Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
16/01108/B
Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 16/01108/B Applicant : Douglas Borough Council Proposal : Creation of a temporary storage compound (retrospective) Site Address : Former Site Of 60 & 62 Snaefell Road Willaston Douglas Isle Of Man
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 11.10.2016 Site Visit : 11.10.2016 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OWING TO THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSAL.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is a rectangular parcel of land situated between nos58 and 64 Snaefell Road in Willaston, Douglas. The land until fairly recently contained a pair of semi-detached dwellings, much like those found nearby, but these have been demolished.
1.2 The wider estate, in the ownership of Douglas Borough Council, is in the process of being renovated and refurbished to include the removal of chimney stacks and re-rendering of the dwellings. To this end, a large storage compound is currently in place on part of an area of public open space, which is sat opposite a church and bounded on three sides by the Willaston Crescent highway and on the fourth side by Barrule Road.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Retrospective planning approval is sought for the use of the application site as another temporary storage compound for use in conjunction with the wider renovation works. The applicant is Douglas Borough Council.
2.2 The site is, at present, almost entirely bounded by lollipop fencing, with a pair of inward- opening gates formed by sections of Heras fencing. The lollipop fencing does not completely surround the site, and it returns across the back of the site roughly 3.5m from its rearmost edge. As such, the fencing directly bounds adjacent dwellings to the sides but not to the rear.
2.3 The applicant feels that the proposal complies with the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) (Temporary Use or Development) Order 2015 in that the site's use as storage should (in the applicant's view) be considered as "adjoining" the wider renovation works being undertaken. The Temporary PDO does indeed allow for the use of land for such storage purposes for a period of 24 months when the land is adjoining that on which a proposed development has received planning approval. It is the Department's view that the word 'adjoining' would, on a reasonable reading, would be taken as being 'adjacent', or 'directly adjoining'. In this case some of the properties being renovated are some distance from the application site and there are occupied residential properties in between. However, despite feeling aggrieved with this conclusion, the applicant has submitted the application anyway, and in doing so seeks approval for the use until September 2020, which is of course longer than the Temporary PDO would allow for in any case.
==== PAGE 2 ====
16/01108/B
Page 2 of 7
2.4 The applicant goes on to explain that there is nowhere else on the northern part of the housing estate to provide what is stated as being an essential storage area. The site is located so as to reduce vehicle movements across the site as a whole, and preventing it from being used as such will considerably increase traffic movements "to the detriment of public safety". The site is visited on average ten times per day to load or unload materials, and a banksman is always present when the site is in use and pedestrians are directed away from the area. (It is worth noting that, at the time of the site visit, the case officer found the gates open, the site accessible, and no banksman or other such official present.) The applicant indicates that the site has all the necessary safety signs in place.
2.5 The contractor's hours are between 8am and 5pm Monday-Friday, and between 8am and 12midday Saturday, but it is closed during school opening and closing hours [this is presumed to mean the times when children are on their way to, or from, school] as a safety precaution. The site is also closed on Sunday, Manx public holidays, TT week and the Christmas period.
2.6 The applicant explains that, should the planning application be refused, the site will not be redeveloped and will become fenced off, unmaintained and overgrown "until all statutory paperwork, capital funding and a suitable contractor was in place to commence with construction".
2.7 The applicant also outline the specifics of all the renovation works, both internally and externally, and requires it to "be acknowledged that the Council is investing millions of pounds in its Willaston housing stock".
2.8 Finally, the applicant indicate that a lesser time period, while not ideal, "would be gratefully accepted which would assist tremendously with the current and future Willaston construction activity".
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The renovation works were approved under PA 15/00426/B. There was also an application recently before the Planning Committee that sought approval for the redevelopment of a smaller part of the Willaston Estate (PA 16/00775/B) for 41 sheltered apartments.
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4.1 The application site is located within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential on the Douglas Local Plan.
4.2 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.
4.3 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; (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."
==== PAGE 3 ====
16/01108/B
Page 3 of 7
4.4 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."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure offered no objection to the application on 28th October 2016:
"The proposal is to use an area of vacant land as a storage compound during maintenance works to houses on the estate.
"The method of working has been agreed with the Department and is working well.
"Highway Services does not oppose this application."
5.2 Douglas Borough Council decided to offer no objection to their application, in comments received 1st November 2016.
5.3.1 The occupier of 83 Snaefell Road, which is sited roughly 100m to the northeast on the same highway as the application site, objects to the application. In comments received 31st October 2016, they note they and their family have had to tolerate constant noise and inconvenience from the site, with noise starting as early as 7:30am as a result of a tele-handler going up and down the road and around the site. The site is mainly used for the storage of building materials, meaning that deliveries are made and collected from there. Wagons frequently block the street. The gateway of an elderly neighbour [the address is not specified] is completely blocked and he has received verbal abuse asking for it [what is not specified] to be removed. This is not a suitable place for such a facility, particularly when there is a much more suitable site already in use further down the road.
5.3.2 Other correspondence made in respect of this case also includes similar references to the comments above, but also notes different times for the noise being undertaken (7:15am-7:20am; 8am, including a Saturday morning), the fact the tele-handler is operated without a banksman and with its forks down. Concern was also made in respect of the lack of a 21-day stop notice; the curb has been lowered for access, requiring a planning application; no planning permission is in place for the larger site opposite the Methodist Church in Willaston but this is still a more suitable site and the use of the application site could be accommodated there by moving fences; this is causing distress to neighbours and members of the public, with reference made to some residents who are ill, recently undergone surgery and have not slept properly in five weeks; the bus stop is blocked by vehicles using the yard.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 It is to be borne in mind that the use to which the site is proposed to be put is, were the site in the position required by the Conditions of that PDO, one that has been considered acceptable in principle by the Department in certain circumstances. That those circumstances are not, as noted earlier, concluded to apply here is of course such as to mean that an application is required and it must be assessed as such.
6.2 The main issues are therefore considered to be whether the use is acceptable, with due regard had to how its use might affect neighbouring living conditions, and the length of time to which that use should be restricted.
6.3 It is undeniable that the use of land proposed will be less pleasant to live near relative to its previous use - that is, a pair of dwellings, and on a fairly quiet housing estate as well. There will be more comings and goings of large plant than was previously the case, more noise, more airborne
==== PAGE 4 ====
16/01108/B
Page 4 of 7
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 That this site is to be used in conjunction with approved works across the entire estate is to be remembered - and, moreover, it is also true that the whole estate is going to feel some level of disturbance along the lines raised above during the coming years. It is certain that some dwellings will feel that effect more than others, and the effect will be different depending on where the works take place. The positioning of the larger storage compound on the public open space, then, while on first appearances seeming to be really a rather unfortunate use of valuable amenity land, at least keeps worst of the effects a good distance from people's homes - even if the visual impact is clearly less than desirable.
6.5 The argument of the applicant that the refusal of this application would lead to the enlargement of the larger compound, and also to more vehicle journeys across the site. This is not considered to be a particularly problematic outcome of the application's refusal. The two sites are about 500m apart on an estate where the approved renovation works are approved to take place on 730 dwellings - it is not considered that a site as small as this will bring an overwhelming strategic benefit to the management of the renovation project.
6.6 Against that, though, it is noted that the applicant has spent time and money making the site appear in fairly good order (for a storage site), and so in some ways it would be strange were they to do this without particularly good reason. It is not known why the two houses previously in situ here were demolished.
6.7 All that being said, the key issue is really the extent to which the use that is proposed will have an acceptable impact on neighbouring living conditions. There is not proposed to be any (for example) manufacturing work undertaken on the site, which may be noisy, smelly or eject particulate matter. The use is to be entirely for the storage of plant and materials. That storage will be of inert materials, and so no leachate will find its way into the land, and nor is there likely to be any problematic pollution of the ground resulting - particularly since all the materials are likely to be stored in the short-term only.
6.8 The use of the site for the purpose intended, then, and subject to appropriate controls of opening hours, is considered to be acceptable. While this is may be disappointing and upsetting to immediate neighbours, it is concluded that there is insufficient harm, and perhaps a wider public benefit, that might be said to arise from the use of the site for the manner proposed that has to be balanced against the nearby and short-term impacts arising from the site's use for this purpose. This is considered to be the fundamental test, and not whether or not there is a better place for this use.
6.9 In light of the above, the good management and appearance of the site is paramount to ensuring its impact on neighbouring living conditions is kept to a suitable minimum. Accordingly, a number of conditions are recommended.
6.10 The applicant has requested a five year approval. This is considered to be too long a period, given the somewhat balanced foregoing assessment, and the impact of the proposal should be re- assessed before then. It is accordingly concluded that a condition limiting the approval to 24 months, which would match the period as set out in the Temporary PDO, would be appropriate. That period should commence from roughly the time that the yard was opened. No exact date is known, but it is believed to be mid-June. This is not to say that the development will be unacceptable after that period, but, rather, that a fresh assessment of the impact at that time would be appropriate to seek.
6.11 A condition limiting the opening hours to those set out by the applicant is recommended. A condition limiting the property to a single storage container is recommended. A condition preventing anything above 2.4m in height (except the storage container) being stored on the site is
==== PAGE 5 ====
16/01108/B
Page 5 of 7
recommended. A condition requiring there to be no manufacturing undertaken on the site is recommended. A condition requiring a remediation plan be provided to the Department at the end of the temporary approval period is recommended.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION 7.1 Subject to the conditions discussed, it is concluded that the application is acceptable and carries a recommendation to approve accordingly.
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 Highways Services of the Department of Infrastructure, and o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
8.2.1 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.
8.2.2 In this instance, it is considered that the following persons do not have sufficient interest and should not be awarded the status of an Interested Person:
o The occupier of 83 Snaefell Road, Douglas, which is roughly 100m from the application site and could not be said to be adversely affected by the use of this site for the use proposed.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 02.11.2016
Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The use hereby approved shall cease by 1st July 2018, and the site cleared of any storage materials by that date.
Reason: the use proposed is only temporary, and in view of its potential impact on neighbouring living conditions needs to be monitored.
C 2. The site shall not be used or open except between the hours of 8am and 5pm Monday to Fridays inclusive, and 12am to 5pm Saturdays. The site shall not be used or open Sundays, Bank Holidays, or during TT fortnight.
Reason: in the interest of protecting neighbouring residential amenity. C 3. No more than a single storage container may be located on the site at any one time.
Reason: in the interest of protecting public amenity.
==== PAGE 6 ====
16/01108/B
Page 6 of 7
C 4. Other than a single storage container nothing, either individually or collectively, in excess of 2.4m in height may be placed on the site.
Reason: in the interest of protecting public amenity.
C 5. No manufacturing shall take place on the site.
Reason: in the interest of protecting neighbouring residential amenity.
C 6. Within 28 days of the temporary use hereby ceasing, a remediation plan for the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. That remediation plan shall include a timescale for works and shall specify the landscaping for the site. The remediation plan shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: in the interest of protecting public amenity and neighbouring residential amenity.
The development hereby approved relates to Drawings PA/01 and PA/02, both date-stamped as having been received 22nd September 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: 14.11.2016
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 below
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.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 14.11.2016
Application No. : 16/01108/B Applicant : Douglas Borough Council Proposal : Creation of a temporary storage compound (retrospective) Site Address : Former Site Of 60 & 62 Snaefell Road Willaston Douglas Isle Of Man
==== PAGE 7 ====
16/01108/B
Page 7 of 7
Presenting Officer : Mr Edmond Riley
Addendum to the Officer’s Report
The Planning Committee noted that there was an error in the recommended times for the operation of the site on Saturdays as set out in Condition 2; this was agreed to be corrected. There was also discussion on the same condition as to whether or not the site's opening times should be restricted during the Christmas period, but it was noted that building sites tend to shut down for an extended period at this time of the year while there was also some concern that the use of the phrase 'Christmas period' in a planning condition would be insufficiently precise for monitoring / enforcement purposes. Accordingly, no alteration in this respect was made.
Reason for Refusal/Conditions of Approval Delete as appropriate
C 1. The use hereby approved shall cease by 1st July 2018, and the site cleared of any storage materials by that date.
Reason: the use proposed is only temporary, and in view of its potential impact on neighbouring living conditions needs to be monitored.
C 2. The site shall not be used or open except between the hours of 8am and 5pm Monday to Fridays inclusive, and 8am to 12noon Saturdays. The site shall not be used or open Sundays, Bank Holidays, or during TT fortnight.
Reason: in the interest of protecting neighbouring residential amenity.
C 3. No more than a single storage container may be located on the site at any one time.
Reason: in the interest of protecting public amenity.
C 4. Other than a single storage container nothing, either individually or collectively, in excess of 2.4m in height may be placed on the site.
Reason: in the interest of protecting public amenity.
C 5. No manufacturing shall take place on the site.
Reason: in the interest of protecting neighbouring residential amenity.
C 6. Within 28 days of the temporary use hereby ceasing, a remediation plan for the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. That remediation plan shall include a timescale for works and shall specify the landscaping for the site. The remediation plan shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: in the interest of protecting public amenity and neighbouring residential amenity.
The development hereby approved relates to Drawings PA/01 and PA/02, both date-stamped as having been received 22nd September 2016.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal