Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
20/00505/C Page 1 of 8
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 20/00505/C Applicant : Michael Andrew Cowbourne Proposal : Additional use of residence as brewery business and distributor Site Address : Lough Ned Oak Hill Port Soderick Isle Of Man IM4 1AN
Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken : 24.07.2020 Site Visit : 24.07.2020 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 28.07.2020 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The development as proposed would be contrary to General Policy 2 (h & i) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 given the nature of the site access and driveway which would result in unacceptable impacts on highway safety as vehicles enter/exit the site onto the Old Castletown Road due to the poor visibility along the section of the highway which has speed limits of 40 m/hour. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties 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):
1 Oakhill Cottages, Oakhill, Port Soderick as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. __
Officer’s Report
THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the curtilage of Lough Ned, Oak Hill, Port Soderick which is sited on the northern side of the A25 Old Castletown Road, Port Soderick. The property has a
==== PAGE 2 ====
20/00505/C Page 2 of 8
significantly large estate and accommodates three buildings; one of which serves as a home brewery and workshop with attached garage.
1.2 The site entrance is situated about 10m south west of the junction between Marine Drive and Oakhill and about 40m northeast of the entrance to Oakhill House. The railway line runs along its southern boundary and demarcates the application site from Woodville the abutting dwelling which has its frontage facing the A25.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The planning application seeks approval for additional use of residence as brewery business and distributor. There would be no alterations to the existing building or the services to the building, although additional brewing facilities would be installed within the home brewery.
2.2 The application building has a length of 4.95 metres and width of 3.89 metres and has access to the existing garage which is 4.10m wide and 6.10m long.
2.3 The information provided by the applicant indicates that there is currently a 50 litre brewery within the workshop with one fermenting vessel in use purely for home consumption. The proposed works would introduce extra fermenters to enable the sale of the products in take away containers (4 pints and 18 pints) and also sell to the Trade (pubs).
2.4 The additional information also states that: i. Each fermenter is capable of filling 5 x 18 containers or 22 x 4 pint containers/ 2 trade containers of 40 pints. ii. Each extra fermenter would require an additional day of brewing (3 days for 3 fermenters). iii. With one extra fermenter, there would be 5 to 2 customer visits, while two extra fermenters would be between 10 to 44 customer visits). iv. There is ample parking for customers (the number is not specified).
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site lies within an area zoned as Existing Low Density Housing in Parkland under the Braddan Local Plan 1991. Policy 5.6 of the Planning Circular 6/91, the written statement that accompanies the local plan identifies Oak Hill Cottages as an area proposed for further examination of residential development.
3.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan contains the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:
3.3 Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan identifies developments where an EIA is required. In particular it refers to sub-paragraph A.5.2 (g) which includes 'Brewing and Malting' as development requiring an EIA. It states in part: "It is proposed that the following types of development would require EIA in every case. (g) Food industry o Brewing and malting"
3.4 Environment Policy 22: Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of: i) pollution of sea, surface water or groundwater; ii) emissions of airborne pollutants; and iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution.
7.17.2 In addition to the above, changes in the activities associated with the current permitted use of land or a building, which in themselves do not constitute development and therefore do
==== PAGE 3 ====
20/00505/C Page 3 of 8
not require planning permission, can have an adverse impact on adjacent properties by virtue of noise, light or general disturbance. For example the addition of security lighting on a property may cause light pollution affecting adjacent properties and the wider area. The introduction of new activities into established parks and recreation areas can have an impact on neighbours. In such cases the Department would advocate the person or organisation considering the change to give careful consideration to the potential impact of such activity in terms of location, siting and design.
3.5 Paragraph 7.18.3 A Planning Policy Statement will be issued specifying the manner in which the Department intends to deal with applications which should be subject to EIA. Pending the adoption of the proposed Planning Policy Statement the Department will adopt current practice on EIA's from England and Wales set out in the publication "Environmental Impact Assessment: A Guide to Procedures" (1).
3.6 Environment Policy 24: Development which is likely to have a significant effect on the environment will be required: i) to be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment in certain cases; and ii) to be accompanied by suitable supporting environmental information in all other cases.
3.7 Paragraph 7.19: Pollution-Sensitive Development 7.19.1 Development will not be permitted where it would be incompatible with an existing use of land. In the case of new residential development, this will not be allowed where properties would suffer unacceptable loss of amenity due to exposure to existing sources of pollution whether this is from noise generation, odours or airborne pollutants such as dust. Not only could this reduce the quality of life of future residents but it could lead to future complaints that may prejudice any future development or expansion of an existing land use.
3.8 Environment Policy 25: Pollution-sensitive development will only be allowed to be located close to sources of pollution where appropriate measures can be taken to safeguard amenity.
3.9 General Policy 2: Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;
3.10 The Braddan Local Plan 1991 has the following policy which is considered to be relevant to the current application:
3.10.1 Policy 7.7
The standard for car parking will be applied in the appropriate situations with the exception of change of use. Change of use will necessitate the provision of additional car parking if this can be satisfactorily accommodated on site.
==== PAGE 4 ====
20/00505/C Page 4 of 8
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The application site has not been the subject of any previous planning applications that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application.
4.2 PA 87/00672/B for Construction of garage and workshop, Lough Ned, Old Castletown Road, Braddan - Approved The existing home brewery was approved as part of development approved under the above planning application.
4.3 It is also vital to consider the following application PA 19/00291/B for Change of use to a micro-brewery and canning facility (retrospective) at a depot on Leigh Terrace within the centre of Douglas. This application was approved at appeal. The Inspector concluded the application was to return the premises to its last lawful use as a building for light industrial purposes. In relation to an EIA the inspector stated the following:
"33... ..IOMSP and Appendix 5 which identifies developments where an EIA is required. In particular it refers to sub-paragraph A.5.2 (g) which includes 'Brewing and Malting' (my underlining) as a development requiring an EIA and paragraph A.5.2 which states that 'It is proposed that the following types of development would require EIA in every case.' References are also made to the requirements for an EIA set out in Policy EP 24 and to Policy EP22.
On the face of it , therefore, it would appear that an EIA was necessary in this case if the proposal had been for 'Brewing and Malting' as opposed to simply 'Brewing'. The PA indicates that, unlike in the UK, and despite the references referred to above, there is no legal basis or requirement to carry out an EIA in relation to planning applications on the Island. It had been the intention that a Planning Policy Statement (PPS) for EIA procedures on the Island was to be prepared. However, this has not taken place and each case is assessed on its merits taking the UK procedures and guidance on EIAs into account. The PA also stressed that the starting point for any application was the development plan and that this was set out in section 10.4 of the 1999 Act.
Having assessed this particular use on the basis of the UK EIA system, I agree with the PA and consider that due to its small scale nature as a micro-brewery and not a 'Brewery and Maltings' an EIA would not be required in this instance. In the UK one of the first things to consider is whether or not the proposal is a 'Schedule 2 Development'. Like Appendix 5 of the IOMSP this lists types of the development which are considered to require an EIA. However, it specifically sets out size thresholds and anything below 1000m2 would not require an EIA. At below 500m2 the appeal proposal falls well below the threshold.
In Schedule 3 of the UK requirements, various criteria are then checked including the character of the proposed development and its location. Having considered this proposal against these criteria, again I consider that the small scale nature of the use; its low output; the low risks relating to noise and pollution and the minimal staff numbers, would not render it to requiring that an EIA be submitted. Even if it had been taken through the UK 'Screening' process as a 'Schedule 2 Development' the proposal, in my view, would not be one which reached the criteria level required for an EIA."
REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that they 'do not oppose' in the letter dated 9 June 2020.
5.2 Braddan Parish Commissioners have no objection to the current planning application (18/06/2020).
==== PAGE 5 ====
20/00505/C Page 5 of 8
5.3 The Owner/Occupier of 1 Oakhill Cottages, Oakhill, Port Soderick has made the following comment regarding the application:
I would have no wish to interfere with a neighbour's application to have a business on their own land provided there will be no odours and there will not be any additional buildings visible to the neighbours.
However, I do have a major concern with the road and particularly with the speed at which traffic comes over the railway bridge which is close to Lough Ned on one side and my house on the other. This section of road is treated as a chicane by many of the drivers and speed is frequently in evidence. A form of traffic control should be put in place. Near misses are often witnessed on this road section and one day there will be one which does not miss. Attention should be given to this road before additional traffic from deliveries etc. are introduced.
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of the current application which are: i. The Impact of the proposed development on the site ii. The impact upon the neighbouring residential amenity iii. Highway Implications
6.2 The Impact of the proposed development on the site
6.2.1 The land use designation for the site is Existing Low Density Housing in Parkland and as such the proposed use is contrary to the landuse designation of the area. As per 4.3 of this report, an EIA is not required for this application as the proposed brewing operation is less than 1000 sq m and not within a sensitive area such as an ASSI, however in seeking to assess the impact of the proposal on neighbouring amenity and local highways regard shall be given to the proposed scale of the operation (size of brewing equipment, brewing process, floor area etc) and the nature of the business operation (staff, hours of operation, visitors to site etc).
6.2.2 The existing site is purely residential with the current brewery on site existing purely to serve home consumption. The comings and goings of visitors to the site as existing is purely residential as would be obtainable within any residential property and in consonance with the surrounding landuses which are residential. It is also considered that the current noise/smells from the site would be significantly limited given that brewing is only done once a week.
6.2.3 Whilst the brewing operation as proposed is relatively small scale with the proposed maximum output to be 3 x 40 pints (18.9 litres) amounting to 56.8 litres weekly, the proposal is not considered to require an EIA and not to be of so offensive as to be considered a special industrial use. The noise relating to the brewing of beer is expected to be quieter than a car garage but the smells and deliveries could be beyond that of a 'light industrial' use. Given the scale and method of working it is considered that the use is potentially capable of being a light industrial use in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 which would be unsuitable for a residential area.
6.2.4 The three-fermenter brewing operation is to be contained within the existing workshop and accommodating approx. 17sq m in floor area. The smells expected are likely to be contained within the existing building however should any doors or windows be open it's inevitable that these smells are going to escape. The applicants have not provided any information to state how the steam smells produced by the brewing process would be reduced within the existing facility. When the existing home use brewery is compared with the proposed use, the latter would result in an increased potential for more smells, a higher volume of coming and going of vehicles from the site with its associated noise. As such, it is
==== PAGE 6 ====
20/00505/C Page 6 of 8
considered that the industrial and commercial operations within the site would likely to be worse than the existing situation on site.
6.3 The impact upon the neighbouring residential amenity 6.3.1 With regard to the impacts of the proposed development on the neighbouring dwellings, the key concerns would be the impact on the noise levels, air quality and traffic within the area as a result of the proposed development. It is, however, noted that the nature of the development such as the small scale of the process, the low requirement for staff and the distance of the proposed facility from the neighbouring dwellings would be positives for the development, although the number of days of operation (3 days maximum) and the number of visitors that would come to the site (a maximum of 44), would be more suited to an industrial area.
6.3.2 Whilst it is noted that the frequency of visits could disrupt the calm residential character of the area, it is not considered that this would result in detrimental impacts on the neighbouring amenity as the dwelling is well enclosed within its own lands by the thick vegetation (trees and shrubbery) which enclose the site. It is also noted that the application building is positioned at least 103m from the nearest residential property and as such it is not believed that there would be significant impacts on neighbouring residential amenity enough to warrant refusal of the application.
6.3.3 The owners/occupiers of 1 Oakhill Cottages have raised concerns regarding odours emanating from the site but this is not considered to be a challenge with the application. Whilst it is noted that the smells associated with the process could be a concern as the brewing process could increase the discharge of foul odours within the area, particularly in situations where there are emissions into the air, the separating distance between the application property and the neighbouring dwellings will make such impacts negligible.
6.4 Parking and Highway Safety Implications 6.4.1 With regard to parking on the site, there is sufficient parking provision to support the residential use of the dwelling and the proposed business use as the application site has six parking provisions. Four by the proposed brewery and two at the rear of the building; linked to the access which encircles the main dwelling. Given that the Strategic Plan stipulates that a residential dwelling have a minimum of two off road parking spaces, the existing car parking spaces on this application site (4 additional parking provisions) would meet the required parking for the proposed use. As such, the proposal is considered to meet the parking requirements.
6.4.2 In respect of highway safety for customers and delivery vehicles entering/exiting the site, it is considered that the existing access in its current form has the potential for impacts on highway safety given that the site has poor visibility onto the Old Castletown Road. Evidence from the site visit carried out on 24 July 2020 shows that it would be difficult to gain safe access onto the highway from both arms of the existing access which is split into two branches as you enter the site. Whilst this has served the existing residential use, it is not considered that the situation would be appropriate for the proposed business use which would see an increase in traffic entering and leaving the site. More so, it is not considered that any trimming of the trees and shrubs on both sides of the access would improve the visibility due to the sharp angle of the bends as you approach the site from both sides of the Old Castletown Road.
6.4.3 Another factor that would pose as a challenge to the proposal on the application site is the nature of the driveway into the site which is narrow for long stretches. It is noted that the narrow driveway stretches for over 100m without any provision for lay-bys if two vehicles meet along its length; a situation that would require vehicles to drive in reverse gear for long stretches of the driveway which abuts a steep level drop (about 4m high) of the western side of the access. It is also considered that the situation along the access could result in trailing traffic onto the highway along a dangerous bend if vehicles moving in different directions meet
==== PAGE 7 ====
20/00505/C Page 7 of 8
along the driveway since the proposal would increase the number of visitors to the site. These fears have been echoed by the owners of 1 Oakhill Cottages who has highlighted the frequency of near misses along this section of the highway as a potential for disaster.
6.4.4 Whilst comments from Highways confirm that they do not oppose the application, it is not considered that the prevailing site conditions, particularly the access and driveway would be suitable for the proposed development which would increase traffic to/from the site. Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the proposed development would have detrimental impacts of highway safety.
CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposal is for a small scale brewing operation which has been considered on balance not to result in any significant adverse harm in terms of noise, smell or pollutants on the neighbouring living conditions or general amenity (General Policy 2, Environment Policies 22 and 24). This brewing operation is also not considered to have impacts on parking on the site as there is sufficient parking provision to accommodate the proposed business use and the existing residential use of the site. However, it is considered that the proposal would have detrimental highway safety impacts which would mean that it would not comply with General Policy 2 (h & i) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. Planning Officers cannot recommend split decisions on planning applications, so even though some elements of this application would be acceptable, the whole application is recommended for refusal due to the impacts on highway safety.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
(a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
8.2 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 above who should be given Interested Person Status __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Refused Date : 30.07.2020
Determining officer Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
==== PAGE 8 ====
20/00505/C Page 8 of 8
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