Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
17/01021/C Page 1 of 12
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 17/01021/C Applicant : Isle Of Man Fat Stock Marketing Association Limited Proposal : Change of use of part of upper floor from office use and meeting room to food retail and preparation of food products for retail at the premises Site Address : Ballafletcher House Ballafletcher Farm Road Cronkbourne Douglas Isle Of Man IM4 4QE
Case Officer : Mr S Butler Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 19.12.2017 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposal includes a significant retail element and is therefore contrary to Policy 2.5 of the 1991 Braddan Local Plan.
R 2. The proposal includes out-of-town retail and has not provided sufficient justification that either: the items could not be reasonably sold from a town centre location because of their size or nature; or the items are produced on the site and their sale could not reasonably be severed from the overall business. Futhermore, insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal would not detract from the vitality and viability of town centre shopping areas. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Strategic Plan (2016) Business Policy 5.
R 3. The proposal appears to make use of road-side parking and represents a reduction in the overall level of parking provision of the existing office use. On that basis it is not considered that the proposal has provided sufficient parking and is therefore considered contrary to Strategic Plan (2016) General Policy 2 (h) and Transport Policy 7.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
==== PAGE 2 ====
17/01021/C Page 2 of 12
It is recommended that the following should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
Isle of Man Creamery (who own the ground floor of the building which is the subject of the application); and
Douglas Borough Council (the application is within Braddan and so Braddan Commissioners automatically have IPS but Douglas BC do not. They have raised material planning issues in relation to how the application could impact on land within their jurisdiction).
It is recommended that the following persons should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
Wilson Consulting Limited (who raise concerns in relation to copyright) __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE
1.1 The site is the upper part of an existing two storey building which is situated very close to Ballafletcher Farm Road (which lies to the west) and has an access which comes from this road, to the south of the building and alongside which are several angled car parking spaces. To the east of the building is a car park which serves both the lower part of the building, which is directly accessible from it, and the wider area to the east which is occupied by Isle of Man Creameries and used for the processing of milk and production of milk-derived products as well as their distribution. To the North of the site are some currently vacant employment land and then the Meat Plant (abattoir).
1.2 The building has offices on the ground floor which are currently owned by Isle of Man Creamery Ltd. The building has a history of proposals for changes of use. The ground floor accommodation is a series of offices with a meeting room, filing room, store, kitchen and staircase leading up to the first floor which is in separate usage. The upper floor is laid out as five office rooms, a larger meeting room, kitchen and toilets and the stairs leading down to the ground floor. This amounts to around the same amount of floor area as the floor below.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Proposed is the change of use of the upper floor from offices to "food retail and preparation of Manx food products for retail at the premises principally in association with neighbouring industries" (question 12). The accommodation amounts to around 181 sq m of floorspace nett made up of:
2.2 A minimum of two people are to be employed. There are to be seven designated parking spaces with access suitable for disabled people. Opening hours are anticipated to be "Wed to Sat/Sun (few hours only)".
Business Model/Purpose
==== PAGE 3 ====
17/01021/C Page 3 of 12
2.3 The proposal is part of an initiative to make Manx food products, particularly locally produced meat, more readily available at a competitive price for purchase by the Manx public.
2.4 The statement indicates that many of the larger local grocery stores (specifically Co-Op, Marks and Spencer and Tesco) do not sell Manx meat and Shoprite only stock a small proportion of Manx meat, having recently taken to importing non-Manx meat. Some local butchers sell Manx meat. However it indicates that overall the market for abattoir products has shrunk from around 90% to around 25% (no detailed information is provided in relation to this point).
2.5 The operator of the proposed unit would be a subsidiary of the Isle of Man Fatstock Marketing Association and they would be selling product bought direct from the Meat Plant (abattoir). The statement indicates that all Manx meat whether sold in retail outlets or farm shops is produced initially from Manx farm stock that has been processed at the Meat Plant. It notes that Isle of Man Meats is a farmer run cooperative but the business proposed here would be separate but dependent on it and Meat would be bought at the same price as it is sold to other Island retailers.
2.6 They also hope that other farmers who sell their own produce through their own farm shops or through the Internet, would want to supply their goods to the shop for sale along with Isle of Man Creamery, Laxey Flour Mill and Ramsey Bakery (no information is provided as to the view of these other farmers and organisations on this aspect of the proposal, or whether any discussions have taken place).
2.7 It is anticipated that most of the custom will come from customers "who will make a quick stop ... possibly on route home from work". It notes that "many products will be bulky and weighty; therefore parking nearby is essential" however no further detail is provided on this point.
The Site 2.8 The statement notes that Ballafletcher House is an "ideal" position as it is within an employment area, close to residential areas and just off a key road.
2.9 A supporting letter/statement explains that the building has been empty for the last 3 years following the departure of the NFU, and that it has advertised through a local estate agency (although no details are provided in relation to how or for how long).
2.10 The statement argues that the use of the entire upper floor has not been in accordance with the local plan for over 10 years. It notes that the approval 13/00377/C (Change of use of entire upper floor to general office use) had been permitted since the Strategic Plan 2007 was adopted (Business Policy 5 is retained in the more recent 2016 iteration of that plan) and so the principle of a changes of use from that propose in the Local Plan has been established. The statement also argues that in all its uses the building has been used in connection with the food industry and so the proposal brings the building "back to its roots" in being closely associated with the food industry.
Retail Impact 2.11 It is suggested that the proposal will not impact other retailers because: the site is large enough for the purpose but not so large as to impact on other retailers (including those in Douglas Town Centre);
==== PAGE 4 ====
17/01021/C Page 4 of 12
3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Braddan Local Plan as Predominantly Industrial. The Policy at 2.5 of that plan states,
"No development or retail use, nor conversion of existing buildings to retail use, will be permitted in existing or future industrial areas".
3.2 Paragraph 3.3 of the Local Plan states,
"No additional office development will be permitted in the Braddan Parish District with the exception of those necessary for the functioning of an approved industrial development, including science-based industries, or where an individual office can be shown to be necessary solely for the needs of the local community. Conversion of existing structures will be preferred to new development"
3.3 The emerging Area Plan for the East is noted, but given the nature of the proposal, the current allocation and the relatively early stage of the area plan, it is not considered that the emerging area Plan is a material consideration, to have reached a stage as to be material in the consideration of this application.
3.4 Strategic Plan Policy Business Policy 5 states,
"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"
3.5 The supporting text is quoted by Douglas Borough Council in their representation, below, and so included here for ease of reference.
"9.2.4 Sites identified as suitable for Industry will generally also be suitable for the storage and distribution of goods, although, depending upon location with respect to other uses, the Department may restrict the goods stored by attaching the following condition: "The building(s) hereby approved may be used for storage and distribution. Approval does not extend to the use of the site for retail purposes or as a skip transfer station or for the storage or distribution of dangerous goods (as defined in the Road Traffic Act: Road Vehicles carrying Dangerous Goods (Maintenance and Use) Regulations 2000) or coal or items which could give rise to nuisance to adjacent land users by virtue of dust, noise or smell".
9.2.5 The Island's industrial estates have generally been used to accommodate only those uses described in paragraphs 9.2.3 and 9.2.4. More recently however, there has been pressure on Government to permit retailing within industrial areas, particularly those on the outskirts of Douglas. Following the development of the large-span "do it yourself" retail facility by B & Q in the Spring valley industrial estate in the mid 1980s, Tynwald took an immediate stance against out of town retailing by a resolution in 1987 which stated that "Positive steps should now be taken to revitalise existing town and village centres for the benefit of the whole community...and no further major out of town retailing developments should be permitted". The Braddan Local Plan adopted by Tynwald in 1991 reiterated this policy, and successive local and Area Plans have been formulated to concentrate retailing on existing centres in defined settlements - Castletown, Ramsey, Douglas, Peel, Port Erin, Onchan, Kirk Michael, Laxey and Port St. Mary.
==== PAGE 5 ====
17/01021/C Page 5 of 12
9.2.6 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 sufficient suitable land is available for industrial development. In any case, most industrial estates are unsuitable as environments for shopper".
3.6 Strategic Plan Business Policy 7 states,
"New office floor space should be located within town and village centres on land which is zoned for the purpose on the appropriate area plan; exceptionally, permission may be given for new office space (a) on approved Business Parks for Corporate Headquarters which do not involve day to day callers; or (b) in buildings of acknowledged architectural or historic interest for which office use represents the only or most appropriate practicable and economic way of securing future use, renovation and maintenance".
3.7 The relevant parts of Strategic Plan General Policy 2 are quoted below.
"General Policy 2: 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: ... (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; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan..."
3.8 Transport Policy 7 states,
"The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards".
3.9 The table within Appendix 7 sets out parking standards including:
3.10 Out-of-Town Retail is not supported by the Strategic Plan other than in certain given circumstances, and no parking standard is provided, however for Neighbourhood Shops it requires, "Spaces for staff, customers, and service vehicles".
3.11 Strategic Plan Environment Policy 22 states,
==== PAGE 6 ====
17/01021/C Page 6 of 12
"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".
4.0 OTHER POLICIES
4.1 The DEFA Food Strategy: A Food Business Development Strategy for the Isle of Man 2015-2025 sets out a strategic vision "Growing a sustainable, profitable and increasingly collaborative food (including seafood and beverages) supply chain, focused on meeting the needs of customers". It proposes development should take place along three parallel lines, including:
"2. Increased share of the local market to ensure that existing local produce can maximise market share and new products can be produced to competitively displace imports, contributing to food security and the economy and that through branding, Isle of Man quality is instantly recognised by the consumer and its quality and provenance guaranteed through testing and certification".
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY
5.1 Planning permission was granted under PA 87/04522/B for the construction of a building to accommodate the administration of the abattoir and creamery and a condition was attached requiring the use to be "in connection with the administration of the creamery or abattoir and shall not be let off in whole or in part at any time".
5.2 Since its construction and first occupation for these purposes, planning permission was sought for the change of use from the approved use to general offices. PA 95/01404/C was refused for the reason that:
"The environment around the building is of an industrial nature which can give rise to noise and smells. The site is thus unsuitable for general office use unconnected with these industrial uses. In any case, offices should be located in the central areas of the towns and villages unless the office use is location-dependent."
5.3 Permission was granted for the use of the upper floor for office purposes under PAs 06/00353/C, 01/01455/C and 00/00631/C. PA 00/00631 granted a change of use of upper floor for administration of Educational Services, in July 2000 for the use, with a Condition that the approval be restricted to an 18 month period only after which time the use must cease. The following application subsequently granted an unlimited time period, but with a personal approval. PA 01/01455/C proposed continued change of use of upper floor as office. This application granted an unrestricted term of use to "Include" for purposes of educational services for children excluded from school.
5.4 PA 13/00377/C granted a change of use of entire upper floor to general office use with a condition that,
"the associated parking spaces as shown in drawings 115/101/1.1 and 115/103 as general office use and the parking spaces shown in the approved drawings shall remain available for use in association with the use of the upper floor as general office accommodation".
5.5 The parking shown on plan 115/101.1 comprises 7 spaces to the South and four spaces to the East (within the Creamery Car Park) - the officer's report references 11 spaces.
==== PAGE 7 ====
17/01021/C Page 7 of 12
5.6 Evidence provided in an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Use (12/01675/LAW) demonstrated that the National Farmers' Union office was based on the ground floor there since 2000: NFU is an insurance company and was first constituted to serve the farming community. That application was approved.
5.7 In light of the above, it is considered that the authorised use of the building is two floors of separate office accommodation.
5.8 It is noted that in order to comply with the conditions attached to 13/00377/C four parking spaces would need to be used which are not included within either the red or blue lines of the current application. As noted in the letter from the agent (dated 16.11.17) these four spaces are within (i.e. the other side of) the security fencing which was the subject of application 17/00861/B. Indeed the applicant of the current application objected to application 17/00861/B for various reasons, including that four of the 11 dedicated parking spaces are within the proposed fencing boundary, seriously de-valuing the lower floor and making it impossible to let. The online advert states nine dedicated spaces are offered with the unit. The applicant for 17/00861/B responded to this noting that the parking offered with the letting is on a goodwill basis. The proposed fence would not prohibit the Creamery from making the spaces available and in any case is a matter for commercial debate between the owners and not a Planning matter.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 The application was originally publicised in October 2017. In November additional information was received from the applicant (date stamped 21/11/17) which responded to one of the points raised by the owners of the ground floor in their letter of objection (18.10.17 - summarised below) and a copy sent to those who had commented previously (DOI Highways, Braddan Commissioners, Douglas Borough Council, the Isle of Man Creamery Mr. Wilson) for information.
Highways 6.2 DOI Highways commented on 17.10.17 as follows,
"The proposal is to use offices on an industrial estate as a food preparation business and retail outlet. There is no parking standard within appendix 7 of the IoMSP for this use.
There is a car parking area associated with the offices that, according to the applicant can accommodate 7 cars. This is approximately half of that required for out of town office use. The development comprises the upper floor of a building that has car parking accessible from both levels due to the topography of the site. It is not clear if any of the car parking accessible from the lower floor is associated with the building. If the upper floor were to be used as offices with only the car parking available at the upper level then there will be a shortfall possibly leading to overflow parking on the adjacent highway.
With regard to the proposal there is no indication of the total number of staff who will be on site and thus may require car parking; the products are described as 'bulky and weighty' but there is no indication of the size of vehicles that will be used for deliveries and there ability to enter and exit the site in forward gear without impacting the car parking. Highway Services requests that the application is deferred to allow the applicant to provide additional information regarding staff numbers on site at any time; details of delivery vehicles including swept path diagrams demonstrating access and egress; confirmation that all of the parking originally allocated to the site is being made available".
6.3 It is noted that although not included with the application supporting statement, an e- mail was received from the agent on 16.09.17 which stated, "only 1 delivery vehicle would use
==== PAGE 8 ====
17/01021/C Page 8 of 12
the site at a time and not be parked there permanently so there is still plenty of parking within the site and demarcated on the roadside outside for anyone else".
Local Authorities 6.4 Braddan Commissioners objected on 12.10.17 on the grounds that the proposal was contrary to policy 2.5 of the 1991 Braddan Local Plan. On the 04.12.17 they wrote to say that they had no objection to the proposal (no reason was given). On 15.12.17 they were requested by phone to clarify why they had changed their position and on 19.12.17 they confirmed that their previous communication was an oversight and they wished to maintain their objection to the application.
6.5 Douglas Borough Council objected on 18.10.17 on the grounds that, given the zoning of the site within the Braddan Local Plan, the proposed use is not in accordance with the Strategic Plan Business Policies 5 and 10, and paragraphs 9.2.4, 9.2.5 and 9.2.6. They indicate that the consider the proposal would be detrimental to the retail specific zoning within Douglas and could set a dangerous precedent for future applications that could negatively impact upon local retail areas throughout the Isle of Man.
Others 6.6 Isle of Man Creamery (who own the ground floor of the building which is the subject of the application) objected on 18.10.17. They indicate that Ballafletcher House is jointly and equally owned by Ballafletcher Estate Ltd and the Isle of Man Fatstock Marketing Associated Ltd.
6.7 They have provided a letter (dated 13.09.17) from the applicant to them which appears to notify them of an intention to submit an application for a retail use.
6.8 The Creamery objects on the grounds that the notification did not reference meat processing, which they find unacceptable because:
6.9 It is noted that although not included with the application supporting statement, an e- mail was received from the agent on 16.09.17 which stated that the owners of the ground floor were consulted as a courtesy but as they do not own the upper-floor or parking area they do not own any part of the actual application site.
6.10 In response to the above letter of objection, a letter was received from the agent on 21.11.17 which explains why the 7 spaces referenced in the application should be seen as associated with the application site and that separate parking exists for the upper floor.
6.11 A separate letter was received from the applicant on 21.11.17 which raises procedural points in relation to an application from the owners of the ground floor and clarifies that access to the upper floor is direct from outside (they do not have access to the ground floor).
6.12 It is noted that a comment was received on 10.10.17 from a resident who has no direct interest in the site but indicated that the Agent has used drawings produced by Wilson
==== PAGE 9 ====
17/01021/C Page 9 of 12
Consulting Limited without the necessary consent. It is noted that the current agent explained how they have tried to deal with this (letter dated 16.11.17). Any potential copyright infringement in relation to plans is considered to be a private matter between the two agents and not material to the consideration of this application.
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.1 The proposal contains three elements - retail (including impact on other retail areas), processing (including impact on adjacent site and drainage concerns) and office. The principle of each of these is considered below. There are more general issues, including parking provision, employment land supply and delivery of the food strategy. The points raised in relation to procedural points and potential copyright infringement are not considered relevant for the purposes of the determination of the application.
Retail 7.2 The proposal is on land zoned for industrial use within the Braddan Local Plan, which is clear that retail will not be permitted on such zoned land. However, the Strategic Plan, which is more recent than the Braddan Plan, provides for retail on industrial land in one of two circumstances, as set out below.
7.3 (a) Items which could not reasonably be sold from a town centre location because of their size or nature. Clearly food sales can and do locate within town centres. The proposed use involves sale directly to members of their public, and envisages that some of these sales may be to commuters on their way home. Although reference is made to bulky goods, no detail has been provided in relation to this point. It is noted that there is a link between the proposal and the nearby Meat Plant, however given that the Meat Plant provides stock to butchers located within Town Centres (based on the application statement) this does not appear to be a justification for the location. It is therefore considered that insufficient information has been submitted which would demonstrate that the proposal could not be within an existing retail location.
7.4 (b) Items which are produced and sold on site and could not reasonably be severed from the overall business. The application provides limited justification as to why the two uses could not occur separately (especially as the proposal includes selling products from elsewhere on the Island).
7.5 The application argues that there will be no impact on existing shops or town centres, partly because they have chosen not to stock local products. If the statement in relation to the stocking of other business is correct, it is not considered to be a persuasive argument as it implies that people see local meat as an additional purchase to imported meat (i.e. people would continue to buy the same amount of imported meat and then buy local meat from the proposed development in addition to this). It has not been demonstrated that this is the case.
7.6 It is also argued that the scale of the unit would mean there was no impact. However, as Strategic Plan Policy 5 does not have a size threshold and the proposed use is not ancillary to another use, it is not considered that this is a persuasive argument, not least as if this approach were taken the cumulative impact could still be significant.
7.7 Finally, it is argued that as the site is away from retail areas it would not have an impact upon them. This appears to misunderstand the purpose of policies which direct retail growth to retail areas, which is in part to encourage complementary purchases.
7.8 It is therefore considered that the proposal does not comply with Policy 2.5 of the Braddan Local Plan or Business Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan (2016).
==== PAGE 10 ====
17/01021/C Page 10 of 12
7.9 In terms of the argument about non-compliance with zoning and a retail use associated with food being closer to the "roots" of the building than an office not associated with food, this is not accepted. The Strategic Plan allows for both office and retail on employment sites in specific circumstances. The building was originally proposed as ancillary offices for the adjacent site. Therefore it is not the building being used for the food industry, but its connection to the use of the adjacent site, which was the key aspect of its approval.
Processing (including impacts on adjacent site and drainage concerns) 7.10 Very limited information is provided within the application in relation to the processing element of the proposal. It is noted that the applicant submitted additional information in response to the letter of objection from the Isle of Man creamery, but only responds to the points about parking and ownership, rather than their concerns around environmental health and impacts on the office use of the ground floor and also the adjacent Creamery operations.
7.11 General Policy 2 (k) requires proposals to, "not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan...". Environment Policy 22 also outlines measures for the protection of the environment.
7.12 In terms of the impact of the proposed use on the ground floor office, it is noted that the planning history of the site suggests that a general office use has been to some extent resisted due to concerns about compatibility of uses and such uses being a departure from the adopted Local Plan. It would therefore seem unreasonable to refuse part of the site to be used for something which arguably reflects the wider existing/intended land use because it undermines the use of the ground-floor for offices.
7.13 However, the concerns about the impact on the Creamery are a separate matter. It is therefore not clear to what extent the processing is akin to an industrial use or whether it is more akin to the preparation for sale which may take place within a high-street butchers. However, given the proximity to the meat plan and that products from the meat plant are also provided to butchers, it is assumed that the latter is the case. Which would suggest that any detailed environmental health issues which are not addressed by complimentary regimes could be dealt with by condition.
7.14 General Policy 2 (j) requires proposals to be able to be, "provided with all necessary services". The matter of drainage was discussed verbally with the Head of Building Control on 15.12.17 who advised that Building Control approval is likely to be required for the proposed work (if regarded as conversion to commercial/shop) and that the matter of drainage would be considered as part of that, and it may be that if the drains are of sufficient capacity some form of grease may be sufficient to resolve the issue.
7.15 Therefore, on the basis that the processing for sale is akin to a high-street butchers it is not considered that this element is in-itself a reason for refusal on environmental/amenity grounds, but does mean that it should be regarded as a subservient use to the retail element, to which there is an objection in principle as set out above.
Office 7.16 The office element of the proposal, whether subservient to the retail use or stand- alone, does not comply with the Braddan Local Plan, however given the Planning History of the site and the existing use, it is not considered objectionable.
Parking 7.17 The Strategic Plan parking requirements for out-of-town office (1 space for every 15 square metres of nett floor space) applied to the proposed 30 sqm would result in a requirement for 2 spaces. The Strategic Plan parking requirements for light industrial applied to the processing element (1 space per 30 square metres nett floor space) applied to the
==== PAGE 11 ====
17/01021/C Page 11 of 12
proposed 58 sqm would result in a requirement for 1.93 spaces. This would leave 3 spaces available for the retail element (for staff, customers and service vehicles).
7.18 It is noted that Highway Services on 17.10.17 requests that the application, "is deferred to allow the applicant to provide additional information regarding staff numbers on site at any time; details of delivery vehicles including swept path diagrams demonstrating access and egress; confirmation that all of the parking originally allocated to the site is being made available".
7.19 Additional information has not been requested from the applicant, although it is noted that the agent did provide a response to a different letter of objection on the 16.11.17 which clarifies that the proposal did not include the 4 parking spaces adjacent the ground floor originally associated with the use of the site. It is noted that the supporting statement (date stamped received 18/09/17) does clarify that there will be a "minimum of two part-time people", which does suggest that there could be more. It is noted that although not included with the application supporting statement, an e-mail was received from the agent on 16.09.17 which indicates that only 1 delivery vehicle would be use the site at a time and will not be permanently parked there, "so there is still plenty of parking both within the site and demarcated on the roadside outside for anyone else".
7.20 It would therefore appear that the proposal expects to make use of road-side parking and represents a reduction in the overall level of parking provision of the existing office use. On that basis it is not considered that the proposal has provided sufficient parking.
Employment Land Supply 7.21 Planning Approval 13/00377/C was for, "Change of use of entire upper floor to general office use". The Officer's report notes that the Braddan Commissioners did not object, that the applicant was the operator of the adjacent site (the Creameries) and so conflicts between the two uses were unlikely and assess the proposal against Strategic Plan Business Policy 7 (which relates to office development). It has therefore been demonstrated that the use of the site for office (and the resulting opportunity cost of the site not being available for manufacturing or warehousing and distribution uses) is acceptable. It is not considered that the approval for office use given under 13/00377/C is relevant for considering a retail use (as is suggested by the applicant).
7.22 It is noted that the Employment Land Review (2016) indicates that there is a shortfall of employment land within the East, and that the demand for employment land is based on manufacturing, warehousing and distribution and out-of-town office. However, given the size of the site, the nature of the existing use and that the proposed use retains a use for offices, it is not considered that the element of the scheme which results in a loss of office space is sufficient to warrant refusal.
Food Strategy 7.23 The proposal would seem to support delivery of the Food Strategy, which weighs in its favour. However it is not clear why the proposal could not be carried out in an alternative location which would still support delivery of the Food Strategy but also resolve/avoid some or all of the concerns outlined above.
8.0 CONCLUSION
8.1 The proposal could support the delivery of the Food Strategy, and that is to be welcomed. However there are clear policy concerns in relation to the proposed location of the development, and insufficient justification has been provided to demonstrate that these can be outweighed by the operational requirements of the development or its facilitation of delivery of the Food Strategy.
==== PAGE 12 ====
17/01021/C Page 12 of 12
8.2 Concerns exist in relation to the impact of the development on the adjacent Creamery operations, if these were the only concern then these could potentially be overcome by further information or condition. Given the in-principle concerns to the development these issues have not been further explored and are not given as a reason for refusal.
8.3 Concerns exist in relation to parking and, again, although further information could perhaps reduce these concerns, although it is not clear that they could be resolved. Therefore, given the in-principle concerns to the development these issues have not been further explored and are given as a second reason for refusal.
9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) 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; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
9.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Director of Planning and Building Control in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Refused Date : 28.12.2017
Determining officer
Signed : J CHANCE
Jennifer Chance
Director of Planning and Building Control
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