Loading document...
Application No.: 16/00381/C Applicant: Miss Charlotte Quirk Proposal: Change of use from arboricultural and vehicular storage to a dog day-care and grooming business (retrospective) Site Address: Sheds The Tanyard Braaid Road St Marks Ballasalla Isle Of Man Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 16.05.2016 Site Visit: 16.05.2016 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
1.1 The site is a parcel of land which lies on the south eastern side of the Braaid to St. Mark's Road (A26). The site accommodates two conjoined industrial/agricultural style sheeted buildings and an area of gravelled hardsurfacing in front. Opposite the site is Tanyard House, a residential dwelling and associated garden. Its vehicular access is further to the north east than is the access into the application site. There is currently a traffic mirror in the roadside hedge boundary of this property facing the application site in order to afford additional visibility to drivers emerging from the application site. - 1.2 The buildings and the use of the site were approved in 2004 (PAs 04/00013/B and 04/02147/B) for the storage of vehicles and equipment only and for the storage of arboricultural plant and associated equipment. The site is described within the application as builders' storage but this is not what was approved. - 1.3 On the site visit (around 1630hrs on Monday 16th May, 2016), one customer called at the premises to collect their dog and around twenty vehicles passed the site in a ten minute period whilst the planning officer was outside the building. When leaving the site, visibility in both directions was virtually nil in both directions when the emerging vehicle was not encroaching onto the highway. When the vehicle pulled slightly forward, an approaching vehicle to the south was visible on the farside carriageway at a distance of around 20m. The approaching vehicle slowed down to allow the Officer to leave and the occupant of Tanyard House indicated that the road to the north was clear from the other side of the carriageway. THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Proposed is the use of the site for the day care of dogs. This use has already commenced and enforcement action was instigated following the receipt of a complaint that the site was not being used for its approved purpose. The use involves dogs being dropped off between 0800hrs and 0930hrs and being collected between 1600hrs and 1800hrs. The applicant believes that there would be less traffic generated by the use of the site as proposed compared with how the site was used in
3.1 The site is within an area designated on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as not for any particular purpose and as such there is a presumption against development. Whilst there are policies which provide for the conversion of existing buildings which are redundant for their originally approved purpose(s), in this case the buildings would not be considered in that respect as they are modern portal framed buildings and the policies which provide for conversion to other uses require that such buildings are of social, historical or architectural interest. - 3.2 The proposed use for the car of dogs is considered to be sui generis, that is, not falling within any of the Department's Use Classes.
3.2 As such, there is no policy guidance on the conversion of modern buildings and it is therefore considered relevant to consider whether the existing use is redundant and whether the proposed use is acceptable, taking into account other Strategic Plan policies (below) and any impact on the surrounding area. In this respect, the Strategic Plan urges that development should make the best use of resources through the optimisation of the use of previously-developed land, redundant buildings and unused and under-used land and buildings (Strategic Policy 1). It also requires that development is primarily within our towns, villages and settlements (Strategic Policy 2) and new development should be located and designed such as to promoted an integrated transport network and to minimise journeys by private car, make the best use of public transport, not adversely affect highway safety for all users and encourage pedestrian movement (Strategic Policy 10). - 3.3 General Policy 3 provides for the redevelopment of previously developed land as one opportunity for development in undesignated areas: this is subject to the use being redundant, where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current use on the landscape or the wider environment and where the development would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment. However, excluded are buildings required for agricultural or forestry buildings. PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 In addition to the applications referred to above, planning approval was refused for the erection of a dwelling on the site (PA 01/02123/A) and for a replacement shed (PA 97/01283/B). REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Santon Parish Commissioners express concern about the fact that the site is in a hazardous position on a corner, question 16 b) hasn't been answered, under 16 c) there is no mention of disposal, question 18 hasn't been answered and the possibility of noise. They question how dog waste will be disposed of along with the waste water from the grooming processes (19.04.2016).
5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services object to the application, stating, the change of use is likely to result in a change in traffic pattern and a possible increase in traffic movements
where the traffic movements will be concentrated during the morning and evening peak hours and are estimated at 20-30 vehicle movements per day plus staff and deliveries. It is their view that the existing use as a storage facility is unlikely to generate this number of vehicle movements during the peak hours.
They consider that the type of vehicles using the access will be predominantly domestic cars rather than industrial or agricultural vehicles that have a higher driver position and therefore better visibility and the visibility at the access is severely substandard, traffic speeds are around 50mph and an absolute minimum of 2.4m x 80m of visibility is required in each direction. They note that the applicant accepts that there is an issue with safety in regard to visibility by advising that a traffic mirror has previously been in use and concealed entrance signing and signing advising drivers to slow down has been requested.
They believe that the increase of traffic using a substandard access will increase the risk to both existing and proposed road users and due to the layout of the road in relation to the access it is difficult to see how the visibility could be improved to such an extent that a safe access can be achieved as required by GP 2(h)(25.04.16).
5.3 The occupants of 123, Fairways Drive object to the application on the basis that they frequently use the adjoining highway which has a speed limit of 50 mph. They consider that the site exits onto a completely blind corner leaving any car coming out to have the choice of impacting with an approaching vehicle or going onto the other side of the road to avoid this. They doubt that lowering the speed limit would significantly reduce the risk due to the limited visibility for those leaving the site. They note the Commissioners' views that the access is "hazardous" but would go further and suggest it is potentially fatal to those using the highway (29.04.16). - 5.4 The occupants of Tanyard House very strongly object to the application on the basis that the use has resulted in an unacceptable level of noise and disturbance which affects their everyday life and the use of the site entrance endangers other road users including themselves. They had no issue with the approved use of the site as an arboricultural depot as this resulted in one vehicle going out in the morning and coming back late afternoon which caused minimal noise and problems for other road users as the higher driver position made it easier for drivers to see over the boundary hedge. They refute the suggestion that the site was owned by Mr. Bell for 25 years, confirm that they have never tried to buy the site and that the site was never used as a hire centre by the previous owner. They also state that the volume of traffic using the site is considerably greater than it was when the site was used for its previous and authorised use. They see nothing in the application which changes or improves the access and consider that the wall to the site may have historical significance as it is all that remains of the original tannery on the site. They are not aware of any septic tank nor of any provisions for this on the drawings. They suggest that there have been many serious accidents on this corner with cars regularly smashing through their hedge or the wall below the yard. Since the dog care business started up there have been "umpteen near misses" and they consider it only a matter of time before someone gets hurt or worse. The mirror currently mounted on their land was put there by the site owner and whilst the site was used for storage, they had no issue with this. However, now the use has changed they are to review and are likely to remove it. They consider it unlikely that there is a less suitable location for such a business. They are aware of as many as 30 dogs on the site at weekend attending parties and howling and barking incessantly which they consider completely unacceptable (25.04.16). - 5.5 The applicant has responded to these objections by way of e-mail dated 24th May, 2016. She confirms that all that she has written in her application is to the best of her knowledge. She confirms that she does not intend to alter the access and that the toilets were in situ when she took over the lease of the building. She states that she has only had one dog party which was a one off event for a friend. She is concerned that the traffic mirror may be removed. She confirms that dogs that bark frequently are not allowed in the premises and do their best to prevent barking for the good of those on the site as well as those outside. She would be sorry to have to close as the business is well used and many people seem to like the concept.
6.1 It is unlikely that planning approval would have been granted for a new building for the uses proposed as it would not comply with the tests set out in General Policy 3. The building is not of any merit that would render it eligible for conversion under EP11 or GP3c. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the building has been marketed for alternative use to its approved purpose. However, the care of dogs can often involve noise and comings and goings and as such, the location of such facilities in built up areas, particularly residential, can result in nuisance which renders such locations inappropriate. As such, if it could be demonstrated that there was no aural nuisance, nor disturbance through comings and goings and that the site had satisfactory access, it may be that a rural location such as this, within an existing building which was deemed redundant for its original purpose, could be considered acceptable in principle.
6.2 However, of more important consideration is whether the proposed use would have any adverse impact on the surrounding area, having particular regard to highway safety and impact through noise and traffic on those in Tanyard House. - 6.3 Access to the site is inadequate. Visibility in both directions is virtually nil and when visiting the site, it was felt necessary to open both car windows to listen for the noise of approaching traffic. As such, any development on this site which increases the amount of traffic using the entrance is likely to be detrimental to highway safety. Whilst the applicant suggests that the traffic is less than that associated with the lawful use of the site as previously approved, this is not accepted and there is no evidence to justify this. As the previous and approved use was for storage this did not involve anyone coming to the site other than the operators and with no active use of the site other than for the storage of vehicles and materials. The number of people and vehicles coming and going would consequently be lower. In addition, the type of vehicle associated with the previous and lawful use is likely to be larger with higher seating positions than for ordinary vehicles. This provides a better vantage position for seeing approaching vehicles and more likelihood that the emerging vehicles would be seen by those in vehicles approaching the site. - 6.4 Whilst the amount of vehicles coming and going has the potential for disturbance of those in Tanyard House, when standing in the garden, the noise from traffic passing the site was significant, and considered to have a greater impact than that of vehicles emerging from and entering the site. It is not considered that this is a valid reason for refusing the application. - 6.5 The noise of barking dogs can be a nuisance. However, in this case, the dogs are kept inside whilst being looked after and in the short time on site, the only dogs barking which could be heard were not from the application site. it is accepted, as put by the applicant, that it is not in the interests of those working within the building to have dogs barking loudly, frequently or constantly and as such, it is accepted that the applicant will do all she can to reduce noise levels within the building. It is not accepted that noise nuisance is a valid reason for refusal in this case. - 6.6 The business is clearly popular and on the site visit, it was clear from the behaviour of the dog which was being collected, that the dogs enjoy being there and are well looked after, verified by the fact that people will bring their dogs here for care on a regular basis. Whilst the location is rural, this brings about a reduction in the likelihood of nuisance to neighbours which otherwise could be an issue in a built up residential area. - 6.7 The fact remains, however, that the access to the site is woefully and dangerously inadequate and as such, any use which intensifies the comings and goings to and from the site, from that which would result from the lawful use of the site, is considered unacceptable and contrary to Strategic Policy 10. It is not thought that there is any way in which this access could be made safe or even safer and as such the application is recommended for refusal. Every sympathy is with the applicant who must now consider finding alternative premises but it should have been confirmed by an authoritative source prior to taking up the lease of the premises, that not only was planning
permission not required but also that it was likely to be forthcoming. Unfortunately this was not done.
7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.
In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13:
the owners of Tanyard House In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons do not have sufficient interest to be awarded the status of an Interested person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13: the owners of 123, Fairways Drive, due to the distance from the site to their property.
With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.
THE PLANNING COMMITTEE REFUSED THE APPLICATION AT ITS MEETING OF 20TH JUNE BUT WITH AN ADDITIONAL REASON FOR REFUSAL RELATING TO NOISE NUSIANCE TO NEARBY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 24.05.2016
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : …Refused.. Committee Meeting Date:…20.06.2016
Signed :………S CORLETT…………….. Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
