Officer Report 11/01256/D

Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:12106}} {{table:12105}}

Officer's Report

Site

1. The site is a parcel of land within the Isle of Man Business Park on the north-eastern side of Cool Road.

Proposed Development

1. This application is seeking consent to display a double side sign, which is elevated on a timber frame. The applicants are seeking a temporary consent to advertise until the units for the site have been sold/let or for a period of 24 months, whichever is sooner.

Planning Status And Relevant Policies

1. Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application: General Policy 2, Environment Policy 35, paragraph 8.12.1

1. In terms of local plan policy, the application site is located within an area of land that was designated for development under the extant 1991 Braddan Parish District Local Plan. The area of land immediately surrounding the proposed signage has planning approval for the erection of corporate headquarters in line with the overall use of the Isle of Man Business Park.

1. In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains one policy that is considered specifically material in the assessment of the application. General Policy 6 states:

"Within our towns and villages, the display of external advertisements will be permitted on the site or building to which they relate provided they:

• (a) are of a high standard of design and materials and relate well to the building and site on which they are to be displayed;
• (b) are in keeping with and do not detract from the surrounding area; and
• (c) are located so as not to cause a highway safety hazard."

Planning History

1. There have been a number of previous planning applications that are considered material to the assessment of this current planning application.

11/00218/D – Erection of advertising sign (retrospective) – refused at appeal on 15th August 2011. The reason for refusal was "The signage constitutes unwarranted visual clutter that is detrimental to the visual amenity of the area. As the signage relates to development that is significant distance and

not visible from the application site the proposal is contrary to the provisions of General Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007."

Representations

1. Braddan Parish Commissioners do not object to the application
2. Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure do not oppose the application.
3. Community Planning Service of 33 Ballaquark has objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) This sign is overly large and visually intrusive, of poor quality, and unnecessary.

Assessment

1. The application seeks retrospective consent for the erection of signage within the application site. The fact that consent is sought retrospectively should neither advantage nor disadvantage assessment of the proposal.
2. The applicant's had previously applied (PA11/00218/D) for the continued display of the advertisement on the site; however, the advertisement related to a different site which was a substantial distance away from the application site. This application was refused at appeal. The independent inspector made the following comments in relation to the application:

"The main issue is whether retaining the sign for the period sought would result in unwarranted clutter, detrimental to visual amenity

The appellant company's desire for signage in a prominent location, to promote premises in a more secluded location, is understandable. It is also the case that this length of Cool Road is substantially commercial in character, with signs identifying the businesses, and that on casual observation the appeal sign might be thought to relate to development intended on the land where it is located; something that might be permitted or tacitly accepted within the terms of General Policy 7. However, the fact that this signage does not relate to its site or any premises on Cool Road but rather elsewhere. As such it adds completely unnecessary signage to this part of the Business Park.

It is unusually large to promote premises for sale or letting and it is very prominent. In contrast, signage on Cool Road generally, and usefully, identifies the premises on which it is situated, as may be expected in a commercial locality. I am unaware whether there is any other signage in the Business Park subject to a planning dispute; if there is this will need to be assessed on its merits. However, taken as a whole the Business Park struck me as not unduly garish or cluttered, but rather as striking a reasonable balance between the needs of its businesses to identify and promote themselves while retaining an orderly and not unattractive character. There is little of the 'arms race' sometimes seen at business parks where premises compete for attention with ever more signs and other paraphernalia. This sizeable and prominent sign, unrelated to its setting, undermines the road's character, incrementally at least introducing a more cluttered and less attractive appearance. This is harmful in itself, not justified by a desire to promote premises elsewhere, and will lead to recommend against allowing the appeal.

Moreover, as well as being harmful in itself, it seems probable that in due course a similar issue would arise with respect to Phase 2 of the Middle Park development. This would be difficult to resist - but similarly harmful - if the principle of promoting the units elsewhere, on Cool Road, had been accepted with respect to Phase 1."

1. As highlighted earlier in this report there is provision for the display of advertisements under the terms of planning policies contained within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. In this instance, as the signage relates to a development on the site, the relevant planning policy to assess the proposal against is General Policy 6.

1. The issue about the advertisement not being relevant to the site has been addressed by the applicant. The key issue here is whether the retention of the sign would still impact on the visual amenities of the locality. The applicant has indicated that the character of Cooil Road has altered since the consideration of the previous application, with the erection of prominent roadside signage a short distance to the south east (for a motor sales franchise). However, the independent inspector noted the harm the advertisement has on the general character of the road. The continued display of an advertisement at this location would go against the assessment of the independent inspector. The advertisement would continually impact on the visual amenities of the locality and would be contrary to General Policy 6 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

1. It is recommended that the application be refused. As consent is sought retrospectively the signage will be required to be removed from the application site. It is considered that four weeks is a reasonable amount of time to require removal.

Recommendation

1. It is recommended that express consent be granted subject to conditions.

Party Status

1. The local authority [Braddan Parish Commissioners] are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.

1. The Highways Division is part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part of. As such, the Highways Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.

1. Community Planning Service of 33 Ballaquark are significant distance away from the application and therefore should not be afforded party status in this instance.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 17.10.2011

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal

• : Notes attached to refusals

R 1.

The signage would be contrary to General Policy 6 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in terms of its size, siting and design will result in unwarranted visual clutter that is detrimental to the visual amenity of the area.

I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager.

Decision Made : Refused Date : 20/10/14

Signed : [Handwritten signature] Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control

OR

Signed : [Blank] Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager