Loading document...
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT HAD BEEN PERMITTED ON THE BASIS OF AN EXCEPTION TO POLICY AND THE DEVELOPMENT WAS PART PUBLICLY FUNDED
The site is an area of just over 11 acres situated between the A13 Jurby Road and the Sulby River. Access to the site is from the Jurby Road via a lane 260m long, from the A13 to the west of a property called Baldromma and curving round to the east close to another property, Baldromma Beg which has been part of the film studio application site in previous applications but in this case is shown as having been sold in one of the accompanying drawings.
The site accommodates four buildings - all large scale structures - the office/film workshop which is at the northern end of the site which is 31m by 21m and is two storey - the ground floor is mainly open with small offices around the outer part: the first floor is all open plan offices. This provides a total of 1300 sq m of floor area. To the south of this is a building which is attached to the main film studio which is further south. This building is 24m by 28m (672 sq m) and single storey but contains a variety of inner buildings and rooms, a sub-station and changing room/canteen unit. The main film studio has a footprint of 25m by 43m (1075 sq m). There are areas of hardstanding around the buildings which are used for parking. There is also a small detached building alongside the bungalow which provides a further 59 sq m of floor area.
The plans provided by the applicant include a summary of floor area which does not accord with the above figures. The above are obtained from an up to date survey of the buildings on site and their general internal layout.
The buildings, mainly the principal film studio building are visible from the southern side of the Sulby River and from the northern end of the Garey Road which links Churchtown with the Jurby Road.
The site lies within an area of "white land" on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982 that is, not designated for development.
Proposed is the change of use of the buildings from film studio and associated uses to light industrial and/or warehousing. No changes to the buildings, access or the site are proposed.
As the site is not designated for development, there is a presumption against development as set out in Environment Policy 1 and General Policy 3 and it is unlikely that planning permission would have been granted for the development of industrial or warehousing units in this location if the existing buildings or other suitable buildings were not already there. The buildings were approved as an exception to policy for the purposes of a film studio and associated uses. As such it is important to
assess whether this use is now redundant, if approval of a change of use would be likely to lead to applications for further new film studio buildings elsewhere on the Island.
There are policies within the Strategic Plan which provide advice on the conversion of older buildings of interest to new uses (Environment Policy 16). The buildings on site are not such and this policy is not applicable to this development.
Strategic Policy 1 states: "Development should make the best use of resources by: a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings and re-using scarce, indigenous building materials; b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards and c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services".
Previously developed land is defined in the Plan as "Previously-developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. This definition includes defence buildings, but excludes:
There is no presumption that the land that is previously-developed is necessarily suitable for housing development nor that the whole of the curtilage should be developed."
General Policy 3 states "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
...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."
Finally, it is also relevant to consider the differences in impact of the new uses - for example whilst there may be no change in appearance of the buildings, the type and number of vehicles visiting the site is likely to change, the requirement for parking and the visual impact of these vehicles and any items stored outside.
Parking standards are set out at Appendix Seven where the following are relevant:
Also, the existing access drive is single vehicle and of poor finish: some works would be required to widen this and improve its structural condition. No works are proposed in the application.
Two parts of the site at the southern end are within the flood risk zone, immediately alongside the parking area to the south east of the large film studio building.
PA 06/02136/B - Installation of three antennas and two transmission dishes to existing building and installation of equipment cabinets Status - Permitted 26th February 2007
PA 05/00452/A - Approval in principle for erection of film personnel accommodation with additional car parking facilities, land adjacent to Film Studio Complex, Status - Refused at Appeal 5th January 2006
PA 02/02070/B - Amendments to previously approved film studio complex including car parking provisions, access drive, landscaping details and the siting of workshop and offices Status - Approved at Appeal 29th July 2004
PA 01/0538 - Creation of new vehicular access, drive and sign to film studio Status - Approved at Appeal 22nd January 2002
PA 00/02206/B - Erection of film studio, workshops, toilet block and MEA substation Status - Permitted on Review 1st August 2001 Conditions
NOTE: Prior to the commencement of any works the applicant is advised to consult the Fire Prevention Officer with regard to all matters of fire safety including improved water supply and fire hydrants.
PA 99/01402/B - Erection of portal frame building to replace existing unit to be used for film purposes, Baldromma, Jurby Road, Lezayre Status - Permitted 15th December 1999
PA 97/01102/C - Change of use of two barns for film animation studio and associated workshops, Baldromma Farm, Jurby Road, Lezayre. Initial Decision - Permitted 11th November 1997
PA 97/02051/B - Erection of sound recording studio at Baldromma Farm, Jurby Road, Lezayre. Status - Permitted 7th April 1998 Conditions
Condition 3 required that "The building must be externally finished in natural green walls and natural grey roof sheeting".
PA 97/02053/A - Approval in principle for erection of building for film studio, Baldromma Farm, Jurby Road, Lezayre. Status - Permitted 27th May 1998
PA 98/01151/B - Construction of portal frame building for use as film studio and upgrading of existing buildings for ancillary use, Baldromma Farm, Jurby Road, Lezayre. Status - Refused 10th November 1998
PA 98/01606/B - Construction of portal frame building for use as film studio and upgrading of existing buildings for ancillary use, Baldromma Farm, Jurby Road, Lezayre. Appeal Decision - Approved at Appeal 17th September 1999
A resident of Douglas suggests that the existing building should be dismantled and removed and that an industrial area should not be permitted here by stealth.
The owner of Baldromma states that the original application for the film studios was "fundamentally wrong" and the building is highly visible in the countryside. They state that the access is single width, the surface poor and the proposed change of use will almost certainly result in an increase in traffic.
The owner of Dundonald House at the former Cronk Ruagh sanatorium site to the north west objects to the application on the basis that public money was invested in the property and that Government may still have an interest. They consider that the site should revert back to agricultural use.
The Department of Economic Development recommends that approval of a change of use at this stage would be premature pending a submission to Tynwald in December 2011 on the various options for the Island's film industry following a review of the film industry by the Public Accounts Committee. They confirm that the Government supported the establishment of the film studios to the scale of £500,000 but that the current owner has repaid all the relevant monies outstanding to the Department in this respect. The Department states that "it is the belief of the Department that if the film industry is to continue to develop on the Island, a film studio is a highly desirable asset to complement the other attractions that can be offered when seeking to attract new projects. It is recognised that the studios have not been utilised as fully as was anticipated. However, it might be argued that this was a result of questionable management as opposed to a lack of opportunity. Certainly, this Department is aware of instances where filming enquiries have not come to fruition due to what we believe were unrealistic quotations being provided, that forced production companies to seek alternative venues".
The owners of Mona Lodge suggest that were applications to be made for industrial development on this site without the existing buildings being there, they would not be permitted. They have suffered light intrusion since the film studio was created on the site and industrial use of the site would increase the amount of noise and disturbance they already experience. Once industrial use of the site is permitted, the control of such use and further development would be diminished and the existing building is very visible within the landscape.
The owners of Cherry Tree House on Jurby Road object to the application on the basis that the new use will result in an increase in traffic which cannot be satisfactorily or safely accommodated, there would be external storage which would be detrimental to the appearance of the site. No landscaping was ever introduced and as such it is doubtful that he would comply with any other future conditions imposed upon the site.
Residents of Maughold query the rationale behind the original approval of the film studio and consider that to approve a change of use to industrial would be comparable to two wrongs not
making a right. If the buildings are no longer required they should be dismantled and removed from site. There may be more suitable uses - indoor manage perhaps, or camping to which the site could be put.
Lezayre Commissioners indicate that they objected to the original application and wonder why there is no longer a perceived need for the film studios as there are still films being made on the Island. They express concern about the public money invested in the building and suggest that the site should be returned to agricultural use.
Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Fisheries Directorate are concerned that there is no detail about additional hard surfacing and construction and the impact this may have on the adjacent watercourse (Sulby River). No questionnaire has been submitted in respect of development within 8m of a watercourse.
The owner of Huntersfield expresses concern about potential outside storage of materials which would be unsightly and increased traffic flows on the Jurby Road.
The existing buildings provide 3047 sq m of floor area which would generate a requirement of between 103 and 62 parking spaces. The submitted drawings do not show specific numbered spaces and it is unlikely that there is anywhere near space for the 62 or 102 parking spaces which would be required, including parking and manoeuvring space for HGVs which may well visit the site. If there is not sufficient space for parking, access and manoeuvring then it may be that additional hard surfacing is required which would have an impact on the appearance of the site and potentially on the impact on the Sulby River - ecologically and in terms of increased flood risk.
The submission from the Department of Economic Development indicates that they consider at the present time that there is insufficient evidence to state that there is no longer a need for the film studio and that by December this year Tynwald will decide the future path of film-making on the Island and only then will they be able to state with any confidence that the buildings may no longer be needed for their originally intended purposes. As an exception was made to allow the buildings in the first place, it is essential that the Committee is satisfied that there is truly no further need for the buildings for these purposes before it allows a further change of use to another use which would almost certainly not have been allowed in the first instance. It is considered on the basis of the information from Department of Economic Development that it has not been demonstrated that there is no longer a need or sufficient need to justify a change of use to industrial and/or warehousing use.
It is also important to consider the impact of the proposed change of use. The description of previously-developed land would fit the site. The policy for the redevelopment of such land requires that the existing/authorised use is redundant: it is not accepted that in this case it is.
Also, the policy requires that the proposed use "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." No improvements are proposed: it is not clear that the originally required landscaping scheme was implemented. The proposed use would at the very least perpetuate the large scale of the buildings and most likely increase the frequency of traffic to and from the site and possibly the scale and amount of traffic.
It is very likely that the width and construction of the access lane would have to be increased, this increasing the visual impact of the site as viewed from the A13 and the appearance of parked vehicles, particularly HGVs may well increase the visual impact of the site as viewed from further afield - from the Garey Road and the A3 TT course. The situation regarding car parking is not clear and it is likely that the existing area of hard standing would need to be increased, potentially encroaching into the flood risk area and increasing the potential for flood risk through increased rates of flow from larger areas of hard standing.
The impact on ecology, from development closer to the watercourse could be mitigated through correct and appropriate methods of construction but again, there is no information provided on this.
Finally, the residential property on the site has been sold off from the overall site use. As such, there is dwelling immediately adjacent – in amongst a proposed industrial site and which shares the access with the film studio site. The impacts of the proposed change of use on the amenities of the property are likely to be adverse – the increased level of traffic, the likelihood of heavier and larger vehicles and an increased level of activity.
There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that there is no longer a need for the film studio use – the use which was the original justification for setting aside the policies against development of this site.
The proposed use would not comply with the requirements for the development of previously-developed land in that the existing use is not redundant, the proposed use would not result in a reduced or improved impact; in fact it is likely that the impact would be greater from the proposed use.
The proposed use would result in a detrimental impact on the amenities of the existing dwelling immediately adjacent to the site which is no longer part of the site or owned or controlled in association therewith.
For these reasons the application is recommended for refusal.
The local authority, Lezayre Parish Commissioners are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.
Department of Economic Development and Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture are both statutory authorities which raise material planning considerations and as such should be afforded party status in this case.
Baldromma is directly alongside the site although it does not share the same access. As such this party should be afforded interested party status in this case.
Cherry Tree House and Dundonald House are located on the former Cronk Ruagh sanatorium site and are not directly affected by the proposal. Mona Lodge and Hunterfield are some distance along the Jurby Road and as such none of these properties or the residents of Douglas and Maughold are considered close enough to warrant being afforded interested party status.
Recommended Decision: Refused
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1. The film studio development which currently occupies the site was originally allowed as an exception to policy in the late 1990s. It is considered that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that there is no longer a need for such facilities and as such, there is no justification for approval of a development which would otherwise be unacceptable on this site. The policy to permit development outwith those areas designated for development on the basis of the site being previously-developed (General Policy 3c of the Strategic Plan) requires existing use to be redundant. The Committee is not satisfied that this site is redundant for its originally intended purpose.
R 2. General Policy 3 and the definition of previously-developed land as set out in the Definitions and Glossary of Terms, requires development of such sites to "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." No improvements are proposed: it is not clear that the originally required landscaping scheme was implemented. The proposed use would at the very least perpetuate the large scale of the buildings and most likely increase the frequency of traffic to and from the site and possibly the scale and amount of traffic.
It is very likely that the width and construction of the access lane would have to be increased, this increasing the visual impact of the site as viewed from the A13 and the appearance of parked vehicles, particularly HGVs may well increase the visual impact of the site as viewed from further afield - from the Garey Road and the A3 TT course. The situation regarding car parking is not clear and it is likely that the existing area of hard standing would need to be increased, potentially encroaching into the flood risk area and increasing the potential for flood risk through increased rates of flow from larger areas of hard standing.
As such, it is not accepted that the development would satisfy General Policy 3 and as such there is no justification for the proposed development.
R 3. The residential property on the site (Baldromma Beg) has been sold off from the overall site use. As such, there would be a dwelling immediately adjacent - in fact in amongst a proposed industrial site and which would share the same access. The impacts of the proposed change of use on the amenities of the property are likely to be adverse - the increased level of traffic, the likelihood of heavier and larger vehicles and an increased level of activity and as such the proposed development is considered to be unneighbourly and unacceptable for this reason.
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 : R Committee Meeting Date : 15/01/11
Signed : Sashmiutt Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate ☑ YES / ☐ NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown