Officer Planning Assessment Report

1) This site is not zoned for development. It is zoned as Open Space (Agricultural) on the Braddan Local Plan (Planning Circular 6/91). 2) Environmental Policy 1 states "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake" – This proposal does not comply with that requirement. 3) The site is also within an area designated on the 1982 Development Plan as an area of High Landscape Value and therefore protected from development. 4) There is no exception policy for industrial development. 5) Whilst the case put forward by the applicant might sound credible, the purpose of the local plans is to stop ad hoc development of site like this. 32. Isle of Man Chamber of Commerce do not oppose the application. 33. Rose Lea Limited have provided the following comments: 1) Following on from the previous public inquiry in relation to this area, we are concerned that there remains an area of land off the roundabout leading into the Business Park which should have been adopted and has still not been. 2) The previous Area Plan proposed an estate road connecting up to the same roundabout on Cool Road and our concern is that if development proceeds too far south west, this impinges on that possible estate road. 34. The owner of The Book Company, 29/31 Castle Street has objected to the application on the grounds that the display area that you interface with customers is a way of pulling the wool over your eyes, as it is just another way of saying shop floor. He has no objection at all to large bulky good being sold out of town, but this application could spell the end to Douglas Town Centre if the so called display areas turn out to be shops. He would also like to see strong conditions attached to it to prevent it being an out of town shopping destination. 35. Castle Street Action Group strongly object to out of town shopping as they do not wish to see the city centre to die further 36. Duke Media, as a retailer on Castle Street, object to out of town retail parks, as there is a need to protect and support the retail offer in the high street and not dilute it. 37. The Manager of M & CO has commented that "The retail offer in the Isle of Man is hard enough with trade in Town without trade going out of town to retail parks. 38. Standard comments have been received from the Manx Electricity Authority. 39. The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority have no objection to the application. ### Procedural Matter 40. On the 12th September 2011, the occupier of The Kilkenny (the objector) wrote to the Director of Planning and Building Control submitting that the Application should be declined to be considered by the Planning Committee under Article 4 (4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, which states that "The Committee may decline to consider an application in any case where it considers that the application is substantially the same as an application which has been refused at any time in the previous 5 years. 41. On the 13th September 2011, the Department wrote to the objector indicating that Article 4(4) does not apply in this instance as the previous proposal (the Cool Road Development Order) was not a planning application. It was also indicated that Planning Committee will not be asked whether or not they decline to consider the application. 42. The objector considers that Article 4(4) does not specify that the application "had to be a planning application". It should be noted that Article 4(4) has to be read in conjunction with the whole of Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005. Article 4 deals with applications for planning approval and not Development Orders. Therefore, it would be wrong to assume that Article 4(4) relates to anything more than planning applications. It is considered the Planning Committee does not have any power to decline to consider this application. ### Assessment #### Braddan Parish District Local Plan (BPDLP) 43. The independent inspector for the CRDO Inquiry stated in his report to the Department that "although it is 19 years old, the BPDLP proposals should still have some weight. This is because the BPDLP is an adopted local plan, tested at local inquiry in 1989 and accepted by Tynwald. The CRDO site lies within the BPDLP area. On this plan the CRDO site is shown as Open Space (Agriculture) on the Proposals Map. However Policy 13.3 states that "The rural areas of Braddan Parish District will be designated as being of high landscape value...". The precise means of this proposal remains unclear – it is not explained whether this designation should have the same value as an Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance as defined in the 1982 Development Plan. Because of its age and the significant change in economic circumstances since 1991 this plan has little relevance in relation to employment or economic matters. As for the high landscape value designation, this should still have relevance and be given weight. It follows that the CRDO is in conflict with the 1991 BPDLP." 44. This application is proposing to develop part of the CRDO area with light industrial units. Based on the inspectors comments in respect of the BPDLP, it follows that this proposal is in conflict with the 1991 BPDLP. #### Draft Braddan Parish Plan 2003 (DBPP) 45. It should be noted that "The Department has resolved it will not have regard to the proposals in the abandoned Braddan Parish Plan 2003 in determining planning applications, the preparation of Area Plans or Development Orders. Those major sites which were put forward in the Braddan Parish Plan 2003 will be assessed as part of the site assessment process for the Area Plan for the East. They will be assessed in the same manner as all sites are assessed and any decision to take them forward will be based on this assessment alone." 46. The Planning Authority as attached no weight to the abandoned DBPP in relation to this current planning application. #### Strategic Plan 47. The only relevant up-to-date part of the development plan is the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. In this plan the most relevant policies are SP1, SP2, GP3 and EP1 48. In respect of SP1, the applicants have stated that "This requires that development should, amongst other considerations, make the best use of resources. The applicant's proposals ensure the efficient use of their site and have located their development so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities, and services. In this regard it is considered that the proposals do not conflict with SP1". 49. It considered that the applicant's have not applied SP1 correctly. The policy states that "Development should make the best use of resources by: (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials; (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services." Therefore, any development put forward to the Planning Authority for consideration has to satisfy all the relevant paragraphs of the policy. 50. The applicant's acknowledge in their planning statement that the site is presently used as part of an existing agricultural field. The development of an agricultural field does not result in optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials. It is therefore considered the proposed development does not comply with this part of the policy. 51. In terms of paragraph (b), the applicant's planning statement sets out that the "proposals ensure the efficient use of their site..." This could mean two different things. Firstly, it could mean that the proposed development is making efficient use of the whole of their site, i.e. the application site and the blue line site, or, secondly it could mean the efficient use of the application site. Their statement is not explicit in what they actually mean. It would be wrong to try to interpret what they are trying to say in this instance. 52. However, paragraph (b) of the policy is trying to ensure that a site is used in an efficient manner in terms of layout, landscaping, access etc. The design of the development will be considered later in this report. 53. In terms paragraph (c) it is acknowledged the development is located next to existing infrastructure, facilities and services. It is considered the proposed complies with this part of the policy. 54. In summary it is considered the proposal is contrary to SP1 (a) of the Strategic Plan. 55. In respect of SP2, this allows development to be permitted in the countryside only in exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3, which refers to development outside those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan. The applicant considers for this application that it relates to the exceptions permitted under sub-paragraph (g) of General Policy 3. 56. In respect of GP3, the policy opposes development outside areas zoned for development on Area Plans. The site is "outside of those areas zoned for development". The application proposal therefore conflicts with the general thrust of GP3 unless it can be shown to be a reasonable exception. The exception is criterion (g) of GP3. This says that exceptions to this policy include "development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative". The proposal meets this exception and is not in conflict with GP3(g). The reasons that the proposal meets this exception are addressed below where overriding national need and alternative sites are examined. 57. In terms of EP1, this policy adopts a similar approach to the GP3 presumption against development. This time the emphasis is on development of land in the countryside which is opposed unless there is an overriding national need and there are no reasonable alternatives. This is essentially the same test as GP3. ### Overriding national need 58. "Overriding national need" is not defined in the Strategic Plan. The inspector for the CRDO stated that "A common sense approach therefore has to be taken as to its meaning. Need in this case must relate directly to economic need and more particularly the need for employment land. National need must imply that the need applies to the whole island; national need cannot be normally confined to a single town or village, or even an Area Plan boundary." 59. The inspector also stated that "The starting point in assessing national economic need is to set out the agreed types of requirement for new employment land together with a sensible timetable for provision. The next step is to examine the existing and proposed supply of types of employment land and buildings. The final step is to determine if there is a gap between requirement and supply; this can be achieved by carefully investigating relevant take up in recent years and making judgements about future take up rates. If a gap is found then this leads to the identification of a residual national need for employment land." 60. The following paragraphs will look at the land requirement, land supply and the take up rates to identify if there is a gap in the need for employment land. ### Land Requirement 61. The applicants have indicated in their planning statement that the proposal is for light industrial units to be used for light industrial uses together with those uses directly related to storage and distribution. There are no proposals for car showrooms or office uses for corporate headquarters as previously proposed in the CRDO. However, it should be noted the application form states they are seeking permission of light industrial use not storage and distribution use for the proposed units. The application has been assessed on this basis. 62. It has been indicated by the applicants that "As a matter of urgency the relevant authorities must address the lack of provision for industrial and business park land. Unless suitable land is allocated for industrial uses in the location required by the majority of businesses there is a likelihood that new businesses/industry would be lost to the Island with the resultant negative effect on the Island's economy, employment and international standing." 63. In terms of a sensible timetable for provision of the units, the applicants have indicated once planning permission has been obtained they intend to develop the units immediately to meet the urgent needs of potential occupants. 64. They consider the first part of the Inspector's criteria relating to identifying need and timescale for provision has been met by the application. 65. However, it should be noted the applicant's have not provided any evidence as to show what future requirements for employment land for the different employment sectors might be over any period. Their explanation focuses on that more industrial land is required, but it has not been put into any context as to how much is needed apart from that they estimate that the demand for industrial land in and around Douglas over the next 20 years will be as follows: 2010-2020 – 20.2ha or 2ha per annum 2020-2030 – 20.2ha or 2ha per annum 66. This is based on the agent's knowledge of the take-up of industrial land over the last 25 years, discussions with Department of Economic Development and the future projections for the Island's economy and discussions with developers, industrialists and businessmen. It is considered the land requirement has not been fully explained in this context. 67. However, the need for additional land is perhaps more fully appreciated when assessing the land supply, which shows how much land is available for industrial purposes, as discussed below. ### Land Supply 68. The applicant's agent has carried out an assessment on the supply of industrial land that is currently available and they consider the remaining available employment land in the east of the Island is severely limited and that additional quality sites are required to meet the ## Take up rates {{table:14027}} 75. The applicant's agent has looked at the historic land take up for the period of 1985-2009 and they have suggested that for this period the take up rate was 2ha/year. One of the objectors has indicated that the applicant's agents report is a slight update of what he had presented to the CRDO inquiry and that evidence was not accepted by the CRDO Inspector. This is true. The 2ha/year was not accepted by the CRDO inspector. It is worth noting the comments of the Independent Inspector regarding the take up rate, which are as follows: "There was little agreement on recent take up rates. The DoI and Tesdale asserted that the past take up rate of about 2ha/year would continue. Mr Quinn [objector to CRDO and the current application] questioned this rate. IoM Development Co and other objectors argued that the future take up rate would be less with some objectors suggesting it would be likely to be as low as 0.37ha/year. These differing amounts of available employment land and differing take up rates give vastly different years of supply for the employment land in the East Area. DoI and Tesdale say the 9.33ha of land would only last about 3-4 years based on 2ha/year take up rates. Some objectors say there could be 47 years supply based on 17.62ha and 0.37ha/year take up rates. Mr Quinn suggest that even taking the 2ha/year would give over 8 years supply for the 15-17ha of employment land. Little account has been taken by the DoI of the very serious problems in the world economy caused by the recession. Thus the Economic Impact Study for the CRDO [CD16] does not provide compelling support for the CRDO. It is not up-to-date and therefore could not take account of the recent unprecedented economic conditions. There is universal uncertainty and unresolved difficulty in knowing how to manage the problems of the recent recession. This global economic problem will inevitably cause a slowdown in take up rates of employment land on the Island. The suggested 2ha/year take up is likely to be soon reduced. Thus current world economic conditions further increase the time that the existing supply of employment land will last." 76. In light of the inspector's comments and the objectors comments about the continued use of the applicant's 2ha/year take up rate, officers have undertaken an assessment to ascertain the take up rate for the period of 2000 to 2012(July). During this period, 9.328ha has been taken up. This equates to a take up rate for the period of 0.75ha per annum, which is significantly lower than the suggested 2ha/year by the applicants. 77. Using this 0.75 ha per annum figure, a land supply figure (in years) for the land availability can be worked out, which is as follows 78. This assessment is particularly important as to ascertain whether there is a need to release additional land prior to the draft Area Plan for the East being formulated. It is near future needs of the Island. Their assessment of land which is deliverable in the east of the Island is as follows: {{table:14028}} This gives a total of 4.12ha 69. The above is a summary of their assessment. However, a table, appended to this report, details their assessment along with the case officer’s assessment of available employment land (Industrial) within the east of the Island. 70. The Case Officers assessment considers the total land availability for the east of the Island is 13.24ha; although, not all of the land is immediately available for release. It is considered in the worst case scenario that an estimated 1.88ha of employment land is available. The table attached details the reasons why various sites have been discounted to show why there is only 1.88ha of land available. However, it should be noted there is some uncertainty whether a number of sites, which have been taken out from the available land, will be developed for their approved purpose and therefore may become available again; thus increasing the land availability. The sites in question are the proposed Manx Telecom data centre, on the White Hoe Industrial Estate, and the Mixed Use Development on Ballafletcher Road. It is currently uncertain whether Manx Telecom will develop the White Hoe Site for their data centre. Furthermore, there is some uncertainty about the Ballafletcher Road site, as an approval in principle for a mixed use development has recently been granted approval. The inclusion of these sites would bring the amount of land available for development to 4ha. 71. Based on the conclusions of the case officer’s assessment, it is accepted and concluded there is very limited land supply within the east of the Island for industrial land. 72. Another factor which needs to be considered, which was considered at the CRDO Public Inquiry was the land supply for the South and West of the Island. The independent inspector stated that “I am not entirely convinced from the evidence that no other part of the Island should be included in an assessment of the need for employment land. There was no clear evidence that the South or West Area were completely unsuitable as locations for new employment sites. Instead there were assertions made without convincing evidence. If land in these areas was included in the land supply figures it radically changes the potential overall supply.” 73. The applicant’s only assessment regards to other areas is as follows: “Although there is land available in the South for employment purposes, the existing estates are of poor quality and do not encourage modern industrial and business park development. The majority of the land has not been brought forward for development in 28 years. In my experience there is a much reduced demand for industrial land and business employment premises in the South. Developers and businessmen have consistently rejected this location in favour of the Douglas area. Two estates are to be reclassified as business parks. I believe that the Island will lose business and investment if the only available land offered to developers and entrepreneurs is outside the principal Douglas/Onchan/Braddan Area.” 74. Looking at it in the island wide context, the South has 41.85ha of employment land available, 10.72ha in the North and 10.14ha in the West of the Island. There is available land to develop in other parts of the Island. This raises questions whether there is a national need for additional land to be released in the short term. The answer is probably not; however, if the demand for industrial land is focussed on the east of the Island, then it could be argued, due to the limited land availability identified above, that additional land needs to be released before the preparation of the Area Plan for the East. anticipated that the Area Plan for the East would be adopted within 5 years. Using the worst case scenario of 1.88ha of land being available for industrial development, the land supply of the east is 2.51 years, which clearly illustrates that there is a shortfall in available industrial land for the next 5 years. This suggests there is an urgent need for land to be released prior to the Area Plan for the East. However, if the 4ha suggested by officers and the applicants, there is only a land supply for just over 5 years. This is a very borderline land supply when taking into account the timescale for the Area Plan for the East to be adopted. It should be noted the assumptions for officer's 4ha land availability may be lowered if Manx Telecom develop their proposed data centre or the applicants for Ballafletcher Road submit an application for reserved matters application for their development and then implement that permission. The figure of 13.24ha of land being available is not a realistic picture of available land, as many sites are not available for immediate release or they have constraints. 79. In summary, based on the uncertainties surrounding the availability of land, the worst case scenario is more likely to be the true picture regarding land availability for the east of the Island. Due to the lack of available land, it is considered there is an over-riding national need for additional land to be released prior to the Area Plan for the East. Alternative sites 80. SP2, GP3(g) and EP1 all indicate that there should be proper consideration of alternative site. There can be no doubt that alternatives sites must be carefully examined to assess whether there are any reasonable and acceptable alternative compared to the application site. 81. The applicant's agent has carried out an assessment of alternative sites, using the criterion in the Site Assessment Framework. The sites selected are: i) Land North West of Isle of Man Business Park ii) Ballakinnish Nurseries iii) Land North West of Vicarage Road iv) Land at Strang Cross Road. v) School Road, Onchan vi) Land South of Cool Road (the application site) vii) Land South of the A6 by the Energy from Waste Plant viii) Land Between A5, A6 and 24 ix) Land North of Port-e-Chee. 82. In respect of Land North West of Isle of Man Business Park (site 1), the applicants agent states "this site lies in the general area immediately north west of Vicarage Road across from the Isle of Man Business Park. Vicarage Road is a Strategic Route providing potential for good access to any future development. However, the site is visually sensitive as it is set within an area of rural countryside with a combination of sloping ground with existing mature woodland. This general area is designated as an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance in both the 1982 Development Plan and the extant 1991 Braddan Local Plan." 83. The agent has further stated that there have been "previous attempts to have this site designated for industrial use as part of the Braddan Local Plan 2001 were dismissed by the Local Plan Inquiry Inspector on the grounds that "Development here would extend out into the countryside and be detrimental to the appearance and character of the area". 84. In conclusion for this site, they state "whilst this site is located on a Strategic Route which would provide good access to any future development my assessment scored particularly low marks ...on key issues relating to maintaining landscape character and protecting visual amenity respectively. I am of the opinion that any future light industrial development on this site would have an unacceptable landscape impact and therefore would be inappropriate for any future light industrial development." 85. Officer comment – The site is unzoned land in the Braddan Parish Local Plan 1991. The general assessment by the applicant’s agent is correct. Any development on this site would impact on the landscape character of the area. It is considered the site cannot be regarded as an alternative site. 86. In respect of Ballakinnish Nurseries, the applicant’s agent has stated “This site is designated as ‘Market Garden’ in the extant 1991 Braddan Local Plan. However, all buildings relating to the market garden operations have been removed. The site was however recently part occupied as the Richmond Hill Improvement Materials Depot for which all highways works on the public road have now been completed.” 87. In terms of their assessment, “this site is isolated from any other existing development and a considerable distance from any settlement boundaries. It is my understanding that the site was purchased by Government several years ago for future employment related development. However, to date no proposals have been brought forward to use any parts of the site for employment purposes, or in the context of comparison with the Applicants’ proposals, specifically for any development of high quality light industrial units. At this point in time I would there question the deliverability of the site to meet the urgent need for high quality, light industrial units in this Eastern Region... In addition it is my understanding that there are problems relating to safely provide for large HGV’s accessing this site.” 88. They have stated that “Notwithstanding the fact that the foundations of the former nurseries remain on this site, it could well be argued that all existing use rights for market garden activities on this site may have been abandoned. Whilst the site is located on a Strategic Route there would appear to be serious problems with the provision of adequate and safe sightlines for the existing access. In addition, this site is also clearly outside any settlement boundary and surrounded by open countryside. In light of the above, I am therefore of the view that any future use for light industrial development would be inappropriate. I am not aware of any imminent proposals for any light industrial development and therefore the deliverability of this site for such development within a reasonable period of time is also questionable.” 89. Officer comment – The site was identified on the 1982 Plan as ‘Market Garden’ but the users of the site moved elsewhere a number of years ago and the site is now in Government ownership. The future of the site will need to be reviewed as part of the Area Plan for the East. It is unlikely to come forward in the short term, but may have some potential as employment land in the medium to long term. At this moment in time, the site cannot be considered to be an alternative site. 90. In respect of Land North West of Vicarage Road, the applicant’s agent has stated “This general area to the north east of the Isle of Man Business Park and west of Vicarage Road is in close proximity to an existing well established residential area to the immediate east. The general area includes large expanses of land zoned Open Space (Agricultural) and AHLVA in the extant 1991 Braddan Local Plan although this designation is not included in the 1982 Development Plan. There is an existing small industrial area at Kirby Farm which has limited scope for expansion due to the existing terrain. 91. They have concluded that the site is similar to Site 1, in that any light industrial development would unacceptably breach the boundary between existing development east of Vicarage Road and the open countryside to the immediate west. 92. Officer comment – The site is unzoned land in the Braddan Parish Local Plan 1991. The general conclusion by the applicant’s agent is correct. Any development on this site would impact on the landscape character of the area. It is considered the site cannot be regarded as an alternative site. 93. In respect of Land at Strang Crossroads, the applicant's agent has indicated "there are extensive areas of relatively level land to the north and west of the Strang Crossroads which were recommended for a combination of residential and primary school uses in the draft Braddan Local Plan 2001. Whilst this Plan was never adopted, the Inquiry Inspector concluded that the site could represent a "sustainable extension to the existing urban area" and therefore I have reviewed this area as potential alternative site. Support for future development was however on the basis of a combination of future residential and primary school uses and not development for light industrial use or any other employment related uses. I am of the opinion that any light industrial development would have an unacceptable visual impact on the open countryside in this location which is designated as AHLVA in both the 1982 Plan and the extant 1991 Braddan Local Plan. The importance of issues relating to potential visual impact and affect on the open countryside are reflected in the low scores under Criterion 10 and 11. In addition, the area surrounding Strang Crossroads is in predominantly residential use and any light industrial development could adversely impact existing residential amenity. 94. The agent is of the opinion that any light industrial development in this area would be inappropriate on the grounds that it would have an unacceptable impact in landscape terms as well as potentially undesirable affect on existing residential amenity. 95. Officer comment – In a letter dated 28th February 2011 by the previous Director of Planning and Building Control, he stated that "The Department has resolved that it will not have regard to the proposals in the abandoned Braddan Parish Plan 2003 in determining planning applications, or the preparation of Area Plans or Development Orders. Those major sites which were put forward in the Braddan Parish Plan 2003 will be assessed as part of the site assessment process for the Area Plan for the East. They will be assessed in the same manner as all sites are assessed and any decision to take them forward will be based on this assessment alone." The starting point in assessing this site is the current land use zoning within the Braddan Parish Local Plan, which has the site as unzoned land, and not the comments in the Inspector's report of the DBPP. The site is adjacent to residential properties; however, this does not necessarily mean that light industrial uses should be precluded from being site adjacent to residential properties, subject to appropriate safeguards. The site is fairly screened from Ballacoates Road; however, the site is probably more likely to be more visible from the Mount Rule Road, which may result in visual impact to the amenity of the locality. No proper assessment has been carried out whether access/egress of the site could be achieved or whether the roads connecting to the site are suitable for additional traffic, especially through Strang. The site is also some distance away from any strategic route. Users of the site would more than likely travel by car. This site is not really a sustainable location for an industrial development and therefore cannot be considered to be an alternative site. 96. In respect of School Road, Onchan, the applicant's agent has stated that "In paragraph 435 of his report on the Inquiry for the CRDO, the planning inspector concluded that this site "should be included in the list of available employment land" and I have therefore included this site for assessment. The site is designated for "Industry" in the extant 2000 Onchan Local Plan but existing access passes through a well established residential area. The overall score under my assessment suggests that there is merit in considering this site for light industrial development. However, the site's location on the edge of the established residential area seriously questions the appropriateness of further light industrial development. Paragraph 5.6 of the Site Assessment Framework highlights the issue of incompatibility of substantial additional HGV traffic in an existing residential area. In this regard, I have therefore allocated a score of 1 under Criterion 2 which under paragraph 5.1 of the Site Assessment Framework guidance, identifies a critical constraint where a site should be removed from any list. 97. The agent has also stated that "Confirmation has been received by email 10th May 2012 from the Head of Asset Management at the Properties Division of the Department of Infrastructure that "There is no industrial development planned in this location at present, and as you point out the character of the area is largely residential these days. Upon review of the Eastern Plan, I would expect that it would be our intention to pursue a residential zoning." 98. They have stated that "In light of the above, this site would appear not be deliverable, is subject to a "critical constraint" in my assessment and there should be discounted as providing any immediate opportunities to provide high quality light industrial development." 99. Officer comment - The site is zoned as Light Industrial within the Onchan Local Plan 2000 and is currently vacant land. The applicant's agent has assessed the site is not suitable as it is incompatible with surrounding residential uses. This is a subjective opinion. The application is proposing a light industrial development. It should be noted that Light Industrial is defined, in the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012, as "Use for all or any of the following purposes — (a) for research and development of products or processes, or (b) for any industrial process, being a use which can be carried out in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit." 100. The key phase in the definition is that "a use which can be carried out in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area by reason of noise...". This effectively means that non-noisy uses can be carried out in a residential area. The site is adjacent to residential properties and an existing industrial building. If planning permission were ever granted for the site, appropriate conditions could be attached limiting the amount of noise to be generated from the site along with the hours of operation. Such planning conditions would protect the residential amenity of the adjacent properties. The assessment of the site as not being compatible with surrounding uses is particularly harsh and does not warrant having a 'critical constraint' attached to it. 101. In terms of deliverability, the land use zoning may be reviewed when considering the Area Plan for the East; however, the consideration of alternative uses is premature. The site is available as employment land. Furthermore, reference to an email from the Head of Asset Management, the quotation does not suggest Government has ruled out the use of the site for industrial purposes at this moment in time. It is considered the School Road site is still available. The site area is 2.4ha, which is a hectare larger than the application site. It could potentially accommodate the proposed development. 102. In respect of Land South of Cool Road (the application site), the applicant's agent has stated that "In paragraphs 483 and 434 of his report on the CRDO Inquiry the Inspector confirmed that for the larger CRDO site, the issue of landscaping and landscape mitigation could be resolved and that appropriate conditions would ensure that the problems of loss of privacy, overlooking and disturbance from noise problems can be satisfactorily mitigated. 103. It has also been stated that the "application site represents only 7% of the CRDO land, adjoins existing light industrial development and the Eden Park Garden Centre and represents development on the edge of an existing settlement that has direct access onto a Strategic Route. In addition, comprehensive landscaping proposals are provided confirming mitigation works can be successfully implemented minimising any possible visual or local neighbour impacts. 104. The applicant’s agents has indicated that “the application site provides the highest score of all sites assessed highlighting the following benefits; - The site is in single ownership; - The site is strategically located on the edge of the existing settlement boundary of Braddan. - There would be minimal landscape or neighbour impacts - The applicants intend to commence development immediately approval is granted and therefore the site is available and deliverable. In addition to the above key benefits, the applicants proposals have the full support of the DED on the basis of the significant economic benefits in keeping with Government’s PPS. The applicants proposals have significant advantages over the other alternative sites assessed and on this basis the Applicant’s application complies with General Policy 3(g).” 105. Officers comment – The site is considered to be an acceptable site in term of having minimal impact on the landscape and located strategically on the edge of Douglas. However, it is unzoned land, which has already been considered early in this report which is the fundamental factor in determining whether to release the site. 106. In respect of Land South of the A6 (New Castletown Road) by the Energy from Waste Plant, - the applicant’s agent has stated that “This site is located in the area directly north of the existing incinerator and represent the general area referred to by Dandara in their representations to the CRDO Inquiry. Whilst the area referred to alternative sites assessed and on this basis the Applicants’ 1.4 hectare site, in paragraph 468 of this report on the CRDO Inquiry the Inspector provided the following; “As for the merits of Middle Farm as alternative site to Cool Road for employment development, it is clear that Cool Road site adjoins the built up area of Douglas and existing employment sites, whereas Middle Farm is 800m from the nearest part of Douglas. Middle Farm development would certainly expand and consolidate the isolated group of uses centred around the incinerator. But such a significant employment development in this isolated location would represent a serious physical and visual intrusion into the countryside. It would inevitably set harmful precedents for further additions to isolated developments in open countryside on the Island.” 107. The applicant’s agent has stated that “Whilst I have acknowledged that any “alternative site” would potentially be much smaller than that promoted by Dandara at the CRDO Inquiry, I am of the view that the Inspector has made this opinion quite clear on the undesirability of any further employment related development in this location. I share his opinion and do not believe that any part of this general area is appropriate for any high quality, light industrial development. As expressed by the CRDO Inspector, any development “would represent a serious physical and visual intrusion into the countryside.” 108. Officers Comment – Based on the conclusions of the CRDO Inquiry, the site was discounted as an alternative site. 109. In respect of land between A5, A6 and 24, the applicant’s agent has stated that they are of the opinion that whilst this site has potential for good access, the location is undesirable being situated in an exposed open countryside location remote from the Douglas settlement boundary and any other existing development. They are also concerns regarding landscape impact and protecting visual amenity. 110. Officer comment – The site is un-zoned land in the Braddan Parish Local Plan 1991. The general assessment by the applicant’s agent is correct. Any development on this site would impact on the landscape character of the area. It is considered the site cannot be regarded as an alternative site.