Loading document...
Planning Officer Report to Planning Committee ## Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:202779}} ### Considerations {{table:202776}} ### Written Representations {{table:202777}} ### Consultations {{table:202778}}
The application site forms the curtilage of Unit 6, Spring Valley Industrial Estate, Douglas, which is located on the northern side of Cooil Road. The application site includes unit 6 which is an attached light industrial unit that is currently unoccupied and land to the south fronting onto Cooil Road. The site previously accommodated a car washing facility, but related buildings have been demolished and the site cleared.
The Spring Valley industrial area pre-dates the 1982 Development Plan, which allocated a further area for expansion.
In 1985 permission was given for the development of B&Q. This approval was somewhat controversial and led to a resolution in Tynwald which is referred to below.
Since that time there have been various approvals and refusals for retailing of different nature; approval in principle being given in 1987 for Comet, but not taken up. In 1988 two refusal notices were issued for a light industrial unit for kitchen equipment/printing/hygiene supplies, and for the displaying of furniture at plot 2/4 Spring Valley Trading Estate.
In 1994 permission was refused for the use of unit 6 as a commercial garage, but in 1996 approval was given for the erection of an autocentre on land adjacent to unit 6. In 2001 approval was given in principle for the erection of a warehouse. In 2007 and 2008 two applications for redevelopment of unit 6, firstly for 5 industrial units and secondly for 3 industrial units were withdrawn prior to determination.
The application seeks approval in principle to demolish the existing unit and erect two retail units with ancillary car parking and servicing.
The applicant has submitted an indicative plan showing two separate retail units which would have a combined floor area of 1672 square metres (18,000sq ft). It is stated that the units will be occupied by operators requiring large, flexible, showroom-style sales areas and selling predominately bulky goods. The indicative plan also indicates that 82 car parking spaces could be provided within the site.
Braddan Parish Commissioners have objected to the application on the following ground:-
"It was agreed that an objection should be raised because it was in contravention of their agreed policy of not allowing retail properties in the Industrial Estate."
Highways Division:- No objection
The Manx Electricity Authority makes no comment on the merit of the proposed development but request that an informative note be attached to any approval decision notice.
The owner/occupier 33 Ballaquark, Douglas, has objected to the proposal which can be summarised as; Planning Circular 2/85 is against out-of-town retailing; the policy is to prevent retailing decamping to industrial estates and worsening the decline of the town centre; and it would be un-environmental as these areas can only be accessed by motor car.
The current local plan that covers the application site is the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Braddan Parish District Local Plan) Order 1991, which was adopted by Tynwald on the 10th July 1991. This order is accompanied by and should be read in conjunction with a written statement (Planning Circular 6/91). Under this document the application site is within an area zoned as 'Predominantly Industrial'. In addition, The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007) should be taken into consideration in the determination of the application.
Due to the zoning of the site the following policies are relevant for consideration:-
Braddan Local Plan:
Policy (para 2.4)
'In accordance with the adopted policy of Tynwald no retail developments will be permitted in the Parish District of Braddan with the exception of retail provision designed to serve the local neighbourhood requirements of existing and future communities.'
Policy (para2.5)
'No development of retail use, nor conversion of existing buildings to retail use, will be permitted in existing or future industrial areas.'
General Policy 1 states that in the determination of applications regard should be has to the provisions of the development plan (the Strategic Plan and Local Plans) and all other material considerations.
General Policy 2 provides for general criteria to which all development should be subject. Permission would only be granted provided the development:
Business Policy 1 encourages the growth of employment opportunities subject to other policies in the plan.
Strategic Policy 9 directs all new retail development to town and village centres on land zoned for these purposes in Area Plans, other than neighbourhood centres and those exceptions provided for in 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:
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.
The Department will support new retail provision in existing retail areas at a scale appropriate to the existing area and which will not have an adverse effect on adjacent retail areas. Major retail development proposals will require to be supported by a Retail Impact Assessment(1).
Retail development will be permitted only in established town and village centres, with the exceptions of neighbourhood shops in large residential areas and those instances identified in Business Policy 5.
The Isle of Man Retailing Study (2009) commissioned by the Department of Trade and Industry has recently been completed. The report provides a comprehensive study of the retailing sector of the Isle of Man informed by: health checks of the key centres; an extensive household survey; analysis of retail expenditure which drew on the draft findings of the Isle of Man Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2006/2007; the official floorspace data available at the time; and a market commentary. It also provides recommendations for an overall policy towards retailing.
The Study has been accepted as Supplementary Planning Guidance to be used in the preparation of Local Plans and help inform consideration of planning applications. The report is the most accurate survey of the current health of the retail economy that includes professional independent analysis and recommendations. As such its conclusions should carry some weight in the determination of this application. However, it is considered that the Strategic Plan carries greater weight, as it was adopted following public consultation and approved by Tynwald.
A key finding of the Study was that the quantitative requirement for bulky goods comparison floorspace is estimated to be some 14,000 sq.ft net at 2012, rising to 31,000 sq.ft net by 2017.
Key recommendations of the Study included:
(para 23) ...there will be forms of future retail development which will not be suited to or be able to be accommodated in Douglas or the established town centres. Where this occurs there will be a need to facilitate edge-of-centre (or out of centre) sites. This requirement will be restricted to the retailing of bulky comparison goods. Mainstream comparison and convenience retail floorspace should continue to be located in the established centres.
(para 28) The report specifies a number of assessment criteria in support of these directions. It is recommended that the sequential approach to site identification and development be continued with a presumption in favour of retail development in central areas. This will support the site values necessary to encourage town centre redevelopment and renewal. Where it is demonstrated that retail development cannot proceed in such locations, the potential for suitable development in edge of centre locations should be examined. Only when these options have been exhausted should out of centre locations be considered. This consideration should include examination of the potential effects on existing retail centres and the potential impacts on regeneration initiatives and their implementation.
Section 9 addresses the issue of the quantitative requirement for bulky goods comparison floorspace which it states will increase from an expected 14,000 sq.ft net in 2012, to 31,000 sq.ft net by 2017. Whilst it noted that the Household Survey found that town centre outlets remain significant for such purchases and hoped that this continues to be the case it concluded that there may be scope for the development of bespoke retail warehouse facilities on a medium scale, with appropriate restrictions on the nature of goods sold. It was noted from the March 2009 floorspace survey that there was a significant volume of retail trading from non-retail premises in industrial estates and considered that the provision of bespoke retail warehouse facilities may encourage a consolidation of such activity. In assessing the suitability of any such bulky goods retail development it is important to consider the scale, design and character of the development; the vehicular access and movement arrangements, as well as the quantitative and qualitative retailing need for development.
The report recommends that where bulky goods retail development provision is permitted, outlets should be restricted solely to the use of real 'bulky household' goods, typically including: DIY and garden materials, carpets, furniture and white electrical goods. It warns that the Isle of Man should not follow recent UK precedent where retail warehousing outlets and parks have been allowed to sell toys and sports goods, and in some instances 'high street' shopping products such as clothes and shoes which could harm the competitiveness of its centres and to encourage investment in their ongoing
development (and redevelopment).
This idea of encouraging bespoke retail warehouse parks is somewhat contradictory of the policy of resistance in the Strategic Plan. This is further considered within the assessment later in the report.
The primary issue for the determination of this application is the principle of the use outside of an established shopping centre. Secondary issues include the loss of business space, transport, traffic and access, and amenity. Although the application seeks approval in principle, consideration should still be given to the visual impact of a retail warehouse in this location, albeit that the precise design, siting, external appearance and landscaping are reserved for later approval.
Appendix 9 of the Strategic Plan indicates the employment land availability as at 2007. This shows that there is potentially 36.94ha for employment within the eastern area of the island. This availability includes 20ha of land proposed at Cool Road, which is yet to be formally verified. If the Cool Road land is discounted that would leave 16.94 ha available in the eastern area. As the application sites is 0.57ha it is not considered that this would significantly undermine availability of employment land.
The Braddan Plan identifies the site as an industrial area. It also clearly indicates that no retail use will be permitted in industrial areas, however the policy regarding retailing on industrial areas is superseded by those within the Strategic Plan which was adopted at a later date.
The principle of retail development in this location is centred around two key issues:
The aim of the retail policy is to direct retail development to existing centres which are easily accessible to the widest range of people by a variety of forms of transport, and also to help the vitality and viability of existing centres. The Plan does provide an exception to this, but only where the retail use by virtue of the products(s) being sold are incompatible to existing centres. It is therefore necessary to consider whether this proposal is for the retailing of items which could not be sold from a town centre location because of their size or nature (ie bulky) and where is can be demonstrated that the sales would not detract from the vitality and viability of the appropriate town centre shopping area. Major retail proposals should be supported by a retail impact assessment to ensure that they do not have an adverse effect on existing centres. A retail assessment has been submitted with this application.
The Strategic Plan specifically makes reference to goods that cannot be sold from town centres because of their size and nature. This is taken to mean 'bulky goods'. The reference to 'Bulky (comparison) Goods' is also made in the DTI study and is defined in its glossary of terms as being: 'defined broadly as all purchases on goods generally sold from retail warehouses and where goods are normally of such a size that they would be taken away by motor vehicle, and not be manageable by customers travelling on foot, cycle or bus.'
However bulky goods is often used liberally as a generic term to include goods that are 'non-comparison' goods, such as screws, nails and other DIY hardware type goods, which are not necessarily bulky. The DTI study does not include a reference to 'non-comparison' goods, but does make reference to 'Retail Warehousing' and defines this as 'a large, single-storey outlet with
minimum gross retailing floorspace of 1,000 sq m, selling DIY goods, furniture, electrical goods, carpets, as well as gardening items (often referred to as 'bulky' comparison goods). Car parking would generally also be provided at retail warehousing outlets.'
Whilst the proposal is for the erection of two retail units, the applicants have indicated that potential operators could be Halfords and Pets At Home. They have submitted a list of locations of Halfords and Pets at Home stores in the UK as evidence in support of their application that the goods they sell are bulky and are appropriate in out of town locations. It is considered that such evidence should be considered with caution. The fact that they are not in town centre locations does not automatically mean that they are bulky goods (such as carpets), some include non-comparison goods (such as screws and other hardware) and in some cases smaller electrical goods (kettles). However, in virtually all of the cases the retail units are location in parks specifically designated for out of town retailing. The establishment of retail parks in the UK has grown considerably over the past decade or more and the manner in which goods are restricted has varied both with time (some early ones are not restricted or with poorly worded and unenforceable restrictions), and in accordance with the varying UK Central Government retail policy over that time. Retail policy in the UK has differed from the stance taken in the Isle of Man and it is not considered that a direct comparison is overly useful. It is certainly relevant that to date no locations have been designated as 'out of town shopping centres' in the Isle of Man, presumably to restrict such activity.
Paragraph 9.2.5 of the Strategic Plan provides some background to the current policy. It states 'More recently...there has been pressure on Government to permit retailing within industrial areas, particularly those on the outskirts of Douglas. Following the development of the large-span "do it yourself" retail facility by B&Q in the Spring Valley industrial estate in the mid 1980s, Tynwald took an immediate stance against out of town retailing by a resolution in 1987 which states that "positive steps should now be taken to revitalise existing town and village centres for the benefit of the whole community...and no further major out of town retailing developments should be permitted.'
The retail parks in the UK provide for varying levels of restriction, depending on when they were established, and where they are in location to the main shopping areas and their purpose (wholly out of town or edge of centre etc). Many of these centres include outlets such as Toys R Us and Next both of whom sell comparison goods that could be accommodated on the high street. Stores that are perhaps more appropriate would include Currys, that sell large, bulky white goods, but also sell smaller electrical items such as kettles, which are clearly not bulky, but arguably are linked in type to the large items.
The definitions are not clear cut and there is no reason why the approach to the acceptance of some types of good being sold in the UK, should be the same in the Isle of Man, it is for our own retail policy to provide that guidance. Our policy, at the moment, indicates that only items that could not reasonably be sold from a town centre location because of their size or nature should be allowed and only when it can be demonstrated that there is no impact on the vitality and viability of the existing centres.
Draft conditions to show how goods could be restricted to be in line with the planning policy were suggested to the applicants. The conditions would restrict goods to be bulky and would clarify this by stating:
'For the avoidance of doubt, bulky goods are defined as durable goods which, by means of their size, weight or shape require vehicular transport close by for the customer to carry them away, and which cannot readily be carried home or taken on conventional public transport. The multiple purchases of goods at one time are not considered to be bulky. In this context, bulky goods do not include food, linens and beddings, footwear, clothing, pets/pet accessories, bicycles and car accessories.'
The conditions were not accepted as a potential way forward by the applicants, who pointed out that they felt it would be unworkable, since virtually every retail outlet, (including DIY) sells some items that can be carried home on public transport.
This is certainly true to a great extent, as stated earlier, shops such as Currys do sell items such as kettles in addition to washing machines and fridges. It is likely that those retailers would not be willing to split their wares to sell different goods in different locations, although this approach should not necessarily be discounted. Ironically, really bulky items are more likely to be delivered than taken home in the car and smaller items are ones that could be carried home on the bus. This perhaps only leaves a small percentage which would require a car.
The proposal is speculative but it has been indicated that those retailers expressing an interest include Pets at Home and Halfords.
With respect to Pets At Home, the applicants have submitted information regarding the range of goods that are sold. These include; kennels, aquariums, cages and large bags of food in addition to a range of smaller items. They also sell small pets such as fish and reptiles, insects and spiders, mice, hamsters, rabbits and birds. In looking at appeal cases it has been concluded in some instances that the range of goods sold in a different pet store would include a high percentage of which were not inherently bulky and many would compete with goods on sale in the town centre (1996). More recently however, a Scottish Reporter concluded that the goods sold at Pets at Home were bulky. In paragraph 3 of his decision letter he states "Pets at Home in Falkirk sells both food and non-food pet related products displayed in aisles suitable for trolley access...In addition to the pets, items for sale include 15kg bags of dog food and 20kg bags of cat litter. Accessories include kennels, hutches, cages and fish tanks, all of which are bulky and difficult to transport without a car." (P/PPA/380/355)
With regard to Halfords, there is no doubt that this retailer operates predominately, if not solely out of retail warehouse parks, and not in high street locations. Some of these retails parks will be subject to restrictive conditions regarding the nature of the goods that they sell. The applicants have provided a list of locations, but not given details of the restrictive conditions in most of the cases. Where a copy of the condition is provided, it is not clear that it specifically seeks to restrict non-bulky goods and it is not clear how these decisions relate to the policies of the relevant Development Plan, or how the developments were considered to impact on the relevant town centres. It is concluded that those approvals, whilst useful background material, are not directly comparable to the situation on the Isle of Man and do not provide sufficient evidence so as to override the policy of the Strategic Plan.
Halfords have submitted a letter in support of the proposal. They outline that their policy is to locate only on retail parks where large space is available at economic terms and where easy access to a car enables customers to take their purchase home for themselves. They explain that they have 374 stores on retail parks of which about 50% have a restricted consent to bulky goods. They confirm that they would not take space within Douglas' high street.
A site visit within any Halfords store will show that a high percentage of goods sold are small and can easily be transported. The largest are bicycles and it is arguable whether these are truly bulky. If the wording of Business Policy 5 is the test, this states goods that could not reasonable be sold from a town centre location because of their size or nature. Bicycles can be, and are easily sold from town centre sites. Consequently it is not recommended that, should permission be granted, the goods would be extended to those types sold in Halfords.
Business Policy 5 not only requires the goods to be bulky, but it also needs to be demonstrated that 'the sales would not detract from the vitality and viability of the appropriate shopping centre.' The applicants have submitted a Retail Impact Assessment (RIA) to address this issue.
It should be noted that it is not for the planning system to protect private commercial interests and a retail impact assessment should not directly assess whether the viability of a particular store would be jeopardised by the proposal (unless it affected the viability of a single village store that provided essential goods for instance). Thus it is not for the Planning Authority to seek to protect the
commercial viability of the specific stores that exist. However, the RIA should address the issue of whether the development would draw sufficient people away from those established centres that it would affect the vitality and viability of those centres. Clearly this means that the impact on existing stores is of relevance, but it is whether the loss of that store would undermine the viability of the centre.
The manner in which the viability of centres is tested is normally by calculating the potential percentage loss of the income of the relevant centre and indicating whether this would be critical. The RIA indicates that the catchment of the proposed development would be the whole island, thus it is reasonable to consider the impact on all of the centres on the island.
The RIA concludes that Douglas has a vital and viable town centre and of the goods proposed to be sold within the development, just 1.9 % have a competitive overlap. Douglas provides for a range of comparison shopping and a broad diversity of non-retail uses (businesses, culture). Douglas has reasonably low levels of vacancies and attracts high levels of footfall.
Other centres are described in general terms in the RIA, but no comment is made on their vitality, viability or vacancy rates. They state that these centres tend to serve just local needs. It was considered that the RIA overlooked the need to address the impact on shopping centres other than Douglas and further information was sought. This concluded that there would be ‘very low impact’ and the trade diversion from each centre would represent only a fraction of the total retail turnover of that centre. It states that the figures should also be seen in the context of growth of household expenditure which is not part of the analysis, but will in part, offset any trade diversion.
The RIA also supports the proposal in terms qualitative and quantitative need. It argues the benefits of the application proposal in terms of providing residents with two units for retailers requiring large-scale flexible, showroom style sales areas with sufficient, convenient adjacent car parking.
In terms of qualitative need, the RIA argues that existing stores on the Island operate in cramped conditions and consequently have limited ranges and that most stores do not have sufficient car parking. It argues that there is a need to improve the range and choice of stores selling carpets, flooring, car accessories, bicycles, DIY goods, pet supplies and furniture and that large-scale retail warehouses are required to bring about qualitative improvements to meet customer demands. Resisting development that provides flexible showroom style floorspace stifles innovation within the retail sector on the Isle of Man and residents will be deprived of the range of goods that could be provided.
The RIA argues that there are two reasons why the proposed development cannot be reasonably accommodated within a town centre location. The first of these relates to the need for a large area to display goods. The RIA cites furniture shop displays that include mock rooms, and carpet shops that display carpets, laminate woods, rugs and so on. It further argues that DIY stores, car accessories and pet suppliers need then to display their range attractively. They argue that there are no suitably large sites within the town centres.
The second reason is that the goods would be predominantly bulky and whilst some customers may arrange for goods to be delivered, many will expect to take purchases home in their vehicles. The Isle of Man has a high level of car ownership and therefore sufficient and adjacent car parking is required as it is not reasonable to expect customers to carry bulky goods through a high street to a multi storey car park.
The report shows, through analysis of the DTI study that there is quantitative need for additional comparison goods floorspace as a whole (not just bulky). Para 3.07 indicates that the proposed development represents 12% of the island’s need as at 2007, 8% as at 2012 and 5% as at 2017.
The RIA argues that there are only 5 stores selling the types of ‘bulky’ goods that they propose within Douglas town centre and that this represents just 1.5% of the total number of units. Consequently the proposal would have an imperceptible effect on trading.
There are other stores selling such goods across the Island, but it is argued that many of these are already in out of centres locations. Fine Furnishings in Onchan is given as an example. It is considered that 'the trade draw to the proposed development is likely to be predominantly from out of centre stores and not affect any centre.'
To some extent it is difficult to assess the impact of such a proposal for the immediate and long term future. The figures provided specifically refer to the overlap of certain goods (carpets, flooring, car accessories, bicycles, DIY goods, electrical goods, pet supplies and furniture) for Douglas, although it only refers to car accessories, bicycles and pet supplies for the secondary centres. In some instances, whilst the overall net turnover may not be significantly reduced, the general attractiveness of a centre, the range of goods available, the vitality of a particular frontage may be jeopardised all of which may contribute to decline. Furthermore, the acceptance of retailing out of town may allow for some precedent whereby each approval could cumulatively undermine the vitality of existing centres.
The DTI study shows that while Douglas remains relatively healthy, all of the secondary centres attract little investment and there is low demand for shop units, once vacant, shops become vacant for some time. Consequently whilst the impact study may say the net turnover would be negligible, the loss of any unit could be critical given the current low occupation of units. It is considered that the sequential approach to retail development should be adopted in this instance whereby vacant units or sites should be considered first. This has not been the approach taken, primarily because it does not meet the demands of the potential occupiers. The applicants have indicated that their clients will not consider locations in the secondary centres and that there are no available units or sites in the town centre suitable for their needs, which include large showroom areas and adjacent car parking. However operators such as Marks and Spencer and MEA have managed to either acquire land and build a large unit, or have adapted their needs to the location.
It is of some relevance that the proposal is new build. Consequently, whether the sequential test should also include land within or adjoining the town centres, rather than just vacant buildings. The proposal is not for an existing business that needs to relocate in order to operate, but for purpose built retail units within an industrial estate to be advertised.
Although the DTI study does suggest that the demand for bulky goods is likely to grow over the next 10 years, and that it would be appropriate to consider a defined edge of centre or out of centre location to consolidate these uses, this is probably more appropriately addressed through the local plan process whereby a site is specifically allocated for the purpose following a public consultation exercise.
The applicant has submitted a detailed Transport Assessment (TA) which considered the impact upon the highways issues associated with the proposed retail development.
The TA has been considered by the DOT who do not object to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions regarding details of the junction of the access road to the highway, parking and disability access.
Although the application is for approval in principle only, an indicative plan has been submitted to show 2 units, once of 743sqm (8000sqft) and the other of 929sqm (10000sqft). One of the units is shown to be located adjacent to Unit 8 and the other would sit adjacent to the boundary with Cool Road. Both units are shown to be a distance of about 26m from the rear boundary of the properties on Cool Rise, which is a distance of about 38m from their rear elevations. There is also a significant difference in levels between the housing area and the site which is about 6m lower and any proposed landscaping. Whilst the details are reserved at this stage it is accepted that a satisfactory scheme could be designed.
On the illustrative scheme, unit 2 is shown to be just 8m from the footpath with Cool Road. This has the potential to have a negative impact on the street scene. However, there is likely to be some flexibility in the layout to move the building further away from the road and provide greater landscaping.
The retail impact assessment does not sufficiently demonstrate that there would be little or no impact on the vitality and viability of existing centres. A sequential approach has not been fully undertaken; some units or sites within centres being dismissed as not meeting the needs of retailers. The need for adjacent car parking and large floor areas are not fully explained or accepted. The assessment assumes pets, pet's accessories, car accessories and bicycles to be bulky goods, which is not fully accepted. The impact on the vitality and viability of centres should the development be occupied by other bulky goods retailers, has not been addressed in the retail impact assessment.
It is accepted that there are other out of town shops retailing in pets, pet food and small items such as those sold in B&Q, it is also accepted that there is retailing from existing units at Spring Valley. Such units include Lights of Man, Discount Carpets and The Tile Shop. However, the circumstances of their approval are not directly comparable and in many instances these developments were not assessed under the Strategic Plan policy. It is not considered that the existence of these units outweigh the policy or should undermine the overall objectives of the retail strategy.
That the application be refused.
It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:- Braddan Parish Commissioners Department of Transport Highways Division
It is considered that the following do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded interested party status:-
The Manx Electricity Authority
The owner/occupier 33 Ballaquark, Douglas
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 30.09.2009
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1.
The proposed development is contrary to the aims of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 to direct all new retail development to existing shopping centres. It has not been adequately demonstrated that the proposed development would not detract from the vitality and viability of existing centres, nor has it been adequately demonstrated that the proposed goods could not reasonably be sold from an existing centre because of their size or nature. For these reasons the proposal is contrary to Business Policy 5 and Business Policy 10.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Decision Made : REFUSED Committee Meeting Date : 9/10/09
Signed : Jean Cellow Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
