Officer Report

Application No.: 15/01186/B Applicant: Jacksons (C.I.) Limited Proposal: Development of a multi franchise car dealership consisting of two showrooms, after sales building and valeting building with associated roads, drainage and landscaping, inclusion of future development for a further showroom, after sales building and showroom extension and alterations to highway including creation of a roundabout Site Address: Field 522159 And Part Field's 522157 & 524831 Cooil Road Braddan Isle of Man Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Site Visit: 25.11.2015 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE SITE IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR DEVELOPMENT AND DUE TO THE SCALE OF THE PROPOSALS AND NUMBER OF SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED

THE SITE

1.1 The site is a piece of land which lies on the southern side of Cooil Road, the A6 which leads from the roundabout at "Fort North" (Kewaigue, Castletown (A5) and Cooil Roads). To the south and east of the site is open agricultural land with, to the south east the former Ballakinnish Nurseries (now a Department of Infrastructure depot (PA 14/00689/C) and two residential properties - Brookside and Croyton. To the west is the Robinsons fruit, flowers and vegetable packing and packaging plant including the sale of some items, and to the west of this, Eden Park Garden Centre and four newly built industrial units. At the front of the site is the former Ballapaddag Farmhouse which now sits amid car parking for the garden centre. Opposite the site on the other side of Cooil Road is an array of industrial units accommodating from east to west, the entrance to Spring Valley estate, Skanco, Premier Flooring and Haus, Ocean Ford car dealership and a cleared site which once accommodated the Cooil Smithy and associated cottage and on which some new industrial units have been built with some remaining unimplemented at the present time. - 1.2 The site has a frontage to Cooil Road of 330m, of which 240m is the actual development site, the rest included to provide adequate access into the site. The site has a depth of 260m and incorporates the remaining building and lanes of Ballavargher Farm - formerly a group of farm buildings set in a small stand of trees, the latter of which are Registered by virtue of their designation on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as Woodland. The site also includes a section of Cooil Road and a length of around 30m of the entrance into Spring Valley estate. - 1.3 The site has a boundary to Cooil Road of a short grassed verge behind which is a low grass bank with various trees and gorse growing within it. The lane leading down to Ballavargher Farm has trees on each side growing from a higher hedge than is alongside the main road. Ballavargher Farm up until relatively recently, had a farmhouse and farm buildings within it. The buildings have

largely been demolished and only a portal framed shed remains. The access lane is currently potholed, but accessible. Visibility at the junction of Cooil Road is minimal from a point 2m back into the lane.

THE PROPOSAL The physical development

• 2.1.1 Proposed is the principle of the development of the site to accommodate car sales accommodation including both new and used vehicles, including premium franchise used cars. The scheme will involve the creation of a new access into the site, formed by a roundabout which involves re-aligning the carriageway on the northern side, bringing it further south and bringing the roundabout and carriageway into the application site on the southern side of the road. The frontage will be reformed, pushed back to the south and will be more open with a wider grass verge between the highway and the landscaped frontage of the site and with a pedestrian path running between the verges parallel with the main road and the land which will be retained but closed off. A new entrance parallel to and to the west of the lane will be introduced.
• 2.1.2 The scheme as shown initially would have resulted in the removal of all of the trees around the Ballavargher Farm buildings site. Following discussions with the Forestry Division, the scheme has been amended to remove eleven trees but to retain the remainder including seven grade A quality specimens. The applicant has provided a tree protection plan (drawing 01E) which shows areas of proposed hard standing within the protection zones and where only no-dig construction can take place under the supervision of a qualified arboriculturist. The tree planting along the frontage will accommodate hornbeam and callery pear in protective square planters with, along the western and southern boundary, new maples, birches, oaks and limes.
• 2.1.3 New buildings will be introduced to accommodate the car sales and aftersales servicing and repair with the associated car parking (spaces). There are proposed to be up to five buildings, three of which are proposed in detail at this stage, with a further extension to one of the buildings and two new buildings shown on the plans and for which permission is sought in principle. One of the buildings will be sited at the northern end of the site, designed to be the flagship building for the development featuring flat roofing, stone walling on the lower sections of the building and significant areas of glazing with the signage of the marques to be sold displayed on the front but which will be the subject of a further application under the Advertisements Regulations. The marques shown on the drawings are Porsche, Volvo, Bentley, Volkswagen, Audi and Aston Martin. The building is two storey at one end and single storey at the other, taking into account the topography of the site which is slightly sloping.
• 2.1.4 The second sales building is slightly less detailed, with no stonework, no heavy coping on the flat roofing and with silver coloured aluminium cladding to the upper half of the elevations and glazing beneath separated by darker grey aluminium clad sections. This will accommodate less prestigious marques and those shown on the drawings are Fiat, Jeep, Volkswagen commercial vehicles, Skoda and SsangYong.
• 2.1.5 The third building for after sales servicing will continue the silver aluminium finish over the entirety of the building with few areas of glazing and a low pitched roof finished in grey coloured aluminium cladding.
• 2.1.6 The overall floor area will be 6,367 sq m with a further 3,725 sq m if the additional buildings shown in the site plan which will be the subject of a further application are constructed, 265 car parking spaces will be provided and the applicant will also provide a park and ride shuttle service for customers having their vehicle serviced by them (estimated to be up to 60 vehicles per day). A new wastewater treatment plant is proposed to the south of the site, much further downhill. Full details of this have not been provided at this stage.
• 2.1.7 Access to the site will involve the creation of a new roundabout on Cooil Road with a slight realignment of the road further south, bringing the existing carriageway into the site opposite the

• exit from BandQ, the Isle of Man Post and Sorting Office, Skanco and the remainder of the industrial estate.
• 2.1.8 Lighting is proposed and the applicant has provided a lighting diagram which illustrates that the lighting will be directed such that there will be no light spill outwith the site and extending east to just affect the westernmost trees on the access lane and with no light directed upwards. Ten column lights will be introduced along Cooil Road in between the proposed tree planting. Further column lighting is proposed within the proposed car parking areas and similar effect lighting attached to the proposed buildings but not on the elevation facing towards Cooil Road. Bollard lighting is proposed (12 in number) around the vehicular entrances to the site. Lighting will be illuminated between 0600hrs and 2230hrs and only when natural light levels are low. They have been designed to acknowledge the bat-sensitive environment around the site. Supporting information - the manufacturers' requirements and economic benefit

• 2.2.1 The applicant explains that their proposal represents very significant inward investment for the Island involving construction costs of around £14.5 million with the potential creation of 100 jobs (65 initially followed by a further 35 if the business is expanded in line with the plans shown) with a projected annual turnover of between £50 and £60 million and an annual payroll of £3.5 million. They believe that there is an acute shortage of employment land, demonstrated by the Employment Land Review of 2015 together with planning approvals which have been granted in recent years on land not designated for that purpose.
• 2.2.2 They suggest that the opportunity for this investment comes from the reduction in the range of new car marques available to buy directly from on-Island dealerships in recent years. In their view, none of the existing dealers on the Island are able to achieve the top level of discount support for manufacturers which is available to off-Island dealers, making vehicles more expensive to buy on Island and encouraging and resulting in people going off Island to buy their new vehicles. Their proposal will significantly enhance the range of brands offered on Island, in their view. If approved, the development will commence as soon as is possible.
• 2.2.3 The application suggests that the dealership will not offer for sale brands which are currently available on the Island but that its location close to other dealerships - Buchanan BMW and Mini/Caledonian Toyota, Ocean Ford will create a cluster of car dealerships which will increase potential sales to all of the operations in the area. They suggest that the modern design will establish a forward thinking attitude for the Island in general. The business is described as taking on 6 apprentices initially followed by 2 more as candidates graduate. The applicant has liaised with the Isle of Man College and is committed to working with Department of Economic Development to ensure maximum benefit to the Island. They also believe that the proposal will improve highway safety and traffic efficiency through the introduction of the new roundabout.
• 2.2.4 The applicants indicate that their basic requirements are for a site of at least 10 acres, close to Douglas and ideally on a dedicated highway route, outside of the TT course and south of Quarterbridge to avoid the congestion of the central Douglas area and be easily accessible by the majority of the population. The size of the site relates to the size of operation, whose commercial success relies in turn on the shared staffing and facilities economies of scale characteristic of a multi-dealership franchise. They are of the view that this is the only site which satisfies all of their requirements. Their legal situation regarding the development is that they need to be able to be open for business by early 2017: therefore they need a period of two years from June 2015 for the securing of planning and building regulation approvals, the construction and opening of the operation. If this is not possible then they will have to consider pursuing other international investment projects in other jurisdictions which are deliverable within the time frame available. Whilst they are aware that the Department of Infrastructure has commenced a Call for Sites exercise in respect of employment land, this was announced after they engaged in a contract for this site and believe that this exercise will take years to complete and even then may not with certainty result in the bringing forward of a site of this size or with the qualities which the applicant believes is necessary for this development. As such, they feel that they have no alternative but to

• apply for planning approval on land which is not designated for development. The applicant's business is responsible to shareholders who require return on their investment and as the funding for the project has been agreed by them, they expect an imminent return on this investment amount, rather than the finances sitting unused and dormant. Without support for this current application they strongly believe that there will continue to be falling car sales on the Island with a total loss of the Manx motor retail industry over time.
• 2.2.5 The applicant suggests that they are the only motor group which could bring this proposal to the Island due to their Crown Dependency operating agreements which has been agreed with the car manufacturers to develop and sustain a profitable multi franchise business where other smaller dealerships ultimately fail. This agreement introduces to the manufacturers a set of local operating standards and additional finance in lieu of manufacturers' finance packages for car purchases which are not available to non-UK residents. They have 100% funding in place for the development and the support of Porsche, Audi, Volkswagen, Volvo, Aston Martin and Bentley who are all in support of the development proposals but who are also offering development opportunities elsewhere. They have been operating in the Channel Islands under the Crown Dependency arrangement which has resulted in a suitable return from lower volume and higher costs than mainland competitors.
• 2.2.6 The applicant describes how car manufacturers' requirements have changed considerable over the past few years with the manufacturers now dictating how their products are displayed for sale. A single, stand-alone dealership selling one marque can cost anything between £8 million and £15 million to develop with only relatively modest returns. The Island situation offers a limited population base on top of this. They consider that the Isle of Man motor retail industry and the present economic conditions here to be poorer than was the case in the Channel Islands ten years ago. The Island has seen the withdrawal of Audi, Jaguar, Porsche, Hyundai and Volvo dealerships as well as a serious decline in the registration of new vehicles on the Island - a decline by a third over the last 5 years whilst the UK market is experiencing the opposite effect and the Channel Islands remains stable.
• 2.2.7 They consider that whilst the Island has a number of newly built retail premises they do not remotely compare with the modern style of showrooms seen in the UK or Channel Islands which are increasingly being required by manufacturers. Modern day requirements from manufacturers include the following:

sufficient internal space to accommodate a range of display vehicles, demonstration vehicles and accessories an attractive, spacious environment for potential customers sufficient customer parking an ability to project the unique branding and profile of each marque and a level of service that manufacturers expect.

• 2.2.8 The applicant believes that over recent years the Island's retailers have ceased to invest in their facilities and as a result franchises have been consistently lost and local businesses will have lost the goodwill of the public and the manufacturers who may not understand the local Manx market nor be prepared to make allowances for it. They believe that this continued decline in new car sales has serious consequences for local employment and the local economy.
• 2.2.9 The applicant's company, the Jacksons Group was founded in the 1950s with its expansion and development coming under its ownership by Tom Scott and the present Chief Executive Officer, Paul Collier and which were also responsible for the consolidation and saving of the Channel Islands' motor trade. Their operation in the Channel Islands, Jersey and Guernsey, represent 23 marques, divided between their luxury franchises and volume/value franchises. Their model is based upon the buying public having a diverse range of marques from which to choose on a single site and the economies of scale which this brings. The current CEO of the Jacksons Group has previously lived and worked on the Isle of Man. The applicant believes that they will be able to provide the Manx public with a more cost effective way of buying new vehicles (which currently results in cars being

• cheaper to buy off Island, even including the transportation fee of up to £500). They emphasise that they will not be selling any vehicles which are already being sold by existing dealerships on the Island and they consider that having a group of dealerships in close proximity to each other will be beneficial to all.
• 2.2.10 They describe the jobs to be created as being 4 management positions, 17 sales positions, 36 positions in after sales work and 8 jobs in accountancy, general administration and IT.
• 2.2.11 The business will not only provide for the sale of new vehicles but also the after sales servicing and warranty work, some of which is not possible on the Island currently as there are no approved mechanics which could carry out this work. Jacksons is committed to providing a career path and advises that from apprentice to technician it would take around 3 years and a further 5 years to quality as a Master Technician which can command a salary of up to £100,000 per annum and provide skills which can be used internationally and in many different fields. The applicant advises that they will be working with the Isle of Man Department of Education and Children. They also have a policy of sourcing and purchasing locally wherever possible to continue to re-invest in the local economy.
• 2.2.12 The applicant appreciates the benefit of the attraction of High Value Individuals (HVIs) to the Island and believes that their business will support that as high end motor vehicles fall into the service provision they expect. Within the Channel Islands, the applicant works closely with their Governments and Locate Jersey and Locate Guernsey to ensure that the needs of these HVIs are catered for prior to residency being established - corporate events, hosting of events, dinners and sponsorship of key areas. The applicant believes that their investment in this project will send out a powerful message of growth and confidence to underline the strength of the attractiveness of the Island as a place to live and invest. In the Channel Islands, once a High Value Individual has established themselves on one of the Islands, the applicant has organised regular events for likeminded people to gather together, potentially to discuss new businesses and investments and they have also found that many individuals like to invest in local charities, clubs and often, the only thing that has prevented them doing this before has been that no-one has asked. Organising regular events in a high quality setting, they believe is the ideal opportunity to enable such individuals to become involved in the local community which is a proven approach which has borne many benefits in Jersey and Guernsey.
• 2.2.13 The applicant emphasises that a quality development is essential to the success of the business and that a frontage which allows the site to be seen is important together with the accessibility of the site to the majority of the population. They consider it imperative to have a site close to Douglas as many people looking for cars and dropping them off for service, work or live there. They also need the site to be unaffected by racing on the TT Circuit. They consider that the application site is perfect for them. Other sites

• 2.3.1 The applicant has considered other sites and has concluded that there are no sites which meet all of their criteria and believe that the Employment Land Review supports this, concluding that there are only 2 hectares of available employment land at the present time, which is why the Department of Infrastructure has commenced a call for sites which is unlikely to be concluded before the end of 2016 and the Area Plan for the East is unlikely to be concluded before the end of

1. Both of these timescales are outside their investment time frame. They believe that there are no zoned sites which are available and would suit their purpose and whilst land is still available at the Business Park further along Cooil Road, they understand that this is covenanted such that only corporate headquarters may be built there. Whilst land may be available near the Airport, this does not fit with their criteria of being close to the densest concentration of population and employment.

Retail Assessment

2.4 1 The applicant has provided a Retail Assessment in line with Business Policy 9 and Appendix 1 of the Strategic Plan (see later). The applicant suggests that car showrooms are not considered to

be retail and are sui generis in planning terms - that is, of their own type and not falling within a use class, both in the UK and the Isle of Man and in both cases tend to be located outside of established shopping centres. They consider that the provisions of the Strategic Plan, 9.2.6 supports the provision of a car showroom outwith high street and town centre locations and within industrial areas. They describe only two car showrooms being located in Douglas town centre and both being relatively small operations and apart from Eurocars on Peel Road the few larger dealerships in the east operate from existing light industrial areas (the Eurocars site is designated as Light Industrial on the Douglas Local Plan). The applicant has indicated that their business will not deal with any brands which are already sold from a dealership currently operating on the Island so there will be no direct impact on existing franchises. Whilst there may be a degree of competition between marques it is, in their opinion likely to be relatively small and of no consequence in planning terms. If there were to be any loss of trade to any existing business, this would be outweighed by the significant economic and related benefits to the Island as a whole. As such, the applicant does not believe that there will be any material impact on the vitality and viability of existing shopping centres or within the broader catchment area of the East and Douglas. A further Retail Impact Assessment is therefore not considered to be required. They do not believe that loss of trade to another business is a material planning consideration and any loss to individual dealerships would be significantly outweighed by the overall gain to the Island.

Planning Assessment

• 2.5.1 The applicant's planning assessment includes reference to "considerable relevant planning history that supports the principle of employment relating development on unzoned land. They refer to an earlier application for a car franchise on adjacent land (see 3.5.2) which was refused but since then planning approvals having been approved:

PA 04/02473/A - approval in principle for the erection of light industrial units, land adjacent to EB Christians and White Hoe industrial Estate - approved on appeal (the Minister overturned the Inspector's recommended confirmation of the Planning Committee's refusal of the application on the basis that he believed that the Inspector had given insufficient weight to the acknowledged demand for industrial land in the Douglas area and also that he accorded greater than appropriate weight to the visual impact of the development). This site is partly developed.

PA 06/01170/B change of use of part of Kirby Farm from agriculture to light industry storage and warehousing, Vicarage Road, Braddan - approved on appeal (the Inspector supporting the Planning Committee's approval of the application and the Minister accepting this, acknowledging the shortage of industrial land in the Braddan Area and the then Government statement that Development Orders would be brought forward for industrial land development).

PA 06/00558/B - relocation of existing stone recycling area and creation of industrial starter units, adjacent to the Energy From Waste Plant - approved on appeal (the Minister accepting that the Inspector's recommendation to uphold the appeal on the basis that in the words of the then Department of Trade and Industry "there is a general shortage of land within the area which would be suitable for development to satisfy demand" and also commenting that "one of the unfortunate results of not proceeding with the Braddan Parish Plan is that ad hoc decisions sometimes have to be made").

PA 10/00155/B - relocation of stone recycling area and creation of industrial starter units, land adjacent to the Energy From Waste Plant (incorporating additional land over and above that approved under PA 06/00558/B - approved on appeal, the Minister agreeing with the Inspector that the appeal should be allowed on the basis that the need for industrial units outweighs the principle of development on land which is not designated for development).

• 2.5.2 The Planning Assessment also refers to the proposed Cooil Road Development Order (CRDO) which was prepared by Government for the designation of land on the southern side of Cooil Road, including this current site, which was refused by the Council of Ministers following a recommendation for the same by the reporting Inspector, on the basis of a lack of justification but

• included the suggestion that "If a specific short term urgent need could be clearly demonstrated then a relevant Development Order or relevant planning application could be submitted". Included in the conclusions were that the site need not result in an adverse visual impact and that there were no clear reasons for concern in relation to access, archaeology, ecology or drainage.
• 2.5.3 The Assessment also refers to a more recent application for the development of light industrial units on the land to the south of Eden Park garden Centre, PA 11/01232/B which was approved at appeal, the Minister confirming the Inspector's recommendation to uphold the initial approval of the application which includes the Inspector's statement that "I consider that a demonstrable shortage of high quality premises, or land on which to erect such premises, in and around Douglas is capable of being treated as giving rise to a national need" (paragraph 103) and that in his opinion the Eastern Area Plan is unlikely to be formally adopted by Tynwald before say 2018 (paragraph124). The inspector was not of the view that the case put forward demonstrated an immediate need for the proposed accommodation but that there was a general and longer term need which justified approval of the application.
• 2.5.4 The Assessment also considers that the proposal is not premature in relation to the Call For Sites For Employment Land nor the not yet commenced Eastern Area Plan and cites a recent approval at Meary Voar (PA 15/00124/B which was approved by Council of Ministers for an extension to an existing dwelling, on the basis of economic benefit.

• 2.5.6 The applicant accepts that the Braddan Parish District Plan of 1991 continues to have weight as a material planning consideration but that other applications have been approved which appear contrary to the provisions of this Plan on the basis of a lack of appropriate industrial land.
• 2.5.7 The applicant refers to the draft Braddan Area Plan of 2001 as additional background information which included the application site, amid other land on the southern side of Cooil Road, as proposed industrial use.
• 2.5.8 The applicant refers to the Strategic Plan and suggests that the following provisions support the development: Strategic Objectives 3.4 a and b

• Strategic Policy 1
• Strategic Policy 2 General Policy 3g Environment Policies 1 and 24 Business Policies 1 and 10 Transport Policies 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

• 2.5.9 The Assessment also suggests that the proposal accords with the principles and objectives of the draft Planning Policy Statement on Planning and the Economy and that a number of applications have been approved on the basis of the provisions of this draft document.
• 2.5.10 The application includes an Environmental Impact Assessment which considers landscape and visual impact, ecology, traffic and transportation, flood risk and drainage and socio-economic effects. This takes its guide not only from the Strategic Plan but also from the most up to date UK guidance which is found in the National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) which in turn interprets the UK Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. Certain evidence has also been reiterated from the previous work undertaken for the Cooil Road Development Order in 2009 where this is considered still to be relevant. In addition, there are areas where the applicant has not considered it relevant or necessary to undertaken further work - in terms of Heritage they are aware that in 2008 an Archaeological Desk-based Assessment was carried out by Oxford Archaeology and which formed the basis of the subsequent heritage section of the Cooil Road Order. That Assessment found that the site was not within a recognised area of archaeological interest or protection nor were there Ancient Monuments or Registered Buildings

• present on the site. Features of interest, whilst not formally protected included the Ballavargher Farmhouse and outbuildings and former garden and the earth bank boundaries on the east and western sides of the site. The buildings, however, have since been demolished and the earth banks noted are to be retained and will be largely unaffected by the proposed development. As such, the applicant does not believe that further archaeological investigation or reports are necessary but that should any mitigation be required this can be controlled by a Written Scheme of Investigation secured by planning condition, which has been agreed with Manx National Heritage.
• 2.5.11 In terms of contamination, the applicant is aware that in 2006 Arup carried out geotechnical investigations of the area which revealed no contamination and as the proposed end use of the site

• as a car showroom has a very low sensitivity to ground contamination, they consider that any potential impacts are likely to be insignificant. Similarly with air quality, surveys undertaken between 1997 and 2009 revealed that the air quality on the Island is generally very good and in respect of the application site, being 350m or so from the nearest "sensitive receptor" this is considered to be a relatively low sensitivity area. They clarify that the potential for air quality impacts during construction will be primarily dust and construction traffic emissions and will, as with any construction project, be short term. Best practice techniques can enhance this and could be required by a planning condition. The development itself, once implemented and in use has potential for impacts on air quality through car traffic but given the nature of vehicle movements generated, this is not considered to be significant.

• 2.5.12 In terms of noise impact there will be some during construction which, again, will be short term and could be controlled in terms of timing, through planning conditions. The actual operation of the car dealership is unlikely to generate significant noise and whilst the valeting and washing of the vehicles will be undertaken on site, this will largely be contained within buildings and given the distance from sensitive receptors, this is not considered to be significant. Landscape and Visual Impact
• 2.5.13 The applicant has provided a landscape impact assessment which identifies receptors (most sensitive are residents at home, people engaged in recreation whose attention or interest is focused upon the landscape affected by the proposed development, visitors to heritage assets and communities whose views contribute to the landscape setting. Moderately sensitive are people who would be travelling through or past the affected landscape in vehicles and people engaged in outdoor activity which does not involve the appreciation of the landscape and finally, the least sensitive are people at their place of work whose attention may be focussed on their work and who may be less susceptible to changes in their view). This is then applied to the magnitude of visual impact (adverse and beneficial) and finally together with available opportunities for mitigation.
• 2.5.14 The applicant's assessment considers that the application site is of medium landscape value, condition and character. The wider area is of higher value in all three categories. They have considered a number of viewpoints: from Cooil Road, the footpath system from Richmond Hill to Middle Farm, from the Home of Rest for Retired Horses and the residential properties of Richmond House, Reayrt ny Cabbil, Sunrise Bungalow, Upper Ballacubbon and Ballacubbon Farm all off Richmond Hill. They also considered the impact from the footpath which runs from the Castletown Road (A5) to Speke Farm.
• 2.5.15 They conclude that the impact of the development will have a moderate to major adverse impact on the application site itself deriving from the change from open view across the countryside to the south to a view into a built development, albeit of a high quality building in a landscaped setting. They consider that the impact as viewed from the Home of Rest for Retired Horses will be initially minor to moderate adverse on completion but will recede to minor adverse after 15 years when the landscaping has greater effect. The other viewpoints listed are considered to be affected in a minor, neutral or negligible way. Ecology

• 2.5.16 The EIA identifies that the site is used by at least three species of bat and their foraging area will be interrupted in the short term although the proposed landscaping will incorporate significant supplementary and sympathetic planting using nature trees and shrubs. The inclusion of bat boxes in the retained habitats will further improve the habitat. They intend to minimise the impact of lighting on the site through careful design of lighting to use low level, low intensity or downwash lighting which can be controlled by condition. Transport and Traffic
• 2.5.17 The applicant has provided a transport assessment and has assessed the impact of the traffic generated as a result of the development, estimating that the operation will result in around 86 morning peak and 67 evening peak time trips on Cooil Road during the week. This does not include the provision of a green travel plan which could result in a reduction of these numbers. These numbers are a maximum 4.9% and 3.8% increase in the peak time traffic already experienced on the adjacent roads, the greatest increase being at the junction of the Vicarage Road/Cooil Road roundabout and this level of increase is deemed to be negligible.
• 2.5.18 The Transport Assessment reports that most of the accidents which have been reported in the vicinity of the site have been the result of confusion or error. They consider that the new roundabout should improve traffic flow and reduce traffic speed, both in the interests of highway safety. Flood Risk and Drainage
• 2.5.19 The site is not within an identified area of flood risk so is unlikely to be affected by fluvial flooding. However, they are aware that there may be flooding issues from other sources, namely surface water run-off and from sewers. At present there is a private surface water sewer which runs along the northern boundary of the site and which connects into the public surface water sewer beyond the eastern boundary of the application site. There is an existing surface water sewer to the east of the application site which discharges into the existing ditch network: this carries surface water from the Spring Valley Industrial Estate. To the south east of the site the ditches of the upper part of the catchment area discharge into a pond which naturally attenuates surface water flow into the Middle River.
• 2.5.20 There are no public foul sewers in the immediate vicinity of the site. The existing development drains in a north south direction into four pumping stations along Cooil Road. These then pump uphill northward to discharge into the foul sewerage system in Anagh Coar and Farmhill which in turn drain into the main Douglas system. The applicant is aware that the existing Douglas/Braddan system is highly stressed and has capacity issues.
• 2.5.21 The applicant identifies that there may be potential for pollution of the water course during construction and that appropriate measures will need to be taken to prevent this from happening. The development, in utilising land previously used for agriculture will remove the opportunity for contamination of the ground from pesticides, fertilisers and slurry but this needs to be balanced against the potential for vehicle movements and servicing to result in pollutants entering the water course. The increased areas of hard surfacing will lead to an increase in the amount and speed of surface water run-off from the site compared with the existing which could result in increased flood risk for the Middle River.
• 2.5.22 The applicant proposes to mitigate the potential adverse impacts of the development on water quality by utilising good practice during construction incorporating such devices as wheel washes, appropriate storage facilities and site security. Surface water run-off will need to be intercepted before being discharged into any other system, involving petrol and oil interception which will be agreed with Manx Utilities and the Environmental Protection Unit through licensing. The rate of surface water flow will be designed and managed so as to replicate green field run off into the Middle River.

• 2.5.23 Foul drainage is to be dealt with by a new proprietary waste water treatment works to be located to the south of the development site which will discharge to a sampling point then to the Middle River. They identify an opportunity for the existing Spring Valley system to divert to the new system which, once the new system is installed, would not be the subject of further planning control unless physical enlargement of the treatment works is proposed.
• 2.5.24 They consider the overall impacts on the quality of the water in the vicinity of the site to be affected in a minor beneficial way once mitigation measures are operational and the impacts on flow to be negligible. Socio-economic impacts
• 2.5.25 The applicant has indicated that the development will have a direct effect on the economy as it will create jobs in the construction industry and in the operation of the business. They see no adverse socio-economic effects and as such propose no mitigation of this. PLANNING POLICY AND STATUS

3.1 The relevant planning policy documents are considered to be the following:

The Braddan Parish District Plan adopted in 1991 The Strategic Plan - Towards a Sustainable Island adopted in 2007 The draft Planning Policy on Planning and the Economy published in 2012

Other Material Considerations Other planning applications which have been considered in the vicinity of this site and for other forms of employment-generating or similar types of development The Cooil Road Development Order The Employment Land Review 2015 The Call for Sites for Employment Land 2015 The Landscape Character Assessment The Retail Sector Strategy 2013 Isle of Man Agenda For Change and Securing a Sustainable Future for our Island - an update to the Agenda for Change

Braddan Parish District Plan (BPDLP)

3.2 The Braddan District Plan was adopted in 1991 and remains the only adopted local plan for Braddan and this site. A revision of this was commenced in 1999 which culminated in a draft Area Plan which was considered and reported upon by an Inspector but was not put forward for adoption by Tynwald. The status of this plan has been the subject of comment in a number of documents, perhaps the most useful of which, the Inspector's report on the Cooil Road Development Order states the following:

• "390. Although it is 19 years old, the BPDLP proposals should still have some weight. This is because the BPDLP is an adopted plan, tested at local inquiry in 1989 and accepted by Tynwald"
• "391. The abandoned Draft Braddan Parish Plan (DBPP) is a material consideration...From the evidence it is clear that very little weight indeed should be attached to the proposed designation of much of the Cooil Road Development Order (CRDO) site for light industrial purposes. The Plan was started in 2000, was the subject of a public inquiry in 2003 and was abandoned in 2006. There is insufficient supporting evidence to show that the proposal for light industrial uses at Ballapaddag was properly justified in the February 2003 plan. In support of the proposals there is simply an assertion, without any supporting evidence at all, that the DTI recommended that there will be a need for at least 23 acres of land for industrial development based upon recent demand. This assertion follows the statement that, "although no formal assessment of the amount of land required has been undertaken"."

"393. This unjustified assertion about need from the DTI is similar to the way the east part of the Cooil Road site seemed to be promoted by the Braddan Parish Commissioners in 2002. From the Report of the Select Committee it would seem the Commissioners' suggestion to allocate more land

• at Cooil Road to the east and south of Robinsons was motivated by a wish to avoid a monopoly to industrial land ownership rather than from any clear understanding of employment land requirements, employment land supply or relevant shortfalls in available land..." "398. In short, no weight should be attached to the abandoned DBPP in relation to the CRDO".

3.3 The Braddan Parish District Plan designates the application site as part of a wider area not designated for development with the area of trees around Ballavargher Farm buildings identified as Woodland. The Plan states that "areas not allocated for development are designated as of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. Other relevant parts of the Written Statement include the following:

• "2.4 In accordance with the adopted policy of Tynwald no retail developments will be permitted within the parish district of Braddan with the exception of retail provision designed to serve the local neighbourhood requirements of existing and future communities."
• "2.5 No development of retail use, nor conversion of existing buildings to retail use, will be permitted in existing or future industrial areas".

"6.7 No further extension of any industrial areas into areas designated as open space will be permitted".

"8.3 The creation of new development areas for uses such as residential and industrial purposes will clearly generate additional traffic. It is therefore recommended that such developments be considered in the preparation of any traffic management or road improvement proposals which could include…Cooil Road beyond the existing industrial estate".

• "13.3 The rural areas of Braddan Parish District will be designated as being of high landscape value. As part of this policy it is essential that the important tree groups and woodland within the parish be subject to a maintenance and management scheme which will include under-planting when necessary."
• "13.4 No further development in the countryside will be permitted with the exception of those referred to in 13.2 and those which are required for national strategic reasons, and those required for essential agricultural purposes. All areas designated as open space must be respected and no further intrusion will be permitted".

3.3 The Strategic Plan 2007

• 3.3.1 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.
• 3.3.2 The following Strategic Plan policies are considered relevant to the consideration of the current application:

Strategic Aim: 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, giving particular regard to our uniquely Manx natural, wildlife, cultural and built heritage".

Strategic Policy 2: New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3.

Strategic Policy 5: 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 Aims and Policies.

Strategic Policy 10: 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.

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

Spatial Policy 5: New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3.

Strategic Policy 10: 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.

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.

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.

General Policy 3: Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:

• a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10)
• b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historical, or social value and interest (Housing Policy 11)
• c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of buildings; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment
• d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14)
• e) location-dependant development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services;
• f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry
• g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative and
• h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage.

• 6.6.3 Within rural areas, advertisements can be disruptive features which affect adversely the appearance of the landscape and the countryside. Lighting can pollute the night sky and may be contrary to nature conservation interests.

General Policy 8 states: "Within rural areas the display of external advertisements will be permitted only where:

• a) They are located on or directly next to the premises to which they relate:
• b) They do not detract from the appearance of either the immediate area or the landscape;
• c) They are normally constructed of traditional materials unless the nature of the display or location would render such materials inappropriate;
• d) Any illumination, which will be permitted only where it is essential, is kept to a minimum and is so hooded as to prevent undesirable escape of light;
• e) They are located so as not to cause a highway safety hazard; and
• f) Any illumination will not have an adverse effect on areas of ecological value.

• Environment Policy 1: The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative.
• Environment Policy 2: The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape of Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce difference categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:

• a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or
• b) the location for the development is essential.

• Environment Policy 3: Development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi-natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value.

Paragraph 9.2.6 states: Since the adoption of the Braddan Local Plan in 1991, pressure has been growing for the inclusion within industrial areas of a variety of retail-related uses, with some applications being successful. Those which have been successful have generally fallen into one of the following two categories:

• a) developments of a retail nature where the items being retailed cannot generally be sold from a high street of town centre location, eg motor cars, builders' materials, agricultural equipment and feed; and
• b) developments which in themselves are not retail but comprise elements of retail use which are inextricably linked to the primary use of the building or site - eg tailor-made clothing or video tapes manufactured on the premises."

However, there are good reasons not only for directing most retail uses to town centre locations but also for reserving industrial land for its designated purpose. It is important to ensure that sufficient suitable land is available for industrial development. In any case most industrial estates are unsuitable as environments for shoppers. The following policy is therefore appropriate:

Business Policy 5: 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.

3.4 The draft Planning Policy on Planning and the Economy published in 2012

3.4.1 This was introduced to ensure that the planning system continues to consider and make appropriate provision for the identified national needs of the entire economy and assists in steering economic development to the most appropriate locations. It is clear that the economy should not be constrained by a shortage of land for economic uses. It requires that where development is justified by economic benefits this must be supported by evidence that demonstrates that the proposed development would secure sustainable, long term economic growth of Island-wide benefit which meets the wider objectives of sustainable development by weighing market and other economic matters alongside environmental and social costs and benefits.

It also states that planning and economic development should aim to steer economic development to the most appropriate locations including those designated in an Area Plan and where development is outside locations zoned for such purposes it must be demonstrated by the applicant that alternative sites including available land zoned for that purpose, have been considered and rejected as not appropriate for the proposed use. The advice of the Department of Economic Development will be sought in respect of the demonstration of economic benefit.

3.5 Other Material Considerations

3.5 1 Other planning applications which have been considered in the vicinity of this site and for other forms of employment-generating or similar types of development are relevant material considerations although simply because development has been approved on other sites, this does not automatically presume in favour of the current application as there will be different considerations applicable in each case.

3.5.2 Planning approval was sought for the principle of the creation of a car franchise dealership on the land immediately west of the application site (PA 02/01810/A). The applicant argued that there was no designated land available which was within the price available to him but the Inspector and ultimately the Minister considered that there was no evidence to support this and that approval of the development would seriously prejudice the proper planning consideration of the development of the land through an inquiry process. At that time, the land was part of a wider area designated for industrial development on the Draft Braddan Parish Plan. The Inspector considered that whilst the application site was only a relatively small part of the overall site, which was readily distinguishable from the farmland alongside and also part of the original development of the Robinsons packaging plant, approval was still premature and unacceptable.

• 3.5.3 The other applications referred to by the applicant are on sites where there are different contextual considerations and where the nature of the applications are also different from what is proposed here. However, there is a consistent theme of the decision-maker noting the lack of available land elsewhere on which the proposed development could be undertaken.

3.6 The Cooil Road Development Order

• 3.6.1 This was proposed by the Department of Infrastructure and related to a parcel of land on the southern side of Cooil Road, stretching from Colooneys Lane in the north west to Ballavargher Farm land to the south east and stretching back to the south by around 300m, a little further south than is the application site. This was proposed to have the effect of designating around 47 acres of land for industrial purposes. This was recommended by the reporting Inspector not to be made for

reasons relating to a lack of justification for such a departure from the development plan land use designation of the land as open space.

• 3.6.2 Relevant excerpts from the Inspector's report are as follows:

"Land requirement

1. The evidence on this matter was confusing and poor. There simply was no explanation at all by the DoI or its witnesses, including the DoED as to what the requirements for more employment land for different employment sectors might be over any period. For example, what is remarkable is the proposal to take up scarce and valuable national employment land for car showrooms. There is no clear evidence to demonstrate the provision of significant areas of land for car showrooms on a strategic employment site would be vitally important for the Island's economy. Nowhere is there any compelling argument that shows that providing up to 2.1ha (5.2 acres) for car showrooms fulfils a vital overriding national need. There is also no clear evidence that the CRDO site is the best national site for new car showrooms for the Island. It seems the car showroom idea came from the developers of the land and not from the DoI."

"420. In fact the car showroom idea in the Cooil Road area was first promoted in 2003 on land owned by Robinson's for the relocation of Corkill's Garage. This proposal was supported by the Minister for Trade and Industry and opposed by Dandara at the appeal in June 2003. The application was refused by the Minister in August 2003. DoLGE clearly decided that there was no requirement for car showroom sites at Cooil Road in 2003 when the DBPP was being examined at inquiry."

"451. All these many deficiencies in the land requirement and land supply calculations and assumptions by the DoI and Tesdale lead to serious doubts about the case on economic need submitted in support of the CRDO. The evidence points to an adequate supply of employment land for up to the next 8 years. The evidence does not support the urgent release of 20 ha of countryside for a mix of car showrooms, business park and light industrial development at Cooil Road. No overriding national economic need has been demonstrated."

"464. From the evidence the CRDO fails to meet the requirements of the SP2, GP3g and EP1. The necessary assessments of alternative sites have not been carried out either in the EIA or by DoLGE/DoI at any time. This means it is not possible to know whether a reasonable and acceptable alternative exists."

• 3.6.3 The Inspector considered submissions on the area plan for the east and its timescale relative to the expressed need for the release of industrial land. He concluded that "the land owners have a good point about the likely delay in adopting the Area Plan for the East...if there is an urgent need to release land for employment uses and the only way to do this is via an Area Plan for the East" but concluded that no evidence of urgent need had been demonstrated. He notes the report of Tynwald, in their discussion of the need for Development Orders where it assumes that the DoI would provide a detailed case showing the demand for such housing, or industrial land, if that were needed, existed, at that point in time and in that locality." He goes on, "It would be obviously wrong to allow a breach of Strategic Plan policies simply because the DoI have failed to ensure that its development plan system is up to date and accurate in relation to employment land requirements. It would also be wrong to allow a breach of Strategic Plan policies because the relevant Area Plan will take a long time to prepare" (481).
• 3.6.4 The Inspector's report also deals with issues of landscape impact, residential and visual amenity, ecology, traffic and access, drainage and heritage and none was found to be fatal concerns and all could be satisfactorily dealt with by condition and appropriate detailed design (paragraphs 483 - 490).
• 3.6.5 Since the rejection of the Cooil Road Order, planning approval has been granted for new industrial units to the rear of Eden Park Garden Centre. This was approved on appeal under PA

• 11/01232/B. This application was approved by the Planning Committee and an appeal was lodged by the owner of adjacent land. The Inspector considering this application considered the policies which presume against development in both the Braddan and Strategic Plans and considers what constitutes overriding national need and how this is defined. He notes that there is no definition of it or how it could be assessed and considers that the assessment of need is a relative or comparative measure rather than an absolute one and suggests that in his view, a major incursion into the countryside should require a greater imperative of national need than a more modest and less intrusive one. He considered that that proposal, which represented 1.4 ha (7% of the CRDO area) would have an intrinsic and harmful impact simply by its presence but the actual, tangible impacts would be modest and that visually the development has been designed to the very highest standards and would be well enclosed by the Robinsons buildings on one side and by the Garden Centre on the other. He also considers that the scale of development proposed could not significantly prejudice or constrain decisions regarding the future provisions in the Eastern Area Plan.
• 3.6.6 The Inspector differentiates between a strategic longer term need for land for which the Area Plan is the appropriate vehicle by which to deliver such opportunities, and the short term urgent need which relates to specific and limited needs. He accepts that whilst there is no shortage of land generally across the Island, the need and supply in Douglas is less apparent and it is this against which the applicant's case should be tested, not the wider availability as the end users are likely to require a centrally located position. He concludes that "a demonstrable shortage of high class premises, or land on which to erect such a premises, in and around Douglas is capable of being treated as giving rise to a national need".
• 3.6.7 The Inspector considered evidence relating to School Road in Onchan, 2.54ha, and discounts this site as not being overly suitable for industrial development. He also considered Ballakinnish Nursery, 4.10 ha, which at that time had no planning approval for use as a depot, as an exposed site with a less than satisfactory access on a fast, open stretch of road. Land at the Business Park, 0.87ha, was acknowledged as having restrictive covenants which would prevent anything other than corporate headquarters and since the Inspector's report, industrial units have been erected on half of the site at the Smithy. Middle Farm land (1.2ha) was restricted by the proximity to the incinerator, Summerhill Business Park (2.03ha) is designated for offices, Ballafletcher Road (0.8ha) has approval for a mixed use development, White Hoe (0.28 and 0.2 ha) partly benefits from an existing approval, Tromode Estate (0.2 ha) is one small remaining plot, Kirby Farm (0.26ha) is industrial in nature and land on Peel Road was currently in use and has since received approval for the development of a number of industrial units. He considered that the limited supply of land which is available was not inclusive of a site of the size, landscaped setting and highly compatible adjacent users which were required by the applicants.
• 3.6.8 He concludes by stating:

"On the currently envisaged timetable, the East Area Plan is unlikely to be formally adopted by Tynwald before, say 2018 but the final version will not spring from nowhere. Rather it will be progressed and examined probably over an extended period, and if necessary decisions could be taken having regard to its emerging policies and land allocations. In my view, at least on the evidence presented, the case was not made out that there is an immediate overriding national need to release land now, were the current appeal proposes simply conventional essentially utilitarian industrial units. There is some land available and, probably more importantly, there is a range of existing premises on the market, a market that is plainly considerably less buoyant than prior to 2008. However a combination of quantitative and qualitative shortage together amounts to an overriding need - a present national need in land use planning terms - for the exceptionally high quality form of development subject to this appeal" (124).

• 3.6.9 In terms of the assessment of alternative sites, he considered that it was not reasonable or necessary to demonstrate that there are no other possible alternatives but only that none proved to be more advantageous and he discounted the alternatives put forward by objectors as having no

• greater merit than the application site, in some cases having a more deleterious impact. He states, "I consider that there is a short term need for more industrial land in or around Douglas, in particular to improve the market offer to include premises of the very highest quality, and that this amounts to a national need given the importance of Douglas to the Island economy and spatial structure. There is no reasonable and practical alternative within the built up localities or other zoned land, and none of the unzoned locations suggested come close to being as suitable as the appeal site. That the development conflicts with the Braddan Local Plan land allocations and policies is beyond dispute. However the Strategic Plan prevails as it came into force more recently. The degree of need, national need, for the appeal development overrides the modest impacts that it would have on the countryside, and the proposal accords with GP3g and for similar reasons with EP1. It would also further the aims of the Strategic Plan Strategic Objective 3.4b to ensure that sufficient land and property in terms of location, size and type is available for employment purposes (128).
• 3.6.10 He exercises caution where he adds:

"This conclusion must inevitably beg the question as to whether the appeal development might constitute a thin end of a wedge, a precursor to further development spreading across open land south west of Cooil Road, which could incrementally lead to something akin to the rejected CRDO. The CRDO Inspector, when recommending against that Order, did foresee the possibility of an individual planning application pending the East Area Plan. The appeal development, in itself accords with that. Any further application would, of course, need to be considered on its merits, but my conclusions are founded on the particular merits of this particular scheme: its inherent quality and specific setting assessment against what is currently available" (129).

• 3.6.11 These ten units are now built and two are occupied by Crossroads Carers as an office and warehouse and by Yesss Electrical storage and distribution including showroom. A recent application for alterations to the units indicates that half of the units are now sold.

3.7 The Employment Land Review 2015

• 3.7.1 The findings of this report are that:

• - Available land in the East is limited to 2ha, a land supply of under 3 years (The ELR also examined other constraints such as covenants restricting use, sites reserved for company expansion (therefore not available generally), planning permission/recommendation for higher value uses, and other constraints to development in the short term. In the East region these factors reduce the effective allocated land supply to 2 ha (enough for 2.6 years at existing take up rates). Between 19ha and 19.7ha of employment land will be required to 2029: 15.07ha employment land will be required in the East unless other areas are further incentivised in some form.
• - Planning and Economic Policy Review Providing appropriate employment land and premises to support economic growth is a central part of Government Policy. This is recognised in Agenda for Change and highlighted in the development of Vision 2020. Planning policy in the Island Strategic Plan reinforces the provision of appropriate employment land with a core aim of 'pursuing manageable and sustainable growth based on a diversified economy'
• - Supply of Employment Land and Floorspace The ELR examined allocated employment land and employment floorspace to properly assess the supply of employment land and its take up:
• - Zoned/allocated land for employment use (industrial, light industrial, storage & distribution, offices) is identified in Area and Local Plans and is reported in hectares. Some of this zoned land has been developed and some is still available.
• - Employment floorspace is premises built for employment uses and is reported in square metres. Some of this floorspace is occupied and some is available for freehold or lease.

• - Douglas and the East is the main focus of spatial distribution of employment areas. It was generally accepted that businesses were unlikely to want to locate outside these areas without significant incentives
• - Demand for industrial and distribution floorspace is also focused in Douglas and the East where access to labour, transport links and road networks are better developed and where the majority of employees and customers live. Demand for industrial units has been resilient with the majority of premises on estates occupied and trading.
• - There was strong support from consultees for Vision 2020's proposal that some of the future employment growth should be accommodated on a Technology/High Quality Business Park to more effectively compete with jurisdictions where parks have been developed to provide a high quality, managed business environment which encourages clustering and business synergies. A Development Brief should be prepared for a Park (or parks) anticipating supporting allocation in the East Area Plan or elsewhere.
• - The ELR includes the development of the first Island wide employment floorspace database, assembly of quantitative and qualitative information on the future intentions of businesses and an assessment of premises availability. This supplements the ELR. Some data gaps remain for example the take up rates for different types of employment premises at planning level or Island wide. The information would be valuable in supporting forward planning, economic development and in increasing levels of confidence in the development sector.
• - 2.1 Ensuring provision of appropriate employment land and premises is critical to the ongoing development of the Isle of Man's economy. This is recognised through overarching Government policy and its expression in planning policy and economic development objectives.
• - Agenda for Change

2.2 Economic objectives concerned with economic growth, maintenance of full employment and increasing earnings are at the heart of the Government's 'Agenda for Change', which sets out the vision for change for the Isle of Man to September 2016. It's Environment and Infrastructure theme aims to ensure infrastructure investment supports sustainable economic development. Several supporting corporate objectives relate directly to the provision of employment land and premises, including:

Our Economy Energise the Island's ability to innovate and create our future industries: Drive growth in emerging innovative sectors Prioritise the schemes in the capital programme which further develop our infrastructure and support economic development; and Make sure town and country planning supports economic development.

• The Isle of Man Strategic Plan - Towards a Sustainable Island (2007)

2.3 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan- Towards a Sustainable Island (2007) adopts the same principles in the land use planning framework for future development. - 2.4 Economic Progress is one of the plan's 6 aims, to "pursue manageable and sustainable growth based on a diversified economy". Accordingly, the Strategic Plan encourages growth of employment opportunities throughout the Isle of Man consistent with its Business and other policies (Business Policy 1). - 2.5 Its Economy objectives focus on improving and maintaining diversity across the economy; ensuring sufficient land and property in terms of location, size and type is available for employment purposes; safeguarding and providing for the needs of existing and new location-dependent businesses; and maintaining and enhancing town centre viability. It is presently the subject of a partial review, limited to housing figures and allocations in response to the 2011 Census.

• - 3.5 The figures above provide a summary picture. While various sites are available for small scale employment development (0.1 ha - 0.5 ha) there are fewer opportunities for larger development. This situation is particularly pronounced in the East, where the potential within the existing land supply to accommodate larger developments or promote coordinated development appears limited. Office land availability is effectively focussed on Central Douglas and Victoria Road.
• - The Review lists employment land currently available in the east as follows:

Onchan - School Road (2.54 ha) Braddan - Ballafletcher (0.64 ha) Braddan - Ballafletcher (0.16 ha) Braddan - Business Park (2.59 ha) Braddan - Ballakinnish (4.1 ha).

• - 8.11 With 2ha effectively available in the East, there is an urgent need for further allocations of employment land in the area and this would remain the case were a strategic position adopted to encourage higher levels of employment development elsewhere. While existing allocations around Ronaldsway, the Freeport and Balthane may be able to accommodate some of this demand, constraints including site ownership and the quality of the external environment are likely to affect their capacity to provide choice in the range of business environments sought by potential occupiers. Depending on the position taken by Government, the requirement for the East ranges from 6.65 ha to 2029 assuming 50% of take up is encouraged elsewhere, to 10.8ha should the take up distribution continue in its current pattern.

3.8 Call for sites for employment land

3.8.1 This was announced in August 2015 as follows: The Department of Infrastructure is to explore the potential for using Development Orders under Section 8 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to release land for employment purposes. Employment land includes such uses as manufacturing, industrial and warehousing and distribution. Landowners and developers Island-wide are being invited to put forward suitable sites for consideration ahead of the preparation of future Area Plans. The period for the submission of suggestions has now passed.

3.9 Landscape Character Assessment

3.9.1 This was commissioned by the Department of Infrastructure in 2008 and has yet to be adopted other than those parts which apply to the area covered by the Area Plan for the South which was adopted and came into effect in 2013. This describes the application site as being within an area of Incised Slopes where the landscape is characterised by generally sloping land with some wooded glens, pastoral land with arable fields of various shapes and sizes with field boundaries with predominantly Manx hedges and some stone walls. The key objectives are to protect the remote and rural character, the substantial hedgerows and sod banks dividing irregularly shaped pastoral fields. It specifically refers to the design of new housing and business development including appropriate native structure planting to soften urban edges and enhance the transition into the wider landscape and avoiding linear development along roads from settlements that extend urbanising influences into the wider countryside. It also recommends against the loss of hedgerows, sod banks and other distinctive boundary treatments along road corridors.

• 3.9.2 The specific area referred to in the Assessment into which the application site falls - Santon (D13) identifies the A5 and A25 as bisecting the landscape and both the incinerator chimney forming a notable landmark and an abrupt southern linear built edge to Douglas comprising residential and industrial development with minor localised extension of industrial character to the south of Cooil Road.

3.10 Retail Sector Strategy

• 3.10.1 The retail sector strategy's vision is to promote competitive and accessible retail and leisure environments in our town centres, which offer choice and convenience for consumers, improve the economy and enhance residents' quality of life." As the strategy work progressed, a series of

discussions with key retail sector stakeholders focussed on emerging strategic issues and related actions, including how can the Manx retail sector be developed to encourage higher levels of expenditure and profit retention on Island? It is the view of Retail Sector representatives that as part of the review of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, town centre planning policy should be reconsidered to remove perceived ambiguities in its meaning: town centres should be the locations for future retail development. Recent decisions (Pets at Home, Currys/PC World at Spring Valley) suggest the retail function of the established centres would benefit from increased planning policy protection and enforcement. Without this, there will be increasing pressure for retail development in other areas to their detriment.

REPRESENTATIONS Government

Local Authorities

• 4.1.1 Braddan Parish Commissioners make no comment on the proposal itself but seek further negotiation regarding the maintenance of and responsibility for the green areas within the site and roundabout (24.11.2015). The applicant has responded to this directly to the Commissioners, explaining that the verges south of Cooil Road will be maintained by Eden Park Developments (the owner of the site) as part of their leasehold agreement with the applicant who will become the site owner. They assume that the verges on the northern side of the roundabout will be maintained by the Commissioners under instruction from DoI and the roundabout will ultimately be adopted by the DoI and the future maintenance arrangements will be for them (20.11.15).

• 4.1.2 Douglas Borough Council seek a deferral of a decision as their next meeting is not until 14th December, 2015 (08.12.15). DEFA Forestry, Amenity and Lands Division
• 4.1.3 The Senior Forester within DEFA expresses concern at the loss of trees around the former farm yard. These trees are Registered and their loss should be avoided (02.11.15 and 05.11.15). Since that, the applicant has met with the Forestry Division and amended plans have been submitted which aim to address the concerns raised. DEFA Fisheries Division
• 4.1.4 DEFA Fisheries Division have had further discussions with the applicant regarding the flow of water from the site into the Middle River and any potential impact on the ecology of the watercourse. They consider that the proposal need not be unacceptable provided that no excavation is undertaken of the river bank but that care should be taken to avoid sediment entering the river. Action should be taken to avoid harmful materials entering the watercourse and whilst they have concerns about the amount of water being discharged, this would be controlled by the licence required to do this. Any work required to be undertaken within the river should not be undertaken between the start of October and the end of June to avoid any risk to eggs and fry of fish in the river (26.11.15). DEFA Forestry, Amenity and Lands Division
• 4.1.5 Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Wildlife Division recommends that all works to existing trees should be undertaken outside of the bird nesting season, ie between September and February or checks must be undertaken for active nests. They report that owls have been seen to nest and fledge offspring from the site in the hollow beech tree, despite the Manx Wildlife Trust's conclusions that no owl pellets had been found and that there was little if any evidence of owl activity on the site. They recommends that tree 170 which is shown to be retained, is protected from disturbance during works and the proposed fencing should assist this. No lighting should be introduced to the south of this tree and as the road passes very close to this, care needs to be taken. Monitoring must be undertaken to ensure that there are no nesting owls here as these are protected under the Wildlife Act and a licence would be required to undertake works which would disturb the species. The barn must be checked before its removal to ensure that birds are not present and an alternative owl roost/nest may be helpful. They recommends a variety of bird boxes

to be introduced around the site. Any lighting should be reduced in operation around the trees and if possible switched off during the evening. They are unsure of the impact of the opening up of a longer section of hedge at the Cooil Road end of the site, on brown and long-eared bats as there is no evidence of where these species are coming from or going to. With respect to the area proposed in principle for additional buildings, there could be benefit in creating a wildflower meadow and rough grassland in the interim period (03.12.15).

Department of Economic Development

• 4.1.6 Department of Economic Development (DED) write in support of the application. They confirm that they are focused upon the Government's Strategic Aim of economic growth and diversification and to this end, it is in the Island's interests to help existing businesses to achieve full potential and also to attract new businesses which bring new investment and jobs. The Department is seeking to act in the national interest including maximising growth in the economy whilst being mindful of other issues, including the environmental impact of new development. They acknowledge the construction cost which they consider will be a considerable benefit to the construction industry as well as approximately 68 temporary jobs, the majority being local. The associated exchequer benefit is said to exceed £1 million. They also acknowledge the ongoing sustainable economic benefits of employment and taxes.
• 4.1.7 Whilst DED acknowledges that there may be some displacement of employment, and they accept that the amount of displacement is difficult to forecast precisely, they accept the applicant's explanation that their business will deal in marques not sold on the Island and as such they consider the net impact to be mainly positive. They acknowledge that the potential employment will create alternatives to office based employment choices and University. They state that there is no zoned land available for a development of this scale in the east of the Island which has been identified in the recent Employment Land Review and even with Development Orders and the impending Area Plan, the opportunity to designate land is some way off. This application represents an opportunity to capture "a significant new inward investment" which supports Government's economic strategy. This opportunity is likely to be lost if the project is delayed.
• 4.1.8 DED refers to two Government Strategies - Enterprise Island and Destination Isle both of which focus on making the Island attractive to residents, investors, visitors and creating a place for people to work and invest. They note that car sales have been on a downward trajectory for the last few years and the Island has lost and continues to lose franchises. They confirm that from 01.04.14 to 31.03.15 there were 6,328 new and used vehicles imported to the Island and DED would hope that this application will help reduce this amount and more money spent on buying and servicing certain models will be retained on Island. They are aware of the benefit of clustering similar businesses of which three are already in the area: in the UK the clustering of garage operations has been successful. They are also aware of the benefits of the proposed highway improvements and the proposed drainage proposals could result in an improvement to the drainage situation to the north of Cooil Road. On balance they consider that the development would result in significant economic benefits for the Island and they support the application (07.12.15). Those generally in support of the application

• 4.2.1 The views of the Isle of Man Chamber of Commerce have been sought (20.11.15). They advise that they are predisposed to support ventures which bring economic growth and note the inward investment which is proposed in this case and consider that this will provide a much needed stimulus to the construction industry and when completed, will provide greater consumer choice and hopefully more retail car sales will remain on Island. They remain concerned with any retail-based development which will detract from the Island's town centres and would ask that if approved, conditions are applied to restrict use of the site to car showrooms and car repair shops only. They would expect that any further change of use would require the site to revert back to its original status as open space until it is re-designated for another purpose in an Area Plan. They are also aware that the Island has an established motor vehicle retail industry with numerous showrooms around the Island, mostly small family concerns and in order that they are properly represented,

• they recommend that the newly formed combined motor vehicle industry group, under the Chairmanship of David Mylchreest, be given interested person status in this case (01.12.15).
• 4.2.2 Skanco, who operate from the other side of Cooil Road, indicate that they believe the current halt sign arrangement at the junction can only be improved by the proposed new roundabout from a traffic flow and safety point of view. They support the traffic management aspect of the application (09.11.15).
• 4.2.3 The Isle of Man Post Office also support the traffic management aspects of the application and believe the proposed roundabout to be a highway improvement (25.11.15).
• 4.2.4 Celton Manx Limited based within the Isle of Man Business Park believes that the development will bring about a number of benefits, particularly the construction and additional jobs and they support the application (27.11.15).
• 4.2.5 Green Powers Electrical Ltd support the application, acknowledging the investment into the construction industry and into what they consider is a lacklustre car industry on the Island evidenced by them not having bought a vehicle on-Island for ten years due to better deals being available elsewhere. They also acknowledge the link to the attraction of high value individuals to the Island. They describe the Cooil Road area and Braddan as a thriving industrial area of the Island and being located on the outskirts of Douglas will not result in additional traffic congestion in the town (29.11.15).
• 4.2.6 Apex Ceilings and Partitioning Ltd are in support of the application as it would broaden the range of vehicles available on the Island and he hopes that the applicant would invest in the resources to sell and service electric cars, being an electric car driver himself. He believes that the Island should be at the forefront of new technology and offer a full range of quality cars which is highly important to confidence on the Island.

Those opposed to the application Kilkenny, Colooney's Lane, The Cooil

• 4.3.1 The owners of Kilkenny, The Cooil object to the application, pointing out that they have consistently objected to applications for development of land along the Cooil Road which have avoided going through the proper planning process. They advise that the land is not designated for development and they consider that there is no shortage of car showrooms, particularly in the east. They believe that the proposal will not result in the new jobs proposed but will merely result in a relocation from existing operations and they consider that there is no evidence that a new car dealership is needed in the East as opposed to any other part of the Island. They believe that the development, if implemented, would result in a permanent change to the visual landscape of the south side of Cooil Road, resulting in an extended built environment and an enlarged break in the existing buffer between the existing buildings and the area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. They purport that the development is retail in nature, which has been specifically excluded on all other areas on the Southern side of Cooil Road and is not associated with any existing operations in this area. They confirm that the Cooil Road Development Order was not proceeded with and they were advised that any assessment for employment land need would be undertaken as part of the Eastern Area Plan. As this has not progressed to date, the application is premature and contrary to the Department's stated position in February 2011. Whilst planning approval was granted for industrial units to the rear of Eden Park Garden Centre, the majority of these remain unoccupied, demonstrating that the urgent need put forward during the consideration of that application, has not materialised.
• 4.3.2 They refer to the Strategic Plan which states that "development will be directed towards suitable or preferred locations and away from unsuitable and undesirable locations" (paragraph

• 6.1.1) and believes that the only way in which the development could be considered acceptable is that it is considered to respond to an overriding national need, that this cannot wait until the preparation of an Eastern Area Plan and that there are no reasonable and acceptable alternatives.

They do not believe that the applicant has provided evidence to demonstrate that there are no alternatives or to reasonably demonstrate the national economic benefit. They assert that there will be no site selection process undertaken by the Committee and if the Committee were to agree that there are no alternatives, this would be forming an unsubstantiated and non-evidence based conclusion.

• 4.3.3 They do not believe that the applicant has considered where those who may work at the site may live and as such, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that there are suitable homes in the area to provide for the new jobs created and they believe that the economic interests of the other car dealers on the Island have been ignored by the applicant. They believe that advice in the UK would suggest that good planning practice would recommend that discussions would have been undertaken with authorities on the Island, in this case existing motor dealers, to identify strategies and providing information about perceived national need. Also the proposal is against the policies of the Strategic Plan in their view and does not accord with the requirement for adequate sustainability appraisals, urban capacity and housing needs surveys. They believe that the application represents bad planning policy and an abuse of proper planning procedure. They believe that the application will result in the permanent loss of "prime" agricultural land and will result in more land being designated for use than for which an immediate need has been identified in the application. The approval will not include any assessment of benefit of such investment elsewhere on the Island. Finally, the approval of this application would prejudice the Eastern Area Plan and is premature pending that exercise. Morbaine Limited
• 4.3.4 Morbaine Limited, founders of the Spring Valley Industrial Estate in 1973 in response to a request from the Isle of Man Government to establish a trading/employment estate to support their development objectives. In recent years they consider that the current demand for units on the estate has reduced somewhat due to an over-supply of space in the area - around 20% of their land described as "voids". They are concerned at the release of significant additional open countryside for development when there has not been a "proper and through" assessment of demand and supply which would normally occur in a plan-making process. They identify the "emerging" Area Plan for the East being at a crucial stage where it is seeking to identify future sites for development and when identified will be robustly assessed against future needs. Furthermore, they are concerned about the speculative nature of the development, with a clear need for only two of the four showrooms shown. This cannot represent overriding national need. They emphasise that their objection is not on the basis of commercial competition but have genuine concerns "in relation to the premature release of land for a car showroom facility which would absorb invaluable future employment land in the East which will be required to support local growing businesses".
• 4.3.5 They believe that the applicant's timescale is not based upon need but on the applicant's own investment timescale and that something as fundamental to the Island's landscape should not be approved on the basis of an applicant "holding a gun to Government's head" and stating that if this is not approved it will go elsewhere. They believe that car showrooms are not an employment use and as such the approval to the units behind Eden Park cannot be used in support of the application.
• 4.3.6 Whilst the Employment Land Review identifies a need for between 6.7 and 10.8ha of employment land, what is proposed would take up a considerable part of that. They also consider that the Review considered that future employment land should be used to create a business/technology park. They query whether the 65 jobs created are full or part time and are concerned that there is no assessment of displacement of employees from existing car sales outlets. They question whether all of the site is justified for the proposed use and are concerned that much is required for future expansion which is not substantiated. They make reference to the Inspector who considered the Cooil Road Development Order who concluded that there was no evidence that there was a need for land for car showrooms. They consider that the type of development proposed is an inefficient use of land and it will result in what is an oversized car park with just 17% of the site taken up by buildings. They conclude by stating that "the proposed development (which

includes a significant speculative element) would absorb a significant amount of valuable employment land which should be retained to support the growth of the existing businesses and trading estates in the area" and believe that if planning approval is granted here, this will undermine future investment on established employment estates elsewhere in the East which will be detrimental to overall economy.

Existing car retailers

• 4.3.7 Three identical letters of objection have been received from Eurocars Limited, Mylchreests Motors Limited and Ocean Ford, countersigned by Raymotors Limited, Fast Lane Car Sales, Empire Garage, IM8 Discount Cars, Bettridge Motors Limited, Michael Car Centre Limited, DB Autos Limited, Kingswood Honda Limited, Bespoke Car Sales, DW Cars Limited, Franklins, Athol Garage (1945) Limited and Caledonia Toyota and Buchanan BMW. They recommend that the application should be "called in" due to the "National Importance" of the application, notably the destruction of the entire existing Manx motor industry. They also request "party status". They consider that the Environmental Statement provided as part of the application does not provide any methodology of the threshold at which the identified effects become significant and without this, the "Local Planning Authority" (presumably the Department) would be unable to adequately assess the impact as they are not in the full knowledge of the likely significant impacts. They suggest that before any development can be permitted on this land it would have to be rezoned and such a rezoning would only come about after a Development Order or more formally through a review of the Eastern Sector Plan (presumably the various adopted Area and Local Plans for the East: the Eastern Sector Plan was not adopted by Government and had a stated life from 1991 of five years). This could only happen after a full review of the 2007 Strategic Plan as "all three documents of the extant plan are accepted as out of date". No reference is made to the recent partial review of the Strategic Plan.
• 4.3.8 Whilst the development will create jobs there is no assessment of displacement from existing operators nor any assessment of skills gaps in the local employment market which in their view will reinforce concerns about employment displacement. They state that with a finite population there will always be a certain level of new car sales on the Island and even the best car franchise could never over-ride basic economics. They state that it is a fact that of the annual registrations of new cars on the Island which are somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000, fewer than 1,000 are actual retail sales of new cars with the balance made up of fleet cars, commercial or agricultural vehicles, police vehicles, motorcycles etc. As the applicant has stated, there are a little over 4,000 used cars registered, it is impossible to say how old these cars are and very few new cars are registered on the Island. They explain that new cars can be registered in the Island directly by UK new car dealers and these are classed as 'pump-in' registrations and the numbers are available from every car manufacturer although the numbers are very insignificant, somewhere in the region of 100 cars as a maximum. As such, they do not believe that the economic benefits from the development are significant.
• 4.3.9 The site is not designated for development and simply because there is no land available, in the applicant's view, for their development, this does not mean that the development meets a national need. They believe that the applicant's estimation of economic benefit is based upon opinion and summation rather than fact. They contest the applicant's statement that Jaguar, Audi, Porsche, Volvo and Hyundai withdrew from the territory due to poor or no representation and suggest that Audi and Porsche were withdrawn by their dealer after only one year on the Island, Volvo was held on the Island for over ten years but withdrawn following poor car sales. Similarly, the Jaguar after sales only service is held on Island due to low sales volumes on the Island coupled with very strict standards and high expectations by the manufacturer: they estimate that a retailer would need to sell in excess of 100 units per annum to retain the franchise. The local Jaguar dealer can supply new vehicles to on-Island customers through a UK Main dealer. Whilst the Hyundai main dealer is no longer in business, this brand is sold elsewhere on the Island.
• 4.3.10 They consider there will be a significant environmental impact from the development and whilst the Inspector considering the Cooil Road Development Order considered that the visual impact was not fatal to the scheme, the present proposal involves the removal of trees which were

• not envisaged then which will have a negative impact on ecology and visual impact. They believe that the development is contrary to the Strategic Plan policies which promote town centre retail development and to the Planning and the Economy draft policy as they do not believe that the development will result in significant economic benefit. The Employment Land Review makes no mention of land for retail purposes and to allow this development without a review of the motor trade sector would put other developers and motor dealers on the Island at a disadvantage.
• 4.3.11 They refer to an Area Action for the East, presumably the Area Plan, and state that this is not due to go to a public inquiry until 2017 and they question the applicant's immediacy for the proposal to be implemented and they wonder whether the timing of such a proposal should be based upon a particular applicant's own timescale rather than the acceptability of the scheme which could be tested through an area plan process. They do not accept that the project will assist in attracting high value individuals to the Island.
• 4.3.12 The Retail Motor Industry Federation - Isle of Man Branch writes in, c/o of Mylchreests Motors Limited setting their letter, which seeks interested person status, alongside the original submission from Mylchreests Motors Ltd (see paragraph 4.3.7). They express no view on the application itself but suggest that the scale of the application and its inevitable effects on the Islandwide economy, the potential effects of which extend further than the local vicinity into effects upon industrial land supply, effects on existing established employment enterprises and general economic impacts and all of these concerns can be put forward by those involved in those industries.
• 4.3.13 Isle of Man Enterprise Ltd submit observations and acknowledge that they have operated Whitestone Mercedes Benz of Mann since 1977, the main dealer on the Island, but stress that their comments refer to the potential impact on the wider retail market should this proposal become unsustainable. They observe that the development is large in scale and larger than its combined operation in Jersey and Guernsey. They are therefore concerned that the two proposed future units may at some point become unviable for car showrooms and may be open to become out of town retail units. They would hope that sufficient control would be exercised through conditions to ensure that this does not occur. Furthermore, they suggest that Government undertakes an independent retail impact assessment which would quantify the significant benefits which the applicant suggests would accrue from the development. They also consider the Retail Impact Assessment flawed as it only deals with the impact of car sales on the Manx market. They consider the information provided insufficiently robust compared with that which is required by the Planning and the Economy draft Circular. They also consider that the applicant has underplayed the fact that many parts and accessories supplied by dealers are supplied by the non-resident brand manufacturer, resulting in a lot of purchases being made off-Island.
• 4.3.14 They consider the visuals indicate a development which would lift the image of car sales on the Island but should not be at the expense of economic factors. Should an independent Retail and Environmental Impact Assessment demonstrate conclusively that the development results in a strong economic benefit that is sustainable for car sales on the Island, then they would have no objection to the application. If no such assessment has been made and the decision to approve the application relies upon suppositions and opinions then they object on the grounds of scale, sustainability and lack of compliance with the Strategic Plan. They also seek interested person status on the grounds of potential impact on in town retailing of which they are a major component. They do not consider this to be a competitor-based objection but an economic one based upon multiplier benefits arising from their business which support over 4,000 jobs across the Island economy, buys between 25 and 50% of Manx agricultural produce and supports a local supplies base of over 230 Manx suppliers, all of which would be under threat if this model proves unsustainable in the future

• 04.12.15). Applicant's response

• 4.4.1 The applicant has had sight of the views submitted and suggest that of these, the only party to comply with the guidelines on interested person status is Morbaine Ltd, due to their proximity to the site. They suggest that whilst there has been criticism of the lack of clarification of what

• constitutes "significant" impact in EIA, the purpose of an EIA is to identify the areas of impact and ultimately the assessments will involve a level of subjectivity. They note that despite the criticism of the methodology there is no actual challenge to any of the conclusions.
• 4.4.2 The applicant contends that their experiences in Jersey and Guernsey have demonstrated that even in areas of limited population (Guernsey having 65.849 and Jersey 99.500 population) a stable car industry can be created as they have done. They also suggest that some of the objectors do not deal in new cars and therefore have no experience or knowledge of the new car industry nor have dealings directly with manufacturers. The applicant believes that they have unique knowledge of Island markets that is far greater than that of any of the objectors. They confirm that the Island had 60,884 vehicles registered in 2013/2014: if the average life cycle of a car is between 15-20 years, this would confirm 3,000 to 4,000 new or used cars being required each year and they are also in the business of providing fleet cars, commercial or agricultural vehicles, police vehicles and motor cycles which make up the balance of the annual figures. They believe that the proposal will greatly benefit the Manx people through the provision of greater choice and quality as well as long term economic benefits to the Island. They provide details of the 40 franchises available in Jersey, the 37 in Guernsey and only 20 on the Island.

PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 There have been no relevant planning applications submitted for the current site. Other relevant applications have been dealt with earlier in the report.

ASSESSMENT Economic impact: the need for the site

6.1 Many of the issues relating to this application have already been identified in the earlier Cooil Road Development Order proposal as well as the planning applications for the car dealership on the land alongside and the proposal for the industrial units to the rear of Eden Park. These issues are whether the principle of development is acceptable as shown, whether the detail of the scheme is acceptable in terms of drainage, traffic and access, visual impact, and the impact on ecology, archaeology and residential amenity. In the assessment of the principle of the development, it is important to discuss the land use designation, the relevant planning policies and related documents, the need for the development and available alternatives and also the comparison between what is proposed and the cumulative impact of this together with existing and approved development elsewhere within the area identified as the Cooil Road Development Order.

6.2 Currently on the Island there are franchised dealerships authorised to sell new cars of a certain marque:

Athol Garage at Balthane, Ballasalla- 0.3ha on designated as Industrial on the Area Plan for the South Buchanan BMW and Mini - 0.23ha on land at Isle of Man Business Park, designated for a mixture use subject to a master plan Caledonia Toyota - 0.17ha on land the Isle of Man Business Park designated for a mixture of uses subject to a master plan Eurocars on Peel Road, Douglas - 0.6ha on land designated for industrial use Ocean Ford on the Isle of Man Business Park - 0.6ha designated for a mix of uses together with 0.8ha at Ballasalla partly designated as open space and partly as industrial Kingswood Honda in Kingswood Grove, Douglas - 0.06ha designated as light industrial Mylchreests on Castletown Road, Douglas - 0.24ha designated as residential DB Autos - 0.06ha designated as Predominantly Residential Mercedes-Benz of Mann, Ballasalla - 0.37ha designated as residential and Raymotors - three sites close together - 0.05ha, 0.06ha and 0.06ha on land designated as Mixed Use - Town Centre.

6.3 In addition to the above there are other car dealers who provide used cars and who provide and source new cars but who do not have a franchised sales operation.

6.4 The selling and maintenance of cars and other vehicles clearly takes place on land which is designated for a variety of purposes. It is generally accepted that the selling of cars and vehicles is not a regular retail use - demonstrated by the various approvals of such uses on land designated for industrial use where there is a general presumption against retailing, as set out in the various local and Strategic Plan, as well as the Use Class Orders here on the Island and in the UK. If the application were proposed on land which is designated for industrial use then it is highly likely that the principle of the use would be considered acceptable. The general area is clearly acceptable for the retailing of cars and vehicles, demonstrated by the authorised use on the Business Park and within the industrial land alongside. - 6.5 The site, however, is not designated for development on the appropriate development plan and moreover, is part of an area which was considered previously for development as part of a development order. In addition, the site alongside was previously proposed for a car dealership. Both development proposals were refused for reasons that the land is not designated for development and there had been no justification for the development which would set aside that presumption against development. It is equally relevant that land not far away, to the rear of Eden Park Garden Centre, has recently received planning approval for industrial development, the inspector noting that whilst there is no shortage of land generally across the Island, the need and supply in Douglas is less apparent and it is this against which the applicant's case should be tested, not the wider availability as the end users are likely to require a centrally located position. To reiterate, he concluded that "a demonstrable shortage of high class premises, or land on which to erect such a premises, in and around Douglas is capable of being treated as giving rise to a national need". - 6.6 As such, it is accepted that national need, referred to in General Policy 3 which sets out where development may be permitted on land which is not designated for a particular purpose, can refer to the need to establish development on land not so designated if there is a shortage of land for those particular purposes in a particular part of the Island. As such, if the applicant can demonstrate that the development will satisfy, or go towards satisfying a national need and that there are not otherwise available, sites which could satisfactorily accommodate that development, the door may be open to considering development on land which is not designated for that purpose. This stance is supported by the other developments referred to in paragraph 2.5.1. - 6.7 Added to this, the recent report into the Review of the Strategic Plan, November, 2015 includes the following comments by the inspector: "Inspector's conclusions

6.12 What I will say, because it is highly relevant to the effectiveness or otherwise of the Strategic Plan in its revised form, is to add my weight to the crucial importance of progressing the Area Plans and Castletown Review. Planning management in the Isle of Man is intended to be directed by a two tier development plan comprising a Strategic Plan sitting above and guiding the substance of detailed Area Plans, the latter including site specific allocations guided by the former. - 6.13 As things stand, other than in the South individual development proposals have to be assessed having regard to the broadly up to date Strategic Plan and land allocations or zonings in earlier, often much earlier, Local Plans or the 1982 Plan. It is inherent in a two tier development plan that whereas the safeguarding or conserving objectives in the upper, Strategic Plan are generally capable of direct application to individual development proposals, its aspirational objectives for the economy, housing provision and much else generally rely on land allocations and zonings in the second tier Plans. Without the latter planning management can appear, or actually become, skewed toward a negative tone or over-reliant on the uncertain process of "other material considerations" (S10(4) of the 1999 Act) outweighing the development plan. I refer above to the upturn in residential applications in the South following adoption of its Area Plan and to my belief that the absence of an Area Plan for the East is inhibiting much needed development.

6.14 I am conscious of being at the outer limits here of my role to assess the current focused review of the Strategic Plan, but nonetheless: Conclusion: that so far as resources allow every effort be made to expedite future Area Plan work including that concerning Castletown."

6.8 It is also relevant that the Department of Infrastructure also agrees in part with this, stating in its publication in 2015 of the Call for sites following the Employment Land Review:

"Background The Minister of Infrastructure announced in Tynwald on the 21st July 2015 that the Department intends to explore the potential of using Development Orders to release sites for employment purposes ahead of the Area Plans. The publication of this form and accompanying public announcement, by way of a Public Notice, represents a 'Call for Sites' for employment land. This exercise will help to identify potential sites which can be brought forward for development via individual 'Development Orders'. This exercise may also help inform the preparation of future Area Plans as well as the ongoing review of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. The Department of Infrastructure has the ability to make Development Orders under section 8(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999. The reason for exploring the potential of using Development Orders is in response to the recently published Employment Land Review (ELR), which identifies that there is a need for additional employment land, primarily within the East.

The Department is, however, extending the Call for Sites to cover the whole of the Island, not just the East. Sites will be carefully assessed against clear criteria and only those sites which are capable of meeting identified economic needs will be progressed."

6.9 The information refers to the following land uses - Manufacturing, Industrial, Warehousing and Distribution, Business Park/Technology Park, Other. It goes on to state: "Site Size - For sites proposed for Business Park/Technology Park uses, a minimum site size of 4ha is likely to apply. For other sites, a minimum site size of 1ha is likely to apply. This does not preclude smaller sites being considered as appropriate for employment uses either through this process or the Area Plan preparation process." - 6.10 This is important in that not only does it clarify that the Call for Sites relates to the whole Island, not just the East, it is clearly not initiated to solely support the Area Plan for the East. Quite the contrary, in its opening statement, it states clearly that what is seen as an urgent need will be met by the preparation of development orders and whilst it may inform future area plans, it can in no way be said to be the commencement of the Eastern Area Plan. The status of this plan is, it is understood, still not commenced in any published form. The Area Plan for the South was commenced in July 2008 with the publication of the Issues and Options report and was finally approved and came into effect in February 2013. A High Court Challenge was instigated following the adoption of the Order and in February 2014 one policy within the Plan was quashed. This demonstrates how long an Area Plan process can take and perhaps clarifies the preferred route of the Department of Infrastructure to address what is seen as a shortage of employment land in the short term. - 6.11 "Employment land" is not defined but the ELR refers to office, manufacturing and warehousing and distribution. It also looks at land designated for office and industrial purposes. It most definitely does not include retail. However, as is stated earlier, the sale of vehicles is sui generis and is not included in the retail use class. Furthermore, it is a use which is and can be accommodated within industrial areas without objection. The proposal is clearly going to result in the creation of jobs, even if some result from the displacement of other existing employment. As such, it is not accepted that the application should be refused because the use of this site would take up land which should be reserved for employment uses.

6.12 The absence of an up to date development plan for the east of the Island is clearly an important gap in the planning framework and places the Planning Committee in a difficult position in respect of proposals for development on undesignated land, particularly where there is a case for economic benefit, which is what the draft PPS on Planning and the Economy was introduced to address. However, as a starting point, considering the recent case of PA 11/01232/B it is considered that if the development could be said to result in economic benefit to the Island, this is considered to constitute national need which would comply with General Policy 3g and could override the policy against development on this site. - 6.13 In assessing economic benefit, the draft PPS on Planning and the Economy is clear that the advice and support of Department of Economic Development must be in place. DED is an independent authority whose advice is specifically recommended by the Statement. In this case, DED support the application as a significant inward investment opportunity. They do not express concern that there may not be currently available people to fill the new posts, a concern expressed by some of the objectors to the scheme. It would be a strange Government economic strategy which constrained economic development depending upon employee availability. If the Island is to grow, particularly in terms of employment, not only in numbers but also in terms of the range of employment, and is not to focus solely upon the finance industry, then there may well be periods when there are not enough sufficiently trained people to fill the posts. However the Island's work permit system can and will control how this is managed, and the period of construction of the development provides some time for training opportunities to at be put in place. - 6.14 Whilst the applicant indicates that there will be no or little loss of trade for existing car retailers on the Island, and the opposite is being suggested by a number of existing car retailers on the Island, there is no actual evidence to support either case and this would be difficult to be precise about, given that it will rely upon the choices made by consumers about products which are currently not available on the Island. What is a fact is that, according to DED, there were over 6,000 new and used cars imported to the Island which represents vehicles which could have been sold on the Island. There is no information on how many vehicles are taken to the UK for servicing as the relevant authorised operators are not available on Island. This too could be retained on-Island were these operators based here. The existing car dealers who have written in confirm that manufacturers have increasingly demanding expectations and that they can source some new vehicles from a UK-based operator. Some of the existing operators on the Island have space-limited businesses with a small range of vehicles on display and vehicles for sale parked on the public highway and have limited opportunities to satisfy these increasing demands from the manufacturers. - 6.15 It is accepted that the principle of the proposed development will result in a significant investment on the Island with resultant employment and revenue benefits for the Manx economy. This is considered sufficient to represent national need which overrides the presumption against development on this site. It is disconcerting that what is proposed, together with the approved development to the rear of Eden Park Garden Centre results in a significant part of the land which was rejected for development as part of the Cooil Road Development Order and it is understandable that many may view this application as a means around the development plan or development order process. However, it is important to consider the reasons why the CRDO was rejected and this relates solely to the demonstration of need. The Inspector did not find that there were any other reasons why the principle of employment-related development should be rejected here as any concerns could be satisfactorily addressed through mitigation measures and conditions. In this current case, as was the case in PA 11/01232/B, evidence has been provided that alternative designated sites have been considered and rejected. As such, it is not the case that simply because the CRDO was rejected through lack of demonstrable need, that further applications should be similarly rejected if different cases are submitted. - 6.16 It is appropriate to consider the details of the proposal and the specific physical impacts it would have. Despite the support in principle, any adverse impacts could prove fatal to the application and at least would need to be justified by the resultant benefit from the development.

• Highways
• 6.17 The development will result in new building where there is none of that scale at present. This impact will be apparent from a number of places and for a number of reasons. From Cooil Road the development itself will be visible by virtue of the height and finish of the buildings but mostly by virtue of the proposed highway works which will result in the removal of the entire frontage and its rebuilding without the height of the existing roadside hedge. In addition the road will be widened and a large roundabout created. There are some in the vicinity who consider this to be a benefit to traffic flow and safety and there has been no technical evidence to support the refusal of the application for highway safety reasons. Cooil Road has a number of roundabouts within it so visually it is not considered that the roundabout and road re-alignment is unacceptable. Wider visual impact
• 6.18 The development is designed to be seen from Cooil Road at present what is visible is the roadside hedge, its trees and the open view beyond. This view is visible mainly by those in cars and buses travelling along Cooil Road. There are no residential views from Cooil Road which would be affected by the proposal. The outlook over the south western side of Cooil Road is largely open but this becomes obscured when one approaches the Robinsons operation, Eden Park and Ballapaddag Farmhouse. The proposed development will result in built development starting sooner along Cooil Road from the south east but in a relatively low part of the landscape. Whilst there are mature trees on the other side of the road, screening to some extent the buildings which are situated there, it is apparent to anyone using the road that there is development and activity on this side of the road. What is proposed will add to this in a similar way but on the other side of the road.
• 6.19 The longer view of the site is available from Richmond Hill and from the public footpath network which runs to the south west. From these viewpoints, the existing development at Eden Park and Robinsons provide a built spread of buildings on the south western side of Cooil Road which will be continued if the proposed development is approved. At present, this existing built development stops at the mature hedge which separates the application site from Robinsons, a boundary which is to be retained in the current proposal and the existing built development on the other side of the road is apparent. The proposed development comprises relatively large scale buildings finished in light coloured sheeting. The building at the highest part of the site will run parallel with Cooil Road, presenting its greatest length to the viewer on Richmond Hill but the two buildings below this will run at ninety degrees, reducing their impact as viewed from the south west. This impact may be reduced further if the cladding were a slightly darker colour - the light colour of sheeting used on the existing Robinsons building illustrates how this can stand out in the landscape. The building which is not proposed in detail at this stage would have perhaps the greatest impact, being closest to the viewer and with the longest length facing this way. The impact of the development will be heavily dependent upon the planting to be introduced along the south western boundary of the site. If effective, this could successfully screen much of the development, in time, from the Richmond Hill direction.
• 6.20 Whilst the development will be seen and the impact will be appreciable, given the presently open character of much of the site, it is considered that the visual impact on the landscape could be satisfactorily mitigated by the retention of existing trees as is proposed, and the planting of new trees and shrubs. Water
• 6.21 It is important that the development does not create any adverse impact on the wildlife within the water course and in this respect further information must be provided which demonstrates that the amount and quality of water emanating from the site can be managed such that the rate and quality of flow into Middle River is acceptable in ecological terms. This can be controlled by condition. Wildlife

6.21 It is also important that appropriate measures are taken to protect important wildlife on the site and in this respect, it is recommended that should the application be approved, conditions are attached to require a method statement to deal with potential owl and bat activity within the site, particularly the means of protecting the roosts and nest sites during construction and the provision of lighting after construction is complete. - 6.22 Two contributors have raised the issue of potential use of the site should the operation prove to be unviable. This is reasonable given the scale of the proposed development and particularly the proposed departure from the development plan. If the business were to prove to operate sustainably and viably, then future expansion as shown in the submitted plans would very likely be considered as acceptable as is the main proposal. However, given the possibility that the scheme may not prove to be as successful as predicted by the applicant, the Planning Committee should retain the ability not to approve the construction of further units on the site unless and until it is confident that the site will be used for the purposes for which it was originally approved. It is also appropriate that the treatment of this area should be known prior to any further development being undertaken there. It is also critical that the permission relates solely to the sale and servicing of motor vehicles and that no general retail permission is granted or is implied to be granted on this site which would be contrary to the Strategic Plan and Government policy on retailing on the Island.

Conclusion

7.1 The application proposes a significant departure from the land use provisions of the appropriate local plan. Not only that, but land alongside and the site itself, together with additional land round about has been proposed for development but rejected on the basis that there was insufficient justification to set aside the land use designation which presumes against development. On the other hand, it has been demonstrated, not least through the recent approval of the industrial units to the rear of Eden Park, PA 11/01232/B that this land use designation can be set aside if there is sufficient justification and in this respect, the provision of land for economic development where there is no suitable alternative, can provide such a justification, referring to General Policy 3g.

7.2 The development will bring about investment, benefit to the construction industry and long term employment, all greatly needed at the present time. The cost of this is the development of land which is not designated for development - land which one of the objectors considers would be better reserved for employment development which implies a belief that the land could or should be developed at some point. The applicant has provided information which demonstrates that there is no land designated for development which would be suitable for this development in their view and the Employment Land Review, coupled with the recent Call for Sites for employment land by the DoI together with their indication that development orders will be the way to release land for employment-related development purposes, combine to support the approval of this application.

7.3 There may be some impact on the existing vehicle sales industry on the Island and there is no firm evidence either to indicate that it will or that it won't. What is known is that over 6,000 vehicles were brought to the Island from elsewhere and as such there is clear evidence that there is at least some spare capacity for car sales which would not affect existing retailers. Unlike the application site, all of the existing car retail operations are on land which is designated for some form of development and an alternative form of use could be found should those uses no longer continue.

PARTY STATUS

7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, 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, in this case Department of Economic Development and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture contains the Wildlife, Forestry and Fisheries Divisions as well as Planning and as such those Divisions should not be afforded interested person status.

In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.

A number of contributors have referred to or requested interested person status without stating why this should be afforded. The provision for affording any contributor interested person status is set out in The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No 2) Order 2013 where it states:

(3) When it determines the application the Department must decide which persons (if any) who have made written submissions with respect to the application (whether pursuant to a notice under article 5 or otherwise), other than those referred to in paragraph (4), should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.

This is further clarified in Government Circular 0046/13 and this states: The following persons shall generally be accepted as having sufficient interest:

• a) persons owning or residing in land or buildings which physically adjoin the site
• b) persons whose privacy would be substantially affected by the development
• c) persons whose outlook from land or buildings in which they have an interest as owners or tenants, would be substantially and adversely affected by the development; and
• d) persons owning or residing in land or buildings, the legitimate enjoyment of which would be adversely affected by reason of:

• i) noise, dust or small arising from the site as a consequence of the development; or ii) traffic generated by the development.

The following persons shall generally not be accepted as having sufficient interest:Persons concerned exclusively with -

• a) the impact of the development on the value of their property
• b) commercial competition
• c) land ownership
• d) private property rights; or
• e) covenants or any combination of these.

In this case, the Isle of Man Chamber of Commerce represents an independent organisation representing all key sectors of the Island's economy. In view of the importance of the assessment of the economic benefit of the development, it is recommended that the Chamber is, in this case, a party with sufficient interest in the application to warrant being afforded interested person status.

Similarly, the Retail Motor Industry Federation - Isle of Man Branch may have had similar independent status were they to have written in in the first instance. However, their letter seeks only confirmation of their interested person status without setting out their views on the application, their views being set out in an earlier letter sent in by an individual car retailer. As such, it is difficult to see how the Retail Motor Industry Federation - Isle of Man Branch should be afforded interested person status in this case.

It is understood that Morbaine Limited own land which is immediately alongside the site (Morbaine has been asked to clarify this but no response has been forthcoming). On this basis, Morbaine Limited should be afforded interested person status.

Similarly Skanco and Ocean Ford own or certainly occupy land alongside the proposed highway alterations and should be afforded interested person status in this case.

The following parties have submitted views but are not considered to have sufficient interest in the application to warrant being afforded interested person status:

Eurocars Limited Mylchreests Motors Limited Brent Mealin Raymotors Limited Fast Lane Car Sales Empire Garage IM8 Discount Cars Bettridge Motors Limited Michael Car Centre Limited DB Autos Limited Kingswood Honda Limited Bespoke Car Sales DW Cars Limited Franklins Athol Garage (1945) Limited Caledonia Toyota Buchanan BMW Isle of Man Enterprises Isle of Man Post Office

Green Powers Electrical Apex Ceilings and Partitioning Celton Manx Ltd.

The owners of Kilkenny, Colooneys Lane make the case that they have consistently opposed development which is not designated for development in this area, including the Cooil Road Development Order and as what is now proposed constitutes a significant part of this, they feel that they should similarly be granted interested person status in this current case. Whilst it is fully appreciated that what is proposed constitutes a fundamental part of the area which was rejected for development, the proposal is different and it is not accepted that the owners of this property are directly affected by the proposal and as such, in this case, it is recommended that they are not afforded interested person status.

SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT The Planning Committee considered the application at its meeting of 14th December, 2015. Following a discussion and presentations from Mylchreests and the applicant the Committee approved the application with three members voting for and one against.

The Members sought amendment to two conditions - one and eight, and determined that the interested person status should be confirmed as proposed in the report but adding Douglas Borough Council to the list of those not afforded interested person status.

Condition 1 was amended to read:

C 1. The development hereby approved, that is the creation of a new access and roundabout and erection of two car showrooms and car servicing unit together with associated landscaping and car parking shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. For the avoidance of doubt no approval is hereby granted or implied to any retail sales on the site other than of motor vehicles and ancillary sales of associated goods relevant to these sales.

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 and as the Planning Authority has assessed the impact of the proposal on the basis of the specific use and any alternative uses within the same Use Class will require further consideration

Condition eight was amended to read:

Prior to the introduction of the trees along the south western boundary of the site, details of the species, size and maturity of the trees to be introduced together with the position and number, must be approved by the Department and implemented in accordance with these details.These trees site must be introduced at the latest, in the first planting season following the commencement of any work on site. Other than this, 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. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

REASON: the landscaping of the site is an integral part of the scheme and must be implemented as approved.

and note 1 was changed to a condition to enable it to be enforceable.

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted

Date of Recommendation:

Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• C 1. The development hereby approved, that is the creation of a new access and roundabout and erection of two car showrooms and car servicing unit together with associated landscaping and car parking shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. For the avoidance of doubt no approval is hereby granted or implied to any retail sales on the site other than of motor vehicles and ancillary sales of associated goods relevant to these sales.

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 and as the Planning Authority has assessed the impact of the proposal on the basis of the specific use and any alternative uses within the same Use Class will require further consideration.

• C 2. Prior to the commencement of any other works on site, the tree protection measures shown in drawing 03C must be implemented in full. Thereafter and for the duration of the building works the protective fencing must remain in place and the protected areas not used for any storage, vehicle parking nor any building nor excavation undertaken within them. Reason: to protect the trees to be retained which are of amenity and nature conservation value.
• C 3. Following the protection of the trees, no other work may be undertaken on site prior to the creation of the access into the site and the highway improvements as shown in drawings M1085.A.01.03PA Rev A and M1085.A.01.04.PA Rev A must be implemented. Reason: in the interests of highway safety.
• C 4. No development may be implemented prior to the approval of the detailed means of disposal of surface water from the site including mitigation of increased surface water flows from the site into Middle River and the drainage must be implemented in accordance with those details. Reason: in the interests of protection of the ecology and flood management of the area.
• C 5. No illumination may be implemented until such times as the lighting proposed around and affecting Tree numbered 170 has been the subject of further proposals demonstrating that the lighting will not adversely affect any nesting owls or bats in the vicinity of this area of trees and the lighting must thereafter be implemented in accordance with these details. Reason: in the interests of the Wildlife Act and Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan.

• C 6. Prior to the application of any external finish on Showroom 2 and the service building, samples of the proposed finish materials must be approved by the Department and thereafter implemented in accordance with those details.

Reason: to ensure that the visual impact of the development is acceptable, particularly as viewed in the landscape from the south west (Richmond Hill direction).

• C 7. Prior to the occupation of any of the buildings, a scheme for the treatment of the areas which are shown for future expansion must be approved by the Department and implemented and maintained as such until such times as approved development is implemented here. Reason: to ensure the appropriate treatment of all of the site.

Note: the applicant is encouraged to liaise with DEFA Wildlife to provide an area which is ecologically beneficial at least for a temporary period.

• C 8. Prior to the introduction of the trees along the south western boundary of the site, details of the species, size and maturity of the trees to be introduced together with the position and number, must be approved by the Department and implemented in accordance with these details. These trees site must be introduced at the latest, in the first planting season following the commencement of any work on site. Other than this, 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. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

REASON: the landscaping of the site is an integral part of the scheme and must be implemented as approved.

• C 9. No approval is hereby approved to the principle of further development on the site as shown in the submitted plans.

Reason: whilst the development of further units in association with the proposed use may be acceptable if it can be demonstrated that the proposed use is operational and viable, as the business is at this time unimplemented, the Planning Committee cannot commit to an approval of further buildings on this site which is not designated for development.

This decision relates to the following drawings:

• M1085.A.01.01.PA
• M1085.A.01.02.PA
• M1085.A.01.03.PA A (10.11.15)
• M1085.A.01.04.PA A (10.11.15)
• M1085.A.01.05.PA A (10.11.15)

• M1085.A.02.01.PA
• M1085.A.02.02.PA
• M1085.A.02.03.PA
• M1085.A.02.04.PA
• M1085.A.02.05.PA
• M1085.A.02.06.PA

- M1085.A.02.07.PA

• M1085.A.05.01.PA
• M1085.A.05.02.PA
• M1085.A.05.03.PA
• M1085.A.05.04.PA
• M1085.A.05.05.PA
• M1085.A.05.06.PA

- M1085.A.06.01.PA 01E (10.11.15)

- 03C (10.11.15)

- 04B (10.11.15)

• 10A (10.11.15)
• 11 (10.11.15) SCT4058/Figure 4.4 and M1085.A.LS2.PA all received on 27th October, 2015 unless otherwise indicated.

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 : Approved Committee Meeting Date: 14.12.2015

Signed : S E Corlett Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

YES See Supplementary Report above

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.