Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
18/00350/B Page 1 of 10
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 18/00350/B Applicant : Mr Marc Thompson Proposal : Provision of 43 (including 2no Disabled) temporary car parking spaces for a period of 2 years Site Address : Former Factory And Premises South Quay Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 5AX
Head of Development Management: Mr S Butler Photo Taken : 28.08.2018 Site Visit : 28.08.2018 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 24.09.2018 __
Reasons for refusal
Reasons
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 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).
__
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
==== PAGE 2 ====
18/00350/B Page 2 of 10
0.1 This application was previously considered by the Planning Committee on the 3rd September 2018. Three reasons for refusal were set out in relation to zoning (R1), use of brownfield land (R2) and the potential for contamination (R3). The applicant raised various concerns and indicated a willingness to further amend the proposal. The Committee accepted the Case Officer's amended recommendation to defer the application on that basis.
0.2 The applicant has provided amended and additional information including:
0.3 The original description was, "Provision for 46 temporary car parking spaces and three self-servicing car washing machines for a period of 2 years". The revised description is, "Provision of 43 (including 2no Disabled) temporary car parking spaces for a period of 2 years". Because the earlier amendments (see paragraph 2.5) were re-publicised and the further amendments result in a change from 42 spaces (including 2 car-washing) to 43 spaces (and no car-washing), and the overall number of spaces now proposed is less than the original 49 (including 3 car-washing) it has not been considered necessary to re-publicise the application.
0.4 The additional information in relation to R1 and R2 comprises a statement that highlights:
0.5 In light of the amendments, R3 is removed from the recommendation. R 3. was. "The proposal does not contain sufficient information to explain how the potential for contamination of the water environment would be prevented and so is contrary to Environment Policy 22 of the Strategic Plan (2016)" (N.B. the verbal introduction on the 3rd September clarified that the words "flood risk" as written should be replaced with "contamination").
0.6 Whilst the points raised in relation to R1. and R2. are noted, the recommendation to refuse is maintained with these two reasons.
0.7 The report which follows is unchanged from that presented on the 3rd September 2018.
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is the curtilage of the former Clover Asphalt Depot which is a parcel of previously developed land, a flat area of concrete hardstanding throughout, due to the original building being cleared from the site. The site is located on the southern side of the South Quay within Douglas. It is currently in use as a temporary car park.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for the continued use of the site as a temporary car park. A separate application has been submitted in relation to the signage which is currently on-site.
2.2 The proposal originally sought approval for 46 car parking spaces and 3 self service car washing machines for a period of 2 years. The application form indicates that there would be no creation or alteration of any pedestrian or vehicular access to a public highway. The proposal requires new/amended water services. The application form states, "The site is zoned
==== PAGE 3 ====
18/00350/B Page 3 of 10
for residential use, however the owner of the site has advised a 2 year period for temporary car parking in order to offer a use for the site until investment can be secured for residential development to take place".
The car wash business is self-service so can be used by the contracted parties or general public 8:00 to 16:00 in Winter and 7:00 - 21:00 in summer.
2.4 In response to concerns raised by consultee additional/amended plans were submitted which amended the parking layout to reflect the Manual or Manx Roads (noting that this has been updated since the previous application for the site had been given). The applicant clarified that the car wash facilities will be drained into the local system using the existing drainage system along South Quay.
2.5 The amended layout shows 40 parking spaces (including 2 disabled spaced) and 2 car wash zones.
2.6 A separate application (18/00519/D) has been submitted in relation to signage.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area of "residential use" on the Douglas Local Plan of 1998. The site is not within a Conservation Area. The Northern part of 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:
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.
==== PAGE 4 ====
18/00350/B Page 4 of 10
3.2.4 Environment Policy 22 indicates that development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment in terms of pollution of sea, surface water or ground water.
3.2.5 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.
3.2.6 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."
3.2.7 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 The Central Douglas Master-plan 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 Master-plan 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.
4.3 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".
4.4 The Manual for Manx Roads (published by the Department of Infrastructure) sets out detailed guidance on highways matters.
4.5 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
==== PAGE 5 ====
18/00350/B Page 5 of 10
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.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The site has been the subject of An application for redevelopment - PA 08/00221/B for the construction of building to provide 33 apartments with integral parking. This was approved on 1st December 2011 (following and appeal and subject to a S.13 agreement). Condition 1 gave 4 years for commencement. This application is therefore not extant.
5.2 A subsequent application for temporary car parking - PA 16/00371/B was approved on 21st June 2016. The application sought approval for the provision for 46 temporary (2 years) car parking spaces and three self-servicing car washing machines. The proposal included a white 0.7 metre high fence along the northern boundary which fronts onto South Quay. The site which is predominantly concrete finish would remain, albeit sections would be repaired and improved with a matching concrete finish. The parking spaces would be marked out by painted white lines. The parking would be used for contract parking only, for 7 days a week at any time.
5.3 The Officers Report for 16/00371/B 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 street-scene 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.
6.2 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.
6.3 With the appropriate worded conditions relating to the fence type and height and planters, it is considered the visual impacts of the proposed use, whilst not ideal, would be acceptable on a temporary basis only. Furthermore there are no highway issues, and therefore the application is considered acceptable and is recommended for approval subject to conditions".
5.4 Two conditions were imposed - one limiting the period of use (two years from the date of approval - therefore expiring on 21st June 2018) and one stating,
"Prior to the use of the site as a car park, a scheme must be approved by the Planning and Building Control Directorate showing details of the height, type and colour of the roadside fence and the introduction of planting to improve the appearance of the site when viewed from South Quay and these works shall be carried out as approved. Such a scheme may include planting, troughs or pots and must be implemented before the use of the site for car parking
==== PAGE 6 ====
18/00350/B Page 6 of 10
purposes and must be retained and maintained thereafter for as long as the site is used for car parking purposes in accordance with the relevant approval(s). The fence is not required to be removed once the use ceases but is required to be maintained. Reason: to improve the appearance of the site".
5.5 It is worthy of note that there is a current application for the use of a nearby site for car parking which is recommended for refusal (18/00013/B).
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 Douglas Borough Council commented on 03/05/18 that they had no objection (consultation 2) in response to the additional/amended 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 6). 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 that they had 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 commented on 24/04/18 (consultation 3) raising concerns about the size of the spaces and lack of disabled parking provision. They indicate that the size of the car park aisle widths (at least 6m) and wash bays were acceptable. They question how the site is to be surfaced/laid out. They note that the proposal would reduce the existing access and that this not ideal and, accepting what has been previously approved, seek this to be reconsidered. They highlight that the visibility splays are incorrectly shown and raise concerns with the height of the fence. They seek the deferral of the application so they can address these points.
6.4 DOI Highways provided additional comments on 30/07/18 and advised that the revised layout (showing 40 spaces) is acceptable - disabled bays having been provided, but reiterating that it is not clear how the site would be surfaced/painted. They note that the existing 8m wide access is now to be retained. They note that the highway visibility splays are incorrectly drawn however not that they have previously considered the visibility at the site via e-mail correspondence and have deemed it acceptable as it is not proposed to be changed. They do not object to the application as amended.
6.5 DEFA (Fisheries) commented on 18/04/18 requesting additional information in relation to how run-off or any contaminated water would be prevented from entering the river (consultation 1). They offered further comment on 27/08/18 (consultation 5) in response to the additional/amended information advising that provisions need to be put in place to ensure that the car washing bay is designed to ensure that foul water is contained within the designated area and directed into the foul drain. There is no reference in the revised plan to any form of bund or modification to the existing slab of concrete to contain and direct the flow of foul waters or silt traps which would reduce the pollution in the effluent by removing much of the oil and silt before the water is discharged into the main drain. The application does not address the potential for waters, possibly contaminated with engine oils etc. escaping and flowing directly into the watercourse through the surface water drains.
7.0 ASSESSMENT
==== PAGE 7 ====
18/00350/B Page 7 of 10
7.1 It is noted that the assessment of the previous application was relatively brief and did not include specific consideration of all the policies listed in this report. However, the Select Committee Report and The Action Plan, together with the passage of time since the temporary use was originally proposed, provide a materially different context for the consideration of the application and so warrant more detailed consideration of the issues.
7.2 It is considered that the main issues to be assessed are:
7.3 The land use zoning (Douglas Local Plan and emerging Area Plan for the East) 7.3.1 The use is not residential nor, given its size and nature, could it be considered as an ancillary or complimentary use which might normally be found within a residential area. It is therefore not in accordance with the zoning of the Douglas Local Plan. 7.3.2 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.
7.4
7.4.2 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
==== PAGE 8 ====
18/00350/B Page 8 of 10
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.
7.4.3 In this case the applicant has not given any clear reasons for why the site has not been developed or the plans/timescale for its development (noting there is no extant planning approval). 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 provided limited justification in relation to need, and has not tied this to any specific sites/developments/events. It is therefore considered that the proposal would be contrary to the Council of Ministers Policy and Strategic Plan Strategic Policy 1.
7.5 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) 7.5.1 The site is visible 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). The potential impact of the adverts associated with this development are no considered as they are the subject of a separate application. 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.
7.5.2 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 (although have sought more time to consider the amended proposal).
7.5.3 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.
7.6 Highway Safety (SP General Policy 2, parts h and i, and Transport Policy 4, the Manual for Manx Roads) 7.6.1 The comments from DOI Highway Services are noted and relied upon in this regard, and so it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of highway safety.
7.7 Flood Risk (SP General Policy 2, part l, and Environment Policies 10 and 13) 7.7.1 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.
7.8 Drainage and Pollution Risk (SP Environment Policy 22) 7.8.1. The conditions proposed by Manx Utilities appear to set out standards/outcomes to be met rather than specific actions to be taken, and so may not be valid (as they are not specific). Measures could be required by condition. However, the concerns raised by DEFA Fisheries are also noted. On balance it is not considered that the proposal has adequately addressed the issue of potential pollution and this weighs against the application.
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.
==== PAGE 9 ====
18/00350/B Page 9 of 10
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 It is noted that highway safety issues have been resolved and flood risk is not in itself considered to be a ground for refusal. However concerns over pollution risk have not been resolved and this gives a second reason for refusal.
9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
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.
9.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot 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:...01.10.2018
Signed :...S BUTLER... Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
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.
==== PAGE 10 ====
18/00350/B Page 10 of 10
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 01.10.2018
Application No. :
18/00350/B Applicant : Mr Marc Thompson Proposal : Provision of 43 (including 2no Disabled) temporary car parking spaces for a period of 2 years Site Address : Former Factory And Premises South Quay Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 5AX
Head of Development Management : Mr S Butler Presenting Officer As above
Addendum to the Officer’s Report
Planning Committee declined to accept the Officer recommendation and, noting a combination of factors, considered that there were special circumstances in this case which indicated that the Council of Ministers policy on temporary car parks should not be applied in this case. They voted to approve the application subject to 3 conditions.
Conditions of Approval
C 1. There shall be no washing of cars within the site.
Reason: To prevent the discharge of contaminated run-off into nearby watercourses.
C 2. Within 2 years of the date of this approval becoming final the use hereby approved shall cease.
Reason: The proposal is for a temporary use and it is important not to prevent the longer term development of the site.
C 3. Within 3 months of the date of this approval becoming final the site shall be laid out in accordance with the approved details, including the removal of the car washing facilities.
Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Plans/Drawings/Information
This approval relates to the following plans / drawings / information:
Site Location Plan Drawing No JTM086A-P-00, Date Stamped as having been received 29/03/18 Proposed Layout Drawing No: WL/18/1446 1, Date Stamped as having been received 19/09/18
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal