Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
16/01252/B
Page 1 of 17
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 16/01252/B Applicant : IOM Government Department Of Health & Social Care Proposal : A multi use, social care development for adults with learning difficulties, consisting of a day care facility with management offices; industrial training facility (ERIC Unit); horticultural training facility; cafe and retail unit. Site Address : Proposed Eastcliffe Healthcare Facility Old Ballamona Farmhouse Complex Strang Douglas Isle Of Man
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 23.11.2016 Site Visit : 23.11.2016 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OWING TO THE SCALE AND NATURE OF THE PROPOSAL AND ALSO BECAUSE IT MAY BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is an irregularly shaped parcel of land bounded to the northwest by Ballaoates Road, to the southwest by a single residential dwelling ('Harold Cottage') and also by the land the subject of the recent planning approval for a new office for Braddan Commissioners and associated healthcare and leisure uses, and to all other compass points by land and buildings associated with Noble's Hospital.
1.2 Within the site are a number of buildings and land uses, which historically comprised the Department of Health and Social Care's (DHSC) estate offices and workshops, along with grounds maintenance buildings as well as the Eastcliffe Resource Industrial Centre (ERIC), which is a 'social firm' designed to provide work-based activities for adults with learning difficulties.
1.3 The most attractive of the buildings on the site is the Ballamona Farmhouse, which until recently provided office space for the DHSC's estate management team. Government recently moved to a 'centralised' estates function across all Departments, located in Peregrine House in Douglas, and some of the resulting vacant office space within the Farmhouse is temporarily occupied by some hospital support services.
1.4 The Farmhouse is unusual in shape and form and has clearly been much-altered since its original construction at least 150 years ago, with the most striking element being the prominently hipped roof on the maintenance store. Indeed, it is clearly formed of at least two but perhaps as many as six separate elements of historic fabric that have been joined together or form extensions.
1.5 The other buildings within the site are much more utilitarian in appearance in a manner that reflects the associated uses described above. Perhaps of most historic interest is an older, two- storey warehouse building. This has at some point been re-roofed with a zinc finish and the building appears to be of blockwork construction. There is nothing to indicate it requires any
==== PAGE 2 ====
16/01252/B
Page 2 of 17
particular protection. The existing greenhouse and warehouse buildings, along with a polytunnel, shipping containers and huts / mobile offices - though largely well-maintained - are functional in both use and appearance.
1.6 Given this variety of building styles, forms, ages and positions on the site, a simple characterisation is not straightforward: however, as a whole the site definitely feels underused and is almost without question the least attractive element of the Noble's Hospital estate. This is not to say that such an appearance is unsurprising given the uses on the site. It is, however, noted that many trees sit on the boundary of the site and within the Noble's hospital estate generally: this, along with the land falling away from the vehicular routes through the estate, helps mask the site quite significantly from view. The Farmhouse is prominent by virtue of its position nearest a vehicular route, while glimpses are also possible of the other buildings behind the Farmhouse and through the trees.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the redevelopment of the site as an adult learning facility with associated uses. The applicant is the DHSC. The four main components of the scheme are set out in a Design Statement with the application. Although the site is intended to be operated as a single entity, for ease of reference the four main components are set out below.
An Adult Day Service
2.2.1 A new-build 'Adult Day Service' building would replace the existing Eastcliffe Resource Centre currently located on Victoria Road in Douglas. This would provide additional features over those currently provided from the Victoria Road site with a view to meeting the future needs of the DHSC and its service users.
2.2.2 Within this building would be offices, group rooms, psychologist consultation room, multi- space uses and associated facilities such as shower rooms, toilets and kitchens, while the central element of the building annotated as being an 'Activity Hub'; tables providing 24 covers are also shown. This would be open to the public Monday to Saturday 8am to 6:30pm, with occasional evening functions wholly associated with the day care service facility.
2.2.3 The Day Service facility proposed is formed of two distinct 'wings' sat either side of a central, double-height element of massing that has a prominent, curved exterior wall. The western of the two wings would be two storeys in height. The building would have a varied external treatment, with self-coloured render and cedar cladding used on the walls and grey-coloured Kingspan roof sheeting. The window arrangement proposed is generally consistent, although there are some unusually tall frames set within larger apertures. The roof would be largely dual-pitched but at varying and fairly low angles. The central 'hub' has a pair of angled, mon-pitched roofs at different heights, with the apex separated by a vertical wall with clerestory glazing set within it, with an intention of bringing as much natural light into the building as possible. Also shown is a wooden pergola running the full length of the staggered rear elevation of the building, which is designed to act as a solar shade. The Design Statement explains that this building has been designed so as to complement the recently approved Braddan Commissioners building on the neighbouring site, but also to reflect the distant blue / grey rolling hills and landscape.
2.2.4 The scheme also includes external amenity space in association with this particular building, the majority of which is given over to a garden area and much of which is treed. The Design Statement explains that there is also a terraced area and these together could potentially act as an interface with the wider community facilities while also acting as an informal external display space for some of the goods intended for production within the ERIC Social Firm.
A Social Firm: the 'Eastcliffe Resource Industrial Centre'
2.3.1 A new-build 'Social Firm ERIC Unit' would replace that which is existing on the site.
==== PAGE 3 ====
16/01252/B
Page 3 of 17
The phrase 'Social Firm' in this instance refers to a division of the Adult Service that organises and delivers a "work-based programme of activities for Service Users", which includes the processing of metalwork, woodwork and the creation of textiles on working looms. While the goods produced would be offered for sale, this would be on a 'not-for-profit' basis with the producers of the goods being the service users of the Social Firm - that is, adults with learning difficulties.
2.3.2 To accommodate these uses, specific rooms for each are proposed, along with associated amenity rooms - manager's office, changing rooms, meetings rooms, plant rooms, stores and a canteen.
2.3.3 The building, which would be formed of three steel portal-framed elements, is single storey and would have the appearance of an industrial unit. In plan form it would take the form of a very elongated capital 'H', with four gable walls at the ends of each of the spines of the 'H'. The render finish to the walls would be self-coloured, both a light green and white, with the roof finished in an identical material to the Day Service Facility but coloured an olive green. Above 2.25m in height on the gable walls the finish would be the same as the roof. The roof itself would have a 20-degree pitch, while a number of rooflights are also proposed within it. The Design Statement is clear that the functional aesthetic of the building is intentional as it is appropriate for it to reflect its working / training nature.
2.3.4 Externally, there is to be a small yard / loading area and associated container, along with a number of car parking spaces.
Garden Centre
2.4.1 A new-build 'Greenfield Garden Centre' would replace the existing garden centre on Glencrutchery Road. This would be run "predominantly" as a social / training facility for service users on a non-commercial basis. Comprising this element of the scheme is a number of buildings and structures: a mess / briefing room, a canvas canopy, a fishpond, three polytunnels, a collection of chicken coops, a collection of several raised planting / display beds, a potting shed and a tool store. This would be open to the public Monday to Saturday 8am to 7pm, and on Sundays 10am to 6pm.
2.4.2 The three polytunnels would be identical in size (14m by 6m), form and materials, formed of a mixture of steel tubing and trusses and covered with polyethylene. The mess / briefing room would be a timber cabin measuring just below 9m by 5.5m with a pitched roof. The potting shed (4.5m by 2.5m) would also be timber with a pitched roof, while the tool shed (4.1m by 2.1m) would be formed of steel and cuboidal. Details of the raised planting beds, fish pond and chicken coops / run have been provided in plan form only, but the application has been submitted with a proposed site layout showing all of these, and this is considered sufficient on which to assess the application. There would be a maximum of 36 chickens on the site, none of which would be cockerels.
2.4.3 The area surrounding much of this will be concrete hardstanding, while a gravelled car park is also shown, which would sit between the Garden Centre and ERIC Social Firm building. This would be the main car park for public use. The hardstanding areas would have ramps to allow for disabled access.
Renovation works and extension to the Ballamona Farmhouse
2.5.1 Finally, part of the existing Ballamona Farmhouse would be refurbished and extended to provide a non-commercially operated café and retail facility: both of these would be associated with the DHSC 'social firm' that the overall scheme is intended to rationalise on this site.
2.5.2 The building at present provides office use for the DHSC, along with a maintenance and storage component. Under the proposals, office use would be retained throughout the first floor of the building, while parts of the 'barn conversion' element along with the existing maintenance and
==== PAGE 4 ====
16/01252/B
Page 4 of 17
storage component would be converted into a café and shop respectively. The café would have 28 covers internally, with four benches shown in front of the building along with a raised planting bed set within block paviours. Again, the café and shop elements would be operated on a 'not-for-profit' basis, with employees all being service users of the site. The intention is for the shop to sell goods produced within the ERIC Social Firm facility, with the café to use produce grown on the Garden Centre. The café and shop would be open Monday to Saturday 9am to 6pm and Sunday 10am to 6pm.
2.5.3 The kitchen, along with WCs and small store rooms, would be provided within an extension proposed to the rear of the 'barn conversion' element of the building. This would run for roughly half the rear length of this section of the building, and would be entirely clad in vertically laid cedar. The pitched roof would again be finished in a grey-coloured Kingspan roof sheeting, identical to that proposed elsewhere across the site.
Other matters to note
2.6 The shop, café (and associated kitchen) and garden centre would be staffed largely by the intended service users of the Eastcliffe site - that is, adults with learning difficulties.
2.7 As outlined previously, although there are four distinct elements to the proposal they are all intended to be operated in conjunction with one another - and also by the DHSC, much as the existing uses are already elsewhere on the Island. Along with the Design Statement, the application has been submitted with a 'Planning Statement Relating to Drainage' and also a Landscape Masterplan for the site. The Masterplan contains useful information regarding the kind of species of trees, shrubs and hedging plants intended for the site but does not contain - for example - a planting specification. Accordingly, the Masterplan itself would not be specific or detailed enough to be enforceable and, should the application be approved, a condition seeking further details on this would probably be well-advised.
2.8 Some 79 car parking spaces are proposed across the site, plus another seven minibus / tipper van spaces, which also double up to provide 14 visitor / drop-off spaces to cater for visitors to the site. The Design Statement includes a Transport Statement that outlines the parking requirements, which is judged to be 65 overall (28 for the Day Centre, 13 for the café / shop, nine for the ERIC Unit, and six for the Garden Centre, plus another nine parking spaces for the offices on the Farmhouse).
2.9 Parking for people with disabilities is spread throughout the site and all spaces are accessible via graded footpaths without steps.
2.10 An amended Proposed Site Plan that showed additional footpaths within the site was received following negotiation with Highway Services (see paragraph 5.1, below). This was circulated to the interested parties.
3.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The site has been the subject of a number of applications over the years; none has been submitted since the adoption of the Strategic Plan in 2007, but a number were submitted following the adoption of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) (Government Owned Land) Order 2012. None is considered to be specifically material to the assessment of this application, but it is worth noting them as they help indicate the evolution of the site from a farm and a hospital into the current uses operating from the site.
o 05/01200/B - Create workshop and associated facilities for the disabled at the Ballamona Farmhouse o 99/00441/B - Refurbishment of workshop and staff canteen at the Ballamona Farmhouse o 99/00440/B - Alterations to agricultural building at the Ballamona Farm
==== PAGE 5 ====
16/01252/B
Page 5 of 17
o 96/01078/B - Refurbishments and alterations to existing farmhouse and outbuildings at Ballamona Hospital Farm o 98/01722/B - Refurbishment of storage building, Ballamona Hospital Farm o 98/00039/C - Change of use of agricultural building to workshops and material stores at Ballamona Hospital o 99/01719/B - Refurbishment of farmhouse and outbuildings, including the installation of replacement uPVC windows and doors and conversion of barn to offices at Ballamona Farmhouse o 92/00854/B - Construction of greenhouse at Home Farm, Ballamona Hospital o 92/01662/B - Creation of a midden at the Ballamona Farmhouse
3.2 The Planning Committee may recall having approved PA 16/00601/B, which was for the "erection of a multipurpose Community Centre incorporating Braddan Commissioners offices / headquarters with associated car parking and landscaping". That application was, coincidentally, submitted by the same architectural team as the application now before the Committee, and hence there are some design parallels between the two schemes.
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND RELEVANT LEGISLATION 4.1 The site would appear to fall within an area zoned as 'Ballamona Hospital' on the Braddan Local Plan, which was adopted in 1991. Accompanying this designation is a recommendation within the Braddan Local Plan Written Statement that a long-term strategy for the Hospital be prepared. This has evidently been overtaken somewhat by events, and there has even been the grant of permitted development rights for the wider Noble's Hospital Site, the accompanying text for which reads in full as follows:
"1 Permitted development
"Operations within the area shown by a thick black line on the map attached to this Schedule consisting of the following classes of development -
(a) the erection of buildings (b) the enlargement or alteration of existing buildings; and (c) the construction of roads, footpaths, car parks, or other paved areas.
"2 Conditions
(1) The operations must be carried out on behalf of, or by the Department of Health, and be for purposes incidental to the use of the site as a hospital. (2) No trees may be felled as a consequence of the development; and (3) There must be no overall loss of parking spaces as a consequence of the development."
4.2 No trees are to be felled as part of the application, while the end-user is the DHSC. However, while some of the buildings proposed in respect of this application may be considered as being 'incidental' to the use of the wider site as a hospital, not all are - and even then such a conclusion would not unreasonably be subject to scrutiny. It was therefore concluded that a full application for the entirety of the works should be submitted such that they could all be assessed together and consideration of the relationship between the uses made.
4.3 In view of the above, it is considered appropriate to assess the application against General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan, which sets out general criteria to be met in applications seeking approval for development on land zoned for that specific kind of development. Strategic Policies 3 and 5, Community Policies 2 and 3, Environment Policies 17, 18 and 42, Business Policy 10 and Transport Policies 6 and 7 also provide important assessment points.
4.4 General Policy 2 reads, in part, as follows: "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:
==== PAGE 6 ====
16/01252/B
Page 6 of 17
(b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan."
4.5 Environment Policy 17: "The development of buildings and other facilities associated with nurseries and market gardens will only be permitted where:
(a) any built development is of a scale, form, design and material in keeping with the character of its surroundings; (b) any development does not unacceptably affect residential amenity or local highway conditions; (c) there is no adverse impact on the character or appearance of the area or a requirement for significant highway alterations; and (d) if appropriate, those buildings are erected away from public highways and are screened from public gaze."
4.6 Environment Policy 18: "Retailing from farms, market gardens and nurseries (excepting ancillary sales of produce grown thereon) will be subject to the Department's general retail policies."
4.7 It is also worth noting the paragraphs supporting Environment Policies 17 and 18:
"7.14.1 The use of land for horticulture, market gardens or nursery grounds is common on the Island and often found on sites in the urban fringe or free-standing in the countryside. Such uses can contribute to the economic activity of rural areas, but the requirement for buildings and adequate access and parking spaces means that such developments can be intrusive in the countryside. The development and expansion of such sites needs to be carefully managed particularly where there are traffic implications and in order to prevent the proliferation of buildings, which may include growing tunnels and external displays and greenhouses, leading to an adverse impact on the character of such areas."
"7.14.2 Selling the produce grown in a market garden or a nursery from the site may not constitute development, but retailing other products does, and will be subject to the Department's general retail policies."
4.8 Environment Policy 42 reads: "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans."
4.9 Community Policy 2 reads: "New community facilities should be located to serve the local population and be accessible to non-car users, and should where possible re-use existing vacant or underused buildings."
4.10 Community Policy 3 reads: "Development (including the change of use of existing premises) which results in the loss of a local community facility (other than shops and public houses) will only
==== PAGE 7 ====
16/01252/B
Page 7 of 17
be permitted if it can be demonstrated that it is no longer practical or desirable to use the facility for its existing use or another use likely to benefit the local community."
4.11 Transport Policy 6 reads: "In the design of new development and transport facilities the needs of pedestrians will be given similar weight to the needs of other road users."
4.12 Transport Policy 7 reads: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards."
4.13 Strategic Policy 3 reads: "Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by:
(a) avoiding coalescence and maintaining adequate physical separation between settlements; and (b) having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character."
4.14 Strategic Policy 5 reads: "New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies."
4.15 Business Policy 10 reads: "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." (Business Policy 5 refers to only land zoned for industrial uses, and therefore does not apply here.)
4.16 Transport Policy 8 requires that applications for major development require the submission of a Transport Assessment; the matters required to be covered in a TA are considered to be covered in the Traffic Statement submitted with the application.
4.17 Unlike the recently approved Braddan Commissioners Offices, the kind of development proposed here is not specified in Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan as being one that would ordinarily require the submission of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). No EIA has therefore been sought.
5.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure engaged in negotiation with the agent to the application to address what was judged to be a lack of connectivity within the scheme and also relative to the surrounding land / buildings. On 24th January 2017, commenting on the amended plans described above but which had yet to be received and circulated by this Department, they offered no objection to the application as follows:
"The proposal is to relocate several facilities that are located within Douglas to a single site within the Nobles Hospital site, access will be via the Nobles Hospital internal road network.
"The facilities are primarily for the care of adults with complex needs and will be provided in 3 main buildings with a garden centre and greenhouses. There will be sufficient maneouvring space for service vehicles and adequate car parking for staff and visitors to the site. Many if the service users are provided with transport to and from the site, some are dropped off/picked up by carers and some may use public transport.
"The location for the complex has been chosen in part to allow the service users easy access to the other facilities provided on the Nobles Hospital site.
"The submitted plans do not indicate adequate pedestrian provision either through the site, linking the buildings or between the site and the adjacent hospital facilities. Safe pedestrian links are
==== PAGE 8 ====
16/01252/B
Page 8 of 17
particularly important for this application due to the requirements of the service users who may have specific needs with regard to mobility.
"Following discussions with the architect and project manager an amended scheme has been agreed and will be submitted to the planning authority. Highway Services does not oppose this application subject to the approval by the planning authority of an amended pedestrian provision."
5.2 The Arboricultural Officer of the Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture was contacted for his views. On 9th December 2016, he confirmed no objection to the application but sought a condition as follows:
"No development shall commence until a tree planting specification, in accordance with the recommendations of BS8545:2014, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The tree planting and post planting maintenance shall be carried out as approved. If, within 5 years of planting, any of the trees is cut down, uprooted, removed, destroyed or dies or becomes, in the opinion of the Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective, another tree of the same species shall be planted at the same location."
5.3 The Drainage and Flooding officers within Manx Utilities were contacted for their views. They advised on 6th December 2016 that, "the applicant is required to submit full details of the drainage layout prior to the commencement of works". As layouts of the foul and surface water drainage were submitted with the application, it is concluded that the 'full details' sought by the MU relate to engineering matters and which can be addressed via the addition of an appropriate planning condition to the decision notice should the application be approved.
5.4 Braddan Parish Commissioners offered no objection to the application on 30th November 2016.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 Although the proposed development might not comply with the strict conditions as set out in the Permitted Development Order with respect to government-owned land, it is considered that the majority of the uses proposed within the application do comply with the Local Plan zoning for the site and moreover reflect the existing use to no small degree. With a scheme as varied as this, however, it is perhaps unsurprising to find certain elements - notably the café, shop and garden centre - are not in compliance with the zoning for the site and, moreover, could be said to conflict with some of the policies of the Strategic Plan. It is with this in mind that it is helpful to be in a position to assess the proposed buildings and uses as an holistic, rather than piecemeal, exercise.
6.2 It is considered that the key issues are (a) whether or not the principle of the uses proposed is acceptable, (b) whether or not the design of the buildings is acceptable, both in terms of their physical appearance and also their effect on neighbouring uses, (c) whether or not the effect on highway safety in the area is acceptable, (d) whether or not drainage and flood risk has been adequately addressed and, finally, (e) whether or not the landscaping masterplan is acceptable. Each is addressed in turn.
Whether or not the principle of the uses proposed is acceptable
6.3 As noted above, the majority of the uses proposed are considered to comply with the site's zoning on the Braddan Local Plan, even if to reach this conclusion quite a wide reading of the definition of 'Hospital' is needed. While to many people there will not be a clear symmetry between a Hospital and 'healthcare', there is perhaps a clearer link between the provision of services and facilities for adults with learning difficulties and healthcare. The predominant element of the development proposal, which is considered to be the ERIC Social Firm, already operates from the site.
==== PAGE 9 ====
16/01252/B
Page 9 of 17
6.4 The day centre, while not currently operating from the site, is an existing use elsewhere on the Island and, it is understood, has many of the same end-users as does ERIC. There is clear synergy between these two uses. Moreover, it should not be ignored that the entirety of the site will be administered by the DHSC, which is the applicant and landowner.
6.5 It is therefore concluded that the principle of the ERIC Social Firm and Adult Day Centre, without necessarily wholly in compliance with the land use zoning, is nevertheless linked to such uses. That the DHSC have confirmed that this land is not required by or for Noble's Hospital gives further reason to conclude that these two uses are, in principle, acceptable for this location. This latter point is an important one. The Planning Directorate needs to be assured that the approval of this application will not result in near-future applications for buildings outside of the land zoned for Hospital use because there is no longer sufficient available land. With this in mind, the DHSC and the agent to the application were contacted.
6.6 The architect offered the following comments in respect of the need for the existing land to be retained for specifically Hospital-related uses:
"As the site has been used for many years as a support function for the Nobles Hospital Estate, and for the last 16 years as the DHSC Estates offices, stores and workshops, the area of land has not been part of the patient care provision portfolio, with the exception of the area in which the ERIC Unit has been sited here and operating for the last decade or so. The proposed uses are more closely related to health facilities, particularly as the thrust of the scheme is to bring adults with learning difficulties into a location which makes it simpler to provide such adults with the support they need in accessing more acute and primary healthcare facilities. The location of the site on the fringe of the acute hospital site, and adjacent to the largest GP surgery on the Island, and the Dental, Pharmacy & Optician's facilities to be provided by the adjacent Braddan Community Development, will allow the DHSC to provide a significantly better healthcare outcome to adults with learning difficulties, who as outlined in Mr Carey's document, have significantly lower outcomes in seeking and obtaining healthcare support, and therefore suffer worse health as a result. The argument could therefore be made that there is an underlying healthcare benefit in outcomes for adults with learning difficulties, and therefore the scheme has as much to do with health provision as social care, which therefore warrants the use of the site for such purposes."
6.7 The Operational Lead (Adult Social Care) within the DHSC provided a helpful document explaining the basis of, and need for, the proposed development. The relevant points are set out below:
"Significant improvements have been made in services for people with learning disabilities, with more people now leading full and rewarding lives. Over the lifetime of the first Learning Disability Strategy, significant improvements were made, with increased opportunities for people to choose how and where they live and how they spend their days. The second Learning Disability Strategy [launched in 2014] is about how we can improve things even further with a stronger focus on four key themes, housing, employment, health and inclusion."
"The majority of Day Services are currently provided at Eastcliffe Resource Centre. Eastcliffe was originally a large family home constructed over 100 years ago... Over the years the evolution of Day Services has resulted in a variety of extensions and adaptations that now make it virtually impossible to make any further significant changes.
"The model of provision for Day Services has also changed over time and strategically the focus is now on providing meaningful day time activity that encompasses a greater focus on employment opportunities. Importantly a model of employment for service users is currently provided on the proposed site at the former Ballamona Farm (ERIC Unit).
"Day Services for adults with a learning disability are currently provided across four main sites, Eastcliffe Resource Centre, Greenfield Garden Centre, Eastcliffe Resource Industrial Centre (ERIC)
==== PAGE 10 ====
16/01252/B Page 10 of 17
and Mooragh View in Ramsey. This planning application sets out proposals to replace Eastcliffe and together move Greenfield Garden Centre and ERIC onto the one site. The economies of scale in bringing together the "Day Centre" and two work sites into the one area which will enable a more efficient use of staffing resources.
"There are presently no suitable facilities at the Eastcliffe building which means it does not comply with the Regulation of Care Act 2013. The land currently proposed for this development is owned by the Department of Health and Social Care and therefore developing Day Services on this site will ensure we provide quality and value for money for the tax payer of the Isle of Man.
"A number of site options were considered for this development and for a variety of reasons, including risk, all of the sites have been determined as being unsuitable.
"While Adult Social Care initially favoured redevelopment on a green field site the Department of Health and Social Care has approved the use of the former Estates complex buildings and site area for the development of this capital scheme. The tangible benefits in the use of this particular land are:
(i) The economies of scale in bringing together the "Day Centre" and two work sites into the one area which will enable a more efficient use of staffing resources. (ii) There are existing horticultural facilities on this site which will assist in the transfer and growth of Greenfield Garden Centre. (iii) Equally, the transfer of Greenfield Garden Centre also provides the required synergy with existing DHSC capital schemes that include the refurbishment / re-build on the Radcliffe Villas site on land which could be made available by the relocation of Greenfield Garden Centre. (iv) The land is available to the Department for the construction of a new "Day Centre" which will enable greater access for adults with complex learning and physical disabilities. (v) There are clear synergies with both primary and secondary health care facilities on this site that in the long term will improve both the access to services and the health of people with learning disabilities living on the Isle of Man. (vi) The proposed new development and reuse of existing buildings will also offer an opportunity for environmental improvements relative to existing accommodation."
"What is abundantly clear is that parents and carers want services that meet the needs of service users, irrespective of who provides them. It is the quality of the service that is of paramount importance. We believe that a modern, flexible and diverse range of Day Services will improve the options available to adults with Learning Disabilities.
"Existing Day Services have been in place for a considerable time and have seen a significant improvement in the quality of life for those people who access the Departments services. Fundamental to the development of those services is ensuring that they are delivered in buildings that are both fit for purpose and compliant with the standards laid out in the Regulation of Care Act."
6.8 Collectively, these comments are extremely helpful and comforting. While it remains somewhat unclear as to whether or not the strategic needs of Noble's Hospital have been considered in coming to this conclusion, the application proposals nevertheless reflect a defined need within a strategic assessment of a particular element of care provision.
6.9 There are, however, other matters for consideration: namely whether or not the café, shop and garden centre are acceptable here.
6.10 In respect of the first question, it is noted that the architect has been at pains to stress the 'not-for-profit' nature of the shop, garden centre and café. Each of these represents a different Use Class, and the former and latter are uses are certainly those that would normally be directed towards existing town / retail centres, and therefore fall to be assessed against Business Policy 10.
==== PAGE 11 ====
16/01252/B Page 11 of 17
The garden centre use is one subject to consideration against Environment Policies 17 and 18. In the case of the shop, it is again noted that this would lead on from the ERIC Social Firm. The garden centre and café are interlinked.
6.11 That the shop would solely sell goods produced within the ERIC Social Firm as well as the garden centre is noted. For the goods produced within that environment to go on to serve a useful purpose would clearly be a positive for the manufacturers of them. The shop use would comprise roughly 40sqm: this is not considered significant in and of itself, although of course the question here is one of principle: is a retail use here acceptable? On the face of it, the answer would normally be 'no'. The site is outside of established retail centres and there is already a convenience store on the Strang crossroads.
6.12 However, being mindful of the intended staffing of that shop, and the positive benefits that would accrue those members of staff through their occupation, it is considered that the shop use would have a sufficiently positive benefit to outweigh concern about any effect it might have on existing retail centres. It is also true that Business Policy 5 does allow for shops to serve a local use and Environment Policy 18 allows for restricted retail sales in more rural areas, although to rely too heavily on these policies in reaching the conclusion the shop is acceptable would minimise the positive impacts the use would bring to its end-users. It is also to be remembered that the shop will operate as something of a training facility as well as a retail outlet.
6.13 There should, however, be a condition requiring that the products sold from the shop are in some way related to the use of the site as an adult learning facility. While the use proposed has been judged acceptable, that is only because it would be specific to the applicant and the argument put forward on their behalf. The notion of an independent shop here would require entirely fresh consideration.
6.14 The conclusion with respect to the café and garden centre is more balanced because is a slightly different policy landscape against which to assess these uses.
6.15 While the Strategic Plan has no specific policies relating to garden centres, Environment Policies 17 and 18 are very helpful in setting out development criteria against which proposals for market gardens or nurseries should be assessed, and also any associated retail element. It is likely that the policies were written on the assumption that garden centres were more or less synonymous with, in particular, nurseries.
6.16 While the land is not zoned for this use, EPs 17 & 18 do not set a requirement that it must be. (Also, the loss of this land from pure 'Hospital' use has already been addressed in this report.) Indeed, for somewhat obvious reasons, they are written having regard to the likelihood that such uses will often need to be located outside of established town / retail centres and, in fact, on land not zoned for any particular purpose. It is to be noted that there is also a fairly significant element of garden centre-style activities being undertaken on the site, and what is proposed would help consolidate and expand upon those uses. Finally, the garden centre elements proposed would tie in directly with the main purpose of the use of the site.
6.17 While it would result in members of the public visiting the site, there is nothing inherently objectionable about this should the highway safety impacts be acceptable (which they are). In this respect, the site is near the edge of the Hospital estate and visitors would likely arrive from the nearby Ballaoates Road, meaning that there would be no particular change in character for the overall Hospital estate. It is also to be remembered that the land remains in the ownership of the DHSC and that the garden centre is, in Planning terms, ancillary to the main purpose of the use of the site: namely, a training and employment service for adults with learning disabilities. The prospect of the garden centre being operated by an independent business owner seems remote.
6.18 With respect to the café, a similar conclusion is reached as was the case with the shop. All these uses are understood to represent 'best practice' in terms of the uses proposed and the value
==== PAGE 12 ====
16/01252/B Page 12 of 17
such uses bring to adults with learning difficulties. In this sense, and with a view to improving the services offered to such end-users, it is considered that this part of the proposal represents a positive one and no objection is raised to it.
6.19 To briefly conclude on the above three separate elements, it is to be remembered that were each proposed under a separate application and by an independent operator then such proposals would essentially comprise the intention to give up land zoned for Hospital Use for a purpose entirely unrelated to that use.
6.20 It is, however, difficult to word a condition that would require all of these uses to be ancillary to another use on the site, not least since the café is itself at least partly ancillary to the operation of the garden centre. Accordingly, a simpler approach would be to attach a condition stating that the application is approved only for the benefit of the applicant (i.e. the Department of Health and Social Care). Without such a condition, it would have to be concluded at this stage that these uses would be incompatible with the zoning applying to this site and the application recommended for refusal.
Whether or not the design of the buildings is acceptable
6.21 There is a clear synergy between the recently approved development on the Strang Corner Field and the Day Centre here proposed. Moreover, the other buildings proposed - those large in scale (the ERIC building and polytunnels), those smaller in scale (the mess room and potting and tool sheds), and the extension (to the Ballamona Farmhouse) are judged to be appropriate.
6.22 In respect of the new buildings, these are all functionally designed in that their purpose is clear from their appearance. As a general principle, this is a welcome approach and helps visitors to understand clearly the buildings for which public access is appropriate and vice versa. The scale and materials proposed are acceptable, with commonalities across the entire site helping to bring a clear design ethos to it.
6.23 Some of the buildings will be visible from Ballaoates Road and also from within the hospital estate, but this in itself is not concluded to be a point against the application as the designs proposed are both appropriate in themselves but also collectively and in terms of the use of space within the site. None of the buildings would be near enough to a sensitive receptor (most notably residential dwellings) to bring any particular level of harm. It is accordingly concluded that the design of the buildings and the space around them complies with parts (b), (c) and (g) of General Policy 2, with Strategic Policies 3 and 5, and with Environment Policies 17 and 42.
Whether or not the effect on highway safety in the area is acceptable
6.24 The comments from Highway Services are noted and accepted. It is difficult to be absolutely certain as to what the actual, specific parking demand arising from this proposal would be but there is a significant level of parking proposed and in the absence of a clearly defined demand and the lack of objection from Highway Services, it would seem inappropriate to object on this point.
6.25 The provision of extra pedestrian facilities within the site - over those proposed originally - are clearly welcomed and it is to be hoped that these reflect a general improvement of such facilities throughout the Hospital grounds.
Whether or not drainage and flood risk has been adequately addressed
6.26 There does not appear to be any particular reason to object to the application on this ground
==== PAGE 13 ====
16/01252/B Page 13 of 17
Whether or not the landscaping masterplan is acceptable
6.27 The comments from the Arboricultural Officer are noted and as a whole the scheme will be subject to what is judged to be a well-considered landscaping strategy. The Hospital is set within very green and heavily treed grounds and this scheme will complement that existing character. The condition requested by the Arboricultural Officer seems reasonable in the circumstances given that there are a number of existing trees on or nearby the site and proper consideration needs to be given as to the most appropriate way forward for the site that reflects its surroundings, even if there is a good level of detail already provided within the application. Conditions should be used where necessary and where surety is required, which is considered to be the case here.
Other matters
6.28 There will be additional members of the public visiting the site should the proposed uses go ahead. This should not be ignored, and nor should it be ignored that this will also change the nature and character of a site that has historically been in healthcare use and largely, therefore, closed to visiting members of the public. That said, the scale and nature of the uses proposed is acceptable and, indeed, could be judged an appropriate consolidation of a particular healthcare into a single location on the Island. There is unlikely to be a significant footfall arising from the commercial uses proposed (such as they are even commercial in the sense that most people might take it to be), and so there is unlikely to be a particularly harmful impact that this would bring to the wider area.
6.29 It is to be remembered that the applicant is the administrator of Noble's Hospital.
6.30 That the scheme will also tie in with the approved Commissioners' Offices is noted and welcomed.
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 7.1 Overall, the development proposed reflects a specific and defined requirement that is best met on a site within the ownership of the Department that will be administering it. The various uses reflect best practice in terms of services for adults with learning difficulties and while some concern regarding the loss of some land from hospital use is reasonable it is also to be remembered that the site is already somewhat outwith 'traditional' hospital uses. The buildings proposed would sit well within their context, with or without the adjacent Braddan Commissioners building being developed, and the green setting of the site would be protected via the landscaping scheme and condition recommended.
7.2 Perhaps the most significant concern is the café, shop and garden centre proposed as part of the scheme. These are, if operated on a commercial basis independently from the hospital estate, quite likely to be judged an inappropriate land use on land that has been specifically set aside for healthcare purposes. However, a reasonable conclusion must be that these three uses are integrally linked to the adult care facilities that would be the fundamental use of the site, not least since the land is owned by the Department of Health and Social Care. It is explicit within the application that the café and retail shop are intended as much as training facilities as commercial operations, while there is also an implicitness that this would be the case with the garden centre as well. As discussed earlier, it would be reasonable to require that any approval issued shall enure for the sole benefit of the applicant.
7.3 It is therefore concluded that the application complies with the relevant Development Plan policies, is acceptable, and is accordingly recommended for approval subject to conditions.
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:
==== PAGE 14 ====
16/01252/B Page 14 of 17
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's Highway Services, 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 recommended that the following persons have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13:
o Manx Utilities (Drainage Division).
8.2.3 In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons do not have sufficient interest and therefore should not be awarded the status of an Interested Person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13:
o The Arboricultural Officer of the Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture, which sits within the same Department as the Planning & Building Control Directorate.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 20.02.2017
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 uses hereby approved shall only be for the benefit of the Department of Health and Social Care and in accordance with the details set out in the Design Statement from the agent, date- stamped as having been received 4th November 2016.
Reason: The development hereby approved is only acceptable in this location because of the specific nature of the applicant as a service provider for healthcare.
C 3. No development shall commence until a tree planting specification has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The tree planting and post-planting maintenance shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. If, within 5 years of planting, any of the trees is cut down, uprooted, removed, destroyed or dies or becomes, in the opinion of the Planning
==== PAGE 15 ====
16/01252/B Page 15 of 17
Authority, seriously damaged or defective, another tree of the same species shall be planted at the same location
Reason: In the interest of protecting the green setting of the application site.
C 4. Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the drainage layout shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out except in accordance with those approved details.
Reason: In the interest of ensuring adequate drainage for the site and surrounding land.
The development hereby approved relates to Drawings P/10-01, P/10-02, P/10-102, P/10-103, P/10- 104, P/10-105, P10-202, P10-203, P10-302, P10-402, P10-403, P10-404, P10-405, P10-406, P10- 407, P11-101, P12-101, P12-201, P12-301, P12-302, P10-303, P10-304, PL414/01, 16-080 11, 16- 080 12, 16-080 13, 16-080 14 and 16-080 501 (all dated as having been received 4th November 2016), and also to Drawing P/10-101 Rev A (dated as having been received 7th February 2017, and also to the Design statement (dated as having been received 4th November 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: 06.03.2017
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.
==== PAGE 16 ====
16/01252/B Page 16 of 17
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 06.03.2017
Application No. :
16/01252/B Applicant : IOM Government Department Of Health & Social Care Proposal : A multi use, social care development for adults with learning difficulties, consisting of a day care facility with management offices; industrial training facility (ERIC Unit); horticultural training facility; cafe and retail unit. Site Address : Proposed Eastcliffe Healthcare Facility Old Ballamona Farmhouse Complex Strang Douglas Isle Of Man
Presenting Officer : Mr Edmond Riley (correct manually if not the case officer)
Addendum to the Officer’s Report
The Planning Committee noted correspondence from the architect that had been received by the Department the morning of the Committee's meeting, which set out that the drainage details were already progressing through Building Control. The recommended Condition 4 was therefore redundant as the reason for its addition had since been overtaken by other events. It was therefore agreed that this condition should not be attached to the decision notice.
Conditions of Approval
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 uses hereby approved shall only be for the benefit of the Department of Health and Social Care and in accordance with the details set out in the Design Statement from the agent, date- stamped as having been received 4th November 2016.
Reason: The development hereby approved is only acceptable in this location because of the specific nature of the applicant as a service provider for healthcare.
C 3. No development shall commence until a tree planting specification has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The tree planting and post-planting maintenance shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. If, within 5 years of planting, any of the trees is cut down, uprooted, removed, destroyed or dies or becomes, in the opinion of the Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective, another tree of the same species shall be planted at the same location
==== PAGE 17 ====
16/01252/B Page 17 of 17
Reason: In the interest of protecting the green setting of the application site.
The development hereby approved relates to Drawings P/10-01, P/10-02, P/10-102, P/10-103, P/10- 104, P/10-105, P10-202, P10-203, P10-302, P10-402, P10-403, P10-404, P10-405, P10-406, P10- 407, P11-101, P12-101, P12-201, P12-301, P12-302, P10-303, P10-304, PL414/01, 16-080 11, 16- 080 12, 16-080 13, 16-080 14 and 16-080 501 (all dated as having been received 4th November 2016), and also to Drawing P/10-101 Rev A (dated as having been received 7th February 2017, and also to the Design statement (dated as having been received 4th November 2016).
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal