**Document:** DEC Officer Report
**Application:** 19/00656/B — Erection of detached building to provide 4 industrial units with associated parking
**Decision:** Refused
**Decision Date:** 2019-09-30
**Parish:** Michael
**Document Type:** report / officer_report
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/29917-michael-unit-1-paddocks-jurby-parking/documents/1050080

---

# DEC Officer Report

**Application No.:** 19/00656/B
**Applicant:** Department Of Infrastructure
**Proposal:** Erection of detached building to provide 4 industrial units with associated parking
**Site Address:** Unit 1 The Paddocks Jurby Industrial Estate Jurby Isle Of Man Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer
**Photo Taken:** 03.07.2019
**Site Visit:** 03.07.2019
**Expected Decision Level:** Officer Delegation
**Recommended Decision:** Refused
**Date of Recommendation:** 27.09.2019 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. The proposal would be contrary to Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 given the lack of parking provision being provided within the site. _______________________________________________________________

### Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following Government Departments should not be given Interested Person Status on the basis that although they have made written submissions these do not relate to planning considerations:

IOM Fire & Rescue Service as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy and are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy. _____________________________________________________________________________

### Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site is a presently undeveloped flat piece of grassed land which lies within Jurby Industrial estate to the north of the Jurby Estate Road and east of the A10 Jurby Coast Road. The site is surrounded by existing industrial units, albeit to the north east of the site is a woodland area and northwest is a flat grassed area, which has extant permission to building a total of 8 light industrial units.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of detached building to provide 4 industrial units. The units which including mezzanine levels, have a total floor area of 640sqm. No designated parking spaces are provided within the application site. There are concrete forecourts which front each unit. - 2.2 The works also involve the installation of a underground firefighting water tank to the south west of the industrial units along the estate road.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The previous planning applications which are considered to be specifically material in the assessment of the current application: - 3.2 Erection of a factory unit - 12/00015/B - APPROVED by the Council of Ministers - 3.3 Erection of a factory unit with associated car park - 10/00587/B - APPROVED by the Council of Ministers - 3.4 Erection of factory unit with associated services, car parking, landscaping, fencing and construction of an access road - 05/00243/B - APPROVED - 3.5 Opposite the site to the west and northwest of the site the following planning application is relevant to consider: - 3.6 Creation of twelve light industrial units with associated car parking, landscaping and drainage - 06/01265/B - APPROVED - this application has been implemented by the construction of four of the twelve units and 18 car parking spaces have been created all to the west of the application site. A total of 48 car parking spaces were proposed for this development on the basis of 1 space per 30sqm (light industrial units - a total combined floor area of 1430.4sqm - which includes the optional mezzanine).

4.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES - 4.1 The application site is within an area designated as "Airfield" identified on the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area. Given the nature of the application and its history of approval for industrial development, it is appropriate to consider the following planning policies: - 4.2 General Policy 2 states: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:

- (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief;
- (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
- (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;
- (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;
- (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
- (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
- (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
- (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
- (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;
- (j) can be provided with all necessary services;

- (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan;
- (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding;
- (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
- (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

4.3 Transport Policy 7 states: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. The current standards are set out in Appendix 7." - 4.4 Community Policy 10 states: "Proposals for the layout and development of land will be permitted only where there is provided proper access for fire-fighting vehicles and adequate supplies of water for fire-fighting purposes." - 4.5 Appendix Seven of the Strategic Plan sets out the parking standards to be applied to new development which states that light industrial, storage and distribution should have one space per 30 square metres nett floor space.

5.0 CONSULTATIONS - 5.1 DOI Highways Services object to the application (05.07.2019) on the following grounds: the car parking standards for an industrial use such as this type of development is 1 space per 50sqm which suggests in the region of 12 to 13 spaces. The 8 spaces proposed are located in one location where double parking may occur or, private vehicles may park within the concrete forecourt, it is recommended each unit has at least 3 spaces each. Therefore, until the car park is increased to 12 spaces, highways are unable to support this application.

- 5.1.1 Following the amended plans being submitted Highway Services made the following comments (27.09.2019):

"The application form states that the development would be light industrial but in correspondence the word industrial is used.

I can confirm that for light industrial units there is a car parking requirement of 1 space per 30sqm of nett floor area. For general industrial use there is a car parking requirement of 1 space per 50sqm of gross floor area.

The application form states that the development would be 640sqm. Assuming that this is nett floor area then there would be a requirement for 21 on-site car parking spaces.

The Highway Development Control response of 5th July 2019 incorrectly assumed a standard of 1 car parking space per 50sqm which would have required 13 spaces. As only 8 spaces were then to be provided a highway objection was nonetheless made due to lack of car parking.

The revised plans now indicate no on-site car parking. As it now transpires that 21 on-site car parking spaces would be required I can confirm that the highway objection in relation to lack of car parking remains.

The development, as you have indicated does not have sufficient car parking provision to accommodate this addition 21 space requirement. The use of on-street car parking as the applicant has suggested would not be acceptable."

5.2 Jurby Parish Commissioners raise no objection (06.06.219 & 18.09.2019).

5.3 Chief Fire Officer initially raised an objection to the application (21.06.2019) on the grounds that the industrial estate has been identified as having insufficient water supplies for the fire risk of the existing units and that they would recommend that the water infrastructure is reviewed and enhanced prior to any further development.

- 5.3.1 Following these comments the applicants provided amended plans/additional information following discussions with the IOM Fire & Rescue Service, which included a proposed underground firefighting water tank.

- 5.3.1 In response the Chief Fire Officer comments that (03.09.2019) while the ageing water infrastructure remain with the MU having no immediate plans to improve water flows and pressures in this area; they agree that a 9000 gallon water tank in close proximity to the building to provide additional water supplies does provide some mitigation in this instance.

5.4 The Arboricultural Officer (DEFA) initially raised the following comments (02.06.2019) of the original scheme making the following comments: "The proposed development infringes on a small copse of trees acting as a shelter belt to the west of unit 229A. These trees are approximately 15-20 years old and the copse consists of a mixture of broadleaf and conifer species. The footprint of proposed development would reduce the size (area) of the copse by approximately 6%, taking out a number of hawthorn and willow which are planted along the western edge and a small number of (<5) pine trees from the southern end of the copse. The construction activity (excavation etc.) occurring at the edge of the actual footprint may have a detrimental impact on the trees immediately adjacent due to root damage and disturbance. The removal of the established windward edge may also cause some root plate failures on the remaining trees. The overall reduction in tree cover in the medium term may therefore be greater than the immediate removal required by the footprint of the building. It is worth noting, however, that the majority of these trees would be below the size limit requiring a licence to be removed under the Tree Preservation Act.

In the longer term there may also be some conflict between the trees and the development. If the occupants are concerned about the risk of damage to the building or parked vehicles, for example, there may be pressure to remove further trees in the future.

Given the impact that this development will have on this established copse of trees I recommend that you request a landscaping plan that will mitigate for the tree loss in this area. Given that the remaining turfed area may be developed in the future I recommend that a smaller number of larger amenity trees are planted, preferably near the main estate road to provide the maximum benefit, rather than a larger number of smaller trees in a woodland style planting. This is a very exposed area so selecting the right species and planting specification will be critical to the success of the tree planting. I recommend that the agent engages the services of experienced arboriculturist or landscape design expert.

I will not request a tree protection plan in this instance because once the edge trees are removed the trees behind them are likely to appear as a dense thicket and act as an effective physical barrier to the trees further back.

If additional landscaping information is submitted I would appreciate the opportunity to comment further and recommend appropriate landscaping conditions."

- 5.4.1 Following these comments the applicants amended the scheme which re-posited the units and removed the 8 car parking spaces. In response the Arboricultural Officer states (26.09.2019): "The movement of the building address our previous concerns."

5.5 The Senior Biodiversity Officer comments (10.09.2019) that the site was identified as species rich semi-improved grassland in the Phase 1 Habitat Survey undertaken in August

1992. The survey found that this type of grassland type was recorded in only 633.96ha, just 1.1% of the land on the IOM. Given this area is already zoned for development, the Ecosystem Policy Team recommends that should the application be approved a condition is attached to ensure the species rich grassland is trans located to a suitable receptor site within the Jurby Industrial Estate.

## - 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of the application are land use; potential impact upon the street scene; parking provision/highway safety; Fire Provision; and wildlife implications. LAND USE

6.2 As the site is designated as a Airfield use, rather than industrial use, there isn't a automatic presumption in favour of industrial development. This designations essential includes the whole of the Jurby Industrial Estate. As such, the development is not in accordance with the designated use on the adopted Development Plan. The industrial estate has been in place for a significant time and in recent times, planning permission was granted for the erection of an industrial building on this site and in the wider industrial estate. The Inspector considering that application (10/00587/B) states:

"The designation of the area including this site as having high landscape value and scenic significance seems either to have been a mistake or to have become out of date. It is difficult to see how this parcel of land, which is in an undistinguished landscape setting, is in effect surrounded by industrial premises and is close to development such as a go-kart track, can sensibly be regarded as justifying its landscape policy designation. As a matter of common sense, I judge that this aspect of policy should be given little weight. More up to date and realistic policy is contained in the adopted Strategic Plan, in which Jurby is designated as a "major employment area".

- 6.2.1 One of the aims of the plan is evidently to promote regeneration at Jurby. A previous proposal for an industrial unit on this site was approved (evidently in about 2005). Other industrial development has been permitted and at least partly built close by" (paragraphs 9 and 10 of his report).
- 6.2.2 He goes on to recommend approval of the application which was permitted by COMIN on 2nd August, 2010.
- 6.3 The Planning Inspector for application 12/00015/B also comments that he does not disagree with the assessment by the previously Inspector in terms of the land use.
- 6.4 For these reasons, it is considered the principle of the development is acceptable. potential impact upon the street scene
- 6.5 The units have been designed as functional but with some architectural interest with different uses of coloured panels and different material used and the development would be compatible in visual terms with the visual amenities of the site and the street scene which has an industrial character. Overall, it is considered an arrangement of units as shown and their size, design and finish would be appropriate for the site, and would not unduly affect the visual amenities of the street scene. Parking provision/highway safety
- 6.6 This application provides no parking of its own (amended plan removes the original 8 spaces shown). The applicant refers to the 18 spaces currently available opposite the site which could be used. However, the applicant is misguided, these are associated with the existing four units (they equate to 476.8sqm / 30sqm = 16 spaces) and the remainder of the as yet development 8 additional units to the north west of the site, which were also approved

- under application 06/01265/B (still extant given this application has commenced), which had a total of 48 car parking spaces (1 space per 30sqm -light industrial units) allocated to these units.
- 6.7 Accordingly, it is not considered that the currently application can rely on any of these spaces, as these are allocated to the four existing units (require 16 spaces) and remainder and additional approved spaces (not yet constructed) to the remaining 8 units. It is not a acceptable way forward to relay on the main estate road and the by-pass for on-street parking. Issue with existing more historical industrial sites throughout the Island is parking provision and what results are units which are not ideal for industrial uses due to car being parked in every available space, which then in turns blocks or makes manoeuvring of machinery/larger vehicles difficult. The whole point of the IOM Parking Standards is to ensure that whatever type of development there is adequate parking. In this case each of the units require their own dedicated spaces for staff/visitors to enable the units to operate well and efficiently and in the interest of highway safety for all users.
- 6.8 The current application being four light industrial units with a total floor area of 640sqm require a total of 21 spaces for light industrial units (i.e. 1 space per 30sqm light industrial) as outlined within the IOM Strategic Plan Parking Standards.
- 6.9 It is also noted that the two previous applications for a new industrial unit on this site (12/00015/B & 10/00587/B) included parking provision within the site to the required parking standards and did not rely on any of the 18 spaces or other offsite parking spaces. Fire Provision
- 6.10 Initially there were concerns that there was insufficient water/water pressure in this area to provide adequate fire water coverage for the site/area. Accordingly, the applicant now proposes a 9000 gallon underground water tank which is connect to the surface water system in the area to keep it filled. This could be used for a number of emergency fire engines to refill should they need when dealing with any emergency either on this site or in the northern part of the Island. Accordingly, this aspect would be beneficial to the site/area in the short term. wildlife implications.
- 6.11 A condition could be attached as suggested for the translocation of grassland form the site to nearby land. This would address the issues raised by the Senior Ecological Officer.

## - 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 For the reasons outlined above it is considered that the proposal would be contrary to Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and it is therefore recommended that the planning application be refused. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:

- (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
- (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
- (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material
- (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and
- (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

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

- whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Refused Date: 30.09.2019 Determining officer

Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett Principal Planner

## 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.

---

*Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).*
*Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/29917-michael-unit-1-paddocks-jurby-parking/documents/1050080*