Loading document...
Application No.: 19/01421/B Applicant: Haven Homes Ltd Proposal: Erection of 11 units for general industrial/light industrial/storage/distribution with associated parking Site Address: Former Bulk Gas Storage Installation Balthane Industrial Estate Balthane Ballasalla Isle Of Man IM9 2AG Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken: 17.01.2020 Site Visit: 17.01.2020 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 21.05.2020 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. The proposed development would constitute an over intensive use of the site, and would fail to incorporate the existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees on the site and would unacceptably harm the natural environment within the site as it would result in total loss of existing biodiversity within the site, and is therefore contrary to General Policy 2b, d and f of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. - R 2. The development as proposed would be contrary to Environment Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 given the proximity of some of the units to the banks of the Ronaldburn water course and would unacceptably harm the biota (ecology) along the banks of the water course. - R 3. The proposed development would be contrary to Transport Policy 7 and General Policy 2h of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 given the inadequacy of parking and manoeuvring spaces for vehicles being provided within the site, and would have an unacceptable impact on the surrounding businesses and industrial site as well as the wider highway network as a result. - R 4. Insufficient details have been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed works will not cause long term impacts on parking and highway safety as an adequate Transport Statement, Stage 1 Road Safety Audit, and a complete set of swept paths based on any revised layout and clarification of van parking vis a vis private car parking on shared parking areas on site was not provided to demonstrate the suitability of the proposal for the site and area. _______________________________________________________________
It is recommended that the following organisation should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
Manx Utilities as they do not own or occupy property that is 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 and they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). _____________________________________________________________________________
THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
1.1 The application site is the curtilage of the former Bulk Gas Storage Installation, Balthane Industrial Estate, Balthane, Ballasalla located to the south of the Balthane Road and west of JCK Recycling Yard. Until recently there was a small residential property situated to the south of the site. This has been demolished and the site is now used as part of the yard to the south west. - 1.2 The site has the Ronaldburn water course on its eastern boundary which separates the site from the adjacent industrial yard. On the northern boundary of the site tree clusters which helps to enable the site blend with the well landscaped and vegetated adjacent industrial site and field situated about 30m north-west of the site. The existing access is currently gated off with mesh gates set back from the highway. THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Proposed is the erection of 11 units for general industrial/light industrial/storage/distribution with associated parking, which comprise a mix of different sized units from two units at 74 sq m, three at 95 sq m, one at 113sq and five at 189 sq m. The units are the standard type in this part of the estate - rendered cavity blockwork walling with horizontal orientated cladding panels with vertical joints, as well as similarly coloured roller shutter doors and pedestrian entrance doors on the front elevations. The buildings will be set out in three blocks; Block A on the east, C on the west and Block B situated at the southern section of the site. - 2.2 There would be 50 parking spaces provided throughout the site to serve the 11 units. 7 parking spaces will be provided in front of the 74sqm units with direct access to Balthane, 3 on the eastern side of the site access by Balthane Road, 2 situated parallel to the abutting highway and at right angles to the site access, while the remaining 38 parking spaces will be situated within the site at differing orientations. - 2.3 Units 1-3 are designed to be single storey units, while units 4 and 5-9 have partial mezzanine floors. Also, units 10 and 11 have large sections of the road facing elevation glazed to enable natural light penetration and views out to the surrounding fields north-west of the site. Also, significant sections of the front elevation of Unit 1 have glazed areas which benefits from similar views as units 10 and 11. - 2.4 Additional works will involve the replacement of the existing chain-link fence to west boundary of site with 2.5m high wire mesh fencing panels to steel posts. The 2.5m high wire
mesh fencing panels to steel posts will also be erected on the southern and eastern boundaries of the site. This fencing will partly enclose the retaining wall at the rear of Block B, terminating at the rear of block A at the top of the river bank east of the site.
2.5 There will also be alterations at the entrance to the site which will include:
2.6 There is an accompanying Site Investigation Report which concludes that the site is not a significant contamination area, according to the testing indicators reported, and as such should not be classified as contaminated land. - 2.7 The applicants have also provided a Drainage and Flood Risk Statement which indicates that there would be no flood risk to the proposed development site from the eastern boundary stream within the parameters agreed with MU, and that the proposed development would have no adverse flood risk impact on any other areas within the parameters agreed with MU. Reference is made to the calculated output within Appendix B as justification for the former conclusion. PLANNING POLICY
3.1 The application site is within an area zoned as "Industrial" on the Area Plan for the South (Map 4) 2013. The site is also classified as a Major Hazard site on the Area Plan for the South (2013) Map 1: Constraints. Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider the following policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016). - 3.2 General Policy 2 states (in part): "Development which is in accordance with the landuse zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:
3.3 Business Policy 5 states: "On land zoned for industrial use, permission will be given only for industrial development or for storage and distribution; retailing will not be permitted except where either:
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."
3.4 Transport Policy 7 requires that development provides an appropriate level of car parking and Appendix 7 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. - 3.5 Paragraph 9.2.7 Where industrial development is proposed, it is essential that all parking and manoeuvring by vehicles which will be generated by the use of the site can be accommodated within the site and off the highway. This is particularly important within industrial estates where lack of parking and manoeuvring space can create significant difficulties for other estate users, particularly where the use of large and articulated vehicles is involved. Where mezzanine levels are proposed after a building has been completed, the Department may require more parking space to accommodate the additional traffic which would be generated. The standards of parking provision which will be required are set out in Appendix 7. - 3.6 Paragraph 11.4.1 Walking is also an important means of travel in its own right or as part of most journeys. All pedestrians need safe and convenient means of crossing and passing along roads. Alternatively provision should be made for walking journeys separated from general traffic.
Transport Policy 6: In the design of new development and transport facilities the needs of pedestrians will be given similar weight to the needs of other road users.
3.8 Environment Policy 7: Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which could 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:
3.9 Paragraph 7.23.1 There are a number of installations on the Island that represent a constraint on development in the vicinity because of health and safety considerations. Such installations are essential Island facilities such as the petroleum and LPG storage at Douglas Harbour. The type of constraint posed to development varies by facility and therefore there will be a need for the Department to consult with the Health and Safety at Work Inspectorate regarding any development within such zones.
Environment Policy 29: In considering development proposals within Consultation Zones as designated on the Area Plans or published Consultation Zone Maps, the Department will consult with the Health and Safety at Work Inspectorate to determine the appropriateness of the development. In all cases, the health and safety of the public will be the overriding consideration. Developments which would conflict with the requirements of health and safety will not be permitted.
3.10 Strategic Policy 5: New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies. - 3.11 Paragraph 7.20.2 The practice of reclaiming contaminated land and bringing it back into beneficial use is supported, whether it be suitable in the end for open space or residential development or as deemed appropriate in the Area Plans. It is important that however former contaminated land is utilised, both health and property are safeguarded. Detailed surveys may be required to identify the extent of contamination and how contamination problems can be overcome. On sites where the Department has no control, the developer will have responsibility to ensure that any development site is free of contamination which may constitute a hazard to occupiers or potential users of the development or land. Furthermore, precautions will be essential to ensure that contaminants cannot escape from the site which may cause airborne or waterborne pollution or pollution of nearby land.
Environment Policy 26: Development will not be permitted on or close to contaminated land unless it can be demonstrated that there is no unacceptable risk to health, property or adjacent watercourses.
3.12 In addition to the IOM Strategic Plan, the Area Plan for the South 2013 also contains the following policies and paragraphs which are fundamental in the assessment of this application: - 3.13 Employment Proposal 1: "All industrial uses, other than small scale light industrial uses considered to be acceptable within the Mixed Use areas, or those uses deemed appropriate by the Isle of Man Strategic Plan Business Policy 7, will be located on the Industrial Estate at Balthane and where appropriate Ronaldsway and the Freeport." - 3.14 Employment Recommendation 1 states: "It is recommended that the Department of Infrastructure, the Department of Economic Development and Malew Parish Commissioners work collaboratively to produce a strategy for improvements at Balthane Industrial Estate. This will include general environmental improvements, and also improvements in respect of access, lighting and infrastructure in an effort to ensure that the Estate is an attractive place for both users and customers."
5.23.1 There are two identified major hazard sites within the Southern Area. One is located within the Balthane Industrial Estate; the other is between the settlements of Port Erin and Port St Mary and surrounds the gas tanks. Both are depicted by concentric circles on Map 1 or what are known as 'consultation zones.' It is likely that these two sites will become nonhazardous in the future with the planned removal of gas storage at Balthane and the cessation of the gas plant usage at Port St Mary. Where development is proposed within these zones, the Health and Safety at Work Inspectorate will be consulted to ensure that there are no health and safety implications. In these cases, Environment Policy 29 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, 2007, will apply.
Employment Recommendation 1: It is recommended that the Department of Infrastructure, the Department of Economic Development and Malew Parish Commissioners work collaboratively to produce a strategy for improvements at Balthane Industrial Estate. This will include general environmental improvements, and also improvements in respect of access, lighting and infrastructure in an effort to ensure that the Estate is an attractive place for both users and customers.
3.17 Paragraph 3.24 (vi) "There is support to improving access to and the generally poor physical environment in Balthane Industrial Estate". PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 The application site has been the subject of four previous planning applications, three of which are considered to be specifically material in the assessment of the current application: - 4.2 PA 13/91404/A for Approval in principle for the demolition of existing gas storage facility and erection of 11 light industrial units and associated parking - APPROVED. - 4.3 PA 16/00423/A for Approval in principle for the demolition of existing gas storage facility and erection of 11 units for purposes of general industrial or light industrial or storage and distribution along with associated parking - APPROVED by the Planning Committee.
4.4 PA 17/00378/B for Demolition of existing gas store, levelling of site and construction of retaining walls. Use of site for the medium term storage of site vehicles, containers and building materials - 10/00587/B - APPROVED
REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 The Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division has made the following comments regarding the application in a letter dated 4 May 2020:
Reference made to 13/91404/A; 16/00423/A as amended by 17/00378/B. Since these approvals, there has been an update to policy to address climate change, highway design guidance and standards. Any variations from these criteria should be demonstrably justified.
Red Line/ Public Roads: Works are shown within the public road and the red line should be extended.
Accessibility: The site is accessible to sustainable forms of travel, but pedestrians are disadvantaged by the extent of the and number of vehicular crossovers of the footway formed along the frontage by the 10 parking bays and the widened access junction reducing the footway external to the site. Within the site, the path ends are obstructed by parking bays to either side. There is an absence of parking for bicycles, motorcycles and electric vehicles. Revisions are necessary.
Vehicle Access: The proposal shows:
The proposed arrangement is unsatisfactory. Whilst the main access is of sufficient size with a gate set back a suitable distance, and has adequate visibility for a 30mph speed limit, it fails to demonstrate larger vehicle suitability for the left in and right out turning movements.
Additionally, the layout converts a large area of frontage of approximately 50m for vehicle use, removing the footway, almost in its entirety from the B53 Balthane Road junction with the
C1524, Balthane Industrial Estate at north-west. It provides direct accesses within 10m of the main access junction and, these positioned too close to each other and those of neighbouring sites, risking obstruction from parking and heightening the safety risks from the potential number reversing movements, particularly, if these proposed spaces are used by cars, and should any doubling up occur in a tandem arrangement. Further issues arise on ad hoc collections and deliveries arising.
No visibility is shown from each of the frontage parking bays both for the vehicle to vehicle and the pedestrian vehicle and this would be necessary from each. A swept path analysis is absent to demonstrate all turns to and from these bays. This would need to be provided.
The proposed access inadequately caters for pedestrians by extending the length of crossovers substantially risking footway parking and obstruction forcing pedestrians into the live carriageway. The internal paths are terminated and obstructed by parking bays to each side. All these parking bays should be removed and within the site the paths to each side should carry beyond the ramp and be splayed into the shared surface. This would necessitate the setting back of parking bays 41 and 42.
Notwithstanding previous consents, the site would be better served entirely from one access point. This would provide a clear indication of the site for all road users, particularly pedestrians, reduce the number of turning points and safety risks from reversing movements and obstruction, and provide opportunity to provide soft landscaping. Additional information and revisions are necessary to include provision of a complete set of turning movements and layout.
All access points would require to be formed of consolidated and hard surfaced materials with surface water drained into the site.
The eventually agreed works to the highway will require a separate permission under a s109 (A) Highway Agreement.
Internal Layout, Servicing and Waste: The internal layout shows the main access leading to courtyard with parking for cars and vans to serve nine units with units 10 and 11 to be served from the road to the west of the access with other parking bays to the east.
The previous section raises issues with the frontage access arrangements, these impacts upon the internal layout for parking and adjustments are necessary. This may require a reduction in the number of units and reconfiguring the parking layout. Whilst turning for a waste collection vehicle is demonstrated by a swept path analysis, no details are shown to demonstrate the adequacy of the van parking bays especially to ensure practical usage when parked up.
The position and size of the waste bin storage points is absent and there is no information about ad hoc collections and deliveries.
Car and van parking spaces are of sufficient dimensions for width as standard sized vehicles, but there should be space allocated to car parking for disabled users. Such bays require a width of 3.6m. Electric vehicle charging points are necessary too, that usually require a 2.6m width to cater for differing positons of the in-vehicle equipment. At least one ECVP should be for disabled use, with details of position and charger type provided. These should be shown on any revision.
Additionally, van spaces could be used by more than one car, increasing the amount of cars which may not leave space for vans. Clarification is necessary.
Secured, covered storage is necessary for bicycle parking for staff and visitors. Parking requirements are required for motorcycle users too. Details of position and type should be provided.
It is understood that the courtyard and parking spaces would be hard surfaced. This should be
When combined with the frontage and access issues, further information and reconfiguration are necessary.
Parking Amount: The proposal indicates 50 parking spaces for cars and vans based on the car parking standards at 1:30sqm. Greater clarity is necessary over the number of vans likely to use the site. As drawn, the layout could lead to a greater number of cars being parked at the site should doubling up occur within the proposed van bays, with the outcome of insufficient space for vans.
As mentioned, there is need for electric vehicle charging points typically, at 10% of the car parking allocation, disabled at 5% of the car parking allocation, bicycle parking at typically at 1:300sqm gfa long stay (staff) and 1:500sqm gfa short stay (visitors), and motorcycle parking typically at 1:1,000 sqm gfa. Details and revisions are necessary.
Transport Assessment: The proposed site gross floor area is at the threshold for a Transport Statement of 1,500sqm, and it would have been beneficial to have provided one given the number of likely movements and layout to provide a more comprehensive assessment of the site. This should be provided on submission of any revision.
Road Safety: The proposal raise road safety concerns from the proliferation of accesses at the frontage, potential risks of obstruction and reversing movements around the access adversely impacting on road users in general and pedestrians in particular. No Stage 1 Road Safety Audit has been submitted and is necessary.
Conditions: Not at this stage.
Conclusion: As drawn, the proposal is unsatisfactory and unsupported from a highway viewpoint, creating too many accesses at front, increasing the risk of safety hazards and contriving the parking layout based on a standard for cars. A single point of access would clearly define the site, remove safety hazards and allow the provision of adequate pedestrian facilities. The swept path analysis of the main junction is incomplete and such details are absent for the van parking bays. Further information and revisions are necessary. These should comprise a Transport Statement, Stage 1 Road Safety Audit, and a complete set of swept paths based on any revised layout. Clarification over van parking where there may be shared use with cars is necessary. Reconfiguration of the site and parking layout is required to provide allocations for the disabled, ECVP's, bicycles, and motorcycles as well as the provision for waste storage.
Recommendation: O - Additional information and revisions.
Having read Highways representation, it is incredibly disappointing that they have compiled so many negatives and seek so much change at this late stage of the process. The appropriate
time for Highways to have raised their views, seeking amendments, would have been the end of January. Economically, it is desperately important for works to commence on this site in one form or another.
We note that the application is unsupported by Highways at present, as opposed to objected to. We are disappointed not to have their support but cannot concur with the contents of their representation on this occasion. If we were to expend on satisfying the requests of this representation the resulting further time loss would be commercially unacceptable. You may not be aware, but to provide a Stage 1 RSA and Transport Assessment, as now requested by Highways, would involve consultants from the UK visiting the site as, at present, there is no private practice on the Island that we are aware of that can provide such services without contracting in from the UK. As borders are closed there is no way of knowing how long the back and forth would take to reach a position where Highways may support our proposals.
Consequently, we have no option but to request you to kindly take the application forward to determination based on the available documents.
When considering Highways representation it would be worth balancing it against the current approval 17/00378/B and any vehicular implications they may have. This approval, although temporary, was not opposed by Highways and remains in force until 2027.
5.2 DEFA's Ecosystem Policy Officer has made the following comments regarding the application in a letter dated 31 January 2020:
It is a shame to see that the erection of the 11 industrial units will result in the loss of quite an area of green space and trees, and the only proposal for replacement green space in the area is with the use of artificial grass. Working on a no net loss for biodiversity policy, unfortunately I believe that this development will result in a loss for biodiversity.
Though I understand that the submitted plans maximise the amount of commercially useable space, I recommend that additional native planting, shrubs and real grass is integrated into the design. More boundary planting with native shrubs would be ideal.
I also request that bird boxes be integrated into the design, in particular for starling and house sparrow, which are both Schedule 1 Species under the Wildlife Act 1990.
Ideally these would be installed along the northern edge of the development.
5.3 Since the Strategic Plan stipulates that the Health and Safety at Work Inspectorate be consulted where development is proposed within consultation zones to ensure that there are no health and safety implications for proposed developments, the Head of Environment, Safety and Health Directorate was consulted on 26 February 2020. The reply received on 27 February 2020 states thus:
"Our team do not cover contaminated land issues and we currently have no legislation to deal with it. Also I don't have any officers with recent experience of dealing with contaminated land, therefore we cannot comment on the report".
The reply also suggested that the Head of the Environmental Protection Unit be consulted for possible comments.
I can confirm, EPU do not have any objections as long as this condition is adhered to 'only site generated subsoil and imported recycled / virgin infill material is to be utilised as the infill medium to level the site and no importation of any waste including subsoils, soil and stones and construction wastes of any kind are to be used as the infill material to raise and level the land within the site. All site generated wastes shall be disposed of at licenced waste disposal / recycling facilities'.
As the infill material is either site generated or brought in as a virgin or recycled material there is no requirement for Haven Homes to apply for a Waste Exemption or Waste Disposal Licence.
5.4 Manx Utilities Authority has made the following comments regarding the application in a letter dated 10 February 2020:
Further to the above planning application, the drainage serving the development will remain private and not be considered for public adoption by Manx Utilities.
Any works adjacent to the Ronaldsburn Stream will require permissions under the Flood Risk Management Act, the applicant is advised to consult with MUA prior to any works commencing.
5.5 Malew Parish Commissioners have stated that they have no objections to the application in a letter dated 8 January 2020. 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; wildlife implications; and impact on neighbouring dwelling.
"Where industrial development is proposed, it is essential that all parking and manoeuvring by vehicles which will be generated by the use of the site can be accommodated within the site and off the highway. This is particularly important within industrial estates where lack of parking and manoeuvring space can create significant difficulties for other estate users, particularly where the use of large and articulated vehicles is involved."
(ecology) along the banks; and as such would be at variance with paragraph 2.2 of the Satisfaction of Condition for PA 17/00378/B which indicates that "…no works are to be undertaken to the bank side…" of the abutting water course. The erection of this 'block' would also be contrary to Environment Policy 7 (d) which seeks to protect aquatic and bankside habitats and species.
6.6 IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURING DWELLING The final issue that needs evaluation is the potential impact of the proposed development upon the amenities of the neighbouring residential property, namely 'The Court' which is a single storey bungalow located 20.6 metres south of proposed Block B. This block would be the component of the proposed development most likely to impact on the amenities of the occupants of this abutting property due to its proximity to this dwelling. Any impact that would have resulted is, however, diminished by the orientation of the abutting dwelling which does not enable principal views to the application site and the fact that the windows on the rear of the proposed building will be more than 20m away; enough to ensure that overlooking on the abutting residential property is negligible. Moreover, there would be no loss of light and/or overbearing impact resulting from the proposal on this neighbouring property given that the block would only be 6.3m high at the rear and at a position that would not impact on the eastwest movement of the sun on this residential property. This aspect of the proposal complies with GP 2 (g).
7.1 Overall, whilst this application is similar to the application under PA 13/91404/A and 16/00423/A, it is noted that these applications were for approval in principle and most of the details accessed within the current application were not evaluated as no detailed plans were provided to enable comprehensive assessments. Also, the current application is significantly different from the proposal granted approval under PA 17/00378/B, which was less intensive, did not involve any major development near the water course, retained all parking within the site and did not involve total removal of the ecology on the site.
7.2 For the reasons outlined within this report, it is considered that whilst the proposal accords with Business Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan and Environment Policy 26, the proposal would be contrary to Transport Policy 7, Environment Policy 7, and General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and it is therefore recommended that the planning application be refused.
8.2 The decision maker must determine:
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 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:…08.06.2020
Signed :………S BUTLER…………….. Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officerreport).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
