Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
Cabinet Office , ♦ Oik Coonceil ny Shirveisheiz- isle of Man GovenvTKnt CABINET OFFICE Government Office DOUGLAS Isle of Man IMl 3PN Direct Une (01624) 685280 Fax Number (01624) 685710 Email [email protected] CHIEF SECRETARY Will Greenhow ACMA C.eVN'ED O/i,
In accordance with article 10(c) of the Order, please be advised that the decision of the Council of Ministers is binding and final (subject to the possibility of judicial review by petition of doleance) The Planning Inspector's report, upon which the decision was determined, may be viewed by visiting http://www.aov.im/cateQories/DlanninQ-and-buildinQ-control/planninQ-development- control/department-applications/departmental-applications-decisions/ or by contacting the office of the Chief Secretary for a hardcopy (Tel 685204).
==== PAGE 2 ====
Yours faithfully, A Johnstone Planning Appeals Administrator
==== PAGE 3 ====
• « • REPORT TO THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS APPLICATION BY MR DAVID FREDERICK COLCLOUGH FOR PLANNING APPROVAL FOR THE CONVERSION OF RAILWAY STATION TO PROVIDE OFFICE ACCOMMODATION AT PORT ST. MARY RAILWAY STATION, STATION ROAD, PORT ST. MARY, ISLE OF MAN Case Reference: DF14/0006
PlanniDg Application: 14/00177/B INTRODUCriON 1. Hiis application relates to a site in which the Department of Infrastructure has an in^st as owner, and so it has been referred to the Council of Ministers for determination pursuant to Article 10 of Ihe Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013.1 have been appointed to consider the application and to make tfiis report. I inspected the site on 7 April 2014, and again on 10 April to access the implications of amended drawings received on 8 April. This report provides brief descriptions of the site and the proposal, summaries of the main points made in a planning statement from the Department of Infrastructure and in consultation responses and representations. It continues with my assessment, conclusions and recommendation. THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 2. The application relates to the station building at Port St. Mary railway station. The defined red-lined site includes the forecourt between the building and Station Road, a strip of land to the south of the building which forms a right of way to land to the west, and an area between the station building and the shunting shed to the west. The original plans showed furtiier land to the west and south of the shunting shed within a blue line. That area has been excluded from the amended drawings. 3. It is proposed to refurbish the building and use most of the space as “comma-cial office premises”. The floor plans show parts of the ground floor for continued railway use. The single storey part alongside the platform is shown as a ticket office, waiting rooms witii vending machines, and a store and room for the “crossing electrics”. A single storey flat roofed element at the western end of the building would provide toilets for railway users. These areas are annotated on the drawings to convey that they form a “suggested quota of space allocation for “lease back” to serve continuing Railway function”. However, there is an inconsistency between the amended Site Plan (Drawing No 102 A) and the Proposed Plans (Drawing No 104). The former shows a more limited part of the accommodation adjacent to the platform as being potentially retained for railway purposes. 4. Theamended site plan shows 5 parkingspacesto the westofthe building fortbe office use. The forecourt to the east side is shown as a parking area for railway patrons, but no layout of the parking spaces is indicated. A previous version of the site plan showed 4 paricing spaces, includii^ one for a disabled person, on that area. The amended drawings include an annotated aerial photograph showing “potential car park areas” outside the application site. A covering letter confirms that tiiese areas are not within the applicant’s ownership, bul that he is involved in negotiations with relevant parties. PLANNING STATEMENT The main points made in the Department of Infrastructure’s statement are: 5. The application provides no information about the type of office use proposed. With respect to the provisions of The Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) (No 2) Order 2013 the application does not indicate whether the intention is to provide offices within Class 2 (Financial and professional services) or Class 4 (use as an office other than a use within Class 2). Case Ref.DF14/0006 Application No. 14/00177/B Page 1
==== PAGE 4 ====
I .
Hie site is designated as Railway on the Area Plan for the South (“the Area Plan”). Para^ph 5^1.3 of that Plan refers to the cultural and historic int«est of the Steam Railway, of which this smion is part, and states that where possible and practical station buildings should be retained in, and where necessary restored to, their original form and appearance. It is lecognised that financial and modem operating requirements may mean that this is not always possible. The station is listed in the Area Plan building worthy of considwation for Registration. There are also references to the Steam Railway in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (“the Strategic Plan”). Paragraph 5.14 provides that this railway forms part of the Island Spatial Strategy. Paragraph 11.2.5 and Transport Policy 3 include provisions that development on or around the rail network should not compromise its attraction as a tourism and leisure facility, or its potential for increased use as a public transport system. The parking standards in the Strategic Plan are relevant, and provide that offices should have 1 parking space for every 50m of net floor space, increasing to 1 space per ISm^for out of town offices. This site is outside of the settlement boundaries of Port Erin and Port St. Mary defined in die Area Plan. 7. Approvals have previously been granted for use of some of the floor space as apartments (PA07/00372) and as tourist and station master’s accommodation (PAll/OOlSO), but diese were not implemented. No information has been provided about the ownership of the potential car park areas shown on one of the drawings. Potential car park 1 on that drawing is approved for use in connection wifo the adjacent dwelling at Ballaghrein^ and its associated landscaping business, and is also part of a jMoposed residential development site {PA14/00357). That application has not yet been determined. Potential car park 3 to the north is understood to serve tiie bowling green. As the potential paiking areas are not available to the applicant to use they should not be included in tiie calculation of available parking. 8. The Planning Authority makes no formal recommendation due to foe Department’s interest as she owner and the potential for a perception of bias, but it is appropriate to outline what are the important considerations. Thwe are 2 issues. The first is whether the proposed office use is acceptable bearing in mind the designation of foe site as Railway. The second is whether the office use can be satisfactorily accommodated in respect of pedestrian and vehicular access and parking provision. 9. No details of specific office users have been given, so it is assumed that the standard office parking standard should be applied. As foe she is outside settlement boundaries, it may be foal the higher out of town standard should be applied, although the site is on a regular bus route and is linked by footway to retail facilities in Port St. Mary some 400m away. The offices would comprise about 187m^ of floor space, requiring 4 o: 12 spaces depending on which parking standard is applied. The layout shovre 14 work stations and conference facilities for 18. The station waiting area layout would accommodate 20 people at tables and more on bench sealing. There would be likely to be a workw in foe ticket office. The resuHing parking needs should be compared to the existing use and the approved apartments and tourist accommodation. The apartments would have had a need for 2 spaces per unit. as a 10. If ^proval is given, conditions should be considered to specify the time allowed for commencement and to detail the plans and foe development being approved. It may also be ^ropriale to include a condition to reserve the parking spaces for foe use of persons using foe railway and foe offices. RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION AND OTHER REPRESENTATIONS 11. Port St. Mary Commissioners have no objections. The Highways Dlviaion did not oppose the original proposal. Further comments on the amended schme state that 18 parking spaces were originally allocated, of which 4 would have been for the railway station, but foe amended scheme shows Case Ref. DF14/0006 Application No. 14/00177/B Page 2
==== PAGE 5 ====
.• only S spaces for the offices and anonslelmeated area for the station, 'fhe proposal fails to meet the parking standards in the Strategic Plan, which would require 18 spaces for the net floor area of 264m^ based on 1 space per 15m^. The lack ofparking is likely to lead to vehicles being parked on the highway in the vicinity of die level crossing, which would increase risks to hi^way safety. 12. Hugh Logan Architects (of Castletown) drew attention to a number of alleged failings in the application documents. These raised matters including queries as to the exact use proposed for flie building, whether alterations to the site access were proposed and whether the applicant actually owned the land edged in blue on which car parking provision was indicated. Investigation ofthese matters led to the submission of the amended drawings, following confinnation that the applicant would not be granted a right to park vehicles on die land edged blue on the original dravdngs. INSPECTOR’S ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS 13. I concur with the Planning Authority that the 2 main issu«; are those specified in paragraph 8 above. On the first of these, the available evidence suggests that the whole of the station building is no longer required for railway purposes, given that successive applications have been made for alternative uses of parts of the building, including the current application and tliose detailed in paragraph 7. The proposal provides for the retention of sufficient facilities to allow the station to continue to operate, including waiting rooms, ticket office and toilets, and does not affect the tracks or the station platform. In these cirmimstances, 1 find no basis on which it could be concluded that the designation of the site as Railway in the Area Plan should bean impediment to approval of the use of much of the building as offices. 14, Alterations to the building would be limited and would largely affect the interior. Taking into account also that effective operation as a railway station would not be impeded, 1 have identified no conflict with Transport Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan. The proposal would be consistent with the aim of that policy, which includes ensuring that development on or around rail routes does not compromise their attraction as tourism and leisure facilities or their potential as public transport routes. Having regard to the provisions of paragraph 5.21.3 of the Area Plan, this proposal would not affect the original form or appearance of the stationtoanextentthat would justily refusal of the scheme. In conclusion on the first issue, the proposal would cause no material harm with respect to the designation of the site as Railway. 15. The site lies outside the settlement boundaries of Port St. Mary and Port Erin, and so the proposed offices cannot reasonably be regarded as being town-centre office development. Having regard to the parking standards in Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan, provision should be made for 1 parking space per 15m’ of net office floor space. The Planning Aufliority and the Highways Division have given different figures for the floor space of the proposed offices, but based on my own rough measurements from the plans I find the letter’s figure of264m’ to be more accurate. On that basis the offices would require 17 or 18 parking spaces. There are 14 workstations illustrated on the proposed floor plans, togedier with 2 conference rooms with 8 and 10 seats. Quite apart from the requirements of the parking standards, the extent of those facilities is indicative that the 5 parking spaces proposed would not be adequate to cata- for the likely parking requirements generated by the proposal. 16. It is also a matter of concern that no layout is shown for the proposed area on the forecourt for parking by railway patrons. The previous version of Drawing No 102 showed only 4 spaces on that area, and it is unclear whether even that number of usable spaces would be feasible, given the limited dimensions of the area that would be available between the parking spaces and the fence on the frontage for manoeuvring. No indication has been given tliat it is intended to remove that fence, which would probably be necessary to make all the spaces accessible. If that fence were to be removed, manoeuvring Case Ref.DF14/0006 Application No. 14/00177/B Pages
==== PAGE 6 ====
into and out of the parking spaces on the forecourt could lead to dangerous reversing from or into Station Road. No evidence has been providedofbowmany railway employees there would be at die station, and diere is no survey evidence to show how many passengers use die station or how many travel by car. On the limited available evidence, I am unable to conclude diat the paiking area wdiich would be available to serve the retained railway station function would be adequate for that purpose. 17. Having regard to the likely parking requirements of the office use, and the doubts diat exist about the adequacy of the retained paiking to serve the needs of the employees and passengers of the railway, I find myself in agreement with the Highways Division that the proposal would be likely to lead to vehicles being pariced on the public highway in the vicinity of the level crossing. Such parking would increase the potentialriskstohighway safety, as well as potentially jeopardising the freeflow of traffic on Station Road. On this issue, the proposal does not comply witii parts (h) and (i) of General Policy 2 or with Transport Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan, in terms of the Plan’s expectations for parking provision and the avoidance of unacceptable effects on road safety and traffic flows. While the applicant has illustrated the locations of other potential car parks, these do not form part of the application and do not involve land over which the applicant has any control. Consequently, those potential parking areas should not be taken into account in determining this application. 18. Due to the inadequacy of the parking provision, and the consequences for highway safety and the free flow of traffic, my overall conclusions are that the proposal is unacceptable in planning terms and that the application should be refused. In the Appendix below I detail conditions dial would be necessary and reasonable requirements should the Council of Ministers decide to approve the application contrary to my recommendation. RECOMMENDATION 19. 1 recommoid that planning approval be refiised for die following reason: The car parking provision to save the office accommodation and the retained railway station use would be inadequate and would fail to meet the requirements of the parking standards in Appendix 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. As a result, the proposal would be likely to result in increased on-street parking in the viciniQ'of the railway station and the adjacent level crossing, to the detriment of the safety of highway users and the free flow of traffic on Station Road. With reference to these matters, the proposed development is contrary to the provisions of parts (h) and (i) of General Policy 2 and of Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. Stephen Amos MAfCantab) MCD MRTPI Independent Lispector Case Ref. DF14/0006 Application No. 14/D0177/B Page 4
==== PAGE 7 ====
•• f APPENDIX Conditions recommended to be attached in the event of die applic^ion being approved.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
