225347

==== PAGE 1 ====

PUNNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Application No.: Applicant: Proposal: Site Address: 14/00093/D H. Richmond Ltd Erection of illuminated signage Land On Roadside And Within Rileys Garden Centre, Robinsons And Eden Business Park Cooil Road Braddan Isle Of Man Case Officer: Photo Taken : Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Mr Edmond Riley Officer's Report THE APPUCATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT. 0.0 PRELIMINARY MATTERS The application site is the subject of an enforcement enquiry in respect of existing signage that has been installed without consent. 0,1 1.0 THE SITE The application site is a parcel of land on the southwestern side of Cooil Road, Braddan, known as Eden Park. A variety of uses are present on the site, which includes an industrial storage building and offices alongside a garden centre, Three prospective units remain unoccupied. Also within the site is the Ballapaddag Farmhouse, which is currently being considered for Registration. 1.1 Cooil Road bounds the site to the northeast, beyond which is the larger and more established Spring Valley Industrial Estate, All other surrounding land uses are countryside. There are two highway accesses onto the site, roughly 50m from one another. 1.2 1.0 THE PROPOSAL Advertisement consent is sought for the installation of six signs of varying design, size and materia! across the site, Four of these are adjacent to Cooil Road, while two are within the site. For clarity, the different types of sign proposed are described below: 2.1 • Sign A: this is a sign 4.2m in height and 1.2m in width. It is a triangular prism, with the two identical sides presenting to the highway adjacent to Cooil Road at the southeastern of the two highways accesses; these sides have four sections for different businesses to display a smaller advert, while above is a digital display capable of displaying text and simple, monochrome images. The rear-facing rectangle would face into the site and give a message thanking patrons for their custom. The sign is a maroon colour. It would be constructed of metal panels on Page i of 6 14/00093/D 3 June 2014

==== PAGE 2 ====

a steel frame and mounted on a concrete base with floor-mounted lights providing upward illumination to each of its three sides. • Sign B: this is a sign 4.2m in height, 1.2m in width and 0.2m in depth. It is rectangular except for the top, which is rounded to accommodate the Riley's Garden Centre logo. It would have steel panels affixed to steel poles. The signage advertises Riley's Garden Centre and is green in colour with darker green lettering, a white arrow and red detailing. Its 'front face' would be illuminated by ground lighting, the rear not at all. • Sign C: this is a sign 2.0m in height, 1,0m in width and 0.2m in depth. Its construction is identical to Sign B, and shows just the logo of Riley's Garden Centre and a white directional arrow. This would be located within the site to assist wayfinding from within the site. Its 'front face’ would be illuminated by ground lighting, the rear not at all. • Sign Dl: this is a sign 1.0m in height (stepping up to 1.3m) and 3.9m in width. It is curved, constructed of concrete blockwork and would be rendered, painted white. The lettering of Eden Business Park is shown in purple and green and would be mounted onto the wall, It is not clear if the lettering will be individually-mounted or the entirety mounted as one sign onto the wall as the proposed drawing carries the annotation "proposed name plate". The curving would match the curvature of the northwest of the two highway accesses onto the site. Its 'front face' would be illuminated by ground lighting, the rear not at ail. • Sign D2: this is a mirror image of Sign Dl, which it would sit opposite on the northwest of the two highway accesses onto the site. Its 'front face' would be illuminated by ground lighting, the rear not at all. • Sign E: this is a sign 4.2m in height, 1.2m wide and 0.2m in depth. It is of a construction and design very similar to Sign B, with the sole difference being that Sign E is wholly rectangular. The sign would be primarily white with purple and green lettering and a purple arrow. It would be located within the site, roughly 75m along the internal road accessed off the northwestern of the two accesses into Eden Park. Both its front and rear would be illuminated by ground lighting. Some of the above details were not clear from the initial submission and clarification was sought from the applicant. These details were circulated to the interested parties for further comment within 14 days of the date of the letter. This Report is being prepared prior to the expiration of that deadline (which is 4th June 2014) and as such any comments received will be provided to Planning Committee via a verbal update from the case officer. 2.2 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY The application site and surrounding area has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications that has resulted in the erection and operation of Eden Park Garden Centre and Robinsons within the application site. 3.1 Advertisement consents were granted to PA 05/00139/D ("Erection of signage to Eden Park Garden Centre") and 09/00316/D ("Erection of signage"). Advertisement consent was refused to PA 00/00349/D ("Erection of advertising signage at entrance of Robinsons Fruiterers"). All of these were submitted within the application site. 3.2 The site is also currently the subject of enforcement action in respect of the signage located there. This is an open enforcement case and it is understood that the application is an attempt to regularise the situation. 3.3 Page 2 of 6 14/00093/D 3 June 2014

==== PAGE 3 ====

4.0 PLANNING POUCY The site lies within an area designated on the Braddan Parish Plan of 1991 as Open Space / Agricultural use, The site, however, is within an area that has an established use as a warehouse / distribution centre and opposite Eden Park garden centre. 4.1 4.2 Notwithstanding this, the site is not designated for development. However, given the substantial level of development which has taken place in recent time, the position of the site in relation to this development and the planning history of the site, and since all was prior to the adoption of the Braddan Local Plan (1991), it is considered reasonable to acknowledge that the application site's use goes beyond the current designation of Open Space / Agricultural use, which no longer accurately describes its current use. Due to this reasoning, it is considered the relevant policy of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan materially relevant to the assessment and determination of this planning application is General Policy 8, which reads in full; "Within rural areas the display of external advertisements will be permitted only where; 4.3 (a) they are located on or directly next to the premises to which they relate; (b) they do not detract from the appearance of either the immediate area or the landscape; (c) they are normally constructed of traditional materials unless the nature of the display or location would render such materials inappropriate; (d) any iilumination, which will be permitted only where it is essential, is kept to a minimum and is so hooded as to prevent undesirable escape of light; (e) they are located so as not to cause a highway safety hazard; and (f) any illumination will not have an adverse effect on areas of ecological value." Paragraph 6.6.3 of the Strategic Plan reads: "Within rural areas, advertisements can be disruptive features which affect adversely the appearance of the landscape and the countryside, Lighting can pollute the night sky and may be contrary to nature conservation interests". 4.4 It is also worth noting that Ballapaddag Farmhouse, the Registration of which remains under consideration, is located within the application site. 4.5 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS Braddan Parish Commissioners comment on the application, with their comments considered to amount to an objection: they note that, although the map shows that the sightlines will not be affected by Sign C, the photomontage provided calls that statement into question. They also state that they are concerned about the number of signs that the applicant wishes to install. 5.1 Highway Services initially stated that they did not oppose the application. The case officer identified to Highway Services the proposed digital element of Sign A for further comment, whereupon Highway Services reiterated their lack of objection. They were further asked as to whether or not any conditions would be required and what form those conditions should take, Advice was given that there are no standards in respect of illumination on advertising (or, indeed, in general) in a Manx context. There are also not known to be any such standards in other jurisdictions. The main issue would relate to whether or not lighting would be directly facing the highway and whether or not these could give the impression of being another vehicle travelling at night, for example. 5.2 14/00093/D Page 3 of 6 3 June 2014

==== PAGE 4 ====

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The key issue is the effect that the proposed signage will have on the area; that this area comprises a variety of land uses and built forms complicates the assessment somewhat but this should not divert attention from the description of the consent sought. Explicitly, consent for the signage - if forthcoming - should not be taken to assume that approval is, or will be, or even may be, forthcoming in respect of the uses indicated by the signs as taking place on the site. The setting of Ballapaddag Farmhouse is also important, even if there is no specific policy provision for the protection of the setting of a building proposed for Registration with respect to assessing applications for advertisement consent. It should also be noted that no comparative assessment should be made with the existing advertising signage, which has been installed without consent; the fact that they are there should have no bearing on the consideration of the merits of this proposal. It should neither help nor hinder the case for advertisement consent. General Policy 8 is the sole relevant policy to the assessment of the application. While perhaps the application site is not best described as "rural" given the level of (recent) development here, it is also not properly described being within a town or village, to which the other Strategic Plan policies relating to advertising signage refer. As outlined earlier, the applicant was contacted for further information in respect of the proposed signage and the wording of General Policy 8 was provided to the applicant; it is noteworthy that the agent did not object to the use of this policy in assessing their application. 6.2 In respect of the materials proposed, which are mainly metallic and with some brickwork, the applicant was requested to explain why traditional materials were not being proposed, especially given the setting of the adjacent Ballapaddag Farmhouse. The agent argued that the modern buildings providing the backdrop to the proposed signage should guide the use of similarly modern construction materials. They reflect on the fact that Baliapaddag Farmhouse, while standing on the site, is no longer the dominant building form. 6.3 There is some logic to this argument. The area is now overtaken by building forms other than that exhibited by Ballapaddag Farmhouse and as such there must be some acceptance that to expect the use of "traditional materials" could be considered inappropriate in such a context. It is also noted that the perhaps most permanent of the signs - the walling at the entrance - are nominally of traditional materials. As such, no objection is raised on this point. 6.4 It is noted that Highway Services do not oppose the application. It is also noted that none of the signs would be located within the visibility splays of the two highway accesses. Cooil Road is a busy highway and has fast vehicle movements, and away to the northwest is the brow of a hill. While the concern of the local Commissioners in this respect is noted, it is considered appropriate to defer to Highway Services' view on this matter. The case officer's site visit gave further weight to the opinion that highway safety would be unlikely to be compromised to any undue level, although it is accepted that the new signage would provide an additional distraction. However, this extra distraction must be considered in the context of the fact that drivers' attention is probably caught by the buildings themselves rather than signage, which in any case will become part of the streetscene the longer it is in situ. It is also true - irrespective of the merits of the application - that there are some advertisements already on the site and there are no indications of safety issues having arisen from these, which suggests that the proposed advertisements, albeit larger than those in situ, would be unlikely to result in unduly harmful additional impact. 6.5 The final matter to take account of in respect of General Policy 8 is that of illumination. No information has been provided in respect of how the illumination would be controlled - no drawings of the proposed lighting units have been provided and no information in respect of the strength of the lighting has been forthcoming. The agent advised that "We 6.6 14/00093/D Page 4 of 6 3 June 2014

==== PAGE 5 ====

will liaise with the Highways Department to ensure that signage illuminance levels comply with their requirements. We are happy for this to be a condition of planning approval". This, as noted, was discussed with Highway Services who were unable to provide specific guidance on what an appropriate condition could be and, indeed, indicated that one would not be necessary. The issue is in any case as much to do with visual impact as highways safety. Given that no information in respect of the strength or proposed hooding of the proposed lighting has been provided, but that such information is required in order to fully assess the impact of the proposal, it is appropriate to seek that information by way of condition. It is considered unlikely that appropriate lighting could not be installed that would ensure the proposal's accordance with General Policy 8(d) and 8(f). 6.7 7.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION It is considered that the necessary tests of General Policy 8 have been met, albeit that some conditions should be attached to any consent that may be forthcoming in order to ensure this. As such, it is recommended that advertisement consent be issued with conditions. 7.1 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS In line with regulation 9(5) of the Control of Advert Regulations 2005, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application; Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits. 8.1 Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 02.06.2014 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Reason: Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. 14/00093/D Page 5 of 6 3 June 2014

==== PAGE 6 ====

C2. There shall be no external lighting of the development hereby approved other than in accordance with the lighting shown on the approved drawings. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. C3. Details of the proposed lighting units, the strength of lighting proposed for them and hooding proposed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to any lighting being installed on the site. Such lighting shall be installed and retained in accordance with those approved details. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. C4. Notwithstanding the photomontage imagery submitted as part of the application, no approval is given or inferred for the text contained therein or the uses implied. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt. C5. The signage hereby granted consent shall, where illuminated, not be illuminated by an intermittent source. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. C6. The lighting shall not be Illuminated after 2100 hours or after the businesses on the application site have closed for the day, whichever is the later. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. This approval relates to the following plans and information, date-stamped as having been received 24th January 2014: RSOl Rev D, RS02 Rev D and RS04 Rev C, and the amended plan, date-stamped as having been received 29th April 2014: RS03 Rev D. 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 Committee Meeting Date :... o • • • > Signed :... Presenting Office Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required, signing officer to delete as appropriate Page 6 of 6 14/00093/D 3 June 2014 y'.