**Document:** Planning Officer Report
**Application:** 13/00386/B — Erection of seventeen general industrial units with associated external works including storm and foul drainage systems, to include modifications to site entrance off Peel Road
**Decision:** Permitted
**Decision Date:** 2013-08-15
**Parish:** Braddan
**Document Type:** report / officer_report
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/4223-braddan-bcs-house-drainage/documents/1290615

---

# Planning Officer Report

## Planning Officer Report And Recommendations [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export]

## Officer's Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE

### The Site

1.1 The site lies on the north eastern side of Peel Road between Braddan Church and Snugborough Trading Estate. The site has a frontage to Peel Road of around 85m within which there is an existing vehicular access into the site. At the front of the site is an existing building which is an office with associated parking. The site then slopes downward by around 4.5m towards the River Dhoo where there is a plateau with a collection of old sheds and containers on it, before the site meets the river bank. The site is currently used, and has been used for some time as a contractor's yard with goods and materials stored in the open and some in portacabin type buildings.

1.2 To the north of the site is an access way which serves an industrial development separate from the application site. To the south is Ballafletcher Cottage, a residential property with tourist accommodation alongside.

1.3 The applicant owns all of the site, including the office and associated parking although the application refers only to the land outwith the curtilage of the office.

### The Proposal

2.1 Proposed is the development of the site for the construction of seventeen general industrial units, all with a gross external area of between 72sqm and 216sqm. In total there would be about 1800sqm of gross internal floorspace. Forty three parking spaces are provided, some spaces directly in front of the units and others in communal parking bays alongside the estate road. None of the spaces is arranged in tandem fashion, as was the case in the previous application. There is also some space for bicycle parking. BCS House, which is outside of the application, retains 17 spaces for its own use. A Transport Assessment was submitted with the application.

2.2 Block A units would appear externally to be single storey from the rear, which is the elevation that faces Peel Road. They would be two storey facing the internal road. In terms of floor area, the drawings state that each unit have 121 sqm gross internal floor area, with part of the area being void, but with a potential mezzanine floor. The officer measurement from the plans shows the total internal gross area of each unit to be between 106 and 108sqm including the mezzanine floor. 2.3 Block B is primarily 2 storey in height terms, being 7.5 m high, although single storey within. There is no suggestion that a future mezzanine could be put inside them, although this is a possibility. The units do have a very high opening door of 4 m . The internal gross floor area of each unit is between 68 sqm and 72 sqm . 2.4 In Block C, units 9 and 12 are the same size as those in block A. Units 10 and 11 are larger being 144 sqm on the ground floor (gross) and 72 sqm on the first floor. The units would be a height of 7.2 m . 2.5 The 4 units in Block D would be the same as Block A and 7.2 m in height. 2.6 All in all, the internal gross floorspace would be 1800 sqm (or thereabouts) as proposed, however should Block B install mezzanines in the same manner as the other units (half of the first floor), then the total internal floor area would be 1944sqm. 2.7 The units are all similar in design with large roller shutter doors and an eaves height of 6.3 m above ground level. The units are to be 'general industrial'. 2.8 All of the units have a smooth render finish up to a height of 2.3 m with cladding above. The estate road is to be 6 wide at its narrowest. The parking spaces would be 5 m long and 2.5 m wide. 2.9 The units will be at closest, 8 m from the river bank. Most of the units are at least 10 m therefrom.

## Planning Status And Policy

3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Braddan Local Plan of 1991 as Predominantly Industrial. The proposed development is compatible with this and as such the provisions of General Policy 2 are applicable in this case: "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: b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the space 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; f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; 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 adverse effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; I) 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."

## 3.2 Also of relevance are the following policies:

Business Policy 1: The growth of employment opportunities throughout the Island will be encouraged provided that development proposals accord with the policies of this Plan.

Strategic Policy 6: 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.

Environment Policy 7: "Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which would not be overcome by mitigation measures will not be permitted. Where development is proposed which would affect a watercourse, planning applications must comply with the following criteria: a) all watercourses in the vicinity of the site must be identified on plans accompanying a planning application and include an adequate risk assessment to demonstrate that works will not cause long term deterioration in water quality; b) details of pollution and alleviation measures must be submitted; c) all engineering works proposed must be phased in an appropriate manner in order to avoid a reduction in water quality in any adjacent watercourse; and d) development will not normally be allowed within 8 metres of any watercourse in order to protect the aquatic and bankside habitats and species." (Environment Policy 7).

### Strategic Policy10:

New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to: minimise journeys, especially by private car; make best use of public transport; not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and encourage pedestrian movement.

### Strategic Policy 4:

Proposals for development must:
- (a) Protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments, Registered Buildings(1), Conservation Areas(2), buildings and structures within National Heritage Areas and sites of archaeological interest;
- (b) protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations; and
- (c) not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance.
3.3 Parking standards are set out in Appendix Seven of the Strategic Plan and require that general industrial use should be provided with one space per 50 sq m gross.
3.4 The Strategic Plan also sets out provision for sites which are considered at risk of flooding. As the site is adjacent to a water course there is a risk of this and also part of the site is within the risk zone associated with the adjacent river. Environment Policy 10 states: "Where development is proposed on any site where in the opinion of the Department of Local Government and the Environment there is a potential risk of flooding, a flood risk assessment and details of proposed mitigation measures must accompany any application for planning permission. The requirements for a flood risk assessment are set out in Appendix 4."
3.5 Environment Policy 22: Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of: pollution of sea,

surface water or groundwater; emissions of airborne pollutants; and vibration, odour, noise or light pollution.

## Planning History

4.1 There are two very recent applications that are relevant to this proposal. Application PA/11/01365 proposed nineteen light industrial units but was refused by the Planning Committee as the number of units was considered to be excessive in relation to the number of parking spaces, resulting in a potentially over-intensive development of the site with insufficient car parking provision. This was judged on the basis of light industrial use and car parking requirements which amounted to a demand for 63 parking spaces where 38 spaces were provided with a further 17 spaces available as overspill but with no clear calculation of how many spaces were needed for the existing office use. It should be noted that light industrial units require 1 space per 30 sq m of nett floor space, whereas general industrial requires 1 space per 50 square metres. (Storage and distribution uses require 1 space per 100sq m ) 4.2 In that application, proximity to the water course was dealt with, both in terms of the impact on wildlife and maintenance of the river and neither was considered to be a reason for refusal. Prior to this, planning permission was granted in principle for the development of the site under PA 98/1809 (Approval in principle for creation of light industrial units with associated offices and parking to replace existing builders yard and offices) following previous proposals which were unsuccessful - PAs 93/1466 (light industrial unit), 87/0002 (factory) and 86/1403 (warehouse and office). 4.3 The most recent application was submitted last year. PA 12/00413/B was for the 'Erection of 17 Industrial Units for a mixed Use of General Industrial and Storage/Distribution with associated external works and drainage'. The application was subject to a number of objections and whilst it was approved by Planning Committee, the approval was appealed. The appeal inspector considered the issues raised by the objectors, which were i) it was too intensive; ii) too near the Braddan Hills residential area and the adjoining Heritage Trail; iii) it would be unneighbourly; iv) a potential source of nuisance; v) general industrial does not have the same amenity safeguards as light industrial; vi) it is premature to consider an application until the East Area Plan; vii) there is a potential of noise and no noise assessment of abatement measures have been submitted; viii) the units would be visually intrusive; ix) there is inadequate visibility for the access road; x) 43 parking spaces were inadequate and more so if the units are used for light industrial purposes and it would be difficult for the planning division to know if such a change of use occurred; and lastly xi) the development could pollute the River Dhoo which is of ecological interest. 4.4 The Inspector considered all of these matters. She accepted that the site was allocated for industrial development and that this must be the starting point. In terms of visual amenity she concluded that the units would be visible to residents during winter months, but the site was unsightly at the current time and that the co-ordinated design of the units would be a visual improvement and landscaping could help reduce impact from Peel Road. Similarly the Inspector felt that noise intrusion is to a certain extent to be accepted from the development, but the noise generating activities would be within the buildings and thus mitigated. The site already has an industrial type use and the proposal would not worsen these to an unacceptable extent. The Inspector felt that there would be sufficient controls to ensure that the River Dhoo would not be materially harmed and that DEFA and WASA retain certain controls. In terms of parking, she felt that 43 spaces would meet the parking standards, but felt that some were unusually small and that some of the spaces were tandem. She also commented that it may be difficult to monitor whether activities become light industrial which would require more parking and this could lead to parking outside the site which would have serious highway safety considerations.

4.5 The final matter that the Inspector considered what impact on highway safety. Although the plans indicated that there was visibility spays of in each direction, in reality the buildings at Ballafletcher Cottage severely obstruct visibility on one side of the access and when drivers emerge they can only see 15 m to the left instead of the required 120 m . In terms of turning right, the visibility depends on how much of the roadside vegetation has been cut back. The inspector criticised the vagueness of the applicants evidence about traffic generation and the lack of evidence from the Highway Division, and concluded that whilst the site was already in use the proposal would result in prejudice to highway safety.

## Representations

5.1 The Highways Division: The proposal has been assessed against the Strategic Plan and a variety of approved Highway Design documents. Their response is given here in summary.

Peel Road is a primary distributor road subject to a 40 mph limit. Speed counts show 85th percentile towards the entrance of the site (coming from the west) at 42 mph . There is no historic data of speeds of vehicles coming from the roundabout. Vehicle speed data collected by the Highways Division Officer during the site investigation at location 80-90m southeast of

- the site outside Hillburn and Ivy Dene indicate that speed of vehicles travelling towards the site access were typically between 27-31 mph. Guidance gives recommended (sight) distance as 120 m for speeds between 37.5 and 43.75 mph and 90 m where the speeds are between 31.25 and 37.5 mph .
5.2 Currently drivers can see 120 m to the north west from the access serving the site at a minor road distance of 2.4 m , and 40 m to the south-east. Reducing the minor road distance to 2 m allows drivers to see up to 50 m . Guidance gives minor road distances at between 2 and 9 m (back from the road to which they access). The distance will be dependent upon the likely volume and frequency of traffic emerging from the side road.
5.3 As the distance between the driver and the front of the vehicle is typically up to 2.4 m , a minimum of this is normally preferred by the Highway Division for new accesses. This means that a vehicle waiting to turn out of an access can do so without the front of the vehicle overhanging the carriageway.
5.4 Observations show that drivers in cars will pull forward to maximise their visibility towards the mini-roundabout. Typically a VW Golf or Ford Focus will be positioned 2.2 m from the front of the vehicle and there would be a small overhang (about 20 cm ). Lorry and van drivers are positioned further to the front, typically between 1 m and 2 m and are therefore not likely to overhand the carriageway.
5.5 The Isle of Man Constabulary have no record of any personal injury accidents occurring at this location in the past 5 years.
5.6 Given that the reconfigured access will provide greater visibility to the south east for drivers emerging from the junction and the positioning of vehicles at the junction has not resulted in any reported personal injury accidents in the last 5 years, it is considered by the Highway Division that a  will be acceptable.
5.7 The junction capacity is also acceptable for the development.
5.8 Internally to the development, the parking and access roads comply with relevant standards.
5.9 The Highway Division would request two conditions to ensure the improvements to the access are made prior to development commencing and ensuring the visibility splays are kept clear.

5.10 Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (DEFA) (Environmental Protection Noise): On the basis that the applicant has stated that there will be no refrigeration, air conditioning, chimneys, major flues or heavy industry, the Environmental Protection officer recommends a variety of conditions ensuring that noise levels during daytime do not exceed 50dB LAeq if measured at any neighbouring residential property including gardens, or 45dB LAeq during night time at any residential façade; and that fork-lift trucks have a white noise reversing mechanism. 5.11 The Environmental Health Officer also recommends that none of the following uses are allowed on the site. Whilst it is not strictly necessary to impose a condition, as such industries would be described as 'Special Industrial Uses', given that 'Special Industrial Uses' are not specified precisely a condition setting these out would be useful to the land owner. The uses are: The production of fuel and power; metal production and processing; mineral industries; chemical industries; waste disposal and re-cycling.

## DEFA (Environmental Protection- Waste):

5.12 The site has been subject to the depositing and storage of waste. The improper storage is impacting negatively on the condition of the river through material escaping from the site. The development provides an opportunity to protect the river and its bank from unauthorised tipping and removal of materials already deposited by the erection of the perimeter fence proposed. It is recommended that a condition be imposed to ensure any waste materials from the development are kept in appropriate receptacles. A condition could be imposed regarding maintenance of the river bank. (This is only possible if it is in the control of the applicant) 5.13 DEFA (Fisheries). The Division confirm that the 'development within 9 m of a watercourse' has been submitted and has been accepted by DEFA who confirm that there are no concerns on the proposed development, provided there is no impact on the river. The applicants are to advise DEFA when work commences. 5.15 WASA: No objection; although request a condition that states that no development be carried out on or near a river without written request from the Authority's Drainage Engineer in accordance with Section 35 of the Land Drainage Act. (A condition worded such cannot be imposed although we have let the applicant know of this requirement). The embankments either side of the river are vested in the Water and Sewage Authority who have control over a 30ft maintenance corridor. The embankment at this location is so steep that it is unlikely it would be used to gain access from this side and rather access would be gained from the public right of way on the opposite embankment. General concerns are that debris can become mobile in flood waters which can cause flooding and destabilise the embankment 5.16 Braddan Commissioners: No objection to the principle of development, but have concerns regarding the sight lines. No concessions should be given to the statutory standards regarding visibility. In particular the eastward road heading from the site toward the roundabout is given as 90 m whereas statute dictates this to be 120 m . They would also ask that sight lines are checked rather than taken from the drawings. 5.17 Representations have also been received from a number of local residents. In particular the direct neighbour at Ballafletcher Cottage has submitted a number of representations in person and also through 2 agents (an architect and an advocate). 5.18 Letters have also been received from the following addresses:

White Lodge, Main Road; numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 River Walk; numbers 2 and 3 Braddan Bridge; the White House, Braddan Bridge; numbers

1, 2, 3 and 4 River Vale; and 1, 2, 3, 4 River Heights. Of the letters, 19 are identical. The objections are:
5.19 Consider the Local Plan to be out of date, unreliable and not reflective of the residential nature of the area as it is today. Concerned about the 'general' industry classification: This is inappropriate in close proximity to residential properties and provides for no safeguards to residents' amenities. This means that uses that could be detrimental to amenity would fall within this category. The estate is only 33 m from the nearest property are acceptable;
5.20 Impact on the Highway: The area has been subject o increase in the amount of traffic passing the site and resulting in congestion. There is a lack of acceptable highway visibility. The development is speculative and traffic predictions are difficult. The sight lines are less than the  required. The Traffic Assessment takes no account of the impact of the TT or MGP and obvious risks in reducing visibility requirements. The survey was carried out in November and is not a true reflection of road usage. The Traffic Assessment states that 'drivers leaving the roundabout do not start to overtake until they are within the visibility splay of the proposed access', this must only refer to cars as motorcycles do overtake upon leaving the roundabout and currently with relative safety. Although the speed limit is 40 , motorcycles accelerate fast and could reach a speed of 60 mph which means they would reach the exit more quickly. The suggestion that a reduced visibility splay may be acceptable on one of the busiest roads on the island is wrong. Moving the entrance 2 metres to the NW does not give 2.5 m by 120 m sight lines which is the minimum. The survey was taken over a short period in mid-week in November and is not a true reflection of road usage, and the report also refers to a DoT Assessment taken six years ago, which is potentially out of date;
5.21 Over intensive nature of the development : Many of the units contain the potential for mezzanine floors;
5.22 Lack of parking: Concern regarding lack of number of spaces, which the Inspector acknowledged would lead to vehicles being parked on the estate road, or worse still, on the main road outside the site, which would have serious safety implications. The spaces are designed for cars when in reality it is more likely they will be vans which would not fit into the spaces
5.23 Noise pollution: There has been no EIA undertaken. There is no reference to any mitigation measures and activities may be undertaken outside of the units as well as inside. The noise already generate from the existing users is excessive and outside of 'normal' business hours. We are worried about further noise pollution. The noise would not disperse naturally because of the position of the site in a valley but would travel up the side of the two hills and would intensify. The buildings do not make any reference to having sound protection. The two large units are more likely to be suited to greater levels of activity and are the closest to residential properties. The reverse beeping can be hard from 6am to late both weekdays and weekends. At the appeal the applicant said the walls and roofs of the units could be insulated against noise, but the current application makes no reference to sound insulation;
5.24 General negative impact on the area from a visual perspective and including dust and odour that would carry up both sides of the valley. The direct neighbour states the work that he has had done to improve his own property and has award winning gardens which the development will detract from.;
5.25 Lack of structural planting proposed, impact on character of Heritage Trail and detract from enjoyment of walkers and cyclist using the trail and whether an EIA should be required;
5.26 Light pollution, particularly if the site is operated on a 24 hours a day 7 days a week basis;

5.27 Loss of trees and vegetation would impact on local wildlife in what is described in the 2003 Braddan Parish Plan (not adopted) as an area of ecological interest; 5.28 The drainage assessment has not been updated despite there being two large units in Block C; 5.29 The proposal is unlikely to create jobs this initially is likely to be more a case of relocating jobs than creating them; 5.30 The proposal would be contrary to Human Rights Act 'Protection of Property'. Although the protocol does not guarantee the right to live in a pleasant environment where a person's enjoyment of their home is affected by environmental pollution or excessive noise it could be regarded as having a detrimental effect on the property and thus give the owner sufficient grounds for recourse against local and central government. 5.31 The applicant will want 24 / 7 hours to be permitted. We object to this. The scaffolding firm operates on a Sunday spoiling our enjoyment of garden at the weekend and well as the evening.

## Assessment

6.1 Firstly in addressing procedure, the application has been accepted as one that is materially different from that previously refused on appeal as the application attempts to address the reasons for refusal and as the description of development for 17 units differs from the previous description which was for 19, even though the floorspace proposed is much the same. 6.2 The key considerations in the determination of the application are; the principle of development, access, parking, amenity on neighbouring residential properties/areas, impact on visual amenity; impact on wildlife and the river. 6.3 The principle of development: The site is designated for industrial purposes in the Braddan Parish/District Plan of 1991. This plan is the adopted plan for the area and has not been superseded. A later draft plan is mentioned by objectors but this has no legal weight. It is accepted that the plan is relatively old, but there is no evidence to suggest that the land is not required for that purpose. Consequently it is considered that the principle of the development is acceptable. the Strategic Plan sets out that an Environmental Impact Assessment ought to be provided for a development of this site on land outside of settlements. Previously the planning officer considered that the site was in a settlement, however this is not so as also defined in the Strategic Plan. However, the site is currently in use and is can be seen that at the moment there is little on the site itself for an assessment to consider. In terms of the impact on areas outside of the site, the views from DEFA on the subjects that would be contained in an EIA have been sought. It is therefore concluded that it is not necessary to require a full assessment to be undertaken. 6.4 Access: The previous application was refused on appeal on the grounds that the required visibility could not be achieved. In particular the visibility splay towards the miniroundabout in the eastern direction was blocked by a wall at Ballafletcher Cottage. In order to address this a Highways Assessment was submitted with the application and this has been considered by the Highway Division whose comments are set out in detail above. It is important to note that visibility splays are not set as a standard to road types or speed limits, but that these form part of the basis for assessment. The Highways Division has considered the submission careful and consider the development to be acceptable.

---

*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/4223-braddan-bcs-house-drainage/documents/1290615*