.

4.1 Lessons from the case study Outdated for its original intended use, the building has been lying empty for several years. Located in London in the borough of Hillingdon, an area typically where demand for housing is far greater than the demand for office space. The following sections summarise the key issues in relation to this hypothetical conversion project.

A40 ExistingBrent 1960s office building

Hillingdon Location Situated in Hillingdon, the case study building is typical of many office buildings located in mixed use urban / suburban areas within London. Unlike many B2 and B8 use buildings (industrial, distribution and storage) which are often locatedEaling in single use industrial estates, office buildings are more likely Hayes SITE Southhall M25 to be located in mixed use areas that are likely to be far more desirable for Towards residentialCentral London usage.

M4 A312 Accessibility With good links to main roads and access to public transport, the location of A4 Cranford the case study building is sufficiently accessible for residential use.

Heathrow Airport BuildingKew Royal use Botanic OfficeGardens (B1) Richmond Building type 1960s concrete frame construction, 12 storey tower.

Location Hillingdon, London.

Size Building footprint is 1,175 sqm and the total area of the site is 0.56 hectares.

279 23 Figure 7 Case Study Building proposed sketch

280 24 Realising the opportunities 4

Proposal

Conversion into 108 one to three bedroom flats with parking at ground floor.

Technical works required Market requirements • Re‑cladding of existing structure • Parking and access to public transport. to increased energy standards (including window replacement). • Minimum space standards. • Stripping out of existing internal partitions • Daylight to all habitable rooms. and introduction of new internal partitions and services according to residential layout. Typical standards associated with schemes • Upgrading of existing lift / stair / circulation facilities. requiring planning permission Should the requirement for planning permission • Heating and ventilation systems replaced. be reinstated (for example through imposed • Rationalise external areas to provide parking, thresholds on the permitted development right), amenity and storage space for cycles, refuse this could trigger ‘normal’ policy requirements and plant. for example: • Affordable homes targets.

Minimum standards • Space Standards e.g. GLA standards for affordable housing. Inclusion within permitted development removes requirements and standards imposed by planning. • BREEAM domestic refurbishment standards, There are however certain regulations that must be EcoHomes. adhered to: • Lifetime Homes. Building Regulations – Specifically Structural • Renewable energy quota. (Part A), Fire Safety (Part B), and Conservation of Fuel and Power (Part L), sections of the building • Section 106 obligations / Community regulations will apply. If the building falls under Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Section 20 (normally buildings which are within • Transport / travel plan commitments. Inner London and over 30m in height) extra fire safety measures may need to be included in • Amenity space. the building.

281 25 4 Realising the opportunities

Design issues (CGL) Re‑cladding The case study highlights the following Increased thermal performance requirements general points: mean re‑cladding is likely to be required. Upgrading the façade has the added advantages of increasing • Proposed sites need good access, parking the lifespan of the building and improving the and amenity. appearance for potential buyers. • Neighbourly issues need to be considered. Mix of uses Impact of non-residential uses creating noise and pollution and overlooking onto residential As with many such buildings of the period, the case properties should be considered. study is a ‘tower on a podium’ layout, meaning the ground floor has a very different arrangement to • Post-war linear blocks are easier to adapt to suit other floors of the building. The ground floor could apartment layouts. be used for parking, but depending on location it • Orientation should be considered as may be suitable for retail or commercial usage due predominately north-facing apartments would to accessibility and limitation of daylight. There are not be desirable. further building control issues to consider for mixed use buildings. • Apartments are more likely to be suitable for smaller households (single people / couples). Converting a commercial building may also require alterations to common parts to create a • The costs related to conversion will be focused residential environment which is more attractive on upgrading the façade and servicing in order and welcoming. Features such as a welcoming to meet regulations and to enhance aesthetics. and secure entrance to the site and lobby into the building, landscaping around the entrance level, inclusion of new balconies to apartments, communal gardens together create a more appealing residential setting.

Converting a commercial building may also require alterations to common parts to create a residential environment which is more attractive and welcoming. Features such as a welcoming and secure entrance to the site and lobby into the building, landscaping around the entrance level, inclusion of new balconies to apartments, communal gardens together create a more appealing residential setting.

282 26 Realising the opportunities 4

Access

Access Car Park

Of ce

Car Park Existing site plan Car Park Located within a mixed use community with good access by road and public transport, this site would be suitable for residential use.

Proposed site plan Parking – Particularly in more suburban locations, parking is likely to be required. At the case study site the relatively large site provides the opportunity for outdoor parking.

Communal Outdoor Space – The planning guidance for Garden the Borough of Hillingdon requires an area of Access New Entrance 20‑30 sqm of outdoor amenity space per dwelling Lobby (depending on size). Although this may not apply under permitted development, the inclusion of a communal garden area for residents may improve Plant / Refuse the saleability of dwellings. In the process of Cycle Store Undercroft re‑cladding it may also be possible to include car park / individual balconies to dwellings. cycle store Residential Refuse – Refuse and recycling storage will Car Park Communal be required for dwellings. This is likely to be Garden / Playspace significantly larger than the requirement for the existing office building.

283 27 4 Realising the opportunities

Typical existing plan (floors 2-11) The dimension of the existing floor plate is suitable for residential usage, as at depth of 13m on the narrowest side there is the opportunity to provide sufficient daylight to all flats. The presence of stair cores at each end of the existing building ensures that adequate fire escape distances can be achieved.

284 28 Realising the opportunities 4

Typical proposed plan (floors 2-11) A mix of 1, 2 and 3 bed apartments have been shown, all designed to minimum space standards set out by the London Plan. Possibility for further development – as part of the proposed re‑cladding the floor plate has been extended slightly to increase interior space. In other projects it may be possible to do this to a greater degree.

285 29 4 Realising the opportunities

Existing east elevation

286 30 Realising the opportunities 4

Proposed east elevation

The concrete frame construction of the existing building provides the opportunity to strip the building back to the structural frame and apply a new skin to the building.

287 31 4 Realising the opportunities

Planning issues (NLP) Development plan policy – where does the The scheme development fit within Hillingdon Council’s Planning benefits – the scheme would deliver strategy for managing employment floorspace? would deliver considerable planning benefits, not least the The council’s draft Core Strategy and the London provision of over 100 homes and the beneficial considerable Plan identify a hierarchy of protected strategic re-use and upgrade of a redundant building, also and locally significant industrial and employment planning contributing to the surrounding townscape. The locations; LB Hillingdon also identifies locations reuse of the existing building is arguably more where it will support the managed release of benefits, not sustainable than new build. employment land, particularly where this supports least the External alterations – the case study building other regeneration objectives. Will the ad hoc, would require relatively significant interventions in uncontrolled release of employment premises provision of over the external envelope of the building, both to meet undermine this managed approach? Building Regulation requirements and to achieve 100 homes and an attractive, marketable and lasting building. the beneficial A planning application would have to be made for these changes. re-use and Threshold threat – the case study building upgrade of conversion would create 100-plus residential units. If, as the government consultation suggested, a redundant thresholds were imposed, a planning application Hillingdon planning requirements may be necessary in any event. This could bring Inclusion under Permitted Development would building, also into question the principle of the change of use, but theoretically remove planning requirements, however, may also call into play other policy requirements. there may be situations where requirements still apply. contributing to As with any Local Authority, Hillingdon has its own the surrounding Responsible markets – the case study assumes specific planning requirements and targets. The specifics that the market will act responsibly in delivering generally vary between local authorities but the over-riding appropriate standards of accommodation, outside issues are likely to be considered by all. The major issues townscape. to consider are summarised below,: of legislative and planning requirements. Will this always be the case or should there be some Affordable homes minimum standard conditions, e.g. in relation to Hillingdon’s emerging core strategy states a target of 35% internal and external space standards? affordable homes provision.

Amenity impacts – will every developer make Parking sufficient provision to meet practical on-site requirements, and without undue impact on the 1.5 car spaces per dwelling required. 1 cycle storage space per dwelling (2 for dwellings over 2 bed). surrounding community, for example, through overspill parking, inadequate provision for waste Lifetime homes storage and collection access? In accordance with the London Plan, all new dwellings (including conversions) should comply with Lifetime Homes standards, and 10% of these should be fully wheelchair accessible.

Minimum internal space requirements See proposed plan in Appendix 1 for flat layouts that comply with Hillingdon’s minimum space requirements.

Amenity space 20-30 sqm of shared amenity space per dwelling (depending on flat size) is required.

288 32 Realising the opportunities 4

4.3 requirement). The government has made it clear More energy Sustainability that it intends to pursue the delivery of sustainable (Gifford part of Ramboll) development both through the planning system efficient, better (including introducing the ‘presumption in favour of and healthier Legislation in the form of Building Regulations sustainable development’ in the National Planning Part L enforces minimum standards for the Policy Framework) and outside of this, for example, places to live conservation of fuel and power for all change of by following a path to zero carbon. use projects. Changes expected in 2013 will mean For schemes which have to go through the will be more in that all housing developments will be required to planning application process, the ‘presumption’ is meet energy / carbon targets which are a 25% key to the intended approach to both plan-making demand. improvement when compared with 2010. This will and decision-taking, by creating a development inevitably also include requirements for renewable framework underpinned by economic, sources of energy. In London, although not a environmental and social objectives. Failing to mandatory requirement, there is a presumption build more resource-efficient housing foregoes that all major development proposals will seek significant benefits to households, society and the to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by at least environment. Adopting EcoHomes or BREEAM 20% through the use of on-site renewable energy refurbishment targets involves economic and generation wherever feasible. social matters but it can be assumed that fulfilling Changes to legislation will mean that landowners such criteria could be an advantage in achieving will need to balance short-term capital construction permission for development. costs with longer term operating costs. The For current conversion projects where a full housing sector is also influenced by sustainability planning application is required, EcoHomes becoming central to the marketplace as a whole. (or BREEAM) standards can be enforced and More energy efficient, better and healthier places conditions attached to any planning permission to live will be more in demand. Alongside this are imposing further reductions in energy use as government incentives and grants for renewable well as wider sustainability features including technology and micro energy production which social, water conservation and ecology. Inclusion also bring economies of scale as more sustainable under permitted development may remove the technologies are adopted. requirement for conversion schemes to comply Consideration should be given to wider with Ecohomes, but it is possible sustainability sustainability issues (achieving the new BREEAM requirements may be sought with applications for Refurbishment Standards will make this a external alterations. Increasingly, the private sector is recognising an emerging business opportunity in delivering Measuring sustainability: assessment methods sustainable developments by ‘creating value’. The established methods currently used to evaluate the sustainability credentials of a Lower energy bills are an obvious attraction project are: for potential occupiers while utility charges are Code for Sustainable Homes: The Code for Sustainable Homes does not apply to expected to continue rising. The cost of achieving refurbishment. It is an environmental assessment method to rate the performance of higher standards, and payback periods, are falling new dwellings. as technology develops and with economies of BREEAM Ecohomes: Ecohomes can also be used for major refurbishments, but is due to scale. The Climate Change Bill commits the UK be replaced by BREEAM Domestic Refurbishment at the end of October 2011. to reducing carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. Investments now would also avoid costly corrective BREEAM Domestic Refurbishment: This is the new standard for sustainable refurbishment which will soon be launched by BRE Global. It promotes moving towards an 80% reduction measures later. in CO2 emissions and highlights impacts on overheating and health, flood resilience, embodied carbon of materials, recycling of refurbishment waste, water efficiency, health, security, good project management and design.

289 33 4 Realising the opportunities

Operational carbon in conversion schemes 4.4 Using the case study as an example, the annual Design issues - building control and predicted carbon emissions of the building in its related building services. (NHBC) un-refurbished state are 61.4kg CO2/m2. The case Projects involving the change of use from study shows that after renovation to Part L 2010 commercial to residential will still be required to standards, the predicted annual carbon emissions comply with the full range of current Building are reduced to a predicted 16.5 kg CO2/m2. As well Regulations. The specific areas to consider are as contributing to reduction in carbon emissions summarised below: this has significant financial benefits through reduced energy use over the life of the building. Part A - Structure A structural survey will be required to show the building is fit for conversion. Regulations concerning disproportionate collapse also apply, the requirements are higher for residential buildings and the regulations have tightened over recent decades, therefore the structure of older buildings may need strengthening. Concrete frames, however, are usually in good structural order.

Figure 8 Improving energy efficiency and carbon reduction.Case study analysis.

Residential Conversion to Part L 2010 Residential Conversion to Part L 2013 Fabric Wall U value = 0.28 Wall U value = 0.20 Roof = 0.18 Roof = 0.13 Ground = 0.22 Ground = 0.22 Window = 1.6 (including frame) Window = 1.6 Air tightness = 5 m3/m2.h Air tightness = 3 m3/m2.h Construction details y = 0.15 Construction details y = 0.15 Ventilation Mechanical Ventilation with heat recovery Mechanical Ventilation with heat recovery Heating Community Heating Gas Fired Boilers Domestic Hot Water served by Gas Fired CHP Will serve both heating and hot water requirements Space Heating by gas fired boilers Individual hot water tanks in each dwelling, served by Community heating, with individual hot water tanks in community heating each dwelling for domestic hot water Controls: Charging System linked to use pf community heating, Controls: Charging System linked to use of community TRVs, weather compensation heating, TRVs, weather compensation Lighting Low energy lighting in whole dwelling Low energy lighting in whole dwelling Renewable Tech None No additional renewables required Overheating Pass Pass Carbon Reduction Dwelling Emission Rate is 1.6% less than Target Emission Rate Dwelling Emission Rate is 29.3% less than Target Emission Rate

290 34 Realising the opportunities 4

Part B - Fire An un-refurbished office building from the 1960s is likely to have existing U-values of between 1.0 and Fire regulations have been updated over the 2.0, meaning the proposed U-values represent a years and the requirement to comply with current significant improvement. regulations may throw up potential issues that are not directly involved with change of use. These Target U-values for a refurbishment project are issues include: approximately 90% of new build targets. However, if the conversion project involves stripping back • Conversion may involve the introduction of a new to the structural frame and the introduction of a fire escape because required escape distances new external envelope (as in the case study) the to a protected fire core vary in office buildings minimum U-value for a new build would apply. to residential. • Buildings over three storeys without an existing secondary escape route. It may not be possible to add an external fire escape, meaning the introduction of an internal secondary escape Building Current U-value Current U-value Predicted route could consume a large floor area. element standards for conversion standards for a new build Part L 2013 (including re‑clad projects) U-values • Many existing buildings over 30m will not have sprinkler systems. Once the 30m threshold is Wall 0.3 0.28 0.2 crossed it is a requirement that all floors of the Floor 0.25 0.16-0.18 0.12 building have a sprinkler system installed. At an average cost of around £4000 per flat this Roof 0.16-0.18 0.16-0.18 0.12 is a significant cost. It is worth noting however Window 1.6 1.6 1.2 that internal layouts can be more flexible if a Door 1.8 1.8 1.2 sprinkler system is in place eliminating the need for lobbies.

Part L – Conservation of fuel and power Part L has potentially the largest impact on Target U-value Thickness of phenolic foam Thickness of breathable cellulose conversion projects. This sets out reduction insulation required based insulation required targets for C02 emissions through improvements 0.28 50-70mm 100-150mm to thermal performance and building services. 0.2 90-120mm 150-200mm Currently part L 2010 Building Regulations apply, which is based on a 25% improvement on the previous 2006 regulations taking into account issues such as: • Thermal performance of the building fabric • Air leakage of the building fabric The development of legislation governing building regulations • Thermal bridging Part L - design considerations • Solar gains 2010 – Part L Revised (25% improvement in the energy / carbon performance of the dwelling • Boiler efficiency compared to 2006 (Part L Building Regulations) Exemption of carbon neutral homes from stamp duty • Fuel types / renewable energy sources 2013 – Part L Revised (CO2 emissions equivalent to Code 4) 44% improvement in energy / • Cooling loads carbon performance compared to 2006 levels 2016 – all new homes Zero C02 emissions (carbon neutral energy efficiency equivalent to Code 6) A+ EPC Ratings and Renewable Energy required

291 35 4 Realising the opportunities

4.4 Cost of development Figure 9 Cost of development (£/sqm) Based on the case study building, RLF have conducted £2,500 analysis to show the relative costs of development in £2,500 four scenarios (Figure 9): £2,000 £2,000 1 Office refurbishment to Part L 2010 – for a dilapidated £1,500 office building such as the case study to be updated to £1,500 modern office standards significant refurbishment will £1,000 be required. Change in the original pattern of use or £1,000 installation of new services will trigger the requirement £500 to comply with Part L 2010. £500

£0 2 Office to residential conversion to Part L 2010. £0 Ofﬁce Residential Residential New Build Ofﬁce Residential Residential New Build Refurbishment Conversion3 toOffice toConversion residential conversionto to Part L 2013 – Refurbishment to Conversion to Conversion to to to Part L 2010 Part L 2010 this willto require Part L 2013 at least 25%Part improvement L 2010 in energy Part L 2010 Part L 2010 Part L 2013 Part L 2010 performance on 2010 regulations. Notes 4 New build residential – the cost of constructing an 1 All costs are current construction costs only and therefore exclude VAT, equivalent new building. professional fees, acquisition etc. This data is summarised on the graph opposite. From 2 Based on permitted development and make no allowances in connection with Section 106 agreements, affordable housing quotas nor renewable this we can see that the cost increase from refurbishing energy requirements. the existing office building to converting to residential use 3 The costs are strictly for comparative purposes only and as such should (to Part L 2010) is only 19% (or 26% to Part L 2013). not utilised to budget any particular scheme. The cost increase from converting the existing building to an equivalent new build would however be 37%. This demonstrates that there are clearly considerable cost benefits in the conversion process when compared to Figure 10 new build. Elemental costs of case study scenarios (£/sqm)

£1,800 Cost breakdown £1,800 £1,600 £1,600 Office Refurbishment to PartThe L adjacent2010 graph breaks down the costs for individual Office Refurbishment to Part L 2010 £1,400 elements of development for the three conversion £1,400 Residential Conversion to Part L 2010 Residential Conversion to Part L 2010 £1,200 scenarios described above (excluding new build £1,200 Residential Conversion Code 4 Compliance Residential Conversion Code 4 Compliance £1,000 information). As the costs are based on the case study £1,000 £800 building, it can be assumed they would vary with different £800 £600 building types, for example, envelope completion costs £600 may be reduced in a building that does not require £400 £400 re‑cladding. £200 £200 0 The highest elemental cost for all three scenarios is for 0 façades and services. The key costs involved with the Total fabric upgrade are governed by the Building Regulations Total Fittings Fittings Finishes Finishes Services Part L. As described in previous sections, these Services and profit and and profit and alterations regulations are expected to raise energy efficiency / carbon alterations External works External External works External Demolitions and Demolitions reduction measures in 2013. and Demolitions Cellular completion Cellular Cellular completion Cellular Envelope completion Envelope Envelope completion Envelope Contingencies - Design - Contingencies Contingencies - Design - Contingencies Preliminaries, overheads Preliminaries, Preliminaries, overheads Preliminaries, Contingencies - Contract - Contingencies Contingencies - Contract - Contingencies 292 36 Realising the opportunities 4

Cost impact of not going down permitted VAT issues development route In relation to construction costs, VAT at the Issues that will affect the viability and cost of a standard rate would apply to commercial residential conversion scheme if not carried out refurbishment of a building. However, the situation under the permitted development route will, of regarding residential development and conversion course, not only incur additional construction costs is far less clear. but also have an impact on the income stream for New build residential built for sale is normally zero the scheme. rated and in general, conversion works attract Currently, commercial buildings are often required the standard rate, except for certain instances be advertised / marketed for a reasonable period regarding approved alterations when working on in order to demonstrate that it is no longer Listed Buildings. appropriate for employment use and to support However, the VAT rate can be reduced to 5% the case for conversion. Vacant buildings rates also where there is a ‘changed number of dwellings apply. So there is a direct opportunity cost incurred conversion’ and this applies even where there were during this period of market testing. There is also no dwellings to start with. Therefore this relief may an impact on townscape quality as redundant be available for office conversions to residential. office buildings remain vacant and unused. Consultants’ services will in normal circumstances Possibility of planning requirements be charged at the standard rate although where a being applied design and build contract is in place, the contractor Planning permission may still be required for may tax post contract consultants’ services in development other than the proposed change of accordance with the regime for the main contract. use; therefore there remains some possibility that In relation to the sale of units after conversion, the planning policy obligations could be triggered, for issue of whether the building owner has opted to example, relating to: tax for VAT purposes is relevant. Generally, the first • Affordable housing grant of a long lease over 21 years is zero rated and this can have significant consequences. • BREEAM Domestic Refurbishment / EcoHomes As a result of the complexities involved with this • Lifetime Homes issue, specialist advice should always be sought from the outset, particularly where the developer • Renewable energy is unable to recover VAT or where VAT will have a • Other Section 106 contributions significant impact on the funding costs. • Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) However, such requirements would be subject to relevant legal tests and may be legitimately challenged if applied inappropriately.

293 37 What are the planning policy implications?

The case study demonstrates some clear planning benefits, including the reuse and rejuvenation of a redundant commercial building, creating 108 new dwellings, and providing townscape enhancements. This would deliver on important national planning objectives without obvious adverse impacts.

294 38 5 What are the planning policy implications? 5

The case study demonstrates some clear planning benefits, The system of obligations and conditions should, however, including the reuse and rejuvenation of a redundant commercial prevent this from happening. Planning obligations, by law, building, creating 108 new dwellings, and providing townscape must be necessary, directly related to a development, and fairly enhancements. This would deliver on important national and reasonably related to the scale and kind of development. planning objectives without obvious adverse impacts. The requirements of government advice and case law on conditions are, similarly, that conditions must be relevant to the For Hillingdon, where there is a clearly defined hierarchy of development in question. This should ensure that unnecessary employment locations (for example, the emerging Core Strategy requirements are avoided; an application for external alterations, identifies concentrations of offices around Heathrow, Uxbridge in this context, should not lead to requirements for example for and Stockley Park) the loss of this building from office use is affordable housing. unlikely to be cause for concern and will, indeed, deliver on mixed use regeneration objectives for this particular area. A further unknown risk for developers is that either the new permitted development rights are abandoned by government That said, with the proposed permitted development rights in as a consultation outcome, or that they are subject to such place, this windfall of residential properties would not be subject onerous conditions, exclusions, thresholds etc that their value is to other criteria, standards or obligations established in planning negated. If this happens, and although a softer tool, it is still highly policies for the area; the Borough could lose out on the potential likely that the government will be introducing in national policy a delivery of affordable housing through this development, along positive presumption in favour of sustainable development and with other possible planning benefits that might be derived more specifically, a policy promoting the change of use from through the normal planning process – unless the developer commercial to residential (as set out in the draft National Planning chooses to provide these voluntarily. These could range from Policy Framework, July 2011). With plans to simplify planning the provision of renewable energy, to contributions to the health, application requirements, this supportive policy stance could still education, community and transport services required to meet create opportunities that were not previously there. the needs of the new residents. Although not a focus of this study, a major concern for planning Looking at the permitted development right proposals more policy-makers is the risk it creates to their ability to plan and widely, and leaving aside the obvious benefits, one of the roles of provide for economic needs through supporting and protecting planning is to ensure that development is delivered to appropriate key employment areas. What if the case study building was environmental and amenity standards, both for users of new in a critical employment area around Heathrow (although development and for its neighbours. The planning authority market forces might suggest residential conversion in such will lose out on its control, for example, of internal space and circumstances might be unlikely)? It is likely that local authorities environmental standards, provision of suitable amenity space, will look to use existing powers to issue directions that will and of essential services – all those elements that fall outside of exclude certain key areas from the new permitted development building control. right (Article 4 Directions) where fully justified. There will, therefore, be a reliance on the market providing Whatever the final outcome, responsive local authorities will have dwellings and residential environments that are of an appropriate a critical role in providing an essential cushion to the changes. quality. Yet there will also be implications for local planning This means being sensitive to areas of change and recognising authorities in the delivery of essential services and infrastructure, future economic drivers and needs, alongside the physical and environmental and amenity enhancements. The question for and social infrastructure required with new housing. Proactive policy-makers is how can they plan for this? monitoring of the market and employment conditions will be For prospective developers, an area of concern is that the important, as well as careful and responsive use of financial opportunities and benefits of the new permitted development receipts, for example, from the Community Infrastructure Levy right could be lost if local authorities seek to use the system and the New Homes Bonus, drawing, on the new local financial of planning conditions and obligations to reintroduce policy incentives being offered. requirements where more limited planning applications are Further planning policy considerations, in response to the submitted. Planning applications will need to be made for government’s consultation, are set out in the discussion in external alterations in many instances and this creates the risk Appendix A1. that ‘normal’ planning requirements will be reinstated, over and above core building standards, potentially undermining viability.

295 39 Developers’ toolkit

This section presents an approach to assessing development opportunities and provides a toolkit to guide the decision‑making process.

296 40 6 Developers’ toolkit 6

This section presents an approach to assessing Physical context: development opportunities and provides a toolkit Location - areas where the residential use would to guide the decision-making process. be desirable both in relation to potential occupiers There are many ways of doing this, but any such and existing neighbours. Well located, accessible process is likely to include asking questions based sites should be a given, particularly sites within on an understanding of three key stages: commuting distances to larger cities or towns. Other considerations should be the availability of local amenities; retail, health, leisure and 1 Selecting the right scheme educational facilities. which encompasses: Conversion potential – depth of plan and • the physical and legislative context orientation of existing floor plates should be adaptable to allow adequate daylight for residential • market conditions in the form of supply usage. Condition of existing structure must be and demand viable for reasonable updating to meet current building regulations. 2 Designing the right scheme New build potential – if the existing building is • the process of evolving and testing not appropriate for conversion then the potential development solutions to replace it with change of use permitted on the land can be considered. This approach will require 3 Taking the development forward full planning permission and although potentially looked upon more favourably under proposed • procurement, construction and amendments to the planning system, could bring future-proofing with it the wider risk and expense associated with the existing planning system. Understanding the extent of exterior 6.1 amendments required – as existing buildings undergoing conversion will typically require Selecting the right scheme additional insulation it should be considered Understanding the context whether this will be applied externally or internally. External cladding will trigger the requirement for Land use planning context: planning permission. • The adopted planning position with specific reference to local allocation of residential growth. • Status and timetable of any statutory plans and their implications for population change, supply of housing and infrastructure. • Site specific development plans. • Non-statutory planning documents such as housing capacity studies. • Site specific development knowledge from council officers on land ownership, planning histories, contamination, wider land use changes etc.

297 41 6 Developers’ toolkit

Assesment of market conditions will be 6.2 informed by: Designing the right scheme • The scale and nature of projected housing As discussed in previous sections older, vacant need. For example, some of the most acute office stock will be the most likely source of shortage of housing is for lower cost housing development opportunities. A feasibility study and family accommodation, even as the should be carried out to determine: number of single person households increases. Because conversion schemes are unlikely to be • The condition of the building and any upgrades appropriate for family accommodation, lower to structure and services which may be required. cost housing is a significant potential market. • The potential number of units which may arise Dwellings of limited size but mid-quality finishes from development. are likely to be appropriate for the market. • Options for other land uses, mix of tenures and • The type of new residential accommodation will extending the existing building footprint. be influenced by realisable demand linked to the local housing market and ability of prospective Affordability is a key issue, and as noted, market occupiers to purchase / rent. This will determine research will influence size and tenure. potential affordability levels and tenure, which in turn are key influences on market demand for Specific issues related to converting existing number of bedrooms, parking etc. commercial buildings are: • Indications of future needs and market drivers Coordination – the integration of façade, interior at a local level can be assessed based on ONS layout and services is likely to be more challenging / CLG projections, market analyst tools such as than with a new build approach. MOASIC and ACORN, and qualitative market Re‑cladding – the majority of conversion schemes intelligence. NLP’s HEaDROOM framework are likely to require some element of re‑cladding. provides a tool for assessing the need for This is likely to be the most visible alteration in the housing in a local authority area. conversion process and to have the largest impact on the perceived image of the building. Amenity – private and communal spaces in the form of balconies or in noisy / polluted environments, winter gardens. Sustainability – energy requirements in the building regulations ensure that minimum standards must be met by all developments. When considering the whole-life costing of a building, it may be viable to further improve the energy performance. Because proposed planning policy indicates that increased weight will be attached to sustainable development, this approach could have further advantages particularly if the scheme continues to require planning permission of some scope. Additional facilities – adequate space for external amenity space, parking, communal facilities and refuse facilities should be allowed for.

298 42 Developers’ toolkit 6

6.3 Future proofing – this inevitably comes at a price Taking the development forward in the short term but the completed building will need to adapt to future needs as market conditions Delivery options should be considered against and legislation change. Maintenance is also a key the following criteria: cost, and better quality services and materials will reduce costs in the long term. Deliverability – a streamlined decision-making process and established financing will ensure the Risk – allowing for a detailed feasibility up-front project is delivered in a planned and timely manner. should reduce risks associated with identifying the best approach to planning, construction Flexibility – the delivery process will need to be and procurement. flexible to allow for unforeseen circumstances – particularly relevant when developing existing buildings.

Selecting the right scheme

Market conditions Physical & legislative context Local housing supply & demand

Designing the right scheme

Detailed feasibility The business case Evolving and testing solutions

Taking the development forward

Established finances and brief Delivery options Flexibility Future proofing

299 43 Appendices

300 44A Appendices A

A1 This begs the question: would a robust national Response to the CLG Consultation, policy approach endorsing greater flexibility be March - June 2011: A discussion preferable to a national permitted development right? A national policy approach may also have Impact of policy changes merits in giving local authorities some practical means of ensuring that the measure does not With the door now closed on the government’s harm their ability to plan for the employment land consultation on relaxing planning rules for and premises that will be needed to support the changes of use from commercial to residential, economic growth that they and the country needs. there is a chance to reflect on its implications and possibilities. Will proposed amendments to the planning system work in practice? Ageing office stock will often face greater technical challenges than more recently developed offices. If the view is taken that the benefits of expanding Achieving the tougher Building Regulation permitted development rights are likely to increase standards, particularly in relation to energy housing supply significantly, this may justify the performance, will create practical and cost potential opportunity cost of no longer being hurdles. This is even before tackling the issue of able to secure planning obligations (including for what will sell. How much internal space, amenity affordable housing) that would ordinarily accrue space, parking, and additional facilities will the for schemes that would previously have required a market require? planning application. The scale of this opportunity cost is difficult to judge, partly because the scale In this context, imposing additional thresholds of increase in housing supply is unknown but also and other conditions may negate the advantages because the viability crunch is making delivery of having a quicker route for achieving planning of affordable homes through s106 obligations permission. Given the limited pool of opportunity increasingly difficult. and the positive need to increase housing supply, the planning system may need to accept that certain additional planning benefits must be sacrificed in order to realise the intended benefits of the government’s proposals. If the government’s proposals are to be effective, an expression of positive support in national policy will be needed to complement the proposed change to legislation. This will need to ensure that a) only limited conditions should be enforced; and b) planning applications required for any necessary external or other operational works must not be seen as an opportunity to reinstate other planning requirements or in-principle barriers that the permitted development rights have sought If the government’s proposals are to remove. to be effective, an expression of positive support in national policy will be needed to complement the proposed change to legislation.

301 45 A Appendices

What essential safeguards should The imposition of thresholds to limit the size of be maintained? any building or development to which permitted development rights might apply could also threaten Policy recommendations the deliverability of schemes and act as a deterrent Other frameworks and factors will ensure that to developers, frustrating the policy intention of housing is delivered to core standards for example, delivering new housing. It is recognised, however, through Building Regulations and via the market. that the physical practicalities of this type and Looking to the future, these create potentially size of scheme – for example, parking, access, onerous and costly requirements for conversion refuse collection and so on – may give rise to local projects, but they will deliver residential schemes concern. The imposition of thresholds, therefore, to a critical benchmark. In the circumstances should be used only to allow a limited range where permitted development will apply, therefore, of practical issues to be checked by the local additional planning interventions, such as authority (through a prior approval process), and conditions and thresholds, should be minimised not open up the question of principle or give rise to in order to maximise benefits arising from the a long list of contributions. proposed change in permitted development Local authorities, and their communities, should towards the delivery of new housing. be given the tools to protect strategic or significant There may, nonetheless, be a case for imposing a employment areas by opting out of the new limited number of conditions (e.g. space / amenity permitted development rights through Article 4 standards) that will guarantee that the market acts Directions. This must, however, be without threat in a responsible way in delivering new homes. of compensation. This will not only support a These should be delivered through self-certifying localised, managed approach to the supply of conditions attached to the permitted development. employment land (and so local employment opportunities), but would enable greater flexibility and freedom elsewhere in a local authority area without fundamentally threatening a local employment base. Planning applications will need to be made for Local authorities, and their external alterations in many instances and this creates the risk that ‘normal’ planning requirements communities, should be given the (e.g. for affordable housing, renewable energy tools to protect strategic or significant etc) will be reinstated in addition to the above core standards, potentially undermining viability. employment areas by opting out Planning obligations, by law, must also be necessary, directly related to a development, and of the new permitted development fairly and reasonably related to the scale and kind rights through Article 4 Directions. of development. The requirements of government advice in Circular 11/95, and in case law, are also such that conditions must be relevant to the development in question. This should ensure that unnecessary requirements are avoided; an application for external alterations, in this context, would not lead to requirements for affordable housing for example. Government should do its utmost to re-assert this policy and legal position.

302 46 Appendices A

What are the alternatives? Introduction of reduced planning application or pre-submission approval. Inclusion within planning policy rather than planning law The government has said that it will soon be consulting on simpler planning application Taking the findings of this research in the round, procedures and requirements, particularly for the government will need to reflect on whether a applicants submitting outline applications. There is supporting policy position and the presumption in clearly scope to simplify other planning application favour of sustainable development in the emerging requirements - one of the more obvious being for National Planning Policy Framework should changes to the external appearance of a building be developed further into an alternative way of for which change of use is permitted development. achieving the same outcomes sought through CLG should consider the opportunities for, and changing permitted development rights for Class suitability of, a new prior notification and approval B and C3 uses. The strong policy framework that regime for such applications. should be provided by the National Planning Policy Framework and its proposed presumption could potentially strike a better planning balance, in that newly formulated national planning policy would be used to boost housing provision locally, while pursuing a pro-growth agenda. There are potential benefits arising from changing the GPDO and allowing opting out via Article 4 – in particular this is a more ‘forceful’ approach that emphasises the government’s stance on releasing business buildings for residential use. But changing permitted development rights may have unforeseen and harmful consequences. Using national policy in the National Planning Policy Framework instead may be not seen as being as forceful, but it is more consistent with the localism agenda. And if a local planning authority seeks to exempt itself via its local plan policy, that policy can be objected to as it emerges, and a refusal of planning permission based on such a policy approach once adopted can be appealed.

The strong policy framework that should be provided by the National Planning Policy Framework and its proposed presumption could potentially strike a better planning balance, in that newly formulated national planning policy would be used to boost housing provision locally, while pursuing a pro-growth agenda.

303 47 A Appendices

A2 Contact details

Child Graddon Lewis was formed in 1992 and has around Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners (NLP) is an independent planning, 35 staff based at its studios in Spitalfields, London. The practice economics and urban design consultancy with offices in delivers elegant and imaginative solutions to a wide range of London, Cardiff, Leeds, Manchester and Newcastle upon Tyne. clients across the commercial, retail, residential, leisure and Established almost fifty years ago, it advises residential and transportation sectors. commercial developers and local authorities on a wide range of development projects, including planning for housing and www.cgluk.com employment space. T: 020 7539 1200 www.nlpplanning.com Contact: Arita Morris - [email protected] T: 020 7837 4477 Contact: Matthew Spry - [email protected]

Gifford is a leading engineering and environmental consultancy, Robinson Low Francis (RLF) provides construction and property now part of Ramboll, operating across a broad range of solutions through strong national expertise and resources markets in this country and overseas. Our 600 technical and complemented by in-depth knowledge and experience. Our specialist staff combine art and science to create buildings offices in Birmingham, Brighton, Edinburgh, Glasgow, London, and deliver infrastructure projects that work commercially, Manchester, Stevenage and overseas in Malta offer a wide range socially and environmentally for clients and users. Our teams of services to both private and public sector clients across the provide specialist advice on energy, sustainability, heritage whole built environment. Our extensive track record in quantity and archaeologically sensitive projects, on development and surveying, project management, building surveying, health & regeneration, on the environment and transport planning. safety, management consultancy and development consultancy Gifford was named by The Sunday Times as one of Britain’s services is reflected in the high quality and value of our projects. 100 Best Companies to Work For in our first year of participation At any one time, our people over 130 spread throughout the UK and is also placed in its current 60 Best Green Companies. are involved in over £1.5 billion worth of construction projects. The company is celebrating its 60th anniversary this year. www.rlf.co.uk www.gifford.co.uk T: 020 7566 8400 T: 020 7960 2424 Contact: Philip Shearer - [email protected] Contact: Roshni Patni - [email protected]

304 48 Kean Street conversion to residential. Child Graddon Lewis Architects

305 Departments to Apartments

Content by Arita Morris, Huw Trevorrow, Matthew Spry, Nicola Furlonger, Roshni Patni, Philip Shearer, Jon Greenhalgh, Laura Torrance. Case study site by kind permission of Dr.A.Lit, Litt Media. Issued October 2011 © This report is the copyright of Child Graddon Lewis Ltd., Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners, Robinson Lowe Francis, Gifford (part of Ramboll). It may not be used or referred to in whole or in part by anyone else without the express agreement of the above named companies. We do not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from unauthorised use of this report. All photography for Child Graddon Lewis projects by: Dennis Gilbert / View, Nick Guttridge Photography, Jonathan Moore, Softroom. Design: Ottley Design Company, London 306

APPENDIX 24: Extracts from Hansard re Compulsory Purchase Powers

307

308 1.4. Dilapidated and ruinous properties – Compulsory purchase powers for local authorities

The Hon. Member for Douglas North (Mr Ashford) to ask the Minister for Infrastructure:

What consideration has been given to granting local authorities compulsory purchase powers in relation to dilapidated and ruinous properties?

The Speaker: Question 4, I call on the Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Ashford.

Mr Ashford: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish to ask the Minister for Infrastructure, what consideration has been given to granting local authorities compulsory purchase powers in relation to dilapidated and ruinous properties?

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Harmer): Mr Speaker, people in many parts of the Island have expressed their concern in recent years about dilapidated buildings. The run-down appearance of certain properties is a real blight on our communities and undermines efforts to regenerate towns and villages and to boost local economies. The Department has been working in partnership with local authorities to reflect a common desire to tackle this issue. Under section 24 of the Building Control Act 1991, local authorities can serve notice on a property owner, requiring action to deal with a dilapidated or ruinous building. In the event of a failure to comply with such an order, the local authority is able to carry out the necessary work and reclaim the cost from the property owner. Local authorities were given additional powers on 1st December 2016, to allow them to issue fixed penalty notices where a property owner has failed to comply with a notice served under section 24 of the Building Control Act 1991. Further to these measures I have highlighted, the Department will also consider whether it is appropriate to extend compulsory purchase orders to local authorities in respect of dilapidated and ruinous properties. Local authorities do have some compulsory purchase powers, but would obviously need to consider legal aspects of each case. My aim remains to give local authorities the tools they need to make property owners attend to these issues. I accept that there may be a few cases when purchase does not give an appropriate way forward and we will work with local authorities to assess and progress this issue. There is a clear desire to address this problem and we will continue to look at positive ways forward.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Ashford.

Mr Ashford: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and can I thank the Minister for the very comprehensive reply. Obviously, we are only talking really about a hard core of a dozen properties. Would the Minister accept that on the Island, there is roughly a hard-core of a dozen properties that have spent years and years in and out of court, that are getting nowhere? They get fixed, they get abandoned again, and then they fall apart. This is why I am pushing for local authorities to actually have compulsory purchase powers. Would the Minister also accept that the power has been available to local authorities in the UK for 32 years this year and the world has not caved in? It would be expected that local authorities would only use them sparingly, and as the Minister rightly says, would have to go through a court process anyway.

House of Keys 14/02/2017

309 Can I ask the Minister, has he been approached by any homeowners that have experienced the current situation, and of course with the new updated law as well that came in last year? I am unaware of one case where a homeowner next door has now had to fork out £3,000 to fix the next- door neighbour's property, because it is affecting his to such a degree. Would the Minister accept that it is crucial that the local authorities have the whole suite of powers, which does include an element of compulsory purchase, because some people who are living next to these properties are having their lives turned into a misery?

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, I think the whole suite of powers is important. As I say, one of those that was afforded by the recent Local Government and Building Control (Amendment) Act was the fact that the rateable value that was put on a day order in December last year actually does not allow it to become zero rated, so that is another power that needs to be highlighted. In the UK, the UK equivalent to the Island’s section 24 notice is a section 215 notice issued under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. They are issued by local planning authorities, and they can compulsorily purchase any land in their area where the authority thinks that the facility of carrying out the development, redevelopment or improvement in relation to the land, or which is required for a purpose which is necessary to achieve the proper planning for the area in which the land is situated … So it is not quite as advanced as dilapidated, but it does go further than what we have here, which is basically it has to be for local authority purposes. As I say, I am well aware that there are a number of properties and although I have not been specifically approached recently, I know there are a number of properties across the Island that actually have a pivotal impact in their own local area. Therefore we do need more to deal with those, and that is why we will be considering what additional plans we can find.

The Speaker: Hon. Member, Mr Ashford.

Mr Ashford: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister said that the Department have been reviewing the powers. Can I ask when that review is likely to be completed? Also can I ask, will he be looking to several UK examples where just the sheer threat of compulsory purchase appears to have actually made a difference? For instance, if you look at Birmingham City Council, they have managed to get 1,000 houses in the last three years back into habitation without actually having to purchase a single one – just by the sheer threat of the fact that the power was there. So would the Minister accept that going down the route of compulsory purchase does not mean you are suddenly going to have local authorities buying vast amounts properties around the Island? It would be a very targeted approach and also it would be a very welcome approach for local authorities.

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is an area that we will consider and we will look at to see how it relates to the Isle of Man. Again, there are extensive powers. We want to also see how the revisions in last December will work with the fines and things like that. But, yes, we will consider it, and like the Member says, in actual fact most local authorities could not purchase that many properties, particularly the more rural ones; therefore, it is more of a case of it being a measure of last resort.

House of Keys 14/02/2017

310 Obviously, that is something that we will look at. For that reason, I do not have a timescale at this point, but we also need to see what effect the new powers that the local authorities have just been given will impact as well.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Hooper.

Mr Hooper: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister for identifying that local authorities already have broad powers to require work to be undertaken or to undertake the work themselves. Does the Minister consider then that one of the issues with the current powers is perhaps the willingness and confidence of local authorities to actually use them; and, if so, what will his Department be doing to help improve local authorities’ confidence in the powers already available to them?

The Speaker: The Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In some ways it is the case that there are powers, and if any local authority has an issue with a building and needs to look at it then obviously we will assist in providing guidance. As I say, we do need to also see how these powers that have just been given, with the fines – that I very much supported last year – and with the fact that rateable values will not go to zero just because it is dilapidated, for future properties … We will look at that and we will work with local authorities and assist them as needed.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Ashford.

Mr Ashford: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Would the Minister accept I do not think it is so much a lack of willingness for local authorities to use the powers? Would the Minister accept that a lot of the powers are contained within the Housing Act 1955, which may not sound that long ago but it is 62-year-old legislation now and a lot of it is out of date? Would the Minister’s Department consider looking at the legislation as a whole and also the fact that, even within the Building Control Act, perhaps the Minister can tell us here now what the actual definition is of ‘dilapidated’, ‘neglected’ and ‘ruinous’? Because it does not appear within the legislation.

The Speaker: The Minister to reply.

The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think there are a number of issues and maybe in some ways it is just the willingness of the local authority to address it. I know in my local area the local authority has addressed a couple of buildings that needed repair and those repairs have been done. Sometimes it is a case of the willingness of the local authority to move forward. As I said, I have already given a commitment in terms of looking at the issue of ‘dilapidated’, ‘ruinous’ and ‘neglected’. We will do that to see if those additional powers will unlock those last final buildings that have not got anywhere. I have made a commitment that we will look at that and consider that.

House of Keys 14/02/2017

311 44. Compulsory purchase orders – Use over last five years; Crichel Down rules

The Hon. Member for Ramsey (Mr Hooper) to ask the Minister for Infrastructure:

How many compulsory purchase orders have been used in the last five years and whether the Crichel Down rules apply?

The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Harmer): The Department of Infrastructure has not compulsorily purchased land during the last five years. All Government Departments and Local Authorities have compulsory purchase powers; however, Tynwald approval is required under the Acquisition of Land Act 1984. The Crichel Down rules are a non-statutory set of rules regulating disposal of Government land in England and part of Wales. Given their specific application, and as Isle of Man legislation differs quite significantly from the UK legislation in land law, and policy of the Isle of Man Government would not be based upon its UK counterpart, the Crichel Down rules would not be directly applied here. It is possible that in reaching a determination, a court in the Isle of Man may make some reference to those rules but it is expected that little weight could be applied to them for the above reason. Unless and until there is adoption of the rules into policy, or a challenge in the Isle of Man court, which results in a declaration regarding the application of the rules, there is no authority to suggest or confirm that they ‘apply’ in the Isle of Man.

Tynwald 18/07/2017

312 APPENDIX 25: 22nd June 2018

Submission from Douglas Borough Council

313 314 315 316 317 [Signature redacted]

[Redacted]

318

Parliamentary Copyright available from:

The Tynwald Library Legislative Buildings DOUGLAS Isle of Man, IM1 3PW British Isles June 2018

Tel: 01624 685520 e-mail: [email protected] Price £38.52