Loading document...
Application No.: 17/00320/C Applicant: Hopes & Dreams Limited Proposal: Temporary change of use from light industrial to an out of school care facility for a period of two years Site Address: Unit 2 Block D Eden Business Park Douglas Isle Of Man IM4 2AY Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OWING TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE.
0.0 PREAMBLE - 0.1 The Planning Committee may recall assessing a similar proposal to this application at their meeting of 6th March 2017. That application, PA 16/01297/C, sought approval for the use of Unit D6 at Eden Business Park as a children's nursery and after-school club for a temporary period. The Committee approved the use for a period of two years from that date and also that the use would be specific to the applicant. - 0.2 During that same week, but following the decision made by the Planning Committee to approve PA 16/01297/C, a representative of the owner of the Eden Business Park contacted the Department to ask if the issued approval could be moved to another unit within Block D as the owners were in the process of agreeing the sale of Unit D6 to a third party and, accordingly, that approval can no longer be implemented. At the time of writing, the sale of D6 has apparently yet to go through, but the representative of the site owner has confirmed in writing their complete unwillingness to allow the use of Unit D6 as approved under PA 16/01297/C to take place, stating to the Department as follows:
"Eden Park have advised the applicant that they WILL NOT allow D6 to be used to provide aftercare services and also the sale of Unit D6 is currently going through 'contract' with the purchaser intending to use it for light industrial." [Emphasis in original]
0.3 As such, the applicant has submitted this current application, which relates to Unit D2. Other than the change in location, the nature of the proposal is essentially identical to that previously approved, as the applicant has confirmed by submitting all the same information as that supplied during the course of the previous application. On this occasion, the application description is explicit that two years only are sought, which was the time limit attached to the approval notice issued to PA 16/01297/C. - 0.4 The result is that the report that follows is more or less identical to that in respect of PA 16/01297/C. The fundamental differences are, obviously, the unit location / site description and
"In clarification of the key issues the Members enquired with regard to the temporary nature of the proposal, parking provision, and other suitable premises for the relocation of the business. The Members expressed dissatisfaction with the creation of the Business Park on land not zoned for it, for a specified demand that some years later had failed to fully materialise. While expressing sympathy for the Applicant, they felt that this may not be an appropriate place for the business.
"Mr Riley confirmed that the Applicant had requested a temporary permission for a period of two years as his current premises were no longer available for use by the business, and to allow him time to find new suitable premises. In the absence of a town location providing a large house with large grounds to supply parking provision and play space for the children, the Applicant felt that this unit was suitable short term premises.
"The Highway Services representative confirmed it objected to the application on the grounds of insufficient parking provision. She outlined the drop off and pick up arrangements for children attending the facility together with the required, and existing, parking provision, including those spaces designated for shared use.
"Miss Chance reminded the Members that the original application for the business park was approved having regard to the need to provide land for this use but also to provide sufficient space for new businesses to begin operation should there be an upturn in the market.
"The Members were very mindful of the temporary nature of the proposed use and the fact that there remained a number of the units empty to cater for any potential market upturn.
"The Chairman raised concern that temporary uses can become permanent, and sought assurance that the recommended condition 1 was sufficiently tightly worded."
0.6 That application was approved subject to the following two conditions:
"Reason: The planning history of the site is such that any permanent loss of any of the Eden Park units from either light industrial or research and development uses would be contrary to the exceptional circumstances that resulted in those units' approval for those uses on land not zoned for any particular purpose."
"Reason: The development hereby approved is only acceptable in this location because of the special circumstances of the applicant."
0.7 The Committee will also note that there is another application before them at this meeting for a unit at Eden Park, but this is for a wholly different form of development and therefore the site, proposal description and assessment are distinct from that which follows here.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the curtilage of Unit D2 on the Eden Business Park, along with five parking spaces and the associated hardstanding that provides access to those spaces. Block D sits at the west of the estate and D2 is second from the right as one looks at the building. Not currently occupied, it is fairly central within the estate and sits near to the central road that connects the four blocks. - 1.2 In addition to the five parking spaces within the application site, there are a further eight that are for shared use that are outside of the applicant's control. - 1.3 The unit has roughly 135sqm of internal floorspace.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The submitted application seeks approval to change the use of the unit from light industrial, for which it has approval (as well as research and development), to an 'out of school care facility', for a temporary period of two years. Children would be cared for between 3:30pm to 5:30pm on weekdays during school terms and from 8:30am to 5:30pm during school holidays. - 2.2 No external alterations are proposed, while internally the existing, single WC would be supplemented by a privacy screen and a further eight WCs with two wash basins and also a small base unit and worktop. - 2.3 The application has been submitted with a supporting statement and a number of testimonials from existing clients of the applicant.
All the other buildings they have looked at in Douglas have required significant investment to bring up to standard, while they also have found no premises in a setting conducive to their business that
2.5 Some nine testimonials of existing parents have been submitted with the application/ These variously outline their support for the existing business and their reliance upon it, their understanding that it needs to relocate, and support for the Eden Park unit the subject of this application.
"The need to find suitable alternative accommodation was not our choice. We were asked to vacate the previous premises as Douglas Rugby Club wished to develop the club for the benefit of the rugby community and have invested in the resources available.
"We did not have a lengthy notice period to plan for our relocation.
We have specific needs arising from the services we provide (ie term time only after school club provision for 2 hours per day and longer provision during the school holidays)
"The service we provide supports the economic well being of the Island by providing the necessary child care required where parents work full time.
"The application referred to use for two specific and distinct child care services
"We work hard to provide the children with comfortable safe good quality surroundings where we can offer stimulating, challenging activities that allow the children to have fun and develop friendships. We have been doing this successfully for over 10 years and are experienced in managing the risks involved."
"The children will be collected from schools (currently we collect from Ashley Hill, Onchan, Scoill Yn Jubilee, St Marys, Henry Bloom Noble, St Thomas's, Ballacottier and Scoill Vallajeelt) in our vehicles (3 Transit minibuses and two people carriers - total of five vehicles) and delivered to the proposed setting, where they will immediately enter the premises under supervision. Each minibus has at least one child care staff member on the minibus in addition to the driver.
"The people carriers are kept during the day at Hopes & Dreams Nursery on Woodbourne Road.
"The minibuses are kept at Douglas Rugby Club and this arrangement has been agreed will continue. Two of the minibuses have their own dedicated drivers who, having dropped the children off at the proposed unit, will return their vehicles to the Rugby Club. They will not therefore ever be parked up at the unit.
"The other minibus will remain parked at the unit to facilitate the transfer of children back to the collection point at Hopes & Dreams Day Nursery on Woodbourne Road. The vehicle and between 10 to 12 children leave at approximately 5:10pm subject to weather and road conditions, in order to arrive at Hopes & Dreams around 5:30pm.
"The two people carriers are driven by childcare staff and will be left in the shared parking bays at the end of the block of units. That is three of the total of 15 parking bays in use between 3:30pm and 5:30pm.
"All resources required for each session will either already exist at the proposed unit or will be brought to the unit each day in the same vehicles as the children.
"We propose to only offer indoor activities during the operation of After School Club. This is a compromise situation acceptable to us given the restricted period of two hours. There are several child care facilities with no outdoor space for all day care, and there is no requirement in the current Day Care Standards for a setting to have its own outdoor space.
"Therefore for clarity there will be no activities within the car park area where traffic could pose a threat or be inconvenienced.
"Unit D6 was chosen specifically because it is an end unit at the very end of the car parking thus removing any possibility of passing traffic accessing other units, and managing the risk to the children.
"It has in the past been usual for parents who collect their children before 5:30pm to come to the setting to collect their children. Roughly half to two thirds of the children attending can be expected to be picked up from the setting. We have always transported the remaining children who are to be collected later than 5:30pm to Hopes & Dreams Nursery on Woodbourne Road, from where they are collected prior to 6pm. Many parents choose this option as it is more convenient for their work timings and or journeys home.
"This is possible because the numbers of children at nursery on Woodbourne Road have declined by that time of the day, making accommodating a smaller number of After School Club children and their collection possible.
"Given the possible concerns raised by Hazel Reid of Highways and Asset Management in her email of 22 December 2016 we have surveyed collection times for a representative week of operation."
9 cars on site at any one time. There is some potential lack of clarity with respect to the numbers provided as they do not set out the number of vehicles on site at any one time but, instead, refer to the number of vehicles arriving at certain intervals.
"The majority of children are dropped at Holiday Club by their parents although we do offer a transfer service at the beginning and end of the day to and from central Douglas for convenience.
"Therefore for roughly 13 weeks a year there would be increased traffic movements at the start of each day, and similar traffic movements at the end of each day as for After School Club.
"Again there is the possibility of introducing alternative arrangements if this volume of traffic is considered to be unsuitable and I would welcome the opportunity to discuss alternatives with Highways if necessary.
"We propose to only offer indoor activities at the site during the operation of Holiday Club.
"However given the longer period of operation we would use our vehicles to take children off site to access outdoor play opportunities every day. This is something that we have been doing from our previous premises for over 10 years. We are expert at arranging and delivering off-site trips and outings for the children.
"The off-site outings and trips would necessitate the minibuses accessing and leaving the site up to two times per day per vehicle - a total of 6 traffic movements per day.
"In addition there are several existing child care facilities with no outdoor space for all day care, and there is no requirement in the current Day Care Standards for a setting to have its own outdoor space.
"In keeping with the operation of After School Club, and for clarity on this important issue there will be no activities within the car park area where traffic could pose a threat or be inconvenienced.
"Arrangements for collection are similar to those for After School Club. Again alternative arrangements could be put forward if Highways consider that the anticipated traffic movements and parking requirements are excessive."
"Given the lack of available accommodation my expectation is that the long term solution will come from accommodation becoming available that isn't available at the moment or the development of new suitable accommodation.
"The timescale for either option cannot be accurately predicted but both options are likely to involve a planning application for either change of use, or development of a new site, which in itself may require clarification or altering of Planning Policy.
"Either way I would anticipate a reasonably lengthy process, one that could require a new build opportunity."
3.1 The site is not allocated for development in the Braddan Parish District Local Plan, but is designated as an Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance on that Plan. There are no policies within the Plan that are considered to be specific to the current proposal.
3.2 As such, the relevant policies are General Policy 3 and Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan, which set out a general presumption against development on land not zoned for it, and also for the protection of the countryside.
3.3 Nonetheless, it is a matter of fact that planning approval has been granted for units for light industrial units and research and development uses, and these have been built. (See Section 4, below, for further details.) - 3.4 Consequently, it is considered that the assessment of the application should also include reference to General Policy 2, Strategic Policies 1 and 10, and Transport Policies 4, 6 and 7, which are set out below. Strategic Policy 1: "Development should make the best use of resources by:
Strategic Policy 10: "New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to:
General Policy 2 (in part): "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:
Transport Policy 4: "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan."
4.1 When determining planning applications, Section 10(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 ("The Act") states that the Department shall have regard to:
4.2 The Draft Planning Policy Statement: Planning and the Economy:
4.3 The Employment Land Review:
4.26 ha would be available in the East, equivalent to nearly 5 and half years supply. The pressing nature of the requirement for additional employment land in the east was further emphasised, with the evidence noting that, "Due to the lack of available land, it is considered there is an over-riding national need for additional land to be released prior to the Area Plan for the East". Since the publication of the Inspectors Report, Canada Life's relocation and proposed expansion from Castletown to a 1,672 sq.m unit (18,000 sq.ft) at the Isle of Man Business Park (at Ballacottier) further reduces the available supply."
development in the East consistent with the pattern of recent years, a further 15ha would need to be allocated in the East Plan area to 2029."
4.4 Vision2020:
5.1 Although this individual unit has not itself been the subject of any planning applications, the original application (PA 11/01232/B) that sought approval for the 24 units across the site proved extremely controversial. The application received officer support, following which the Planning Committee approved the application. Subsequently, following a third party appeal submitted by a nearby resident, the appointed Planning Inspector recommended that the Minister dismiss the appeal, a recommendation with which the Minister accepted.
5.2 The Inspector's report ran to 141 paragraphs, and there were some very lengthy appeal statements submitted as well. However, in spite of the unusually large amount of information submitted, the Inspector's assessment turned purely on whether or not the in-principle objection to
the use of unzoned land for development could be outweighed by the applicant's argument that there was an essential national need - in both quantitative and qualitative terms - for high quality, light-industrial units in this location. Both the planning officer and Inspector found the applicant's argument compelling, and both the Planning Committee and Minister respectively agreed.
5.3 It is worth noting some of the comments made by the applicant's advocate at the Inquiry, as summarised by the Inspector. The Committee's attention is particularly drawn to paragraphs 66-67, 74, 76, 78-79, 94, 99-103, 105, 123-124 and 128 of the Inspector's Report, but some of the salient comments are set out / summarised below. It is important to note that the current landowner also owns the business that submitted application PA 11/01232/B.
5.4 The following paragraphs are taken from the Inspector's own assessment of the application:
present national need in land use planning terms - for the exceptionally high quality form of development subject to this appeal."
5.5 These extracts point to a very clear understanding on the part of the Inspector that the Eden Business Park (as now known) was required on the grounds that there was a national need in qualitative and quantitative terms for light industrial units in this location and at that time, and that that national need was sufficient to override the general presumption that development should not take place on land not zoned for it. - 5.6 It is also very important to bear in mind that the applicant's own advocate argued that the units were required not just now but also for the future, to provide sufficient choice when the economic environment improves. - 5.7 There have been three subsequent applications in the area that are material to the assessment of this current scheme, which are set out below in the order in which they were determined. - 5.8 PA 14/00871/C sought and gained approval for the change of use of Units B5 & B6 to "undertake furniture repair, storage and distribution with supporting administrative staff accommodation" for the Crossroads Care charity. The case officer recommended the application be refused:
"Whilst the use of a building with an approval for light industrial use, for a mix of that plus office does not in itself appear to be sufficiently harmful to warrant a refusal of permission, it needs to be remembered that the site is not allocated for development, and permission was only granted for the light industrial development on the basis that strong arguments were made for the need for ready made, light industrial premises of a sufficiently high quality to attract high tec businesses in a clean and modern environment, both now and when the economy picks up. To allow for a change of use before the development is even fully completed undermines this argument and signals the incremental loss of the site for the purpose that it set out to achieve."
5.9 PA 14/00443/B sought and gained approval for the change of use of the entirety of one of the unit blocks "to assembly of electrical components / showroom / trade counter / storage / distribution and ancillary offices (Sui Generis) for Units A1-A4 and light industrial (Use Class 5) for Units A5-A6". This was recommended for approval on the basis that the applicant, landowner and Department enter into a legal agreement under Section 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 requiring that the use revert to light industrial once the use ceases. The case officer, in commenting on the principle of the proposal, noted as follows:
"The original argument of need for a high quality/high tech/light industrial business park has already been undermined by the proposal to use the buildings by Crossroads for Care; and the application for change of use (14/00871/C) was approved by the Committee. This perhaps shows that high tech industries were not knocking at the door of the original developer. Nevertheless the development was approved and commenced and it is now for the site owner to find occupants for the buildings. With only the second occupant needing to apply for a change of use as they do not fit in with the original concept, there is a danger that the estate will become abundant with non-light industrial uses.
"The proposed use would not be particularly harmful. However, an element of control regarding the future use of the proposed units is required. The amalgamation of units A5 and A6 for light industrial use is considered to be acceptable, as the units are current restricted to light industrial uses under the extant approval. Therefore the conversion of the units would comply with the existing planning condition. It is recommended that a planning condition be attached to restrict the use of the amalgamated unit (Units A5-A6) to light industrial."
5.10 PA 15/00198/B sought and had approved the variance of condition 10 as attached to PA 11/01232/B, which restricted the units' use to 'light industrial' only, to enable the units to also be used for research and development. Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 sets out a number of Use Classes, Class 5 of which is named "Research and development, light industry". - 5.11 This proved to be a much less controversial application - and, as the case officer pointed out:
"There is no specific reason given for the condition [10]. However, the application was made and approved on the basis that there was a need for high quality 'light industrial' uses and it appears that the condition was put forward for the avoidance of any future doubt, that the site was not a general industrial area, nor was it for any quasi industrial/retail use, nor for storage and distribution, car workshops and similar activities that occur in some industrial estates. The lack of reference to 'Research and Development' does not appear to be a deliberate exclusion.
"Given that research and development are considered to be so similar that they are contained within the same Class, and that it does not represent a 'special' industrial (bad neighbour) activity which would be contrary to the aims of the original application and that there seems to be some interest in the site for these purposes, then there is no objection to the proposal."
5.12 The case officer also noted that there had been some interest expressed in such uses, albeit that none had been taken up for this purpose. - 5.13 Evidently, the approval issued to PA 16/01297/C is a clear material consideration in the assessment of this current application. While it may on the face of it appear to be a clear consideration in favour of the current application, this is not necessarily the case. In the first instance, there is no legal provision preventing the use of Unit D6 for its approved use - approval to the current scheme could allow for the operation of two of the units for non-light industrial uses, further constraining the supply of these units for which they were approved. There is no reason to dispute the veracity of the landowner's claims that the unit will be sold shortly and therefore not available, and it is to be noted that they have expressed their willingness to enter into a legal agreement under Section 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to prevent D6 from being brought into its approved use. Consideration will be required as to whether or not such an agreement is required to make the proposed use acceptable. It is also true that there is another application seeking a change of use of one of the Eden Park units (PA 17/00304/B), which if approved would further fore-shorten the supply of light industrial / research and development space on the site - for which, it must again be stressed, the units were exceptionally approved on the basis of national need.
6.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure, in comments received 11th April 2017, noted that the application is the same as PA 16/01297/C, which was approved despite their objection that there was insufficient parking provision. They further note that the impact of this application would be the same as 16/01297/C and this means that they are again in a position where they have to object to the proposal on the basis that it does not provide sufficient car parking provision as required by the Strategic Plan, further noting that the two applications could potentially run concurrently, exacerbating their concerns. They also note as follows:
"It should be noted that there is currently an application for a change of use of unit D1 that will also require more car parking than is provided; the cumulative impact of such applications will have a deleterious impact on the safety of all car park users, in particular children."
"The proposal is to use an industrial unit within an industrial estate as an out of school child care facility until a permanent location can be found.
"The application requires a transport statement detailing the anticipated traffic movements, car park accumulation survey, staff parking requirements, pedestrian movements. The concern is that there will be insufficient parking to accommodate all the parking requirements without using parking for adjacent units. As the facility is currently operating a week long survey of the existing situation should be included in the transport statement.
"Please defer the application until the applicant has addressed the above matters.
"The capacity and operation of the junction with Cooil Road was assessed on the traffic generated by the use of the units for light industry that has a lower anticipated traffic generation than the proposal."
"I have assessed your planning application for change of use of an industrial unit to an out of school care facility and in order to consider the likely impact of the proposal on highway safety and car parking provision I require additional information.
"The application requires a transport statement detailing the anticipated traffic movements, car park accumulation survey, staff parking requirements, pedestrian movements. The concern is that there will be insufficient parking to accommodate all the parking requirements without using parking that is set for adjacent units. As the facility is currently operating, albeit at a different site, a week long survey of the existing situation should be included in the transport statement.
"The survey will involve taking note of how many vehicles arrive and leave the site in each 5 minute period between the 3.30pm and 5.30pm; you should also note any pedestrian journeys that are made. All vehicles associated with the facility should be counted including servicing and staff.
"I also have concerns regarding the movement of children within the industrial estate as some of the adjacent units may have large vehicles manoeuvring in the vicinity.
"The capacity and operation of the junction with Cooil Road was assessed on the traffic generated by the use of the units for light industry that has a lower anticipated traffic generation than the proposal.
"You comment that the proposal is to be temporary in nature, can you please specify a timescale. "I have requested that the Planning Authority defer making a decision on your application until you are able to consider the above and submit additional information."
6.3 Braddan Commissioners offered no objection to the application on 11th April 2017. - 7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.1 The starting point in the assessment of an application is normally the Development Plan. However, as planning approval has already been granted for development contrary to the Development Plan, the starting point in this case is the fact that the site has development on it. While it is therefore a matter of fact that the building the subject of this current application is
already there, Members should be very careful about applying too much weight to this. The four buildings on this site were approved exceptionally to meet (1) a specific, (2) a defined, and (3) an overriding national need for which no reasonable alternative was available. It is important to stress each of these points. The same test should therefore apply to any alternative proposed use on those buildings. The Inspector, in concluding that the original application for the units was acceptable, noted:
"…the case would not be made out that there is an immediate, overriding national need to release land now were the current appeal proposals simply conventional, essentially utilitarian, industrial units."
7.2 The current application does not propose any form of industrial use.
7.3 The fundamental test is therefore whether or not planning approval would have been granted for the development now proposed at the time the original buildings were approved.
7.4 Consideration is also required as to the highway safety implications arising from the proposal.
7.5 It is correct to take a very protectionist stance over these units given their planning history, and moreover it is correct that the starting point for the assessment of this application should be that the proposal does not comply with the zoning for the area - i.e. not zoned for any form of development. However, it would be wrong to completely ignore the fact that there is already a building here (albeit approved for a specific purpose, which the application manifestly does not reflect) in weighing up the points against and in favour of the proposed use. - 7.6 As members will be aware, Planners try to avoid making reference to 'precedent', since every planning application should be treated on its own merits such that future decision-makers are not hamstrung by historic decisions. However, it is also true that previous decisions are material considerations in the assessment of current proposals. The extent to which the history of this site and its surroundings has been reviewed attests this point, but equally there should be an assessment as to how any decision reached in respect of this decision may fetter future decisions in respect of applications seeking approval for a change of use on Eden Business Park. It is therefore important that, should this application be approved, it be on the basis of the specific circumstance of this case and the applicant. - 7.7 The applicant has submitted a well-considered planning statement, which sets out the alternative sites that have been assessed and discounted, and the reasons for doing so. A number of sites, and ideas of sites (e.g. church and sports halls), have been considered within the scope of their business needs. There is a specific and defined need for a particular kind of premises, again for the reasons outlined by the applicant. The additional information clarifies a number of points, not least that the applicant is in a very difficult situation with regards the continuation of his business and moreover that this is a well-established and well-run operation that clearly has a number of satisfied customers. - 7.8 It is considered that the applicant has properly considered the alternatives, and discounted them for logical and understandable reasons. That being said, it must also be concluded that the scope of the applicant's search has been geographically limited to Douglas and the surrounding area. This, equally, is understandable inasmuch as this part of the Island probably provides the largest concentration of working people for who childcare is essential. It is considered that the geographic scope reflects the needs of the business, and it may well be unreasonable to require the applicant looks further afield as this would significantly affect and possibly undermine his wellestablished business model. - 7.9 It is concluded that the application represents a specific and defined need.
7.10 As to whether or not there is an overriding national need for the development proposed, though, this is a more stringent and difficult requirement - the reason being that the protection of the countryside for its own sake and from unwarranted development is a central tenet of the Strategic Plan, embodied within a number of its policies (Strategic Policies 1 and 10, Environment Policy 1). - 7.11 There is no definition of how such "an overriding national need" should be either expressed or an application intended to meet such a need assessed. The Inspector in considering the original application for the units noted that such a measure would be a comparative rather than an absolute one (his paragraph 94). There is no statement in the Development Plan or any other government policy document of how this need, in terms relative to the development proposed, should be quantified. It seems reasonable, though, to conclude that such a proposal would need to demonstrate sustainable development benefits to the Island and in the public interest where no reasonable alternative existed. While the immediate needs of the applicant's business are understood, and there is sympathy for the situation in which they find themselves, it is difficult to conclude that the proposal would meet an overriding and national need. - 7.12 There are other such businesses that operate on the Island and (understandably) the applicant has not provided a comparative analysis of the quality of those other businesses. This was not undertaken by the promoters of the car franchise dealership (generally known as the Jackson's site), who instead relied on the importance of improving standards required by car brands and the difficulty of existing sites being able to achieve this. That was, of course, a wholly different scheme in terms of scale and use, but the point remains an important one. There is no such information about the need to improve standards with respect to childcare with this application, but equally the applicant is clear that the Unit the subject of this application can be upgraded in order to meet the statutory provisions of the Regulation of Care Act. Moreover, it is clearly not within his business interest to seek to use a unit with which his clients would be uncomfortable: there is documented proof on the application file that at least some of his clients feel the environment to be provided by this unit would be both acceptable for them and their children. - 7.13 At this point it is probably worth reflecting on the temporary nature of the proposal. It is not known for precisely how long the Eden Park units have been complete, but a guess of three years does not seem unrealistic. It was noted from the site visit that just less than half the units remained available, although it is understood that some of those are nearing the final stages to be let. Fully one of the blocks is let by a lighting wholesaler, while another unit is let by Crossroads for Care. Therefore, it is fair to say that the take-up of the units by light industrial / research and development users has not been as fast as initially envisaged or projected by the landowner. That there remain units available to let for those uses is noted and welcomed, and reflects the statements of the estate agent acting on behalf of the landowner in the original application that units should be kept available should there be a market upswing. - 7.14 The application site represents one unit, and it would be taken out of availability for a maximum period of 24 months should the application be approved and implemented. This can be limited by condition. Though the applicant would be within his rights to seek an extension to the temporary period in due course, any such future planning application would be assessed having regard to the availability situation of the units at that time. It must also be carefully considered as to whether or not the use of a unit for such a purpose as is proposed would materially and harmfully affect the character of the area such that approval to this application could represent the 'thin end of the wedge'. - 7.15 Reflecting on all of the above, it is concluded that a temporary approval for this use, at this time and in this unit, would not be unreasonable. The unit would be removed from the use for which it was originally and exceptionally approved, but only for a short period. It would not be subject to harmful alteration (indeed, the works proposed to be undertaken would appear likely to improve the unit's attractiveness to potential users) such that it could be easily brought back into a light industrial / research and development use. Without being able to make any kind of
7.23 This sense of openness is unlikely to continue when the units become let, and it is known that at least some of those that are vacant may soon become occupied. However, it is to be again remembered that the proposed use is only temporary, and indeed it may be that the concerns raised by Highway Services do not come to pass should Unit D6 be occupied as proposed. The unit is located on the edge of the estate and away from many units that are occupied. Indeed, the nearest occupied units are those let to Crossroads for Care, which is not a light industrial use and therefore perhaps brings with it more limited vehicle movements. That being said, they may also be affected by any displaced parking resulting from there being too few parking spaces at Unit D6, even if the adjacent spaces in D block are more likely to be attractive to drivers / parents in such circumstances. - 7.24 Equally, it should be remembered that the advice provided by Highway Services comes from a professional highways engineer and their concerns should not be readily dismissed. That the use proposed is temporary does not make it acceptable: highway safety is a serious issue, particularly where children are concerned given their somewhat unpredictable nature, and the concern identified will be problematic whether the use operates for only one day. Therefore there is, again, a difficult balance to be struck. - 7.25 The balance on this occasion is even finer than that previously, owing to the existence of not only an extant planning approval for the use of Unit D6 for the use here proposed, but also the possibility of PA 17/00304/B being approved. In the first place, it is concluded that sufficient comfort can be drawn from the statements of the applicant and landowner that the first planning approval (16/01297/C) will not be implemented. It is not considered that a legal agreement would be necessary in this case, and this conclusion is reached largely on the basis of the temporary nature of that approval. There is no way to be absolutely certain that the sale of D6 will proceed as intended (it is already taking longer than anticipated), nor that it may revert back within two years in short, there is no way to be certain without the signing of a legal agreement. However, it is equally considered that such lengths would be unreasonable in this situation for the reasons already outlined. It is also of course very welcome that the business of the likely owner / end-user of Unit D6 complies with the planning approval in place for that unit. - 7.26 There is more concern with regards PA 17/00304/B, and primarily on highway safety grounds. If approved, that application will also likely rely in part on some of the 'overflow' parking on the Business Park. The situation as envisaged by the Highways Engineer previously - namely, that continual reliance on overflow parking will result in displaced parking across the site - may come to pass, and soon, and may be difficult to prevent via planning control if the remainder of the units are occupied by businesses that do not require planning approval to do so. This is clearly undesirable, and to be avoided if possible. In this case, it is unlikely that displaced parking would have an impact wider than on the estate itself - though parking may be displaced elsewhere on this part of Cooil Road to the detriment of other businesses. In any case, a negative impact on highway safety is always to be avoided. - 7.27 However, both this use and that proposed at Unit D1 would bring somewhat transient parking demands such that parking pressure would not be present at all times. It is also noted that, in the case of this scheme, the overflow / shared parking area is nearer Unit D2 than was the case with D6, and therefore the comings and goings of vehicles from these spaces will be quicker as the walking distance between these spaces and the units would be much reduced.
8.1 It is highly unlikely that a permanent use of this unit as for childcare would be acceptable in Planning terms. This is owing to the planning history of the site. Moreover, there is a clear objection from Highway Services that seems difficult to overcome despite the best efforts and intentions of the applicant.
8.2 There does not seem to be any particular harm arising from the grant of this application on a temporary basis - in short, the loss of one unit from its approved use for a short period of time would not prevent its being returned to that approved use in due course. The applicant has explained that the use proposed is only temporary while alternative premises can be found, and a reasonable view of the situation 'on the ground' is that the loss of this unit for a period of two years would, while contrary to the development plan, not prevent the remaining units from coming into a use for which they were exceptionally approved.
8.3 With respect to the highway safety issues, it is concluded that these are not so severe as to warrant the application's refusal. While the concern raised is significant and understood, and some weight is given to the temporary nature of the use, the nature of the site as well as its fairly quiet and lightly trafficked immediate vicinity is such that no objection is raised. The nature of how children will be brought to the site, and how the business's vehicles are intended to be stored offsite, allows the conclusion to be reached that there will be as much parking made on the site as possible.
8.4 The above conclusion on the acceptability of this temporary proposal on behalf of this applicant in this location and at this time has been reached with extreme caution. It is possible that, should the application be approved, people may simply see the decision reached and conclude that alternative uses for these units are acceptable. This is fundamentally not the case. The applicant in this case has put forward a compelling argument on behalf of his business and how it is conducted, and as it has been concluded that the use proposed is acceptable on the basis of the explanations put forward by the applicant it is consequently concluded that a condition limiting the approval solely to this applicant would be necessary in this instance.
8.5 Since approval is sought for only a two-year period, it is not considered necessary to attach the 'standard' condition that requires the planning approval to be commenced within four years. - 9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 28.04.2017 Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: The development hereby approved is only acceptable in this location because of the special circumstances of the applicant.
The development hereby approved relates to Drwg 01, 02 and 03, all date-stamped as having been received 21st March 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.
Decision Made : …Permitted.. Committee Meeting Date:…08.05.2017
Signed :…………A MORGAN…………….. Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown