DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 18/00977/B Applicant: Buchanan Services Ltd Proposal: Erection of two detached buildings (Class 3) for the consumption of food and drink on and off the premises with associated drive through, erection of a detached building to provide two commercial units (Class 1) and creation of car parking, lighting, landscaping and access. Creation of new sub-station. Site Address: Garage Showroom Workshop & Premises (Former Eurocars Site) Peel Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 5ED Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 01.11.2019 _________________________________________________________________

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

C 2. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the parking, turning areas, associated access and circulating lanes have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.

C 3. The development shall not be occupied or operated until the bicycle hoops and motorcycling parking bays have been provided in accordance with the approved plans 010 REV

B and shall be retained at all times thereafter. Reason: To promote sustainable travel in the interests of reducing pollution and congestion.

C 4. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the "footpath link" and associated access onto the former railway line as shown on drawing 010 REV B has be completed and retained thereafter. Reason: to encourage sustainable transport in accordance with the active travel strategy.
C 5. The development hereby approved shall not commence until full details of additional signage within the site as indicated in the Road Safety Audit and also that proposed by the Department of Infrastructure have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and these works shall be carried out as approved and retained thereafter.

Reason: to ensure efficient traffic management within the site in order to minimise adverse impact upon the highway.

C 6. No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted, destroyed, pruned, cut or damaged in any manner during the development phase and thereafter within 5 years from the date of occupation of the building for its permitted use, other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars. In the event that retained trees become damaged or otherwise defective during the construction phase due to events outside of the applicant's control the Department shall be notified as soon as reasonably practicable and remedial action agreed and implemented.

Reason: To ensure that trees marked for retention are not removed, in the interests maintaining the amenities of the area and to ensure the visual impact of the development is mitigated.

C 7. The development hereby approved shall not commence until an arboricultural method statement , which includes adequate details of site supervision by a suitably qualified and experienced tree specialist, has been prepared in accordance with the recommendations of British Standard BS5837:2012 (Trees in relation to Design, Demolition and Construction Recommendations) and agreed in writing by the Department.

Reason: To ensure that trees marked for retention are adequately protected, in the interests maintaining the amenities of the area and to ensure the visual impact of the development is mitigated.

C 8. The arboricultural method statement approved under condition 7 above, including site supervision by a suitably qualified and experienced tree specialist, shall be adhered to in full.

Reason: To ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved protection measures and construction methods and that professional technical advice is on hand to deal with problems that arise or modifications that become necessary and to avoid any irreversible damage to retained trees.

C 9. The completed schedule of site supervision and monitoring of the arboricultural protection measures, as approved in condition 7, shall be submitted for approval in writing by the Department in accordance with the timescale agreed in the Arboricultural Method Statement as per Condition 7. This condition may only be fully discharged on completion of the development, subject to satisfactory written evidence of compliance through contemporaneous supervision and monitoring of the tree protection throughout construction by a suitably qualified and preappointed tree specialist.

Reason: In order to ensure compliance with the tree protection and arboricultural supervision details submitted under condition 7

C 10. No development shall take place until a technical tree planting specification for each ofthe 4 large-tree planting locations shown on drawing 010revC is submitted to and agreed inwriting by the Department. This specification shall include:

a. plan and section drawings for each tree pit which account for below ground anchorage, tree pit surfacing, irrigation and aeration aids, the need for geotextiles and root barriers, and the amount and distribution of crate system units required.
b. The species, and (where applicable) cultivar of the trees to be planted and the size at date of planting, stated by a height and stem girth range
c. An approximate timeline for the installation of the tree pit and planting of the trees
d. Details of how the trees will be maintained until they successfully establish in the landscape and in compliance with Condition 15. Reason: to ensure appropriate landscaping is undertaken

C 11. The class 3, restaurant use (KFC unit), hereby approved, shall only be open for use bycustomers, between the hours of 1100hrs and 2300hrs Sunday, 7 days a week.

Reason: The application proposes the times listed and has be considered on this basis only and in the interests of the amenity of neighbouring occupants in accordance with General Policy 2 and Environmental Policy 22 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

C 12. The class 3, restaurant use (Starbucks unit), hereby approved, shall only be open foruse by customers, between the hours of 0600hrs and 2200hrs Sunday, 7 days a week.

C 13. The class 1, retail unit (Unit 2), hereby approved, shall only be open for use bycustomers, between the hours of 0600hrs and 2300hrs Sunday, 7 days a week.

C 14. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until theunderground flood alleviation storage tank beneath the car park and in accordance with thePlanning Statement Relating to the "Planning Statement Relating to Flood Risk" and the FloodRisk-Additional Technical Information to Accompany (relating to limited discharge rate as amaximum of 26.4l/s from the attenuation storage tank into the culvert) has all been providedin accordance with the approved plans 12 and it shall be retained at all times thereafter.

Reason: To ensure adequate flood protection of adjacent sites in accordance with Environment Policy 13.

C 15. The development hereby approved shall not commence until full details of soft and hardlandscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department andthese works shall be carried out as approved. Details of the soft landscaping works includedetails of new planting (including tree planting in relation to Condition 10) showing, type, sizeand position of each. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details oflandscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following thecompletion of the development or the occupation of the dwelling, whichever is the sooner. Anytrees or plants which die or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in thenext planting season with others of a similar size and species. Details of the hard landscapingworks include footpaths and hard surfacing materials. The hard landscaping works shall be

completed in full accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted.

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.

C 16. The visibility splays identified on plan 013; shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter kept permanently clear of any obstruction exceeding 1050mm in height above adjoining carriageway level. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
C 17. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the external lighting as approve under plan 203 and document "External Lighting - dated 20th August 2018" have been completed in full accordance with these plan/document, and they shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the visual amenities of the street scene and neighbouring amenities and to comply with GP2 & EP22.

C 18. No development shall commence until a scheme specifying the provisions to be made for the control of noise emissions from the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. These measures shall then be implemented in full before the development is occupied and shall be permanently retained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Department.

Reason: To reduce the impact of noise beyond the site of the application resulting from the approved development.

C 19. No development shall commence until a scheme specifying the provisions to be made for the control of odour emissions from the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. These measures shall then be implemented in full before the development is occupied and shall be permanently retained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Department.

Reason: To reduce the impact of odour beyond the site of the application resulting from the approved development.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings reference numbers and reports;

All date stamped as received on 14th September 2018 10, 011, 11, 12 012, 110, 120, 130, 200, 201, 203, 17TS017-02; Planning Statement Relating to Flood Risk; Planning Statement Relating to Site Drainage; Design and Access Statement; Transport Assessment - dated August 2018; Tree Survey and Report Section 1 & 2 - dated 2nd May 2018; and External Lighting - dated 20th August 2018. All date stamped as received on 14th December 2018

010 REV C, 013, 204, CS180323/3; Transport Assessment Addendum - dated November 2018; and Flood Risk - Additional Technical Information to Accompany the 'Planning Statement Relating to Flood Risk' - dated September 2018.

Amended Application Form received on 20th December 2018 And the Transport Assessment Second Addendum - dated September 2019 and date stamped as received on 11th September 2019 _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:

Central Policing Team Inspector Manx Utilities Director of Public Health

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):

o 2 Ballakermeen Drive, Douglas (28.09.2019);
o 9 Ballakermeen Drive, Douglas (02.10.2019);
o 10 Ballakermeen Drive, Douglas (27.09.2018);
o 14 Ballakermeen Drive, Douglas (11.10.2019);
o 16 Ballakermeen Drive, Douglas (28.09.2018, 08.10.2018, 22.12.2019 & 27.09.2019);
o 22 Ballakermeen Drive, Douglas (25.09.2019 & 14.01.2019);
o 29 Ballakermeen Drive, Douglas (02.10.2019);
o 40 Ballakermeen Drive, Douglas (27.09.2018);
o 5 Ballakermeen Avenue, Douglas (15.10.2019);
o 8 Ballakermeen Avenue, Douglas (27.09.2019);
o 9 Ballakermeen Avenue, Douglas (23.09.2019);
o 20 Ballakermeen Avenue, Douglas (01.10.2019);
o 34 Ballakermeen Drive, Douglas (26.09.2018);
o 11 Berrywoods Avenue, Douglas (21.09.2019);
o 2 Ravenscourt & Beechwood, Ravenscourt Cottage, Douglas (25.09.2019, 21.12.18 & 24.09.2019);
o 43 The Bretney, Jurby (30.09.2019);
o Fairhaven, Somerset Road, Douglas (01.10.2019);
o 24 St Catherine's Close, Douglas (07.10.2019, 22.12.2019 & 01.10.2019);
o 42 Hailwood Avenue, Douglas (18.10.2019);
o Ballakermeen High School, St Catherine's Drive (24.10.2019 & 25.10.2019);
o Finch Hill Health Centre, Kensington Road, Douglas (24.11.2019); and

Are all not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy

o IOM Enterprises, Centre House, Little Switzerland, Douglas (14.01.2019);

As they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy and as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy. _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

THE APPLICATION IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE BECAUSE:

THE OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION IS CONTRARY TO 5 OR MORE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC;

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site which is the Former Eurocars Site, Garage Showroom Workshop and Premises located on the western side of Peel Road and to the east of the former railway line (not within application site) and The Bowl within Douglas. The site is rectangular in shape and measures approximately 0.7 hectares (1.7 acres) in size. The site ground level is set below the Peel Road level and the ground level gently falls from the north and west boundaries of the site to the south-western corner of the site, which is its lowest point. The former Eurocars buildings have been demolished. - 1.2 Access into the site is via an existing vehicular access directly from Peel Road along the western boundary of the site.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The planning application seeks approval for the erection of two detached buildings (Class 3) for the consumption of food and drink on and off the premises with associated drive through, erection of a detached building to provide two commercial units (Class 1) and creation of car parking, lighting, landscaping and access and a new sub-station. It should be noted that during the initial application process the third unit which is now proposed by the applicant to be used as a commercial units only, did also proposes Class 3 (i.e. the consumption of food and drink on and off the premises). However, the latter aspect was removed. - 2.2 It should be noted while the potential users are identified as KFC and Starbucks for two of the unit and the design of them are to meet their requirements; the application generally will considered the use of the building (Use Classes) for the purposes identified. However, there are certain aspects which do related specifically to the proposed operators KFC and Starbucks and therefore there is some consideration to this. It is also worth noting that the hours of operation are proposed to be 1100hrs to 2300hrs 7 days a week (KFC) and 0600hrs to 2200hrs (Starbucks). The third unit (commercial) has no hours of operation proposed. - 2.3 The proposal includes three detached single storey buildings within the site, one located to the northern boundary of the site, one to the southern boundary of the site and one located to the western boundary. The buildings essentially front onto the central area of the site, where the main car park and road network are located. The site would utilise the existing access into the site.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 There have been a number of previous planning applications associated within this site, namely relating to the former Eurocars operation as a garage, showrooms and workshops. However, none are considered relevant in the determination of this application.

- 4.0 KEY DOCUMENTS

4.1 Material Considerations

4.1.1 Section 10(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act states: "In dealing with an application for planning approval… the Department shall have regard to -

(a) The provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application,
(b) Any relevant statement of planning policy under section 3;
(c) Such other considerations as may be specified for the purpose of this subsection in a development order or a development procedure order, so far as material to the application; and
(d) All other material considerations."

4.1.2 In light of (a) above, it is considered that two key documents are:

o The Douglas Local Plan Order - Maps only (1998); and
o The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016).

4.1.3 These documents are considered in more detail in 4.2 and 4.3 below.
4.1.4 In light of (d) above, the following are of particular importance: o The Draft Area Plan for the East (2018);
4.1.5 These documents are considered in more detail in 4.4 and 4.5 below.
4.1.6 The following documents are also considered to be relevant:

o IOM Programme for Government 2016 - 2021; and
o Manual for Roads - A design and Construction Guide.

4.1.7 All the documents are available on the government website.

4.2 The Douglas Local Plan Order 1998

4.2.1 The site lies within a much wider area zoned as Light Industrial on the Douglas Local Plan, although it has clearly not been in this particular use - and nor do all the uses nearby readily fall into this use - for some time.
4.2.2 The application site is not within a Conservation Area nor within an area designated as Natural Conservation Zones, Nature Reserves and Sites of Ecological Importance for Conservation.
4.3 Isle of Man Strategic Plan (adopted 2016)

4.3.1 In light of the above, it is considered the policies from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (adopted 2016) set out below are relevant in the determination of this application.
4.3.2 The Strategic Plan takes its lead from the Government aims which include the pursuit of manageable and sustainable growth based on a diversified economy which is intended to raise the standard of living of the people of the Island and to provide the resources to sustain and develop public services. It also includes the protection and improvement of the quality of the environment such that it continues to be an asset for future generations.
4.3.3 The Strategic Aim is: "To plan for the efficient and effective provision of services and infrastructure and to direct and control development and the use of land to meet the community's needs, having particular regard to the principles of sustainability whilst at the same time preserving, protecting, and improving the quality of the environment, having particular regard to our uniquely Manx natural, wildlife, cultural and built heritage."
4.3.4 The Strategic Aim is noted but not considered directly further, as the relevant aspects are unpacked by the relevant detailed policies which are identified below.

4.3.5 Strategic Policy 1 states: "Development should make the best use of resources by:

(a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and underused land and buildings, and reusing scarce indigenous building materials;
(b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards; and
(c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services."

4.3.6 Strategic Policy 2 states: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions (2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph

6.3."

4.3.7 Strategic Policy 5 states:

"New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies."

4.3.8 Strategic Policy 6 states:

"Major employment-generating development should be located in existing centres on land zoned for such purposes and identified as such in existing Local or new Area Plans."

4.3.9 Strategic Policy 7 states:

"Undeveloped land which is zoned in Local or Area Plans for industrial, office, or retail purposes will be retained and protected for such uses, except where those uses would be inappropriate or incompatible with adjoining uses."

4.3.10 Strategic Policy 9 states:

"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(1) 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."

4.3.11 Strategic Policy 10 states:

"New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to:

(a) minimise journeys, especially by private car;
(b) make best use of public transport;
(c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and
(d) encourage pedestrian movement"

4.3.12 Spatial Policy 1 states: "The Douglas urban area will remain the main employment and services centre for the Island."
4.3.13 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:

(a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief;
(b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
(c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;
(d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;
(e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
(f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
(g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
(h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
(i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;
(j) can be provided with all necessary services;
(k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan;
(l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding;
(m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
(n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

4.3.14 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."

4.3.15 Environment Policy 13 states:

"Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted."

4.3.16 Environment Policy 22 states:

"Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of:

i) pollution of sea, surface water or groundwater;
ii) emissions of airborne pollutants; and
iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution."

4.3.17 Environment Policy 42 states: "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans."
4.3.18 Environment Policy 43 states:

"The Department will generally support proposals which seek to regenerate run-down urban and rural areas. Such proposals will normally be set in the context of regeneration strategies

identified in the associated Area Plans. The Department will encourage the re-use of sound built fabric, rather than its demolition."

4.3.19 Business Policy 1 states:

"The growth of employment opportunities throughout the Island will be encouraged provided that development proposals accord with the policies of this Plan."

4.3.20 Business Policy 5 states: "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:

(a) the items to be sold could not reasonably be sold from a town centre location because of their size or nature; or
(b) the items to be sold are produced on the site and their sale could not reasonably be severed from the overall business; 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."

4.3.21 Business Policy 6 states: "Where land is zoned in Area Plans for industrial use, the Department will include development briefs which identify any particular local needs."
4.3.22 Business Policy 9 states:

"The Department will support new retail provision in existing retail areas at a scale appropriate to the existing area and which will not have an adverse effect on adjacent retail areas. Major retail development proposals will require to be supported by a Retail Impact Assessment(1)."

4.3.23 Business Policy 10 states:

"Retail development will be permitted only in established town and village centres, with the exceptions of neighbourhood shops in large residential areas and those instances identified in Business Policy 5."

4.3.24 Community Policy 7 states:

"The design of new development and the extension and refurbishment of existing buildings and development must, as far as is reasonably practical, pay due regard to existing best practice so

as to help prevent criminal and anti-social behaviour."

4.3.25 Community Policy 10 states,

"Proposals for the layout and development of land will be permitted only where there is provided proper access for fire-fighting vehicles and adequate supplies of water for fire-fighting purposes".

4.3.26 Community Policy 11 states,

"The design and use of all new buildings and of extensions to existing buildings must, as far as is reasonable and practicable, pay due regard to best practice such as to prevent the outbreak and spread of fire".

4.3.27 Transport Policy 1 states,

"New development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes".

4.3.28 Transport Policy 2 states:

"The layout of development should, where appropriate, make provision for new bus, pedestrian and cycle routes, including linking into existing systems."

4.3.29 Transport Policy 3 states: "New development on or around existing and former rail routes should not compromise their attraction as a tourism and leisure facility or their potential as public transport routes, or cycle / leisure footpath routes."
4.3.30 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."

4.3.31 Transport Policy 6 states:

"In the design of new development and transport facilities the needs of pedestrians will be given similar weight to the needs of other road users."

4.3.32 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."

4.3.33 Transport Policy 8 states:

"The Department will require all applications for major development to be accompanied by a Transport Assessment."

4.4 The Draft Area Plan for the East (2018)

4.4.1 The site is within the proposed Town Centre Boundary of Douglas Town Centre and within a Comprehensive Treatment Area under the draft plan and specifically Comprehensive Treatment Area Proposal 4 which includes this site and all sites to the north of the site (running along Peel Road) up to and including the Quaterbridge Pub and south of this site including the IOM Newspaper Building/Odd Bins.
4.4.2 Key features of Comprehensive - Treatment Areas in the East states:

"The proposals set out in this Draft Plan: o Identify four CTAs in Douglas and one in Onchan;

o Have a strong treatment focus on delivering quality urban environments, with a complementary mix of land uses and clear underlying visioning;
o Translate to mapped areas without defined edges (the Department acknowledges the potential for debate and for the refinement of precise extent);
o describes the treatment which is proposed;
o intends the period, within which that treatment is to begin as being within 5 years beginning with the date on which the Plan is adopted."

4.4.3 Comprehensive Treatment Area Proposal 4 - Peel Road (West) (area is shown on Map

5) states:

"This mixed use area comprises offices, retail, leisure, food and drink uses in the form of a drive-through, plus a petrol station and a fire station.

With the relocation of car sales to a new showroom a large part of the site is due to become vacant and the remaining land is under used. The site is served by numerous accesses. To the rear (west) of the site is the NSC. The area would benefit from improvements to increase density of development whilst improving access, flood mitigation and furthering the Millennium cycleway through to Douglas Quayside.

CTA Proposal 4 (Treatment Plan) Development of this area could include either leisure; some food and drink (the nature of which will need clarification as part of this Plan); retail warehouse (bulky goods); offices and residential uses. The acceptability of the range of uses and their precise location shall be assessed as part of a development brief taking into account accessibility, highway impact, design, visual impact and flood mitigation. Provision for a cycle route to link to the Millennium cycleway shall be included."

- 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Government Departments

5.1.1 DOI Highways Services initially objected to the application (02.11.18) and subsequently following additional information in the form of a "Transport Assessment Addendum - dated Nov 2018" being provided by the applicants, Highway Services again raised an objection (01.02.19). Following this latter objection the applicants provided further additional information in the form of a "Transport Assessment Second Addendum - dated September 2019". Accordingly, Highway Services now raise no objection and make the following detailed comments (25.10.2019): "Key Highway Issues

The key highway issues in relation to the proposals contained within this planning application are:

o Site access visibility;
o Similar existing facilities used for comparison with the proposed development;
o Additional traffic generated by the development and subsequent impact upon the local highway network;
o Anticipated queue lengths of vehicles using the drive through facility and possible
overspill onto Peel Road;
o Car parking provision and capacity;
o Proposed site layout;
o Road safety audit; and
o Possible off site highway works.

It is noted that several representations have been made in relation to highway issues. A summary of the key points raised are provided in Appendix 1. Many of the issues raised will be addressed in the content of this report, but specific responses have not been provided.

Existing Highway Conditions

The site is accessed from the A1 Peel Road which is subject to a 30mph speed restriction. The carriageway width of Peel Road is 12.2m with 3.0m to 4.0m wide footways on either of the carriageway. Within the carriageway there are 3.0m wide running lanes in both directions with a 3.2m wide ghost island right turn lane for vehicles turning right into the site and Ballakermeen Drive opposite the site entrance. The right turn lane into the site can accommodate around 5 cars but there is scope to lengthen this if necessary. There are also 1.5m wide cycle lanes in both directions with green cloured surfacing across the site entrance and Ballakermeen Drive. On the southbound lane across the Ballakermeen arm there are

yellow box road markings. There are 'double yellow' line parking restrictions on both sides of the carriageway. Visibility at the site access is suitable for the conditions. Further description of the existing highway conditions is provided in the Transport Assessment (TA) that supports this planning application. The TA indicates that weekday traffic flows in the on Peel Road were measured to be in the

order of 1,240 vehicles during the morning peak hour and 1,330 vehicles during the evening peak hour. These flows were both directions added together. This is well within the capacity of a wide single carriageway road; however, junctions provide the limiting factor to traffic flows. Approximately 200m to the northwest of the proposed development there is a McDonalds restaurant with a drive through facility which is accessed from Peel Road. This is the only fast food drive through facility on the island which due to its popularity sometimes results in cars queuing back onto the highway. Outline of Proposals The application includes the provision of:

o Site access from Peel Road;
o A 242sqm KFC restaurant and drive through which would not open before 11:00am;
o A 204sqm Starbucks with drive through;
o A 225sqm non-food commercial unit (figure taken from TA Second Addendum);
o In the order of a total of 85 on-site car parking spaces;
o A commercial vehicle delivery bay; and
o 12 cycle parking spaces.

The non-food unit was initially described in the application description as being for the consumption of food on and off the premises and / or commercial units, but this changed during the period of assessment of the development.

Comparator Sites In order to support the application the developer has provided information from similar types

of existing developments in the UK.

For purposes of the assessment of the additional traffic that the development would generate, a Starbucks site in Leeds was chosen along with Costa sites in Banbury and Didcot.

For comparison of drive through queue lengths a site in Wakefield was chosen which contained both a Starbucks and a KFC. The survey was undertaken in accordance with a specification provided by The Department of Infrastructure (DOI).

In addition to these comparator sites DOI has undertaken independent surveys by the McDonalds site in order to provide an additional comparator site and to gain an understanding of the reasons why queuing sometimes takes place beyond the site boundary. This information is not contained in the TA provided by the applicant, but is contained in Appendix 2 of this report.

Traffic Generation

A new development would in part serve traffic that would already be travelling along the route without the development in place. These are referred to as pass-by trips and do not add additional traffic to the local road network as they would be taking place in any event.

A new development would also attract traffic that would be additional or new trips. These new trips would add traffic to the local highway network and are often referred to as generated trips.

The proportions of pass-by and new trips depend upon the type and location of the development. A new development such as a small general grocery store is likely to have a high proportion of pass-by vehicular traffic with little new vehicular trips. Whereas a development that is somewhat unique and has little or no local completion would have a much higher proportion of new trips, which would be additional to the existing traffic flows on the local roads.

The applicant has provided data for the Banbury and Didcot Costa sites which indicates that on weekdays, of the traffic accessing the sites, there would be an average of just 6% new trips (94% existing pass-by trips). At the weekend, of the traffic accessing the sites, the proportion of new trips would rise to 14% (86% existing pass-by trips).

The proposed drive through facilities would increase the numbers of such developments from 1 to 3, but such facilities would still be low in number on the island. Due to this situation a very high proportion of 60% of new trips has been assumed and assessed; this is considered to be a very robust 'worst case' assessment. For the proposed non-food retail unit it has been assumed that all trips would be new, that is, 100% of new trips and no pass-by trips, which again presents a very robust case. Further details are provided in the TA documents.

The Peel Road / Site Access / Ballakermeen Drive Junction and the Peel Road / Pulrose Road Junction have been assessed with the proposed development in place; with 60% of trips to KFC and Starbucks being new trips, plus 100% of trips to the non-food retail unit being new trips. The outcome of the analysis is provided in the TA Second Addendum.

It has been demonstrated that the site access including the Ballakermeen Drive Junction operate well within capacity and do not create adverse impacts upon the operation of Peel Road, during both the weekday morning and evening peak periods, as well as the Saturday peak period. At the Peel Road / Pulrose Road Junction the results of the analysis demonstrate that based upon queue length and journey time comparisons, the impact of the development generated trips on the junction during all peak periods is not significantly detrimental to its operation.

Drive through Queueing Capacity

The application plan illustrates the facility for 11 cars to queue before the order point at the KFC drive through, and the facility for 9 cars to queue before the order point at the Starbucks drive through. However; the application plan illustrates a car which is around 3.6m long and the space taken by 1 queueing car is around 5.0m. Note that a 2 door Mini Cooper is 3.7m long and a standard wheelbase Jaguar XJ is 5.13m long. It should also be noted that the standard length of a marked out car parking space parallel to the kerb is 6.0m or 5.0m for an end space. A slow moving queue of cars would generally require a greater distance than 6.0m between each other and therefore a 7.0m long queueing space has been assumed. It is therefore more likely that the queueing length for KFC separate from the car park would be 8 cars and queueing length for Starbucks separate from the car park would be 7 cars.

If queueing for the Starbucks extended out into the car park there would be space for an additional 10 cars within the site (without reaching the highway) giving a total queue length from the order point of 17 cars. Likewise for the KFC there is space for an additional 4 cars within the site giving a total queue length from the order point of 12 cars. If however; signage was provided before the single lane entry to the KFC drive-through queue and car parking area (3 queueing car lengths beyond the end of the formal queueing facility) which instructed drivers not to queue beyond that point and to continue west into the car park, a further 80m of queueing space could be created. This would create an additional 11 queueing spaces providing a total queue facility of 23 spaces. Cars could then 'zip' merge at the beginning of the formalised queueing facility.

The information provided for the Wakefield KFC and Starbucks site indicates that the maximum queue lengths measured back from the order point were 5 cars for KFC and 7 for the Starbucks. This amount of queueing could be accommodated within formal queueing lanes of KFC (8 cars practical capacity) and Starbucks (7 cars practical capacity). It is noted that whilst McDonalds has 2 order points and 2 pick-up points, both the KFC and the Starbucks would each only have 1 order point and 1 pick-up point. This in effect would mean that each facility would have around half the drive-through customer capacity of the McDonalds. However; it is considered that it would be highly unlikely that queue lengths and queueing times would double compared to McDonalds. The maximum observed drive through time at McDonalds from joining the end of the queue to departing was 12 minutes, but the estimated maximum queueing time was 15 minutes during the Saturday peak period. By comparison it is considered likely that the time taken to park, enter the building, order and receive the order and then depart would generally be less than 15 minutes, therefore 15 minutes would appear to be the normal maximum time that would be practical and desirable for the drive-through activity. It is therefore likely that queue lengths and durations would not be any greater than at McDonalds. The longest observed queue length at McDonalds was around 22 cars (with 15 within the site plus 7 within the highway) whilst KFC can accommodate a queue of 23 cars within the site and Starbucks can accommodate a queue of 17 cars within the site. Whilst queueing within the car parking areas of the proposed development would not be desirable for the site operation, there would not be any direct adverse impact upon the highway. It is therefore concluded with respect to queueing of vehicles that the proposed site layout would be adequate under most circumstances. There could be unusual circumstances such as the departure of vehicles from a sporting event where capacity could be exceeded but it is customary to design for the normal maximum demand rather than brief unusual events. Car Parking Capacity As stated above there are a total of 85 on-site car parking spaces. It is noted that there is no specific Isle of Man Government standard for this development. The November 2018 TA addendum makes comparisons with the parking standards for Preston and the Isle of Wight where there was a requirement of 1 space per 5sqm of public floor area and 1 space per 20sqm gross floor area (GFA) respectively. The proposals were also tested against the Bedford Parking Standard whereby for Food and Drink there is a maximum requirement of 1 space per 5sqm of dining area plus 3 spaces per 4 full time equivalent (FTE) staff or for Fast Food Drive Through there is a maximum requirement of 1 space per 8sqm of GFA. For an edge of town development the Bedford standard allows a relaxation of the maximum standard to 75% or less where appropriate. The non-food retail unit would be required to have a maximum of 1 space per 20sqm GFA under the Bedford standard again with an edge of town relaxation. The public floor area has not been stated and therefore the drive thru criteria which uses GFA has been adopted which should provide a robust independent assessment. For the 446sqm of drive thru there would be a maximum Bedford requirement of 55.75 spaces and for the 225sqm of non-food retail there would be a maximum requirement of 11.25 spaces; giving a total maximum of 67 spaces (or 50 spaces using 75% of the maximum). When tested against the Bedford Standard the proposed 85 spaces would prove to be more than adequate. Also when compared to the McDonalds parking provision and degree of occupancy the proposed 85 spaces for the new development again appear to be acceptable. The McDonalds site has around 37 spaces but with an observed maximum demand for car parking of around 30 spaces. The proposed car parking is also acceptable in terms of size and layout. It is noted that signage within the car park will be enhanced in line with the Stage 1 RSA. In Appendix BGH 11 of the September 2019 TA Addendum it is noted that the Starbucks Operational Brief includes Travel Plan proposals. It is noted that in relation to car parking it is stated that: 'No employees working within the development that live within 2 miles of the development or within 1 km of a bus route serving the development will be permitted to park on-site unless they have a genuine reason to use the car as a mode of transport'. This statement is not clear about the distance of bus stops from the employee's residence. Whilst

sustainable transport measures should be encouraged, some objections have made reference to possible overspill car parking by employees on residential streets. It is suggested that if such overspill car parking takes place by employees and there is space available within the car park (which is likely), this policy should be reviewed. Proposed Site Layout The proposed access into the site has a minimum width in excess of 8.0m with 6.0m radius kerbs which can accommodate normal two-way flow in and out of the site. It can also accommodate the largest delivery, refuse collection and emergency vehicles anticipated to access the site. The proposed car parking and queueing facilities have been found to be satisfactory. Additional signage has been suggested in the in the RSA and by DOI, the principle of providing this has been agreed. The access to the KFC drive through and car park to the south of the main site access could become blocked by queueing vehicles but alternative access to the car park can be provided to the west and then south. The general layout of the site is considered to be acceptable. The proposed cycle parking is acceptable in terms of numbers and layout. There are 2 proposed pedestrian accesses from Peel Road. The TA makes mention of an access to the disused railway line (greenway) but this is not illustrated on the plans; a space along the site boundary of around 3.0m wide needs to be reserved for this. It was noted during the McDonalds surveys that a significant number of pedestrians entered the site from the greenway, therefore an access to the greenway from the proposed development could prove advantageous to its operation. Road Safety Audit

A Stage 1 Road Safety Audit (RSA) has been undertaken and this is contained in the TA Second Addendum Appendix 16; the designer's response to the RSA is included in Appendix 17. DOI is in agreement with the designer's response to the RSA. Off Site Highway Works The RSA mentioned the possibility of moving the northbound bus stop in proximity of the site entrance but it has been agreed with the designer and DOI that the bus stop should remain. The existing site access has a 'bell mouth' with radius kerbs. The surfacing of the footway cross over as indicted on Street View 2010 is concrete and the surfacing within the site is bitmac. The site plan indicates the same surfacing for both within the site and the crossing of the footway. The site plan indicates a narrowing of the entrance with new radius kerbs; as this would be new construction there would be a requirement to provide dropped kerb pedestrian crossings with tactile paving. The details of these Section 109A Highway Agreement works can be provided through a planning condition. Comparison of the McDonalds site with the application site Representations from the public have made mention of the lack of comparability of the sites chosen as supporting evidence for this application. Whilst it is understood that the applicant has endeavoured to provide the best comparable information, it is accepted that these sites may not provide the most robust of comparisons. The operation of the McDonalds site has therefore been studied by DOI to provide information that could provide a greater degree of confidence in the applicant's assertion that the proposals would be satisfactory in terms of highway impact. The most critical traffic issue in relation to the McDonalds site is the queueing back onto the highway that sometimes occurs during periods of high demand. This is a recurring theme raised in highway representations. The queueing potential within the proposed site for both drive through facilities (23 car queue spaces for KFC and 17 spaces for Starbucks) are longer than 15 car queue spaces within McDonalds site (or 18 spaces if the parallel left hand order point queue is taken into account). The proposed 85 on-site car parking spaces for the proposed 3 units within the site are proportionately similar in terms of numbers to the 37 spaces for the McDonalds site which has been observed not to reach capacity.

As stated in the traffic survey results in Appendix 2, there is a strong preference for the use of the drive-through facility. The popularity of this facility leads to overcapacity of the site at

certain times and this may be at least in part, due to this being the only fast food drive-through facility on the island. In populated parts of the UK there is often a choice of McDonalds drivethrough sites and a choice of alternative providers of drive-through fast food. This choice to a degree would even out demand amongst these sites. It is also possible that there is an undersupply of drive through fast food facilities on the island compared to the UK; this is perhaps demonstrated by the applicant who is proposing a commercial venture to serve this perceived demand. In this respect there could be an element of custom diverting from McDonalds as well as an element of newly generated custom. With the development in place, McDonalds would no longer be a unique facility and it is probable that due to the spreading of demand, the 2 proposed drive through facilities would not replicate the same intense demand. Therefore, it is considered likely that the 2 proposed drive through facilities would generate less drive through queueing as currently observed at McDonalds. Conclusions Site access visibility is acceptable.

Alterations to the site access need to be detailed and put forward for approval. These alterations will then be implemented through a Section 109A highway agreement.

Similar existing facilities used for comparison with the proposed development may not fully reflect the possible operation of the proposed development. However; by means of understanding the operation of the McDonalds site and using it as a further basis of comparison to the application site, it is considered that the proposed facilities would operate in a satisfactory manner for the vast majority of the time.

Additional traffic generated by the development would not have a significant negative impact upon the local highway network. Anticipated queue lengths of vehicles using the drive through facilities are unlikely to overspill onto Peel Road for the vast majority of the time.

Car parking provision is acceptable in terms of numbers, size of spaces and layout. The site operator may wish to review the policy on staff car parking to avoid parking in nearby residential streets.

The proposed cycle parking is acceptable.

The proposed site layout is acceptable, but a condition is put forward to ensure that the car parking and circulating routes should remain as proposed. Additional signing within the site is required.

The potential access onto the greenway to the west of the site needs to be safeguarded. The proposed facility would be likely to spread demand and thereby reduce the current negative highway impact experienced by the McDonalds site. Suggested Planning Conditions Please attach the following conditions to any future consent: Detailed proposals of the alterations to the site access need to be provided for approval and then implemented prior to occupation of the site. Reason: to ensure suitable access and movement of vehicles and pedestrians.

The car parking and is associated access and circulating lanes shall be constructed as shown on the approved plans prior to occupation of the site and then maintained in that condition thereafter. Reason: to ensure that there is no increase of impact upon the highway network.

Additional signage needs to be provided as indicated in the Road Safety Audit and also that proposed by the Department of Infrastructure prior to occupation of the site. Reason: to ensure efficient traffic management within the site in order to minimise adverse impact upon the highway.

The location of a 3.0m wide access to the 'greenway' to the west of the site shall be provided for approval and then safeguarded thereafter. Reason: to encourage sustainable transport in accordance with the active travel strategy. Informative

The developer would need to enter into a Section 109A highway agreement to implement work to the access within the highway.

Recommendation: DNOC

Appendix 1: It is noted that several representations have been made in relation to highway issues. A summary of the key points raised are as follows:

o Existing traffic congestion on Peel Road at the entrance to McDonalds including the limited right turn in facility;
o Concern about the possible removal of the northbound bus stop;
o The increase in traffic due to the development could cause congestion at the Peel Road / Ballakermeen Drive Junction with right turn out movements being a particular problem. The possibility of providing traffic signal control at this junction should be considered;
o Lack of safe pedestrian crossing facilities of Peel Road by the junction with Ballakermeen Drive;
o The proposed KFC and Starbucks drive through queueing facilities may not have sufficient length and queueing could occur on the highway, in particular there was concern that there was only space for an additional 5 or 6 queueing cars at the KFC before reaching the highway;
o Lack of designated staff car parking leading to parking on nearby residential streets;
o Traffic waiting to make a left or right turn into site could restrict traffic flows on Peel Road;
o Adverse impact upon pedestrians and cyclists;
o The proposed development would generate more traffic than the previous site use;
o Existing problem with short spaces between junctions;
o Concern about no reserve capacity on Peel Road whereby the additional development traffic would result in congestion;
o The comparator sites that support the application are not comparable with the location
of the development;
o Concern about delivery vehicle and waste collection vehicle access;
o Possible HGV traffic noise at night time;
o Concern about what retrospective measures could be implemented should the development be approved and adverse traffic impacts occur;
o The implementation of the development would provide more capacity and hence reduce the queueing problem at McDonalds;
o The temporary closure of Pulrose Bridge would also increase traffic on Peel Road; and
o The proximity of the site entrance to the Peel Road / Pulrose Road Junction would result in congestion.

Appendix 2: Survey of Vehicular Activity at Existing McDonalds Fast Food Facility on Peel Road

Purpose of the assessment An assessment of existing traffic movements within the site and on the highway in proximity of the site access, along with on-site car parking, has been undertaken to provide additional comparator information for application 18/00977/B.

Highway conditions by McDonalds The site is accessed from the A1 Peel Road which is subject to a 30mph speed restriction. There is a right turn lane from the A1 into the site that can accommodate 3 cars. The right turn facility is limited by a signal controlled pedestrian crossing facility that is located at the approximate centre of the site frontage. Site layout The site has the following key characteristics in relation to traffic:

o The drive-through facility has two order and two pick up points;
o The queue for the order points can accommodate around 6 cars end to end before causing an obstruction within the car park, in addition 3 car spaces end to end are located in parallel for the left hand order point;
o A queue length of around 15 cars can be accommodated end to end before the order point (excluding the 3 spaces by the left hand order point) within the site without backing up
onto the adopted highway; and
o There are a total of around 37 on-site car parking spaces, including 2 disabled spaces and 1 grill order space. One regular space was occupied by refuse bins leaving a total of 33 regular spaces. Sample traffic surveys Sample traffic surveys were undertaken between 16:30 and 17:20 on Friday 4th October 2019 and then again between 12:20 and 13:15 on Saturday 5th October 2019. The times were chosen with a view to observing high traffic demand at the site but not necessarily the maximum peak of activity. Weather during the Friday survey was intermittent sunshine and cloud and on the Saturday there was initial cloud leading to rain. Friday early evening survey During the Friday survey it was noted that the queue length varied considerably due to short term changes in demand and the entry and exit of car parking spaces, which interrupted the movement of the queue. Whilst the majority of the time the queue was contained within the site there were a number of occasions where the queue for left turn vehicles entering the site extended onto the highway. The longest observed left turn queue within the highway was 3 cars and the longest queue of vehicles making a right turn in was again 3 vehicles. Both left turn and right turn queues dissipated within 1 minute. Whilst left turning vehicles into the site had priority over those making a right turn in there was evidence of left turn drivers allowing right turning vehicles in before them in a form of 'zip' merging. Whilst the left turning vehicles presented an obstruction of the carriageway, they mostly
occupied the cycle lane in part and there was generally space for northbound (Peel direction) vehicles, including buses to pass through even with the presence of vehicles in the right turn lane. An exception occurred when left turning vehicles were leaving space within the cycle lane and a rigid bodied 4 axle commercial vehicle was not able to pass through. However; no significant delays occurred for northbound vehicles during the survey period. Sample surveys of the time taken from when a car entered the queue for the drive-through facility to the car exiting the site. These durations varied between 8 minutes and 12 minutes. During the survey period it appeared that all of the order and pick up points were in operation. Although not quantified there appeared to be a preference for drive-through purchases as opposed to parking and entering the building purchases. It was noted that during the survey period there was always an availability of car parking spaces within the site. Occasional observations were made at the junction of Ballakermeen Drive with Peel Road and no significant delays were observed. Saturday early afternoon survey There appeared to be greater demand during this period than during the Friday evening period

as indicated by the greater incidence of queues tailing back onto the highway. The greatest queue length for vehicles making a left turn into the site was 5 cars on the highway which was observed on 2 occasions during the survey period. The greatest queue of right turning vehicles into the site was 4 cars which occurred once for a period of a few seconds; due to the limited length for right turning movements a 4 car queue would obstruct southbound (Douglas direction) traffic. The greatest number of queueing vehicles on the highway was 7, which comprised 5 left turn in and 2 right turn in.

Like Friday evening, the queues of traffic on the highway waiting to enter into the site still allowed traffic including buses to pass along Peel Road although at a reduced speed. Again drivers of left turning vehicles allowed right turning vehicles access ahead of them, this activity prompted 2 observed low level 'road rage' incidents involving the sounding of car horns. Whilst there were periods were there was no queuing on the highway, the end of the queue within the site was generally close to the highway. Sample surveys of the duration of cars starting to queue to the time of leaving the site were not undertaken on this day. However; based upon times measured the previous day, at the times of maximum queue length it was estimated that the total time involved in the purchase process would be a maximum of 15 minutes. During the survey period it appeared that all of the order and pick up points were in operation. During the survey period it was again noted that there was always availability of on-site car parking with between 6 and 14 of the regular spaces available, generally there was an availability of between 8 and 12 regular spaces. There was 1 occasion where both disabled spaces were occupied. The numbers of pedestrians using the site was not quantified but it was noted that a significant number of pedestrians entered the site from the 'greenway' situated to the rear (west side) of the site."

5.1.2 Director of Public Health - Public Health Directorate makes the following comments (05.10.2018): "Sixty percent of the adult population of this island are overweight or obese as are 25% of our children at school entry. The inexorable rise in obesity rates is strongly related to the changes in our environment which encourage over consumption of calorie dense food along with reductions in physical activity. Fast food outlets contribute significantly to the obesogenic environment through the provision of food that is calorie dense and large in portion size. The presence of such outlets close to schools has been correlated with obesity rates in children and young people. There are already many such outlets within walking distance of Douglas schools and the proposed development will add to this. The current food offer from KFC is notable for portion calorie content and high fat content. I note that KFC is 'committed' to reducing calorie content by 20% by 2025. However, I would suggest that is too little, too late and will do nothing to improve the position for the current generation of children and young people (not to mention current adults) who, if the planning application is approved, will have an additional source of excess calories added to their environment."
5.1.3 Arboricultural Officer (DEFA) initially make comments (02.10.2019) relating to the lack of tree protection and other matters. Following these comments the Applicant's provided additional information/amended plan. Following these being submitted the Officer made the following comments (17/01/2019):

"I have now had chance to review the additional information which was posted online just before Christmas.

There are 2 issues to consider:

o Protection of existing trees
o Landscaping (tree planting)

Tree protection The tree protection information that has been provided is not a 'specification' as stated, but rather a set protection principles that may be applied to this site. As such there is limited site specific information about the proposed location of protective measures and how this will work

on site, in a practical sense, with the proposed construction activity.

For example, one matter that has been overlooked is the work required around the 3 existing trees adjacent to Peel Road. The landscaped areas where these trees exist are actually increasing in size, so the percentage of the rooting area covered by impermeable tarmac will

decrease under the proposed scheme (which is a good thing). To achieve this, however, the existing hard surfacing will need to be removed will could potentially have a damaging effect on the trees if done in an insensitive manner.

Also, it is unclear what work is/will be required to the existing entrance on to the highway. The existing tarmac could be replaced (on the existing sub-base) without having an impact on the trees but if excavations extend in to the sub-base (to change the finished levels, for example) then this could have a detrimental impact on the existing trees.

Whilst the information provided would give the project a good set of guiding principles, more site specific and detailed information would be required to give any confidence in the outcome for retained trees. I think adequate protection is achievable here so I am happy to proceed on the basis that an arboricultural method statement is obtained via a condition prior to commencement.

On this basis I recommend that you consider applying the following conditions if this application is approved:

1) No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted, destroyed, pruned, cut or damaged in any manner during the development phase and thereafter within 5 years from the date of occupation of the building for its permitted use, other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars. In the event that retained trees become damaged or otherwise defective during the construction phase due to events outside of the applicant's control the Department shall be notified as soon as reasonably practicable and remedial action agreed and implemented.

Reason: To ensure that trees marked for retention are not removed, in the interests maintaining the amenities of the area and to ensure the visual impact of the development is mitigated.

2) No site clearance, preparatory work or development shall take place until an arboricultural method statement , which includes adequate details of site supervision by a suitably qualified and experienced tree specialist, is prepared in accordance with the recommendations of British Standard BS5837:2012 (Trees in relation to Design, Demolition and Construction -Recommendations) and agreed in writing by the Department.

Reason: To ensure that trees marked for retention are adequately protected, in the interests maintaining the amenities of the area and to ensure the visual impact of the development is mitigated.

3) The arboricultural method statement approved under condition X above, including site supervision by a suitably qualified and experienced tree specialist, shall be adhered to in full.

4) The completed schedule of site supervision and monitoring of the arboricultural protection measures, as approved in condition X, shall be submitted for approval in writing by the Department in accordance with the timescale agreed in the Arboricultural Method Statement as per Condition X. This condition may only be fully discharged on completion of the development, subject to satisfactory written evidence of compliance through contemporaneous supervision and monitoring of the tree protection throughout construction by a suitably qualified and pre-appointed tree specialist. Reason: In order to ensure compliance with the tree protection and arboricultural supervision details submitted under condition (insert condition(s))

Landscaping The introduction of 4 larger trees in to the central car parking area will improve the aesthetic appearance of this development. The species choice, however, is a little uninspiring. On a relatively sheltered urban site of this nature I would have taken the opportunity to plant a species which would have more of a visual impact and increase the 'sense of place'. Platanus x hispanica (London plan), Liquidambar styraciflua (sweetgum) and Quercus palustris (pin oak) are examples of large(ish) trees tolerant of a wide range of soil conditions which would have achieved this.

As with the tree protection information, the tree pit cross section shown in drawing 204 is only a concept drawing and no thought has been given to how this would actually be implemented in the 4 planting positions proposed. For example, the use of a crate system (stratacell) is proposed but this cross section seems to suggest there would be no load bearing surface so it's unclear why this is necessary. Also, the surface appears above the root collar (which is poor practice and detrimental to tree health) and there are no details of how the opening would be treated.

Similar to tree protection, this information provides a conceptual design but more specific and detailed information would be required to give any confidence in the outcome for this planting scheme. This additional information could be obtained prior to commencement via a condition. For example:

5) No site clearance, preparatory work or development shall take place until a technical tree planting specification for each of the 4 large-tree planting locations shown on drawing 010revC is submitted to and agreed in writing by the Department. This specification shall include:

a. plan and section drawings for each tree pit which account for below ground anchorage, tree pit surfacing, irrigation and aeration aids, the need for geotextiles and root barriers, and the amount and distribution of crate system units required.
b. The species, and (where applicable) cultivar of the trees to be planted and the size at date of planting, stated by a height and stem girth range
c. An approximate timeline for the installation of the tree pit and planting of the trees
d. Details of how the trees will be maintained until they successfully establish in the landscape.

If you require any additional information in relation to these comments please do not hesitate to contact me."

5.1.4 Central Policing Team Inspector (Douglas, Onchan and Braddan) makes the following comments (21.01.2019): "I have had a chat with my Sgt team re the plans that are circulating.

It would be fair to say that we have concerns about the traffic that will enter and leave the site. If similar numbers to McDonalds we will see tail backs caused by traffic waiting to get in from both directions and it is quite close to the traffic lights.

Other than that the actual site seems well laid out within its boundaries."

5.2 Other Consultees

5.2.1 Douglas Borough Council have no objection (22.10.2018 and 07.01.2019) but seek for the following matters to be considered:

"Concerns have been raised over traffic issues the development may cause for residents in the area, the Council are aware of public concern on this issue and ask the Committee to consider this when determining the application;

The council would ask that the applicant invite the Police to make comment on the application in terms of its impact on provision of police services in the area."

5.2.2 Manx Utilities initially commented that a Food Risk Assessment was required (10.09.2018). However, following this initial email further correspondents where received which stated (12.02.2019):

"This email is to highlight and hopefully rectify a recent error made in a planning response submitted by Manx Utilities. Our comments for 18/00977/B Former Eurocars Sites, Peel Road, Douglas have incorrectly been assigned to the following application 18/01158/B St Olaves School House, North Shore Road, Ramsey. We apologies for the inconvenience that this might have caused and have taken steps to avoid this error from reoccurring. For clarity our comments for both applications are below:

18/00977/B - Former Eurocars Site, Peel Road, Douglas We have reviewed the Flood Risk Assessment and the additional technical information document provided (see attached documents). Our updated comments are in the PDF document attached to this email. The updated proposals now show that fluvial flood flow routes will be maintained and the loss of floodplain storage (which is minimal) will be accounted for through the storage tanks. Pass forward flow from the storage tanks into the culverted system will be limited so not to cause any increase in flood risk to the receiving system. The applicant has considered emergency access / egress during a flood event and noted who will be responsible for the long term maintenance of the storm cell tanks. Once at design stage we would be grateful to receive design details of the storage tanks and restriction control (vortex / orifice) to assist us in any future modelling and mapping assessments. We are happy for BB Consulting to liaise directly with Manx Utilities with this regard. We have no further requirements.

18/01158/B St Olaves School House, North Shore Road, Ramsey Manx Utilities have reviewed the application from a flood risk perspective and have no objections."

5.3 Other Representations - Please note all comments are in relation to initial scheme unless stated otherwise.

5.3.1 There have been a total of 23 individual objections to this application and the details of which can be views on the Online Planning Services. The following addresses of the person's objected to the initial scheme:

o 2 Ballakermeen Drive, Douglas (28.09.2019);
o 9 Ballakermeen Drive, Douglas (02.10.2019);
o 10 Ballakermeen Drive, Douglas (27.09.2018);
o 14 Ballakermeen Drive, Douglas (11.10.2019);
o 16 Ballakermeen Drive, Douglas (28.09.2018, 08.10.2018, 22.12.2019 and 27.09.2019);
o 22 Ballakermeen Drive, Douglas (25.09.2019 and 14.01.2019);
o 29 Ballakermeen Drive, Douglas (02.10.2019);
o 40 Ballakermeen Drive, Douglas (27.09.2018);
o 5 Ballakermeen Avenue, Douglas (15.10.2019);
o 8 Ballakermeen Avenue, Douglas (27.09.2019);
o 9 Ballakermeen Avenue, Douglas (23.09.2019);
o 20 Ballakermeen Avenue, Douglas (01.10.2019);
o 34 Ballakermeen Drive, Douglas (26.09.2018);
o 11 Berrywoods Avenue, Douglas (21.09.2019);
o 2 Ravenscourt and Beechwood, Ravenscourt Cottage, Douglas (25.09.2019, 21.12.18 and 24.09.2019);
o 43 The Bretney, Jurby (30.09.2019);

o Fairhaven, Somerset Road, Douglas (01.10.2019);
o 24 St Catherine's Close, Douglas (07.10.2019, 22.12.2019, 01.10.2019 and

04.11.2019);

42 Hailwood Avenue, Douglas (18.10.2019); o Ballakermeen High School, St Catherine's Drive (24.10.2019 and 25.10.2019); o Finch Hill Health Centre, Kensington Road, Douglas (24.11.2019); and o IOM Enterprises, Centre House, Little Switzerland, Douglas (14.01.2019);

5.7.2 The main material planning objections/comments to the planning application made the owners/occupiers of the properties listed within paragraph 5.3.1 of this report are summarised as:

o Seek signage to advise drivers existing the site that cyclists use the cycle lane which passes the site;
o Smells from the kitchens and therefore plans seeking the 'state of the art' smell reduction should be required;
o Noise during construction and when maintaining the ventilation system;
o Noise from refrigerated storage units;
o Concerns of litter;
o HGV delivering outside peak times will affect neighbours;
o Traffic impacts by the development to access the site;
o Traffic congestion from Ballakermeen Drive onto Peel road is already bad enough, this will be worst;
o Volume of Traffic will cause severe congestion onto Peel Road at peak times;
o Queuing traffic already occurs at McDonalds onto the public highway block the road and cycleway;
o Smell from kitchen already happens at McDonalds;
o Already experience litter from McDonalds;
o Traffic already backs up Pulrose Bridge at the lights;
o Improvements to the junction of Ballakermeen Drive onto Peel Road need to be undertaken before any works can commence;
o The former Eurocars site had a relatively low impact due to thte level of cars entering and leaving;
o Concerns of traffic blocking access to Ballakermeen Drive;
o Development will require traffic control or crossing point for pedestrians;
o Adverse impact on health;
o antisocial individuals will hang around the site and cause noise and nuisance in a quiet residential area;
o schools nearby and pupils will be attracted to the site and have health impacts and highway safety issues;
o Child obesity, diabetes and cancer are becoming a major health factor, especially in relation to food outlets close to schools and sport centres;
o A toxic cocktail of Pulrose traffic lights, cars turning out from Ballakermeen Drive onto Peel Road and now drive thru traffic in and out of KFC would lead to pupils coming down BD who many do not cross safely at the traffic lights or further up at the zebra crossing could lead to accidents and possible deaths;
o When McDonalds was approved a pedestrian crossing was required to be installed because the number of school children going to it;
o What is happening to bus stop next to site;
o When KFC is closed the car park will become a magnet for anti-social drivers;
o No designated staff parking, they will park along Ballakermeen Drive/Avenue;
o Highway safety concerns;
o During rush hours and lunch periods it is hazardous already to turn right from Ballakermeen Drive at the junction with Peel Road;
o With traffic congestion of area how will fire engines get through;
o Can't compare a site in Leeds to the site;

o People won't park up but will queue onto Peel Road, as they do at McDonalds;
o No bins storage on site;
o Not a suitable location for this proposal near residential properties;
o People make their own choices regarding foods and for many this is a treat and shouldn't be taken away from those who Are able to make well informed and sound decisions about the foods they consume;
o Retailers are not to blame for bad choices made by the public, the public are responsible for their own actions;
o Removing choices we run the risk of becoming a nanny state;
o Litter is the responsibility of the minority of individuals and need to be dealt with by law enforcement, no fault of retailer;
o More outlets will spread the load of traffic;
o Ballakermeen High School has a student population of 1656 and being within close proximity of the site and they will take the easiest, most direct route and crossing one of the busiest road is in the IOM;
o The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (UK) is current urging council to ban fast food outlets within 400m of a school; the site is within this distance;
o Pedestrian safety concerns;
o Collective moral responsibility to safeguard the health of IOM residents which can be done by individuals not filling their cupboards full of chocolate biscuits and by the planning department not filling our street and shopping centres full of fast food outlets;
o Consideration should be taken of the planned closure of the Pulrose Bridge and this the additional traffic on Peel Road for a period of 18 months and depending on the time table of the proposed development this may not have an impact but if the development is granted and can be open in conjunction with its closure should be considered;
o If there is a queue into the site, even person wanting to park wouldn't be able to and will just join the queue onto Peel Road;
o There are no similarities what so ever of the examples used to undertake the traffic analysis and the application site; and
o Two units being retail surely this makes transport assessment null void as without knowing what these units will be used for will have an impact upon car park use.

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 Key Issues

6.1.1 Issues relating to the principle of the proposal are as follows:

o Principle of Development (Local Plan land use allocation, StP 1,2,6,7 and 9, SP1, GP 2, BP5, 6, 9, 10 and CTA 4 TAPE);
o Potential impact upon the visual amenities of the street scenes (StP5, GP2, EP 42 and 43 and EP22);
o Impact on Neighbouring Properties (EP22 and GP2(g) );
o Traffic Impacts / parking provision (StP10, GP2, TP 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8);
o Flood risk (GP2(l) and EP10 and13);
o Designing Out Crime (CP7);
o Fire Risk (CP10 and 11); and
o Health impacts.

6.2 Principle of Development (Local Plan land use allocation, StP 1,2,6,7 and 9, SP1, GP 2, BP5, 6, 9, 10 and CTA 4 TAPE);

6.2.1 The site is within an area zoned as Light Industrial on the Douglas Local Plan. The proposed use is not light industrial, and does not meet the tests for retail on industrial land as set out in Business Policy 5.
6.2.2 However, the site has clearly not been in Industrial use for some time, being used primarily as a car show rooms (retail) and associated workshop/garages. Furthermore the

neighbouring properties to the north and south do not fall within this land use designation. The immediate area has been the subject of a number of planning applications and subsequent approvals that have introduced a retail element to the area along Peel Road. For example, within the block that includes the proposed, are a Health and Fitness Club, The Tile Centre and City Plumbing and beyond are the petrol station which has an element of retail (and recently been extended from more retail space) and also McDonald's. To the south of the site is European House which was granted approval in 2014 for the storage, distribution and sale of alcohol and a café.
6.2.3 This continued use of the site and other sites nearby along Peel Road, is perhaps why the Draft Eastern Area Plan has designated the site as a Comprehensive Treatment Area Proposal 4 (CTA 4). The Draft Plan identifies the current uses being; "This mixed use area comprises offices, retail, leisure, food and drink uses in the form of a drive-through, plus a petrol station and a fire station".
6.2.4 Further the Draft Plan specifically highlights the site commenting:

"With the relocation of car sales to a new showroom a large part of the site is due to become vacant and the remaining land is under used".

6.2.5 The overall proposals which are within the planning application are considered to meet the aims of CTA 4 which states;

"Development of this area could include either leisure; some food and drink (the nature of which will need clarification as part of this Plan); retail warehouse (bulky goods); offices and residential uses. The acceptability of the range of uses and their precise location shall be assessed as part of a development brief taking into account accessibility, highway impact, design, visual impact and flood mitigation. Provision for a cycle route to link to the Millennium cycleway shall be included."

6.2.6 It is considered given the clear direction of travel through previous planning applications in the area; the use of the existing site mainly contrary to the current land use designation; and given the proposed land use designation under the Draft Local Plan; it is considered the proposed uses are acceptable in principle. Arguably, irrespective of the Draft Area Plan, there is the potential the scheme could be considered acceptable given previous permissions in the area, as well as the fact industrial uses along this area of Peel Road is not ideal, in terms of appearance and use, being one of the main gateways into Douglas. Furthermore the retail element of the proposal is below 500sqm (proposed 2 x 116sqm = 232sqm) and therefore a Retail Impact Assessment is not required. Furthermore, it is considered the overall scale of the retail element, the fact the site/area has established retail elements of similar size and as the site is designated under the Draft Area Plan as being within Douglas Town Centre, again all help is considering this retail element of the proposal is acceptable.

6.3 Potential impact upon the visual amenities of the street scenes (StP5, GP2, EP 42 and 43 and TP3)

6.3.1 The proposed buildings being single storey in nature and only making up a small proportion of the site would not become significant prominent features in the street scene, and the site in terms of building form will appear rather spacious. The buildings with a low level mono pitched roof with large amounts of glazing and different finishes to all, results in buildings which will have a pleasant appearance and fit well within the site/street scene.
6.3.2 The car park area and roads within make up the majority of the site, but their very nature is low level development. A number of new trees and other landscaping are proposed within the site and along the boundaries of the site which in time will help soften the visual impact of the car park. Large mature trees along the western boundary of the site (form

railway line) also help the visual impact of the site, especially as the lower level forms of development throughout the site will ensure the trees are still apparent from Peel Road views.
6.3.3 Overall, it is consider the overall development would be a vast improvement over what was on the site previously (albeit now demolished), but irrespective of this is an acceptable and appropriate form of development that results is overall interesting and quality development of different design approaches, which provide the types of accommodation required but also fitting well within the various street scenes.
6.3.4 A landscaping condition should be attached for additional details of the western boundary features which run parallel with the former railway line. This should be kept low (below 1.2m), to ensure open views across the site can be achieved when travelling along the former railway line and to ensure the boundary treatment does not become an overbearing and oppressive feature, resulting in an enclosure of the former railway line, which would be contrary to TP3.
6.3.5 The scheme also proposals internal lighting of the site in the way of 34 lighting post (some with twin light on top of some posts) to provide lighting of the car parks, pathways and roadways. With the exception of two lights near to the access of the site, the remaining are in the main, facing away from Peel Road and face into the site. The Lux lighting plans submitted with the reports suggest that lighting outside of the site would be minimum. However, it is noted that there are street lights along the entire length of Peel Road and therefore it is not considered the lighting would have a significant visual impact upon the site or street scene.
6.3.6 Accordingly, it is considered the proposal would comply with the relevant policies.

6.4 Impact on Neighbouring Properties (EP22 and GP2(g));

6.4.1 In terms of impacts upon the properties to the north and south of the site it is not considered the prosed use would have any significant impacts to these commercial/mixed uses to warrant a refusal.

6.4.2 A concern raised by some objectors is the smell impacts to their properties, namely relating to the smells from the cooking from KFC building which includes a kitchen extraction system to its rear. The closest residential property (Nr 2 Ballakermeen Drive), to the extraction flue is approximately 110m away to the northeast, across Peel Road. Within the applicants submission is a "Good Neighbour Guide" which indicates that they use "…innovation designs in our extraction systems to limit odour from our restaurants".
6.4.3 The application also indicates that there external enclosed yard area where the bins, air conditioning units, condenser units, would be within. The roof would be open, with the exception of a metal meshing to prevent birds etc). The rear walk-in-chillers and stores are all enclosed within the KFC building. This in turn will significantly reduce the potential noise impacts to neighbouring properties being enclosed partially or full enclosed. Further, these elements are located to the rear of the building over 100m+ from neighbouring properties. It should be noted when the restaurant is closed the extraction system are turned off.
6.4.4 The Starbucks unit does have an open topped enclosed yard which accommodates the bins and a condenser unit only. This area would be approximately 65m to the closes residential property within the Mile End Court Apartments on Peel Road to the north east of the site. This user does not "cook" hot food which requires extractor systems, rather heats food up in turbo ovens; hence the impact of its operation has less of a potential impact compared to KFC operator (or any operator who would use the extractor system).
6.4.5 The third commercial unit has no external storage, rather internal storage/stock rooms. Given it would be a commercial unit it is not considered the unit would have any significant impacts to neighbouring amenities.

6.4.6 Considerations is also given that the immediate area adjacent to Peel Road, Petrol Station and other neighbouring uses all result in an area which isn't especially quiet, i.e. for example being in the countryside. There is already a level of noise/disturbances during the periods the proposed units would be open, and it is not considered the proposed uses would significantly add to this impact to warrant a refusal.
6.4.7 If there were significant adverse smells/noise coming from these units (or any) then Environmental Protection would also have legislation to take action.
6.4.8 Accordingly, it is considered the proposal would comply with the relevant policies.

6.5 Traffic Impacts / parking provision (StP10, GP2, TP 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8);

6.5.1 As per the representation of this report, Highway Services have considered the application in greater detail in terms of a number of highway related matters, including; traffic generation, parking provision, access to and from the site, highway safety matters, impacts on nearby junctions and the proposed queueing systems proposed to ensure traffic would not queue onto Peel Road. Full details of Highway Services comments can be seen online, namely initial comments.

6.5.2 However, as confirmed in Highway Services latest comments they have no objection to the proposal subject to a number of conditions. The Department places great weight on Highway Services comments which have been undertaken in great detail, arguable beyond their normal consideration, given the position of the site along Peel Road which is a main road in and out of Douglas and also given the uses proposed.
6.5.3 It is clear to see by anyone who visits/passes McDonald's during busiest periods that traffic does queue onto Peel Road which does cause some traffic congestion. This is arguable the main issue with the application. Due to this and concern that this situation does not occur by the proposed development, Highway Services for over a year have been seeking additional information/discussions with the applicants, to ensure this situation does not occur on this site. From Highway Services detailed comments, the queueing issues have been addressed and with additional signage as suggested by Highway internally within the site, it is considered the proposal would be acceptable and ensure queueing onto Peel Road would be prevented.
6.5.4 A point raised by Highway Services is particularly agreed, in that it is reasonable to consider that the; "proposed facility would be likely to spread demand and thereby reduce the current negative highway impact experienced by the McDonalds site". Currently McDonalds is a unique facility on the island with no alternative. Accordingly, any person/s wishing to visit such service has no other choice. The proposal will create two additional drive thrus, which in turn will likely spread the demand for such service between them, in turn reducing traffic to each of them; hence as indicated by Highways Services.
6.5.5 A additional concern raised by the residents of Ballakermeen Drive/ Ballakermeen Avenue, is that accessing from Ballakermeen Drive junction onto Peel Road will become more difficult and raise highway safety matters caused by traffic potentially queuing onto Peel Road and exiting/entering the site, which access is opposite the junction with Ballakermeen Drive. This is a very relevant and untestable concern. In terms of the impact through traffic queueing onto Peel Road this issue has been addressed. However, in terms of extra traffic generated by the development, again Highway Services have considered this matter of additional traffic to Peel Road and including the impact upon Ballakermeen Drive.
6.5.6 Highway Services have considered the traffic generated as a "worst case" basis in term of traffic generation indicating that; "…a very high proportion of 60% of new trips has been assumed and assessed; this is considered to be a very robust 'worst case' assessment. For the proposed non-food retail unit it has been assumed that all trips would be new, that is, 100% of

new trips and no pass-by trips, which again presents a very robust case.". Furthermore on this basis Highway indicate that;

"The Peel Road / Site Access / Ballakermeen Drive Junction and the Peel Road / Pulrose Road Junction have been assessed with the proposed development in place; with 60% of trips to KFC and Starbucks being new trips, plus 100% of trips to the non-food retail unit being new trips. The outcome of the analysis is provided in the TA Second Addendum.

6.5.7 In perspective, examples used by the applicant's and considered acceptable by Highway Services from the UK (Banbury and Didcot Costa sites) indicated that on weekdays, of the traffic accessing the sites, there would be an average of just 6% new trips (94% existing passby trips). At the weekend, of the traffic accessing the sites, the proportion of new trips would rise to 14% (86% existing pass-by trips).
6.5.8 Accordingly, the figures used by Highways Services would seem to be a reasonable "worst case" scenario. It is also reasonable to consider that such proposals are made to cater for persons travelling from one location to another while stopping by to purchase food. It is also considered that given the site is on the main road in and out of Douglas and that persons especially during week days would likely be stopping by on their way into work or on their way travelling home, then these would not be "new trips" but existing. Saturday peak periods are likely to be where "new trips" are more likely, but again the "worst case" scenario undertaken by the applicants and considered by highway Services have consider this as well.
6.5.9 It is noted that KFC does not cater for breakfast times, so Starbucks unit will be busier in the mornings (peak time 7am to 10am) with KFC closed (opens at 11m). Lunch times it is likely to be a more even spread of customers to the two units (not peak time) and during evening peak times (4pm to 7pm), again both units would be open, as well as the commercial unit which is proposed to be open throughout the day. It should be noted that the Transport Assessment Reports has consider this unit on the basis of being a dental practice as this has one of the highest levels of traffic generation and therefore considered the "worst case" scenario. The unit is not proposed to be a dental practice but a retail unit (Class 1).
6.5.10 Overall, the Department in this case gives significant weight to the expertise of Highway Services in terms of all matters relating to highway safety, traffic generation and the potential queueing issue onto the highway network. Accordingly, given the lack of objection from Highway Services, the Department is satisfied that the proposals could be undertaken without significant impacts upon the highway network or upon highway safety. Accordingly, it is considered the proposals would comply with the relevant policies.

6.6 Flood risk (GP2(l) and EP10 and13);

6.6.1 The majority of the site (except for eastern boundary and south-east corner) is with a High Risk Fluvial Flood Zone. Therefore there are two main considerations. First are the buildings adequately protect from flood events and also will the development while protecting itself, does it result in flood water impacting neighbouring sites.

6.6.2 The applicants have submitted a Flood Risk Statement and have been in discussion with Manx Utilities. The proposed floor levels of the building are set at a 10.80 AD02 level, which gives a 0.43m freeboard above the 1 in 100 year flood level. Furthermore the access roads

within the site are designed to ensure emergency access is achievable during a flood event. Manx Utilities have no objection to this aspect.
6.6.3 In terms of the potential impacts of flooding of neighbouring sites by the development. The applicant's consultants have considered that the proposed development would result in an overall reduction in volume of flood water for the 1 in 100 year event, compared to the existing situation. Therefore to prevent this increase in flood risk off-site a volume of flood alleviation storage is proposed via storage tanks beneath the proposed parking area and also within the voids beneath the permeable paving areas. The storage tank is to discharge to the existing surface water culvert in the site as the flood water recedes. Manx Utilities have no objection to this aspect.
6.6.4 Overall, it is considered with an appropriately worded condition to ensure the flood alleviation storage tank is provided, the proposal would not have an unacceptable risk from flooding and would comply with the relevant policies.

6.7 Designing Out Crime (CP7)

6.7.1 Concerns of anti-social behaviour are noted, especially once the units are closed. However, person/s potentially causing anti-social behaviour on the site, potentially young drivers driving recklessly on the car park for person fighting etc for example, are all matters for the police and/or owners. The Police have considered the application and have raised no objection to the proposal and the potential impact in relation to this matter. Further, it should be noted that while take-away are generally regarded as 'honey pots' for anti-social behaviour (and the police generally do raise concerns), this is generally take-aways which close very late at night/early morning, normally with alcohol being the mitigating factor (rather than the take away itself). This proposal (KFC) would be closed at 11am and it is also not within a location where there drinking establishments; i.e. compared to the centre of Douglas. Accordingly, for these reasons it is not considered the application is acceptable from this respect.

6.8 Fire risk (CP10 and 11)

6.8.1 No objections have been received from the Fire Brigade. Furthermore, this application would require a Building Regulations Application to be made and issues relating to fire would be considered at this stage by the relevant Authorities. Due to this and no objections have been received from this respect it is considered the proposal complies with CP10 and 11.

6.8 Health impacts

6.8.1 Concerns has been raised by the Director of Public Health and other parties that the proposal close to schools has been correlated with obesity rates in children and young people and that such outlets serve high calorie foods (normally served at hot food takeaways) which have an impact upon health of the population of all ages.
6.8.2 The Strategic Plan is silent on this issue, and so it is firstly necessary to consider whether this is a material consideration. The Strategic Plan indicates that where there is no Manx Guidance, UK or EU guidance may be used (para 1.6.1). The UK Government has considered the planning system does have a role to play to try preventing such outlets opening close to schools. Certain Local Authorities have introduced guidelines which seek to prevent hot food takeaways within 400m of a secondary school or some primary and secondary schools. There are other matters to take into account for example, topography of the land, time it takes to walk to such site; physical barriers to pedestrian movement and the number and location of other takeaways along the school route.
6.8.3 If such guidance were applied to this site it is considered that it would be acceptable. The site boundary to the closest part of the boundary to the Ballakermeen High School would be approximately 375m away as the crow flies, although 515m if taken from front entrance of school to entrance of KFC. Further, Inspectors in the UK have considered that the distance walking, should be the distance measured, rather than as the "crow flies" i.e. just measuring a

line on a map taking no consideration of physical barriers/buildings etc. In this case the site would be 650m from the front door of the school to the front door of KFC building using the public footpaths (or 450m from the boundaries of the two sites). Further, it has been considered by an Inspector (Planning Appeal in Barking and Dagenham) that a 400m journey normally takes 5mins; any beyond this it is less likely pupils would travel to the hot food takeaway. In this case utilising Google Street View which also takes account of the topography of the land, estimates it would take 10 minutes to walk from KFC to the school and 8 minutes in the reverse direction (walking downhill). There is also the physical barrier of the Peel Road to cross which may also deter some pupils. Perhaps the greatest reason why pupils would not visit the site is due to closer facilities to buy food. Currently, it is very evident that pupils from Ballakermeen High School before, at lunch time and after school visit the Wessex Garage and Ballakermeen Stores, generally not purchasing foods which would be classed as "health".
6.8.4 On balance it is considered that health in relation to fast-food is capable of being a material consideration, although the weight to be attached to this is perhaps reduced by the absence of a clear Manx planning policy position on the matter. However, if UK guidance were applied the proposal is judged to be acceptable (given the distance from the school and the site; the topography of the land; time taken to get there and back to the site; much closer shops on a flat topography).

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1.1 Overall, it is considered the development proposed would result represent a significant development of one of the more prominent sites within Douglas. The uses proposed would comply with the IOMSP and the Draft Area Plan for the East and therefore the proposal in terms of the principle of development is considered acceptable.

7.1.2 Highway Services have considered the application in considerable detail in terms of the potential traffic generation, highway safety impacts, impacts upon all users of the public highway, parking provision and the issue of potential queuing onto Peel Road and have raised no objection. Accordingly for the reasons given by Highway Services it is considered the proposal would have an acceptable impact.

7.1.3 As outlined previously, in terms of health impacts due to "hot food takeaways" especially relating to schools, the Department has no planning policy which can be used to consider the application against or refuse. However, as outlined in this report, if similar policy was adopted from the UK, it is still likely the application would be considered acceptable, given the distance the site is from the closest school; given the topography of the land between; time taken to walk their and back and closer food outlets on a flatter topography; which would all likely discourage pupils to the site. There is also an argument that perhaps it is not the planning system which should deal with this matter. However, this is a matter for the Cabinet Office who have responsibility for planning policy.

7.1.4 Other considerations as outline within the assessment are also considered acceptable for the reasons stated.
7.1.5 Accordingly, given the reasons stated it is considered the application would be acceptable, complying with Isle of Man Strategic Plan (adopted 2016) and The Draft Area Plan for the East (2018) and therefore the application is recommended for an approval.

- 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:

(a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
(b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;

(c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material
(d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and
(e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

8.2 The decision maker must determine:

o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

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 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: 11.11.2019

Signed : C BALMER 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

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.

Planning Committee Decision 11.11.2019

Application No. : 18/00977/B Applicant : Buchanan Services Ltd Proposal : Erection of two detached buildings (Class 3) for the

consumption of food and drink on and off the premises with associated drive through, erection of a detached building to provide two commercial units (Class 1) and creation of car parking, lighting, landscaping and access. Creation of new substation.

Site Address : Garage Showroom Workshop & Premises (Former Eurocars Site) Peel Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 5ED Principal Planner : Mr Chris Balmer Presenting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer’s Report The Planning Committee approved the application with the following Conditions amended:

C11. The class 3, restaurant use (KFC unit), hereby approved, shall only be open for use by customers, between the hours of 1100hrs and 2300hrs, 7 days a week.

C12. The class 3, restaurant use (Starbucks unit), hereby approved, shall only be open for use by customers, between the hours of 0600hrs and 2200hrs, 7 days a week.

C13. The class 1, retail unit (Unit 2), hereby approved, shall only be open for use by customers, between the hours of 0900hrs and 1800hrs, 7 days a week.

At the Planning Committee meeting of the 11th November 2019:-

It was clarified that Manx Utilities were not a Government Department and so should be assessed against the operational policy and on that basis should not be afforded IPS. A proposal was put forward to approve the IPS as recommend other than in relation to the Ballakermeen High School which should be considered as part of the DESC (on the basis of the verbal evidence from the Head) and on that basis afforded IPS. The committee voted to give IPS to DESC.

Following discussion and a vote by the Members, it was decided that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:

Central Policing Team Inspector - Department of Home Affairs Director of Public Health - Department of Health and Social Care Department of Education, Sport & Culture (c/o Ballakermeen High School)

At the Planning Committee meeting of the 25th November 2019:-

Mr Butler reported to the Members with regard to the above application, which was determined

at the meeting of the Planning Committee dated 11th November 2019, with reference to the Interested Person status for the Board of Governors of Ballakermeen High School. He advised that the Board of Governors had also written to the Department in their own right with regard to the above application but had not been assessed for Interested Person status. He recommended that in this case the Board of Governors were not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings (based on the criteria in the operational policy) and are not mentioned in Article 6(4). Following discussion, the members unanimously agreed to accept Mr Butler's recommendation and therefore the Board of Governors of Ballakermeen High School were not accorded Interested Person status.

Conditions of Approval

C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

C 2. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the parking, turning areas, associated access and circulating lanes have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.

C 3. The development shall not be occupied or operated until the bicycle hoops and motorcycling parking bays have been provided in accordance with the approved plans 010 REV

B and shall be retained at all times thereafter.

Reason: To promote sustainable travel in the interests of reducing pollution and congestion.
C 4. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the "footpath link" and associated access onto the former railway line as shown on drawing 010 REV B has be completed and retained thereafter. Reason: to encourage sustainable transport in accordance with the active travel strategy.

C 5. The development hereby approved shall not commence until full details of additional signage within the site as indicated in the Road Safety Audit and also that proposed by the Department of Infrastructure have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and these works shall be carried out as approved and retained thereafter.

Reason: to ensure efficient traffic management within the site in order to minimise adverse impact upon the highway.

C 6. No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted, destroyed, pruned, cut or damaged in any manner during the development phase and thereafter within 5 years from the date of occupation of the building for its permitted use, other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars. In the event that retained trees become damaged or otherwise defective during the construction phase due to events outside of the applicant's control the Department shall be notified as soon as reasonably practicable and remedial action agreed and implemented.

Reason: To ensure that trees marked for retention are not removed, in the interests maintaining the amenities of the area and to ensure the visual impact of the development is mitigated.

C 7. The development hereby approved shall not commence until an arboricultural method statement , which includes adequate details of site supervision by a suitably qualified and experienced tree specialist, has been prepared in accordance with the recommendations of British Standard BS5837:2012 (Trees in relation to Design, Demolition and Construction Recommendations) and agreed in writing by the Department.

Reason: To ensure that trees marked for retention are adequately protected, in the interests maintaining the amenities of the area and to ensure the visual impact of the development is mitigated.

C 8. The arboricultural method statement approved under condition 7 above, including site supervision by a suitably qualified and experienced tree specialist, shall be adhered to in full.

C 9. The completed schedule of site supervision and monitoring of the arboricultural protection measures, as approved in condition 7, shall be submitted for approval in writing by the Department in accordance with the timescale agreed in the Arboricultural Method Statement as per Condition 7. This condition may only be fully discharged on completion of the development, subject to satisfactory written evidence of compliance through contemporaneous supervision and monitoring of the tree protection throughout construction by a suitably qualified and preappointed tree specialist.

Reason: In order to ensure compliance with the tree protection and arboricultural supervision details submitted under condition 7
C 10. No development shall take place until a technical tree planting specification for each of the 4 large-tree planting locations shown on drawing 010revC is submitted to and agreed in writing by the Department. This specification shall include:

a. plan and section drawings for each tree pit which account for below ground anchorage, tree pit surfacing, irrigation and aeration aids, the need for geotextiles and root barriers, and the amount and distribution of crate system units required.
b. The species, and (where applicable) cultivar of the trees to be planted and the size at date of planting, stated by a height and stem girth range
c. An approximate timeline for the installation of the tree pit and planting of the trees
d. Details of how the trees will be maintained until they successfully establish in the landscape and in compliance with Condition 15. Reason: to ensure appropriate landscaping is undertaken

C 11. The class 3, restaurant use (KFC unit), hereby approved, shall only be open for use by customers, between the hours of 1100hrs and 2300hrs, 7 days a week.

C 12. The class 3, restaurant use (Starbucks unit), hereby approved, shall only be open for use by customers, between the hours of 0600hrs and 2200hrs, 7 days a week.

C 13. The class 1, retail unit (Unit 2), hereby approved, shall only be open for use by customers, between the hours of 0900hrs and 1800hrs, 7 days a week.

C 14. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the underground flood alleviation storage tank beneath the car park and in accordance with the Planning Statement Relating to the "Planning Statement Relating to Flood Risk" and the Flood Risk-Additional Technical Information to Accompany (relating to limited discharge rate as a maximum of 26.4l/s from the attenuation storage tank into the culvert) has all been provided in accordance with the approved plans 12 and it shall be retained at all times thereafter.

Reason: To ensure adequate flood protection of adjacent sites in accordance with Environment Policy 13.

C 15. The development hereby approved shall not commence until full details of soft and hard landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and these works shall be carried out as approved. Details of the soft landscaping works include details of new planting (including tree planting in relation to Condition 10) showing, type, size and position of each. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the dwelling, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which die or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the

next planting season with others of a similar size and species. Details of the hard landscaping works include footpaths and hard surfacing materials. The hard landscaping works shall be completed in full accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted.

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.

C 16. The visibility splays identified on plan 013; shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter kept permanently clear of any obstruction exceeding 1050mm in height above adjoining carriageway level. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
C 17. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the external lighting as approve under plan 203 and document "External Lighting - dated 20th August 2018" have been completed in full accordance with these plan/document, and they shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the visual amenities of the street scene and neighbouring amenities and to comply with GP2 & EP22.

C 18. No development shall commence until a scheme specifying the provisions to be made for the control of noise emissions from the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. These measures shall then be implemented in full before the development is occupied and shall be permanently retained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Department.

Reason: To reduce the impact of noise beyond the site of the application resulting from the approved development.

C 19. No development shall commence until a scheme specifying the provisions to be made for the control of odour emissions from the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. These measures shall then be implemented in full before the development is occupied and shall be permanently retained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Department.

Reason: To reduce the impact of odour beyond the site of the application resulting from the approved development.

Plans/Drawings/Information

This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings reference numbers and reports;

Amended Application Form received on 20th December 2018 And the Transport Assessment Second Addendum - dated September 2019 and date stamped as received on 11th September 2019

DEC Officer Report

Source & Provenance