Change of use of existing film studios to warehousing/light industrial

Refusal Reasons

• ✗The film studio development which currently occupies the site was originally allowed as an exception to policy in the late 1990s. It is considered that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that there is no longer a need for such facilities and as such, there is no justification for approval of a development which would otherwise be unacceptable on this site. The policy to permit development outwith those areas designated for development on the basis of the site being previously-developed (General Policy 3c of the Strategic Plan) requires existing use to be redundant. The Committee is not satisfied that this site is redundant for its originally intended purpose.
• ✗General Policy 3 and the definition of previously-developed land as set out in the Definitions and Glossary of Terms, requires development of such sites to 'reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment.' No improvements are proposed: it is not clear that the originally required landscaping scheme was implemented. The proposed use would at the very least perpetuate the large scale of the buildings and most likely increase the frequency of traffic to and from the site and possibly the scale and amount of traffic. It is very likely that the width and construction of the access lane would have to be increased, this increasing the visual impact of the site as viewed from the A13 and the appearance of parked vehicles, particularly HGVs may well increase the visual impact of the site as viewed from further afield - from the Garey Road and the A3 U course. The situation regarding car parking is not clear and it is likely that the existing area of hard standing would need to be increased, potentially encroaching into the flood risk area and increasing the potential for flood risk through increased rates of flow from larger areas of hard standing. As such, it is not accepted that the development would satisfy General Policy 3 and as such there is no justification for the proposed development.
• ✗The residential property on the site (Baidromma Beg) has been sold off from the overall site use. As such, there would be a dwelling immediately adjacent - in fact in amongst a proposed industrial site and which would share the same access. The impacts of the proposed change of use on the amenities of the property are likely to be adverse - the increased level of traffic, the likelihood of heavier and larger vehicles and an increased level of activity and as such the proposed development is considered to be unneighbourly and unacceptable for this reason.
• ✗The visibility available to drivers emerging from the site onto the Jurby Road is not adequate for the proposed use which is likely to result in an increase in traffic using the access.