Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/91331/B Page 1 of 11
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. 24/91331/B Applicant : JKS Ltd Proposal Alterations to entire building and subdivision of units 1 and 2 to create 3 units for use as light industrial and storage (Classes 2.2 & 2.4) Site Address Units 1 And 2 The Warehouse Demesne Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 3DS
Case Officer :
Paul Visigah Photo Taken :
08.01.2015 Site Visit :
08.01.2015 Expected Decision Level Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 10.01.2025
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2019 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), the Units (1 to 3) shall not be used other than for Class 2.1 - Light industrial and/or Class 2.4 - Storage or distribution and for no other purposes.
Reason: The Department has assessed the impact of the proposal on the basis of the specific use and any alternative uses within the same Use Class will require further consideration.
C 3. The approved development shall provide a maximum internal floorspace of 360 sqm only, as shown on Drawing No. 22007/2/03. There shall be no installation of mezzanine floors.
Reason: The parking provision for the development has been assessed on this floor area only and any proposed changes would need to form part of a separate application and assessed as such. This is to ensure sufficient parking is provided for the development in the interests of highway safety.
C 4. Prior to the occupation of the units hereby approved, a plan which provides details of the allocation of the existing parking spaces on site for the new units and the existing Garage unit shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The parking areas designated
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/91331/B Page 2 of 11
as being reserved for the units on site shall be marked out on the parking areas, and shall not be used for any other purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles.
Reason: To ensure that provision is made for off-street parking for the existing and proposed units in the interest of highway safety.
N 1. Allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. On balance, while the zoning of the site for residential use, and the potentials for increased parking demands weighs against the proposal, the proposal would result in significant improvements in the character and appearance of the area and this aligns with General Policy 2 (b & c), Strategic Policy 5, and Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan. No concerns are also expected to result in relation to impacts on neighbouring amenity (Environment Policy 22). Moreover, the proposal will help retain and increase employment opportunities within this part of Douglas in line with the goals of Business Policy 1, and it is expected that the development would have a diminished impact on the area relative to the current use of the site as a dog day care.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the following documents and plans received 25 November 2024:
o Design Statement; o Drawing No. 22007/2/01 - Site and Location Plans o Drawing No. 22007/2/02 - Existing Plans Section and Elevations; and o Drawing No. 22007/2/03 - Proposed Plans Section and Elevations __
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:
o DOI Highways Drainage - no objections o Douglas Borough Council - no objections o DOI Highways Services - no objections __
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSAL MAY BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site comprises Units 1 and 2, The Warehouse, Demesne Road, Douglas, which is an established commercial site within a predominantly residential area. The rear (south/south east) of the site, separated by an alleyway, backs on to the properties that front Allan Street, approx. 6m away. To the side (North East) of the building is a highway and the residential property at 33 Demesne Road, which sits approximately 14m away. Opposite (North West) the site is the former primary school, which is no longer in use and now forms part of the recently approved development for the construction of 133 new dwellings split across apartments, townhouses, small blocks of flats and a senior living block which would form the Westmoreland Village. The building to the south west which adjoins the application property is commercial.
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/91331/B Page 3 of 11
1.2 Previously, the application site accommodated a garage (Unit 3) which still exists and retail use in unit 1 and both businesses used unit 2 as storage, although the application site is a single building that forms three units, unit 1 (class 1 retail use), unit 2 (class 6 storage or distribution use) and unit 3 (class 5 light industry use i.e. a garage). Units 1, 2 and 3 have been described as separate units and it is understood that they are formally separate; however it appears that generally the building has been used by the previous occupants of the site as a whole.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for Alterations to entire building and subdivision of units 1 and 2 to create 3 units for use as light industrial and storage (Classes 2.2 & 2.4).
2.2 Units 1 and 2 would be partitioned internally to create three (3) full height units measuring 100sqm (Unit 1), 112sqm (Unit 2), and 108sqm (Unit 3). Each of the units would be provided with a WC. The existing first floor level (including all internal walls, upper floor, intermediate steelwork and associated brick/steel supports) to be removed and internal stairs to the first floor will be removed, with internal door openings infilled.
2.3 The use of the units will be changing from the extent use as a dog day care centre (sui generis) and storage, to light industrial and storage (Classes 2.2 & 2.4).
2.4 The proposed physical alterations to the building include: a. Removing the poorly positioned and proportioned window openings, shop front, door openings, and downpipe to the front elevation, boarded opening to the rear elevation, and closing up these openings. b. Creating two new roller shutter door openings to match the existing door on the front elevation of the building, and installing two new sectional warehouse doors with integral personnel doors installed to serve the newly created Units B and C. c. Cladding the upper sections of the building with new 45mm x 1000mm Kingspan QuadCore AWP wall panels on 100mm vertical cladding rails fixed to face of elevations. d. The lower sections of the front and side elevations would have the exposed brickwork re-painted in colour to compliment new cladding, while the wall of the lower section of the rear wall in lane to be re-rendered and painted in colour to compliment new cladding. e. Installing a new sectional warehouse door to replace the existing roller shutter door on the existing Unit 3 which serves the garage, while the boarded opening with pedestrian door opening on the side would be replaced with a new sectional warehouse door with integral personnel door. f. The parapet over the roof of the building on the front and side elevations are to be raised utilizing QuadCore AWP wall panelling to accommodate standard width panels. g. A new 40mm Kingspan QuadCore KS1000RW Roof cladding with 16 new Day-Lite Trapezoidal Rooflights at 3.0m centres are to be installed on the roof plane of the building.
2.5 A new signage shall be installed to reflect signage removed on the side elevation, with the garage signage re-installed on the front elevation of the garage and in similar position, while three new signage boards are to be installed on the front elevation of the building. These would be the subject of the Control of Advertisement Regulations 2013. As such, they are not assessed as part of the current application.
2.6 10 Parking spaces will serve the existing unit serving the garage and the three new units. The applicants have stated that 4 spaces are to remain for the sole use of the garage, with 2 spaces allocated for sole use of each of the other units. There would be no change to the surface water and foul water discharge system on site.
2.7 The applicants have provided the following information in their Design Statement:
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/91331/B Page 4 of 11
1. The application site is a long-established commercial site, in an area where commercial activity generally prevails in an area zoned predominantly residential.
Significant redevelopment is in progress nearby with the former nurse's home currently being refurbished for residential purposes, and a mixed use planning application is currently going through the planning process for the redevelopment of the former Demesne Road School.
As described in the Planning Officers report for PA 18/00011/B the application site is a single building which that application described as being three units. Unit 1 was a retail outlet (class 1) for DMS Autos, Unit 3 a garage associated with Unit 1 (class 2.2 light industrial) with both businesses using the upper area, Unit 2, for storage (class 2.4) albeit that the form of the roof means its height is limited to 1200 at truss locations. Approval of that application for the doggie day care business saw the use of Unit 1 change to sui generis.
In November 2022 the current landlord gained planning permission for the upper Unit 2 to also become part of the Doggie Day Care Centre. 22/00753/B refers. Due to the limitations in height this required the roof being raised by 1200mm.
Due to the extent of redevelopment taking place in the area, in March this year the doggie day care business gained planning approval to relocate its business nearby, with Unit 1 and unaltered Unit 2 are now sitting empty.
Rather than rising the roof to accommodate the doggie day care business, to improve letting opportunities the landlord would instead like to subdivide Unit1 and 2 to create 3 full height units of circa 100m2 to meet changing demand in the area.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 Site Specific: 3.1.1 The site is within an area zoned as a Predominantly Residential Area on the Area Plan for the East (Map 5 - Douglas Central), the site is not within a Conservation Area. The site is not prone to flood risks.
3.2 Area: TAPE (2020) 3.2.1 The following parts of the Area Plan for the East are considered relevant: 1. Employment Recommendation 1: A cross-government study could be carried out to identify opportunities to improve the management of existing Industrial Estates to minimise vacancy rates and to also identify opportunities to facilitate investment in new sites (including through the development of a Technology Park(s).
Employment Recommendation 2: In the implementation of Employment Recommendation 1, consideration should be given to the identification of areas where: a) uses should be restricted to light industrial uses; or b) areas where 'bad neighbour' uses might be appropriate and consider the merits of safeguarded such areas for these uses.
3.3. National: STRATEGIC PLAN (2016) 3.3.1 Relevant Strategic Plan Policies: 1. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations. 2. Strategic Policy 1 - Efficient use of land and resources. 3. Strategic Policy 2 - Priority for new development to identified towns and villages. 4. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact. 5. Strategic Policy 10 - development should promote integrated journeys, minimise car use and facilitate other modes of travel.
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/91331/B Page 5 of 11
6. 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. 7. Environment Policy 22 - deals with vibration, odour, noise and light pollution in relation to nearby properties. 8. Transport Policy 1 - Requires new development to be close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes. 9. Transport Policy 4 - 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. 10. Transport Policy 7 - Parking considerations/standards for development.
Other policies within the Strategic Plan which are considered relevant in the assessment of the proposal are; Infrastructure Policy 5, Community Policy 11, Community Policy 7 and Community Policy 10.
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 MANUAL FOR MANX ROADS: MOVEMENT AND PLACE PRACTITIONER'S GUIDE 4.1.1 The Manual for Manx Roads sets out the minimum requirements for vehicular visibility splays from driveways. The guide for achieving the required visibility splays are clearly illustrated in Section B.3 of the Manual. Paragraphs 5.2.37 and 5.2.38 of the manual relates specifically to visibility along the street edge from driveways, while paragraphs 5.2.39 and 5.2.40 refer to obstacles to Visibility.
4.1.2 Additionally, Paragraphs C.10.5 and C.10.6 (Table C.4) provides guidance on Commercial Vehicle Parking. "Quality Standard C.10.5 Turning and manoeuvring areas for Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) and Large Goods Vehicles (LGVs) should meet the minimum requirements specified by the Department. C.10.6 Dimensions for commercial vehicle parking spaces vary depending on the type of vehicle. Typical parking space dimensions are shown in Table C.4."
4.2 ISLE OF MAN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT LAND REVIEW 2015 (Amended January 2017) 4.2.1 Paragraph 2.8: "Strategic policy then directs major employment-generating development to appropriately allocated land and existing centres (Strategic Policy 6). Strategic Policy 7 seeks to ensure that undeveloped land allocated for industrial, retail or office purposes is retained and protected for these uses."
4.2.2 Paragraphs 2.20 and 2.21: "2.20 The Isle of Man's fiscal differentiation from the UK and Ireland has led to the development of a financial and business services sector much larger than might be anticipated for similar-sized areas in the UK. However, the scale of its manufacturing, distribution and warehousing sectors is more proportional. With limited demand, some of the areas allocated for industrial use have witnessed pressure from retail, retail services, showroom, community services and other uses. As these values generally command higher rents than industrial and storage uses, where such development has taken place, it has tended to influence value expectations and generate continued pressure for uses not covered by the original allocation. In some cases, different customer access, loading, delivery and parking requirements have created use conflicts and created capacity issues at some road junctions." 2.21 While acknowledging that allocations should contain some flexibility to reflect the size of the economy and the changing nature of sector demand, care also needs to be taken to ensure
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/91331/B Page 6 of 11
land and premises are available to encourage the maintenance and expansion of particular employment uses in environments suited to their operation."
4.2.3 Issues from Stakeholder Discussions Section 6.2
"Business Environments o Importance of the town centre and broader elements which contribute to quality of life - retail, retail services, leisure and entertainment facilities etc;"
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The property has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications which are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of the current application.
PA Alterations to convert warehouse to car showroom, Corner of Demesne Road and Orry Street, Douglas, for use by Manx Car & Commercial Supplies Ltd. Approved by Planning Committee on 15.05.1987.
PA 87/00778/B for Construction of shopfront, The Warehouse, corner of Demesne Road/Orry Street, Douglas. Approved by the Planning Committee on 19.06.1987.
PA 90/00626/C for Change of use of part warehouse to garage/workshop, Manx Car Commercial Supplies, The Warehouse, Demesne Road, Douglas. This was approved by the Planning Committee on 27.07.1990.
PA 18/00011/B for Alterations to units 1, 2 and 3, and conversion of unit 1 from retail (Class 1) to a dog day care centre. Approved By PC on 26.02.2018.
PA 22/00753/B for Alterations including roofing works, cladding removal of windows, installation of a new fire door and additional use of first floor storage area for dog day care business. Approved by Planning Committee on 07.11.2022.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 DOI Highways Division find the proposal to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as the site is in a sustainable location in Douglas centre and reusing the existing building footprint, on-street parking is controlled by parking restrictions, there is parking allocated for each unit, and the proposed use would have a similar or less parking demand to the previous use as a doggy day care centre (9 December 2024).
6.2 Douglas Borough Council have no objection to the application (13 December 2024).
6.3 DOI Highways Drainage comments (10.01.2025): "Allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads.
Recommendation: Applicant should be aware of and demonstrate compliance with the clause above."
6.3 No comments have been received from neighbours.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of the current application are: 1. The principle of development
==== PAGE 7 ====
24/91331/B Page 7 of 11
2. Character and appearance 3. Impact on neighbours 4. Parking and highway safety
7.2 The principle of development (SP1, 2, 10 & BP2) 7.2.1 The application site is an existing building in an area zoned as predominantly residential, but which has served previous commercial uses, storage, and garage use, with the most recent use being use as a dog day care centre (sui generis). Whilst the site is not zoned for industrial or storage use, which would mean that the proposed use does not align with the zoning of the site within the Area Plan for the East, it is part of a wider site which is not within such use presently and the proposed use is akin to the wider use of the site and as such will not materially alter the character of the area and as such this is not considered a reason for refusal. The above is particularly relevant as the site has supported a number of established commercial operations which have operated for a number of years, with the current scheme seeking to re- establish the historic use of the site for storage (Class 2.4), whilst introducing light industrial use, which is considered acceptable given the Strategic Plan definition of light industrial use as processes that could be carried on or installed in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit, or undue generation of traffic or parking of vehicles.
7.2.2 It is also worth noting that the continuous use of the building for uses that are similar to the previous commercial and storage uses would align with the goals of Business Policy 1 to encourage the growth of employment generating opportunities throughout the island, even though it is noted that the site is not zoned for industrial use. The situation of the site within a major employment area within Douglas, where there would be easy access to labour, with the location also benefiting from an integrated transport network that links the site to Douglas and other parts of the island, would further ensure that the proposed use is acceptable.
7.2.3 Notwithstanding the factors which weigh against the principle of the proposed development at the site, the property has been in place for a significant time and planning permission was granted for the use of the current site for non-residential uses, which conflicted with the zoning of the site within the Local plan, as well as the current Area Plan zoning of the site.
7.2.4 Moreover, the proposed use would be more fitting for the site when compared with the extant use of the site as a dog day care centre which has greater potential for conflicts with the adjoining residential uses in terms of noise generation, smells, and an increased propensity for parking/highway conflicts, especially during the drop off and pick up times which vary considerably during the day due to the needs of dog owners. Thus, it is considered that the proposed use broadly aligns with the previous approvals granted for the use of the site, with potential to create less impacts when compared to the extant use of the site.
7.2.5 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the principle for the proposed use is acceptable, subject to the considerations below.
7.3 Character and appearance (GP2, STP 5, & EP 42) 7.3.1 In assessing the visual impacts of the proposed development, it is judged that the existing external finish of the building has clearly been in situ for a number of years and has become tired and unattractive. The proposed cladding would be a significant enhancement over what is there at present, and as such is considered to have a positive impact upon the character and appearance of the building and the street scene in general.
7.3.2 For the above reasons, it is considered that the visual impacts of the proposed would be acceptable, and result in significant improvements to the appearance of the area, thus aligning with the provisions of GP2, Strategic Policy 5, and Environment Policy 42.
==== PAGE 8 ====
24/91331/B Page 8 of 11
7.4 Impact on neighbours (GP2 part g & EP22 part iii) 7.4.1 With regard to potential impacts on neighbours (noise, smells, light pollution etc), it is considered that the nature of the proposed use is such that would limit the potential for impacts on neighbours as a result of the operation of the units, as there is sufficient space to carry out works inside the buildings relative to the modest scale of the proposed units. It must be noted that light industrial use by virtue of their nature are acceptable in residential areas, given that they have limited potential to result in adverse impacts on neighbours (See Paragraph 9.2.3 of the Strategic Plan). Likewise, the proposed storage use is not of a scale that would result in significant adverse impacts given the size of the units which would only support very small operations.
7.4.2 The fact that there are no new windows that would create privacy concerns for neighbours means that overlooking will not result. There would also be no changes to the height or scale of the building, thus overshadowing or overbearing impacts would not result.
7.4.3 Overall, it is considered that the significantly reduced floor space over the existing, the size and scale of the proposed units, the nature of operations that can be carried out within the units, would ensure that any impacts would be significantly diminished over the existing use of the building, and therefore, not sufficient to warrant refusal of the proposal.
7.5 Parking and highway safety (GP2, TP 1, 4 & 7, STP 10) 7.5.1 In assessing the potential parking provision for the proposed development, which is particularly relevant given that it holds the potential to determine whether there would be adverse impacts on highway safety (due to the increased indiscriminate parking in the area due to pressure on parking), it is considered that the application provides 6 parking spaces for the new development. This provision would be sufficient for the proposed number of units and the total floor area to be created at 320sqm (approx.) if the units are only used for storage, given that only 3 parking spaces would be required when the I parking space per 100sqm gross floor space is applied.
7.5.2 Alternatively, if the units were used solely for light industrial use, there would be a shortfall of 4 parking spaces, as the 320sqm would require at least 10 parking spaces to meet the Strategic Plan requirement of 1 space per 30 square metres nett floor space.
7.5.3 Given that the units would serve a mix of uses, as the proposed use is for light industrial and storage, and as none of the units are designated for a specific use, it would be important that the parking provided would be sufficient to deal with the possible maximum parking requirement, which would be for 10 parking spaces to be provided. In this case, it is considered that 10 parking spaces would be the most appropriate, and as such the six parking space provisions would result in a shortfall of about 4 parking spaces. As such, it is considered that the parking provided would fail to meet the Strategic Plan requirement, given that none of the units are designated for a specific use, and this weighs against the proposal.
7.5.4 Notwithstanding the failings of the scheme identified in Paragraph 7.5.4 above, the site is situated at a part of Douglas which could be considered suitable for an integrated transport networks, as it situated within a largely residential area, such that most of its visitors may not require car journeys, thus encouraging pedestrian movements. The site is also within close proximity to public transport corridors within Douglas which would ensure that it makes best use of existing public transport opportunities.
7.5.5 The fact that the site sits adjacent a major development area (The Westmoreland Village), which has well-documented parking implications is noted. However, the advice offered by DOI Highway Services who are conversant with the area, and who provide professional advice on highway matters is that the proposal would have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as the site is in a sustainable location in Douglas centre and reusing the existing building footprint, where on-street parking is controlled
==== PAGE 9 ====
24/91331/B Page 9 of 11
by parking restrictions, as there is parking allocated for each unit, and as the proposed use would have a similar or less parking demand to the previous use as a doggy day care centre.
7.5.6 Given the factors highlighted above, it is considered that although there is a shortfall in parking provisions should the site not be used solely for storage which only requires 3 parking space provision, and as the final use of the units is not specifically defined which would mean that 10 parking space may be required, the proposed use of the site would have less parking requirements when compared with the extant use of the site as a dog day care centre. Moreover, the site sits within a part of Douglas where a case could be made for a reduced parking demand. Therefore, it is considered that the parking concerns associated with the development are not sufficient to warrant refusal of the scheme. It would, however, be important that the floor area is conditioned to ensure that no mezzanine levels are introduced which would further increase the parking demand for the site.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The impact of the external alterations is minimal and is not considered to have a significant impact on the character of the building or the surrounding area. It is also considered that the impacts on neighbouring amenity resulting from the proposal would be acceptable and not considered to be so significant as to warrant refusal.
8.2 Whilst it is noted that the proposal would be contrary to the zoning of the site, the existing and established historic use of the site commercial purposes, and the fact that the site is part of a wider site which is not within the approved predominantly residential use would mean that the proposal would not materially alter the character of the area.
8.3 It is also considered that there is the potential for increased demand for parking should all the units be used for light industrial use. However, this is not a given (due to the multiple permutations that could result from the final use of the units), and the site sits in an area when it would benefit from a multiple range of transport options which would justify a reduction in parking requirements. Besides, the proposed use would attract less parking demand than the extant use of the site as a dog day care centre. The proposal is, therefore, considered acceptable, and is recommended for approval.
9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 9.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).
9.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to: o applicant (in all cases); o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.
9.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10.
9.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required): o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant); o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area; o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and o in the case of a petition, a single representative.
==== PAGE 10 ====
24/91331/B Page 10 of 11
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to the it by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Permitted
Committee Meeting Date: 27.01.2025
Signed : P VISIGAH 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 11 ====
24/91331/B Page 11 of 11
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 27.01.2025
Application No. :
24/91331/B Applicant : JKS Ltd Proposal : Alterations to entire building and subdivision of units 1 and 2 to create 3 units for use as light industrial and storage (Classes 2.2 & 2.4) Site Address : Units 1 And 2 The Warehouse Demesne Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 3DS
Planning Officer : Paul Visigah Presenting Officer As above
Addendum to the Officer’s Report
The Planning Committee considered the application at its meeting on 27 January 2024 and agreed with the recommendation to approve the application subject to the officer's inclusion of an additional condition to ensure the proposal is completed in accordance with the approved plans, and the amendment to the Rights to Appeal section of the report.
Additional Condition Recommended by PC shall read:
C5: According to Plans Prior to the occupation of the approved units, the external finish and the installation of all external facing materials shall be carried out in accordance with Drawing No. 22007/2/03 - Proposed Plans Section and Elevations. The development shall be retained as such thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and the visual amenities of the area, as the proposal has been assessed on the submitted documents and drawings, and any changes may have a different impact.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal