Loading document...
Application No.: 20/01067/REM Applicant: Mr Mark Ellison Proposal: Reserved Matters application in association with PA17/01308/A concerning access matters to the proposed site Site Address: Warehouse & Premises Millmount Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 1HD Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 11.01.2021 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. It is not considered the proposal is acceptable as it does not demonstrate that the proposal is designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner and would be contrary to General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 4.
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
None _____________________________________________________________________________
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site is a parcel of developed land which accommodates an existing three storey Warehouse building within the Millmount area in Douglas. The site sits to the southern side of New Castletown Road, south of Mylchreest Motors complex and west of the National Sports Centre complex. - 1.2 The site is accessed via an existing access which serves Mylchreest Motors, other business and residential properties (The Laurels/The Hollies), albeit both properties are empty. Permission was also recently approved of a single dwelling which would also utilise this access, albeit this has not yet been constructed.
2.1 The application seeks approval for the Reserved Matters application in association with PA17/01308/A concerning access matters to the proposed site only. - 2.2 All other Reserved Matters siting, design, external appearance of the building[s], internal layout, and landscaping of the site are still outstanding and this application does not deal with these matters.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY AND STATUS - 3.1 The site lies within an area of "Industrial Use" under the Area Plan for the East. Formally it was designated as "Predominately Residential Use" under the Douglas Local Plan. The site is not within a Conservation Area. The site is also within a Flood Risk Area from the adjacent River Dhoo. As such, the Strategic Plan is considered relevant in this case as follows: - 3.2 Strategic Policy 1 states: "Development should make the best use of resources by:
3.4 Strategic Policy 2 states: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3." - 3.5 The Strategic Plan identifies a hierarchy of settlements that guide what type of development is appropriate within them. Douglas is designated as the main employment and service centre for the Island. - 3.6 General Policy 2 states: "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:
3.7 Housing Policy 4 states that: "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(1) of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans…" - 3.8 Environment Policy 4 states that: "Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect:
Some areas to which this policy applies are identified as Areas of Ecological Importance or Interest on extant Local or Area Plans, but others, whose importance was not evident at the time of the adoption of the relevant Local or Area Plan, are not, particularly where that plan has been in place for many years. In these circumstances, the Department will seek site specific advice from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry if development proposals are brought forward."
3.9 Environment Policy 7 states: "Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which could not be overcome by mitigation measures will not be permitted. Where development is proposed which would affect a watercourse, planning applications must comply with the following criteria:
3.10 Environment Policy 10 states: "Where development is proposed on any site where in the opinion of the Department of Local Government and the Environment there is a potential risk of flooding, a flood risk assessment and details of proposed mitigation measures must accompany any application for planning permission. The requirements for a flood risk assessment are set out in Appendix 4." - 3.11 Environment Policy 13 states: "Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted." - 3.12 Housing Policy 5 states: "In granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas the Department will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more."
3.13 Recreation Policy 3 states: "Where appropriate, new development should include the provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design. New residential development of ten or more dwellings must make provision for recreational and amenity space in accordance with the standards specified in Appendix 6 to the Plan." - 3.14 Transport Policy 4 states: "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan." - 3.15 Transport Policy 7 states: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. The current standards are set out in Appendix 7."
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 The previous planning application is considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application: - 4.2 Approval in principle for the construction of 24 apartments - 17/01308/A - APPROVED approved 08.09.2020.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Douglas Borough Council does not oppose (09.01.2018). - 5.2 Highway Services (07.10.2020) make the following comemnts: "The proposed layout shows vehicle tracking only for 12m rigid vehicle and a fire and rescue appliance. These are too tight in places, such as at the site junction with New Castletown Road and alterations are necessary. Additionally, these do not take sufficient account of commercial users parking and manoeuvres and the longer vehicle overruns the pedestrian path; although this hazard risk would be minimised by few movements at known times.
It is unclear whether there is missing documentation. The submission does not address the issues raised by the Road Safety Audit submitted under 17/01308/A, and indicated as such within the Designer's response to it. These matters include the details at the access junction, such as visibility splays, drainage, and alterations to the kerb lines which are necessary to better accommodate pedestrians and turning of larger vehicles.
Notwithstanding previous comments by Highway Services at pre-application stage and under 17/01308/A, the existing access route is unlikely to be supported for adoption as highway maintainable at public expense due to a number of constraints, such as its width and unknown elements, such as construction and workmanship. It would need to be designed to Manual for Manx Roads standards with criteria relating to either a Minor Industrial or Private Commercial road type since it continues to serve the various commercial units as well as the planned flats regardless of occupation status. The previous layouts showed a 4.1m wide shared surface but the Designers Response to the RSA states "The shared surface is no longer proposed, and the design has been amended." Even if it was designed as a Shared Surface layout, the minimum road width is 4.8m in MfMR with relaxations for localised narrowings for 'short distances. Yet, the current proposal remains at 4.1m wide for a significant portion of its length. Also a minimum 2.0m continuous and unobstructed pedestrian corridor is required. The proposal shows only 1.0m. In these circumstances, private management arrangements would apply in conjunction with existing owners and occupiers, including for waste collection.
The indicative car parking layout is noted to attain 48 spaces at two per unit to meet the Strategic Plan requirement. The layout should account for the need to widen bays against walls to allow access and car doors to open. The tandem parking would require significant amount of
manoeuvring and would necessitate appropriate parking by all to avoid obstructions arising of the car entrance / exit and adjoining pathway. An alternative layout should be considered.
Additionally, there are to be 24 bicycle parking spaces at one per unit, but the layout for access to the parking area and each parking element is very tight. More details would be necessary on the type and positioning to ensure that these are usable. Vertical bicycle parking is unacceptable. Examples of best practice in design of bicycle parking facilities are provided by the London Borough of Hackney:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N1BpieGtsDdAvPgTdzrKfS8sEhzxIxau/view Accordingly, Highway Services requires clarification and additional information to address vehicle tracking and the access junction at New Castletown Road. Recommendation: Additional information"
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 As outlined, the only matter to consider at this stage is whether the access is suitable to accommodate the traffic associated with the development. The AIP application the planning officer's report stated the following in relation to the impact upon the highway network: "As noted by Highway Services initially comments, there was a number of concerns. These concerns are still in place. The applicants did try to provide the required information to satisfy Highway Services concerns, including an updated Traffic Statement, Road Safety Audit and a number of plans all to try resolving the concerns raised by Highway Services. However, an agreement has not made. Subsequently, to get the principle for residential development on the site established, the applicants removed the access from this application as a matter to consider now. In making this consideration the applicant should be aware that if this application is approved, The Department in no way is accepting the access arrangement as shown is acceptable. The applicants would need to demonstrate that access to the site can be achieved in a safe and acceptable manner at any future reserved matter stage. If it subsequently transpires that the existing access cannot be utilised for the level of development proposed, then the applicants may have to either reduce the level of development or seek alternatives access arrangements." - 6.2 Highway Service have considered the current application and have raised concerns. These have been put forward to the applicants on a number of occasions (23.10.2020, 23.11.2020 & 08.12.2020) and no additional information has been submitted. - 6.3 Accordingly, with the concerns outlined by Highway Services it is not considered the proposal is acceptable as it does not demonstrate that the proposal is designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner and would be contrary to General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 4. OPEN SPACE PROVISION AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION - 6.4 Under the AIP application a Section 13 Legal Agreement has been signed and agreed for 6 of the units to be affordable units. In relation to Open Space provision this is yet to be agreed, namely as a detailed design has yet to be submitted and the local of open space has not been determined. Accordingly, the Open Space Provision is yet to be determined, but can still be in any future Reserved Matters Application.
7.0 CONCLUSION - 7.1 It is considered that the proposal would be contrary to General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 4 of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016), for the reasons set out in this report, it is recommended that the application be refused.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
8.2 The decision maker must determine:
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status
Decision Made : Refused Date : 11.01.2021 Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
