Dept Decision Notice

Chief Secretary'S Office

Date of Issue: 30th April 2012	Mr W Greenhow ACMA Chief Secretary
Chief Secretary’s Office Government Offices Bucks Road Douglas

Oik yn Ard-Scrudeyr

Our Ref: DF11/0026 Planning Application Ref.No: 11/01721/B

The Town And Country Planning Act 1999

Town And Country Planning Development

(Procedure Order) 2005

Planning Secretary Department Of Infrastructure Planning And Building Control Division Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas

In accordance with paragraph 10 of the above Order, the person appointed by the Council of Ministers to consider this application has submitted his report.

In accordance with paragraph 10.3(a) and (b), a copy of the appointed persons report is enclosed.

On the 26th April 2012, and after consultation, the Council of Ministers accepted the recommendation contained within that report and the application was approved subject to the conditions specified below.

Applicant:	Eden Park Limited
Proposal:	Creation of a car park, access improvements and change of use of existing farm cottage to offices, Ballapaddag Farm Cottage Adjacent To Eden Park Limited Cooil Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM4 2AF

Conditions Of Approval:

1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

1. This permission relates to the creation of a car park, access improvements and a change of use of the existing farm cottage to offices as shown in drawing numbers 010 Rev A,013, 014 and 03 Rev A date stamped 12th December 2011 and drawing numbers 011 Rev B and 012 Rev B date stamped 17th February 2012.

1. No development or other operations shall be commenced on this site until adequate steps, which shall have been previously approved in writing by the Planning Authority, have taken to safeguard against damage or injury during construction works all trees on the site, or those trees whose root structure may extend within the site. In particular no excavations, site works, trenches or channels shall be cut or pipes or services laid or any other works carried out in such a way as to cause damage or injury to the trees by interference with

their root structure and no soil or waste shall be deposited on the land in such a position as to be likely to cause damage or injury to the trees.

1. The building called "Ballapaddag Farm" must not be used until the car parking and manoeuvring area associated with building have been provided in accordance with the approved plans, and those areas shall thereafter be kept available at all times for their respective purposes.
2. The building called "Ballapaddag Farm" shall only be used as offices (Class 4, Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005.
3. All planting shown in the approved plans shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the car park. Any tree or shrub which within 5 years from completion of the development dies, is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with another of similar size and species, unless the Planning authority gives written consent to any variation.

Report on Planning Application

Written Representation Case: Site Inspection held on 19 March 2012 Application by: Eden Park Limited against refusal for a proposed new car park and access improvements and permission to use Farm Cottage as an Office at the Eden Park Garden Centre, Cooil Road, Braddan, Isle of Man IM4 2AF.

Introduction

1. This report provides brief descriptions of the appeal site and its surroundings; the proposal which is subject to the appeal; background information and relevant policy. The cases for the appeal parties are then summarised, fuller details being available for reference in the documents on the case file. My assessment, conclusions and recommendation follow.
2. The Department of Infrastructure has an interest in part of the application site. The decision, therefore, is to be made by the Council of Ministers under paragraph 10 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005.

Site and surroundings

1. The appeal site comprises an existing Car Park at Eden Park Garden Centre; the dwelling and curtilage of Ballapaddag Farm House and part of an agricultural field to the north west of the Farm House. The garden centre complex is located on the south side of Cooil Road, opposite to a site of newly developed offices and other industrial and commercial buildings. The Farm House is currently protected under a Building Preservation Notice.

Proposed Development

1. The proposal is to create a visitor/customer car park area of 81 spaces immediately to the north of the centre and to the north west of the existing car park on the opposite side of the access road. It is also proposed to change the use of the Farm House for use as offices and administration purposes relating to the Garden Centre use. The existing car park would be reduced slightly from 71 spaces to 68 spaces and would be used for staff only.

Background information and relevant policy

1. A previous application ( $11 / 01100 / B$ ) to create car parking and a new access was withdrawn. This followed comments from the Highways Division and resulted in the revised proposal amending the width of the access road and its junction with Cooil Road.
2. There is another current application (PA/01232/B) relating to a site immediately to the south and rear of the Garden Centre. This is for the erection of a light industrial development comprising 4 individual buildings providing 24 separate units with car parking and landscaping in field No 521919.
3. The relevant policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 (IOMSP) are General Policy 3; Environment Policies 1, 2, 7 and 33; Büsiness Policy 1 and Transport Policies 1, 4 and 7.

Statement from the Planning Authority

1. The gist of the statement from the Planning Authority is as follows;

• The proposal is in conflict with the 1991 Braddan Parish District Local Plan (BPDLP) because the Cooil Road Development order (CRDO) site lies within the BPDLP area and shows the land as open space (Agriculture).
• General Policy 3 of the IOMSP opposes Development outside areas zoned for development on the area plan.
• Exceptions to this policy in criterion (g) would allow development which is of overriding national need and for which there is no reasonable or acceptable alternative.
• The proposal is in conflict with this in relation to national need.
• However, the IOMSP does not define national need and the applicants have provided a rationale for the necessary creation of additional parking.
• The continued use of the existing car park is not viable. It is dangerous for customers to cross the road and there is lack of space at peak times.
• Increasing staff numbers and extra business creates an additional need.
• The proposal would meet the increase in demand and would be safer.
• The proposal partially meets the exception to General Policy 3(g) in that it is locationally dependent on the existing Garden Centre. There is no other reasonable or alternative site.
• Due to existing and proposed landscaping the visual impact of the car parking area will be minimal due to screening.
• The incursion into the countryside is relatively small and there would be very little impact on visual amenity along this part of Cooil Road.
• The extension and improvement of the access road would improve safety.
• Business Policy 7 covers changes of use of existing buildings and allows exceptions outside of town and village centres.
• These areas include Business Parks and buildings which are of architectural and historic interest and where the future of the building can be safeguarded.
• This proposal can, therefore, be considered as an exception to the policy.
• The increased entrance width is approved by the Highways Division and the revised plans have overcome previous concerns. The proposal improves vehicular and pedestrian safety.
• Although contrary to the IOMSP and BPDLP policies, the benefits of bringing the historic farm building back into use; the improvements in road safety; the limited impact on visual amenity and the fact that there is no other alternative or reasonable site for the proposal all tip the balance in favour of approval.

The Case for the Applicant

1. The gist of the case for the applicant is as follows:

• The Eden Park Centre has been open for 7 years and the proposed changes are necessary to address on-going issues.
• The works are to improve safety in the access and service to the centre and are required in order for the business to grow.
• The original application and approval identified the site as a future additional car parking area.
• Customers currently have to cross the access road and the existing car park cannot cope with peak demand.
• The main access road will increase from 6.8 m to 7.3 m in width and verges and footpaths will be provided.

• Goods vehicles entering the site from the east currently have to cross the existing exit lane. The increase in the radius at each side of the junction to 10.5 m will eliminate this problem.
• The extension of the service road will allow manoeuvres to be carried out safely and will improve safety for pedestrians.
• The previous application which sought to demolish the farm house has been withdrawn and the proposal will provide a new use which will safeguard its future.
• This good local business will be able to grow and flourish rather than being restricted. It has great potential to provide further employment.

Other Parties

1. Dandara Commercial Limited, which has commercial interests in the locality and has interested party status raised concerns as follows:

• It is considered that due to the shared access from Cooil Road, this application ought to be considered at the same time as the application for the site to the proposed light industrial premises (PA/01232/B) to the rear of the Garden Centre. To consider it alone would be premature.
• The number of car parking spaces proposed is queried as is the fact that some spaces will be used by staff of adjoining premises. The figures provided are not justified and the peak demand figures are not properly assessed. The TRICS database for garden centres indicates that parking demand of 141 spaces is not justified.
• The section of access road is only used by garden centre users and the crossing of this road is not considered to be detrimental to their safety.
• There is an issue regarding visibility of the junction for traffic approaching the site along Cooil Road.
• In applications which involve the Department of Infrastructure the Planning Authority has normally taken a neutral stance. In this proposal there is a recommendation in favour of the proposal.

Assessment and conclusions

1. The Planning Authority has reached a conclusion that permission ought to be granted. Despite the comments by Dandara Commercial Limited, in the particular circumstances of this case, I consider that, whatever the decision, it is appropriate and necessary for the authority to reach a conclusion on the basis of the application as submitted. The overall material planning considerations need to be taken into account and need to be balanced against the objectives of the relevant policies.
2. In this instance, the principle of the proposal to construct a new car park on open land is clearly contrary to the BPDLP and General Policy 3 of the IOMSP. However, the other material considerations relating to this application are somewhat unique and site specific. The Garden Centre is a well established business and has reached a stage whereby further parking facilities are required. These new facilities, together with the necessary road improvements will be a definite benefit to road users, customers and operators of the business. The Highway Division is satisfied with the proposals and parking figures even though disputed by others. It is also evident that there will be positive road safety improvements and benefits.
3. Although the proposal cannot claim to be of overriding national need, it is evident that there is no other reasonable or alternative site which could serve the Garden Centre as a car park. In my view, it would clearly be unreasonable

and impracticable to expect the whole centre to move elsewhere. It would be also be unreasonable to allow $t$ it to continue operating in a manner which compromised road safety. Taking the existing constraints and requirements of the site into account, the positioning of the car park as proposed seems to be necessary and appropriate. In any case, this was envisaged as a definite possibility when permission was first granted for the Eden Park garden Centre.

1. Clearly, there will be some visual incursion and impact on the character and appearance of the locality, but this will be mitigated by the existing and proposed landscaping within and around the new cark park. The new parking area would be relatively modest in size and, when viewed from both near and distant viewpoints, the overall visual changes would be relatively insignificant and would preserve the general character of the area.
2. The proposal will also bring back into use a building of architectural and historic importance and which is currently the subject of a Building Preservation Order. This aspect of the scheme fully accords with the aims and objectives of Business Policy 7. The commercial advantages and benefits to the economy of the Island are another positive factor in favour of the proposed development and overall, therefore, I consider that planning permission ought to be granted.
3. With regard to the concerns of Dandara Commercial Limited, the Highways Division is satisfied that this scheme is satisfactory. It is satisfactory in its own right in relation to highways and planning considerations. The other scheme to the rear of the centre is still under consideration and a final assessment will need to be made by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Highways Division. If necessary the applicants for that scheme would be required to comply with any further requirements relating to safe access and egress to Cooil Road and the Garden Centre access road. In the meantime, I do not consider that planning permission should be withheld for this scheme.
4. In conclusion, I consider that the material considerations of improved safety for highway users and customers; the bringing back into use of the farm building; the minimal visual impact and the lack of any reasonable alternative site for the car park are all factors which together outweigh the factors relating to policy considerations.

Recommendation.

1. I recommend that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as set out by the Planning Authority.

Anthony J Wharton BArch RIBA RIAS MRTPI

Agrenaster

Inspector