Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
16/00290/B
Page 1 of 11
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 16/00290/B Applicant : Isle of Man Development Co Ltd Proposal : Conversion of existing buildings from warehouse & light industrial to display, distribution, warehousing and sales of industrial / automotive products, creation of vehicular access and additional car parking and erection of fencing and boundary bollards Site Address : Units 48A, 48B & 48C Spring Valley Industrial Estate Douglas Isle of Man IM2 2QS
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 18.05.2016 Site Visit : 18.05.2016 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSAL COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is an almost square parcel of land (there is a small protrusion at its northeastern corner) situated on the Spring Valley Industrial Estate. It includes three industrial units (48A, 48B and 48C) that are attached to an additional pair of units (48D and 48E) that, although within the same self-contained apron, do not form a part of this application.
1.2 The units are finished in a mixture of red brick at ground floor and metal cladding above; the use of brick and red-framed windows throughout gives the building a more attractive appearance than many other, more utilitarian industrial units, although even so they remain very much industrial in appearance.
1.3 They are not set side by side: Unit 48C sits centrally within the entire building, while Units 48A and 48B sit alongside one another but at right angles to 48C. In terms of size, all three are more or less identically dimensioned at roughly 280sqm. Each also has an identically sized (30sqm) storage area at mezzanine level, although Unit 48B, interestingly, has an additional mezzanine floor that comprises roughly two thirds of the footprint of the Unit (to which the storage area is additional). All three are currently unoccupied.
1.4 Surrounding the buildings, enclosed somewhat by kerbing and trees, is a parking area that is understood to provide 21 parking spaces.
1.5 There is a maintenance building and compound to the rear (northwest). The units are fairly central within the Spring Valley Estate such that the surrounding uses are generally industrial / commercial in nature.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
==== PAGE 2 ====
16/00290/B
Page 2 of 11
2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the change of use of the three units from 'warehouse and light industrial' to: 'display, distribution, warehousing and sales of industrial / automotive products'.
2.2 In addition to the change of use, physical changes to the elevations of the building are proposed, as is the installation of new bollards, the creation of additional parking spaces (up to a maximum of 29, but only 26 are expected to be needed), the creation of a new access onto the highway within the 'protrusion' part of the site described above, and also the addition of new steel palisade fencing around the maintenance compound. The new entrance would appear to be designed to provide vehicular access only to Units 48D and 48E: the new bollards would be installed between Units 48C and 48D, which sit alongside one another.
2.3 The three units would be connected internally via the installation of a new door between Unit 48A and 48B, and another between 48A and 48C: there would be no direct link from 48B to 48C. In addition to these new doors, the office/kitchen/lobby/WC accommodation within Unit 48B would be removed. Identical such accommodation within Units 48A and 48C would be retained, with the former extended with a staff room.
2.4 Changes are proposed to the mezzanine floorspace. Each of the three 'storage areas' would be removed. That within Unit 48A would be replaced with a pair of offices. That within Unit 48B would be replaced with what is shown on the drawings to be a Mezzanine Sales Area, but which carries a somewhat cryptic annotation: 'Final extent of mezzanine to be determined'.
2.5 Replacement windows are proposed throughout; these do not require a planning application as they benefit from permitted development rights. To the front elevation, the existing roller shutter door would be replaced by large glazing panels, two of which would be entrance doors, and which would rise from ground to almost eaves level; adjacent this, at the ground floor, is another set of floor-to-ceiling glazing panels, but these are only at the ground floor. These would replace an existing entrance door and a pair of windows. To the side elevation, two windows are proposed to be replaced with three floor-to-ceiling glazing panels.
2.6 Being mindful of concern previously raised with respect to proposals seeking approval for (additional) retail floorspace within Spring Valley Estate, the agent was contacted for further details on the nature of the retail element proposed. He advised that the applicant is Motaworld, a company operating from Units 22 & 24 on the same industrial estate; more details on this are set out in the Planning History section.
2.7.1 In respect of the advice submitted in respect of that application (the relevant parts being outlined at paragraph 3.5.2, below), the agent to the application comments as follows:
"Approximately 90% of their business is serviced via the distribution of automotive and industrial parts throughout the Island on a daily basis. They have 8 delivery vehicles on the road each day and employ 21 staff. The remaining 10% of the business consists of walk in trade (approximately 20 to 25 customers per day)."
2.7.2 These figures represent slight increases from those outlined when Motaworld sought planning approval to convert Units 22 & 24: eight delivery vehicles is an increase from six; 21 permanent staff is an increase on 16, and 20 to 25 customers representing walk-in trade is an increase on 15 to 20.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The site and other units on the Estate have been the subject of a number of applications. The five units were originally approved under PA 05/00642/B, which was an amendment to an earlier approval (04/01170/B) for three units on the same site.
==== PAGE 3 ====
16/00290/B
Page 3 of 11
3.2 The 2005 application was implemented, albeit it would appear from the presence of mezzanine storage areas in the units that one of the conditions attached to that application was not complied with; the two relevant conditions attached to that approval are as follows:
C 3 "The buildings may only be used for light industrial purposes."
C 7 "This approval does not relate to the inclusion of any mezzanine floors within the building. Should these be required a separate planning application must be submitted to the Planning Committee for their approval."
3.3 Subsequently, approval was sought and granted for the use of all the units for either light industrial or warehousing under PA 05/01829/C.
3.4.1 Most recently in respect of this site, PAs 07/01365/B and 07/01729/C were submitted. The latter was approved and included the mezzanine floor referred to in paragraph 1.3, and also enabled the change of use of the unit to 'warehouse and wholesale depot'; the former was withdrawn because it inadvertently did not make reference to the proposed change of use element of the works proposed.
3.4.2 PA 07/01729/C had one relevant condition attached:
C 3 "The sales element of the approval is restricted to the counter area only as identified on Drawing Number 001/07 June 2007."
3.5.1 As noted already, the applicant already operates from a pair of units on the same industrial estate; the application seeking approval for that use at Units 22 & 24 was PA 13/00449/C. That application sought and gained approval for 'Change of use from warehouse and manufacturing to display / distribution and sales of industrial / automotive products and warehousing'.
3.5.2 Some relevant extracts of the officer's report are set out below:
"2.4 They indicate that their main business is wholesaling. Approximately 90% of their business is serviced via the distribution of automotive and industrial parts throughout the Island on a daily basis. They have 6 delivery vehicles on the road each day and employ 16 staff. The remaining 10% of the business consists of walk in trade (approximately 15 to 20 customers per day)."
"2.5 The applicants have indicated that they have a requirement for premises offering the display and sale of automotive and industrial parts. For example a large toolbox can cost from £200-£4000, and they would not usually be bought unseen. This hands-on approach applies to many other items that they sell, such as compressors and power tools. Furthermore customers may also seek expert advice face to face, or require the flexibility of taking an item immediately rather than awaiting delivery. Consequently, they are looking to continue trading within the environment of an industrial estate."
"6.2 The applicants business offers various types of products they distribute and sell. Some of these include spark plugs, filters, cylinder heads, drive belts, clutches, brakes and batteries, powertools, air tools, compressors, generators, grinders, tool boxes, engine cranes, jacks & lifts, number plates, wheel trims, car mats, bulbs, exhausts, shelving, paint, sealants, adhesives, car accessories, hand tools, motor oils and valeting products."
"6.3 Perhaps the main issue relates to whether the showroom/display and sales area is appropriate on this site. Business Policy 5 does also indicate that permission may be granted if the items to be sold could not reasonably be sold from a town centre location because of their size or nature. As listed previously the applicants argue that many of the items sold are bulky in nature, although there would be items which are not, but are linked to the primary use of the building. It is a fact that storage and sales facilities within town centres for bulky goods are rare. It is considered
==== PAGE 4 ====
16/00290/B
Page 4 of 11
the majority of the items could not be reasonably sold in a town centre location. Furthermore, these are specialist items which are not readily found in a town centre and the sale of these items would unlikely detract from the vitality and viability of town centres."
"6.4 It is worth noting that the applicants currently operate their business Ballafletcher Business Park in Tromode, which is also designated for industrial use. They also benefited from planning permission (10/01516/C) to operate the same business at Hills Meadow Industrial Estate in Douglas, although they were unable to take that up at the time. Consequently, the business already operates on an industrial estate and essentially the retail aspect as proposed is unlikely to significantly affect the vitality and viability of town centres as it already operates out of town and the net increase would likely be negligible."
3.5.3 The Planning Committee issued some concern in respect of the proposal; the minutes of their meeting at which that application was determined read as follows:
"The Members were, in general, in support of the proposal but expressed concern with the 10% of the business which was defined by the Applicant and recorded in the case officer's report as being "walk in trade". The Members were concerned that this aspect of the business may detract from other similar retail outlets in the town centre. Mr Balmer reported on the nature of the products on sale and Mr Gallagher reported with regard to the definition of "town centre", as defined by the existing Douglas Local Plan.
"Mr Young and Mr Kermode enquired with regard to the wording of condition 5. Mr Balmer reported that the Applicant had been consulted and had itself provided the list of products to be sold at the premises, which was reflected in the wording of the condition. Mr Gallagher advised the Members that adopting a more generalised wording to the condition could raise potential enforcement problems which may arise trying to monitor compliance with a more generic description of goods to be sold at the premises."
3.5.4 A condition was attached to the approval notice stating that the development permitted should only be carried out in accordance with the proposed internal building layout drawing; condition 5 referred to above read as follows:
C 5 "The showroom shall be used only for the display and sale of spark plugs, filters, cylinder heads, drive belts, clutches, brakes and batteries, powertools, air tools, compressors, generators, grinders, tool boxes, engine cranes, jacks & lifts, number plates, wheel trims, car mats, bulbs, exhausts, shelving, paint, sealants, adhesives, car accessories, hand tools, motor oils and valeting products."
3.5.5 This application was taken up and remains the location of the present applicant.
3.6.1 Elsewhere on the Spring Valley Estate, it is relevant to note the application submitted at Unit 2, currently occupied by Pets At Home. PA 15/01063/B sought approval for the installation of a mezzanine floor. What was proposed there was not pure retail inasmuch as it was intended to be used as a veterinary practice, and as much on this basis as anything the case officer concluded that the impact of that use would be acceptably limited with respect to the vitality and viability of nearby retail centres.
3.6.2 However, the Planning Committee unanimously demurred. The minutes from the meeting at which the application was considered read in full as follows:
"The case officer reported on the matter and summarised the key issues as set out in the report highlighting the relevance of the policies to retail as opposed to veterinary care. The elevations, and position of the air conditioning units as amended since the Committee Report was published, was explained.
==== PAGE 5 ====
16/00290/B
Page 5 of 11
"The retail and related uses in this area was highlighted and Business Policies 5, 9 and 10. The question of where else would this activity would be acceptable or preferable remains important to consider. Objections on grounds of commercial competition do not warrant a reason to refuse.
"A time limit condition should be included should the Committee be minded to approve the application.
"The Highways Officer had made no objection to the proposal as, whilst no formal criteria was in place to establish demand for the site, the data provided were adequate to show that while there would be a concern for parking provision on a Saturday lunchtime this was the only time at present where concerns exist. Staff parking had not been fully explained. On balance, no objection was raised.
"Mr Raymond Cox had registered to speak in objection to the application. The relevance of a veterinary practice within a retail environment remained a concern as there were no policies that reflected the impact veterinary care has. The quality of care, cheap and service for domestic animals would erode the small animal-basis on which the existing practices rely. No out-of-hours services had been mentioned and its treatment or provision of mandatory services for animal care would underpin the larger testing, for the likes of TB and the like. Growth economically will be constricted along with the market should this type of application be approved
"The Members reflected on the Committee's objection to the original approval for Pets at Home on this site, the approval of a retail nature in an industrial area and its subsequent approval at appeal. The reasons for any opposition in this instance were not relative to commercial competition and reflected that original concern.
"It was acknowledged the reduction of domestic support, undermining a service, could impact the welfare of the animals themselves. Provision of partial service or commercial reasons in the support of a wider farming remit was discussed.
"The veterinary service is not industrial and should not be in this location. Indeed, town centres were considered to be far more appropriate and no good reason had been provided indicating why the proposed use could not be placed in such an area. The provision of adequate parking spaces was also a concern with the lack of detail for the assumed 10 members of staff that could be employed there.
"General Policy 2, Transport Policy 7 and Business Policies 5, 9 and 10 were deemed relevant in the assessment of the proposal, and it was concluded that each of those indicated the proposal was unacceptable in this location."
3.6.3 Accordingly, the application was refused for the following two reasons:
R 1 "The application has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not result in demonstrable harm in respect of the local highway network in respect of displaced parking and also the amount of parking that is available on the site at present. The proposal is therefore contrary to Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007."
R 2 "The application has failed to demonstrate that there would be no harm arising from the proposed use and floorspace relative to existing retail / community centres. The site is zoned for industrial use, and the application has failed to demonstrate why the proposed use and floorspace could not be located in a town centre location. As such, the proposal is contrary to General Policy 2 and Business Policies 5, 9 and 10 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007."
3.6.4 Although an appeal to that decision was lodged, the request was subsequently withdrawn without explanation and therefore the decision now stands.
==== PAGE 6 ====
16/00290/B
Page 6 of 11
3.7 It is not considered that the scale of the proposal for the development of a multi-franchise car dealership to the south of Cooil Road (PA 15/01186/B) is such as to consider it in any way material to the assessment of this application.
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4.1 The application site is located within a wider area of land that is designated as Predominantly Industrial under the Braddan Local Plan 1991. Planning Circular 6/91, the written statement that accompanies the Local Plan, contains two policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.
4.2 Policy 2.4 states: "In accordance with the adopted policy of Tynwald no retail developments will be permitted in the Parish District of Braddan with the exception of retail provision designed to serve the local neighbourhood requirements of existing and future communities."
4.3 Policy 2.5 states: "No development of retail use, nor conversion of existing buildings to retail use, will be permitted in existing or future industrial areas."
4.4 The Strategic Plan contains six policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.
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; (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."
4.6 Strategic Policy 9 states: "All new retail development (excepting neighbourhood shops and those instances identified in Business Policy 5) and all new office development (excepting corporate headquarters suitable for a business park location) must be sited within the town and village centres on land zoned for these purposes in Area Plans, whilst taking into consideration Business Policies 7 and 8."
4.7 Business Policy 1 states: "The growth of employment opportunities throughout the Island will be encouraged provided that development proposals accord with the policies of this Plan."
4.8 Paragraph 9.2.6 reads: Since the adoption of the Braddan Local Plan in 1991, pressure has been growing for the inclusion within industrial areas of a variety of retail-related uses, with some applications being successful. Those which have been successful have generally fallen into one of the following two categories:
(a) developments of a retail nature where the items being retailed cannot generally be sold from a high street or town centre location, e.g. motor cars, builders' materials, agricultural equipment and feed; and (b) developments which in themselves are not retail but comprise elements of retail use which are inextricably linked to the primary use of the building or site - e.g. tailor-made clothing or video tapes manufactured on the premises.
"However, there are good reasons not only for directing most retail uses to town centre locations but also for reserving industrial land for its designated purpose. It is important to ensure that
==== PAGE 7 ====
16/00290/B
Page 7 of 11
sufficient suitable land is available for industrial development. In any case, most industrial estates are unsuitable as environments for shoppers. The following policy is therefore appropriate:
"Business Policy 5: On land zoned for industrial use, permission will be given only for industrial development or for storage and distribution; retailing will not be permitted except where either:
(a) the items to be sold could not reasonably be sold from a town centre location because of their size or nature; or (b) the items to be sold are produced on the site and their sale could not reasonably be severed from the overall business;
"and, in respect of (a) or (b), where it can be demonstrated that the sales would not detract from the vitality and viability of the appropriate town centre shopping area."
4.9 Business Policy 9 states: "The Department will support new retail provision in existing retail areas at a scale appropriate to the existing area and which will not have an adverse effect on adjacent retail areas. Major retail development proposals will require to be supported by a Retail Impact Assessment."
4.10 Business Policy 10 states: "Retail development will be permitted only in established town and village centres, with the exceptions of neighbourhood shops in large residential areas and those instances identified in Business Policy 5."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1.1 Clarification was initially sought (17.03.2016) from Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure in respect of the floorspace that would result. Following receipt of this, the same officer commented on 01.04.2016 as follows:
"The proposal is to relocate a business from units 22 & 24, when these units received approval for the change in use the parking standard applied was 1 space per 30sqm nett floor area, applying the same standard to the proposal requires 36 car parking spaces, not 26 as shown on drawing no 857/002.
"When approval was granted to split unit 48 into 5 smaller units 05/00642 the parking standard of 1 space per 50sqm gross floor area was used, this requires 6 spaces for unit 48D.
"The previous layout allowed the possibility of visitors utilising adjacent parking if it was vacant, the new layout does not. At the time of the 05 application Highways raised concerns regarding overspill car parking on the adjacent highway and this is still a concern.
"You need to provide a justification for proposing a reduced car parking standard for both the proposal and the existing unit 48D, demonstrating that there will be no additional parking on the highway as a result of this proposal. At the very least I would expect to see a parking accumulation survey of the existing car park at units 22 & 24 to showing it's current level of use."
5.1.2 In correspondence from the agent to Highway Services, the latter noted on 08.07.2016 as follows:
"Units 22 & 24 currently provide the business with 650 sq.m of space. 18 car parking spaces were provided in PA 13/00449/C which having operated for a number of years seems more than adequate for its use. The business primarily supplies and delivers the Island motor trade with parts.
"The current application for Units 48A, B & C, for the same business is for the conversion and alteration of the Units for the display, distribution warehousing and sales of industrial & automotive products."
==== PAGE 8 ====
16/00290/B
Page 8 of 11
5.1.3 He continued:
"The loss [presumably 'shortfall' is meant here] of 1 space can be mitigated by:
o Inclusion of toilets and ancillary facilities within floor areas calculations. o The availability of forecourt for 3 additional spaces if required to LHS of main entrance into building. o Availability of additional parking to rear of building. o Delivery of orders to clients rather than collection at site by clients. o Some staff take home and thus travel to and from work in delivery company vehicles thus reducing staff parking levels during the day."
They commented further in respect of the proposed new entrance, noting that sufficient visibility therefrom and parking thereto for Units 48D and 48E could be provided.
5.1.4 No formal response from Highway Services has been received to date on this, although the above correspondence followed a meeting between the agent and Highway Services with a view to resolving the initially stated concerns. An amended proposed site plan showing additional parking was provided and circulated for information.
5.2 Braddan Parish Commissioners offered no objection to the application on 22.03.16 and 22.07.16.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The physical changes proposed are, given the nature, use and location of the building, considered unobjectionable even if it is clear they would relate to the use proposed and it is this use that is a key issue for the assessment of the application. In addition, the amount of parking and impact on highway safety arising from the proposal requires consideration.
6.2 In terms of the use, the previous application in respect of this applicant (albeit on a different site, but one bringing with it a very similar Planning context) is instructive. The amount of area given over to 'sales' on the 2013 application is not particularly different - 330sqm at Units 22 & 24, compared with roughly 420sqm in total here. There is a change in percentage terms - from 30% at Units 22 & 24 to 40% under the current proposal. It seems appropriate to conclude that if 330sqm is acceptable, so similarly should be 420sqm be considered acceptable.
6.3 While the increase in percentage terms of the sales area may well give the Committee pause for thought, it is considered that the change in the impact that would or could result from this proposal is unlikely to be materially different (or harmful) relative to the existing situation in what is a very similar geographic location. It is concluded that a different conclusion to that reached nearby in 2013 (and, it must be stressed, in respect of the same business, which has not changed since that time) would be very difficult to support.
6.4 The fact remains that the kind of goods sold - such as they are - largely fit within, or at least reflect, the list of goods that will be considered acceptable for retail sale outside of established commercial centres outlined in (a) of Paragraph 9.2.6 of the Strategic Plan.
6.5 There could be some concern that this proposal represents the proliferation of such uses within an industrial estate, with the result that retail uses become more acceptable. However, there is a subtlety here inasmuch as the 2013 approval for Motaworld was not approved as an exception - it was approved having regard to the combination of uses the unit would provide and moreover the impracticality of the business operating from a town centre location as might normally be preferred. As such, this proposal does not, in that sense, represent an additional exception but simply another proposal that is considered to be acceptable on balance.
==== PAGE 9 ====
16/00290/B
Page 9 of 11
6.6 Accordingly, it is concluded that the proposal is not at such significant odds with the Strategic Plan's Business Policies 5, 9 or 10, nor the Braddan Plan's Policies 2.4 and 2.5, to warrant the application's refusal.
6.7 In respect of the highway concerns, it is noted that this has delayed the application's determination due to negotiations trying to resolve these. While a formal response remains pending from Highway Services, the key issue here appears to relate to the amount of parking that could be provided, with concern over a potential shortfall of one parking space relative to the 26 that are intended to be provided. This percentage is not considered to be materially harmful, while moreover there is scope within the site - as demonstrated on an amended proposed site plan - to provide an additional three spaces where this to be required.
6.8 The visibility that can be provided seems adequate and allowing an additional access onto what is a highway that is, admittedly, fairly heavily punctuated by such accesses would not seem to materially affect highway safety to a degree sufficient to conclude the application is fundamentally unsafe. The highway is fairly free of obstruction near most of the accesses in place already, while some cars parked on the highway helps reduce vehicle speed. Without formal input from Highway Services it is difficult to be absolutely certain but it is not considered that this represents a reason to place the application further on hold.
7.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 7.1 It is true that the application may well raise understandable concern with respect to out of town retailing. However, the continued operation of the self-same business from the same industrial estate, albeit in a slightly manner in proportional terms, is considered a strong, if not overwhelming, material consideration in favour of the current application. Accordingly, and bearing in mind Business Policy 1 as well, it is considered that the application is acceptable in this context.
7.2 The application also raises no serious concerns with regards highway safety.
7.3 Accordingly, it is recommended that the application be approved. Conditions restricting the use of the three units to the manner defined on the submitted plans, as well as another condition specifying what goods may be sold from the site, both of which are equivalent to the conditions attached to the 2013 approval notice, are again considered necessary here.
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 Committee were minded to accept the recommended change to the wording of the proposed Condition 4; this was suggested following consultation between officers and the agent to ensure that the condition was less specific such that the occasional additional product could be added to the business's offer without requiring it to submit an application to vary the said condition.
==== PAGE 10 ====
16/00290/B Page 10 of 11
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 15.08.2016
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.
C 2. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.
Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.
C 3. The building shall be used only for the purposes as identified on Drawings 857/007 and 857/008, both date-stamped as having been received 8th March 2016. No part of the building shall be used for a different purpose unless written consent of the Department has been first obtained.
Reason: In the interest of controlling the use of the building given its position on an industrial estate.
C 4. The Sales Area as defined on Drawing 857/007 date-stamped as having been received 8th March 2016 shall be used only for the display and sale motor parts, motor accessories and motor maintenance equipment.
Reason: In the interest of controlling the use of the building given its position on an industrial estate. (As initially drafted)
C4 The only sales that may take place from the premises shall be within the area annotated as ‘Sales Area’ on Drawing 857/007 (date-stamped as having been received 8th March 2016) and those sales shall be restricted to the sale of motor parts, motor accessories and motor maintenance equipment
Reason: In the interest of controlling the use of the building given its position on an industrial estate. (As amended at the Planning Committee meeting)
The development hereby approved relates to Drawings 857/001, 857/003, 857/004, 857/005, 857/006, 857/007, 857/008, 857/009 and 857/010, all date-stamped as having been received 8th March 2016, and also to 857/002 Rev B, date-stamped as having been received 11th July 2016.
==== PAGE 11 ====
16/00290/B Page 11 of 11
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: 22.08.2016
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 See paragraph 9.1 above
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