Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
16/00954/C
Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 16/00954/C Applicant : Manx Osteopathic Clinc Ltd Proposal : Change of use from offices to an osteopath clinic Site Address : Unit 1 Premier House Tromode Estate Carrs Lane Tromode Douglas Isle Of Man IM4 4QB
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 01.09.2016 Site Visit : 01.09.2016 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE LAND IS NOT ZONED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED BUT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is an almost rectangular but essentially irregularly shaped parcel of land located on the entrance to the Tromode Estate. Within the land is a fairly modern industrial building, Premier House, which is currently vacant, along with a large area of hardstanding that provides the parking for the building. It is situated to the west of the main road into the site(Carrs Lane) and to the east of the River Glass; to the southwestern and southeastern boundaries are mature trees that effectively screen the building from Ballafletcher Road to the south.
1.2 Opposite the application site is Tannery House, a detached residential dwelling of unique design that was recently subject to an approved application for alterations and extension; otherwise, the immediate surroundings are industrial and light industrial in nature. Tromode Park as a whole is a well-maintained and fairly modern estate.
1.3 The application form indicates that the building was last used "substantially as offices and ancillary accommodation for an IT / computer services company".
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The submitted application seeks to change the use of the first floor of the building to an osteopathic clinic. Floorplans (both existing and proposed) have been provided and these show that no physical alterations are proposed internally.
2.2 The upper floor is accessed via a central stairwell / lift and this is not proposed to be altered. The floor would be divided roughly 50-50 into four consulting rooms and a resting room on one side and a reception and general exercise / rehabilitation area on the other side.
2.3 The applicant explains that she has been running her business for a number of years from a small consulting room at her home in Glen Vine ("Long Mynd"). The business has now grown and there is a concomitant need to move it to larger premises. The applicant notes that there are a total of 27 parking spaces on the site serving the entire building, with 7 dedicated to the ground
==== PAGE 2 ====
16/00954/C
Page 2 of 6
floor and 20 to the upper floor where the proposed change of use is located. She explains that there is intended to be 4 consultants on the premises at any one time, in addition to a single receptionist and up to "one additional person" - though it is not clear who this "additional person" would be. She was contacted with a view to defining opening hours for the business, which were not defined in the application; she responded as follows:
"I do feel for the family who live in the house, must be awful to live on an industrial estate and I completely understand why you would want our hours of opening, we really do not want to disrupt them.
"If we need to go back in for planning if we change our opening hours I thought I may put in for the maximum I estimate we would ever need. So, could it be from 7.30am - 9pm Monday to Friday and 8am - 6pm Saturday, we will not be working Sundays, the family in the house need some time away from businesses!
"I do not envisage that we will be using those hours at all, but thought it maybe best to overestimate instead of under."
2.4 The covering letter accompanying the application also explains that the building has been empty for two years owing to difficulties in obtaining replacement tenants.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The site has not been the subject of any applications considered to be of material relevance to the assessment of the current proposal. The building itself appears to have been constructed under PA 99/01494/B - even though the Department's electronic system has this application as carrying the insufficient fee, there is an approval notice attached to it. Condition 2 to the original approval states that:
"The building may be used only for light industrial or science-based purposes."
3.2 The remainder of the estate has been subject to various applications for new buildings and changes of use to existing buildings over the years, and it is worth noting that the most recent such application (PA 13/91363/B), at Units 7 & 8, which was approved, carried the following description:
"Erection of two business units with associated infrastructure and landscaping, Unit 7 to provide business services including document management, storage, scanning, shredding, cleaning and caretaking services with offices. Unit 8 to provide light industrial use, with associated distribution and storage, associated offices, research and development, information technology and showroom uses."
This highlights the general nature of the businesses operating from the estate, which also includes an interior design business, technology-related businesses, training services and such like.
3.3 No planning approval can be found for the previous use as described in the application form.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The application site falls within a thin sliver of land within Onchan (betwixt the Braddan and Douglas Local Authority areas), and lies within a much wider area of land that essentially defines the Tromode Estate as Industrial on that Plan.
4.2 Policy O/I/P/3 of that Plan reads as follows:
"Where land is designated for industry, the accepted use of this land will be for light industrial purposes as is defined in the 1982 Development Plan Order: that is
==== PAGE 3 ====
16/00954/C
Page 3 of 6
" 'light industrial building (not being a special industrial building) in which the processes carried on or the machinery installed are such as could be carried on or installed in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of the area by reason of noise, dust, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit or undue generation or traffic or parking of vehicles.' "
4.3 This definition has since been amended (but remains essentially the same) at paragraph 9.2.3 of the Strategic Plan 2016:
" 'light industrial building' means an industrial building (not being a special industrial building) in which the processes carried on or the machinery installed are such as could be carried on or installed in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit, or undue generation of traffic or parking of vehicles; the use of light industrial buildings for research and development of products or processes is permitted by the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005."
4.4 Turning to the policies of the Strategic Plan, the general development considerations as set out in General Policy 2 are relevant, as is Environment Policy 22, and as are the parking standards defined in Appendix 7.
4.5 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:
(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; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding."
4.6 Environment Policy 22 reads as follows:
"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."
4.7 Transport Policy 7, via Appendix 7, requires that Medical / health services provide 3 spaces per consulting room plus staff parking. It is not known how 'staff parking' should be translated into a parking requirement, but assuming that this is one space per staff member, the overall requirement will be for a total of 18 spaces (6 for staff, and 12 for the consulting rooms).
==== PAGE 4 ====
16/00954/C
Page 4 of 6
4.8 It is also worth noting the text of Business Policy 1: "The growth of employment opportunities throughout the Island will be encouraged provided that development proposals accord with the policies of this Plan."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure sought a deferral of the application on 14.09.2016, but on 23rd September advised that "The proposal is to relocate an osteopath service from a residential dwelling to an industrial estate and share the space with complimentary therapists. 4 consulting rooms and 5 staff will require 17 parking spaces; 20 have been provided. The ground floor will remain available for storage and 4 car parking spaces are required; 7 spaces are required. Highway Services do not oppose this application."
5.2 Onchan Commissioners recommended the application be approved in correspondence received 07.09.2016.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 As ever with applications of this nature, the considerations are (1) whether or not the loss of the building from its approved use is acceptable, and (2) whether or not the proposed use is acceptable for the building and wider area, which assessment includes the acceptability of the parking situation and also the impact on neighbouring living conditions. As no physical changes are proposed, the appearance of the building will not alter.
6.2 In respect of the first issue, the building was previously in use for what would probably be considered as a combination of Class 2 (financial and professional services), Class 4 (offices) and potentially even Class 6 (storage and distribution). This use would not appear to have had planning approval. Although it is a use (or mixture of uses) that would probably not be considered inappropriate for what is, in usage terms, very much a light industrial area, as the use did not have approval it cannot be considered the 'fallback' position - that rests with the original approval for a building to be used for "light industrial or science-based purposes".
6.3 That the building has been unoccupied for some time is unfortunate. It also indicates that there is no immediate need for light industrial or science-based purposes. However, equally, there is a limited amount of industrial land available in the East of the Island. There is therefore something of a difficult balance to be struck.
6.4 In this case, it is noted that the building is existing and has been empty for two years. It is considered that less protection can be afforded to its approved / zoned use than if the application site were greenfield. A proposal to create a new building for an osteopath clinic would sterilise the land from its zoned use at the outset, rather than (as is the case here) managing the change of the use of an existing and empty building. The site is also not one that forms a part of the land 'available' for industrial purposes as defined in the Employment Land Review 2015, as this document identifies land available for new buildings rather than buildings available to be brought back into use.
6.5 It is also to be noted that not all the building is proposed to be lost from the approved / original use.
6.6 On the basis of the above, then, it is considered that the loss of the building from its approved use is not objectionable and (such as it applies) accords with Business Policy 1.
6.7 Turning to the use proposed, it is considered that the impacts arising from it would not be wholly different from those arising from light industrial or science-based uses - in short, they would not be especially different from the building's original approved use. It also follows, though, that such a use would therefore be acceptable to be located within a residential area. However, this does not in itself mean that the use would preferably be located within such an area - the definition of 'light industrial' that has been prevalent on the Island for many decades is more geared towards
==== PAGE 5 ====
16/00954/C
Page 5 of 6
the definition of that use, rather than identifying where such a use would ideally be located. It therefore remains essential to consider the effect of the proposal on the area and also its ability to provide sufficient parking.
6.8 A brief conversation while on the site visit with the only neighbouring resident confirmed he had no objection to the proposed use, although no written representation to that effect has been received. The opening hours suggested by the applicant are judged reasonable, even if they are unlikely to run the business for such an extensive period each day. And, being mindful of the number of employees and clients likely to use / be in the premises at any one time, opening for these hours would not result in undue levels of comings and goings associated with the use proposed. Being mindful of paragraph 6.7, above, and also Environment Policy 22, no objection is therefore raised on grounds of the proposal's impact on neighbouring living conditions.
6.9 In terms of parking, the Strategic Plan sets out a requirement for 17 spaces. The site contains 20 spaces, plus an additional 2 for users with disabilities. It would be appropriate to conclude that the amount proposed (or, rather, available) is acceptable and accordingly no objection is raised on this ground.
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 7.1 Having noted that the loss of the approved use of the building is acceptable, and having concluded the likely impact arising from the proposed use as acceptable, it is considered that the proposed use is similarly acceptable. The application has raised concerns and on each of these the likely harm or wider, strategic impacts arising would not be so significant as to conclude it is in fundamental conflict with adopted Development Plan policies. It is accordingly recommended that the application be approved.
7.2 The applicant has, as noted, suggested opening hours. These are reasonable and should be controlled by condition.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; o 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; o Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material, in this case Department of Infrastructure Highway Services and o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.
9.0 POST-PLANNING COMMITTEE UPDATE 9.1 The Planning Committee noted that the application site is adjacent a single residential dwelling, and that no objection from the owner of this property had been received. They also noted that the part of the building that was not proposed to have its use altered would remain as its approved use and not be subject to opening / operating hours. They also noted that the use of part of the building for osteopathic treatment rooms would not have a significant noise or nuisance impact arising. Taking the above into account, the Members were minded that the impact from the use as proposed would not be so significant as to warrant the imposition of a condition restricting the opening / operating hours of the business use, and the recommended condition to this effect was excised.
==== PAGE 6 ====
16/00954/C
Page 6 of 6
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 16.09.2016
Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
The development hereby approved relates to Drawing numbers 1, 2, 55/11/3, 55/11/5, 55/11/6 and 55/11/60, all date-stamped as having been received 12th August 2016.
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: 03.10.2016
Signed : E RILEY 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
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