Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/00123/B Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 24/00123/B Applicant : Mr Jason Elliott Proposal : Creation of Second Storey level over existing site footprint. Site Address : Elliott Storage Jurby Industrial Estate Jurby Isle Of Man IM7 3BD
Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Photo Taken : 15.05.2024 Site Visit : 15.05.2024 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 04.06.2024 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. Due to the overall height, block design and form, bulky appearance, and siting of the proposed development along a prominent route within the industrial estate, it is considered that the proposal would result in the creation of a dominant flat roofed structure, which would fail to relate positively with the dominant character of the immediate surroundings, adversely affecting the character of the surrounding street scene and contrary to General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42, whilst also failing to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island, thus failing to comply with Strategic Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the curtilage of Elliott Storage, situated on the land adjacent to unit 285, Jurby Industrial Estate. This storage facility sits on the south eastern side of the Ballamenagh Road, Jurby, and is comprised of shipped containers stacked to create two storeys of storage, with metal stairs and connecting deck serving as access to the upper floor. The facility is fenced in welded mesh metal fencing painted green, opening up at the gated entrance linked to the main estate road.
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/00123/B Page 2 of 6
1.2 The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of industrial buildings styles with no uniform design or appearance where the street scene is of different sizes, layout, design and form, although all the buildings in the immediate vicinity are pitch roofed industrial styled buildings.
1.3 The existing facility currently provides 66 Storage container's over two levels, which are leased to members of the public.
1.4 There is a new single storey section of storage containers set out within part of the parking area, and this is not shown on the approved floor plans and site plan for the site ,or the submitted plans for the current proposal.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for Creation of Second Storey level over existing site footprint. The proposed scheme seeks to erect a second storey level of shipping containers over the existing structure which measures about 14.5m x 43.8m, and sits about 5.3m from the ground level to the top of the flat roof. The new structure would sit about 8m tall and would have a pitch roofed canopy about 3.5m wide and 1m tall over the connecting deck area on the second floor, which would raise the overall height to 9m. There would be no external cladding as the structures would appear mainly as stacked shipping containers.
2.2 Operation of the units would be operated remotely with no permanent staff on site other than maintenance staff visiting. The current facility is providing employment for 3 members of staff, and there is no intention to increase staffing for the facility. These would work along office-based staff working from another location.
2.3 The new scheme would create a storage floor area of about 442.5sqm (14.75sqm for each container x 30), and an additional area measuring 167sqm for the new walkway on the second floor, which would total about 609sqm, which should require an additional provision for 6 parking spaces to meet the Strategic Plan parking requirement of 1 space per 100 square metres gross floor space, for Storage and distribution.
2.4 The applicants have provided a Planning Statement which states the following: a. The proposal would increase the capacity of the storage facility by about 30 percent. There is no increase in parking provision from the existing 13 parking spaces. b. The proposal relies on the Traffic Patterns for Self Storage document (Appendix A) prepared by the Self-Storage Association United Kingdom. They note that the document requires that parking for storage facility of this size is 6.5 Vehicles per day, given that the average is less than 7 cars per 100 units, entering a site over the whole day. c. They further note that as customers stay an hour on average, most sites would only ever have 2 or 3 cars per 100 units on site at any given time.
2.5 The current scheme proposes some form of screen panting on the eastern and northern boundaries of the site. Details of the type of planting are not provided.
2.6 The new single storey section of storage containers, which was seen on site during the site visit, but not included as part of the proposed development is not assessed as part of the proposed development.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 Site Specific: 3.1.1 The application site is within an area designated as "Airfield" identified on the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area or flood prone area.
3.2 Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016:
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/00123/B Page 3 of 6
3.2.1 Given the nature of the application and the history of approval for industrial development in this area, it is appropriate to consider the following planning policies: a. General Policy 2 - 'Development Control' considerations. b. Strategic Policy 1 - Efficient use of land and resources. c. Strategic Policy 3 - Development to safeguard character of existing towns and villages. d. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact. e. Environment Policy 23 - Consideration of the potential adverse impact of alterations and improvements to existing facilities on neighbours. f. Environment Policy 42 - character and need to adhere to local distinctiveness. g. Business Policy 1 - The growth of employment opportunities throughout the Island will be encouraged provided that development proposals accord with the policies of this Plan. h. Business Policy 5 - On land zoned for industrial use, permission will be given only for industrial development or for storage and distribution. i. Transport Policy 4 - Highway Safety. j. Transport Policy 7 and Appendix A.7.6 - Parking Provisions:
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The application site has been the subject of a previous planning application under PA 21/00322/B for Erection of a two storey self-storage facility with associated loading and unloading bays, which was approved by the Planning Committee in February 2022. This enabled the erection and operation of the facility in its current form.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 DOI Highways find the proposal to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking, as the existing parking and access can accommodate the proposed increased in storage units safely (23 February 2024).
5.2 Jurby Parish Commissioners have not commented at the time of writing.
5.3 No comments have been received from neighbouring properties.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are; a. The Visual Impact (Gp2b,c, SP 5, EP42); b. Impact on the neighbouring amenity (GP2 & EP23); c. Parking and Highway Safety (TP4 & 7).
6.2 VISUAL IMPACT 6.2.1 In assessing the visual impact of the proposed scheme, it is noted as with the previous application which enabled the erection of the facility that the proposal does not involve the erection of a permanent building but a series of shipping containers linked together and stacked, with interlinking walkways serving each container. With the existing facility, it is noted that the height of these would be no higher than the eaves level of the adjacent building to the north of the site, and only slightly taller than the eaves of the large industrial buildings to the rear, whose ridges sit taller than the existing storage facility.
6.2.2 The scheme currently proposed here would have its box appearance sit considerably taller than the adjacent building by about 400mm, with its boxed appearance dominating views to the area. Whilst it is noted that the overall height would sit lower than the roof ridge for the adjacent industrial buildings to the rear, this structure is situated along the main thoroughfare
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/00123/B Page 4 of 6
through the estate where its appearance which mirrors stacked containers at a port facility would dominate view, and it is not considered that this would be in the interest of the character of the area, dominated by pitch roofed industrial buildings.
6.2.3 It has also been considered that the appearance of the finish of the structure in crinkled profile, similar to that of an industrial type cladding evidenced on some of the existing buildings on the estate would serve to diminish the impacts on the area. Notwithstanding the above, the proposal would amplify the already jarring appearance of the structure to the dominant building appearance in the area, making it appear as a dominating feature on the industrial landscape. As such, it is not considered that the general appearance, scale, bulk and dominating appearance, would be in keeping with the character of the immediate street scene within which it sits.
6.2.4 Further to the above, the scheme seeks to include some form of screen planting, which was previously indicated to be integrated as part of the previous scheme, but not implemented as at the time of visiting the site more than two years form the initial approval. Whilst the screen planting would have served in some way to diminish the impact of the previous scheme, the current proposal would sit considerably taller than the existing two storey structure, and as such the proposed screen planting would offer little in diminishing the impact of the current scheme.
6.2.5 Given the above, it is considered that proposed box-like structure would dominate views within the immediate street scene of the industrial estate, particularly when approached rom the south, and reinforce a structure which does not align with the general appearance of the industrial buildings in the area, contrary to the provisions of GP2 (b, c, & g) and EP42.
6.3 IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURING AMENITY 6.3.1 In assessing the impact of the proposal, the main concern here lies in the potential for overshadowing of the main entrance to the adjacent buildings to the rear. However, the separating distance of about 44m, and the fact that the facility is situated north of this neighbours would ensure that overshadowing is not a concern.
6.3.2 It is also considered that the increased use of the facility for an additional 30 containers for storage would not result in significant adverse impact on the use of the neighbouring buildings, given the situation of its access which is linked to the main internal link road, which is not shared with these buildings, and there are no building situated directly adjacent the access to the application facility. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed alteration would be compliant with EP23 and GP2.
6.4 PARKING AND HIGHWAY SAFETY 6.4.1 In assessing the parking requirements for the proposal, it is noted that the previous scheme provided 13 parking spaces to serve the facility which had a gross floor area measuring about 1219sqm, which would be appropriate, given the Strategic Plan requirement of 1 space per 100 square metres gross floor space.
6.4.2 The current scheme seeks to increase the gross floor area for storage by an additional 609.5sqm, which would require an additional 6 parking spaces. As such, it is considered that the shortfall in parking provision weighs against the proposal.
6.4.3 Granting self-storage facilities require less parking requirements than storage and distribution facilities, due to their nature which does not require frequent daily callers, the applicants have provided additional information which indicates that the facility serves a number of retail, construction/tradesmen, commercial offices, digital entertainment, event management companies and fitness companies, which would mean that a good number of the occupants would require more access to support the operations of their businesses, and this would be more frequent than the initially intended private users for storage of house hold
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/00123/B Page 5 of 6
items. The reference made by the applicants to the UK Traffic Patterns for Self Storage document (Appendix A) is noted. However, the Strategic Plan is not silent on the provision of parking for storage facilities, and as such, the Strategic Plan parking requirements should be the key reference for the proposed scheme.
6.4.4 In terms of potential impacts on the adjacent highway, it is considered that the proposal would not result in changes to the vehicular access to the site, such that access and exit by vehicles would be uninhibited, with no highways safety implications. As such, it is considered that this element of the proposal aligns with the principles of TP 4.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 Whilst it is noted that the site already supports a stacked shipping container structure, the introduction of the additional floor of steel shipping containers in a prominent position within the industrial estate, in its current design and for, is not considered to represent good design, given its utilitarian appearance, and as such the scheme as proposed is not considered to make a strong contribution to the visual amenity of the area.
7.2 It is, therefore, considered that the development by virtue of its boxed appearance and form (which does not reflect the dominant character of the existing industrial building in the immediate locality, the raised height which would make it a dominating feature within the immediate street scene, and prominent location along the main estate road, would result in detrimental impacts to the general appearance of the area, contrary to General Policy 2 (b, c & g) and Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 05.06.2024
Determining officer
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/00123/B Page 6 of 6
Signed : J SINGLETON
Jason Singleton
Principal Planner
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