Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
18/00013/B
Page 1 of 13
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 18/00013/B Applicant : Quay Properties Ltd Proposal : Demolition of existing industrial unit and formation of car park for a period of 4 years Site Address : 25 South Quay Douglas Isle of Man IM1 5AR
Photo Taken : 28.08.2018 Site Visit : 28.08.2018 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 02.11.2018
Reasons for Refusal:
R 1. The proposed use is not in accordance with the land use zoning as set out within the Douglas Local Plan (1998)
R 2.The proposed temporary use would reduce the likelihood of a prominent brownfield site being brought forward and this would be contrary to Strategic Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan (2016), the policy on temporary car parks as set out in "Reform of the Planning System - Programme for Government 2016 - 2021" and the recommendations of the Report of the Select Committee of Tynwald on the Development of Unoccupied urban sites (2017-2018).
R 3. The Employment Land Review suggests that there is limited supply within Douglas in the short term and the proposal would reduce the amount of employment land available within Douglas in the short-term.
This approval relates to the following plans/drawings/information:
==== PAGE 2 ====
18/00013/B
Page 2 of 13
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that Manx Utilities should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4) as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Operational Policy.
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFEERED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL
0.0 UPDATE 0.1 This application was presented to Planning Committee on the 3rd September 2018 and deferred pending the submission of further information in relation to highways issues. The Chairman noted that the Case Officer's recommendation included reasons for refusal other than highways and asked the applicant to note that even if highways issues were resolved it was possible the application would still not be supported.
0.2 The applicant submitted the following (received 01.10.18):
0.3 In response to the amended information, DOI Highways have commented as follows:
"The previously proposed car park barrier across the site entrance has been removed from the scheme as previously requested by Highway Services. As a result, there should be no queuing back of vehicles from the site access onto the adjacent public highway to the detriment of highway safety and the free flow of traffic. This is acceptable subject to a planning condition for no barrier to be erected across the site access at any time while the temporary car park is in use.
The revised proposed site plan and visibility splay (drawing no. 004) submitted by the applicant shows that highway visibility splays of 2.4m x 43m in both directions would be achievable for the proposed site access junction to satisfy highway visibility standards. A Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) would be required for 'No Waiting at Any Time' parking restrictions (double yellow lines) to protect the highway visibility splay areas and prevent cars parking within them in the existing on- street parking layby. A planning condition would be needed to secure the TRO.
The amended proposed site plan shows 29 no. proposed car parking spaces laid out on the existing concrete surface which comply with the minimum parking bay dimensions in the 'Manual for Manx Roads' design guide. There would be a 6m aisle width to allow sufficient room for vehicle turning and manoeuvring into and out of the parking bays.
The revised plan shows that the car park would be lit by 3 no. low light lanterns which should be positioned a sufficient distance away to avoid potential light spillage onto the adjacent adopted highway.
==== PAGE 3 ====
18/00013/B
Page 3 of 13
Highway Services does not oppose the application subject to the following planning conditions: o No barrier shall be erected across the site access at any time while the car park is in use. Reason: to prevent queuing back of vehicles from the site access onto the adjacent public highway in the interest of highway safety and to protect the free flow of traffic. o Prior to the commencement of the development, a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) shall be provided to implement 'No Waiting at Any Time' parking restrictions (double yellow lines) in the vicinity of the site access junction. Reason: to protect the 2.4m x 43m highway visibility splay areas and prevent cars parking within them in the interest of highway safety.
Recommendation: DNOC"
0.4 It is also noted that separate application for a temporary car park was approved by Planning Committee (18/00350/B) and the minutes state that the Committee, "clarified that this was due to the combination of the factors outlined in the discussion - notably the fact that the Area Plan has yet to determine the designation of the site and the potential removal of car parking spaces through the redevelopment of the Promenades and the Lord Street bus station redevelopment". However that application related to an existing use, which had required an application as the condition limiting its time had been breached. It is also noted that that application proposed a 2 year use and the minutes also record that, "It was noted that the proposal was for two years and, if approved, it was suggested that the committee may not support further extensions of time. It was noted that demolishing buildings to create temporary car parks was a problem as it enabled sites to provide an economic return with minimal investment, and so discouraged development, and also that it masked the underlying problem of insufficient parking within the town centre". It is therefore considered that the application at hand is materially different to 18/00350/B and the committee's determination of that application is therefore of limited weight in considering the application at hand.
0.5 In light of the above, the recommendation to Planning Committee is amended to omit Reason 4 (which related to highway safety). However, the recommendation to refuse therefore stands, albeit for only the first 3 Reasons as presented previously (relating to local plan, temporary parking policy and employment land). The remainder of this report has not been changed and is as presented to committee previously.
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site comprises an industrial unit within Douglas. The site is within a wider industrial/commercial area and to the rear is a steep bank. The site has an existing access onto South Quay. The existing building is Unit 21, although the site address is 25 South Quay.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks full approval for the demolition of the unit and the creation of a 30 space temporary car park (for four years) (note the form states 31 spaces but the plan shows 30 spaces). The exit/entrance would be in the position of the existing main door for the garage, with an entrance/exit barrier installed.
2.2 The site would front onto South Quay with 1m high fence with vertically hung lollipop boarding. To the rear of the site, rockfall fencing would be erected. The site would be concreted (where required, as the concrete slab of the existing building would be retained). There would be 3 LED floodlights on 6 metre high standards which would be operational from 6am - 8:30am and 4pm
2.3 The application form indicates in response to question 9 that the current use if industrial and the proposed use is car park. There are no extant and unimplemented planning approvals for the site and the industrial use runs with the existing building (which is proposed to be demolished).
2.4 The application includes a structural engineer's report (February 2018) which indicates that the building is beyond practical repair and the only safe solution is to demolish the building. A
==== PAGE 4 ====
18/00013/B
Page 4 of 13
demolition notice was issued by Building Control on the 21st February 2018. It is noted that 6(e) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) indicate that the demolition of a building which is attached to another building (which is itself not to be demolished) or the demolition of part of a building (where the rest is not to be demolished) are development. The building is not registered or within a Conservation Area. As such the demolition works proposed would not in themselves constitute 'Development' for the purposes of the Planning Act.
2.5 The applicant's agent has been contacted to provide clarification on why the building is to be demolished, the future plans for the site, the proposed duration of use and whether it is a departure from the Local Plan. The agent commented on 02/02/18 (the e-mail is available on-line as part of the application) and included the points below.
o The site owner is continually monitoring the market and looking for development opportunities. This site is high on their agenda for redevelopment and as soon as the market dictates proposals will be submitted to redevelop.
o The applicant's agent advised them to add a time to the approval being sought. He had initially wanted to apply for a car park in perpetuity. The agent considered that having a definitive period would be more favourably considered. If this is not the case and the department prefers not having a definitive period they would be content to amend the proposal.
o The land use zoning is 'light industrial' and there are other examples within the same designation where car parking has been approved. This is a temporary measure and one which would be addressed at some later date when detailed applications are submitted which respond to market conditions. The agent does not consider this to be a deviation from the plan per se. It should also be noted that the building is significantly beyond the state where it can be refurbished.
2.6 The form indicates in response to question 9 that the current use if industrial and the proposed use is car park. There are not extant and unimplemented planning approvals for the site and the industrial use runs with the building. Therefore at the end of 4 years the site would have no lawful use. The applicant was therefore asked whether, to avoid the creation of a derelict area of land in a prominent location, if the application were supported, whether they would object to a condition requiring the site to be landscaped within 3 months of cessation of the use in accordance with details to be agreed prior to the implementation of the car park and thereafter maintained (unless planning approval were given and implemented for an alternative use/development).
2.7 In response to this, the applicant's agent commented on 02/02/18 that, "Providing a further application to extend the period of use as a car park (assuming market conditions do not change during the approval period) would not be prejudiced by such a condition the applicant would have no objection to such a condition being attached. It is the applicant's proposal to develop as soon as the market dictates but he has no control over that".
2.8 Additional information was provided on 28/06/18 (included in application detail available via the planning website) which makes a number of points including those summarised below.
o The Area Plan makes reference to the area in general as a Proposed Comprehensive Treatment Area and the Central Douglas Masterplan includes the site within the supporting text recognising that viability in the current market presents significant challenges to the types of development that can be delivered in the immediate and shorter term.
o The applicant has carried out feasibility works on possible development options being considered including housing, office, hotel and student accommodation.
o The applicant is in dialogue with local agents and at present believes there are no potential occupiers of office development of the scale necessary to maximise the site.
==== PAGE 5 ====
18/00013/B
Page 5 of 13
o Until the market is more stable a firmer commitment cannot be made regarding permanent long term solutions. However, the applicant has a track record for development and has provided a resume of their business philosophy and commitment to develop when the market allows. They suggest that grant assistant may expedite the development as speculative development may then be an option.
o Until such time as TAPE is finalised and/or the market dictates it would be premature to consider development with an alternative use.
o All of the units on the South Quay site are let and have created in the region of 30 employment posts. Most of the units are start-up businesses which have resulted in new rather than relocated employment.
o With Quayside Tyres relocation the previous problem with parking directly onto the Quay has been negated and there is now space available for kerbside parking.
o If the existing building were demolished and the site not used as a temporary car park there would be no defined use for the site and that the intent and meaning of TAPE, Central Douglas Masterplan and the planning process would dictate future use.
o They confirm that demolition approval has been received and tenders for the building demolition are well advanced.
o They note that Douglas Borough Council suggest a restriction to 24 months use but have concerns about the viability of this and also that there is no sign of a change in the market which could justify such a restriction.
o The applicant is content to provide shrouds to lighting to prevent light spillage and would accept a condition on this.
o The surfacing would be a hard wearing concrete.
o Give the building cannot be used in its current state and approvals are in place for demolition the reduction of employment land in the short term is a moot point.
o Information is given to respond to highway concerns and the potential for rock anchoring.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site is zoned as "Light Industrial Use" on the Douglas Local Plan (Map 2) 1998. It is not within a Conservation Area. The site is within an area identified as being at high tidal flood risk (2017 flood maps).
3.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016) contains a number of relevant policies.
3.2.1 Strategic Policy 1 indicates that best use should be made of resources by optimising the use of previously developed land.
3.2.2 General Policy 2 sets out general 'Development Control' considerations, and indicates that developments which accord with land use zonings will be supported only where they meet these. Where a proposal does not comply with the land use zoning however, it is considered that the general considerations are still capable of being relevant. These include whether the proposal:
==== PAGE 6 ====
18/00013/B
Page 6 of 13
3.2.3 Environment Policy 10 indicates that flood risk assessment will be required in relation to sites with a potential risk of flooding and Environment Policy 13 indicates that development which would result in an unacceptable risk of flooding (either on or off-site) will not be permitted.
3.2.4 Paragraph 7.30.1 states indicates that views out of a Conservation Area can contribute significantly to its character and this point is addressed in Environment Policy 36 which indicates that development outside of, but close to, the boundary of a Conservation Area will only be permitted where it will not detrimentally affect important views into and out of the Conservation.
3.2.5 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."
3.2.6 Paragraph 11.5.3 indicates that the long term the target is to reduce the level of car parking required for town centre developments and seek to develop more sustainable staff and visitor transport plans but sets out a general policy (Transport Policy 7) "in the shorter term" which sets out parking standards for new developments.
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 The Council of Ministers have approved an Action Plan to Reform the Planning System (hereafter "The Action Plan"). The document "Reform of the Planning System - Programme for Government 2016 - 2021" GD2018/0031 was laid before Tynwald on 15th May 2018. One of the actions set out within this is that, "Council of Ministers have agreed the following Policy with immediate effect: In order to continue to incentivise and support site redevelopment and the associated economic development, Planning Approval should not normally be given for brownfield sites to be used as temporary car parks" and that this is important, "To ensure faster brownfield site redevelopment and encourage socio-economic development".
4.2 Report of the Select Committee of Tynwald on the Development of Unoccupied urban sites (2017-2018) (hereafter "The Select Committee Report" recommended 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 ... (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".
4.3 The Manual for Manx Roads (published by the Department of Infrastructure) sets out detailed guidance on highways matters.
4.4 The Area Plan for the East consultation draft has been published (consultation runs until the 31/08/18). This identifies that the application site is proposed for allocation as, "Mixed Use Proposal Area 7 (The Quayside)" and is part of Potential Development Site DH019. The written statement indicates that there will be a presumption in of the comprehensive re-development of the southern side of the quay for new uses for tourism, offices, food and drink, leisure, reception and function venues, business hubs/share-service offices and/or residential uses at first floor level and above". The supporting text indicates that redevelopment of the southern side to compliment the quayside as a whole is to be encouraged. It is also within Comprehensive Treatment Area 3 which indicates that the area could be developed for leisure, retail warehouse, offices and residential uses
==== PAGE 7 ====
18/00013/B
Page 7 of 13
4.5 The Central Douglas Masterplan is not a statutory document but was approved by Tynwald in 2015, "as a general framework for the development of Central Douglas, a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and the formulation of planning policy, most notably the Area Plan for the East". The format of the Masterplan was intended to ensure that, "The evidence base and project proposals could be reviewed for inclusion in the Area Plan for the East". It breaks the area down into 8 Character Areas based on a combination of function and identity. Within each Character Area individual project proposals are set out to strengthen the Character Areas, and carry forward the Vision and Objectives. It forms part of the evidence base to the Area Plan.
4.6 The Employment Land Review (ELR) was produced in 2015, and in 2016 an update was commissioned, which was finalised and published in 2017. The Headline findings for this included that, "The majority of demand for employment floorspace continues to focus on locations in the East", "Available land in the East is limited to 2ha, a land supply of under 3 years at historic rates" and "Over the last 18 months, windfall development opportunities have emerged within existing allocations which have absorbed requirements. Such opportunities will become increasingly restricted. This will be further compounded as industrial requirements increase".
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 There are no specific applications for this site identified as being relevant. However it is noted that a number of planning approvals have been given previously on other sites for temporary car parks. An example is Planning approval 16/00371/B for, "Provision for 46 temporary car parking spaces and three self-servicing car washing machines" on the nearby site of the Former Clover Asphalt Depot was given on 20.06.2016 subject to a condition stating, "The use hereby approved shall be for a limited period of two years; from the date of this approval and on (or before) the expiry of this approval the use shall be discontinued". The site has been the subject of a previous application for redevelopment - PA 08/00221/B for the construction of building to provide 33 apartments with integral parking. The Case Officer's report included the following analysis
"6.1 Whilst the provision of temporary car parks within the town can be useful as a stop gap between a site being cleared and its re-development, they can also become less attractive elements of the streetscene as, because they are only temporary, little effort can be spent on tidying and improving the appearance of the site - the various car parks along Back Strand Street and Market Street are examples of this, as are the car parks at the corner of Peel Road and Circular Road and opposite Tesco. This site is slightly different in that its former uses were as builder's yard/warehouse building and was also used as former vehicle maintenance shed and therefore its use and appearance did not accord with the residential land use designation. The applicant has also confirmed they would be happy for the fence to be 1.8 metres high and introduce boundary planters which will help improve the appearance of the site.
5.2 The fact the previous approved application has now expired and that the temporary approval is for two years, would enable the site to be used in the short term and arguably would improve the appearance, whilst a potentially new application for the re-development of the site is prepared. The applicant should be under no illusion that the Department will be unlikely to keep granting temporary approvals on the site, given the site's prominent position and land use designation and therefore the applicant is recommended consider how to re-develop the site. It is therefore considered that a two year approval is considered appropriate".
5.3 It is worthy of note that there is a current application for the use of a site nearby for continued car parking usage - 18/00350/B which is recommended for refusal.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 Douglas Borough Council commented on 18/01/18 (Consultation 1) that they would suggest a 24 month time limit only for a temporary car park would be more appropriate in order not to tie up a potential development site for too long a period. In response to the additional/amended
==== PAGE 8 ====
18/00013/B
Page 8 of 13
information they responded on 01/08/18 and sought an extension of time to comment until after the next scheduled meeting of their Environmental Services Committee on the 17th September (Consultation 3). The views of Local Authorities are very important. However, given the length of the asked for extension, the relatively targeted nature of the changes, and that as the relevant Local Authority they will have automatic Interested Person Status, it is not considered necessary to defer the application.
6.2 Manx Utilities commented on 25/07/18 (Consultation 4) and indicated no objection subject to 2 conditions - one stating that there must be no discharge of surface water (Directly or indirectly) from the development to any foul drainage system, to comply with the Manx Utilities and Sewerage Act 1999 (and that they should contact MU to discuss surface water disposal prior to commencement of works) and one that it must be noted that it is an offence under Manx legislation to permit the discharge of polluting or harmful matter to any public sewers or watercourses - appropriate measures must be taken by the developer/occupier to ensure compliance with the legislation.
6.3 DOI Highways (Structures) commented in relation to the rock face on 19/02/18 (Consultation 2) and stated that the rock face is very overgrown and as such it is difficult to categorically identify any rock fall issues (or lack thereof) however they were informed by the owners that structural engineers were appraising the rock face and that a report would be produced. Therefore at the moment, the proposals appear adequate but they would need to see the report to confirm this. It is noted that the adjacent property had rock anchored and meshed rock face behind their building.
6.4 DOI Highway Services originally commented on the 23/01/18 and sought further information. In response to the additional information supplied by the applicant they commented on 30/07/18 as set out below.
"A new vehicular access with junction radii would need to be created to serve the site, rather than the existing dropped kerbs, due to the proposed level of vehicle movements that would be generated by the car park for which a future planning condition would be requested as it has not been dealt with in this application.
A Section 109a letter is needed for the revision to the vehicle crossing.
A proposed car park barrier would be set back 8.6m from the edge of the carriageway. This would enable one car to wait to enter the site off-carriageway although it would temporarily block the footway. It would cause queuing onto the adjacent highway, to the detriment of highway safety and the free flow of traffic, if more than one vehicle arrived at the site at the same time. The applicant has not provided sufficient information as previously requested to demonstrate that there would not be queuing back onto the highway, and there is highway concern that the proposed permit holders using the car park could arrive at the same time causing queuing.
As stated in the previous highway response, highway visibility splays of 2.4m x 43m in both directions need to be shown at the site access on a revised site plan to demonstrate that motorists exiting the site would have sufficient visibility to satisfy highway visibility standards. Whilst the applicant states that this is unachievable, no scale site plan has been provided to show the level of visibility that can be achieved. This issue is therefore unresolved and highway support cannot be provided for this application until this matter is dealt with to the satisfaction of Highway Services.
The proposed site plan shows 30 no. proposed car parking spaces laid out on the existing concrete surface. There is a slight difference in the sizes of some of the spaces. In order to comply with the 'Manual for Manx Roads' document, all car park spaces should be at least 2.5m x 5m in size. An aisle width of 6m is required to allow sufficient room for vehicle turning and manoeuvring (the width shown varies between 6m and 6.6m). This could be reduced slightly to allow sufficient length parking bays but must be no less than 5.5m. These changes should be shown on a revised scale site
==== PAGE 9 ====
18/00013/B
Page 9 of 13
layout plan as previously requested, but this has not been submitted by the applicant and this issue remains outstanding.
Rockfall protection fencing is proposed at the foot of the cliff along the rear site boundary. It is suggested that the Structures team is consulted on this if this has not already been done.
The car park would be lit. A planning condition would be required for the applicant to demonstrate that there would be no light spillage from the site onto the adjacent highway.
Highway Services requests that the application is deferred to allow the applicant to consider the above".
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 It is considered that the main issues to be assessed are: o The land use zoning (Douglas Local Plan and emerging Area Plan for the East) and potential loss of employment land o The use of previously developed land (Brownfield Land) and need for temporary car parking (SP Strategic Policy 1, para 11.5.3, The Action Plan and The Select Committee Report) o The visual impact and views out of the conservation area (SP General Policy parts c and g and Environment Policy 36 and The Action Plan) o Highway Safety (SP General Policy 2, parts h and i, and Transport Policy 4, the Manual for Manx Roads) o Flood Risk (SP General Policy 2, part l, and Environment Policies 10 and 13) o Safety (in relation to rockfall) (SP General Policy 2, part m)
7.2 The land use zoning (Douglas Local Plan and emerging Area Plan for the East) 7.2.1 The use is not light industrial and so is not in accordance with the zoning of the Douglas Local Plan. The application site does not appear to have been included in the land supply as set out in the ELR and as such if redeveloped for employment purposes it would constitute a windfall site (although only a net change in use/density from the baseline year - 2014 - would be counted towards meeting the ELR target).
7.2.2 The Local Plan remains in-force until the Area Plan is adopted, and the Area Plan is of limited weight (not least due to the stage in the process). Nevertheless, it is difficult to see how the proposed use would fall within the uses set out within the consultation draft of the Area Plan.
7.3 The use of previously developed land (Brownfield Land) and need for temporary car parking (SP Strategic Policy 1, para 11.5.3, The Action Plan and The Select Committee Report) 7.3.1 The use of brownfield sites for temporary uses raises various questions - the extent that the use of the site as a temporary car park discourages investment in its more permanent development, the likely condition of the site in the interim if approval is not given for a temporary use and the extent to which the latter outweighs the former. The answers to these questions are to some extent conjecture. However, the recently adopted Council of Ministers policy gives a firm view as to how these issues might be considered. Therefore the issue is whether there are exceptional circumstances which would indicate that the 'normal' position as set out in the policy should not be followed.
7.3.2 The comments from the applicant and their agent are noted (as set out earlier in this report and within the application detailed) however these do not provide a clear timescale for the redevelopment of the site, nor identify what the proposed use would be (a number of uses are proposed).
7.3.3 The Strategic Plan sets out a broad long term direction of travel of restricting town centre parking and the promotion of other travel methods. This is reinforced by the policy within the Action Plan which seeks to restrict temporary car parks with immediate effect. The applicant has
==== PAGE 10 ====
18/00013/B Page 10 of 13
provided limited justification in relation to need. It is therefore considered that the proposal would be contrary to the Council of Ministers Policy and Strategic Plan Strategic Policy 1
7.4 The visual impact and views out of the conservation area (SP General Policy parts c and g and Environment Policy 36 and The Action Plan) 7.4.1 The site is visual both from a key transport route into/out of Douglas and also from the nearby Conservation Area (noting that the leisure use is such that people are likely to sit in/outside premises on North Quay looking towards South Quay). If the 'baseline' is considered to be a vacant cleared site, then active use (including hard and soft landscaping - albeit very limited as proposed) is arguably preferable in visual amenity terms.
7.4.2 However, compared to permanent development of the site for an appropriate use, the visual impact is arguably worse (although without clear proposals for a specific use/building and design this is a matter of conjecture to some extent). The Action Plan policy suggests that the latter view should be taken. It is noted that originally Douglas Borough Council did not object to the application, subject to a reduced time-limit (although have sought more time to consider the additional information supplied).
7.4.3 On balance it is not considered this matter is weighed as neutral in the assessment of the proposal, in the particular circumstances of this site and proposal.
7.5 Highway Safety (SP General Policy 2, parts h and i, and Transport Policy 4, the Manual for Manx Roads) 7.5.1 The comments from DOI Highway Services are noted and relied upon in this regard, and so it is considered that the proposal is not acceptable in terms of highway safety.
7.6 Flood Risk (SP General Policy 2, part l, and Environment Policies 10 and 13) 7.6.1 The proposal is within a flood risk area and has not been accompanied by a flood risk assessment, it therefore does not comply with Environment Policy 10. Noting that this is a renewal of an existing use, the nature of the use would seem low risk in flood risk terms, that Manx Utilities have been consulted and raise no concerns and also that flood mitigation (for example warning) measures could be conditioned it is not considered that this is a ground for refusal.
7.7 Personal Safety 7.7.1 The issue of rockfall is noted, however it is considered that if the proposal were to be supported conditions could be attached requiring measures to be implemented to address this and so it is not considered to be a reason for refusal.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposal does not comply with the zoning as set out within the extant Local Plan and this is a ground for refusal. It also weighs against the proposal that it would reduce the amount of employment land available within Douglas in the short-term, whilst the Employment Land Review suggests that there is limited supply within Douglas in the short term.
8.2 Although consideration of the visual impact of the proposal is evenly balanced, on balance it is concluded that the proposal would reduce the likelihood of a prominent brownfield site being brought forward and this would be contrary to Strategic Plan Strategic Policy 1, The Action Plan and the recommendations of the Select Committee Report.
8.3 In light of the comments from DOI Highways it is considered that the proposal is unacceptable in highway safety terms.
8.4 Personal safety (in relation to rock fall) and flood risk are not in themselves considered to be grounds for refusal.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
==== PAGE 11 ====
18/00013/B Page 11 of 13
9.1 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.
9.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.
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 : Permitted
Committee Meeting Date: 12.11.2018
Signed : Mr S Butler Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report and conditions of approval were required
YES/NO See below
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 12.11.2018
Application No. :
18/00013/B Applicant : Quay Properties Ltd Proposal : Demolition of existing industrial unit and formation of car park for a period of 4 years Site Address : 25 South Quay Douglas Isle of Man IM1 5AR
Head of Development Management Mr S Butler Reporting Officer As above
==== PAGE 12 ====
18/00013/B Page 12 of 13
Addendum to the Officer’s Report
At the meeting held on the 12th November 2018, the Committee voted to not accept the officer recommendation to refuse. An alternative motion to approve, subject to detailed conditions, for 4 years was not supported. An alternative motion to approve, subject to detailed conditions, for until 31.12.2020 was approved.
Conditions of Approval
C 1. The use of the site as a car park shall cease on or before the 31.12.2020
Reason: The application is contrary to the land use designation within the Douglas Local Plan (1998) and the Council of Ministers have indicated that temporary car parking should not normally be supported, however, the application has been approved taking account of the current situation in relation to the emerging Area Plan and other large development schemes which may result in a short-term loss of car parking in other parts of Douglas
C 2. The development hereby approved shall not commence unless a Traffic Regulation Order is in place and operational to implement the parking restrictions shown on drawing no. (03)003RevC and 004 (both date stamped as having been received 01.10.18).
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
C 3. The car park hereby approved shall not be brought into use until details of how flood warning/evacuation measures have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The car park shall be operated in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: The development is within an area identified as being at risk of flooding.
C 4. No barrier shall be installed across the entrance to the site.
Reason: To prevent a situation whereby cars may need to wait to access the site and thus cause a highway obstruction.
C 5. The car park hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the Rockfall Protection Fence as shown on drawing (03)003RevC (date stamped as having been received 01.01.18) has been installed, and the fencing shall be retained as such at all times that the car park is operational.
Reason: In the interests of safety.
C 6. No later than 6 months following the car park hereby approved becoming operational details shall be submitted to the Department for approval setting out how the site shall be treated following the cessation of the car park use hereby approved. Within 3 months of the cessation of the car park use the site shall be treated in accordance with the approved scheme.
Reason: To avoid the creation of an unsightly area.
C 7. The car park use hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the site has been fully surfaced and laid out in accordance with drawing no. (03)003RevC (date stamped as having been received 01.10.18), including the erection of fencing and lighting, and thereafter retained as such whilst the car park is operational.
Reason: To ensure that the site is properly laid out prior to the use commencing.
==== PAGE 13 ====
18/00013/B Page 13 of 13
C 8. No flood lights shall be installed within the site unless they are in accordance with drawing (03)003RevC.
Reason: To avoid unnecessary light pollution.
This approval relates to the following plans/drawings/information:
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