DERBYHAVEN: EXPLANATION STILL AWAITED

With the controversial planning consent (Ref. 05/02044/A.) to build 17 houses and four apartments on the golf course in Derbyhaven going to appeal, the questions asked in Tynwald of the  Department of Local Government and the Environment (DLGE) remain unanswered.

A previous application on the same site for a single house was approved in principle after Graham Ferguson Lacey, on behalf of his company which was the Applicant, had promised interested and affected parties that he would enter into a Section 18 covenant (under the 1991 Town and Country Planning Act) that would restrict the site to a single dwelling for all time.  He wrote to the Secretary of the Planning Committee “The proposed new single mansion house with the Section 18 agreement will remove the uncertainty as to the long term use of this land in a prime residential area and allay the concerns of occupiers of neighbouring properties”. Unfortunately, unknown to other stakeholders, Mr. Lacey did not enter into such a covenant and DLGE did not hold him to it. In fact it would appear that the Planning Committee was not made aware of Mr. Lacey’s offer to enter into the Section 18 agreement. Instead, Mr. Lacey applied to build 21 dwellings on the same site and the Planning Committee approved it.  Naturally, residents feel that they have been misled by the Applicant and seriously let down by the Planners.

The Chairman of the Derbyhaven Residents Society wrote to the DLGE on 25^th April 2006, asking, “Could you please inform the residents of Derbyhaven why your Department did not conclude the Section 18 order with Mr Lacey?”  He also asked, ”Could you please confirm whether your Department is prepared to request Mr Lacey to honour his undertaking to sign up to the Section 18 order in respect of the single dwelling?”  The Chief Executive Officer, Mr Hamilton, replied on 15^th May, giving an explanation of the workings of the planning process and his particular role but declined to comment on the questions posed.  Copies of the letters can be found elsewhere on this website.

We find it disturbing that the CEO of DLGE, who is responsible for the operational effectiveness of his department, is not prepared to investigate decisions or recommendations made by staff in his department, in particular where serious accusations are made that residents were misled and that the environment has not been given the protection it deserves.  It should be remembered that the planning consent was finalised over two years ago and was therefore not one in which he would have to act as an impartial advisor to the Minister.

Therefore, residents turned to their MHK, Captain Andrew Douglas, who tabled a number of questions for the 20^th June sitting of Tynwald.  Unfortunately, the Minister, Mr Rimmington, was no more forthcoming than Mr. Hamilton.  Understandably, this caused further frustration and dismay among residents.  Typical comments were, “Predictably the Minister side-steps the issues” and, “I regret to say the normal stone walling from the Minister, which is as you would expect.”  Therefore, residents felt that they had no alternative but to exercise their constitutional rights and present Petitions for Redress of Grievance on Tynwald Day, 5^th July 2006.

Captain Douglas’s questions, along with the Minister’s answers have been posted in their entirety on this website.  When asked why his Chief Executive appeared reluctant to investigate the missing letter (Q50), the Minister explained that ‘a comprehensive reply’ had been sent.  In fact the letter was so ‘comprehensive’ that the writer apparently ‘forgot’ to answer the two questions posed by the Derbyhaven Residents Society.

Asked whether the Planning Committee were given full information and received Mr Lacey’s letter (Q51), Mr Rimmington said, “Neither the minutes of the meetings nor the written reports indicate for certain that the letter of 24^th March 2003 was itself considered by the Committee”.  It seems clear that the Planning Committee was never informed about the proposed Section 18 agreement and therefore never considered imposing it as a condition of the Planning Consent. Since Mr Lacey made the offer to the Planning Committee, why did the Planning Officers take it upon themselves to dismiss or refuse to accept the offer or recommend the Section 18 agreement to the Planning Committee, knowing that various interested and affected parties relied on it?  Also, why was this decision never documented?  This situation appears to be similar to ‘Mount Murray’ where the Commission commented that the way in which a planning condition was amended by the Planning Committee “is not easily understood from the documentation”.

Mr Rimmington’s most confusing answer related to why DLGE selectively opted for a Section 18 agreement for the Golf Links Hotel site but not the other two sites, in Derbyhaven and at the ‘Haunted House’, that were the subject of Mr. Lacey’s ‘master plan’ (Q52).  The Minister’s assertion that restricting the Golf Links Hotel site to the proposed use “could not be satisfactorily controlled by the imposition of a valid planning condition” applies equally, if not more so, to the other two sites where the main objectives were to protect and preserve the environment and therefore restrict the use of the land for generations to come. Presumably, the Planning Committee was content with the approval conditions imposed because they were not aware of the Section 18 proposals, as the Planning Officers had not told them.  The Minister then went on to say “… that agreement would only have become effective if the approval had been taken up.”   What does that mean?  When is an Approval taken up?

The residents of Derbyhaven and the rest of the Island are entitled to explanations.  The Petitions to Tynwald seek, “an urgent investigation into the failures of administration of the Department of Local Government and the Environment and the Planning Committee in relation to the [previously mentioned] planning applications and the prejudice caused to the environment of Derbyhaven”.

The full background, including copies of all the documents referred to, can be found elsewhere on this website.