Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
17/00320/C
Page 1 of 22
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 17/00320/C Applicant : Hopes & Dreams Limited Proposal : Temporary change of use from light industrial to an out of school care facility for a period of two years Site Address : Unit 2 Block D Eden Business Park Douglas Isle Of Man IM4 2AY
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OWING TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE.
0.0 PREAMBLE
0.1 The Planning Committee may recall assessing a similar proposal to this application at their meeting of 6th March 2017. That application, PA 16/01297/C, sought approval for the use of Unit D6 at Eden Business Park as a children's nursery and after-school club for a temporary period. The Committee approved the use for a period of two years from that date and also that the use would be specific to the applicant.
0.2 During that same week, but following the decision made by the Planning Committee to approve PA 16/01297/C, a representative of the owner of the Eden Business Park contacted the Department to ask if the issued approval could be moved to another unit within Block D as the owners were in the process of agreeing the sale of Unit D6 to a third party and, accordingly, that approval can no longer be implemented. At the time of writing, the sale of D6 has apparently yet to go through, but the representative of the site owner has confirmed in writing their complete unwillingness to allow the use of Unit D6 as approved under PA 16/01297/C to take place, stating to the Department as follows:
"Eden Park have advised the applicant that they WILL NOT allow D6 to be used to provide aftercare services and also the sale of Unit D6 is currently going through 'contract' with the purchaser intending to use it for light industrial." [Emphasis in original]
0.3 As such, the applicant has submitted this current application, which relates to Unit D2. Other than the change in location, the nature of the proposal is essentially identical to that previously approved, as the applicant has confirmed by submitting all the same information as that supplied during the course of the previous application. On this occasion, the application description is explicit that two years only are sought, which was the time limit attached to the approval notice issued to PA 16/01297/C.
0.4 The result is that the report that follows is more or less identical to that in respect of PA 16/01297/C. The fundamental differences are, obviously, the unit location / site description and
==== PAGE 2 ====
17/00320/C
Page 2 of 22
proposal (see Sections 1.0 and 2.0 of the report that follows), and that Highway Services object to this proposal for a slightly different reason to that outlined previously (see Section 6.0). It is also worth noting that an objection previously lodged by the occupier of a nearby unit has not been reiterated on this occasion. Further clarification regarding the planning history of the site can be found at Section 5.13, which reflects on the approval issued to PA 16/01297/C. Finally, the cumulative impact of this current application and also the approved PA 16/1097/C and a yet further application for a change of use currently submitted on Eden Park (PA 17/00304/B) is given consideration at Section 7.25 onwards.
0.5 It is worth noting here the minutes from the Planning Committee's meeting at which PA 16/01297/C was determined:
"In clarification of the key issues the Members enquired with regard to the temporary nature of the proposal, parking provision, and other suitable premises for the relocation of the business. The Members expressed dissatisfaction with the creation of the Business Park on land not zoned for it, for a specified demand that some years later had failed to fully materialise. While expressing sympathy for the Applicant, they felt that this may not be an appropriate place for the business.
"Mr Riley confirmed that the Applicant had requested a temporary permission for a period of two years as his current premises were no longer available for use by the business, and to allow him time to find new suitable premises. In the absence of a town location providing a large house with large grounds to supply parking provision and play space for the children, the Applicant felt that this unit was suitable short term premises.
"The Highway Services representative confirmed it objected to the application on the grounds of insufficient parking provision. She outlined the drop off and pick up arrangements for children attending the facility together with the required, and existing, parking provision, including those spaces designated for shared use.
"Miss Chance reminded the Members that the original application for the business park was approved having regard to the need to provide land for this use but also to provide sufficient space for new businesses to begin operation should there be an upturn in the market.
"The Members were very mindful of the temporary nature of the proposed use and the fact that there remained a number of the units empty to cater for any potential market upturn.
"The Chairman raised concern that temporary uses can become permanent, and sought assurance that the recommended condition 1 was sufficiently tightly worded."
0.6 That application was approved subject to the following two conditions:
C 1 "The use of Unit D6 and the associated parking as shown on Dwg.01 (date-stamped as having been received 21st November 2016) for the use hereby approved shall permanently cease two years from the date of this decision notice.
"Reason: The planning history of the site is such that any permanent loss of any of the Eden Park units from either light industrial or research and development uses would be contrary to the exceptional circumstances that resulted in those units' approval for those uses on land not zoned for any particular purpose."
C 2 "The use of Unit D6 and the associated parking as shown on Dwg.01 (date-stamped as having been received 21st November 2016) for the use hereby shall only be for the benefit of Hopes and Dreams Limited t/a The Buzz and in accordance with the details set out in the information from the applicant dated as having been received 15th November 2016, 21st November 2016 and 17th February 2017.
==== PAGE 3 ====
17/00320/C
Page 3 of 22
"Reason: The development hereby approved is only acceptable in this location because of the special circumstances of the applicant."
0.7 The Committee will also note that there is another application before them at this meeting for a unit at Eden Park, but this is for a wholly different form of development and therefore the site, proposal description and assessment are distinct from that which follows here.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is the curtilage of Unit D2 on the Eden Business Park, along with five parking spaces and the associated hardstanding that provides access to those spaces. Block D sits at the west of the estate and D2 is second from the right as one looks at the building. Not currently occupied, it is fairly central within the estate and sits near to the central road that connects the four blocks.
1.2 In addition to the five parking spaces within the application site, there are a further eight that are for shared use that are outside of the applicant's control.
1.3 The unit has roughly 135sqm of internal floorspace.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The submitted application seeks approval to change the use of the unit from light industrial, for which it has approval (as well as research and development), to an 'out of school care facility', for a temporary period of two years. Children would be cared for between 3:30pm to 5:30pm on weekdays during school terms and from 8:30am to 5:30pm during school holidays.
2.2 No external alterations are proposed, while internally the existing, single WC would be supplemented by a privacy screen and a further eight WCs with two wash basins and also a small base unit and worktop.
2.3 The application has been submitted with a supporting statement and a number of testimonials from existing clients of the applicant.
2.4.1 The supporting statement explains that The Buzz Afterschool Club is operated by Hopes & Dreams Limited, which is a childcare provider of some 17 years' standing. The Club provides supervised activities for children aged between four and 12 years old from the end of school and until their parents finish work and collect them. The children themselves are collected from a number of schools and delivered to the Douglas Rugby Club premises, where the Buzz Afterschool Club has operated for the last few years: prior to this, the Buzz Afterschool Club operated from Hopes & Dreams Nursery, which is located at 91 Woodbourne Road in Douglas.
2.4.2 The applicant explains that the growing success of the Rugby Club is such that the clubhouse is soon to be required for their youth training programme, and the two operations can no longer co-exist quite so easily in the same building.
2.4.3 Other possible locations have been considered, but discounted. These included:
o Hopes & Dreams Nursery (ruled out for being too small to accommodate all the business needs); o Ballacloan School (needs modernisation, and future of school site following the move to the new Henry Bloom Noble School is unclear); o Ballafletcher House, Tromode (requires significant reconfiguration and is also too expensive); o The Hailwood Centre (unavailable during TT and Festival of Motorcycling events);
==== PAGE 4 ====
17/00320/C
Page 4 of 22
o Other sports clubs (most will be looking to develop / alter facilities during the year and dual purposes in such buildings are often not ideal), and o Church and community halls (other, regular uses would conflict with their proposed use).
All the other buildings they have looked at in Douglas have required significant investment to bring up to standard, while they also have found no premises in a setting conducive to their business that offered sufficient parking.
2.4.4 A school is currently used for an additional Holiday Club that the same business operates. The submitted application intends to draw together the Holiday and Afterschool Buzz Clubs: these would support a lease for dedicated premises and secure the future of their service provision. The combined needs would result in premises that provides space for at least 60 children.
2.4.5 On the basis of the foregoing, and the Health & Social Care Department's requirements, the premises would preferably satisfy the following requirements:
o Located within Douglas, Onchan or Braddan; o Outside the TT course; o An approximate floorspace of 1,400sqft [130sqm], and o In good repair and presentable, with current standards for utilities, services and fire safety.
2.4.6 On these bases, the applicant has concluded that the unit the subject of the application is the most acceptable. They appreciate that the proposed use does not strictly comply with the approved use of the building, but other than that it meets the business' needs and needs only minor alterations that can be easily reversed upon vacation.
2.4.7 The Statement also includes a Traffic Flow section, which sets out the number of vehicles arriving at the site at the end of the school day (six - three minibuses and three people carriers) along with the number of vehicles that will be arriving later to collect the children (20-30 between 4:30pm to 5:30pm during term time). The minibuses and people carriers will be parked at Douglas Rugby Club while not in use.
2.4.8 The applicant also explains that the use would be temporary only while more suitable premises is found.
2.5 Some nine testimonials of existing parents have been submitted with the application/ These variously outline their support for the existing business and their reliance upon it, their understanding that it needs to relocate, and support for the Eden Park unit the subject of this application.
2.6.1 Following discussions with the Directorate, the applicant submitted additional information in support of his application, which provided clarification on some of the issues raised and also set out some of the need behind the proposal. This was circulated to the interested parties with a view to receiving further comments. The additional information is lengthy and is set out below almost entirely verbatim given that the comments relate as much to the operation of the childcare business, both in the existing and as-proposed locations. Understanding the nature of the business is considered important in reaching a judgement on its acceptability.
2.6.2 In terms of the need, the applicant commented as follows:
"The need to find suitable alternative accommodation was not our choice. We were asked to vacate the previous premises as Douglas Rugby Club wished to develop the club for the benefit of the rugby community and have invested in the resources available.
"We did not have a lengthy notice period to plan for our relocation.
==== PAGE 5 ====
17/00320/C
Page 5 of 22
We have specific needs arising from the services we provide (ie term time only after school club provision for 2 hours per day and longer provision during the school holidays)
"The service we provide supports the economic well being of the Island by providing the necessary child care required where parents work full time.
"The application referred to use for two specific and distinct child care services
"1. After School Care Monday to Friday from 3:30pm to 5:30pm during state term time when schools are open (38 weeks)
"2. Holiday Club Monday to Friday from 8:30am to 5:30pm during most school holidays (roughly 12 weeks)
"We work hard to provide the children with comfortable safe good quality surroundings where we can offer stimulating, challenging activities that allow the children to have fun and develop friendships. We have been doing this successfully for over 10 years and are experienced in managing the risks involved."
2.6.3 In terms of the After-School Care nature element of the application, the relevant points are set out below:
"The children will be collected from schools (currently we collect from Ashley Hill, Onchan, Scoill Yn Jubilee, St Marys, Henry Bloom Noble, St Thomas's, Ballacottier and Scoill Vallajeelt) in our vehicles (3 Transit minibuses and two people carriers - total of five vehicles) and delivered to the proposed setting, where they will immediately enter the premises under supervision. Each minibus has at least one child care staff member on the minibus in addition to the driver.
"The people carriers are kept during the day at Hopes & Dreams Nursery on Woodbourne Road.
"The minibuses are kept at Douglas Rugby Club and this arrangement has been agreed will continue. Two of the minibuses have their own dedicated drivers who, having dropped the children off at the proposed unit, will return their vehicles to the Rugby Club. They will not therefore ever be parked up at the unit.
"The other minibus will remain parked at the unit to facilitate the transfer of children back to the collection point at Hopes & Dreams Day Nursery on Woodbourne Road. The vehicle and between 10 to 12 children leave at approximately 5:10pm subject to weather and road conditions, in order to arrive at Hopes & Dreams around 5:30pm.
"The two people carriers are driven by childcare staff and will be left in the shared parking bays at the end of the block of units. That is three of the total of 15 parking bays in use between 3:30pm and 5:30pm.
"All resources required for each session will either already exist at the proposed unit or will be brought to the unit each day in the same vehicles as the children.
"We propose to only offer indoor activities during the operation of After School Club. This is a compromise situation acceptable to us given the restricted period of two hours. There are several child care facilities with no outdoor space for all day care, and there is no requirement in the current Day Care Standards for a setting to have its own outdoor space.
"Therefore for clarity there will be no activities within the car park area where traffic could pose a threat or be inconvenienced.
==== PAGE 6 ====
17/00320/C
Page 6 of 22
"Unit D6 was chosen specifically because it is an end unit at the very end of the car parking thus removing any possibility of passing traffic accessing other units, and managing the risk to the children.
"It has in the past been usual for parents who collect their children before 5:30pm to come to the setting to collect their children. Roughly half to two thirds of the children attending can be expected to be picked up from the setting. We have always transported the remaining children who are to be collected later than 5:30pm to Hopes & Dreams Nursery on Woodbourne Road, from where they are collected prior to 6pm. Many parents choose this option as it is more convenient for their work timings and or journeys home.
"This is possible because the numbers of children at nursery on Woodbourne Road have declined by that time of the day, making accommodating a smaller number of After School Club children and their collection possible.
"Given the possible concerns raised by Hazel Reid of Highways and Asset Management in her email of 22 December 2016 we have surveyed collection times for a representative week of operation."
2.6.4 The results of those surveys have been provided and suggest a maximum of between 4 and 9 cars on site at any one time. There is some potential lack of clarity with respect to the numbers provided as they do not set out the number of vehicles on site at any one time but, instead, refer to the number of vehicles arriving at certain intervals.
2.6.5 In terms of the Holiday Club, the applicant explained as follows:
"The majority of children are dropped at Holiday Club by their parents although we do offer a transfer service at the beginning and end of the day to and from central Douglas for convenience.
"Therefore for roughly 13 weeks a year there would be increased traffic movements at the start of each day, and similar traffic movements at the end of each day as for After School Club.
"Again there is the possibility of introducing alternative arrangements if this volume of traffic is considered to be unsuitable and I would welcome the opportunity to discuss alternatives with Highways if necessary.
"We propose to only offer indoor activities at the site during the operation of Holiday Club.
"However given the longer period of operation we would use our vehicles to take children off site to access outdoor play opportunities every day. This is something that we have been doing from our previous premises for over 10 years. We are expert at arranging and delivering off-site trips and outings for the children.
"The off-site outings and trips would necessitate the minibuses accessing and leaving the site up to two times per day per vehicle - a total of 6 traffic movements per day.
"In addition there are several existing child care facilities with no outdoor space for all day care, and there is no requirement in the current Day Care Standards for a setting to have its own outdoor space.
"In keeping with the operation of After School Club, and for clarity on this important issue there will be no activities within the car park area where traffic could pose a threat or be inconvenienced.
"Arrangements for collection are similar to those for After School Club. Again alternative arrangements could be put forward if Highways consider that the anticipated traffic movements and parking requirements are excessive."
==== PAGE 7 ====
17/00320/C
Page 7 of 22
2.6.6 In terms of the 'temporary' nature of the application, the applicant has confirmed that a minimum of two years is required in order for the unit to offer a viable business proposition given the roughly £20,000 of expenditure required on this unit in order to make it fit for purpose ("heating, ventilation, additional toilet facilities, fire safety equipment etc")
2.6.7 In terms of alternative accommodation, the applicant adds to his earlier correspondence as follows:
"Given the lack of available accommodation my expectation is that the long term solution will come from accommodation becoming available that isn't available at the moment or the development of new suitable accommodation.
"The timescale for either option cannot be accurately predicted but both options are likely to involve a planning application for either change of use, or development of a new site, which in itself may require clarification or altering of Planning Policy.
"Either way I would anticipate a reasonably lengthy process, one that could require a new build opportunity."
3.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
3.1 The site is not allocated for development in the Braddan Parish District Local Plan, but is designated as an Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance on that Plan. There are no policies within the Plan that are considered to be specific to the current proposal.
3.2 As such, the relevant policies are General Policy 3 and Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan, which set out a general presumption against development on land not zoned for it, and also for the protection of the countryside.
3.3 Nonetheless, it is a matter of fact that planning approval has been granted for units for light industrial units and research and development uses, and these have been built. (See Section 4, below, for further details.)
3.4 Consequently, it is considered that the assessment of the application should also include reference to General Policy 2, Strategic Policies 1 and 10, and Transport Policies 4, 6 and 7, which are set out below.
Strategic Policy 1: "Development should make the best use of resources by:
(a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials; (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services.
Strategic Policy 10: "New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to:
(a) minimise journeys, especially by private car; (b) make best use of public transport; (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and (d) encourage pedestrian movement
General Policy 2 (in part): "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:
==== PAGE 8 ====
17/00320/C
Page 8 of 22
(b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them;
Transport Policy 4: "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan."
Transport Policy 6: "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."
Transport Policy 7: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards."
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 When determining planning applications, Section 10(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 ("The Act") states that the Department shall have regard to:
(a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, (b) any relevant statement of planning policy under section 3; (c) such other considerations as may be specified for the purpose of this subsection in a development order or a development procedure order, so far as material to the application; and (d) all other material considerations.
4.2 The Draft Planning Policy Statement: Planning and the Economy:
4.2.1 In respect of Section 10(4)(b) of the Act, it is relevant to consider the provisions of the draft Planning Policy Statement (PPS) on the Economy. There is also a national need for economic development, which is reflected in the draft PPS as issued for consultation in 2012. The weight to be attached to that document would obviously be greater if the review promised in paragraph 26 of the "Initial Summary of Responses" had been carried out, and also if a final PPS had been laid before Tynwald and published in accordance with Section 3(3) of The Act. It is also considered that the weight to be attached to the draft PPS would be greater if paragraph 14 of that document recognised the primacy of the development plan (as required by Section 3(4) of the Act), rather than suggesting a less onerous test than is contained in General Policy 3(g) of the Strategic Plan. Nevertheless, the general thrust of draft PPS remains a material consideration, which reinforces Business Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan.
4.2.2 With the above in mind, and also noting that the PPS is quite short and therefore in some ways the entire document has a relevance to the foregoing assessment, the following extracts of the Draft PPS are considered particularly relevant:
==== PAGE 9 ====
17/00320/C
Page 9 of 22
o "The Government is committed to promoting a strong, stable, and productive economy that aims to bring jobs and prosperity for all. In doing so the Government is committed to delivering further economic growth and diversification."
o "Achieving sustainable economic growth requires a fast, efficient and responsive planning system that includes a presumption in favour of development whilst protecting the countryside and enhancing the quality of the natural and built environment, which supports growth alongside regeneration, social and environmental sustainability, and has a greater emphasis on the quality of design."
o "It is essential that the planning system considers, and makes appropriate provision for the identified national needs of the entire economy and assists in steering economic development to the most appropriate locations. The economy should not be constrained by a shortage of land for economic development uses."
o "The planning system should support economic and employment growth alongside social and environmental sustainability. There is a general presumption in favour of development. Proposals will be considered on their merits bearing in mind the Development Plan and the need to protect the island's unique character, natural environment and quality of life."
o "For planning purposes the Isle of Man Government defines economic development as the development of land and buildings for activities that generate wealth, jobs and incomes. Economic development land uses include: the traditional employment land uses (offices, research and development, industry and warehousing), as well as retail, leisure, and public services."
o "In so doing, the planning system will aim to:
(i) Recognise that economic development can often deliver environmental and social benefits; (iv) Through the Development Plan ensure that suitable locations are available for industrial, commercial, retail, housing, public sector (e.g. health and education) tourism and leisure developments, so that the economy can prosper; (v) Provide opportunities for land and premises to enable for improved productivity, choice and competition, particularly when technological and other requirements of modern business are changing rapidly; (vi) Recognise that the economy will always be subject to change; therefore planning will need to be sensitive to these changes and the implications for development and growth; (viii) Work with the Department of Economic Development and other Government Departments to identify opportunities for future investment to deliver economic objectives; (ix) Ensure that economic and employment growth supports regeneration, social and environmental sustainability."
o "In the national interest, it is important that Planning Officers, the Planning Committee and Planning Inspectors adopt a positive and constructive approach to determining planning applications for economic development, taking account of advice on the indicated economic benefits of the development alongside social and environmental issues."
o "Planning will need to ensure that the economic benefits associated with a proposed project are understood and that these are given adequate material consideration with social and environmental issues in the decision making process. Therefore it is essential that any evidence is sufficient to meet these criteria. The decision makers in planning will continue to recognise that on occasions the economic benefits may outweigh social and environmental considerations."
o "Well designed employment and residential uses can in some cases be compatible and planning should have regard to the proximity and compatibility of proposed residential development adjacent to existing industrial and commercial uses to ensure that both amenity and economic development opportunities are not unduly compromised."
==== PAGE 10 ====
17/00320/C
Page 10 of 22
4.3 The Employment Land Review:
4.3.1 An Employment Land Review (ELR) was published in June 2015. The three intended outcomes of the ELR, which looked at the entire Island, were as follows:
o "Gather information and evidence about the quality and quantity of and demand for employment land and premises. o "Identify any constraints on the current zoned land for employment, and o "Identify employment land requirements to meet the needs of the economy in the future."
4.3.2 Three of the nine 'Headline Findings' of the ELR, found within its Executive Summary, are set out below:
o "The vast majority of demand for employment floorspace focusses on locations in the East." o "Available land in the East is limited to 2ha, a land supply of under 3 years." o "15.07ha employment land will be required in the East unless other areas are further incentivised in some form."
4.3.3 Some of the other key findings in the ELR, being mindful of the application the subject of this report, and its appendices are set out below:
o "While there are few constraints to the development of allocations elsewhere, the employment and office land supply in and around Douglas is limited by: covenants restricting use; company expansion (therefore not available generally); planning approval / recommendation for higher value uses; and other constraints which prevent development in the short term. Once these are taken into account, the effective allocated land supply in the East Plan Area is reduced to 2ha."
o "The employment land supply in those areas where activity is concentrated i.e. in the East and South is constrained. In the East, the shortage of employment land is particularly acute."
o "Outside of office uses and Douglas town centre, availability of undeveloped land is the main differentiator between Plan areas: with relatively high availability and fewer constraints in existing allocations in the North, West, and South and becoming critical in the East, where 6 of 15 sites have no land available, and others face constraints including: covenanted uses; isolation from other employment uses; approval for other or higher uses; bad neighbour uses; conflicts with other uses; and parking issues."
o "The Employment Land Workshop broadly supported an initial focus on improving availability particularly in the East. With availability heavily restricted, there is an urgent need for additional employment land in the area."
o "The Business Survey results and their projection suggest that Isle of Man manufacturers are seeking to accelerate growth more quickly than suggested in Vison 2020. Where business are seeking to expand, most- between 86% and 96% - are likely to relocate to new premises to enable it. Most will also be seeking premises in the East or South."
o "Demand for industrial and distribution floorspace is also focused in Douglas and the East where access to labour, transport links and road networks are better developed and where the majority of employees and customers live. Demand for industrial units has been resilient with the majority of premises on estates occupied and trading."
o "The area of effective employment land in the East has been estimated at 2ha. The ELR estimates a further 15.07ha would need to be allocated in the East Plan area to 2029 to meet future economic requirements. This could be reduced to between 6.65ha - 10.8ha were it decided to limit growth in the East and incentivise development in other parts of the Island."
==== PAGE 11 ====
17/00320/C
Page 11 of 22
o "There was general agreement that the concentration of employment activity in the East and South will continue and that provision of attractive premises and sites in preferred business location would encourage investment consistent with Vision 2020 objectives."
o "...the consultations and trends show the strong desire for existing businesses in Douglas and the East to expand in that region and not to move away. The findings of the market commentary and analysis of development trends in recent years strongly reinforce this. While the quantity of available employment land across the Island as a whole may be sufficient to meet future need in absolute terms, in practice, the emerging and significant shortfall of suitable sites and premises in Douglas and the East is a factor constraining business growth."
4.3.4 Some other comments that are material to the assessment of this application are set out below:
o "The assessment revealed that with the exception of some areas in the North and isolated instances in Douglas and the East, few if any of the allocations were poor."
o "With forecast economic growth in manufacturing and related sectors, historic annual take up rates of some 0.78 ha in this area would be expected to increase. This indicates an effective land supply of 2.6 years."
o "Take up of industrial, employment and commercial land and premises is not routinely monitored, rather take-up analyses tend to be developed in response to relevant applications or as required to support planning inquiries. The most recent concerned proposed light industrial development at Cooil Road, Douglas. Supporting information provided by the Department of Infrastructure and the applicant examined take up rates. The Department's supporting information was based on analysis of planning consents granted between 2000 and 2012 for locations in the East of the Island. It identified annual employment land take up of 0.78ha. in this area (based on consents at White Hoe, Middle River, Snugborough, Middle Farm, Ballafletcher, Carrs Lane, Spring Valley, the Isle of Man Business Park, South Quay and Kirby Farm. The Department's evidence to that Inquiry identified that in a worst case scenario (i.e. one in which all consents are developed) an estimated 2.14 ha of employment land would be available, equivalent to 2.75 years supply. Assuming permissions at Ballafletcher and White Hoe (Manx Telecom) were not implemented, some 4.26 ha would be available in the East, equivalent to nearly 5 and half years supply. The pressing nature of the requirement for additional employment land in the east was further emphasised, with the evidence noting that, "Due to the lack of available land, it is considered there is an over-riding national need for additional land to be released prior to the Area Plan for the East". Since the publication of the Inspectors Report, Canada Life's relocation and proposed expansion from Castletown to a 1,672 sq.m unit (18,000 sq.ft) at the Isle of Man Business Park (at Ballacottier) further reduces the available supply."
o "Market demand for industrial and distribution space is also focused in and around Douglas where access to labour, transport links and road networks are better developed and where the majority of employees and customers are located."
o "In general terms, demand for industrial and warehouse premises has been resilient and the large majority of premises on estates are occupied and trading. Demand is generally for smaller to medium sized units of between 929 sq.m and 465 sq.m. The principle demand is for warehouse and distribution space with less marked demand for industrial and manufacturing space."
o "From previous trends, 17 ha would be expected to be developed in the East and South. While there is an ample supply of employment land in the South, effective availability in the East is much more restricted and the majority of evidenced demand targets locations in the East. With effective employment land estimated to be 2ha, were the proportion of employment-related
==== PAGE 12 ====
17/00320/C
Page 12 of 22
development in the East consistent with the pattern of recent years, a further 15ha would need to be allocated in the East Plan area to 2029."
4.3.5 Unfortunately, the ELR makes no assessment of Eden Park, noting only that the approved units will soon come "on stream".
4.4 Vision2020:
4.4.1 The Vision2020 document sets out how Government intends to respond to business needs while maintaining the Island's attractiveness as a place to live. It comprises eight separate 'strategies', one of which is entitled 'Manufacturing Centre of Excellence'. Some of the key text from that part of Vision2020 as it applies to this application site is set out below:
o "Since Economy 2014, manufacturing has steadily become more recognised locally as a hi- tech, growing industry offering diverse, well-paid careers.
o "In the years to 2020, manufacturing will be front and centre of the Isle of Man's economic vision.
o "One of the Island's true successes has been its 'cluster' approach allowing for shared knowledge, resource and synergy to achieve higher value.
o "The aerospace engineering cluster - including airframe design, ejector seats, engine parts, undercarriages, aviation maintenance - is recognised worldwide and has already been joined by a new cluster of businesses with expertise in synthetic diamonds, optics and coatings."
o "Other manufacturers are succeeding in diverse niches such as bespoke bathroom/kitchens, thermostatic controls for kettles, electronic controls, diving equipment and body composition monitors.
o "Future growth will be driven by skills and financial assistance. To achieve the skilled workforce required, Government has invested in a major Centre of Excellence for manufacturing training. This Centre is linked to UK universities to meet the diverse skills needed.
4.4.2 The 'Tech Isle' strategy also contains some relevant text:
o "The Isle of Man will be known as a leading centre for innovative SMEs [Small-to-Medium Enterprises] to relocate and grow due to its:
o excellent infrastructure (telecoms, electricity and data hosting), o supportive financial and professional services, and o tax advantages, both for the business, its intellectual property (IP) and its owners who are increasingly choosing to live here."
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY
5.1 Although this individual unit has not itself been the subject of any planning applications, the original application (PA 11/01232/B) that sought approval for the 24 units across the site proved extremely controversial. The application received officer support, following which the Planning Committee approved the application. Subsequently, following a third party appeal submitted by a nearby resident, the appointed Planning Inspector recommended that the Minister dismiss the appeal, a recommendation with which the Minister accepted.
5.2 The Inspector's report ran to 141 paragraphs, and there were some very lengthy appeal statements submitted as well. However, in spite of the unusually large amount of information submitted, the Inspector's assessment turned purely on whether or not the in-principle objection to
==== PAGE 13 ====
17/00320/C
Page 13 of 22
the use of unzoned land for development could be outweighed by the applicant's argument that there was an essential national need - in both quantitative and qualitative terms - for high quality, light-industrial units in this location. Both the planning officer and Inspector found the applicant's argument compelling, and both the Planning Committee and Minister respectively agreed.
5.3 It is worth noting some of the comments made by the applicant's advocate at the Inquiry, as summarised by the Inspector. The Committee's attention is particularly drawn to paragraphs 66-67, 74, 76, 78-79, 94, 99-103, 105, 123-124 and 128 of the Inspector's Report, but some of the salient comments are set out / summarised below. It is important to note that the current landowner also owns the business that submitted application PA 11/01232/B.
o At paragraph 74, in the applicant's advocate's statement of the need behind the development, he notes that the different figures in respect of industrial land take-up at the Isle of Man Business Park "may have been caused by non-industrial developments taking up industrially allocated land".
o At paragraph 76, the advocate's comments are summarised by the Inspector as follows: "The Island GDP growth is forecast as 3% this year, lower than hitherto but positive and hardly gloomy. Do nothing is a counsel of despair; the Island must prepare for the upswing, to be ahead of the demand curve when it comes. Anything less would be irresponsible, on quantitative and qualitative grounds."
o At paragraph 78, the advocate's comments are summarised by the Inspector as follows: "The applicant puts first that [part (g) of General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1] are met, but if not then in the alternative the development is warranted by other material considerations, namely that the need for high quality employment land to be released in the East is such as to outweigh any harm that would be caused, including harm to the provisions of the development plan."
o At paragraph 79, the advocate's comments are summarised by the Inspector as follows: "All the evidence demonstrates the importance of the East to the Island economy and employment; that there is a real shortage of employment sites in terms of quality and size. With only a two year land supply available, business and investment will be lost to the Island and this is a matter of national need."
5.4 The following paragraphs are taken from the Inspector's own assessment of the application:
o Paragraph 99 - in reflecting on the existing industrial estates in the South of the Island, the Inspector notes that "these industrial estates, and those elsewhere, although economically and socially beneficial do comprise ranges of activities and premises that would not sit comfortably alongside the very high quality appeal proposals or the type of user who might be attracted to occupy them."
o Paragraph 103: "...I consider that a demonstrable shortage of high quality premises, or land on which to erect such premises, in and around Douglas is capable of being treated as giving rise to a national need."
o Paragraph 105: "The national need, as I have concluded, for modern industrial premises for the very highest quality in or around Douglas, is not met by anything currently available."
o Paragraph 123: "...it would certainly be illogical to include industrial land given over to other uses as contributing to take-up rate used to project future need."
o Paragraph 124: "In my view, at least on the evidence presented, the case would not be made out that there is an immediate, overriding national need to release land now were the current appeal proposals simply conventional, essentially utilitarian, industrial units. However, a combination of quantitative and qualitative shortage together amount to an overriding need - a
==== PAGE 14 ====
17/00320/C
Page 14 of 22
present national need in land use planning terms - for the exceptionally high quality form of development subject to this appeal."
5.5 These extracts point to a very clear understanding on the part of the Inspector that the Eden Business Park (as now known) was required on the grounds that there was a national need in qualitative and quantitative terms for light industrial units in this location and at that time, and that that national need was sufficient to override the general presumption that development should not take place on land not zoned for it.
5.6 It is also very important to bear in mind that the applicant's own advocate argued that the units were required not just now but also for the future, to provide sufficient choice when the economic environment improves.
5.7 There have been three subsequent applications in the area that are material to the assessment of this current scheme, which are set out below in the order in which they were determined.
5.8 PA 14/00871/C sought and gained approval for the change of use of Units B5 & B6 to "undertake furniture repair, storage and distribution with supporting administrative staff accommodation" for the Crossroads Care charity. The case officer recommended the application be refused:
"Whilst the use of a building with an approval for light industrial use, for a mix of that plus office does not in itself appear to be sufficiently harmful to warrant a refusal of permission, it needs to be remembered that the site is not allocated for development, and permission was only granted for the light industrial development on the basis that strong arguments were made for the need for ready made, light industrial premises of a sufficiently high quality to attract high tec businesses in a clean and modern environment, both now and when the economy picks up. To allow for a change of use before the development is even fully completed undermines this argument and signals the incremental loss of the site for the purpose that it set out to achieve."
5.9 PA 14/00443/B sought and gained approval for the change of use of the entirety of one of the unit blocks "to assembly of electrical components / showroom / trade counter / storage / distribution and ancillary offices (Sui Generis) for Units A1-A4 and light industrial (Use Class 5) for Units A5-A6". This was recommended for approval on the basis that the applicant, landowner and Department enter into a legal agreement under Section 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 requiring that the use revert to light industrial once the use ceases. The case officer, in commenting on the principle of the proposal, noted as follows:
"The original argument of need for a high quality/high tech/light industrial business park has already been undermined by the proposal to use the buildings by Crossroads for Care; and the application for change of use (14/00871/C) was approved by the Committee. This perhaps shows that high tech industries were not knocking at the door of the original developer. Nevertheless the development was approved and commenced and it is now for the site owner to find occupants for the buildings. With only the second occupant needing to apply for a change of use as they do not fit in with the original concept, there is a danger that the estate will become abundant with non-light industrial uses.
"The proposed use would not be particularly harmful. However, an element of control regarding the future use of the proposed units is required. The amalgamation of units A5 and A6 for light industrial use is considered to be acceptable, as the units are current restricted to light industrial uses under the extant approval. Therefore the conversion of the units would comply with the existing planning condition. It is recommended that a planning condition be attached to restrict the use of the amalgamated unit (Units A5-A6) to light industrial."
==== PAGE 15 ====
17/00320/C
Page 15 of 22
5.10 PA 15/00198/B sought and had approved the variance of condition 10 as attached to PA 11/01232/B, which restricted the units' use to 'light industrial' only, to enable the units to also be used for research and development. Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 sets out a number of Use Classes, Class 5 of which is named "Research and development, light industry".
5.11 This proved to be a much less controversial application - and, as the case officer pointed out:
"There is no specific reason given for the condition [10]. However, the application was made and approved on the basis that there was a need for high quality 'light industrial' uses and it appears that the condition was put forward for the avoidance of any future doubt, that the site was not a general industrial area, nor was it for any quasi industrial/retail use, nor for storage and distribution, car workshops and similar activities that occur in some industrial estates. The lack of reference to 'Research and Development' does not appear to be a deliberate exclusion.
"Given that research and development are considered to be so similar that they are contained within the same Class, and that it does not represent a 'special' industrial (bad neighbour) activity which would be contrary to the aims of the original application and that there seems to be some interest in the site for these purposes, then there is no objection to the proposal."
5.12 The case officer also noted that there had been some interest expressed in such uses, albeit that none had been taken up for this purpose.
5.13 Evidently, the approval issued to PA 16/01297/C is a clear material consideration in the assessment of this current application. While it may on the face of it appear to be a clear consideration in favour of the current application, this is not necessarily the case. In the first instance, there is no legal provision preventing the use of Unit D6 for its approved use - approval to the current scheme could allow for the operation of two of the units for non-light industrial uses, further constraining the supply of these units for which they were approved. There is no reason to dispute the veracity of the landowner's claims that the unit will be sold shortly and therefore not available, and it is to be noted that they have expressed their willingness to enter into a legal agreement under Section 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to prevent D6 from being brought into its approved use. Consideration will be required as to whether or not such an agreement is required to make the proposed use acceptable. It is also true that there is another application seeking a change of use of one of the Eden Park units (PA 17/00304/B), which if approved would further fore-shorten the supply of light industrial / research and development space on the site - for which, it must again be stressed, the units were exceptionally approved on the basis of national need.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure, in comments received 11th April 2017, noted that the application is the same as PA 16/01297/C, which was approved despite their objection that there was insufficient parking provision. They further note that the impact of this application would be the same as 16/01297/C and this means that they are again in a position where they have to object to the proposal on the basis that it does not provide sufficient car parking provision as required by the Strategic Plan, further noting that the two applications could potentially run concurrently, exacerbating their concerns. They also note as follows:
"It should be noted that there is currently an application for a change of use of unit D1 that will also require more car parking than is provided; the cumulative impact of such applications will have a deleterious impact on the safety of all car park users, in particular children."
==== PAGE 16 ====
17/00320/C
Page 16 of 22
6.2.1 In respect of the previous application, Highway Services noted the Transport Statement element of the applicant's supporting statement, but on 16th December 2016 raised concerns about the lack of sufficient detail on which to make an assessment of the application:
"The proposal is to use an industrial unit within an industrial estate as an out of school child care facility until a permanent location can be found.
"The application requires a transport statement detailing the anticipated traffic movements, car park accumulation survey, staff parking requirements, pedestrian movements. The concern is that there will be insufficient parking to accommodate all the parking requirements without using parking for adjacent units. As the facility is currently operating a week long survey of the existing situation should be included in the transport statement.
"Please defer the application until the applicant has addressed the above matters.
"The capacity and operation of the junction with Cooil Road was assessed on the traffic generated by the use of the units for light industry that has a lower anticipated traffic generation than the proposal."
6.2.2 On 22nd December 2016, the following correspondence was sent from Highway Services to the applicant via email:
"I have assessed your planning application for change of use of an industrial unit to an out of school care facility and in order to consider the likely impact of the proposal on highway safety and car parking provision I require additional information.
"The application requires a transport statement detailing the anticipated traffic movements, car park accumulation survey, staff parking requirements, pedestrian movements. The concern is that there will be insufficient parking to accommodate all the parking requirements without using parking that is set for adjacent units. As the facility is currently operating, albeit at a different site, a week long survey of the existing situation should be included in the transport statement.
"The survey will involve taking note of how many vehicles arrive and leave the site in each 5 minute period between the 3.30pm and 5.30pm; you should also note any pedestrian journeys that are made. All vehicles associated with the facility should be counted including servicing and staff.
"I also have concerns regarding the movement of children within the industrial estate as some of the adjacent units may have large vehicles manoeuvring in the vicinity.
"The capacity and operation of the junction with Cooil Road was assessed on the traffic generated by the use of the units for light industry that has a lower anticipated traffic generation than the proposal.
"You comment that the proposal is to be temporary in nature, can you please specify a timescale.
"I have requested that the Planning Authority defer making a decision on your application until you are able to consider the above and submit additional information."
6.3 Braddan Commissioners offered no objection to the application on 11th April 2017.
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.1 The starting point in the assessment of an application is normally the Development Plan. However, as planning approval has already been granted for development contrary to the Development Plan, the starting point in this case is the fact that the site has development on it. While it is therefore a matter of fact that the building the subject of this current application is
==== PAGE 17 ====
17/00320/C
Page 17 of 22
already there, Members should be very careful about applying too much weight to this. The four buildings on this site were approved exceptionally to meet (1) a specific, (2) a defined, and (3) an overriding national need for which no reasonable alternative was available. It is important to stress each of these points. The same test should therefore apply to any alternative proposed use on those buildings. The Inspector, in concluding that the original application for the units was acceptable, noted:
"...the case would not be made out that there is an immediate, overriding national need to release land now were the current appeal proposals simply conventional, essentially utilitarian, industrial units."
7.2 The current application does not propose any form of industrial use.
7.3 The fundamental test is therefore whether or not planning approval would have been granted for the development now proposed at the time the original buildings were approved.
7.4 Consideration is also required as to the highway safety implications arising from the proposal.
7.5 It is correct to take a very protectionist stance over these units given their planning history, and moreover it is correct that the starting point for the assessment of this application should be that the proposal does not comply with the zoning for the area - i.e. not zoned for any form of development. However, it would be wrong to completely ignore the fact that there is already a building here (albeit approved for a specific purpose, which the application manifestly does not reflect) in weighing up the points against and in favour of the proposed use.
7.6 As members will be aware, Planners try to avoid making reference to 'precedent', since every planning application should be treated on its own merits such that future decision-makers are not hamstrung by historic decisions. However, it is also true that previous decisions are material considerations in the assessment of current proposals. The extent to which the history of this site and its surroundings has been reviewed attests this point, but equally there should be an assessment as to how any decision reached in respect of this decision may fetter future decisions in respect of applications seeking approval for a change of use on Eden Business Park. It is therefore important that, should this application be approved, it be on the basis of the specific circumstance of this case and the applicant.
7.7 The applicant has submitted a well-considered planning statement, which sets out the alternative sites that have been assessed and discounted, and the reasons for doing so. A number of sites, and ideas of sites (e.g. church and sports halls), have been considered within the scope of their business needs. There is a specific and defined need for a particular kind of premises, again for the reasons outlined by the applicant. The additional information clarifies a number of points, not least that the applicant is in a very difficult situation with regards the continuation of his business and moreover that this is a well-established and well-run operation that clearly has a number of satisfied customers.
7.8 It is considered that the applicant has properly considered the alternatives, and discounted them for logical and understandable reasons. That being said, it must also be concluded that the scope of the applicant's search has been geographically limited to Douglas and the surrounding area. This, equally, is understandable inasmuch as this part of the Island probably provides the largest concentration of working people for who childcare is essential. It is considered that the geographic scope reflects the needs of the business, and it may well be unreasonable to require the applicant looks further afield as this would significantly affect and possibly undermine his well- established business model.
7.9 It is concluded that the application represents a specific and defined need.
==== PAGE 18 ====
17/00320/C
Page 18 of 22
7.10 As to whether or not there is an overriding national need for the development proposed, though, this is a more stringent and difficult requirement - the reason being that the protection of the countryside for its own sake and from unwarranted development is a central tenet of the Strategic Plan, embodied within a number of its policies (Strategic Policies 1 and 10, Environment Policy 1).
7.11 There is no definition of how such "an overriding national need" should be either expressed or an application intended to meet such a need assessed. The Inspector in considering the original application for the units noted that such a measure would be a comparative rather than an absolute one (his paragraph 94). There is no statement in the Development Plan or any other government policy document of how this need, in terms relative to the development proposed, should be quantified. It seems reasonable, though, to conclude that such a proposal would need to demonstrate sustainable development benefits to the Island and in the public interest where no reasonable alternative existed. While the immediate needs of the applicant's business are understood, and there is sympathy for the situation in which they find themselves, it is difficult to conclude that the proposal would meet an overriding and national need.
7.12 There are other such businesses that operate on the Island and (understandably) the applicant has not provided a comparative analysis of the quality of those other businesses. This was not undertaken by the promoters of the car franchise dealership (generally known as the Jackson's site), who instead relied on the importance of improving standards required by car brands and the difficulty of existing sites being able to achieve this. That was, of course, a wholly different scheme in terms of scale and use, but the point remains an important one. There is no such information about the need to improve standards with respect to childcare with this application, but equally the applicant is clear that the Unit the subject of this application can be upgraded in order to meet the statutory provisions of the Regulation of Care Act. Moreover, it is clearly not within his business interest to seek to use a unit with which his clients would be uncomfortable: there is documented proof on the application file that at least some of his clients feel the environment to be provided by this unit would be both acceptable for them and their children.
7.13 At this point it is probably worth reflecting on the temporary nature of the proposal. It is not known for precisely how long the Eden Park units have been complete, but a guess of three years does not seem unrealistic. It was noted from the site visit that just less than half the units remained available, although it is understood that some of those are nearing the final stages to be let. Fully one of the blocks is let by a lighting wholesaler, while another unit is let by Crossroads for Care. Therefore, it is fair to say that the take-up of the units by light industrial / research and development users has not been as fast as initially envisaged or projected by the landowner. That there remain units available to let for those uses is noted and welcomed, and reflects the statements of the estate agent acting on behalf of the landowner in the original application that units should be kept available should there be a market upswing.
7.14 The application site represents one unit, and it would be taken out of availability for a maximum period of 24 months should the application be approved and implemented. This can be limited by condition. Though the applicant would be within his rights to seek an extension to the temporary period in due course, any such future planning application would be assessed having regard to the availability situation of the units at that time. It must also be carefully considered as to whether or not the use of a unit for such a purpose as is proposed would materially and harmfully affect the character of the area such that approval to this application could represent the 'thin end of the wedge'.
7.15 Reflecting on all of the above, it is concluded that a temporary approval for this use, at this time and in this unit, would not be unreasonable. The unit would be removed from the use for which it was originally and exceptionally approved, but only for a short period. It would not be subject to harmful alteration (indeed, the works proposed to be undertaken would appear likely to improve the unit's attractiveness to potential users) such that it could be easily brought back into a light industrial / research and development use. Without being able to make any kind of
==== PAGE 19 ====
17/00320/C
Page 19 of 22
quantifiable judgement, there are a number of units that would be still available to cater for any market upswing during that two-year period.
7.16 There is no question that the proposal is contrary to the development plan and is also contrary to the specific and defined need that the Department was advised existed for certain uses in this location. There is also an argument that the fewer the units that remain available, the more rigorously they should be protected from loss to alternative uses.
7.17 It remains disappointing that the units have not been taken up for the approved uses, assuredly to both the landowner and the Department. This is no reason to approve the application before the Committee, but on this occasion it is not considered reason enough to object, either.
Highway safety issues
7.18 It is clear that there is insufficient parking on the site to meet the demand arising from the proposal. It is also clear that reliance upon shared parking, which would involve children walking across the car parking areas associated with light industrial units, is hardly ideal from a child safety point of view. Moreover, the very use of the building for childcare purposes must raise similar concerns on this point.
7.19 With regards this latter issue, however, it is again to be noted that the applicant has run a successful and well-respected business for many years. Some of his clients have specifically offered their support to the use of this unit for childcare. Clearly, it is in neither of these parties' interests to put child safety in any kind of risk, and indeed there is primary legislation (the Regulation of Care Act 2013), which places rightly onerous requirements on childcare providers to ensure their premises are safe. While it is still right to give consideration to this issue, it is concluded that an objection on this ground is unnecessary in view of the particular professional circumstances of the applicant and the support received from his clients in this respect.
7.20 The availability of parking spaces is perhaps a more difficult matter to resolve. Conversations were held between the applicant, Planning, and Highway Services. It was agreed that Unit D1 would be explored as a better option, as this was located nearer to the shared parking, and also the applicant agreed to try and secure parking associated with one of the other units in D block. There was also the question as to whether or not the Holiday Club element of the proposal should still form part of the scheme - Highway Services noted that their main concern with the proposal was the amount of traffic that would be generated from the dropping off of children 'en masse' by parents in individual cars would leave to significant disruption across the estate, especially should the other units be filled. In noting that the 'afterschool' element of the proposal would result only in the collection of children potentially causing such a problem, Highway Services seemed willing to accept this element of the application.
7.21 However, negotiations with respect to the possibility of an alternative unit were unsuccessful and so the application is proceeding in its submitted form. Moreover, the applicant has explained that the Holiday Club element of the proposal provides a significant proportion of the business income and to apply solely for the 'afterschool' element would not make financial sense. There is no reason for an applicant to seek approval for anything other than what they need to gain approval for, and therefore it is entirely reasonable that the application should continue in this form.
7.22 In terms of the available on-site parking, then, consideration needs to be given to the harm that would result. There is little doubt that having a number of cars turning up at once, manoeuvring and trying to park in the few bays available is likely to cause some form of congestion on the site and, to some extent, across the estate. At present, as noted, the estate is not fully let and when site visits have been conducted there have been plenty of parking spaces available across the estate as a whole. It is noted that the roads (unadopted) within the estate are wide, and there is a sense of space within the estate such that careful driving should not result in significant cause for concern.
==== PAGE 20 ====
17/00320/C
Page 20 of 22
7.23 This sense of openness is unlikely to continue when the units become let, and it is known that at least some of those that are vacant may soon become occupied. However, it is to be again remembered that the proposed use is only temporary, and indeed it may be that the concerns raised by Highway Services do not come to pass should Unit D6 be occupied as proposed. The unit is located on the edge of the estate and away from many units that are occupied. Indeed, the nearest occupied units are those let to Crossroads for Care, which is not a light industrial use and therefore perhaps brings with it more limited vehicle movements. That being said, they may also be affected by any displaced parking resulting from there being too few parking spaces at Unit D6, even if the adjacent spaces in D block are more likely to be attractive to drivers / parents in such circumstances.
7.24 Equally, it should be remembered that the advice provided by Highway Services comes from a professional highways engineer and their concerns should not be readily dismissed. That the use proposed is temporary does not make it acceptable: highway safety is a serious issue, particularly where children are concerned given their somewhat unpredictable nature, and the concern identified will be problematic whether the use operates for only one day. Therefore there is, again, a difficult balance to be struck.
7.25 The balance on this occasion is even finer than that previously, owing to the existence of not only an extant planning approval for the use of Unit D6 for the use here proposed, but also the possibility of PA 17/00304/B being approved. In the first place, it is concluded that sufficient comfort can be drawn from the statements of the applicant and landowner that the first planning approval (16/01297/C) will not be implemented. It is not considered that a legal agreement would be necessary in this case, and this conclusion is reached largely on the basis of the temporary nature of that approval. There is no way to be absolutely certain that the sale of D6 will proceed as intended (it is already taking longer than anticipated), nor that it may revert back within two years - in short, there is no way to be certain without the signing of a legal agreement. However, it is equally considered that such lengths would be unreasonable in this situation for the reasons already outlined. It is also of course very welcome that the business of the likely owner / end-user of Unit D6 complies with the planning approval in place for that unit.
7.26 There is more concern with regards PA 17/00304/B, and primarily on highway safety grounds. If approved, that application will also likely rely in part on some of the 'overflow' parking on the Business Park. The situation as envisaged by the Highways Engineer previously - namely, that continual reliance on overflow parking will result in displaced parking across the site - may come to pass, and soon, and may be difficult to prevent via planning control if the remainder of the units are occupied by businesses that do not require planning approval to do so. This is clearly undesirable, and to be avoided if possible. In this case, it is unlikely that displaced parking would have an impact wider than on the estate itself - though parking may be displaced elsewhere on this part of Cooil Road to the detriment of other businesses. In any case, a negative impact on highway safety is always to be avoided.
7.27 However, both this use and that proposed at Unit D1 would bring somewhat transient parking demands such that parking pressure would not be present at all times. It is also noted that, in the case of this scheme, the overflow / shared parking area is nearer Unit D2 than was the case with D6, and therefore the comings and goings of vehicles from these spaces will be quicker as the walking distance between these spaces and the units would be much reduced.
8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
8.1 It is highly unlikely that a permanent use of this unit as for childcare would be acceptable in Planning terms. This is owing to the planning history of the site. Moreover, there is a clear objection from Highway Services that seems difficult to overcome despite the best efforts and intentions of the applicant.
==== PAGE 21 ====
17/00320/C
Page 21 of 22
8.2 There does not seem to be any particular harm arising from the grant of this application on a temporary basis - in short, the loss of one unit from its approved use for a short period of time would not prevent its being returned to that approved use in due course. The applicant has explained that the use proposed is only temporary while alternative premises can be found, and a reasonable view of the situation 'on the ground' is that the loss of this unit for a period of two years would, while contrary to the development plan, not prevent the remaining units from coming into a use for which they were exceptionally approved.
8.3 With respect to the highway safety issues, it is concluded that these are not so severe as to warrant the application's refusal. While the concern raised is significant and understood, and some weight is given to the temporary nature of the use, the nature of the site as well as its fairly quiet and lightly trafficked immediate vicinity is such that no objection is raised. The nature of how children will be brought to the site, and how the business's vehicles are intended to be stored off- site, allows the conclusion to be reached that there will be as much parking made on the site as possible.
8.4 The above conclusion on the acceptability of this temporary proposal on behalf of this applicant in this location and at this time has been reached with extreme caution. It is possible that, should the application be approved, people may simply see the decision reached and conclude that alternative uses for these units are acceptable. This is fundamentally not the case. The applicant in this case has put forward a compelling argument on behalf of his business and how it is conducted, and as it has been concluded that the use proposed is acceptable on the basis of the explanations put forward by the applicant it is consequently concluded that a condition limiting the approval solely to this applicant would be necessary in this instance.
8.5 Since approval is sought for only a two-year period, it is not considered necessary to attach the 'standard' condition that requires the planning approval to be commenced within four years.
9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; o The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; o Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure, and o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 28.04.2017
Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The use of Unit D2 and the associated parking as shown on Dwg.01 (date-stamped as having been received 21st March 2017) for the use hereby approved shall permanently cease two years from the date of this decision notice.
==== PAGE 22 ====
17/00320/C
Page 22 of 22
Reason: The planning history of the site is such that any permanent loss of any of the Eden Park units from either light industrial or research and development uses would be contrary to the exceptional circumstances that resulted in those units' approval for those uses on land not zoned for any particular purpose.
C 2. The use of Unit D2 and the associated parking as shown on Dwg.01 (date-stamped as having been received 21st March 2017) for the use hereby shall only be for the benefit of Hopes and Dreams Limited t/a The Buzz and in accordance with the details set out in the information from the applicant dated as having been received 21st March 2017, 22nd March 2017, and 27th April 2017.
Reason: The development hereby approved is only acceptable in this location because of the special circumstances of the applicant.
The development hereby approved relates to Drwg 01, 02 and 03, all date-stamped as having been received 21st March 2017.
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:...08.05.2017
Signed :...A MORGAN... Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
NO
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal