Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
20/00724/B Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 20/00724/B Applicant : Stephen Christian & Son's Ltd Proposal : Change of use to civil engineering storage compound Site Address : Land At Cronk Grianagh Strang Douglas Isle Of Man
Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken : 14.09.2020 Site Visit : 14.09.2020 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 21.09.2020 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The site is not designated for the proposed development on the Braddan Local Plan 1991 which is the extant development plan for this area. As such, the development would be contrary to General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan.
R 2. The proposed open air storage compound would be contrary to the Braddan Local Plan 1991 and the Draft Area Plan for the East in that insufficient justification has been submitted to support the introduction of a storage compound into an area designated for Predominantly Residential use.
R 3. There is insufficient information within the application in the form of an Environmental Impact Statement to demonstrate that there would be no detrimental impacts resulting from the proposed use of the site as a construction yard on the site and surrounding residential area. Accordingly, it is considered the proposal would be contrary to Environment Policy 22 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the curtilage of land at Cronk Grianagh which is situated on the eastern side of the A23 as you move from the roundabout to Nobles Hospital towards the Strang Road, Ballaoates Road and Mount Rule Road junction. The site is around 1.46 hectares and is bounded by Cronk Grianagh Estate on the western and southern boundary, Thie ny
==== PAGE 2 ====
20/00724/B Page 2 of 6
Ashlish, Cooilleen and some properties at Ballanawin on the northern boundary, while the eastern boundary abuts the A23. The entire south boundary is enclosed by thick treelines and shrubbery with the only clear opening around the site boundary being the site access made of a galvanised steel gate that is about 1.2m high. There are 40 m/h speed signs situated about 15m east of the site access.
1.2 The site currently appears to be used as a tipping site for construction material at various sections along the driveway which runs to the northern end of the site with tips of sand, gravel, saw dust and scrap metal dumped at various sections of the site. There is a shipping container situated on the north-eastern end of the site.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for the change of use to civil engineering storage compound. This is a retrospective application as the use of the application site as a temporary storage compound.
2.2 The applicant has provided additional information which states the following: 2.2.1 The initial use of the site started in 2007 during a street lighting replacement scheme at Snugborough housing estate conducted by Braddan Commissioners, with further use during works for the Department of Health and Social Services in an around the new hospital. The tenancy began in September 2011 with the applicants stipulated to leave the site on completion of contract.
2.2.2 The site is a derelict site or vacant land with previous approval in principle granted for a hospice to be built under 04/00583/A. 2.2.3 The site boundary consists of existing high boundary wall and thick established hedgerow to the north east, thick established wood or rough scrub to all other boundaries. Access would be via the entrance gate as the secondary entrance gate to the north would not be used.
2.2.4 The materials to be stored in the compound include: i. 60T crushed stone ii. 30T Quarry dust iii. 60T spoil iv. Ducting and other civil materials v. Roadworks signage, barriers and implements when not in use. vi. 1x Skip for incinerable waste vii. 1x Skip for scrap metal Herras fencing is used to surround the civil items and skips.
2.2.5 An average of 6 vehicle movements per day and 6 staff attending at any one time.
2.2.6 The site would be operational between the following hours: i. 8am to 5pm (Monday to Friday) ii. 8am to 2pm (Saturdays)
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The application site is not zoned for a particular purpose on the Braddan Local Plan (Map 3) 1991, although the site is zoned as Predominantly Residential on the Draft Proposals (Map 8) Union Mills / Strang of the Draft Eastern Area Plan.
3.2 The site Assessment Report for the site (DH034) which accompanies the Draft Area Plan for the East 2018 provides the following advice that would be vital in the assessment of the application:
3.2.1 Site Assessment Report - Final Summary
==== PAGE 3 ====
20/00724/B Page 3 of 6
The site location is within the Mannin Infirmary site and considers the site a Brownfield site within settlement boundary and adjacent to residential dwellings offering a good site for development. The proposed use is residential and it recommends that the site be retained as Predominantly Residential.
The report concludes by recommending that the site be retained as allocated in the Draft Area Plan for the East (Predominantly Residential) subject to an appropriate development brief being drafted.
3.3 Although the proposed use is not in compliance with the Local Plan zoning, the general development considerations as set out in General Policy 2, as well as the pollution-specific parts of Environment Policy 22, of the Strategic Plan should be considered in the assessment of the application.
3.3.1 General Policy 2 states, in part: "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:
(a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; (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; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (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 (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them."
3.3.2 Environment Policy 22 states: "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."
3.4 Section 7.18: Environmental Impact Assessment 7.18.1 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is an important procedure for ensuring that the likely effects of new development on the environment are fully understood and taken into account before the development is allowed to go ahead. It is a process by which information about the likely environmental effects of certain types of development is collected, assessed and taken into account by the developer (as part of project design) and by the planning authority (in determining the acceptability of the application). In cases where developments are likely to have significant environmental effects, whether public or private, by virtue of their nature, size or location, EIA's will be required and the general principles set out in Appendix 5 should be followed.
7.18.2 For some types of development, EIA's will be required in every case, whilst other development will only require an EIA if the particular project is judged likely to give rise to significant environmental effects. Where development does not fall within these categories, but
==== PAGE 4 ====
20/00724/B Page 4 of 6
still has a significant effect on the environment, the Department will require suitable supporting environmental information. The main criteria for judging significance are as follows: i. major developments which are of more than local importance; ii. developments which are proposed in particularly environmentally sensitive or vulnerable locations; iii. developments with unusually complex and potentially hazardous environmental effects.
3.4.1 Section A.5.2: The Need for EIA A.5.2 It is proposed that the following types of development would require EIA in every case: (j) Other projects i. Installations for the disposal of waste including incinerators of any size (including pet incinerators) and landfill sites ii. Storage of scrap iron including scrap vehicles
3.5 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.
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 4 August 2020.
5.2 There has been no written representation from the Braddan Parish Commissioners regarding the application as at the time of drafting the report although they were consulted on 23 July 2020.
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues are therefore considered to be whether the use is acceptable, with due regard had to the landuse designation of the site, the visual impacts, how its use might affect neighbouring living conditions, and the potential impacts on highway safety.
6.2 Principle of the development (acceptability of proposed use) 6.2.1 It is undeniable that the proposed use of the land would have been more pleasant to live near relative to its previous use - that is, use as an Infirmary Site, which had greater potential to create impacts on air quality as well as generating noise impacts on the area. Nonetheless, that use has long been discontinued with the site now considered a Brownfield site within close proximity to a fairly quiet housing estate. Besides, the proposed use which is more aligned to industrial use, when considered in the light of the current designation of the site as predominantly Residential with approval in principle granted for the erection of a new hospice for care of adults and children is considered to be contrary to the approved zoning of the site.
6.2.2 The planning history for the site shows there is no planning permission for the development of the site or any extant approval for development of any section of the site area and as such the use of the site as a storage compound cannot be considered complimentary to ongoing development on the site. Granting the site has been used for the works within the nobles Hospital grounds which can be considered as adjoining land; allowing for Schedule 1 (Article 4(1), Class A of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) (Temporary Use or Development) Order 2015, which considers "operations in connection with another
==== PAGE 5 ====
20/00724/B Page 5 of 6
development that has been granted approval following an application to the Department or the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture" to be applicable, the current works sites which the proposed use would support are not on the application site or on land that can be considered to be adjoining and as such would not benefit from the exemptions stipulated.
6.2.3 The applicant has also not demonstrated why they have decided to locate the compound in this particular location and nor is there any reasoned justification within the application for warranting an open air storage compound within an area designated for predominantly residential use, beside the fact that the site has been previously used by them in the executing of projects within close proximity to the site which has now lapsed. Therefore, it is considered that the open air storage use (which is more aligned to industrial use) would be contrary to the principle of the use of the land as a predominantly residential area.
6.3 Visual impact 6.3.1 In respect of the visual amenities of the area, there is substantial landscaping along the entire site boundary which will help to obscure the compound from view. Having visited the site, it is considered that the development is not highly visible when viewed from the main public thoroughfare that adjoin the site and therefore would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the street scene. The only clear view of the site from the public highway is via the main entrance as the side access points are partly covered with overgrown shrubs on the site.
6.3.2 Whilst the site is currently unsightly due to the unauthorised use of the area as a storage area, which would appear out of place in the context of the predominantly residential nature of the area, it is not considered that the proposed use of the site would impact on the character of the street scene or be detrimental to the appearance of the area when viewed from the abutting highways due to the nature of the boundary treatment around the site.
6.4 Impact on neighbouring living conditions 6.4.1 With regard to impacts on neighbours, it is noted that the comings and goings of large vehicles (about 36 per week) would generate more noise, more airborne particulates, and more manoeuvring in the highway. None of these is an especially pleasant thing to live near, and it is unfortunate indeed that there is nowhere else on the estate that the proposed use can be sited.
6.4.2 That this site is not to be used in conjunction with approved works within the estate, would mean that the disturbance to be created is not considered to be acceptable. It is also noted that some dwellings, particularly Thie ny Ashlish and Cooilleen which would only be about 25m from the storage areas, and Leece Lodge which is situated directly opposite the site access would be particularly impacted by the operations of the compound.
6.4.3 Whilst it is not proposed that there would be any manufacturing work undertaken on the site, which may be noisy, smelly or eject particulate matter, the use of the site for the storage of plant and materials which includes scrap metal could be a noisy operation. More so, the dumping of the crushed stone and quarry dust could have air quality implications as the particulates could remain in the air for long periods.
6.5 Highway safety impacts 6.5.1 It is not considered that there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety from the compound given the number of times the heavy vehicles would visit the site on a daily basis, and the width of the green verge in front of the site which would ensure there is sufficient visibility for drivers leaving the site.
6.6 Requirement for an EIA 6.6.1 That the use of the site would involve the storage of scrap metals means that the proposed use falls within the category of "Other Projects ...that require EIA in every case" as
==== PAGE 6 ====
20/00724/B Page 6 of 6
stipulated in Section A.5.2 of the Strategic Plan. It is also considered that as there is no supporting EIA, the full impact of the proposal on the site and surroundings cannot be effectively ascertained. Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the proposed use would fail to comply with Environment Policy 22 and General Policy 2 (d).
RECOMMENDATION 7.1 It is recommended that the application be refused for the above reasons.
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 a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 24.09.2020
Determining officer Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Principal Planner
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