Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
22/01459/B Page 1 of 11
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. 22/01459/B Applicant : Somerset Properties Ltd Proposal Continued use of the site as a temporary car park Site Address 40 South Quay Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 5AX
Case Officer :
Mr Toby Cowell Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation 16.03.2023
Reasons for Refusal
R 1. The proposed use of the site as a car park would reduce the likelihood of a prominent brownfield site being brought forward for development, contrary to Strategic Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan (2016), the policy on car parks as set out in "Reform of the Planning System - Programme for Government 2016 - 2021", the recommendations of the Report of the Select Committee of Tynwald on the Development of Unoccupied Urban Sites (2017-2018) and the strategic objectives of the Built Environment Reform Programme (2022).
R 2. The proposed use is not in accordance with the land use zoning as set out within the Area Plan for the East (2020), with no specific circumstances considered evident in which the proposed use should be permitted contrary to the site's land use designation.
R 3. The proposal would detrimentally affect important views into and out of North Quay Conservation Area, contrary to General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 36 of the Strategic Plan (2016).
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None. __
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN REFERRED TO PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE ADVICE OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL AND DUE TO THE SITE'S PREVIOUS PLANNING HISTORY
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site comprises the curtilage of the former Clover Asphalt Depot which is a parcel of previously developed land, a flat area of concrete hardstanding throughout, due to the original building being cleared from the site. The site is located on the southern side of the South Quay
==== PAGE 2 ====
22/01459/B Page 2 of 11
within Douglas. It is currently in use as a temporary car park and the subject of an Enforcement Notice served in December 2022.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for the continued use of site as a temporary car park to provide a total of 43 spaces. No time limit has been specified with this submission. This application follows two previous applications which gained temporary approval each for two years (4 years in total) for the same car parking use, and a further application for the continued use of the site for a further 2 years which was refused and dismissed at appeal. It is understood that no changes are proposed to the existing car park which is already laid out.
2.2 The applicant has stated the following in their submitted design in support of the application:
"...this is a site that has been hindered from development as a result of the boundary situation. The site's special circumstances were acknowledged by the Planning Committee in granting approval under PA 18/00350/B where R2 that reads the same was overturned. The special circumstances remain in place and there are a number of sites coming forward particularly around the Quay where pressures on parking remain. Accordingly we believe R1 should again be waived. We appreciate the reasons given for refusing its continued use as a car park are not confined to Government policies on temporary car parks and would offer the following comments in response.
Whilst we fully appreciate that car parking is not the best long term use of the site, as highlighted in our response to R1 we believe its use as a car park on a temporary basis remains relevant and indeed as other sites in the area progress to development stage could well be considered as meeting a short term need compatible with its current "mixed use" designation.
Whilst the causes of parking pressures have changed, the "special circumstances" that prevailed at the time the Planning Committee approved its continued use as a car park in 2018 are still relevant. The sites' position close to the town centre means it is still ideally placed to deliver parking where pressures due to parking constraints being applied elsewhere remain.
Rather than being detrimental, allowing the sites' continued use as a temporary car park until such time that the boundary situation is resolved and development proposals can be progressed remain beneficial as it:
a) allows essential parking to remain in an area where parking opportunities are becoming more and more restricted b) allows the land owner to have a rental income that helps fund maintenance costs and allow visual improvements to be made c) maintains government revenue through rates and taxable income on a site that would otherwise generate nothing."
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The site has been the subject of an application for redevelopment - PA 08/00221/B for the construction of a building to provide 33 apartments with integral parking. This was approved on 1st December 2011 (following an appeal and subject to a S.13 agreement). Condition 1 gave 4 years for commencement. This application has lapsed is therefore not extant.
3.2 A subsequent application for temporary car parking - PA 16/00371/B was approved on 21st June 2016. The application sought approval for the provision for 46 temporary (2 years) car parking spaces and three self-servicing car washing machines. The proposal included a white 0.7 metre high fence along the northern boundary which fronts onto South Quay. The site which is predominantly concrete finish would remain, albeit sections would be repaired and
==== PAGE 3 ====
22/01459/B Page 3 of 11
improved with a matching concrete finish. The parking spaces would be marked out by painted white lines. The parking would be used for contract parking only, for 7 days a week at any time.
3.3 The Officers Report for 16/00371/B included the following analysis:
"6.1 Whilst the provision of temporary car parks within the town can be useful as a stop gap between a site being cleared and its re-development, they can also become less attractive elements of the street-scene as, because they are only temporary, little effort can be spent on tidying and improving the appearance of the site - the various car parks along Back Strand Street and Market Street are examples of this, as are the car parks at the corner of Peel Road and Circular Road and opposite Tesco. This site is slightly different in that its former uses were as builder's yard/warehouse building and was also used as former vehicle maintenance shed and therefore its use and appearance did not accord with the residential land use designation. The applicant has also confirmed they would be happy for the fence to be 1.8 metres high and introduce boundary planters which will help improve the appearance of the site.
6.2 The fact the previous approved application has now expired and that the temporary approval is for two years, would enable the site to be used in the short term and arguably would improve the appearance, whilst a potentially new application for the re-development of the site is prepared. The applicant should be under no illusion that the Department will be unlikely to keep granting temporary approvals on the site, given the site's prominent position and land use designation and therefore the applicant is recommended consider how to redevelop the site. It is therefore considered that a two year approval is considered appropriate.
6.3 With the appropriate worded conditions relating to the fence type and height and planters, it is considered the visual impacts of the proposed use, whilst not ideal, would be acceptable on a temporary basis only. Furthermore there are no highway issues, and therefore the application is considered acceptable and is recommended for approval subject to conditions."
3.4 A further temporary planning application for Provision of 43 (including 2no Disabled) temporary car parking spaces for a period of 2 years - 18/00350/B - was approved on the 8th October 2018. The Planning Committee declined to accept the officer recommendation (who has recommended a refusal) and, noting a combination of factors, considered that there were special circumstances in this case which indicated that the Council of Ministers policy on temporary car parks should not be applied in this case. They voted to approve the application subject to 3 conditions. In the Minutes of the Planning Committee Meeting the Members clarified that this was due to the: "...combination of the factors outlined in the discussion - notably the fact that the Area Plan has yet to determine the designation of the site and the potential removal of car parking spaces through the redevelopment of the Promenades and the Lord Street bus station redevelopment. This was approved with the following conditions attached:
"1. There shall be no washing of cars within the site. Reason: To prevent the discharge of contaminated run-off into nearby watercourses.
Within 2 years of the date of this approval becoming final the use hereby approved shall cease. Reason: The proposal is for a temporary use and it is important not to prevent the longer term development of the site.
Within 3 months of the date of this approval becoming final the site shall be laid out in accordance with the approved details, including the removal of the car washing facilities. Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details."
==== PAGE 4 ====
22/01459/B Page 4 of 11
3.5 Finally, a further temporary approval was sought for the use of the site under 20/01129/C for a period of 3 years. This application was refused by Planning Committee (in agreement with the officer recommendation), for the following reasons:
The proposed temporary use would reduce the likelihood of a prominent brownfield site being brought forward and this would be contrary to Strategic Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan (2016), the policy on car parks as set out in "Reform of the Planning System - Programme for Government 2016 - 2021" and the recommendations of the Report of the Select Committee of Tynwald on the Development of Unoccupied Urban Sites (2017-2018).
The proposed use is not in accordance with the land use zoning as set out within the Douglas Local Plan (1998).
The proposal would be contrary to Environment Policy 36 and General Policy 2 as the proposal would detrimentally affect important views into and out of North Quay Conservation Area.
3.6 The case officer for the above application included the following analysis of the scheme:
"7.4 It is noted that the applicants stated during the previous application in 2018 that: "The site is zoned for residential use, however the owner of the site has advised a 2 year period for temporary car parking in order to offer a use for the site until investment can be secured for residential development to take place".
7.5 Clearly from the comments made by the applicants in this current application this has not occurred, nor has any evidence been produced that the site has been offered for sale or has the applicants gained any planning approval on the site for any different development. There are concerns, that even when the applicants has been made aware of the Departments concerns of granting temporary approvals at each application; there now does not appear to be any positive efforts evidence which suggests the applicants has made real efforts to develop the site. Again the applicants have not given any clear reasons for why the site has not been developed or the plans/timescale for its development (noting there is no extant planning approval). The Strategic Plan sets out a broad long term direction of travel of restricting town centre parking and the promotion of other travel methods. This is reinforced by the policy within the Action Plan which seeks to restrict temporary car parks with immediate effect. The applicant has provided limited justification in relation to need, and has not tied this to any specific sites/developments/events.
7.6 Previously, the Planning Committee consider that a further 2 year approval should be granted given the fact that the Area Plan had yet to determine the designation of the site and the potential removal of car parking spaces through the redevelopment of the Promenades and the Lord Street bus station redevelopment. The Area Plan has now been approved. Furthermore, the Promenade scheme whilst not finished (was due to be finished in March 2021) and is potentially running behind schedule, it is likely to be finished (or at least the area of the Promenade nearest to the site) in 2021. Therefore, the need for parking would be reduced soon and also the applicants wish for two additional years would appear excessive. Whilst Lord Street is yet to be developed, it is considered a reasonable argument that allowing a further temporary car park/s approval, on the basis that other temporary car parks are been developed could cause a dangerous approach, perhaps extending the time for these sites being developed further. Overall, whilst it is understandable why the Planning Committee came to the decision previous, it is now considered the reasons either do not carry such weight as before or are not applicable. However, should the Planning Committee consider there is still sufficient reasoning to allow a temporary use, then perhaps a condition for 1 year only could be considered, rather than the two years sought by the applicant - as the Promenade works will likely have been completed. It is therefore considered that the proposal would be contrary to the Council of Ministers Policy and Strategic Plan Strategic Policy 1.
==== PAGE 5 ====
22/01459/B Page 5 of 11
7.7 Furthermore, while the site remains as a car park and even though some fencing/artificial hedging has been installed along the boundary; the fact remains the site visually does not add to the character or street scene and is directly opposite a Conservation Area (North Quay). Accordingly, further allowing the site to remain as a car park would reduce the likelihood of a prominent brownfield site being brought forward and this would be contrary to Strategic Plan Strategic Policy 1, The Action Plan and the recommendations of the Select Committee Report. Furthermore, the proposal would be contrary to Environment Policy 36 and General Policy 2 as the proposal would detrimentally affect important views into and out of the Conservation (i.e. North Quay Conservation Area)."
3.7 Following the refusal of planning permission the decision was subsequently appeal and dismissed by the Minister at the Planning Inspector's recommendation. The Inspector concluded in their report that:
'The proposals would be contrary to the relevant policies and a further approval should not be granted. The written statement in the Area Plan for the East indicates that there will be a presumption in favour of the comprehensive re-development of the South Quay for new uses such as tourism, offices, food and drink, leisure, reception and function venues, business hubs/share-service offices and/or residential uses at first floor level and above. A continued parking use would go against these aims both in terms of its basic use but also by delaying any decision in relation to an appropriate use for this strategic development site in the centre of Douglas'.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application;
Strategic Policy 1 Efficient use of land and resources 2 Priority for new development to identified towns and villages 3 To respect the character of our towns and villages 5 Design and visual impact 7 Protection of land zoned for industrial, office or retail purposes
Spatial Policy 1 Priority to Douglas for development 6 Protection and enhancement of principal gateways to the Island
General Policy 2 General Development Considerations
Environment Policy 10 Flood risk 36 Development adjacent to Conservation Areas 42 Designed to respect the character and identity of the locality
Transport Policy 4 Highways safety 7 Car parking
4.2 Area Plan for the East (2020) The site falls within land zoned for 'mixed use' purposes, with Town Centre - Mixed Use Policy 7 (The Quayside) stating that:
==== PAGE 6 ====
22/01459/B Page 6 of 11
Residential uses at first floor level and above."
Likewise, the supporting text for the above policy states that 'redevelopment of the southern side to complement the quayside as a whole is to be encouraged.'
5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 The Council of Ministers previously approved an Action Plan to Reform the Planning System. The document "Reform of the Planning System - Programme for Government 2016 - 2021" GD2018/0031 was laid before Tynwald on 15th May 2018. One of the actions set out within this is that, "Council of Ministers have agreed the following Policy with immediate effect: In order to continue to incentivise and support site redevelopment and the associated economic development, Planning Approval should not normally be given for brownfield sites to be used as temporary car parks" and that this is important, "To ensure faster brownfield site redevelopment and encourage socio-economic development".
Whilst it is noted that the reform program in the above Action Plan has now fallen away, the recommendations contained therein are still relevant and a material planning consideration.
5.2 The latest version of Our Island Plan - Building a Secure, Vibrant and Sustainable Future for our Island (GD no. 2022/0095) was approved by Tynwald in February 2022 with a subsequent Economic Strategy approved in November 2022. One of the strategic programmes of the Island Plan was the Built Environment Reform Programme (BERP), which has now been approved and replaced the previous Action Plan.
Strategic Objective 4 of the BERP seeks to ensure the attractiveness of brownfield development to help protect the Island's greenfields and landscape beauty.
Page 5 of the BERP states that:
"Brownfield sites remaining fallow for extended periods of time give a negative impression of our Island and do not contribute to the Island's growth and prosperity. By focusing efforts to stimulate and accelerate development on these sites, the Programme will realise economic value directly through the planning and build process, employment-related revenues and financial benefits for local businesses. The Island will also benefit from an uplift in image, making the urban landscape more attractive to investors, economic migrants and tourists and increasing its value proposition for residents. The Programme will also consider if certain enhanced planning services, which add value for applicants, could operate on the basis of cost recovery."
5.3 The Central Douglas Master-plan is not a statutory document but was approved by Tynwald in 2015, "as a general framework for the development of Central Douglas, a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and the formulation of planning policy, most notably the Area Plan for the East". The format of the Master-plan was intended to ensure that, "The evidence base and project proposals could be reviewed for inclusion in the Area Plan for the East". It breaks the area down into 8 Character Areas based on a combination of function and identity. Within each Character Area individual project proposals are set out to
==== PAGE 7 ====
22/01459/B Page 7 of 11
strengthen the Character Areas, and carry forward the Vision and Objectives. It forms part of the evidence base to the Area Plan.
5.4 Report of the Select Committee of Tynwald on the Development of Unoccupied urban sites (2017-2018) (hereafter "The Select Committee Report" recommended that, "Tynwald calls upon the Council of Ministers and all Departments to use every means at their disposal to encourage and prioritise the development of unoccupied or previously developed urban sites ahead of building on greenfield sites in the Manx countryside; and in particular that Tynwald is of the opinion that urgent action should be taken ... (iv) to use the planning system, taxation and other potential incentives to discourage greenfield development; (v) to use the planning system, taxation and other potential incentives to encourage brownfield development in Development Zones in Douglas and in other urban areas". In 2020, unoccupied site maps were produced that identified this site within Douglas Central as "UUS3 - Unoccupied Urban Site".
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Douglas Borough Council - As a previous application for use of the site as a temporary carpark had already been refused and an appeal against refusal had been dismissed, the Council's Environmental Services Committee will consider this application when it meets on the 19th January 2023. I also note that the applicant does not state how long the temporary use should last for. I would kindly ask for some clarity on this prior to the Council reviewing the merits of the application. (09.12.22).
No further comments received to date.
5.2 Highways Services - consider that development will have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and /or parking in operational terms. Notwithstanding, the proposal is contrary to current policy for reuse of temporary car parks and not that special circumstances may apply. Should this not be the case, please re-consult. (09.12.22)
5.3 Flood Management Division - do no response received at the time of writing the report.
5.4 DEFA Fisheries Directorate - no response received at the time of writing the report.
5.5 Manx Utilities Authority - no response received at the time of writing the report.
5.6 Planning Enforcement - no response received at the time of writing the report.
5.7 Department of Enterprise - no response received at the time of writing the report.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 In line with previous assessment made over the continued use of the site as a temporary car park, the principle issue with this application relates to the land use zoning and whether the continued use of the site for the parking of vehicles is acceptable.
6.2 The site forms part of a wider land use designated for mixed used purposes in the Area Plan for the East, with Mixed Use Policy 7 stating that there will be a presumption in favour of the southern part of the quay to be developed for a range of uses, none of which however relate to the provision of temporary or permanent car parking facilities. Consequently, the continued use of the site as a car park, be it temporary or permanent, is contrary to the site's land use designation.
6.3 As considered by the planning officer in their report for the previous application and indeed the Inspector in their subsequent report, the continued use of the site for car parking has the strong potential to further delay any realistic developer investment in the site and its
==== PAGE 8 ====
22/01459/B Page 8 of 11
subsequent development. Likewise, such a use would further undermine the potential or ability for the wider South Quay to be developed comprehensively.
6.4 Since the original grant of permission for the use of the site as a temporary car park for 2 years in 2016, the site has remained undeveloped with little to no evidence put forward demonstrating that the site will come forward for development in the near future. Indeed, the most recent application (as refused and dismissed at appeal) put forward by the previous applicant stated that "the site owner has no intention of developing the site for its Page 3 of 6 intended use as a residential development within the next 2 years or at any time in the near future, therefore the continuation as of the site as a parking area would be a great way of making use of an empty space until plans are in place for any future development".
6.5 That being said, it is recognised that the present application has been submitted by the sole owner of the site (as opposed to previous tenants who submitted the previous application), with the accompanying support document stating that, with respect to the comments made by the previous application, this is not in fact the case.
6.6 The applicant states that when demolition works commenced on site following the grant of planning permission to redevelop the adjacent site (PA 14/00615/B), court action by the owners of the Manx Petroleum site to the East was instigated, and both parties had to give an undertaking to the court that no further demolition of the wall on the eastern boundary would take place until such time the eastern boundary dispute was resolved. The applicant states that, at the present time, 'the eastern boundary wall situation remains unresolved with court undertakings by both parties remaining in place. Development of this and indeed the Manx Petroleum’s site cannot possibly take place until such time the boundary wall situation is resolved.'
6.7 The support letter further adds that 'the applicant is now the sole owner of the site and would not now develop the site themselves but would look for a company to work with or find a company to develop the site. Covid has obviously contributed to delays in moving things forward on this front. Whilst the boundary dispute remains an ongoing problem, discussions are taking place to try to resolve it. Allowing the use of the land as a temporary car park would give the applicant some rental income to maintain the site in good order while plans, a developer and resolution of the boundary dispute are progressed.'
6.8 Whilst the above points are indeed noted, should the site continue to be used as a temporary car park, this would still continue undermine the site's wider land use designation and potential for any developer investment. The present submission has provided no detailed indication as to the current ongoing legal situation or actions made/intended to find a suitable developer to partner with. In any case, the original planning permissions granted for the site's redevelopment have since lapsed and therefore no extant planning consent currently exists for the site.
6.9 It is understood from the submission that the abovementioned legal dispute has been ongoing since 2015/16, with no clear progress having been made to date. Indeed, the officer report for the initial 2016 application for use of the site as a temporary car park made clear that the 'applicant should be under no illusion that the Department will be unlikely to keep granting temporary approvals on the site, given the site's prominent position and land use designation and therefore the applicant is recommended consider how to redevelop the site.'
6.10 In the absence of clear evidence provided as to any progress made to resolve the ongoing legal dispute or to move forward with developing the site, it is not considered that any new special circumstances are now evident which should direct the Department to consider the present scheme favourably.
==== PAGE 9 ====
22/01459/B Page 9 of 11
6.11 Moreover, the applicant has stated in their supporting letter that given 'the tightening up on car park use on brown field sites in central Douglas as a whole, and the imminent potential development of the Middlemarch site where significant numbers of cars will be displaced, the demand for parking in central Douglas for the short/medium term looks set to remain a problem until such time that alternative arrangements are in place that reduce the need for cars to be coming into the town centre.'
6.12 The above assertion is unsubstantiated and provides no evidence that there is a chronic demand for additional car parking within the centre of Douglas. However, even if such a demand were to be evidenced, the site is not zoned for use as a car park in accordance with the Area Plan for the East, with Paragraph 11.5.3 of the Strategic Plan indicating that the long term the target is to reduce the level of car parking required for town centre developments and seek to develop more sustainable staff and visitor transport plans but sets out a general policy (Transport Policy 7) "in the shorter term" which sets out parking standards for new developments. It is also noteworthy that works to the Promenade referenced in the officer report for the previous application have now been completed, and therefore the need for additional town centre parking as a result of such works have now fallen away. Consequently, it is not considered that such a potential demand for additional parking within the town centre is significant enough to outweigh the scheme's clear conflict with the Development Plan and additional material considerations referenced within this report.
6.13 From a visual perspective, comments raised by the case officer for the previous application and subsequently supported by the Inspector remain valid. Namely that the site does not, from a visual perspective, positively contribute to the character of the street scene and is directly opposite a Conservation Area (North Quay). Accordingly, further allowing the site to remain as a car park would reduce the likelihood of a prominent brownfield site being brought forward, which would aid the site's visual enhancement. The proposals therefore remain unacceptable from a visual perspective and harmful to key views into and out of the adjacent North Quay Conservation Area.
6.14 No concerns are however raised from a highways perspective, with Highway Services having considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of highway safety.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposals are considered to be unacceptable in principle and contrary to the site's wider land use designation for mixed use development. The continued use of the site as a temporary car park has the potential for further comprise the redevelopment of a prominent brownfield site, with no special circumstances having been presented which weigh against the proposal's conflict with the relevant policies of the Development Plan and additional material planning considerations.
7.2 The proposals would further result in continued visual harm to the site's immediate setting and key views into and out of the adjacent North Quay Conservation Area. The development is therefore contrary to Strategic Policies 1 and 5, General Policy 2 and Environment Policies 36 and 42 of the Strategic Plan (2016), Mixed Use Policy 7 of the Area Plan for the East (2020), and additional material planning considerations referenced throughout this report. The application is therefore recommended for refusal.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
==== PAGE 10 ====
22/01459/B Page 10 of 11
(d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to the it by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : ...Permitted... Committee Meeting Date:...27.03.2023
Signed :...T COWELL... Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
==== PAGE 11 ====
22/01459/B Page 11 of 11
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 27.03.2023
Application No 22/01459/B Applicant Somerset Properties Ltd Proposal Continued use of the site as a temporary car park Site Address 40 South Quay Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 5AX Planning Officer Mr Toby Cowell Presenting Officer As above - Addendum to the Officer Report
The officer recommendation that the application be refused was overturned by the planning committee, with planning permission subsequently granted on a temporary basis for a period of 12 months. The planning committee considered that the applicant should be afforded the opportunity to resolve an ongoing legal boundary dispute in order to unlock the site's development potential.
The planning committee further considered that, should the site become redundant and undeveloped, this would amount to a greater level of visual harm, particularly on the setting of the adjacent Conservation Area, than the current situation. Moreover, the continued use of the site as a car park would allow for the site to remain economically active whilst the applicant seeks to resolve the ongoing legal dispute.
Condition attached
C 1. The use hereby approved shall be for a limited period of 12 months from the date of this approval and on (or before) the expiry of this approval the use shall be discontinued.
Reason: The development has only been found to be acceptable, contrary to policies of the development plan, on a short term basis.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal