Approval in principle for a residential development on land forming part of

The Brickworks Glenfaba Road Peel

Received3 Mar 2004

Validated8 Mar 2004

Committee2 Jul 2004

Decided20 Apr 2004

48 days

Received3 Mar 2004

Validated8 Mar 2004

Committee2 Jul 2004

Decided20 Apr 2004

48 days

Why Was This Refused?

✓Site zoned as predominantly industrial, not suitable for residential development
✓Residential use judged incompatible with surrounding industrial land to the north and west
✓Shared access with industrial estate and inadequate sight lines onto Glenfaba Road
✓Risk of ground instability and land slippage on a former tipping area
✓Poor amenity and outlook for any future residential occupiers
✓highways
✓access
✓amenity
✓additional traffic
✓zoning
✓unstable land
✓availability of other sites
✓overlooking of the industrial area
✓ground instability

This application sought approval in principle for a residential development on land at The Brickworks, Glenfaba Road, Peel. The site sits close to the entrance of the local industrial estate and is at a considerably higher level than the surrounding industrial area. The Planning Committee refused the application on three main grounds. First, the site is zoned as predominantly industrial under the Peel Local Plan 1989, and the local plan policy actively discourages residential development in the vicinity of industrial land. Domestic vehicles would have needed to share the same access route as industrial traffic, and the outlook and amenity for future residents would have been poor. Second, the application could not demonstrate adequate sight lines for vehicles emerging onto Glenfaba Road, raising road safety concerns.

The Planning Committee refused the application because the site is zoned as predominantly industrial under the Peel Local Plan 1989, and residential use was considered incompatible with the surrounding industrial land. The shared access route with the industrial estate raised road safety concerns, as adequate sight lines onto Glenfaba Road could not be demonstrated. Additionally, evidence of ground instability and former tipping on the site raised the risk of land slippage that could harm the neighbouring industrial area.

Site Observations

•situated close to the Industrial Estate entrance off Glenfaba Road
•at a considerably higher level than the rest of the industrial area
•Only part of the site as outlined is level ground, the sides slope away steeply
•evidence of ground slippage particularly along the western edge
•known to have been a former tipping area
•wide crack in the western edge

Refusal Reasons

✕The development of the site for residential purposes is considered inappropriate because the site is not zoned for residential development on the Peel Local Plan 1989 but rather forms part of a larger area zoned as 'Predominantly Industrial.' Not only is it judged that all opportunities for future industrial development should be retained in Peel but Policy 6.8 of the Local Plan which relates to 'Industry' states "Residential development in the vicinity will be discouraged." Given that: a. the site is close to the existing traffic route which connects the existing industrial estate to the Glenfaba Road, b. domestic vehicles would need use this same access, and c. the amenities and outlook for future occupiers would be poor, it is judged that the proposed residential use of the site would be incompatible with the industrial land to the north and west of the site.
✕Notwithstanding the above the application does not demonstrate that adequate sight lines for emerging vehicles could be provided onto Glenfaba Road, due to the limitations of the site frontage onto the highway. This would be contrary to the interests of road safety.
✕Notwithstanding the above, it is judged that there is a risk of ground instability on the site which may, if developed, increase the risk of land slippage which may have a detrimental impact upon the industrial land surrounding the site to the north and west.
✕This decision was made by the Planning Committee constituted in accordance with Paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 of the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982.

Policies Assessed (1)

6.8

Industry

residential development in the vicinity will be discouraged

inappropriate development. CHAPTER 6 - THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT Registered Buildings and Conservation Areas 49 The Isle of Man Natural History and Archaeological Society questioned paragraph 6.8.2 of the draft Area Plan, which states that 'Registered Buildings and Conservation Areas, which might not necessarily achieve such status in the United Kingdom, have gained a higher status in the Isle of Man, where their contribution to national identity and the Island's story is highly valued'. I do not accept that this denigrates the Island's heritage assets; on the contrary it underlines their importance. I do not consider any modification of this part of the text of the draft Area Plan to be necessary. 50 The Braddan Parish Commissioners sought the designation of Mount Rule, the Baldwins, and part of Port Soderick as Conservation Areas. However, the procedure for the designation of such areas is set out in Section 18 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999, and makes no reference to the development plan. The purpose of the Area Plan is to formulate proposals for the development or other use of land. It is not within its scope to create new Conservation Areas. In order to prevent further misunderstandings on this matter, I recommend that Urban Environment Policy 7 be deleted from the draft Area Plan. Urban Environment Proposal 3 51 This states that 'development proposals … which are contemporary in style and which clearly demonstrate innovative design solutions … will generally be supported'. DEFA considered that contemporary styles might be inappropriate in some areas, which have a more traditional urban form. I agree. I recommend that Urban Environment Proposal 3 be modified to read as follows: Development proposals must make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. Traditional or contemporary approaches may be appropriate, depending upon the nature of the proposal and the context of the surrounding area. Archaeology 52 Environment Policies 40 and 41 of the Strategic Plan deal with the development of known or potential archaeological sites. It is not clear to me that Urban Environment Proposal 8 adds anything useful to these policies. The final sentence of Urban Environment Proposal 8, which states that there is no presumption against the development of archaeological sites, appears potentially to contradict Environment Policy 40 of the Strategic Plan, which indicates that development which would damage, disturb or detract from an archaeological site or its setting will not be permitted. I recommend that Urban Environment Proposal 8 be deleted from the draft Area Plan. Railway Architecture 53 Urban Environment Proposal 9 refers to the protection of station buildings, gate-keeper's huts and other line-side structures. However, it seems to me that if they are worthy of preservation, these buildings should be registered. While I do not doubt their cultural importance, in the absence of their registration, it is not clear to me how the planning authority could prevent their demolition or removal. I recommend that Urban Environment Proposal 9 be deleted from the draft Area Plan. CHAPTER 7 - TRANSPORT AND UTILITIES Highways Traffic Congestion 54 The Area Plan recognises that that there is already traffic congestion at the Quarterbridge junction; at the junction between Mountain Road and Governor's Road; and at the junction between Glencrutchery Road and Victoria Road. The evidence is that if all the development sites identified in the draft Area Plan were to be built-out, and no improvements were made to the road system, there would be a significant increase in congestion in Douglas and Onchan. Modelling commissioned by the Government suggests that, in the worst case, the average speed of traffic during the afternoon peak could decrease from 19mph to 12mph. Some journey times would be likely to increase by more than 100%, when compared with 2016 data. This would affect both private and public transport. However, it seems to me that, in practice, this worst case scenario is unlikely to arise. 55 Opportunities for additional carriageway provision are very limited and none are proposed in Douglas or Onchan in the Area Plan. However, there may be potential for limited highway improvements in the proposed Comprehensive Treatment Areas. Additionally, there is scope for the installation of an improved system of traffic signals, which could improve the capacity of the existing road network, particularly at junctions. Further mitigation could result from the introduction of the Active Travel Strategy, whereby drivers are to be encouraged to walk or cycle to their destinations, where this is practicable. Children living reasonably close to their school could be encouraged to walk there (perhaps in a supervised 'walking bus'); or go by bike. Reduced car use might also be achieved by a modal shift in favour of public transport; or car travellers could be encouraged to share a single vehicle, wherever possible. There may also be incr

Documents (23)

Officer Report Decision Notice Location Plan Application Form

Source & Provenance

Official reference: 04/00420/A
Source authority: Isle of Man Government Planning & Building Control
Official record URL: No stable public per-application URL provided