Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
15/00004/B
Page 1 of 17
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 15/00004/B Applicant : EFB (IOM) Ltd Proposal : Variation of condition two of PA 11/01290/A for creation of a leisure / industrial development to extend the period of approval Site Address : Land Adjacent Industrial Estate Ballafletcher Road Cronkbourne Douglas Isle of Man
Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level :
Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE HISTORY OF THE SITE
THE SITE 1.1 The application site lies to the north of Ballafletcher Road. To the north and west of the site are sports pitches and associated facilities and to the east is an existing industrial estate. The application site is presently vacant and could be described as scrub land. The boundary to the Ballafletcher Road consists of a Manx hedge with a number of trees. The land generally falls in level from the north west to the south east.
1.2 The land forms the end of the existing Ballafletcher Estate Road and tapers towards the sports pitches. Access is presently from the Estate Road. There is a field gate onto the Ballafletcher Road.
1.3 The eastern part of the application site is zoned as "Predominantly Industrial" on the Braddan Parish District Local Plan 1991 while the western part of the application site is zoned as "Land owned by Government (Open Space in Agricultural Use)". The map for the local plans also states that areas not allocated for development are designated as of 'High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance'
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 2.1 Planning approval is sought for the variation of condition 2 to effectively allow a further two years for the application for the reserved matters to be submitted. The approval granted stated that:
==== PAGE 2 ====
15/00004/B
Page 2 of 17
2. The application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Planning Authority before the expiration of two years from the date of this permission.
The development to which this permission relates shall begin within 4 years of the date of this permission or within two years of the final approval of the reserved matters, whichever is the latter.
This approval relates to the creation of a mixed use development providing warehousing, offices/retail accommodation and leisure facilities including service road and car parking as shown in drawing numbers 1699.01.P01, 1699.01.P02, 1699.01.P03, and 1699.01.P04 date stamped 16 September 2011.
The plans and particulars submitted in accordance with Condition 2 above shall include:
a Design Statement; 2. a Green Travel Plan; 3. details of cycle shelters; and 4. a detailed Transport Assessment, which should include, but not limited to, both a detailed parking and junction assessment
The buildings shall not be used until the vehicular and pedestrian means of access have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans, and those means of access shall thereafter be kept available at all times for their respective purposes.
The buildings shall not be used until the car parking and manoeuvring areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans, and those areas shall thereafter be kept available at all times for their respective purposes.
The goods to be sold within the trade counter/showroom/retail shop area must be restricted to alcohol, soft drinks, tobacco, bar type snacks and confectionery in conjunction with the office and warehouse unit associated therewith.
The retail unit may not be brought into operation until such time as the warehouse and offices associated therewith are in use.
2.2 The previous application proposed the principle of a mixed use development to provide the following:
Restaurant/pub with 150 covers/9 bed and 3 suite motel with /fun barn (280 sq m) and outside children's play area
2.3 The application discharged the siting of the buildings and means of access for the proposed development.
2.4 Access for the warehousing and the offices will be off the existing Industrial Estate Road. Access for all the other uses will be off a new access off the Ballafletcher Road.
2.5 The application was submitted by EFB (IoM)Ltd, a subsidiary of EFB Ltd which is the largest distributor of alcohol in the UK, operating bonded warehouses and distributes alcohol wholesale to supermarkets and operates a number of retail outlets known as "Booze buster",
==== PAGE 3 ====
15/00004/B
Page 3 of 17
"Oddbins", "Whittles Wines" and "Wine Cellar" as well as serving public houses and restaurants under the brand name "John Stephenson" and operates a cash and carry under the brand name "2 Ticks". This application is intended to develop the site for their core operations of warehousing, offices and leisure activities. They had looked for a suitable site which could accommodate all of the proposed facilities but without success other than the current site. The offices are for the applicant company. The ground floor of the offices was intended as a trade counter operation and a showcase for Oddbins which caters for fine wine and champagne. This was intended to be available to the public but mostly intended for sales representatives and buyers.
2.6 The restaurant and hotel was also intended to be complementary to the other facilities and also to those elsewhere on the Ballafletcher estate and the adjacent sports facilities. The motel is intended primarily for EFB (IoM) Ltd and their visiting personnel but could equally assist the facilities in the surrounding area.
2.7 The intention was to create an interesting group of buildings of differing heights with minimal loss of trees.
2.8 Since the approval planning approval has been granted for the conversion of the former print works and Isle of Man Newspapers building on the corner of Pulrose Bridge and Peel Road to a coffee bar, offices and wine warehouse (PA 14/00836/B). It is understood that work has commenced on the implementation of this approval.
2.9 The applicant's agent states that since the approval on the Ballafletcher site, the Central Douglas Masterplan has been published and they are concerned that some of the leisure facilities proposed in that may duplicate what is proposed at Ballafletcher and they wish to work with the Government to ensure that there is no conflict in demand. Furthermore, prior to commencing work on the detailed plans for the leisure element of this scheme they require to undertake further market research as the UK leisure market has contracted over the last 3-4 years but there are signs that operators are now active again.
2.10 There have been no changes in policy or land use designation since the approval, nor have there been any decisions on nearby land which are considered relevant to the consideration of the current application.
PLANNING STATUS AND RELEVANT POLICIES 3.1 Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 Section 3 states that 'in dealing with an application for planning approval, the Department shall have regard to:
o the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application; o such other considerations as may be specified in a development order, so far as material to the application; and o all other material considerations.'
3.2 In the case of this application, the development plan comprises the Strategic Plan 2007 and the Braddan Parish District Local Plan 1991. Other material considerations included at the time of the original decision, the draft Planning Policy Statement on Planning & the Economy and The Minister for Infrastructure's speech. These expand upon existing policies in the Strategic Plan clarifying the level of importance to be placed upon economic development given the current climate. The status of this document is currently unchanged. The current application should also have regard to the Central Douglas Masterplan which is a material consideration and one which was not in place at the time of the original decision.
3.3 Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application: Strategic Policies 2, 6, 7 and 9, General
==== PAGE 4 ====
15/00004/B
Page 4 of 17
Policy 2 and General Policy 3, Environment Policies 1 and 2, Business Policies 5, 7, 9 and 10 Transport Policies 4 and 7
3.4 Strategic Policy 6 states that "Major employment-generating development should be located in existing centres on land zoned for such purposes and identified as such in existing Local or new Area Plans."
3.5 Strategic Policy 7 states that "Undeveloped land which is zoned in Local or Area Plans for industrial, office or retail purposes will be retained and protected for such uses, except where those uses would be inappropriate or incompatible with adjoining uses."
3.6 General Policy 3 states that "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
(a) Essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (b) Conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (c) Previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment; (d) The replacement of existing rural dwellings; (e) Location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services; (f) Building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry; (g) Development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and (h) Buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage."
3.7 Environment Policy 1 states that "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an overriding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative."
(a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or
(b) the location for the development is essential."
==== PAGE 5 ====
15/00004/B
Page 5 of 17
(a) The item to be sold could not be sold reasonably be sold from a town centre location because of their size or nature; or (b) The items to be sold are produced on the site and their sale could not reasonably be severed from the overall business; and in respect of (a) or (b), where it can be demonstrated that the sales would not detract from the vitality and viability of the appropriate town centre shopping area."
(a) On approved Business Parks for Corporate Headquarters which do not involve day to day callers; or (b) In buildings of acknowledged architectural or historic interest for which office use represents the only or most appropriate practicable and economic way of securing future use, renovation and maintenance."
3.12 Business Policy 10 states that "Retail development will be permitted only in established town and village centres, with the exception of neighbourhood shops in large residential areas and those instances identified in Business Policy 5"
3.13 Transport Policy 4 states that "The 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."
3.14 Transport Policy 7 states that "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards."
3.15 Within the Braddan Parish District Local Plan 1991, Paragraph 13.3 states that "The rural areas of Braddan Parish District will be designated as being of High Landscape Value. As part of this policy it is essential that the important tree groups and woodland within the parish be subject to a maintenance and management scheme which will include underplanting as and when necessary"
3.16 Paragraph 13.4 states that "No further development in the countryside will be permitted with the exception of those referred to in 13.2 and those which are required for national strategic reasons, and those required for essential agricultural purposes. All areas designated as open space must be respected and no further intrusion will be permitted."
3.17 Paragraph 6.7 states that "No further extension of any industrial areas into areas designated as open space will be permitted."
3.18 Paragraph 3.3 states that "No additional office development will be permitted in the Braddan Parish District with the exception of those necessary for the functioning of an approved industrial development, including science based industries, or where an individual office can be shown to be necessary solely for the needs of the local economy. Conversion of existing structures will be preferred to new development."
==== PAGE 6 ====
15/00004/B
Page 6 of 17
3.19 The policies highlighted in paragraphs 3.3 to 3.18 have not changed since the issue of the original decision.
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 Planning approval was granted in principle for mixed use development to provide industrial/warehousing, office,/retail accommodation and leisure facilities including service roads and car parking (discharging siting and means of access) on appeal on 8th January, 2013. The application had been approved by the Planning Committee and the appeal was requested by Braddan Parish Commissioners and the residents of Ballafletcher Poultry Farm Cottage. The appeal was recommended for dismissal by the reporting inspector and the application was confirmed as approved by the Minister.
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Douglas Development Partnership objects purely to the leisure components of the scheme. They contend that the situation has subsequently changed with the publication of the Central Douglas Masterplan which proposes similar leisure developments in central Douglas. The Development Partnership considers that any demand for new leisure development in the east of the Isle of Man should be directed towards the sites proposed for such use within the Masterplan (29.01.15)
5.2 Isle of Man Enterprises who encompass the Shoprite, Winerite and Iceland stores, object to the application on the basis that the original decision was flawed, in their view. They are concerned that retail developments are directed towards the town centre in order for such to remain vibrant. They confirm that the proposal "threatens the viability of their business model in its entirety" as it does 330 other licensed premises. They state that the alcohol business is in decline, there are no good reasons for extension and there has been a change in circumstances since the last application in that 900 sq m of a similar development in Douglas has been granted. The make lengthy reference to the process leading up to the initial decision, being critical of certain conclusions reached and information which was or was not provided or circulated and that discussions between the applicant and the Planning Office, Chief Minister and others create the impression that the Planning Office was not sufficiently independent when it considered the application. They do not believe that the items sold were sufficiently bulky to distinguish this operation from other town centre alcohol sales opportunities. They are also critical of the appeal inspector's conclusions and the Minister's decision which they also consider were flawed. They do not consider that there is a need for the development as no work has commenced on the approval granted and a further approval for the same applicant has been granted at another location. (30.01.15).
5.3 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services indicate that they do not oppose the application (16.01.15).
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The assessment of the previous application was as follows.
6.2 The main issues in assessing this application are: a) land use; b) economic benefits; C) highway issues, D) design and E) phasing. The following paragraphs deal with these issues in the above order, followed by consideration of other matters of detail.
LAND USE 6.3 In considering this matter, it is best to consider each of the individual uses against the adopted development plan for the area.
6.4 Firstly, in respect of the proposed warehouse, the building for the proposed warehouse wholly falls within land that is zoned as "Predominantly Industrial" in the Braddan Parish District Local Plan. Therefore the relevant policy is Business Policy 5, which states that "On
==== PAGE 7 ====
15/00004/B
Page 7 of 17
land zoned for industrial use, permission will be given only for industrial development or for storage and distribution". The use of the site for a warehousing operation would be in accordance with Business Policy 5.
6.5 In respect of the entertainment centre, this will be housed at the opposite end of the same building as the warehouse. The entertainment centre will comprise a 12 lane bowling alley, arcade, cafe bar, children's adventure area and multipurpose function space. The building would sit on land that is zoned as predominantly industrial. It was advised at pre- application stage on various occasions that "the principle of development the recreation/leisure & conference element of the proposal is, perhaps unsurprisingly, the most contentious of the three elements. It is impossible to argue that such element accords with the designation of the land as predominantly industrial and on face value such proposal does not sit comfortably with planning policy. However, you are entitled to make a case for the proposal and I would suggest that if you want to pursue this element you will need to provide supporting evidence to address such issues as whether there is a need for this element, whether it cannot be reasonably provided elsewhere on the Island, whether the loss of designated industrial land is justified, whether the proposal is sustainable, etc."
6.6 The justification put forward by the applicant's agents is as follows "The warehouse is as large a building as possible taking into account the necessity for it to integrate into the overall development, the space remaining between the boundary to the sports pitches, would leave a minimum area for another industrial building taking into account the necessary access past and the requirement for separate car parking. We would consider therefore, that the loss of industrial land to leisure use is minimal."
6.7 This part of the development is clearly contrary to the "Predominantly Industrial" land use zoning of the Braddan Parish District Local Plan. The Strategic Plan, in the form of Strategic Policy 7, states "Undeveloped land which is zoned in Local or Area Plans for industrial, office or retail purposes will be retained and protected for such uses, except where those uses would be inappropriate or incompatible with adjoining uses." The applicants have also stated that "Alternative sites were investigated that could accommodate the mix of uses. Unfortunately, there were no suitable sites in the town centre and proposed location presents the best opportunity for the population of Douglas and the Island".
6.8 Due to lack of land availability for a mixed use development of this scale, it is considered there is sufficient justification to allow the land to be used for an alternative use.
6.9 In respect of the office/ trade counter/showroom, this part of the development would be sited on land which is zoned as "Land owned by Government (Open Space in Agricultural Use)". The land is not zoned for development. The applicant has stated in their Planning Statement that "The office use proposed is therefore similar to the offices in connection with "industrial" use elsewhere on the estate. EFB (IoM) Ltd intend to occupy the offices in connection with their core operations and it is the intention to run their international operations from the offices. It is envisaged that there will be approximately 50 full time employees." The applicant is also intending to provide a trade counter operation on the ground floor of the offices. This area will primarily be used as a showcase for one of the group brands "Oddbins". The area will be able to be used by the public as a fine wine mart. This facility will be 166 square metres and as such does not require a Retail Impact Assessment.
6.10 The development of this part of the site does not fit into any of the criterion of General Policy 3. However, there is a clear relationship between the offices, the trade counter and the warehouse. It would inappropriate to try to separate the different uses to different sites, as this would result in additional traffic coming and going from the different sites.
==== PAGE 8 ====
15/00004/B
Page 8 of 17
Furthermore, this proposal is a more sustainable proposal with all the connected uses in one location.
6.11 The Planning Committee raised concerns regarding how the retail unit would operate for two reasons; firstly, what the impact of this would be in terms of access and parking, if people or businesses were to arrive and bulk buy; and secondly how this should be assessed in terms of our retail strategy.
6.12 The Committee Members' raised a concern regarding the use of the 'trade counter' for general retail sales, particularly given Tynwalds's previous stance on out of town retailing and the concern levelled at the development at Cooil Road.
6.13 The applicant does want to keep the retail store, he sees it as a crucial element of the whole scheme.
6.14 The applicant responded to their initial queries about the retail by stating:
"The trade counter would operate as a Wine Merchant's which will predominantly be an area to showcase suppliers' products and brands within a working retail environment. A good proportion of the range on offer would consist of premium products that are not normally readily available elsewhere and all lines stocked would be replenished from the adjacent warehouse facility. The Wine Merchant's operation would operate completely separately from the warehouse facility, it is envisaged that 70% of the business would be to trade customers. International suppliers visit EFB on a monthly basis to re-negotiate terms and/or present new products. This environment is ideal to demonstrate how products could be displayed as part of the existing range. Both the wholesale and retail ranges are refreshed on a regular basis resulting in repeat supplier visits throughout the year. The Wine Merchant's counter will need to make sales and will be open from 10am to 9pm Monday to Sunday. Based on our experience and being in a service led industry, trade customers in the pub/restaurant business would expect to be able to replenish/top up until 9.00pm prior to their peak trading periods."
6.15 It is considered crucial to state that, in the officer's opinion, and insofar as planning policy is to be applied, the proposed unit would operate as a general retail store rather than simply be for trade (as other shops such as the Tile and Bathroom Store do).
6.16 The shop would be served by the warehouse, but would be operated separately from it. Regular trade customers would visit the store to see what types of wine are available but would place general orders on a weekly or monthly basis and these wines would be delivered from the warehouse direct to the customer. The shop would be open in the evenings for trade for 'distress purchases'. The shop would also be open to members of the public. The public could buy what is in the shop only, they would not place orders and then go and collect from the warehouse, nor would the shop assistant go to the warehouse to get wine for the customers. If a whole selection of wine is sold out from the shop, it will be replenished from the warehouse.
6.17 In terms of the retail strategy, and ignoring the argument for the moment (but not dismissing it) that the unit would operate primarily as a trade counter more than a retail outlet, the Strategic Policy 9 requires all new retail development (excepting neighbourhood shops and those instances identified in Business Policy 5) to be sited within the town and village centres on land zoned for these purposes in Area Plans. Business Policy 5 allows for retailing from land zoned for industrial purposes if those items could not reasonably be sold from a town centre location because of their size or nature; or because those items are produced on site and their sale could not reasonably be severed from the overall business.
==== PAGE 9 ====
15/00004/B
Page 9 of 17
Importantly there is a further caveat of where it can be demonstrated that the sales would not detract from the vitality and viability of the appropriate town centre shopping area.
6.18 On speaking with the applicant, whilst the intention is to allow for the sale of individual items, this is not the intended market. The applicant indicates that wine merchants come in various forms, the neighbourhood centre style off-licence, which he terms as a 'booze and fag' shop which is a convenience store, best located in walking distance of dwellings for last minute and single item purchases; and bulk buy merchants where people buy boxes of wine or beer for special occasions, or to bulk buy specialist wines, or for restaurants hotels and businesses. The applicant runs both types of store and they have very different clientele and a different sales character. This proposal is most definitely intended to be the latter. The vast majority of sales are for bulk purchases. The applicant argues that there is a case that it could be considered as 'items that could not reasonably be sold from a town centre location because of their size or nature'. If the majority of sales are in boxes then there is an argument that the size of the goods means people will not carry them around the town centre and home on the bus.
6.19 Such an assertion is perhaps backed up a little by evidence that the only shops to sell alcohol in Douglas town centre include SPAR, M&S and Iceland. None of these shops are bulk buy type shops and the goods tend to be purchased as a 'group' purchase along with other consumables (food). Those shops that do sell wine and beer in greater quantities include the Vineyard, Wine Cellar and Winerite. These units are out of designated centres and are single destination shops. It is also worth noting that in the UK, on at least one occasion, Oddbins has been accepted as a bulky goods store.
6.20 It is perhaps useful to examine the reason behind the retail policy to understand what harm, if any, the proposal could be seen to cause.
6.21 The need to direct retailing to existing centres is two fold, firstly to ensure that there is a sufficient range and choice of goods available in the one shopping trip without the need to travel between sites, and secondly to retain the viability and viability of those centres as attractive places. Some goods cannot reasonably be sold in town centres as they need a greater level of display space or the customers need to park adjacent to the store in order to take the purchases home by car. Other types of goods do not particularly add to the vitality and viability of a centre as they are not what is described as 'comparison' goods, rather they are 'convenience' goods.
6.22 Comparison goods can generally be described as those that people shop around for. It is important to the purchaser to make a comparison of one with the other. Obvious examples of these are clothes and shoes, but also include furniture and other bulky goods. Convenience goods are generally food and drink.
6.23 The proposal does not fall neatly into these categories, although strictly speaking it is a convenience type good, wine in particular is growing as a specialist item. It can be deduced that the goods are not the type people would shop around for in a town centre making comparisons with other shop units. It is more likely to be a type of good that people will only view the range of goods within that single shop. Alternatively more and more people will purchase wine on-line. For example, even Amazon sells wine.
6.24 This is important because of the need to assess whether the acceptance of the retail element would detract from the vitality and viability of Douglas or other town centre shops. Given that few shops sell wine from the town centre, and then not in bulk (Winerite on Victoria Road, The Vineyard on Prospect Terrace, The Wine Cellar on Tennis Road), it is doubtful that the proposed unit would attract their share of the market. It perhaps should be noted that the Inspector, in considering the application for Halfords (now PC World and
==== PAGE 10 ====
15/00004/B
Page 10 of 17
Dixon's) and Pet at Home, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to show that the proposed retail would harm the vitality and viability of any existing centres. This conclusion was reached even though it was accepted that the store would sell goods that were already being sold in the town centres.
6.25 The Isle of Man Retail Strategy 2009 (commissioned by the then DTI), indicates, following an analysis of retail spending that a high proportion of comparison spending is off- Island .
6.26 The Isle of Man Retail Strategy has not been formally adopted by Tynwald, but it is the most up-to date and accurate assessment of retailing on the island. In its recommendations it states:
"9.7 While there is little quantitative scope for further new convenience goods floorspace, this should not be interpreted so strictly as to prevent the introduction of new formats and improvement in the quality of convenience retail provision across the Isle of Man. There is a major concentration of convenience expenditure in Douglas's supermarkets. The findings of the Household Survey and the experience of using them suggests that there is a high degree of overtrading in some instances which affects the shopping experience.
9.13 In Douglas, the main emphasis should be on measures to improve the quality rather than extending the scale of convenience retailing.'
6.27 In summary, it is considered that; the size of the unit is such that a formal retail impact assessment is not required; the type of goods to be sold are not those that would undermine the goods sold from retail centres; there is a certain amount of specialist retailing that is lost to on-line sales; and whilst it would be preferable for the unit to be edge of centre to enable linked trips to take place, the applicant argues that the group of uses are all intertwined and provides for its own set of linked trips.
6.28 In respect of the restaurant/pub/play barn and motel, this part of the development would be sited on land which is zoned as "Land owned by Government (Open Space in Agricultural Use)". There are no specific policies in the development plan to guide such development to suitable locations. The only relevant policies are General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan. The development of this part of the site does not fit into any of the criterion of General Policy 3. However, as noted in previous reports, the surrounding area, also zoned for agriculture is used as playing fields. It is accepted that such a use retains an 'open' character, but it is also clear that the land which forms part of the application site is unlikely to ever be used for agricultural type purposes.
6.29 The applicants have stated that:
"EFB (IoM) Ltd identified that there was a need for a public house/restaurant to service their offices, in addition to the remainder of Ballafletcher Estate. There is also the opportunity of serving nearby housing in addition to the adjacent sports facilities. This operation represents a core part of the EFB (IoM) Ltd operations and therefore, they have extensive experience of building, managing and operating this kind of development. It is also intended to include within this building, a motel facility of 9 en-suite rooms and 3 suites. The requirement in the first instance is for the motel to serve EFB (IoM) Ltd and their visiting personnel and representatives, difficulty has been experienced finding suitable accommodation on the island at short notice in the past. The facility can also serve adjacent units in a similar manner in addition to the adjacent sports facilities. It is envisaged that the facility will employ approximately 10 full time employees."
==== PAGE 11 ====
15/00004/B
Page 11 of 17
6.30 This part of the proposal has some connection to the other uses proposed for the site. Furthermore, it should be noted Cronkbourne Village does not have a public house. The nearest public houses are The Railway Inn in Union Mills, The Cat with No Tail in Governor's Hill and The Manor Inn in Willaston. This facility would serve the local residents of the area in addition to the adjacent sports facilities. The "play barn will be located adjacent to the public house/restaurant and is intended to provide integrated leisure facilities for the whole of the family. The siting of a public house in this location would beneficial to the local area.
ECONOMIC BENEFIT 6.31 The draft Planning Policy Statement on Planning and the Economy gives a definition of Economic Development as 'the development of land and buildings for activities that generate wealth, jobs and incomes. Economic development land uses include: the traditional employment land uses (offices, research and development, industry and warehousing), as well as retail, leisure, and public services'.
6.32 Although the PPS suggest that applicants should work with Department of Economic Development, they are unable to do so in this instance. DED would be unable to support the application as they are conflicted due to being the land owner. However the PPS states that what DED would look at is:
redress social disadvantage and support regeneration priorities. o A consideration of the contribution to the Manx economy and local businesses.
6.33 The anticipated number of jobs has been provided and a significant proportion of these are long term posts, rather than being simply for construction. In terms of the other factors, the proposal is unlikely to result in spin off industry, but it could be argued that an international HQ that intends to bring visitors to the island, combined with providing more leisure facilities is widely beneficial.
6.34 The PPS asks planning to look 'favourably on applications for economic development uses which may not be in accordance with the development plan, but only if based on a robust evidence base (which can withstand scrutiny, testing and cross examination) and the economic benefits of the development are demonstrated to outweigh adverse impacts on economic, social or environmental sustainability.'
6.35 This sets out that not all applications involving an economic benefit will be acceptable, they need to be balanced against the land-use designation and what adverse effects there may be. In this instance, whilst not all of the site is designated for development, the site does not lie in open countryside distant from any settlement. It lies adjacent to an existing industrial estate and as the development forms part of a whole scheme, is seen as providing economic benefit without unduly compromising social or environmental sustainability. Indeed the proposal does provide benefits from a social and sustainability viewpoint.
6.36 The applicants have made the following statements to help justify their proposal:
"Although the site is not allocated in the Development Plan for all of the proposed uses, we believe that the scheme will generate significant economic benefit for the Manx economy. A wide range of family leisure activities being available throughout the year will improve the quality of life for the Island's residents and enhance tourism opportunities. This is a unique prospect for the Island with multiple attractions available in a single location, which can also be enjoyed during adverse/wet weather conditions.
==== PAGE 12 ====
15/00004/B
Page 12 of 17
6.37 The family owned company proposing the development is based on the Isle of Man and has already increased its workforce from 5 to 19 employees over the last year. It is anticipated that the scheme will ultimately create a further 81 varied permanent employment opportunities (in addition to any seasonal positions) as detailed below; o Warehousing Personnel
30 o International Office Operation
50 o Public House/Restaurant/Hotel
10 o Play Barn
5 o Entertainment Centre/Bowling Alley 5
6.38 The long term 100 strong workforce could potentially increase in line with the growth of the company and create future investment opportunities for the Island. The construction of the proposed site would also benefit the economy of the island with a significant investment of £7m (excluding land). Consequently, this creates both short and long term positive effects on the unemployment situation. (June statistics show that this is now at 2.3% (1017 people). The economic affairs website stating that the numbers signing on to the register were inflated by students returning to the Island after term end, but also by increases in the number of individuals having left or lost jobs in retailing and catering.)
6.39 Although the site is undeveloped, it is surrounded by industry and recently improved sports pitch facilities. We believe that the visual impact of the scheme would be minimal and present an improvement on the current scrub land condition of the site.
6.40 It is considered that the scheme would have no negative effect on existing businesses with the hotel predominantly accommodating company visitors and the Entertainment Centre/Bowling Alley servicing Douglas and the south of the island. The Public House/Restaurant/Play Barn would mainly service Douglas and the surrounding areas."
6.41 This proposal has short term and long term benefits in terms of creating jobs in different employment sectors. This adds further weight to approving the application contrary to the policies of the adopted development plan for the area.
HIGHWAY ISSUES 6.42 In respect of parking, the car parking standards as set out in the Strategic Plan for the development based on floor area indicated in the application are as follows
Warehouse 1400 square metres at 1 space per 100 square metres = 14
Offices 708 square metres at 1 space per 50 square metres = 47
Motel 12 beds at 1 space per bedroom =
12
Entertainment/ Public House/ Restaurant 1708 square metres at 1 space per 15 square metres = 114
Total= 187
6.43 The application is proposing to provide 135 spaces. There is consequently a shortfall of 52 spaces from the overall requirement of all of the uses; however, the applicant's agent has stated that the shortfall in numbers takes into account the user profile envisaged in that not all parts of the development will be used concurrently and there will be some overlap of common parking particularly in the area in front of the offices.
==== PAGE 13 ====
15/00004/B
Page 13 of 17
6.44 Members queried the rationale of the level of parking, in particular how it is to be used. The main daytime requirement would be for the workers in the offices and those in the warehouse. In accordance with the standards, these would necessitate 47 + 14 spaces which would be 61 spaces, leaving 74 spaces left for the other uses which would undoubtedly give rise to some level of need. Certainly some of the hotel spaces would be required, although it is doubted that all 12 spaces would be required during the daytime. The playbarn would probably also require some spaces for daytime purposes. It is doubted that the restaurant or pub would give rise to daytime demand and it is likely that the bowling alley would be highly used during work hours. It is concluded that the 74 remaining spaces would be adequate for daytime use purposes.
6.45 In terms of evening spaces, 34 of the spaces are located to the rear of the buildings accessed through the industrial area. It is likely that these spaces would be used for staff rather than visitors, leaving 101 spaces to the front of the buildings. Bearing in mind that the office workers are not likely to work during the evening and the number of warehouse staff will be reduced, at least 47 + 7 spaces will not be required, leaving a requirement of 126 spaces which is accommodated for. Consequently the level of evening parking is considered to be acceptable.
6.46 The development would also provide dedicated cycle and motorcycle parking, which is to promote alternative modes of transport to the site. The site is located on or near to bus routes.
6.47 The applicant's response to the issue of adequacy of parking is:
"The total number of parking spaces proposed is considered to be more than sufficient for the development due to the intended operational times of the warehouse and offices being predominantly during standard hours of business. It is anticipated that there would be 80 workers during the daytime which would leave 80 spaces for visitors to the other facilities. Whilst these would be open, because of their nature, it is not expected that there would be high numbers during the standard working week. Only the play barn is likely to attract parents with young children, the 100 free spaces are considered more than adequate to cover this. Outside of normal daytime working, the office staff spaces would become available for use during evenings and weekends when the leisure facilities would be trading. We will also be actively encouraging alternative modes of transport as outlined in the transport statement for both the general public and employees. This not only includes bus and cycle transport, but in addition, visitors to the company who are staying at the hotel, may well be transported by the company rather than having their own vehicles."
6.48 In respect of the proposed access onto Ballafletcher Road; the junction will have a visibility splay of 4.5m x 120m. The access will service the offices/trade counter and the recreation/leisure facilities. The Highways Division considers the proposed access to be acceptable. It is therefore considered the access would not be prejudicial to highway safety.
6.49 The access for the proposed warehouse will be off the existing industrial estate road.
6.50 The Highways Division has stated that "The transport statement for the 'in principle' application provides sufficient transport information to show that the site can be accessed safely.
6.51 The Highways Division does not oppose the above application subject to a full transport assessment accompanying the detailed planning application. The assessment should include, but not limited to, both a detailed parking and junction assessment."
DESIGN
==== PAGE 14 ====
15/00004/B
Page 14 of 17
6.52 The planning statement makes reference to the potential height of the buildings which raises some concern to the Planning Authority. The statement states that the warehouse will be largely single storey and will be a similar height to the 3 storey entertainment centre. The offices are envisaged to be 4 storeys in height whilst the public house/ restaurant/motel will be 2 storey in height. The buildings in the adjacent industrial estate are relatively lower, mainly either single storey or two storey in height. The applicant states that the "Although the site is undeveloped, it is surrounded by industry and recently improved sports pitch facilities. We believe that the visual impact of the scheme would be minimal and present an improvement on the current scrub land condition of the site.
6.53 It should be noted the buildings are to be sited well back from the main carriageway of Ballafletcher Road. The design and the landscaping for the proposed development will have to be carefully considered at the reserved matters stage. If the design and/or landscaping is unacceptable when the reserved matters application is submitted, the Planning Authority will still be able to reject the proposal at that stage.
Phasing 6.54 Phasing of overall development: The members requested that they be provided with an indication as to how the various elements of the overall development were expected to proceed, if approved, and whether phasing of the development was covered in the land sale option agreed with the Department of Economic Development.
6.55 The applicant's response to this issue is as follows:
"It is anticipated that all the ground and sewerage works would be completed in the first instance and at a substantial level of investment. The building works will be phased over a period, the precise timings of the phasing is yet to be determined. There is no condition on the land sale option."
6.56 Alternative Site Assessment: It was agreed that more information be requested to support the applicant's contention that alternative sites have been investigated and discounted.
6.57 The applicant's response to this issue is as follows:
"Many benefits of the proposed site are outlined in the transport and planning statements that demonstrate the promotion of alternative modes of transport and being centrally located to the main catchment area of Douglas. During the process of assessing alternative sites (that would be ideal to facilitate the mix of commercial and leisure use) there were no alternatives that could accommodate the size of plot required and with a wide enough road system for safe access."
6.58 In summary, it is considered the responses given by the applicant adequately addressee all the issues raised by Planning Committee. In this context the original recommendation made on 19th March 2012 is confirmed.
ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT APPLICATION 7.1 The previous application was the subject of objections from Braddan Parish Commissioners and the residents of Ballafletcher Poultry Farm Cottage, neither of whom object to the current application.
7.2 Isle of Man Enterprises and the Douglas Development Partnership did not submit any comments to the previous application but object to the current application.
==== PAGE 15 ====
15/00004/B
Page 15 of 17
7.3 No legal challenge was mounted in respect of the decision, despite allegations now that the decision was flawed. Whatever criticisms are now mounted in respect of the planning officer's report, the opportunity was available to reconsider and challenge that at the appeal which was heard and for the inspector or the Minister to revisit these conclusions and statements. It is not considered appropriate to decline to approve this current application simply because one or more parties do not agree with the previous decision. As has been identified by the Douglas Development Partnership, what is relevant is any change in policy or circumstances and the issue of the Central Douglas Masterplan is one such change.
7.4 The Masterplan contains the following objectives for central Douglas:
An exciting place to invest and do business To encourage and create the right conditions for investment, capitalising on the opportunities presented by existing vacant sites, and encouraging a diversification of business on the Island, including start ups, creative sectors and emerging industries.
A thriving town centre and shopping destination To revitalise the high street by creating new retailing opportunities, retaining and enhancing the independent offer, attracting well known high street brands and investment to support town centre activity.
A well connected and accessible environment To create a legible network of streets and spaces connected by safe and attractive pedestrian and cycle routes that enable movement across the unique topography.
An attractive & engaging place to spend time To create an inviting and attractive place where residents and visitors alike can enjoy a mix of attractions and activities, interlinked by high quality public space.
A distinctive and sustainable capital To create a visually recognisable Capital of world class status that reflects its business status as a 'shop front' for the Island, and a place for all to be proud of. Importantly this must be a place that leads by example and that sets the vision and tone for the Island.
7.5 The views of the Cabinet Office Regeneration Project Manager were solicited to see if it was their view that the Masterplan would be a material consideration in justifying the refusal of the current application. Their view is that whilst it could be argued that an application for leisure use outside the Masterplan area would run contrary to the proposals within the Masterplan, for the Fort area. However, the Masterplan is intended to provide clarity and confidence in how the vacant sites in the Lower Douglas area may be developed rather than any tool for guidance on development proposals outside the Masterplan area. Indeed, in terms of an argument that the development should not be approved because it is in an out of town location, this is something which was put forward in the consideration of the original application and that basic premise has not been changed, weakened or strengthened by the Masterplan.
7.6 As such, it is not considered that the introduction of the Central Douglas Masterplan is a material change in the policy status of the context in which the extension of time should be considered nor does it justify a refusal for such an extension of time.
7.7 It is recommended that a further two years is provided for the submission of the application for approval of the matters reserved from PA 11/01290/A.
PARTY STATUS
==== PAGE 16 ====
15/00004/B
Page 16 of 17
8.1 The local authority is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, Article 6 (4) (e), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
8.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services is granted interested party status under the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6 (4) d.
8.3 Douglas Development Partnership and Isle of Man Enterprises are not considered to constitute interested persons in respect of Government Circular 0046/12 - Town and Country Planning (Development procedure) Order 2013 - Determination of Interested Person Status.
8.4 Cabinet Office is a statutory authority who is considered to constitute an interested person in respect of Article 6, paragraph 4 sub-paragraph c of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013.
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT The Planning Committee refused the application at its meeting of 23rd March, 2015 for the following reason:
Since the previous Approval in Principle was granted, there have been changes in circumstances, notably the approval of 14/00836/B 'The creation of warehouse, café and offices' in Peel Road, Douglas. Without the benefit of a Retail Impact Assessment that takes into account the cumulative impact of the proposal and other new development, the Committee is unable to assess the impact of the development on the vitality and viability existing town centres and as such the proposal could be contrary to Business Policies 9 and 10 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. As such it is not considered appropriate to extend the current approval in principle for a further period of time.
The Committee resolved to consider Douglas Development Partnership interested parties in terms of their responsibility to promote the vitality and viability of Douglas and how this accords with the Business Policies of the Strategic Plan.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation:
11.03.2015
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
R 1. Since the previous Approval in Principle was granted, there have been changes in circumstances, notably the approval of 14/00836/B 'The creation of warehouse, café and offices' in Peel Road, Douglas. Without the benefit of a Retail Impact Assessment that takes into account the cumulative impact of the proposal and other new development, the
==== PAGE 17 ====
15/00004/B
Page 17 of 17
Committee is unable to assess the impact of the development on the vitality and viability of existing town centres and as such the proposal could be contrary to Business Policies 9 and 10 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. As such it is not considered appropriate to extend the current approval in principle for a further period of time.
--
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 : Refused Committee Meeting Date : ..23.03.2015
Signed : S E Corlett Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES See supplementary report above.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal