Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
18/00329/REM Page 1 of 19
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 18/00329/REM Applicant : JM Project Management Limited Proposal : Reserved Matters application for the construction of retail unit with associated parking (relating to PA 15/00775/A) Site Address : Field 320653 And Part Field Nos 324324, 324323 & 324321 Ballaglonney Farm Peel Road Crosby Isle Of Man
Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 18.06.2018 __
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved must be commenced before 29th June, 2020.
Reason: to comply with Article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No 2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented approvals and also to accord with the approval in principle granted under 15/00775/A.
C 2. The building must be erected, laid out and used as shown in drawings 16/2576/105D and 16/2576/106A. In particular, the two units must be arranged as shown and may not be combined or merged and there may be no additional floorspace introduced either through the introduction of mezzanine flooring or any other means.
Reason: the proposal as approved represents less than 500 sq m of retail floorspace which would not require a Retail Impact Assessment to demonstrate that the development would not have an adverse impact on the viability and vitality of the town centres: any increase in floor are would be in excess of this and no RIA has been provided.
C 3. The units hereby approved may be used as a shop under Class 1 of Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order and for no other purpose.
Reason: in order to reflect the nature of the planning application and to control the impact of the development on the surrounding area.
C 4. No construction work may be undertaken on the site other than between 0800 and 1900hrs Monday to Saturday inclusive.
Reason: to ensure that the living conditions of those living near the site are not adversely affected.
==== PAGE 2 ====
18/00329/REM Page 2 of 19
C 5. No development may commence until such times as protective fencing has been erected in positions approved by the Department to protect those existing trees which are to be retained, during contruction. The approved fencing must be retained during the course of construction.
Reason: to ensure that the landscaping is effected in accordance with the approved plans and in the interests of the amenities of the area.
C 6. Prior to the installation of any pipework between the proposed commercial unit and the junction of the A1 and Old Church Road the applicant must have approved by the Department a method statement demonstrating how the pipework will be installed without interfering with the roots of existing trees and the development must be undertaken in accordance with these details.
Reason: the pipework is shown to pass very close to where there are tree roots of trees to be retained and as such, a condition should be imposed if the application is approved, to seek the details of how this pipework will be installed without harming the roots of these trees.
C 7. Prior to the operation of the retail unit, the car parking spaces to the north shall be laid out and available for use by staff and customers of the units and retained as such thereafter.
Reason: to ensure that there is sufficient car parking available to serve the commercial unit.
C 8. There must be no disturbance to the bed or margins of the south eastern stream including disturbance due to in-channel works or entry to the watercourse by machinery and to ensure this, details of any proposed works to the north western bank profile of the stream running along the south eastern side of the site together with a construction method statement must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department prior to the start of the construction of the path and the culvert and any embankment works: the method statement shall outline a suitable construction approach to reduce the possibility of disturbance of fish within the stream ad the works must be carried out in accordance with these details and this statement all to avoid disturbance or injury to fish and protection of the aquatic and bankside habitat.
Reason: to accord with Environment Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan and the Wildlife Act 1990.
C 9. No lighting may be attached to the building nor may lighting associated with the retail unit be installed within the site without the prior permission of the Department.
Reason: to protect the character of the area and the living conditions of those in properties in the vicinity.
C 10. No items for sale may be stored or displayed for sale outside of the building and there may be no outside storage of material nor the installation of plant or equipment outside of the building.
Reason: to ensure that all parking and access areas are available for their intended purpose and to preserve the visual appearance of the building and to ensure that there is no noise nuisance from heating, ventilation or other plant.
C 11. The retail unit hereby approved may not be open for business after 2200hrs on any day nor before 0700hrs on any day.
Reason: to protect the living conditions of those living in nearby residential property.
==== PAGE 3 ====
18/00329/REM Page 3 of 19
C 12. The on-site parking, turning and loading areas must be suitably hard surfaced and provided prior to occupation of the development and maintained and remain unobstructed thereafter.
Reason: in the interests of highway safety and to ensure that there is sufficient car parking provided to serve the proposed development.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
all of those who submitted written representations are close enough to the site to be considered to be directly affected and whose addresses are the same or similar to those who were afforded interested person status in 15/00775/A and 16/01314/REM:
1, Eyreton Terrace 3, Richmond Terrace 3 and 4, Crosby Terrace 1, 3, 5 and 6, Eyremont Terrace, 7, 6, 9, 17, 18 and 19 , Eyreton Park and the Marown Memorial Playing Fields Ltd.
__
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE AND AS THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL WITH AN OBJECTION FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND A NUMBER OF LOCAL OBJECTORS
THE SITE 1.1 The site is part of field 320653 which lies to the south west of the junction of the A1 Main Road through Crosby and the north-south intersection of Eyreton Road (A23) and Old Church Road (B35). The site represents the area of an earlier approval in principle for 28 residential dwellings and provision of retail space addressing matters of siting and means of access. Reserved matters approval has been granted for all of the houses but refused for the retail unit (16/01131/REM and 16/01314/REM) - see Planning History below.
1.2 The site slopes downward from north east to south west. The north eastern boundary of the site is formed by a low hedge which until recently had a row of trees along it although many of these have now been felled to facilitate the development which has been approved here. Opposite this, on the other side of the main road, is 1-6, Eyremont Terrace, 1, Crosby Terrace and on the corner of Main Road and Eyreton Road is a pair of semi-detached houses - Crosby House and Eyrebrook. To the south east of the site is a tree-lined watercourse beyond which are public toilets, a children's playground, a bowling club, Marown Millennium Hall, a BMX track and a sports pitch. On the other sides of the site are open, agricultural fields.
1.3 The site includes a linear section which links to the long distance Heritage Trail footpath which is outwith the applicant's ownership.
THE PROPOSAL
==== PAGE 4 ====
18/00329/REM Page 4 of 19
2.1 This current application is for the detailed matters reserved from 15/00775/A which approved the principle and siting of a retail unit on the site, in a slightly different position - the building and the delivery yard being handed, resulting in the building being around 5.5m further to the south east. Whilst different, it is not considered to be so significantly different from the siting shown in the application in principle to not be capable of being considered as a reserved matters application. The matters now to be considered therefore are the design and appearance of the building, including its height and the proposed car parking which is 5 spaces less than was shown in the application in principle. The proposed building is rectangular in shape and has a footprint of 31.6m by 15.6m giving a floor area of 493 sq m. There is a set of stairs in the south eastern part of the building, which leads to a first floor area of a further 5 sq m and a balcony 1.9m wide and extending around the south eastern elevation by 7m and around the front elevation by 13.5m.
2.2 The unit is identical to one proposed as part of 16/01314/REM - see Planning History - but without the internal mezzanine level of office space which was included in that application. The proposal is a very similar footprint (0.7m longer and 0.1m wider) but different in position to what was shown in the approval in principle 15/00775/A - the building and the yard being handed in the original application. The external finishes of the building will be fair faced brickwork on the rear and the side facing the yard to the north west and Manx stonework on the walled area of the front alongside large areas of glazing and on the south eastern gable there will be stonework, wood effect boarding and glazing. The roof will be finished in natural or simulated slates.
2.3 The building is internally arranged to have two retail areas of 92 sq m and 273 sq m nett floorspace and to the side of the larger retail area will be a storage area, manager's office, staff room and three toilets in a further 90 sq m. The total retail floorspace is 365 sq m, measured internally.
2.4 To the north west of the building is a service yard finished in concrete and with a 3m high wall around it, bounding plots 21, 27 and 28 of the housing development already approved.
2.5 Opposite the retail unit is a row of 22 parking spaces with dimensions of 5m by 2.4m. Directly in front of the unit are a further 11 spaces including two marked as suitable for disabled users all of which are 4.8m long. There will be 6m separating the two banks of spaces.
2.6 The applicant has provided some supporting information with the application, citing the reasons for refusal and suggesting that, "he [the inspector] was careful not to refuse the building on any other grounds except for the office portion of the proposal and specifically refers to the limit of 500 sq ms as a reason for this". He surmises that the inspector considered approving the application with a condition removing the office floor space (the inspector's paragraph 66) and as such, this indicates that the application would have been acceptable without that element. He explains that the reference to 4,500 sq ft in the application in principle related to the retail floorspace only and did not refer to any storage or other ancillary space such as is shown on the current plans. He clarifies that the current application provides only 372 sq m of floor space and that the approval in principle drawing is clearly for a building with a footprint of more than 418 sq m.
2.7 He explains that the balcony is a means of creating a covered canopy over the entrance and to add interest to the front elevation. He does not consider that it will be used other than for the "odd function as part of the retail unit" depending upon who takes the small unit and could also be used for maintenance, an incidental use.
2.8 Finally, he explains that the height of the building is to enable it to be seen from the main road as most of the frontage will be screened with trees except for the entrance to the site and in his view, a smaller building would appear out of place amongst taller, two storey buildings.
==== PAGE 5 ====
18/00329/REM Page 5 of 19
He considers that the inspector agreed with this approach and notes that the height gives a nice spacious welcoming interior to the shop in much the same way as does the Market Hall in Douglas.
2.9 33 car parking spaces are proposed, compared with 38 in the earlier application in principle. The reduction is a result of the widening of the spaces to accommodate larger, modern vehicles and was considered acceptable by Highway Services in the 2016 applications for the reserved matters and indeed no reasons for refusal were given in respect of the inadequacy of the number of spaces in 16/01314/REM.
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site of the proposed retail unit is designated on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as Proposed Residential. Proposed residential designation can include non-residential development where this is complementary to a residential area, such as shops, churches and amenities which contribute to the sustainability of a settlement. These facilities are referred to in the Strategic Plan as follows:
"10.6 Neighbourhood Centres 10.6.1 The provision within residential areas of small shops, often combined with sub-post offices and off-licence facilities, occupies an important place in the range of shopping facilities available. Many people are dependent on such shops, these being the only shops to which access can be gained easily on foot, without relying on public or private transport. In addition, such a facility may not only be considered a desirable service, but may also serve as a focus of community life and help sustain a small community.
10.6.2 Local shopping/neighbourhood centres, typically described as local centres, usually comprise a newsagent, a general grocery store, a sub-post office and occasionally a pharmacy, a hairdresser and other small shops of a local nature. Allied to this may also be a community centre/meeting place to serve the immediate local community. With the increased focus on recycling, local centres are ideal sites for local recycling facilities.
10.6.3 In requesting community facilities within new and expanding developments, account needs to be taken of the size, type and particular needs of the new resident population. However, account must also be taken of availability and proximity of existing community facilities. Community benefit in this context is defined as one or more of the following: sub post office/general store, doctor's surgery and community meeting centres.
10.6.4 The following policy is therefore adopted to ensure the provision of appropriate facilities within new residential developments.
Community Policy 1: Where relevant and appropriate, there should be provided by the developer of new or expanded residential areas, community benefits in the form of neighbourhood centres.
10.7 Community Centres 10.7.1 Community centres, meeting places, and village/parish halls are an important focal point in community life. Where perceived lack of provision is identified, land will be safeguarded in the relevant Area Plan. The following policy is therefore adopted:
Community Policy 2: 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.
10.7.2 Local community facilities are important in providing for local communities without the need for travel and should be retained unless the site or premises are no longer suitable for the
==== PAGE 6 ====
18/00329/REM Page 6 of 19
current or an alternative community use. Developers will be expected to demonstrate that the potential to use the site or building for other community uses has been investigated.
10.8 Retention of Existing Local Shops and Public Houses The loss of facilities such as neighbourhood shops in towns and or village shops and public houses reduces customer choice and can also necessitate people travelling further to meet their needs. This is a particular problem in rural areas where village shops, post offices and public houses can be central to village life. It would be preferable to retain viable facilities, or those that can be made viable and where a change of use or re-development is proposed developers will be expected to show evidence of attempts to market the property as a business in these areas.
Community Policy 4: Development (including the change of use of existing premises) which involves the loss of local shops and local public houses, will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that the use is no longer commercially viable, or cannot be made commercially viable."
3.2 Control is recommended in the Plan to ensure that the more significant retail developments are directed towards existing town centres, as follows:
"9.4.3 Exceptions to this general policy have been identified in paragraph 9.2.6. In addition, there are community benefits associated with neighbourhood shops (see paragraph 10.6.1). The following general policy is therefore appropriate:
Business Policy 9: The Department will support new retail provision in existing retail areas at a scale appropriate to the existing area and which will not have an adverse effect on adjacent retail areas. Major retail development proposals will require to be supported by a Retail Impact Assessment(1).
(1) Retail Impact Assessment (RIA) is defined in Appendix 1
Business Policy 10: 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.
9.4.4 For the purposes of Business Policy 9 major retail development will be classed as any new or increase in existing retail development of more than 500 sq. metres of floor space measured externally. For the purposes of Business Policy 10 new neighbourhood shops within new residential developments will not normally comprise more than 100sq metres of floor space measured externally."
3.3 Crosby is defined within the Island's settlement hierarchy in the Strategic Plan as a "village" where the following guidance is provided:
Spatial Policy 4: In the remaining villages development should maintain the existing settlement character and should be of an appropriate scale to meet local needs for housing and limited employment opportunities.
These villages are: Bride, Glen Maye, Sulby, Dalby, Ballaugh, Ballafesson, Glen Mona, Colby, Baldrine, Ballabeg, Crosby, Newtown, Glen Vine and Strang.
Area Plans will define the development boundaries of such settlements so as to maintain their existing character.
==== PAGE 7 ====
18/00329/REM Page 7 of 19
3.4 Above the villages in the settlement hierarchy are Service Villages. Service Centres then Douglas which will be the main location for employment, housing and services.
3.5 General Policy 2 states that "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:
(b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
3.6 Transport Policy 7 states, "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. Appendix 7 requires neighbourhood shops to have "Spaces for staff, customers, and service vehicles".
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 Planning approval was granted to the principle of development under 15/00775/A including the siting of the buildings and the means of access. This approved the principle of 28 dwellings and a retail unit. The plans submitted with that showed a building with a footprint of 30.873m by 15.5 m - 478.53 sq m measured externally. Despite this, the accompanying information submitted indicated that the retail unit was to have a floor area of 4,500 sq ft - 418 sq m. The inspector makes no reference to the floor area in her assessment of the application other than to reiterate the reference to the 418 sq m. That application was approved without any further constraints or controls over the floor area of the retail unit.
16/01314/REM - initial decision 4.2 The application for the reserved matters of the retail unit, 16/01314/REM was refused by the Planning Committee on 11th November, 2017 for the reasons that:
The proposed retail element, by virtue of its size and nature (including one large unit) is considered to exceed both what was described in the approval in principle, 15/00775/A. and what is considered to be an appropriate scale for the type of retail facilities described in Spatial Policy 4 and Business Policies 9 and 10.
Office floorspace was not included in the approval in principle (15/00775/A) and the need for it has not been demonstrated sufficiently to overcome this. In addition, its inclusion results in the commercial unit being larger than it may otherwise be, resulting in concerns that the building's height, combined with its mass, renders it out of keeping with the character of the village.
4.3 That decision also related to the 21 dwellings and a further reason was added in respect of that element of the development.
16/01314/REM - appeal decision 4.4 The decision was challenged to appeal by the applicant and the decision on appeal was split, the 21 dwellings being approved and the retail unit refused for the following reasons:
==== PAGE 8 ====
18/00329/REM Page 8 of 19
"1. No planning approval has been granted for office development on this site. The use of the retail building authorised by planning approval 15/00775/A is not a reserved matter, and therefore an office use cannot be authorised in this building on the basis of an application for the approval of reserved matters. Furthermore, the proposed office use would be contrary to Business Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, as the site is not zoned for office use in any development plan.
4.5 The inspector makes the following comments about the proposed retail unit:
"Scale and visual impact of the retail building 67 Both the siting and the footprint of the retail building now proposed differ from what was shown in the scheme for which planning approval in principle was granted. In addition, the details now submitted show that that building would include a first-floor. In paragraph 2 of her report on the inquiry into the appeal against the approval in principle (15/00775/A) the Inspector indicated that the application for that development sought approval for 418m2 of retail floor space. By comparison, the gross floor area of the retail building now proposed would be about 594m2, by measurement agreed between the parties at the inquiry. I do not accept that this scale of increase could reasonably be considered non-material or de minimis; or that it would be justified by application of the Wheatcroft principle.
68 Paragraph 9.4.4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan defines a 'major retail development' as including any new retail development 'of more than 500m2 of floor space measured externally'. It follows that the retail building now proposed would constitute a 'major retail development'. Business Policy 9 of the Strategic Plan states that 'major retail development proposals will require to be supported by a Retail Impact Assessment'. No such assessment has been submitted in the present case; and no approval in principle has been granted for a 'major retail development' on this site. In the circumstances, I do not consider that approval should be granted for such a development on the basis of a reserved matters application. In my view, compliance with the approval in principle would require a building with a substantially smaller floor area. For this reason, I do not consider that the present appeal should be allowed in respect of the proposed retail building.
69 However, I do not accept that the proposed retail building would look out of place. Its apparent bulk and height would be mitigated by the fact that it would be located in a relatively low-lying part of the appeal site. And its blank rear wall would be partially screened by landscaping, which would soften its visual impact.
Overlooking children's play area 70 I am not persuaded that children using the neighbouring playground would be endangered by being visible to people standing on the proposed first-floor balcony to the retail building. On the contrary, it may be that the safety of the playground would be enhanced by supervision from a neighbouring building. In any event, I do not consider that planning decisions should be guided by the principle that children at play should never be seen from a neighbouring building."
REPRESENTATIONS Local Authority
==== PAGE 9 ====
18/00329/REM Page 9 of 19
5.1 Marown Parish Commissioners object to the application on the basis that the plans are deficient for want of a scale and the precise dimensions of the building are critical in terms of the need for a RIA and BP9. They maintain that the design of the building is not acceptable and whilst the earlier application referred to a neighbourhood shop, this looks more like an out of town facility and has an industrial character and is more than a little overbearing. Whilst they note the applicant's suggestion that the only reason for refusal of the earlier application was the floor area, this is a red herring and the most recent comment on the design is that of the PC: the applicant must not presume what was in the inspector's mind and they are of the view that the inspector did not consider the merits of the design. Unless a condition were attached, a mezzanine floor could be added, particularly as there is already a staircase included in the application. The balcony is "entirely unacceptable". They recommend that the application is refused for the same reasons as given by the Planning Committee in the case of the earlier application (19.04.18, 21.06.18).
Local residents in favour of the application 5.2.1 The occupant of 18, Eyreton Park supports the application which he considers would be a much welcome addition to Crosby by the majority of residents and would provide much needed cohesiveness to the village. He notes that any shopping at the moment needs to be undertaken by car, bus or delivery van which is not a very satisfactory state of affairs. He looks forward to the day when approval is granted and the shop is in place (24.04.18).
5.2.2 The occupant of 6, Eyreton Park supports the application, stating that the shop is most needed and it must be passed (received on 26.04.18).
5.2.3 The occupant of 19, Eyreton Park asks for the application to be approved as it is badly needed by people who do not drive. They point out that the nearest shop to her is in Union Mills and other than that in Douglas or Peel so she has to pay for a taxi to get her shopping done. She considers that it would be useful for the older generation of the village to have a shop perhaps a post office, for papers, birthday card and somewhere to walk to and get their food and a shop here would make her life so much easier (received on 27.04.18).
5.2.4 The occupants of 17, Eyreton Park support the application, considering that it would benefit the whole village as at the moment it is just a drive through settlement, especially during the day when the public house does not attract many people. They write that they cannot express their feelings strongly enough in favour of the proposal (24.04.18).
5.2.5 The occupants of 9, Eyreton Park are in favour of the proposal (30.04.18).
5.2.6 The occupant of 7, Eyreton Park is in support of the application, noting that there has been housing development around the area and it is in desperate need of a shop or small supermarket, the nearest shop being in Union Mills and Douglas and older people and those with small children would find it advantageous to have a shop here (received on 30.04.18).
Local residents and organisations opposed to the application 5.3.1 The owner of 6, Eyremont Terrace objects to the application, suggesting that it appears to be identical to that which was refused at appeal for being over 500 sq m which was considered to represent a major retail development without a retail impact assessment. He also expresses concern that there are no dimensions on the plans (02.05.18).
5.3.2 Marown Memorial Playing Fields Ltd object to the application on the basis that the building is out of keeping with the village setting and would be contrary to Spatial Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan which requires that development respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form design and landscaping of buildings and space around them. They are especially concerned about the height of the building which would be taller than any building in the vicinity and they consider that the information supplied in the application demonstrates how imposing the building will be from the main road. They consider that the
==== PAGE 10 ====
18/00329/REM Page 10 of 19
scale of the building is inappropriate for a settlement the size of Crosby and that this will adversely affect town centres. They consider that the gable closest to the play area will prevent light and outlook from the play area and that this will affect the rubber matting. They do not understand why the building has to be so high and wonder whether an internal floor will be introduced at a later date. They consider the stairway an unnecessary expense. They are concerned that the nature of construction will necessitate significant heating and lighting which is contrary to environmental objectives and they still have grave concerns about the balcony and despite suggestions that it could add a level of supervision of the play area, most of the users of the play area are accompanied by an adult and as such do not require additional supervision. Finally, they consider the south facing elevation to be an unattractive expanse of brick wall (01.05.18).
5.3.3 The owner of 1, Eyreton Terrace objects to the application on the basis that it would be contrary to Spatial Policy 4 and the Spatial Vision by undermining the local identity of Crosby. They ask that the current development is monitored to ensure that it complies with the approved plans (04.05.18).
5.3.4 The owner of 3, Crosby Terrace, supports the reasons for objection given by Marown Parish Commissioners, considering that the design is unacceptable and that the proposal is essentially the same as that which was recently refused and she notes that the elevation plans do not include a scale. She considers the building to be enormous and inappropriate for a tiny and picturesque village like Crosby and will spoil the area. She also objects to the 28 dwellings, although these have already been approved (04.05.18).
5.3.5 Two representations have been received from 5, Eyremont Terrace (04.05.18 and an undated letter understood to have been received on 09.05.18). Both letters express concern at the size of the unit, suggesting that many of the customers will not be local and requiring large lorries to keep it stocked, which is inappropriate for small village. They suggest that it is far larger than the nearest neighbourhood shops which may close as a result and that the traffic and lighting generated by the unit will create unacceptable impacts on those living nearby. They express concern at the lack of a road crossing, particularly for children and the retail unit will make this situation worse. Other concerns have been raised about the development which is on-going and whether conditions are being adhered to: these are matters for the enforcement section and have been so referred.
5.3.6 The owners of 3, Richmond Terrace consider that the size and design of the unit is not a village shop and more like a supermarket which is inappropriate for the size of the village. They express concern that a mezzanine level could be added which may not need planning approval and they refer to Spatial Policy 4 and General Policy 2, suggesting that the development does not take account of either of these. They are concerned at the height of the building which they consider will be overbearing and would totally change the character of the village and they consider the inclusion of a balcony to be unacceptable (04.05.18).
5.3.7 The owner of 1, Eyreton Terrace points out that an application by Marown Parish Commissioners on a different site not far from the applicant's home was refused and that surely, in the interests of consistency, this application should also be refused (04.05.18).
5.3.8 The owner of 3, Eyremont Terrace, who purchased the property earlier in 2018, submitted a number of e-mails, raising concern about the principle of the developments which have been approved and the impact of this on the character and appearance of the village and how confusing it is that so many applications have been submitted. In relation to the commercial unit, the proposals are for something far in excess of what a village needs (02.05.18, 04.05.18, 05.05.18).
5.3.9 The owners of 4, Crosby Terrace have no objection to a village shop, such as that at St. John's, Andreas of Sulby but object to the size of the proposed supermarket which they
==== PAGE 11 ====
18/00329/REM Page 11 of 19
consider is out of character with the village atmosphere and would be bigger than any building in Crosby. It would not adhere to the Biosphere status values and if the development goes ahead Crosby will not be a special place for anyone to live (04.05.18 and 08.05.18).
5.3.10 The owners of 1, Eyremont Terrace express concern that details of the application have not been available online, leaving only 7 days to comment but wishes to object to the application, with further details to follow. They maintain the objections they had to the development, as set out in PAs 15/00775/A, 16/01131/REM and 16/01314/REM. The original planning application that was approved in principle had the warehouse delivery area on the south eastern side of the building, not on the north western side as is shown in the current applications. This is a fundamental change which should result in the application being refused. The inclusion of the balcony on one of the applications is contrary to what was previously refused and they ask that if approved, the applicant is not able to create additional space. The proposed retail space is only 2 sq m less than the amount which would require a RIA and in their view, the increase in retail space is similar in size to another dwelling on the site. They consider the application to be for a supermarket and that a RIA is required to demonstrate that it will not have an impact on the existing town centres in accordance with Business Policy 9 and not result in increasing closures of town centre shops. They suggest that the original application proposed a parade of shops and what is described in the Strategic Plan as a neighbourhood shop is 100 sq m which was still considerably less than the 418 sq m which was referred to and approved in the application in principle. This increase was noted by the inspector considering 16/01314/REM and was refused. In the applicant's illustrations there is retail being undertaken outside of the building, resulting in an effective floorspace of over 500 sq m. They request that the building is reduced in size and that there is no outside trading. The original tree screen is to be replaced by a brick wall. The increased size of the unit will result in larger delivery vehicles which will have a significant impact on the local road network. They refer to IDG guidance which describes convenience stores which have a sales area of less than 3,000 sq ft (278 sq m).
5.3.11 They are concerned that the development will have a detrimental impact on those within the new estate as well as those opposite due to deliveries, light and odour nuisance. If the service area is used for storage vehicles will not be able to turn and will reverse through the car park or from the main entrance which is off a Strategic Link and deliveries during the day could conflict with the legitimate use of the parking spaces.
5.3.12 They suggest that if planning approval is granted, conditions are attached to ensure that no external lit signage is permitted, there is no light pollution from the development, there is no advertising on the windows of the unit, there is no trading outside the building, there is no combining of the units to make one larger unit, there is no external advertisements by means of banners or posters, all refrigeration and heat units are placed within the building to ensure that there is no noise nuisance. They also request that all waste and cages be stored inside the retail unit and that there are restrictions on deliveries between 0900hrs and 1700hrs Monday to Friday (they suggest that the Co-op already adhere to these times) and that all reversing sirens are switched off before entering the site with a banksman on site for all delivery vehicles. They suggest that the units open no earlier than 0900hrs and no later than 1800hrs and no alcohol be served which would have an adverse impact on the existing public house. All these conditions they believe, can be applied in the interests of GP4:
General Policy 4: Where appropriate the Department will enter into Agreements under section 13 of the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act which may: (a) restrict the use of land; (b) require land to be used in a particular way; (c) restrict the operations which may be carried out in, on, under or over land; (d) require operations or activities to be carried out in, on, under or over land or; (e) require payments to be made to the Department either in a single sum or periodically, in particular as commuted sums for open space or parking provision, or other social or cultural
==== PAGE 12 ====
18/00329/REM Page 12 of 19
provision, including public art, which is necessary and directly associated with the development proposed.
5.3.13 In respect of adverts, they request that all adverts are limited to the buildings and not placed outside and nothing is allowed alongside the road and that signs are not illuminated. They refer to a previous decision to refuse a new shop within a field situated opposite Marown Parish Church and on the northern side of the road between Glen Vine and Crosby which was for a smaller shop and where the inspector noted that if the shop became more than just a local shop, it would undermine the Island's town centre first retail strategy. (04.05.18, 10.04.18 and 11.05.18).
Government Departments 5.4 Highway Services commented initially on 05.04.18 but following the submission of a plan illustrating the access and manoeuvring details of large vehicles, raise no objection, subject to conditions requiring that the detailed highway design of the site access routes, and the adjacent highway improvements on Peel Road are to be agreed in writing prior to the construction of the development and built in accordance with the approved details, that the on site parking, turning and loading areas are to be suitably hard surfaced and provided prior to occupation of the development and maintained and unobstructed thereafter, and the visibility splays at the site junction are to be provided prior to construction and retained as such thereafter (04.06.18 and 15.06.18).
5.5 It should be noted that the approval in principle, on which this REM application relies, was subject to a number of conditions, including the following:
"6. No building works shall commence on site until such time as the access into the site from the A1, together with the visibility splays as approved, has been provided in accordance with the approved plans and retained as such thereafter."
"7. No development shall commence until details of the bus lay-by and the pedestrian crossing and its associated pavements, together with a timetable for their provision, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and timetable."
"8. None of the dwellings hereby approved, nor the retail space, shall be occupied until such time as the bus lay-by and pedestrian crossing approved as part of this application are in place and available for use."
5.6 These conditions need not be repeated in any decision in respect of the REM applications and continue to apply to the development throughout its implementation. The details of the crossing and bus lay-by and timetable for their implementation were submitted as part of the applications for 16/01131/REM and 16/01314/REM and were approved. It is understood that further approval is required from the Department of Infrastructure, under the Highway Act As such, the remaining, outstanding condition to be applied in this case is:
"the on site parking, turning and loading areas are to be suitably hard surfaced and provided prior to occupation of the development and maintained and unobstructed thereafter".
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The material considerations in this case are:
the provisions of the development plan: in this case The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 and the provisions of the Strategic Plan, particularly those policies highlighted in Section 3 above and decisions on the previous applications 15/00775/A and 16/01314/REM
==== PAGE 13 ====
18/00329/REM Page 13 of 19
6.2 Whilst the decisions of the Planning Committee are important in reflecting the views of those members at that time, where these views differ from the conclusions and decision of the Minister in respect of the same application, the latter takes precedence along with the views of the inspector where they are consistent with that decision.
6.3 The principle of the provision of a retail unit here is not in dispute due to the provisions of the Development Plan which allow such facilities and the fact that such a use was approved in principle under 15/00775/A. The issues in this case are the size of the unit having regard to the provisions of the Development Plan and the previous decisions on the site and the physical impact of the proposed development, also having regard to the same material considerations.
Size of the unit 6.4 The unit constitutes 498 sq m of floorspace including the internal balcony, measured externally. The external balcony would not usually be considered to constitute calculable floorspace and this is certainly not retail space. The impact of the balcony is considered to be related to its physical impact rather than the inclusion of its floorspace. This amount is less than 500 sq m and as such, a RIA is not required under the provisions of the Strategic Plan. The fact that it is slightly less than this is not relevant to this deliberation: there is a threshold and the proposal falls below that.
6.5 This amount is more than 418 sq m referred to in the approval in principle. However, nowhere in that application did it qualify whether this amount was gross or nett and indeed this amount related to a building which had a footprint almost identical to what is shown here (see paragraph 2.2). The building did not represent one with only 418 sq m of gross floor space. This difference is not discussed within the application process of 15/00775/A.
6.6 The inspector considering 16/01314/REM refers to the size of the unit, in that case it incorporated an upper office area and constituted a total of 594 sq m. He considered this to be not only out of the scope of the approval in principle but being of a scale which was significantly more than the 418 sq m referred to in the approval in principle but also of a scale which would require to be supported by a Retail Impact Assessment and one was not provided. He does not discuss the merits of a building of that scale and his recommendation for refusal is simply based upon the fact that the floor area exceeded the amount which can be considered without a RIA and that it incorporated office space which was not provided for in the approval in principle or in the Strategic Plan.
6.7 There is clearly a discrepancy between the 418 sq m referred to by the applicant in the application in principle and what was shown and approved on the plans accompanying that application. 15/00775/A approved the siting of the buildings and as such included a reference to the footprint shown in the drawings. This is made very clear by the inspector considering 16/01314/REM where he states:
"2 On 29 June 2016, planning approval in principle was granted, on appeal, for the construction of 28 dwellings and the provision of retail space on the present appeal site (PA 15/00775/A). A plan showing the siting and footprint of the proposed residential and retail buildings was approved by that decision."
"Inspector's assessment 57 Planning approval has already been granted for the principle of the erection of 28 dwellings and the provision of retail space at Ballaglonney Farm, in the decision on application 15/00775/A. That decision also granted approval for the siting of the proposed buildings, and the means of access to them. The present appeal concerns an application for the approval of the details of certain of the matters that were reserved for further consideration by conditions attached to that planning approval. In particular, the reserved matters are the design and external appearance of the proposed buildings; internal layout; and landscaping.
==== PAGE 14 ====
18/00329/REM Page 14 of 19
58 It is not within my remit to reconsider whether planning approval 15/00775/A should have been granted; whether that decision was premature; or whether the development it authorised would have an adverse effect on wildlife. Seven of the 28 dwellings for which approval in principle has been granted would be in the form of 'affordable' housing, in accordance with a legal agreement made between the Planning Authority and the prospective developers. That would appear to meet the requirements of Housing Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan.
59 I consider the main issues in the present case to be first, the visual impact of the proposed dwellings; second, the inclusion of office accommodation within the proposed retail building; third the scale and visual impact of the proposed retail building; fourth, the overlooking of the children's play area from the proposed retail building; and fifth, the acceptability of the proposed sewage treatment system."
6.8 The reference to scale in the inspector's paragraph 59 cannot refer to footprint given his comments in the previous paragraph that "the reserved matters are the design and external appearance of the proposed buildings, internal layout and landscaping". Scale must then refer to the height of the building and the inclusion of upper flooring, resulting in additional overall floorspace.
6.9 The Strategic Plan makes reference to the benefit to local communities of local facilities where that 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 (Community Policy 2). The opportunity could have been taken at the Crosby Wholesalers site when that operation ceased to trade. However, that site now has permission for use as storage facilities (12/01367/C).
6.10 The proposed retail unit is certainly larger than the small village shop that used to be located on the main road to the west of the Crosby Wholesalers site. It is also larger than the Spar shop at Union Mills (163 sq m - 16m by 9m) and the shop off Clybane Rise in Farmhill (220 sq m - 20m by 11m). It is similar to the footprint of the Anagh Coar general stores - 25m by 13m (334 sq m and single storey) which has a chemist and doctor's surgery alongside which has a footprint of 276 sq m and two storey. The proposed development's two retail units combined is slightly larger than the Anagh Stores facility albeit that that is single storey and not as tall internally or externally, as that now proposed. One of the objection letters to another application on this site, 17/00852/B, quotes from the Institute of Grocery Distribution that convenience stores are considered to be stores with a sales area of less than 3,000 sq ft (278 sq m) with small supermarkets being defined as food-focused stores with sales areas of 3- 25,00 sq ft: the proposed retail units have sales areas of 93 sq m and 273 sq m or thereabouts (measured externally).
6.11 Whilst the Strategic Plan suggests that neighbourhood shops will generally be expected to be no more than 100 sq m of floor space, in this case, the shop facility is not intended to serve only the new development but all of the village of Crosby and possibly Glen Vine. The site is well placed to serve passing traffic on what is one of the Island's busiest principal distributor roads. As such, it is not considered that the size of the shop unit itself is contrary to the provisions of the Strategic Plan nor has it been demonstrated how such a size would be detrimental to the amenities of the village. Whilst it is suggested that the shop will not reduce, but will add to dependence upon the private motor vehicle by customers, at the present time, all of Crosby's population have to go outside the village for all of their shopping as is noted by some of those who have written in in support of the scheme. If only one local resident shops here by foot, this will have improved the sustainability of the settlement and it is relevant that six local residents (all of Eyreton Park) have written in, in support of the application (see Section 5 above). The retail unit will also provide local employment which is generally lacking within the village.
Visual impact
==== PAGE 15 ====
18/00329/REM Page 15 of 19
6.12 The Commissioners suggest that the inspector did not have regard to the merits of the design. The inspector comments briefly on the impact of the building, stating, "However, I do not accept that the proposed retail building would look out of place. Its apparent bulk and height would be mitigated by the fact that it would be located in a relatively low-lying part of the appeal site. And its blank rear wall would be partially screened by landscaping, which would soften its visual impact."
6.13 In addition, the Planning Committee when considering 16/01314/B were divided on their view of the design of the building, some making positive comments and others not. The reference in their reasons for refusal for the retail unit include their concern that its height and mass would result in a building which was out of character with the village. This was not reiterated in the inspector's conclusions nor the final reasons for refusal of that application.
6.14 In respect of the balcony, the inspector makes no adverse comment about the impact of this and dismisses concerns that it would give rise to unacceptable levels of overlooking of the play area.
6.15 In respect of car parking, the proposed 33 spaces result in a ratio, according to Highway Services, of 1 space per 15 sq m of floor space which is a simlar ratio to that in UK retail developments. They have no objection to this. The Strategic Plan requires only sufficient spaces for staff, deliveries and customers and the application is considered to comply with this.
CONCLUSION 7.1 The principle of a retail unit here has been accepted in the approval in principle which showed a building in a similar position to that now shown and with a very similar footprint. The inspector considering 16/01314/REM recommended refusal of the application on the basis that the proposal included office floorspace and that the overall floor area exceeded 500 sqm and there was no retail impact assessment. He made no negative observations on the appearance or visual impact of the building or the fact that the building is in a slightly different position to that of the application in principle. What is now proposed provides less than 500 sq m of retail floor space as measured externally, the arrangement provides units which are smaller than the IGD guidance for convenience stores, although more than the 100 sq m described in the Strategic Plan as a neighbourhood shop. It is considered that the proposal addresses the issues raised in 16/01314/REM and is recommended for approval.
7.2 Conditions have been suggested which control opening hours of the unit, these being 0900hrs to 1800hrs. Such hours are considered unduly restrictive and would not take into account people wishing to buy an early morning newspaper, milk or such provisions and such hours would be significantly shorter than other convenience shops: Strang Stores operate from 0615 to 2100hrs, Union Mills Spar opens at 0700hrs and closes at 2200hrs and the Anagh Coar Spar opens at 0700hrs and closes at 2300hrs. As such, if opening hours are required to be controlled, it is suggested that these be 0700hrs to 2200hrs.
7.3 Conditions have also been suggested which control the sale of alcohol: the planning process is not involved in such matters which are dealt with by the Licensing Court.
7.4 Conditions have been suggested which switch off reversing sirens: this is considered unsafe and inappropriate for a planning condition. The Crosby Hotel is not understood to be subject to such conditions and involves deliveries from large vehicles.
7.5 Conditions have been suggested controlling the times of deliveries to between 0900hrs and 1700hrs Monday to Fridays only. Again the hotel across the road is not subject to such controls and it would be difficult to effectively enforce.
7.6 Conditions have been suggested to restrict the display of goods for sale to within the shop only. The computer generated image shows a stand of flowers, presumably for sale, as the
==== PAGE 16 ====
18/00329/REM Page 16 of 19
only goods displayed outside and the floor plan and elevations do not show anything displayed outside and with little space for this to happen without affecting access to the building. As such, it is reasonable to assume that there is not intended to be outside storage or display of goods for sale and given that the size of the building is close to being such as to warrant a RIA it is important that the amount of floorspace is contained to that proposed within the building and as such, conditions restricting the external display of goods for sale is recommended.
7.7 The display of advertising is dealt with under the Control of Advertisements Regulations 2012 and conditions need not be attached to this approval.
7.8 Conditions are recommended to require that there is no outside storage of waste and whilst the reasons for this are understood, it may well be the case that waste is not acceptably stored within the building and that it has to be stored outside. The issue with the external storage of waste is that it may be visually intrusive, it may result in smell nuisance and may affect the manoeuvring and parking of delivery vehicles. To address this it is suggested that a scheme for the storage of waste associated with the operation of the retail unit, is to be approved in writing by the Department prior to the operation of the approved unit.
7.9 Similarly in respect of lighting, as this could give rise to nuisance to nearby residences, it is recommended that a scheme for the illumination of the building is approved by the Department prior to the operation of the development hereby approved.
7.10 It is not clear from the proposed drawings where plant would be located. Anything of any size would require planning approval if it were visible on the outside the building and plant giving rise to noise nuisance could be dealt with through the Public Health Act 1990. However, for clarity, this could be included in the condition relating to outside display of goods for sale.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
8.2 The decision-maker must determine:
__
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 : ...Refused... Committee Meeting Date:...02.07.2018
==== PAGE 17 ====
18/00329/REM Page 17 of 19
Signed :... 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 18 ====
18/00329/REM Page 18 of 19
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 02.07.2018
Application No. :
18/00329/REM Applicant : JM Project Management Limited Proposal : Reserved Matters application for the construction of retail unit with associated parking (relating to PA 15/00775/A) Site Address : Field 320653 And Part Field Nos 324324, 324323 & 324321 Ballaglonney Farm Peel Road Crosby Isle Of Man
Principal Planner : Miss S E Corlett Presenting Officer As above
Addendum to the Officer’s Report
The application was refused by the Planning Committee on 2nd July, 2018 contrary to the recommendation of the officer, for the reasons that:
It is not considered that there is justification for the inclusion of the internal staircase and also, it is considered that its inclusion increases the likelihood of the provision of additional floorspace at the upper level which would be contrary to the provisions of the approval in principle and Business Policy 9 and Department for Enterprise’s Isle of Man Retail Sector Strategy.
The size of the unit, which is larger than that approved in the approval in principle is considered unacceptable given the rural location of the site and Business Policy 9.
The proposal would result in significant increase of traffic in the estate to the detriment of the living conditions of those in the new estate as well as those living close to and opposite the site.
The size and particularly the height of the building is considered out of keeping with the rural nature of the site.
Reason for Refusal/Conditions of Approval Delete as appropriate
R 1. The size and particularly the height of the building is considered out of keeping with the rural nature of the site.
R 2. It is not considered that there is justification for the inclusion of the internal staircase and also, it is considered that its inclusion increases the likelihood of the provision of additional floorspace at the upper level which would be contrary to the provisions of the approval in
==== PAGE 19 ====
18/00329/REM Page 19 of 19
principle and Business Policy 9 and Department for Enterprise's Isle of Man Retail Sector Strategy.
R 3. The size of the unit, which is larger than that approved in the approval in principle is considered unacceptable given the rural location of the site and Business Policy 9.
R 4. The proposal would result in significant increase of traffic in the estate to the detriment of the living conditions of those in the new estate as well as those living close to and opposite the site.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal