Loading document...
PA 04/02006/B – Refurbishment, Extension and Change of Use Of Existing Office Building to form a Children’s Nursery and Family Centre for MFS3 Ltd. Barrule House, Ronaldsway Industrial Estate, BallaSalla, Isle of Man, IM9 2AA.
Kay Associates
• CHARTERED ARCHITECTS • PLANNING SUPERVISION • PROJECT MANAGEMENT • DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANCY
The application property is situated on the South Western Corner of the Ronaldsway Industrial Estate, which is located mid way between the village of Ballasalla and the town of Castletown. The site is approximately 650 Sq.m. in area, and consists of a predominantly single storey building, with a small two storey section of building located centrally, providing a total floor area of approx. 250 Sq.m., the remaining site area being made up of parking and garden/landscaped areas. A site plan is included in Appendix A.
The application property is currently empty and has been so for some three years. The building was formerly used as an office block associated with an attached industrial unit. This attached unit has also ceased to be operated as an industrial unit, and is currently leased by the IoM Post Office and is used as the Southern Sorting and Postal Office. The applicant understands that there is approx. 9 years to run on the lease of the postal sorting office.
The planning application (PA 04/02006/B) was submitted in late September 2004, and sought permission for refurbishment and extension of the existing office block, and a change of use to Children's Nursery, Family Centre and Associated Staff Offices. The application consisted mainly of internal alterations, with some minor external alterations, primarily associated with a small extension to the Southern end of the building, and revisions to the parking area to create staff and visitor parking areas, and an external play area for the Nursery.
In accordance with paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 of the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982, the Planning Committee REFUSED the application on the 10th December 2004. The Refusal notice is dated 15th December 2004 and is attached in Appendix B.
Following the notification, the applicant requested a review of the decision of the Planning Committee, which was accepted on 20th December 2004.
From the correspondence received from the planning department, it can be seen that six items of correspondence were received at the consultation stage of the application which were as follows;
‘The environment in which the facility will be located is generally unattractive and characterised by large industrial buildings and where there is often movement and manoeuvring by large and heavy vehicles. Such an environment is not considered suitable for the operation of a nursery or a facility where children would visit. The Committee appreciates the applicant’s need for such a facility and problems which have been encountered with other sites but considers that this site is not suitable for the proposed use’.
The applicant notes that there is no further correspondence from the DoT Highways Division after that dated 22nd October 2004, within the information forwarded by the planning department. The applicant assumes therefore that either the DoT have not in fact provided a view for the committee other than that previously expressed in the above correspondence, or if they have, this has not been included in the documentation issued with the review notice.
Taking the review correspondence in order, the applicant would wish the Planning Committee to consider the following in reviewing the decision;
4) The applicant would note that whilst the estate upon which the application site is located is zoned for industrial usage, the existing building that is actually the subject of the application is currently in office usage.
The proposals are in fact predominantly office usage, as the family centre area consists of a quiet office to be used as counselling/meeting room, and the activity room, which is a space for larger staff meetings, group counselling and child and parent therapy/counselling, together with associated kitchen & w.c. facilities'. The first floor of the building is entirely used for staff office accommodation for the management of the unit as a whole, and providing an office base for staff working within the Southern community. The applicant would therefore contend that almost two thirds of the proposal actually conforms to the buildings current use class. The applicant would also point out that other organisations providing counselling and support services to the public (such as 'Relate' and 'IoM Victims Support') operate from bases classified under an office use class, and accept visits within their premises from members of the community for counselling purposes.
Prior to the preparation of the proposals, the applicant carried out preliminary consultations on site with Ms Fiona Mullen, the Planning Officer for the area, to determine the suitability of the site, and establish if there were any specific planning issues which would deter an application being made. Ms Mullen advised that there were no specific planning issues which would prevent an application progressing, noting that whilst the proposal is located on the estate, it is within a quiet Cul-de-sac position, on the very fringe of the estate and with an open aspect.
5) The applicant notes that no further item of correspondence from the DoT – Highways Division is included in the review correspondence. The applicant's architect carried out consultation with the DoT – Highways Division Network Planning Engineer prior to submitting the application, and included his comments within the proposals.
6) The applicant's have previously sought permission for the conversion of a property within a residential district of Castletown. This application was refused at Appeal on the grounds that 'The development would result in an institutional use of the premises, which would have an unacceptably injurious impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties and the domestic character of the terrace'.
The applicant's ask the committee to consider the case made within their letter of the 16th November 2004. If the provision of such accommodation is not felt to be suitable within a residential area, and the applicant is refused permission within the current location, the people of the South of the Island will again be disadvantaged in the provision of services to them.
7) The Refusal Notice – The notice characterises the location of the proposal as an unattractive area, with large buildings, and with regular movement and manoeuvring of large vehicles. Such a location not being considered suitable for a childrens nursery or a place where children would visit.
The applicant believes that this statement does not reflect the actual situation of the location of the proposal, nor recognise the true situation with regards to the traffic movements within the area. The estate has been a long established facility on the island, and the buildings located there are generally set within good grounds, giving a parkland feel. The most recent development on the estate are the two Strix buildings, which are less like industrial buildings, and more like office/science park buildings. The applicant also understands that approval has recently been granted for a hotel to be built on land adjacent to the estate, giving a further dilution of any industrial image to the area.
No.1 View of Ronaldsway Industrial Estate.
The applicant would suggest that the nature of the estate is more aligned with the Isle of Man Business Park in Ballacotier, Braddan, than with the Balthane or Snugborough estates, which are of a very much more industrial appearance. The IoM Business Park itself has become more light industrial in nature, with the storage and support accommodation for the likes of the MEA and Manx Telecom being recently erected. However, a children's nursery has also been allowed to be built there, located behind the large workshops of a vehicle sales and servicing garage, and next to a Chinese takeaway and public house, with all the traffic and noise associated with those uses.
From a traffic perspective, the proposal is located at the very end of the estate access road, this means that the majority of any heavy vehicular traffic will have already serviced their respective units and will not be travelling down in to the cul-de-sac. Vehicles for the postal service access that building from the side and rear, and heavy vehicles servicing Castle Industries, a printing company located immediately opposite the proposal, do so at the rear of that
building. This means that the only vehicular movements within the immediate vicinity of the proposal are for the staff car park of castle industries, which is located opposite to the proposal, and approximately three vehicles per day visiting the Shoprite storage facility adjacent to it. This is a low number of vehicles, and all will be travelling at slow speed within the area.
No.2. View from entrance of proposal. Castle Industries Building and Staff Car Park in foreground, and open aspect over surrounding Countryside.
The applicant would suggest that there are numerous examples elsewhere on the Island, where permission has been granted for children's nurseries, where there is a greater level of danger from vehicular traffic. As an example, the former Lancashire Hotel, Santon, has become the 'Lancashire Tot Spot', a children's nursery located on a 50mph section of the main route between the South of the Island and Douglas, and where there are several thousand vehicular movements per day travelling at high speed, and passing within very close proximity of the building. Many other nurseries such as The Cranford, IoM Children's Centre and Hopes & Dreams are located on main arterial roads into Douglas, with no parking facilities thus forcing parents to load and offload children in dangerous situations, with extremely high levels of traffic at peak times.
No.3 View from proposed Family Centre Car Park Area showing Open Nature of Estate and Views out to Surrounding Countryside.
Whilst the applicant accepts that the location of the proposal may not be ideal, they do not believe that it is so detrimental either. The need to provide a facility for the provision of these services to the people of the South is urgent. The applicant is not purchasing the building, but leasing for a nine year period, during which time it is hoped a more suitable property will be found for a more permanent long term base for the service, and within a more suitable location.
To conclude, the applicant's would respectfully ask the committee to consider the views put forward above, and the urgent need to provide accommodation for this service to the community of the South of the Isle of Man. The facility is needed within reasonable travelling distance of the community it is to serve. However, it is considered by the Planning Committee, that the facility should not be located within a residential district, as a previous application has been refused on these grounds. This leaves the applicant with little hope for the future, if the current proposal is refused, as there are few other options to explore, as properties of a suitable size to accommodate their requirements are thin on the ground, and are invariably located either within residential or other industrial zoned areas.
The application property is located within easy travelling distance of the main centres of need for the service. No objections were received from local residents or businesses to the proposal. The existing building provides an ideal split for the proposed uses, providing light and airy accommodation for the Nursery area, with good access to a secure external play area. Separate, but attached accommodation can be provided in a discreet location within the community, for family counselling and support, together with a suitable base for support staff working both within the unit, and out in the local community.
Given the limited options available, and the very real need within the community, the applicant would respectfully ask the Committee to see fit to reverse their initial decision to refuse the application, and grant approval to the proposal at review.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
