Loading document...
Application No.: 17/00763/C Applicant: Mr Douglas & Mr Clifford Clark Proposal: Change of use from Industrial, Warehousing and Distribution to Class 2 (a) (Insurance broker) Site Address: Unit 12 Cooil Smithy Isle Of Man Business Park Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 2QA Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 22.08.2017 Site Visit: 22.08.2017 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 11.09.2017 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. The proposed Class 2(a) use would be contrary to the zoning of the land on the Braddan Local Plan 1991, contrary to Business Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, which states that on land zoned for industrial use permission will be given only for industrial development or for storage or distribution, and also contrary to the Employment Land Review of 2015 and supplement of 2017, which identified a shortage of land for employment development in the East, which has not subsequently been rectified by the allocation of additional land. The proposed Class 2(a) use would result in an unacceptable reduction in the potential supply of buildings for industrial use in the East of the Island. - R 2. The proposed Class 2(a) office use in this location is contrary to Strategic Policy 9 and Business Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. - R 3. The amount of parking available to the proposed use represents a significant shortfall relative to the requirement (3 spaces exist against 8 that are needed). In the absence of a clear justification as to why a relaxation in standards should be allowed, or a reasonable alternative parking provision, the development is contrary to parts (h) and (i) of General Policy 2 and to Transport Policy 7 / Appendix 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. _______________________________________________________________
It is recommended that the following persons should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
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 a rectangular parcel of land that includes Unit 12 at the recently constructed 'Cooil Smithy' industrial units, as well as some hardstanding offering three car parking spaces associated with the unit. The unit is within Block B on this development, which is limited to light industrial or warehouse / distribution use, and Block B provides six units in total, each of a different size. Unit 12 offers 118sqm of floorspace.
2.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED - 2.1 The submitted application seeks approval for the change of use of the unit to an insurance broker (Class 2(a) of the Use Classes Order). No physical changes are proposed. - 2.2 The application was the subject of pre-submission discussions between the agent and the Department. It was explained that the loss of light industrial uses to a use perhaps better suited to a town centre location may be difficult to support given there is a shortfall of industrial land in the east: the agent explained that roughly 90% of his client's business is conducted elsewhere than the office (i.e. at clients' homes) and therefore a customer-facing location on a Douglas high street would not be needed. The current case officer suggested that a review of estate agents' available offices within Douglas be included and reasons for discounting each of these be outlined. While a list of available industrial premises has been provided, the application includes no such corresponding list of town centre office uses. - 2.3 The supporting statement within the application sets out the following:
2.4 Elsewhere, the application confirms that the opening hours will be between 9am to 5:30pm (presumably Monday to Friday inclusive), while one of the three staff will be part-time and it is highly likely that for much of the time one other employee will be away from the office visiting clients.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The application under which the units were approved carries the reference number 13/91117/B. This application carried the description of "Erection of fourteen industrial and / or warehousing & distribution units" and, while no planning condition was attached to the approval notice limiting the uses as set out in the description, this description is itself sufficient to mean that any use not falling within that use would require the submission of a planning application.
4.1 The site lies within a site designated on the Braddan Local Plan of 1991 as an area where a masterplan for the development of the site should be formulated to incorporate a mix of uses including residential, industrial, science based industry and a secondary school. The area specific to the application site was the subject of applications for a business park on the remainder of the site which includes some retailing (cars, carpets, timber and building products), Douglas Corporation's waste management headquarters, training facilities (Restart and Red Cross), and corporate headquarters (including Manx Telecom, Manx Utilities, Celton Manx, Royal London, Zurich and Dandara).
4.2 Accordingly, to be approved the application needs to comply with Strategic Policy 9, General Policy 2, Business Policies 5 and 7 and Transport Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan, some of which are worth noting here. - 4.3 Strategic Policy 9 reads in part:
"… 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."
4.4 Business Policy 5 reads in part:
"On land zoned for industrial use, permission will be given only for industrial development or for storage and distribution."
While officers have generally taken the view that Business Policy 5 relates to the prevention of out-of-town retailing uses on land not zoned therefor, the Planning Inspector in consideration of a recent application took a different view. PA 16/01402/A sought Approval in Principle for the development of an older persons' residential estate on land zoned for industrial use. In respect of BP5, the Inspector noted as follows:
"Business Policy 5 […] goes on to make an exception for certain limited forms of retail development, but makes no exception whatsoever for residential development. I consider it to be crystal clear that the residential development now proposed would be contrary to this policy. I note that Business Policy 5 was not cited in the Planning Authority's reasons for refusing planning approval. However, I do not accept the argument, advanced by the appellants and supported by the Planning Authority's representative at the inquiry, that this policy is irrelevant to the present appeal."
4.5 Business Policy 7 reads in part:
"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
4.6 Transport Policy 7 sets out the parking requirements for uses, and for out-of-town office space one parking space per 15sqm is required. There is therefore a requirement for eight parking spaces to be associated with this use. - 4.7 The Employment Land Review (ELR) is also relevant. Some of the key findings in the ELR, being mindful of the application the subject of this report, and its appendices are set out below:
4.8 It is also worth noting that the Inspector assessing PA 16/01402/A concluded that the findings of, and material weight to be applied to, the ELR were strong enough on which to base a reason for that application'
5.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure object to the application in comments made 15th August 2017. The relevant extract of their objection reads as follows:
"Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan requires 1 parking space for each 15sqm of out of town office space equating to a requirement of 8 parking spaces; the application is deficient by 5 parking spaces.
"A deficiency in car parking spaces will result in vehicles using parking spaces allocated to other units or parking in such a way as to cause an obstruction or danger to other drivers.
"It is appreciated that this applicant currently has only 3 staff members, however there is no way to guarantee that the business will not expand or that there will never be visitors to the premises requiring additional car parking."
5.2 Braddan Parish Commissioners offered no objection to the application on 18th August 2017. - 5.3 The Development Manager (Mines & Minerals) within the Department of Economic Development was contacted for his views on grounds that he had been mentioned by name in the supporting statement submitted with the planning application. No response has been received to date but the Committee will be verbally updated should one be received prior to their meeting. - 5.4 The Chief Executive Officer of Isle of Man Enterprises plc, the owner of MyWay Ltd who operate Little Shoprite on Chester Street, objects to the application in comments received 10th August 2017. Their objection email can be summarised as follows:
6.1 There are no physical changes proposed. The key issues with this application are, therefore: (1) the acceptability of the loss of this unit from its approved use, (2) the acceptability of an office use in this location, and (3) the adequacy of the available parking provision. The acceptability of the loss of this unit from its approved use - 6.2 It cannot be ignored that the size of this unit, at 118sqm, is small in both actual and proportional terms. However, it also cannot be ignored that the Employment Land Review is clear that there is a short-term shortfall of employment land in the east of the Island. - 6.3 The agent has provided a list of the units remaining at Cooil Smithy. This does not include the application site, which has apparently been bought, and it is also noted that applicant also appears to own Units 11 and 14. Unit 12 is 1,890sqft in size, with three of the units available being smaller (two at 1,680sqft and one at 1,710sqft), with the remaining unit being 2,830sqft in size. The units across Blocks A and B, of which there are 14, range between 1,680sqft and the aforementioned 2,830sqft. - 6.4 The buildings were issued with a Building Control completion certificate on 19th November 2014, meaning they have been ready for occupation for 34 months. It is not known what the marketing strategy for the units has been. 34 months may be judged by some to be a long period of time, but without knowing whether or not the rental / for sale figure is marketappropriate or what other inducements have been offered to potential tenants there is also no way of knowing the reason for their continued availability. - 6.5 It is to be remembered that the planning system should aim to provide sufficient land and buildings for all uses. This sometimes means that existing buildings with an approved use should be protected for that use and, fundamentally, protected for potential end-users of those buildings. With a defined shortage of employment land, to approve the loss of this unit from its approved use would further exacerbate that shortage and accordingly would remove this unit from availability for other users in the future. Therefore, the application is contrary to Business Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan. The acceptability of an office use in this location - 6.6 Were there no objection to the loss of the unit from its existing use, this does not mean that the principle of an office use here would be acceptable. This would be an office that customers / clients would, apparently, generally not visit, although the application does not quantify this. Clearly, office uses are generally preferably located within town centres and there is a public statement from an objector to the applicant that there is plenty of available office space within Douglas town centre. While it is not accepted that this is a 'retail service' as seems to be suggested by the objector, it is nevertheless a use that would ordinarily be located in a town centre. There is no reason why the proposed insurance brokerage would need to be located at the ground floor, where rents are undoubtedly higher. The vitality and viability of Douglas' town centre (and, indeed, other town centres) will self-evidently benefit from a higher number of working people within the town.
6.7 The suggestion of the agent is that the use class be restricted by planning condition to Class 4. The use proposed clearly falls within Class 2. Moreover, the wording of the suggestion from the agent mirrors almost identically that made by the landowner in respect of PA 17/00753/B, which seeks to allow such uses within an existing office building elsewhere on the Business Park but which was / is also the landowner for the Cooil Smithy units. It is not understood what would be the benefit of allowing the offices to be used as Class 4. However, such an approval would be further away from the originally intended masterplan for the overall estate, even if the larger office buildings do indeed form corporate headquarters. That proposed here could not be said to be corporate headquarters on a similar scale to the other, larger and established businesses in the area. - 6.8 The approved light industrial / warehouse & distribution uses are not likely to create particularly problematic noise or odour impacts or other disturbance such that the use of this unit would create a 'bad neighbour' relationship between that proposed and that existing. - 6.9 The provisions of Strategic Policy 9 and Business Policy 7 are clear. Together, they seek to provide sufficient land and buildings for various commercial uses across the Island, and also have the parallel effect of preventing the creation of what may be an undesirable precedent for the spreading of office uses beyond Douglas town centre, subject of course to the exception regarding Corporate Headquarters which do not involve day-to-day callers. The proposed use is therefore contrary to both these policies. - 6.10 It remains true that the loss of the unit from its approved use is contrary to the Development Plan. Being mindful of the objection received, it is to be remembered that there remains plenty of office space available in Douglas while, equally, the business that would occupy Unit 12 is apparently not currently located within Douglas. While the proposal does not represent the loss of such a business from Douglas it also remains true that a town centre location for this use would remain wholly preferable for the reasons already set out elsewhere in this report (and, indeed, in the private objection received). While it does need to be remembered that the business currently employs only 3 people, and this could not be considered to be a strategically significant figure, the fundamentals of Strategic Policy 9 and Business Policy 7 should not be ignored in this case. The adequacy of the available parking provision - 6.11 This is also a point on which the application founders. Highway Services note the significant shortfall in parking, even acknowledging that the limited staff numbers and the applicant's view that there will be a limited number of clients / customers visiting the unit. The shortfall is significant (only 3 are provided against the required 8), while the agent has provided no justification for this shortfall - their view that the loading area in front of the unit can reasonably be used for overflow parking is not accepted as being an acceptable option. The units were originally approved with a fairly low-level of parking provision on the basis that they would be used for industrial purposes. Office uses bring higher parking requirements, and these cannot be met on land within the applicant's control. - 6.12 While the lack of likely visitors and confirmed employees is potentially such a justification, this is not an argument that has been made and therefore it is difficult to give much weight to this, not least since there is no way to control the number of employees that may be employed nor to prevent visiting members of the public. That the shortfall would affect not just this unit but also those across the Cooil Smithy units is such as to mean that the effect would be materially harmful and accordingly warrants the application's refusal.
7.1 It is recommended that the application be refused on grounds of the loss of employment land and conflict with Local Plan zoning, and also on grounds of the shortfall of parking provision. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:
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: 18.09.2017
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).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
Application No. : 17/00763/C Applicant : Mr Douglas & Mr Clifford Clark Proposal : Change of use from Industrial, Warehousing and Distribution to
Class 2 (a) (Insurance broker) Site Address : Unit 12 Cooil Smithy Isle Of Man Business Park Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 2QA Presenting Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Addendum to the Officer’s Report
Members noted some typographical errors in the report and accepted that these should be corrected. They also agreed that additional wording, clarifying the second reason for refusal with specific reference to the use class proposed, be included. They also noted that the Commissioners had wrongly been stated as offering no objection to the application when, in fact, they had objected. The reasons for their objection were verbally summarised by the case officer.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
