Loading document...
Application No.: 16/00938/B Applicant: Cycle 360 Ltd Proposal: Erection of a building to provide bicycle servicing / repair and sales, cycling fitness centre, cafe, meeting rooms and offices with associated parking and vehicular access Site Address: Vacant Site, East of RL360 House Isle of Man Business Park Douglas Isle of Man Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 24.08.2016 Site Visit: 24.08.2016 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OWING TO THE NATURE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is an irregularly shaped parcel of open, flat land within the Isle of Man Business Park. It measures roughly 0.42 hectares in size. - 1.2 It is situated to the north of the office headquarters for Manx Utilities, to the northeast of the office headquarters of RL360, to the southwest of the office headquarters of Manx Telecom, and to the south of an under-construction building that is understood to be the future office headquarters for Canada Life. - 1.3 There are some trees within the grounds of some of the buildings in the area, the general design style of which reflects high quality office headquarters - borne out by the companies currently occupying the immediately surrounding buildings. Also nearby is an area of land and associated buildings given over to a car dealership selling various marques. - 1.4 Slightly further afield, but still within the Business Park, are other, smaller, simpler buildings that provide more in the way of community facilities (a public house, nursery).
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a three-storey building comprising roughly 1500sqm of floorspace. The upper storey would be within a Mansard roof, while 77 car parking spaces, a café seating area (doubling up as a cycle parking area), a cycle testing area and landscaping are also proposed on the site. - 2.2 The building is proposed to contain a number of different uses, which are collectively referred to as 'Cycle 360':
2.3 The building would be rectangular in plan form and finished in brick at the lower two storeys and artificial slate tiling on the upper floor. The principal elevation would have a central feature that would project 10cm forward of the remainder. Within this projection is a two-storey glazed feature, and behind this at the third storey is a terraced area. Either side of this glazed feature, similar glazed features are at the ground floor either side on this elevation and also at the side elevations of the building. A varied arrangement of windows is shown on ground and first floors, while 'Veluxtype' windows are shown on each elevation of the Mansard roof.
Review and the Employment Land (Development Order) "project". The Statement argues that the four key issues in the assessment of the application are:
2.6 In response to concern raised by DED (but which was subsequently withdrawn; see paragraph 5.2 of this report) during the consultation period, the agent to the application wished to reinforce that:
3.1 The specific site itself has not been the subject of previous planning applications, although it has formed part of applications submitted on larger landholdings. The most recent of these was PA 16/00284/B, which sought approval for the construction of a car park deck over the existing parking area. This was approved, but its implementation would not be impeded by the development proposed here. There have been other applications seeking approval for temporary parking uses and the erection of advertisements and a flagpole. None is considered specifically material to the assessment of this current proposal. - 3.2 Some members of the Planning Committee may recall considering PA 15/01063/B, which sought approval for the installation of a mezzanine floor comprising 250sqm of floorspace within an existing out-of-town retail unit on the Spring Valley Industrial Estate, in a building currently
occupied by Pets at Home. Presented to the Committee with a recommendation to approve (albeit very much on balance), the application was refused for the following reasons:
3.4 Prior to that application, of course, were previous applications that helped establish the principle of retail use on that particular site (PAs 08/02135/A, 10/01384/REM and 11/01726/B), all of which attracted significant objection as a result of the principle being judged unacceptable. Indeed, the Minister for DED who approved the original 2008 application on the site objected to the 2011 application that sought for the installation of a mezzanine floor comprising just 37sqm of additional net floorspace in the building approved under the 2010 application. His ground for that objection was that the addition of any further floorspace would have tipped the balance of the
(2010) scheme overall towards a refusal.
4.1 The site is zoned on the Braddan Local Plan of 1991 as "Master Plan to be prepared which will include areas of Industrial Use, Science Based Industries, High Density Residential Use, Landscaping and Secondary School of approximately 16 acres". This succeeded a planning application that sought (and gained) Approval in Principle for the development of a business park of 40 acres, which was approved on appeal under PA 89/04166. This required, inter alia, that the business park comprise light industrial use, warehousing, development associated with new technology companies predominantly involved in scientific, commercial or industrial research and development or electronic systems, micro-engineering, biotechnology, office accommodation as the corporate headquarters of companies that utilise the new information technologies and service other park users but specifically excluding financial and professional services to visiting members of the public, including banks, building societies, estate agencies and betting offices. The approval also required that buildings should cover no more than 25% of the business park.
4.2 As noted, the Isle of Man Business Park, as which the area has become known, has existing occupants including Royal London 360 mutual life insurance, Manx Telecom, Manx Utilities, Celton Manx, and Canada Life. There are also training facilities, vehicle repair and servicing and parcel distribution facilities within the park, in addition to the public house and nursery outlined above.
4.3 Business Parks are defined in the Strategic Plan on page 117 as:
"A development encompassing land for light industrial purposes, warehousing, new-technology companies involved in scientific, commercial, or industrial research or development and office accommodation as the corporate headquarters of companies having multiple and diverse interests (but excluding financial/professional services to visiting members of the public); buildings should be set in parkland which should dominate the landscape."
4.4 Although the Local Plan is old, this does not mean that the weight to be attributed to its policies automatically falls away. In this case, the development of the land in the area is clearly a material consideration, and it is noted that the immediate vicinity is populated with high quality office buildings providing headquarters for flagship, high-end corporate businesses. - 4.5 The Strategic Plan contains a number of relevant policies. In the first instance, while the proposal is by its sui generis nature not in accordance with the zoning for the land, General Policy 2 should still be considered. Its relevant extracts include general Planning considerations that should form part of any assessment of any planning application. It states, in part: "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:
4.6 Strategic Policy 5 states: "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." - 4.7 Strategic Policy 7 states: "Undeveloped land which is zoned in Local or Area Plans for industrial, office, or retail purposes will be retained and protected for such uses, except where those uses would be inappropriate or incompatible with adjoining uses." - 4.8 Strategic Policy 9 states: "All new retail development (excepting neighbourhood shops and those instances identified in Business Policy 5) and all new office development (excepting corporate headquarters suitable for a business park location) must be sited within the town and village centres on land zoned for these purposes in Area Plans, whilst taking into consideration Business Policies 7 and 8." - 4.9 Business Policy 1 states: "The growth of employment opportunities throughout the Island will be encouraged provided that development proposals accord with the policies of this Plan." - 4.10 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."
4.11 The following paragraphs from the Strategic Plan are relevant:
4.12 Business Policy 7 continues this theme: "New office floor space should be located within town and village centres on land which is zoned for the purpose on the appropriate area plan; exceptionally, permission may be given for new office space
4.13 Although not fully an office building, the site is within an area of office use and therefore Business Policy 8 should at the very least be borne in mind: "New office buildings should, in terms of height and mass, respect the scale and character of adjoining and nearby buildings and should accommodate parking space in accordance with the standards specified in Appendix 7 of the Plan." - 4.14 Business Policy 9 states: "The Department will support new retail provision in existing retail areas at a scale appropriate to the existing area and which will not have an adverse effect on adjacent retail areas. Major retail development proposals will require to be supported by a Retail Impact Assessment." - 4.15 Business Policy 10 states: "Retail development will be permitted only in established town and village centres, with the exceptions of neighbourhood shops in large residential areas and those instances identified in Business Policy 5." - 4.16 Environment Policy 42 states: "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans." - 4.17 The Employment Land Review reflects primarily on the availability of land for office or industrial purposes. In remembering again the sui generis use of the proposal, but the acknowledgement that its implementation would result in the loss of employment land, it is worth noting the following relevant extracts:
"With limited demand, some of the areas allocated for industrial use have witnessed pressure from retail, retail services, showroom, community services and other uses. As these values generally command higher rents than industrial and storage uses, where such development has taken place, it has tended to influence value expectations and generate continued pressure for uses not covered by the original allocation. In some cases, different customer access, loading, delivery and parking requirements have created use conflicts and created capacity issues at some road junctions.
"While acknowledging that allocations should contain some flexibility to reflect the size of the economy and the changing nature of sector demand, care also needs to be taken to ensure land and premises are available to encourage the maintenance and expansion of particular employment uses in environments suited to their operation."
"The pressing nature of the requirement for additional employment land in the east was further emphasised, with the evidence [submitted to a Planning Inquiry] noting that, "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."
"Since the publication of the Inspectors Report, Canada Life's relocation and proposed expansion from Castletown to a1,672 sq.m unit (18,000 sq.ft) at the Isle of Man Business Park (at Ballacottier) further reduces the available supply."
"This proposal is for a multi use facility within a business park that will includes a new access onto the Isle of Man Business Park road and an ATM.
"There is no justification for the new access when there is a suitable shared access onto Ballacottier Crescent. The proposal is to use the new access for inbound traffic and for traffic to exit via the shared access onto Ballacottier Crescent , a traffic management plan indicating signing and lining is required to ensure that this is practicable and no traffic will exit via the proposed access.
"The provision of an ATM will encourage many trips of short duration usually during peak traffic times, morning, lunchtime and close of business. Under the proposed traffic management these trips will involve entering from the new access and exiting through the shared access and through the junction with at Ballacottier Crescent again causing multiple circular journeys. Drivers are likely to choose to drive against the proposed one way flow for convenience.
"Please defer this application until the traffic management plan has been submitted for assessment and these matters have been rectified."
These comments were received 9th September 2016.
"Following discussions with the applicant highway services do not oppose the application subject to the following condition:
"1. No work should commence until a traffic management including removal of the access onto Isle of Man Business Park Road, signing and lining has been approved by the planning authority.
"Reason: In the interest of highway safety."
independent view on the economic development argument put forward in the application; the DED officer commented as follows:
"The Department has always acknowledged that this application has the potential to generate welcome economic activity in terms of both the one-off construction build and the ongoing jobs likely to be created by the new business. Indeed, the applicant has furnished the Department with further information which supports the economic case. At the same time, being a proposal involving multiple uses this creates a range of considerations for the Department with arguments both for and against the development. I understand the applicant acknowledges this position. On reviewing the application again in light of the further information provided by the applicant, the Department has decided that a balanced approach would be a neutral position hence the withdrawal of its initial comments."
5.3 The Arboricultural Officer within the Department commented on 24th August 2016 as follows:
"The site plan seems to suggest that the landscaping will include some tree planting - circles, presumably representing trees, are shown where no trees currently exist. This is promising as the landscaping around the nearby Canada Life building is a little stark and could have easily incorporated some trees without losing too much space. However, to be successful in the long term, some specialist technical design will be required to ensure that a suitable rooting environment is delivered below the hard surfacing. Any landscaping plans should address tree pit design and, for tree planting aspects at least, be developed in accordance with the recommendations of BS8545:2014 (Trees: from nursery to independence in the landscaping - recommendations).
"I recommend that before a decision is reached on this application, the planning authority seek clarification from the applicant on the numbers and locations of trees that will be incorporated in to the landscaping scheme."
He did subsequently confirm that such information could be sought by condition, and indeed had included wording for such a condition in his original comments as follows:
"No works or development shall be carried out until a tree planting plan prepared in accordance with the recommendations of BS8545:2014 (Trees: from nursery to independence in the landscape recommendations) is submitted and approved in writing by the Department. This should include
"The planting will be carried out as described and approved. If, within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development, any of the trees planted in accordance with this condition is cut down, uprooted, removed, destroyed or dies or becomes, in the opinion of the Department, seriously damaged or defective, another tree of the same species shall be planted at the same location."
5.4 Braddan Parish Commissioners initially sought a deferral of the application until after 15th September 2016, which was the date of their next meeting. This request was received on 7th September 2016. On 16th September 2016, the Clerk wrote at length on behalf of the Commissioners in support of the application. They gave careful consideration to the form of the building, which they supported, but more important was the balanced diversity of uses that would be valuable to the area and an amenity for the Parish. They are of the view that the single café at
5.10 The then-Minister for Health and Social Care (now Chief Minister) wrote in support of the application. He identifies that he has been keen to emphasise the need for individuals to become more actively engaged in managing their health and wellbeing, noting that exercise and outdoor activities play a large part in this, and that this also contributes to mental wellbeing as noted in his Department's Five Year Strategy for Health and Social Care. He concludes: "Any facility that would increase the choice and opportunity for local residents to participate in sport and exercise to improve their overall health and wellbeing should be supported." His comments were received 25th August 2016.
6.1 The proposed use is sui generis: there is a mixture of retail (Class 1), meeting rooms for use by internal and external customers (Class 2), café (Class 3), offices (Class 4), and also for pilates / yoga / gym space (themselves sui generis). Therefore, it must be determined as to whether or not this combination of uses, as well as the individual elements comprising that combination, is acceptable in this location. Consideration of the conditions attached to PA 89/04116/B is required in reaching such a view, which as noted above required that the business park comprise light industrial use, warehousing, development associated with new technology companies predominantly involved in scientific, commercial or industrial research and development or electronic systems, microengineering, biotechnology, office accommodation as the corporate headquarters of companies that utilise the new information technologies and service other park users but specifically excluding financial and professional services to visiting members of the public, including banks, building societies, estate agencies and betting offices.
6.2 If so, it is considered that the acceptability of the principle of the use will have been accepted. Thereafter, consideration of the building's design and also its highway safety / parking implications will also need to be made. The principle of this type of development in this location
6.3 Comments have been made in respect of this application and others, as well as in the Employment Land Review, with regards to the land in question being 'restricted' to, or from, certain uses. If such a restriction applies then this would appear to be a legal rather than Planning one - no such zoning or Planning condition applies here. While normally the presence of a covenant would be a legal matter and not a material consideration in the assessment of a planning application, in this case the limited amount of land that is available for office headquarters is relevant in considering whether or not there is sufficient supply to meet demand. - 6.4 At paragraph 3.7, the ELR states as follows:
"While there are few constraints to the development of allocations elsewhere, the employment and office land supply in and around Douglas is further limited by: covenants restricting use (such as the residual area at the Isle of Man Business Park which is restricted to corporate HQ office use)."
6.5 The ELR further noted evidence given at a public inquiry into a planning application, with the view espoused being that between 2.14 and 4.26 hectares of employment land are available in the East - or, to put it another way, supply sufficient to meet demand for the next 2.75 to 5.5 years only. It must be remembered that, although the ELR was published just over a year ago, its baseline data with regards supply and demand is a little older. - 6.6 Assuming the 'best-case' scenario that there remains 5.5 years of supply today at that 4.26 hectares remain (which even this is known to not be the case given the building under construction adjacent the application site), the proposal would remove roughly 10% of the available supply of all employment land in the East. That this proportion (increased to over 25% in the 'worst-case' scenario) would be lost to a mixture of uses, none of which bar the two meeting rooms is appropriate to this location, is such as to raise significant concern with the proposal.
6.7 Continuing in this vein, it would also be entirely wrong to ignore the predominant uses immediately surrounding the application site. As listed earlier in this report, they are clearly office headquarters and the buildings have a particular, and potentially unique (on the Island), sense of grandeur about them in both their appearance and also their predominant use. There is a limited amount of land in this part of the Business Park that could be given over to such a use, and there is a wider shortage of such land for any employment uses in the East, so the loss of the application site from the potential for high-end office headquarters is clearly to be resisted unless there are clear reasons to the contrary. - 6.8 In this case, the arguments that the uses proposed and essentially complementary to one another and also the business park are more or less accepted. (It is difficult to see that the café would be essential to the building's overall business strategy.) The Isle of Man Business Park does not benefit from a great deal of services and it is readily understood that it may be frustrating for people to have to travel to Douglas at lunchtime for shopping / other needs. However, there are two important counter-arguments to this. - 6.9 Firstly, the strong presumption against any form of retail development outside of town centres reflects the importance that the government places on retaining the vitality and viability of those town centres. This is reflected in the decisions issued on the 'Pets at Home' site further along Cooil Road. However, it is unlikely that the use will serve any particular or defined pre-existing need on the Isle of Man Business Park such that the proposed building simply has to be located here; any reduction in journey times or journey numbers is unlikely to be materially significant. Some Planning Committee members may recall refusing an application for additional retail use within an existing retail facility at Pets At Home, even where officers found sufficient reason to support the application. - 6.10 Secondly, the other complementary elements of the proposal - namely, the meeting rooms for hire, the café, and the exercise facilities - could potentially be provided elsewhere on this Business Park. There is a community centre area that benefits from a children's nursery, a shop, a takeaway food facility, and a public house. There is no indication that the employees based on the Business Park have a specific and defined need for additional places to eat, meet or exercise. There are not only a number of established facilities that help to provide immediate needs for local employees, but a dedicated building group in which all those facilities exist. Moreover, the addition of a single café would not provide a significantly improved food offer in the area such that there would unlikely be any material reduction in car journeys arising from this one such use. It must also be remembered that the Strategic Plan defines Business Park uses as being those that specifically exclude services for the visiting members of the public, and the dedicated building group where such facilities already exist is in a distinct and separate area of the Park for that reason. - 6.11 In light of the above, it is difficult to see how officers could support what is essentially a retail venture on land not zoned for it, and the use for which it is zoned is in short supply. That the proposal accounts for less than 2.5% of the available employment land is hardly a strong argument. Accepting it here would make protecting other zoned employment land very difficult and would result in the gradual diminishment of the well-defined employment areas on the Island. This clear definition of distinct uses is one of the Island's many strengths, and which includes the very strong presumption against retailing out of town centres. - 6.12 There is nothing inherently objectionable about the uses proposed for this building. Indeed, the business model proposed is unique and the quality of the service offer would appear to be extremely high in quality. It is heartening to see someone wishing to pursue an untested and unique business idea, especially one that could help contribute to the wider wellbeing of the nation's health. The provision of exercise-related uses is to be welcomed (even if it is known that at least one company in the area has its own in-house gym). However, it has to be concluded that they are proposed in the wrong place. The application site is located centrally amongst 'high-end' office
6.20 There must also be concern about what would happen to the floorspace of the building should the uses proposed for it fail, and to what alternative use that floorspace would be put. Presumably they are not needed for the bicycle-specific element of the business otherwise the application would already be proposing additional such floorspace, and were the Department to accept the principle of any non-business park use on this site it would be difficult to resist additional such uses. While hypothesising is often fraught with difficulty, in this case it is appropriate to retain an element of concern about how different parts of the building might come to be used in the future, given the important protection that it is considered should be afforded this land now. There is no indication that the land is zoned for a use incompatible with those surrounding (indeed, recent planning history would appear to indicate quite the opposite), and accordingly the key tests of Strategic Policy 7 in this regard are unmet by the proposal. - 6.21 Accordingly, the proposal is judged to be in conflict with part (g) of General Policy 2, Strategic Policies 7 and 9, Business Policies 5 and 10. Other material considerations - 6.22 As the Planning Committee may be aware, Section 10(4)(d) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 requires the Department to consider any other material considerations (beyond those of the Development Plan, planning policy statements, development orders or development procedure orders) in reaching a decision on a planning application. In this case, noting that the proposal could be considered contrary to the Development Plan, the application has been submitted with / substantiated by an explanation of its economic development benefits. This, if quantifiable, would have the potential to be such a material consideration, and the weight to be given it in the overall planning balance depends upon its quality and independence. - 6.23 It was for this reason that advice was sought from the DED on the likely economic development benefits of the scheme, and so it is unfortunate that the comments received in this respect reflect the somewhat plain conclusion that "this application has the potential to generate welcome economic activity in terms of both the one-off construction build and the ongoing jobs likely to be created". A nuanced assessment and conclusion on the likely outcome(s) would have been particularly welcomed. - 6.24 In any case, the application does not provide a great deal of factual evidence in respect of its economic development potential. As outlined already in this report, the business model appears to be well-considered and, as a general principle and in the right location, would be very likely to receive support from the Department subject to the normal development considerations (access, parking, design, impact on neighbours, appropriate use of land and so forth). However, there is nothing in any of the information submitted to indicate that the building for this business must be located here. There is much in the way of arguments indicating it would preferably be located here, but in view of the in-principle objection to the loss of the land, this general preference cannot be given strong material weight in the overall balance. - 6.25 While it is presumably a matter of fact that several thousand workers are within the wider employment land area, it is also presumably the case that there are other catchment areas with several thousand workers elsewhere on the Island. Unfortunately, no evidence has been provided to substantiate the claim that there are no sites of the size apparently required for the successful operation of the business in Douglas. It is well-known that there are a number of vacant or derelict sites in the town, and often in prominent locations. (Interestingly, the vacant de Villiers site on Douglas Promenade appears to also be roughly 0.42 hectares in size.) It seems likely that a creative design could address the site size issue should one exist. - 6.26 It is entirely appropriate for the Department to have regard to other sites as a consideration when there is an in-principle presumption against development of the kind proposed on the application site. It is unfortunate that no assessment of the availability or otherwise of brownfield
6.33 All the figures are rounded up while the floorspaces given are also estimates. The total car parking spaces required, therefore, total 84, resulting in a shortfall of 7 spaces across the site. - 6.34 77 parking spaces proposed - and also the potential for overflow parking to be available next door to the site - would not seem to be an unreasonable number, even if it would not reflect the rudimentary calculations outlined above. Not a great deal of weight can be given to these given the variables involved in any case, but in view of the near balance between supply and demand in this situation it is considered that an objection on this particular ground would be difficult to sustain. - 6.35 It is noted that Highway Services have not commented on parking numbers, but have requested a traffic management plan be provided. It is also noted that they have sought to prevent the proposed primary access as shown on the Proposed Site Plan from being constructed. It is not known if this specific course of action is acceptable to the applicant but it is noted that requiring the provision of a traffic management plan was the applicant's / agent's own request. This therefore seems an appropriate way forward, should the application be approved. Moreover, preventing that additional access being constructed would potentially allow for a little more land to be given over to parking, and the traffic management plan could also allow for a fuller consideration of the development's parking needs than has been possible to date.
7.1 The proposal has a number of intrinsic benefits, and the business idea behind the proposal seems to reflect a clear and untapped market niche. There is support for the general concept from both Planners and from the Department of Economic Development, while there is also support from a handful of local businesses and the Minister for Health and Social Care for individual elements of the scheme. This has to be balanced against what amounts to an objection from the DED with respect to the loss of business park land, and also the effect the proposal would have on local retail centres, the latter concern shared by another local business (itself retail, interestingly).
7.2 As noted, it is considered concluded that, without a clear and demonstrable need for the proposed building / business to be located on this precise site, the proposal would result in the loss of business park land from that use and for which there is evidence to indicate such land remains at a premium. The land is not zoned for uses such as retail (Class 1) or cafés (Class 3). It has been concluded that the retailing of bicycles, which are bulky goods, as proposed here is, in and of itself, not objectionable. It has also been concluded, though, that the other uses (café (Class 3) and pilates / yoga / gym space (sui generis)) proposed are inappropriate for this location. As such, the application is in conflict with both Business Policy 1 and Business Policy 5 and is recommended for refusal on that ground.
7.3 If the Planning Committee is minded to take a different view and approve the application, conditions on the following areas are recommended for consideration:
It is not considered that opening hours need to be controlled in this case owing to the lack of neighbouring residents likely to be affected.
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
8.2.3 In this instance, it is considered that the following persons do not have sufficient interest and should not be awarded the status of an Interested Person:
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 10.10.2016 Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
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 : Permitted Committee Meeting Date: 17.10.2016
Signed : E Riley Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
YES/NO See below
Application No. : 16/00938/B Applicant : Cycle 360 Ltd Proposal : Erection of a building to provide bicycle servicing / repair and sales, cycling fitness centre, cafe, meeting rooms and offices with associated parking and vehicular access Site Address : Vacant Site, East of RL360 House
Isle of Man Business Park Douglas Isle of Man
Presenting Officer : E Riley
Although the Planning Committee felt the situation was finely balanced, overall they concluded (by a margin of 3-2) that the benefits of the application outweighed the potential harm and, accordingly, they overturned the officer recommendation and approved the application subject to conditions as set out at paragraph 7.3 of the case officer report.
The minutes for the Planning Committee meeting of 17th October 2016 will, when available, cover this in greater detail.
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Reason: The application site is within a business park where some retailing of bulky goods can be acceptable. The sale of any goods alternative to that put forward in the business case would require fresh assessment.
The planting will be carried out as described and approved. If, within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development, any of the trees planted in accordance with this condition is cut down, uprooted, removed, destroyed or dies or becomes, in the opinion of the Department,
seriously damaged or defective, another tree of the same species shall be planted at the same location.
Reason: in the interest of ensuring an appropriately landscaped setting to the application site within this business park location.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
