Loading document...
Application No.: 16/01159/B Applicant: Manx Utilities Authority Proposal: Removal of existing hedge and replacement with fence to match existing. Site Address: Manx Utilities Authority Ballacottier Headquarters Isle of Man Business Park Douglas Isle of Man IM2 2QZ Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 18.10.2016 Site Visit: 18.10.2016 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OWING TO THE NATURE OF THE APPLICATION, THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT IS MANX UTILITIES, AND ALSO BECAUSE THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS OBJECTED TO THE APPLICATION BUT IT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the buildings and associated parking and landscaping associated with the Manx Utilities Headquarters on the Isle of Man Business Park. The site is bounded from the highway by sections of hedging and 2m-high metal fencing, while other areas of the site are laid to grass. - 1.2 As befits the high quality business park in which the site sits, there is plenty of vegetation in terms of both boundary treatment and general landscaping surrounding many of the office buildings in the immediate area. While there are some post and wire fences, these would appear to be in the significant minority.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the removal of the hedging running around the northeastern corner of the site and facing onto the highway, as well as the removal of an existing 20m stretch of palisade fencing. In its place would be a continuation of the 2m-high fencing described above. The application explains that the work is proposed to improve security in the rear yard area and to reduce maintenance associated with the hedge. The application also explains that this would provide more space for pedestrians on the footpath and improve visibility around the corner. - 2.2 The application as originally submitted did not propose the replacement of the existing palisade fencing. Following concern raised by officers with regards the visual impact of the proposal, however, the application was altered in the manner described above. - 2.3 The applicant has explained that the hedge is required for security purposes and that if the application is refused, the hedge will remain. The hedge is also apparently becoming difficult to maintain.
3.1 The headquarters was constructed following the grant of approval to PA 91/01863/B. There have been other applications since that time, but only one of any especial material relevance to that now under consideration. PA 14/01375/B gained approval for "Construction of additional roads, car parking spaces, hard standing area and alterations to security fence and gate". The fencing referred to in that application seems to have been a handrail to be positioned along part of the boundary, while the security gate was of a style to match the existing palisade fencing and also reflects that which is proposed in the current application.
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 4.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Braddan Local Plan of 1991 as "Master Plan to be prepared which will include areas of Industrial Use, Science Based Industries, High Density Residential Use, Landscaping and Secondary School of approximately 16 acres". This succeeded a planning application in principle for the development of a business park of 40 acres, which was approved on appeal under PA 89/04166/B. This required inter alia that the business park comprise light industrial use, warehousing, development associated with new technology companies predominantly involved in scientific, commercial or industrial research and development or electronic systems, micro-engineering, biotechnology, office accommodation as the corporate headquarters of companies which utilise the new information technologies and service other park users but specifically excluding financial and professional services to visiting members of the public, including banks, building societies, estate agencies and betting offices. - 4.2 The approval also required that buildings should cover no more than 25% of the business park. - 4.3 On this basis, and reflecting on the development proposed, it is appropriate to assess the application against the following relevant parts of General Policy 2: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure offered no objection to the application in comments received 01.11.2016:
"The proposal is to remove a hedge that borders the property at the rear of the footway and replace it with a metal palisade fence to match the existing. The fence will not obstruct visibility splays for the access to the site or at the junction.
"Highway Services does not oppose this application."
"…removing the hedge would represent the loss of an amenity and would be detrimental to the wildlife in the area."
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The case officer in her assessment of PA 14/01375/B offered the following comments, which are considered to be a useful benchmark for assessment of the current proposal:
"The issues in this case are whether the additional areas of hard standing and the loss of trees detract from the setting of the buildings so as to create an adverse impact, taking into account that the development was originally intended to have no greater than 25% of the area covered in buildings and that landscaping was an important feature in the creation of the business park."
6.2 It is of course noted that PA 14/01375/B was approved. - 6.3 The existing hedgerow provides a most welcome softening of the stores building associated with the MU headquarters building, and contributes to similar such features in the immediate vicinity. It therefore provides an important feature of the 'parkland' setting for the business park as a whole. Many of the buildings in the area have no fencing at all, and this provides them with an attractive landscaping for this high quality business park. It is not considered that the removal of the length of hedging proposed could be said to comprise an engineering operation. It is a planted hedge, rather than a traditional Manx hedge that is constructed. That said, its removal would ideally be resisted unless there are good reasons to indicate that the fencing proposed in its place would result in an overall betterment. There can be no argument that the fencing proposed is more attractive than well-tended hedging. There can also be little argument that the fencing proposed is more appropriate than well-tended hedging given the characterisation of the business park as set out above. - 6.4 It is acknowledged that the MU stores building is one that may well benefit from additional protection beyond the normal locked doors, but equally the existing hedging provides some robust protection for that building. Anyone capable of scaling the existing hedging would probably also be able to scale the palisade fencing proposed. - 6.5 Highway Services note that the new fencing would not obstruct visibility splays. The existing hedge is some 50m from the entrance to the site. It would be difficult to argue that the existing hedging provides such a significant barrier to visibility as to warrant its removal from a highway safety point of view - and indeed no such argument is made by either the applicant or Highway Services. - 6.6 The reduction in maintenance associated with the hedge is capable of being a material consideration. However, the hedge is not affecting any building's footings and nor is it large enough to overshadow any building. - 6.7 Balanced against the above, it should also be noted that there are permitted development rights that would allow for the installation of a fence 1m in height in the position proposed for the 2m-high fence. It is difficult to ignore this fact, even if the reality is that the permitted development rights set out a height restriction lower than the fencing here proposed. - 6.8 Should the applicant decide to instead remove the hedging and erect a fence using their permitted development rights, this would result in a less uniform appearance than is proposed under the current application. Equally, there is no way to ensure that this would happen were the application approved - the applicant could still choose to rely on their permitted development rights, which can only be restricted by planning condition where a development is implemented.
6.9 It is also noted that the existing hedging, which is not very well maintained, may continue to have a less-than-ideal appearance should this application be refused. Whether this turns out to be the case is in the control of the applicant and not the Department. - 6.10 The existing hedging, while long and apparently healthy and robust, sits between two existing sections of palisade fencing. Unlike other vegetation in the area it is not linked into any open or green areas or other trees. It therefore sits in a somewhat unusual context for hedging. - 6.11 Finally, the presence of such fencing as is proposed is not unusual in the immediate vicinity. It should be noted that the higher quality part of the Business Park (in visual terms) is distinct from the application site. The application site is at a point where the Business Park is 'evolving' from this high quality appearance into the more utilitarian warehouse and office buildings found on this part of the estate. While the area surrounding the application site is still, as far as business parks / industrial estates go, attractive, it is not considered to be an area that requires particularly stringent protection.
7.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 This has been a difficult application to assess and on which to reach a conclusion. There are limited benefits to balance against the negative of the loss of the hedging, and indeed much of the argument in favour of the application is that the applicant could undertake more harmful works under the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012. - 7.2 It is concluded that the application should be approved. It would help unify the appearance of the fencing around the site, even if the proposal would result in the loss of an attractive wildlife feature. - 7.3 A condition requiring that the fencing be painted green as per the drawing submitted would be appropriate.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 25.01.2017
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.
Signed : E Riley Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee the recommendation was overturned and the application was refused YES/NO See below
Application No. : 16/01159/B Applicant : Manx Utilities Authority Proposal : Removal of existing hedge and replacement with fence to match
existing.
Site Address : Manx Utilities Authority Ballacottier Headquarters Isle of Man Business Park Douglas Isle of Man IM2 2QZ Presenting Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Addendum to the Officer’s Report
The Planning Committee concluded that the replacement of the existing hedging with a utilitarian fencing was detrimental to the streetscene. They did not feel that the security benefits that might
accrue would be any greater than the existing arrangement on the site. Accordingly, Members determined that the application was contrary to parts (b), (c), (f) and (g) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2017 and should be refused on that basis.
R 1. The replacement of the existing hedging with a utilitarian fence would be detrimental to the streetscene, contrary to parts (b), (c), (f) and (g) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown