Loading document...
Application No.: 17/00671/B Applicant: H Richmond Ltd Proposal: Erection of a Pack House and Floristry Centre for Eden Park Centre (retrospective) including meeting and conference room use Site Address: Florist Unit Robinsons Ballapaddag Cooil Road Douglas Isle Of Man Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 17.07.2017 Site Visit: 17.07.2017 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OWING TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE, AND ALSO BECAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL PLAN LAND USE ZONING. IN ADDITION, HIGHWAY SERVICES HAVE SOUGHT THE APPLICATION'S DEFERRAL, BUT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is an irregularly shaped parcel of land situated to the southwest of Cooil Road. Within the site is an existing floristry centre, recently completed, along with associated car parking, landscaping and a delivery area. - 1.2 Edged blue and therefore within the applicant's control is the Robinsons distribution warehouse building and associated hardstanding.
2.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 2.1 The erection of a building such as that described has been approved several times in the past, each application reflecting a modification over that previously approved. The earliest approval appears to have been that of 2004 (PA 04/02316/B), with subsequent approvals issued to PAs 08/01273/B, 09/01600/B and 13/00514/B. The building on site has not been built in accordance with any of these approvals: when the 2013 application was approved, the 2008 application had lapsed but the 2009 approval remained extant. - 2.2 Most recently, two concomitant applications (PA 17/00290/B and 17/00291/B) were submitted. The former sought retrospective approval for the addition of cladding to the building, while the latter sought to amend condition 4 as attached to the 2008 application. That approval had long-expired and, in any case, the covering letter with PA 17/00290/B noted that the building had not been erected in line with the drawings approved and, hence, the application seeking retrospective approval had been submitted. On the basis that the building had not been erected in line with approved drawings, and there is no mechanism within the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to approve retrospective approval for alterations to a building that is not lawful, both these applications were withdrawn and the application the subject of this report submitted. - 2.3 It is notable that the issued 2013 approved uses for the building were as follows:
2.4 It is further noteworthy that a condition was attached requiring the building be used only for those specific uses. That condition was related to, but a fairly significant expansion on, the aforementioned condition 4 as attached to the 2008 planning approval ("The proposed shed hereby approved shall be used for the purposes of packaging and storage only. At no time shall any part of the building be used for the display of any product for sale").
3.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED - 3.1 Retrospective planning approval is sought for the erection of a pack house and floristry centre, including meeting and conference rooms / use. - 3.2 The massing and position of the building on the site is essentially identical to that approved under the 2013 scheme. The fundamental differences are in an alternative fenestration layout, the addition of blockwork along the lowest 0.6m of the building as well as a slightly increased roof pitch, though the apex height would remain the same as that approved in 2013. The additional glazing is proposed on the southwest and southeast elevations, with only the former being visible. - 3.3 In use terms, the reference to meeting / conference use is new, and is intended to cover the issue that the variation of condition application (PA 17/00291/B) sought to address. One of the agents to the application explains that the use of the phrase 'conference facilities' suggest something rather more expansive than the intended use, which is as a meeting room available for private hire by outside businesses:
"They [the applicants] have no intention of using it as a conference room which makes it sound too grand. We are talking about a meeting room, I appreciate it is only semantics but when the original application was advertised it initially led to issues and they do not wish the same issue to occur."
3.4 That said, should they so wish the Planning Committee would be able to attach a condition restricting the use of the building, and preventing its use for anything other than those five uses outlined in paragraph 2.3 of this report.
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 4.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Braddan Parish Plan of 1991 as Open Space/Agricultural use. However, given the substantial level of development that has taken place in recent times, the position of the site in relation to these other buildings, and the planning history of the site and the surrounding land that was subsequent to the adoption of the Braddan Local Plan
(1991), it is reasonable to acknowledge that the site's use goes beyond its current designation of Open Space/Agricultural use.
4.2 Consequently, the relevant policies of the Strategic Plan are not those relating to the protection of the countryside for its own sake but, instead, are related to the type of development here proposed. These are set out below. - 4.3 Strategic Policy 9 states in full:
"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."
4.4 General Policy 2 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:
4.5 Business Policy 7 repeats some of the wording of SP9, while also noting that some office floorspace may exceptionally be approved elsewhere, if it would be:
"(a) on approved Business Parks for Corporate Headquarters which do not involve day to day callers; or (b) in buildings of acknowledged architectural or historic interest for which office use represents the only or most appropriate practicable and economic way of securing future use, renovation and maintenance".
4.6 Business Policy 8 relates to the design of new office buildings should be respectful of "the scale and character of adjoining and nearby buildings and should accommodate [sufficient] parking space". - 4.7 Business Policy 5, though referring specifically to land zoned for industrial development, nevertheless contains a number of relevant points for consideration:
"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."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure asked for the application to be deferred on 14th July 2017. The comments note concern with the lack of information provided with respect to the number of vehicle movements or parking demands, and they feel unable to make an informed comment until that information is provided. - 5.2 Braddan Parish Commissioners offered no objection to the application in comments received 6th July 2017.
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 That the application is retrospective should be neither in its favour nor to its detriment. However, the scale and nature of the differences that this application comprises (relative to the most recent approval issued on this site) is such as to mean that that 2013 scheme is a fundamental material consideration. For the application to go forward with a recommendation to approve, this assessment will need to be content that this conclusion remains valid. - 6.2 The key issues here, therefore, are the extent to which the design and proposed use of the building are acceptable.
6.3 In the first instance, the design of the building proposed here is judged to be an improvement, in visual terms, over that for which approval was granted in 2013. The increase in roof pitch and addition of features of interest in the form of low-level blockwork and windows across the elevations help to take the building's appearance away from the more utilitarian / industrial style of building first approved. The proposed building would still have an appearance appropriate to this industrial area, where the quality of the buildings is higher than might normally be expected for such uses. It is accordingly concluded that the appearance of the building is acceptable. - 6.4 In respect of the possibility of the use of the meeting room by external organisations, this is not judged to be significantly objectionable. The creation of a standalone conference facility in this location would cause far more significant concern: there are already such facilities - often provided as an 'add-on' for the hotel trade - that exist within Douglas town centre. As with retailing in general, such facilities should be located in positions close to existing facilities to ensure the protection of the vitality and viability of Douglas (and other such centres throughout the Island). - 6.5 However, what the applicant is seeking here is essentially the opportunity to let an existing meeting room within his building to external organisations that may themselves have insufficient such space. This was an argument made in favour of the 'Cycle360' concept within the Isle of Man Business Park (16/00938/B), and at a similarly limited scale relative to the main use of that building, which was approved by the Planning Committee. The condition previously attached to the erection of a building on this site, and for a similar combination of uses, was understandably tightly worded but nevertheless the possibility of the use that this current application proposes was probably unforeseeable. Was it to have formed an element of that 2013 proposal it seems quite possible that no objection would have been made. The meeting room is not large, and nor are there significant facilities (primarily catering, but also overnight accommodation) that would be associated with its use that it could reasonably be concluded as being likely to affect the vitality or viability of existing such facilities in nearby Douglas town centre. - 6.6 Being mindful that the size of the building is essentially identical to that previously approved, and further that the additional use being sought will not hugely change the nature of the business operating from the building, it is not considered reasonable to seek further information along the lines noted by Highway Services.
7.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 In view of the above conclusions, it is considered that the proposed development is not so significantly at odds with the Development Plan as to warrant its refusal. - 7.2 A condition by way of defining the specific approved uses is again appropriate, in this case including the option of making the meeting room available on occasion for other businesses. The agent has been contacted and has no concern with the suggested wording, while the Committee will be verbally updated should his clients have suggestions thereto. - 7.3 As the building for which (retrospective) planning approval is sought has already been constructed, there is no requirement for the approval notice to carry the standard time limit condition.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 14.08.2017 Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The building hereby approved shall, from the date of this approval notice, be used only in accordance with the approved drawings (date-stamped as having been received 19th June 2017) as:
Reason: The building the subject of this application has been exceptionally approved in this location and in view of the sui generis nature of the combined uses a clarification of the acceptable uses via a condition is necessary.
The development hereby approved relates to Drawings PL01 A, PL 02 A, PL 03 C, PL 04 C, PL 05 and PL 06, all date-stamped as having been received 19th June 2017.
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: 21.08.2017
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
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
