Loading document...
Part 1 - Case officer's report
| Consulttee: | Highways Division |
| Notes: | Do not oppose |
| Application No.: | 11/00218/D |
| Applicant: | Dandara Commercial Ltd |
| Proposal: | Erection of advertising sign (Retrospective) |
| Site Address: | Field 521888 Adjacent To Cooil Road Isle Of Man Business Park Douglas Isle Of Man |
| Case Officer: | Mr A Holmes |
| Photo Taken: | |
| Site Visit: | 16.03.2011 |
| Expected Decision Level: | Senior Planning Officer Delegation |
| 33 Ballaquark Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 2EY | Interest expressed |
| 36 Woodlands Park Merrow Guildford Surrey, GU1 2TJ | Objects to the proposal |
The application site comprises a parcel of land, adjacent to Cooil Road, which is located in the Isle of Man Business Park in Braddan.
The application seeks consent for the erection of signage within the application site. Consent is sought retrospectively.
Whilst the application site has been the subject of previous planning applications it is considered that none of these are specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. However, there has been a previous planning application for similar signage approximately 1.25km from the application site that is considered to be potential material to the consideration of the current application.
Previous application 09/00543/R sought permission for the erection of signage on field 524153 in the Kewaigue area of Braddan. This previous application was refused on the 4th June 2009. A subsequent appeal against the refusal was dismissed by the Minister on 28th October 2009. Copies of the refusal decision notice, appeal decision and application submission for this previous application have been placed on the file for the current application.
The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division do not oppose the application. The owner and/or occupant of 33 Ballaquark, which is located in Douglas, expresses an interest in the application. The owners of Robinsons, which is located opposite the application site, object to the application on the grounds of visual impact.
In terms of local plan policy, the application site is located within an area of land that was designated for development under the extant 1991 Braddan Parish District Local Plan. The area of land immediately surrounding the proposed signage has planning approval for the erection of corporate headquarters in line with the overall use of the Isle of Man Business Park.
In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains one policy that is considered specifically material in the assessment of the application. General Policy 7 states:
"Within our towns and villages, the display of external advertisements on sites or buildings other than those to which they relate will not generally be permitted."
The application seeks retrospective consent for the erection of signage within the application site. The fact that consent is sought retrospectively should neither advantage nor disadvantage assessment of the proposal.
As highlighted earlier in this report there is provision for the display of advertisements under the terms of planning policies contained within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. In this instance, as the signage relates to development over 1km away that is not visible from the application site, the relevant planning policy to assess the proposal against is General Policy 7. The signage is clearly contrary to the provisions of this policy, which states that the display of external advertisements on sites or buildings other than those to which they relate will not generally be permitted. The reasoning for such policy is to avoid introducing unwarranted visual clutter that would be detrimental to the visual amenity of an area and this would appear to be grounds for refusing the application. However, before reaching that conclusion it is appropriate to consider whether there are grounds for allowing the signage as an exception to recognise the use of "will not generally be permitted" within the wording of General Policy 7.
In terms of consideration whether there are exceptional grounds for allowing the signage it is considered material to have regard to the previous application 09/00543/D. The signage proposed by that previous application is basically the same as that now proposed and both relate to the same development. As part of their conclusions into the appeal against the refusal of that previous application the appointed Planning Inspector did not accept the applicant's argument that the location of the advertised development and temporary nature of the signage constituted exceptional circumstance. Although the siting the current signage is no rural like that proposed by previous application 09/00543/D, it is still considered to be unwarranted visual clutter that is detrimental to the visual amenity of the area.
It is recommended that the application be refused. As consent is sought retrospectively the signage will be required to be removed from the application site. It is considered that four weeks is a reasonable amount of time to require removal.
It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the application should be afforded interested party status: The owners of Robinsons. It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the application should not be afforded interested party status: The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division; and The owner and/or occupant of 33 Ballaquark.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 18.03.2011
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1.
The signage constitutes unwarranted visual clutter that is detrimental to the visual amenity of the area. As the signage relates to development that is significant distance and not visible from the application site the proposal is contrary to the provisions of General Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made : Refused Date : 21/3/11
Signed : Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown