REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION FOR THE REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE OF JOHN ARMSTRONG MADDRELL REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE OF JOHN ARMSTRONG MADDRELL At the sitting of Tynwald Court on 22nd January 2004 it was resolved that a Select Committee of three Members be established to - "examine the Petition for Redress of Grievance of Mr Joint Armstrong Maddrell presented at St John's on 7th July 2003 with powers to take written and oral evidence pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876 and to report with recommendations" Mr P A Gawne MHK (Rushen) (Caairliagh) Mrs A V Craine MHK (Ramsey) Mrs H Hannan MHK (Peel) The powers, privileges and immunities relating to the work of a committee of Tynwald are those conferred by sections 3 and 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876, sections 1 to 4 of the Privileges of Tynwald (Publications) Act 1973 and sections 2 to 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1984. Copies of this Report may be obtained from the Tynwald Library, Legislative Buildings, Bucks Road, Douglas 1M1 3PW (Tel 01624 68551.6, Fax 01624 685522) or may be consulted at www.tynwald.org.irn All correspondence with regard to this Report should be addressed to the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Bucks Road, Douglas IMl 3PW. To: The Hon Noel Q Cringle MLC, President of Tynwald, and the Hon Council and Keys in Tynwald assembled REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE OF JOHN ARMSTRONG MADDRELL Introduction 1. Your Committee have met on nine occasions to consider the Petition for Redress of Grievance presented at St John's by Mr John Armstrong Maddrell on 7th July 2003. The Petition is at Annex 1. We took evidence in public on 10th-May 2004 from the petitioner Mr J A Maddrell, and from Mr C H Faragher and Mr J M Keggin. (All three persons will be referred to in this Report simply as "Mr Maddrell', "Mr Faragher' and 'Mr Keggin'.) The Hansard record of the public evidence is at Annex 2. 2. We have, in addition, received written evidence from the Petitioner, the Department of Local Government and the Environment and from Port Erin Commissioners. This evidence has consisted for the most part of the official files of relevance to the Petition and, under Standing Order 3.23(8), it has because of its volume been deposited in the Tynwald Library. Background 3. Mr Maddrell owns a plot of land at Port Erin, off the upper end of Spaldrick Promenade, shown as Field 6065 on the Ordnance Survey map comprising 1.23 acres. It presently has an agricultural use, but it is zoned for Tourism/Recreation (Area for Buildings) in the Port Erin Local Plan approved by Tynwald on 12Ul December 1990. This continued the previous zoning of the land. 2 4. Immediately to the south, is an area approximately three times as large designated for Tourism/Recreation (Area for Open Space), which is in the ownership of Port Erin Commissioners and was used as a pitch and putt green. The essential issues which our investigation considered were:- (i) was it justified that development of Mr Maddrell's land should be necessarily linked with the land to the south, which he did not own, so that the two were in effect treated as a single planning unit? (ii) did two members of Port Erin's Board of Commissioners properly declare any interest they had in the matter, and did they improperly influence the Board's decisions in connection with Mr Maddrell's planning applications? Planning History 5. The planning history of Mr Maddrell's land is as follows. Early applications 6. On 5th December 1984, an application for permission for roads, sewers and services for a residential development was approved, but no development took place. On 4t!l November 1988, an application for approval of a leisure park was refused on the ground that there would be a loss of open space. 7. In 1992, an application was then made again for a residential development on this land. By then, the designations in the Port Erin Local Plan had been approved and the application was opposed by the Commissioners; it was refused on 28th July 1992, on the ground that it was contrary to the Local Plan. 3 PA96/910 8. In 1997, a further application was refused, after review and appeal, though this time it was broadly within the terms of the Local Plan. This proposal, PA96/910, was for an aparthotel with sports and leisure facilities, and was supported by the Commissioners. Mr C H Faragher registered as an objector, but he was not then a member of the board. The application was refused by the Planning Committee on 18th October 1996 on the ground that it would lead to loss of open space and amenity. 9. On review, the Commissioners again supported the application, and it was approved. The application then went to appeal, and it was again supported by the Commissioners, but it was refused on 3rd July 1997 for the reasons given in the Inspector's Report. 10. The Inspector had concluded that the policy of the Local Plan “probably was" that Mr MaddrelTs land and the land to the south should be developed together, and “that any buildings required in connection with the use of the southern piece of land should be placed on the appeal site". Since the southern land was not included in the proposal, the Inspector did not consider that the use of Mr Maddrell's site “in isolation from the land to the south could be said to comply with the spirit of the intention of the Local Plan." The same interpretation of the Local Plan, as favouring the joint development of the two sites, had been expressed by the Planning Committee. 11. The Inspector, however, offered alternative grounds for refusing permission. He said that even if the Plan could be interpreted as consistent with the proposed development, it should still be refused permission for reasons connected with the design of the project itself. Thus, the need to avoid visibility problems in access to the road would necessitate such changes to provide a safe and convenient exit that the appearance of the site would be altered to so great an extent as "to make its impact to my mind unacceptable and out of keeping with its surroundings". 4 Reconsideration by the Commissioners 12. The Commissioners had consistently supported application PA96/910 at all three stages of its journey. Following the refusal on appeal, however, the Board was invited to look at the matter again. Six months after the appeal had been determined, a meeting was held on 10ih February 1998 between the Commissioners and Mr Maddrell, at the latter's request, to discuss the development of his land jointly wTith the Board. 13. Following that, a meeting with the Planning Officer was held on 3rd March 1998 by the Commissioners, and the Planning Officer discussed possible development in the context of their site being involved jointly with Mr Maddrell's. It was noted that a restrictive covenant inhibited building on the Commissioners' land. The Planning Officer described it as "a difficult site to develop" and predicted that any application would be taken to appeal by one party or another. I i 14. A further meeting with Mr Maddrell was held on 15th December 1998, at 1 which Mr Maddrell gave the Board members, who included Mr Keg gin, j copies of a suggested layout for a hotel with associated conference and sports facilities, and displayed a scale model of it. Mr Maddrell said that, subject to a commitment from the Board, he would proceed to submit an application in principle to the Planning Committee. 15. The matter was then discussed by the Commissioners at their next meeting on 5th January 1999. The minutes of that meeting are short, but they record that it was decided to send a letter to Mr Maddrell confirming the Board's support "on the strict understanding that such support is only given to development of the land solely for tourist accommodation and amenity use and the Board would apply covenants on the land ensuring this." Mr Keggin was present at that meeting, and also when Mr Maddrell's reply was received at the Board's subsequent meeting on 2nd February 1999. 5 PA9911706 16. On 7Ul December 1999, Mr Maddrell submitted an application covering his land and part of the Commissioners' land for “a modem hotel and multi­ purpose indoor leisure and health complex and car parking“. A special meeting of the Board was called on 11th January 2000 to consider a request from Mr Maddrell to display a model of the development in the window of the Commissioners' office. The request was refused on the ground that the model did not form part of the planning application. 17. Both Mr Keggin and Mr Faragher had been present at the meeting on 11th January, and were also present at the next meeting on 18th January 2000 when the application was considered. Both had indeed written to the planning committee in their personal capacities declaring their objections, Mr Faragher on 17th January and Mr Keggin on the day of the meeting. Fourteen letters from objectors (mostly addressed to the Planning Committee) were reported; they did not include those from Mr Faragher or Mr Keggin, who had only just written to the Committee. 18. The meeting on 18th January 2000 proceeded to discuss the merits of the application, and the minutes record that “Mr C H Faragher in particular voiced his concerns and gave notice that at the next meeting of the Board consideration be given to reviewing the original decision to allow Mr Maddrell to use the 'Pitch and Putt' land [owned by the Commissioners).“ After a "full and frank discussion“, Mr Faragher moved that the plan be opposed on the ground that insufficient detail had been supplied with the application.