Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
17/00164/B Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 17/00164/B Applicant : Kelproperties Ltd Proposal : Demolition of one existing unit and construction of four units for general industrial and storage use with associated facilities and parking Site Address : Gob-E-Volley Depot Main Road Sulby Isle of Man IM7 2HR
Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : 23.11.2017 Site Visit : 23.11.2017 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 22.01.2018 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposal would result in the creation of additional built form within the countryside on land which is not previously developed and the creation of an employment use in an unsustainable location and is therefore considered to be contrary to Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3 and Strategic Policy 1 (parts a, b and d) of the Strategic Plan (2016).
R 2. The proposal would result in the retention and increase of built form within the countryside which is not related to its wider use or management and would result in the conversion of the site to a use which in the future could be considered to be Previously Developed Land. It is therefore considered to be contrary to Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan (2016).
R 3. The proposal would change the nature and level of use of an access on a primary route in a non-built up area. Visibility for those in vehicles emerging from the site, to the right is not of a standard that enables the site to be used safely, particularly for slow moving vehicles such as may be generated by the proposed use of the site and as the density and floor area of the proposal is an increase over the existing, this is unacceptable. The proposal is therefore contrary to Transport Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan (2016). __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons none __
Officer’s Report
==== PAGE 2 ====
17/00164/B Page 2 of 7
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
THE SITE 1.1 The site is a parcel of land which lies on the southern side of the A3 TT Course to the east of Sulby village. The site was formerly a Government depot, operated by DEFA and has recently been sold. The current applicant seeks approval for a new use as well as building works and demolition.
1.2 The site accommodates three buildings, all relatively modern buildings with sheeted roofing and finished in different colours. Two of the buildings are clearly visible from the highway.
1.3 The lawful use of the site, established through a recent application for a Certificate of Lawfulness (15/00888/LAW) is as "an operational base and depot for forestry and/or land management activity undertaken off site including storage of timber and construction materials associated with forestry and/or land management activity: storage and maintenance of vehicles, plant and machinery associated with forestry and/or land management activity and ancillary office accommodation".
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the demolition of the building furthest into the site and the erection of four new buildings in the north eastern part of the site and the use of the buildings on the site as general industrial use. The new buildings will have a cumulative floor area of 325 sq m, split between the four buildings, three of which are within a single building which is 19m long, 12.5m wide and 7.3m to the ridge, 6m to the eaves: the fourth unit is detached and has a footprint of 9.3m by 12.5m, a ridge height of 7m and an eaves height of 6m. The buildings will be finished in fair faced blockwork up to a height of 2.3m with leaf green coloured sheeting above and a grey sheeted roof. There are a total of 19 parking spaces provided within the site, some in front of the roller shutter doors proposed. These new buildings will replace an existing building with a floor area of 96 sq m. The proposal therefore results in an increase in floor area of around 230 sq m.
2.2 The ground area is to be hard surfaced with appropriate root protection works installed in the vicinity of existing trees on the boundary of the site, details of which are provided in the application. The two other existing buildings are to remain as they are. A bin store is to be introduced at the back of the site.
2.3 New tree planting is to be introduced along the boundary with the main road where a number of Category U trees, two Category B trees and a Category C tree are to be removed.
2.4 The applicant explains that the existing building to be removed is in poor condition and deemed not fit for purpose.
2.5 A Transport Statement has been submitted which provides details of traffic counts undertaken on Wednesday 4th December, 2016. It refers to a number of UK industrial sites and refers to UK Use Classes (2005). It assumes that traffic exiting the site will be evenly split between that travelling north and that south. It concludes that the existing access does not fully comply with Design Manual for Roads and Bridges but suggest that the site has a lawful use which could be continued without any control over the number of vehicles using it. It describes the proposal to improve visibility by the clearing of vegetation along the frontage, bringing a greater presence to the access for those approaching it on the main road. They calculate that in peak hours, the additional traffic generated by the proposal would be somewhere in the region of 6 two way movements in each direction. It describes existing visibility splays as providing visibility of 2.4m by 68.7m to the right and 2.4m by 69.8m to the left both to the nearside kerb. 85th percentile speeds are recorded in this de-restricted area, by DoI as 53.5 mph northbound and 51.9mph southbound which would result in a requirement for
==== PAGE 3 ====
17/00164/B Page 3 of 7
visibility splays in the order of 160m. They refer to visibility in a commercial vehicle may be greater than that in a private car (although the car parking spaces in the site are a standard 4.8m by 2.4m).
2.6 It is the applicant's view that the development can be considered under the provisions of General Policy 3c - previously developed land and that the proposed works would enhance the appearance of the site through the removal of what they consider is an unsightly Nissen hut and its replacement with buildings designed with careful choice of materials and with modern facilities for those on site. They further clarify that visibility splays of 84.7m can be achieved at a position 600mm into the carriageway from the nearside kerb and that an agreement can be entered into between the new owner and the department to ensure that the verge is maintained in a manner such as to allow the visibility to be retained. Confirmation of this is provided by e-mail sent by officers of DEFA which indicates that they have no objection to trimming of the verge provided that this avoids mature trees.
PLANNING POLICY Land use designation 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as a Plantation owned by the Isle of Man Forestry, Mines and Lands Board within a wider area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance.
3.2 As such, there is a presumption against development as set out in General Policy 3 and Environment Policies 1 and 2 although General Policy 3 does make provision for the redevelopment of previously developed land which "contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment."
3.3 "Previously-developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure.
The definition includes defence buildings, but excludes:
o Land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings. o Land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill purposes where provision for restoration has been made through development control procedures. o Land in built-up areas such as parks, recreation grounds and allotments, which, although it may feature paths, pavilions and other buildings, has not been previously developed. o Land that was previously-developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape in the process of time (to the extent that it can reasonably be considered as part of the natural surroundings).
There is no presumption that land that is previously-developed is necessarily suitable for housing development nor that the whole of the curtilage should be developed."
Approach to the location of Employment Land 3.4 Spatial Policies 1-4 set out the nature of development for employment which will suitable at each level of the settlement hierarchy. Spatial Policy 5 confirms that new development which is not in accordance with the hierarchy will only be supported in accordance with General Policy 3.
3.5 Business Policy 2 states: "Land for industrial development should be designated in all parts of the Island, having regard to:
(a) scale, which should be appropriate to the area; (b) the availability of public transport links;
==== PAGE 4 ====
17/00164/B Page 4 of 7
(c) the proximity of labour; and (d) the availability of water, sewerage and other utilities."
3.6 The Strategic Plan provides additional explanation of the approach to the distribution of employment land including the following:
"9.2.2 Most of the Island's industry is located close to major transportation links, particularly in the case of Douglas, Braddan and Ballasalla, which all have convenient access to Ronaldsway airport and Douglas harbour. Ramsey and Peel harbours are used for the importation and exportation of large scale goods (fuel, building supplies etc). All of these are conveniently accessible to significant pools of labour. In order to minimise excessive transportation of goods and travel for employees, and to promote sustainable development, much of the Island's future industrial development should continue to be concentrated in these locations, and appropriate areas of land should be made available for such uses in the Area Plans for these parts of the Island. It will also be appropriate, when formulating Area Plans for our smaller settlements, to make provision for the continued operation of small-scale family businesses, particularly those serving local needs such as garages and builders. The advice of the Department of Trade and Industry will be sought in respect of the amount of land which is likely to be required for industrial purposes within the life of the respective area plan."
Transport 3.7 Transport Policy 7 indicates that all new development must be in accordance with the parking standards set out in Appendix 7. There set a requirement for general industrial development to be provided with 1 space per 50 square metres gross floor space. This number can be increased for more intensive uses and decreased where sites are sensitive areas (e.g. within a Conservation Area) or in sustainable locations (e.g. town centres).
3.8 Strategic Policy 10 requires that "New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to:
(a) minimise journeys, especially by private car; (b) make best use of public transport; (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and (d) encourage pedestrian movement."
3.9 Transport Policy 4 states, "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan."
3.10 In their representation below Highway Services make reference to General Policy 2h which requires proposals which are in accordance with land use zoning to provide safe and convenient access, adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space.
REPRESENTATIONS 4.1 Highway Services made comments initially on 17.03.17, objecting to the application and clarifying their objections in later submissions dated 24.03.17 and 12.12.17: their position is that the site is unable to provide the required sightlines of 160m and can only provide a sight stopping distance of 80m, which is completely inadequate for an access on this road that will be used by slow moving large vehicles. Whilst the revised plans show that 2.4m by 80m sightlines can be provided, this is based upon a legal agreement being entered into with DEFA in order to maintain the boundary to be less than 1m in height. Concerns remain as to the unsafe nature of the access.
4.2 Lezayre Parish Commissioners support the application but express concern at the safety of the access and the relevance of the traffic information which was taken outside the busiest
==== PAGE 5 ====
17/00164/B Page 5 of 7
times and are concerned that the traffic levels are not a true reflection of the behaviour and amount of traffic here. They also request that the units are not used for retail purposes (06.03.17).
PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The Certificate of Lawfulness application referred to above is the most relevant of the previous applications.
ASSESSMENT 6.1 Due to the nature of the proposal - for both change of use and new buildings, the principle of general industrial use cannot be extricated from the fact that the proposed development increases the amount of floorspace and therefore proposes additional built development within the countryside. As a result, there are a number of issues:
is the use of the site for general industrial purposes acceptable?
is the built development acceptable (in terms of the increase in the overall amount and the environmental impact)?
can the development be safely accessed?
The use of the site for general industrial purposes 6.2 The site is not designated for development. Its lawful use, through the passage of time rather than the granting of a planning approval, is as an operational base and depot for forestry and/or land management activity undertaken off site including storage of timber and construction materials associated with forestry and/or land management activity: storage and maintenance of vehicles, plant and machinery associated with forestry and/or land management activity and ancillary office accommodation.
6.3 Unlike forestry and land management activities which are inextricably linked with the countryside, general industrial purposes are usually located in sustainable locations which are close to the activities and customers which they serve. Indeed, the Strategic Plan refers to industrial land being "conveniently accessible to significant pools of labour. In order to minimise excessive transportation of goods and travel for employees, and to promote sustainable development, much of the Island's future industrial development should continue to be concentrated in these locations".
6.4 This location is not close to customers, staff, customers or materials nor easily accessible by foot or public transport and as such is considered to be unsustainable and not generally suitable for new general industrial development based upon the broad approach set out in Spatial Policies 1-5, Business Policy 2, paragraph 9.2.2 and Strategic Policy 10 parts (a, b, and d).
6.5 Although it is noted that Spatial Policy 5 allows for the exceptions set out in GP3 which include previously developed land (PDL), given the lawful use of the site is for forestry and/or land management activity and that such uses are explicitly excluded from the definition of PDL, it is not considered that this exception is relevant.
6.6 Even if it were PDL, the exception set out in GP3c only applies where "the continued use is redundant" and "where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape of the wider environment and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape of the wider environment. It has not been demonstrated that there is no longer a need for the site for forestry or land maintenance related purposes. The impact of the proposal on the landscape and wider environment are considered below.
The impact of the built development
==== PAGE 6 ====
17/00164/B Page 6 of 7
6.7 Environment Policy 1 indicates that development which would "adversely" affect the countryside will only be permitted if there is "over-riding national need" and there is "no reasonable and acceptable alternative". Environment Policy 2 indicates that within relevant areas the protection of the character of the countryside will be the most important consideration unless the development of the location is essential or the development would not "harm the character and quality of the landscape".
6.8 The applicant has not demonstrated a national need or lack of alternatives, therefore the issue is whether the proposal will adversely affect the countryside.
6.9 The proposal would create a larger (but newer) structure than that already on site. It is helpful to consider whether this could result in an overall reduced visual impact (e.g., due to a better design or reposition of the building) compared with the existing. The built development on the site will be visible as one passes the site. The most visible are the buildings which are to be retained closest to the access. That which is to be removed is not particularly visible to the passing public and therefore its removal is not considered to have sufficient, or indeed any significant benefit, such as would over-ride any other concerns. Therefore, the visual impact of the new structures compared to the existing structure is considered neutral.
6.10 However, the lawful use of the buildings is for forestry and/or land management activity. The impact (including visual) of such buildings on the countryside is to some extent offset by the fact that they enable the use/management of the wider countryside and also that they are not considered to be PDL. The proposed use would have no role in facilitating the wider use/management of the countryside and could then be considered PDL in the future with all the implications for redevelopment that could bring.
6.11 Therefore, on balance, whilst it is not considered that the overall visual or landscape impact of the proposal would "adversely" affect the countryside or "harm the character and quality of the landscape", the loss of forestry and/or land management facilities through the change of use and effectively the creation of previously developed land is considered contrary to the broad approach to protecting the countryside as set out in Environment Policies 1 and 2.
Access 6.12 At the time of the planning officer's site visit, the exit from the site resulted in their vehicle turning left. After checking that all was clear, lastly to the right, the vehicle moved out of the site only for a four wheel drive vehicle to approach at some speed, quickly travelling right up to the back of the vehicle exiting the site. If the exiting vehicle had been a slow moving one, the approaching driver would have had to brake deliberately to avoid colliding with the emerging vehicle.
6.13 The advice from Highway Services is that visibility to the right is not of a standard that enables the site to be used safely and the minimum standards of sight stopping distance cannot be achieved without works which include the long term maintenance over third party land. The Manual for Manx Roads references planning obligations (3.4.30) therefore the requirement for one to implement the mitigation measures set out in a proposal is assumed to be insufficient reason in itself to refuse an application. However, Highway Services note that, "The site is unable to provide the required sightlines of 160m can only provide SSD of 80m. This is completely inadequate for an access on this road that will be used by slow moving large vehicles" Therefore, even if a legal agreement could be put in place, the access would still be inadequate.
6.14 However, even if the access could be made safe, the site creates an additional location on a stretch of road where new entrances would be resisted as a matter of principle (based on the information at paragraphs 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 of MMR, the road would be categorised as a "Primary Route" in a "Non-built up area").
==== PAGE 7 ====
17/00164/B Page 7 of 7
6.15 Therefore, given that the proposed access is considered unsafe for slow moving large vehicles and would increase the use of an access on a primary route in a non-built up area, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Strategic Policy 10(c) and Transport Policy 4.
6.16 The proposal is considered to have sufficient parking (Transport Policy 7) and manoeuvring areas based upon the advice from Highway Services.
CONCLUSION 7.1 The development is considered to be contrary to the development plan in terms of the proposed use, the increase in development within the countryside in an unsustainable location (Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3 and Strategic Policy 1 parts a, b, and d and the nature and level of use of an access on a primary route in a non-built up area sufficient to undermine Transport Policy 4 and the provisions for highway safety and as such the application is not supported.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
8.2 The decision-maker must determine:
__
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : Refused
Committee Meeting Date: 12.02.2018
Signed : S E Corlett Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required
YES/NO
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal