Loading document...
Office of the Minister and Chief Executive
Telephone (01624)685859 Fax (01624)685945 Email: [email protected] Contact: Margaret Clague Our Ref: ITT/MC Your ref: Date: 31st January 2011.
Dear Sir/Madam,
ON APPEAL: PA10/155/B – Dandara Commercial Limited – Relocation of existing stone recycling area and creation of industrial starter units, Land currently used as part of recycling and storage compound and adjoining unused land. Adjacent to existing Industrial Units and Animal Waste Processing Plant, Middle Farm, Braddan
I refer to the recent appeal hearing in respect of the above planning application.
In accordance with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, I am enclosing herewith a copy of the report of the person appointed to hear this appeal.
I am directed to advise you that Hon. W. E. Teare, MHK, who has been appointed under Section 8(6) of the above Order to act as deputy to the Minister for Infrastructure in relation to planning appeals, has considered the report, and concurs with the appointed person's general conclusions that the main issues in this case are firstly, whether the need for further industrial land would justify the principle of the development notwithstanding conflict with relevant planning policy, and secondly, whether the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on environmental grounds.
In relation to the first issue, the appointed person concludes that, on balance, there is a need for the industrial units that justifies accepting the principle of development. The Deputy Minister accepts this conclusion, having noted in particular that the proposal will provide an immediate opportunity for development, whereas the proposed Cooil Road Order, if it is approved, and the Area Plan for the East will address rather the medium and long term needs for industrial development land.
Continued overleaf/...................
Department of Infrastructure Sea Terminal Building, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2RF
In relation to the second issue, the appointed person concludes that the development would have only limited impact on the character and appearance of the countryside, and that the visual consequences would be acceptable. Again, the Deputy Minister accepts this conclusion, having noted that the assessment relates specifically to the appeal site, and that it would be possible to require planting which would mitigate not only the limited visual impact of the proposal, but also the impact of development which has already taken place.
Accordingly, the Deputy Minister accepts the recommendation that the appeal should be allowed, and has directed that the Planning Committee's decision to refuse permission should be reversed, and that approval should be granted subject to the conditions which are set out in paragraph 53 of the report. Formal notice of this decision is enclosed herewith.
Yours faithfully,
I. T. Thompson, Chief Executive.
Please see over for circulation list/......
6 Highways & Traffic Division, DOI, Sea Terminal Buildings.
TO: Dandara Commercial Limited, Dandara Group Head Office, Isle of Man Business Park, Cooil Road, Braddan, IM2 2SA; [Copies as per Circulation List]
In pursuance of his powers under the above Act and Order, the DEPUTY MINISTER for Infrastructure, following report by the appointed person, does hereby APPROVE the application by you for the relocation of existing stone recycling area and creation of industrial starter units, Land currently used as part of recycling and storage compound and adjoining unused land. Adjacent to existing Industrial Units and Animal Waste Processing Plant, Middle Farm, Braddan, subject to compliance with the following conditions:-
All planting shall be maintained for a period of five years from the date of planting; any planting which dies or is severely damaged or become seriously diseased or is removed within the period shall be replaced by planting of similar size and species to that originally provided.
Dated this 31^{\text {st }} day of January 2011.
Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas, Isle of Man.
Note 1: This permission refers only to that required under the Town and Country Planning Acts and does not include any consent or approval under any other enactment, byelaw, order or regulation.
Note 2: A copy of the report of the appointed person is appended hereto.
.
For the Appellants: Mr V Fraser, Queen's Counsel Mr D Humphrey For the Planning Committee: Mr A Holmes
Appeal No: AP 10/0101 Planning Application No: 10/00155/B
A revision to the Braddan Local Plan (subsequently referred to as the revised plan) was considered at Inquiry in 2003. This allocated the appeal site and the adjoining land including that now occupied by the AWP and the recently constructed industrial units for industrial purposes, specifically 'Proposed Waste Treatment and Recycling'. The revision of the Braddan Plan was abandoned by the Department of Local Government and the Environment in 2006 and it was announced that Braddan would instead be covered within a future Eastern Area Plan but this has not yet been produced.
The Isle of Man Strategic Plan was adopted in 2007. In order to ensure that development takes place in sustainable locations making optimum use of existing and planned infrastructure and services and to protect the countryside for its own sake, the plan indicates that most new development should be guided towards existing settlements. The strategic objectives relating to the economy refer among other things to maintenance of the viability, vitality and diversity of the economy by enabling improved employment opportunities and seeking to ensure that sufficient land and property in terms of location, size and type is available for employment purposes.
Policies of particular relevance include:
Strategic Policy 1: indicates that development should make the best use of resources by among other things optimising the use of previously developed land and ensuring efficient use of sites.
Strategic Policy 2: indicates that new development will be located primarily within existing towns and villages.
Spatial Policy 1: indicates that Douglas will remain the main employment and service centre for the Island.
General Policy 2: identifies standards that new development should comply with.
General Policy 3: indicates a presumption against development outside areas zoned for development and lists exceptions to this which include development recognised to be of overriding national need and for which there is no reasonable alternative.
Environment Policy 1: indicates that the countryside, which includes all land outside defined settlements, will be protected for its own sake.
Environment Policy 2: indicates that in Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance, unless it can be shown that the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape or the location of the development is essential, the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration.
Business Policy 1: encourages the growth of employment opportunities that accord with the policies of the plan.
The main points are: 7. The current proposal is similar to a previous application for industrial starter units and the relocation of the stone recycling compound submitted under PA 06/00558. This application was approved notwithstanding the fact that the proposal was not compliant with relevant policy. The current proposal involves further industrial units on the relocated stone recycling compound which in turn would be moved further to the south. As the fundamental issues remain unchanged the Inspector's report on 06/00558 should carry significant weight in the determination of this appeal (see Appendix 1 to Document 2). 8. Application 06/00558 was considered against the same policy background that is currently applicable. Whilst the Strategic Plan had not been adopted it was at an advanced stage and the relevant policies have not materially changed. It was concluded in respect of the previous application that with the development of the EFWP and other facilities, the extant designation of the site as open space in the outdated 1991 local plan had been overtaken by events. Since then there have been further developments around the site including the AWP and the recently constructed industrial units which add weight to this argument. 9. Whilst the revised plan may have been abandoned it is highly relevant to have regard to the development that has taken place in the light of what was at the time an emerging plan. In this sense there is no incompatibility with the approach of the Inspector in application 06/00558 and that of the Inspector in for instance 07/00486 where, in the context of a residential proposal in Braddan, it was concluded that the revised plan was not a material consideration. 10. Whilst it may have been stated in Inspectors' reports that the revised plan is not a material consideration, the proof of evidence of the Director of Planning in relation to the forthcoming Inquiry into the Cooil Road Order makes clear that evidence of need for industrial land on which the revised plan was based and the identification of potentially suitable sites as part of the plan making process is a matter of considerable significance (Document 3). It is also relevant that at the time Tynwald was informed of the abandonment of the revised plan it was advised by the then Minister that the modified draft of the plan may carry some weight in the assessment of planning applications in Braddan. 11. The demand for industrial land is concentrated on the eastern part of the Island where the supply is severely restricted. Since the abandonment of the revised plan there have been no new industrial land allocations, no windfall sites and no other additions to supply. Also during the period employment land has been taken up and as a consequence the supply has diminished. There is now a more pressing need for the release of employment land in the area than was the case in 2006.
Appeal No: AP 10/0101 Planning Application No: 10/00155/B
borne in mind that the development would be seen alongside the visually dominant incinerator plant of the EFWP.
A study undertaken by landscape consultants (Appendix 10 to Document 2) illustrates that the unrestricted view from the footpath to the south-west would be capable of mitigation by planting on the appellants' land which would also have the advantage of reducing the impact of the existing development around the EFWP. Whilst because of the topography of the area it is disputed that there would be any meaningful views from Old Castletown Road, the appellants would accept a condition restricting the height of material deposited in the recycling area and would also be prepared to introduce screen planting on the ridge between the site and the Old Castletown Road which again would be on land in their control.
There is no suggestion by the Planning Authority that the proposal would adversely impact on any residential properties or would have unacceptable highway consequences.
A reason for refusal refers to the failure to produce an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). At no time prior to the determination of the application was it suggested by the planning officer that an EIA would be required. There is no reference to such a requirement in the committee report and only at the meeting was it suggested that such a reason for refusal should be added. There is no absolute requirement in terms of the policy that an EIA is required and in any event it was accepted that the most significant material that would be sought in addition to that already provided is contained in the landscape assessment produced by Mr Appleton of the Appleton Group. It is also relevant that the proposed industrial units are on land currently used for stone recycling.
In view of the need for further land for industry and the limited environmental impact of the proposal it is requested that the appeal be allowed.
The Case for the Planning Authority
The main points are:
The site is shown on the Braddan Parish District Local Plan 1991 to be designated as open space (agriculture). The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the important policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan which seek to ensure that as far as possible development is directed to areas zoned for development. Of particular relevance are General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1.
Although the site may have been shown for industrial use (specifically 'Proposed Waste Treatment and Recycling') in a revised local plan, this plan was formally abandoned by the Department of Local Government and the Environment in 2006. Since being abandoned it has been established that the previously emerging plan should be treated essentially as though it never existed. This stance has been supported in a number of appeal decisions.
Appeal No: AP 10/0101 Planning Application No: 10/00155/B including 07/00486/A, 08/02040/A and 09/01535/A (see Parts 4 - 6 of Document 4). 25. It is recognised that application 06 / 00558 / \mathrm{B}, relating to a similar development to the north of the appeal site, was approved on appeal against a similar policy background to that presently applicable. In that case the Inspector considered that there was sufficient justification in terms of need for industrial units to outweigh the policy objection and that as the development would neither materially affect the environment as viewed from public highways nor have any significant effect on dwellings in the area the appeal should be allowed. This was accepted by the Minister. 26. Whilst it is accepted that the current proposal would have no significant effect on dwellings in the area it is considered that unlike the previously approved development, the proposal would have a greater impact in environmental terms and would be unacceptable for that reason. 27. At the time of the assessment of the current proposal a large mound of stone could be seen from Old Castletown Road and it was reasonably assumed that this related to the stone recycling area approved under the previous application 06 / 00558 / \mathrm{B}. Taking account of the visibility of the then existing mound, the relative position of the proposed development and the changes of level it is considered that the current scheme will materially effect the environment as viewed from Old Castletown Road. 28. Although the proposal may have the support of the then Department of Trade and Industry, their letter was of a generic nature and is not regarded as a sufficient justification for development that is contrary to established planning policy. 29. It is not accepted that there is an overriding need for industrial units that would justify the release of this site. Estate agents' websites identify a significant number of existing industrial units that are either for sale or rent both in the east of the island and in the island as a whole (Part 8 of Document 4). In terms of employment land supply the Department's land availability studies identify that in the east of the Island there are 100.05 hectares designated for employment use in local plans of which 12.09 hectares remain currently available. 30. The Department are promoting the Cooil Road Development Order which could result in the approval in principle for the development of around 20 hectares for a mix of uses of which 55 % would be for industrial purposes. An Inquiry is to be held in October. The area of land involved is considerably greater than the application site and the advancement of the Order by the Department should not be taken as an indication for the support of piecemeal approval of smaller parcels of land contrary to their land use designation. 31. The case for need advanced by the appellant does not justify a development that would otherwise be unacceptable in policy terms and would have unacceptable environmental consequences.
Planning Application No: 10/00155/B significant factor when permission was granted on appeal for industrial units immediately to the north of the appeal site under application 06/00558. 39. Having regard to the age of the extant plan and the development that has taken place in the area in the recent past I would not disagree with the view of the Inspector who considered application 06/00558 that the extant designation of the site as Open Space (Agricultural) has been overtaken by events. 40. If the economy is to flourish it is clearly important that sufficient land is available for industry in the Island as a whole and in the various parts, particularly in the east, where the demand is greatest. Whilst the planning officer's evidence suggested that around 12.09 hectares was available for employment development in the east of the Island, the evidence of the appellants in relation to the constraints affecting the suitability of many of the sites for industrial purposes was not seriously contested. I consider that the land readily available for industrial purposes would be significantly lower than this figure and would be closer to the figure of 3.2 hectares suggested by the appellants. This would represent less than a 2 year supply and would include 2.56 hectares at White Ho which was taken into account by the Inspector dealing with 06/00558 when he concluded that there was an over-riding need for the then proposed industrial units. 41. I would accept that it is important that industrial units are provided where they are needed and that further units are available before the current supply is exhausted. There is consequently a requirement for the release of further land suitable for industry. 42. It is highly undesirable that land should be released in response to ad hoc applications rather than in accordance with a considered plan for the area as a whole. Sometimes however this is necessary if requirements are to be met. In the case of Braddan it is likely to be two to three years before the adoption of the Area Plan for the East provides an up-to-date planning framework for the area. 43. I have no doubt that it was the lack of an up-to date plan and the decision not to go ahead with the revised Braddan Plan 2003 that caused the Department to promote the Cooil Road Development Order. The Order has generated significant objection and has recently been the subject of a public inquiry. There is no certainty that the Order will be confirmed and even if it is, further detailed approval would be required before development could proceed. However were it confirmed, the Order, with 55 % of the 20 hectares available for industrial purposes, would make a significant contribution to supply pending the eventual adoption of the Area Plan for the East. 44. Prior to the decision to promote the Cooil Road Order the planners will have examined the options open to them and assessed the suitability of the site for development including its relationship to the developed area of Douglas. The process has also been subject to public scrutiny. It would in my opinion be inappropriate to view the Order land in the same light as a speculative application such as this.
Whether the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on environmental grounds 47. The proposal would involve the development of the industrial units on the area currently used as a stone recycling compound and the replacement stone recycling compound would extend into agricultural land. As a matter of fact the proposal would impact on the openness of the area and the additional development would be open to view from a footpath to the south-west of the site. However, although it would extend further into the open area, the proposal would be seen in the context of the massive EFWP and the other existing buildings. Furthermore it would be possible to require planting on land in the appellants' control that would mitigate views not only of the proposal but of development that has already taken place. 48. In terms of views from the highway I do not consider that would be any material additional impact from the roads to the north. The concern of the planning officer that the proposal would have serious consequences in the view from Old Castletown Road was based on the fact that he was able to see the stone pile in the re-cycling compound and that consequently the likelihood was that the proposed building and the re-sited stone pile would also be visible. However since this time the height of the stone pile has been significantly reduced to around 2 m to 3 m and I was unable to see it from Old Castletown Road. 49. Bearing in mind the cross-section produced by the appellants' landscape consultant it is questionable whether the proposal would be seen at all from Old Castletown Road and in any event the potential impact would be restricted to a short stretch of road where the development would be seen in the context of its more dominant neighbours. Furthermore any potential impact could be mitigated by conditions restricting the height of the material in the stone recycling compound to 5 m and requiring landscape planting on the ridge between Old Castletown Road and the site as shown in drawing TAG3 contained in Appendix 10 of Document 2. 50. Whilst there would be limited impact on the character and appearance of the countryside I do not consider that the proposal would have unacceptable visual consequences.
Appeal No: AP 10/0101 Planning Application No: 10/00155/B
with the agreed details before any part of the development is occupied or within any longer period that may have been agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. All planting shall be maintained for a period of five years from the date of planting; any planting which dies or is severely damaged or becomes seriously diseased or is removed within that period shall be replaced by planting of similar size and species to that originally provided.
Neil A C Holt Independent Inspector 19th October 2010
| Appeal No: AP 10/0101 | | | --- | --- | | Planning Application No: 10/00155/B | | | DOCUMENTS | | | Document 1 | Appellants' statement accompanying application | | Document 2 | Appellants' appeal statement and appendices | | Document 3 | Additional material submitted by appellant - proof of evidence with appendices of Director of Planning and Building Control in relation to the Cooil Road Development Order | | Document 4 | Statement of the Planning Authority and Appendices |
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
