Loading document...
Application No.: 25/00405/D Applicant: Lemac Limited Proposal: Installation of illuminated signage Site Address: 25 South Quay Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 5AR Principal Planner: Chris Balmer Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 03.07.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. The proposed signage does not relate to an approved development or use and physically cannot be installed therefore contrary to General Policy 6 a & b and General Policy 7. - R 2. It is considered the proposed illuminated signs would harm the amenities of the area and impact upon important views from the adjacent Conservation Area contrary to General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 36.
_________________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status None
_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site 25 South Quay, Douglas until recent times had an industrial unit on the site which was recently demolished. The site is within a wider industrial/commercial area and to the rear is a steep bank. The site has an existing access onto South Quay. The site has now been cleared and a concreted surface has been laid.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for the installation of illuminated signage. The signage spells the name of the company "Lemac Power" with 400mm x 400mm x 75mm lettering in green and white. A logo is also proposed in front of the name with a 300mm radius x 75mm in Green. All are illuminated.
3.1 The site lies within an area of "Mixed Use Proposals Area - Quayside" and "Proposed Comprehensive Treatment Area - 3. Riverside and Peel Road" on the Area Plan for the East
3.2 The Control of Advertisements Regulations 2013 make it clear that the only considerations which can be applied to applications made under them are in the interests of amenity and public safety. In the case of amenity, such things as the general characteristics of the area need to be taken into account along with the presence of any features of historic, architectural, cultural or similar interest and the public safety should consider the safety of any person using a road, railway, tramway, harbour or aerodrome including the obscuration of any traffic sign or similar. - 3.3 Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application: - 3.4 Paragraph 6.6.2 (Advertisements) of the Strategic Plan notes that well designed and sensitively sited advertisements can contribute positively to the character of a building or area and can help the public, whilst those which are too bright, over large or poorly sited may endanger highway safety by distraction and may, individually or cumulatively, detract from amenity by intrusion, clutter, visual confusion or by masking features of interest. - 3.5 General Policy 6 states that "Within our town and villages, the display of external advertisements will be permitted on the site or building to which they relate provided
they:
3.6 General Policy 7 states that "Within our towns and villages, the display of external advertisements on sites or buildings other than those to which they relate will not generally be permitted." - 3.7 General Policy 2 states: "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:
3.8 Regulation 5(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2013 reads as follows: "Unless it appears to the Department to be required in the interests of amenity or public safety, an express consent for the display of advertisements must not contain any limitation or restriction relating to the subject matter, content or design of what is to be displayed".
4.1 Change of use to electric vehicle charging station with erection of solar panels, twelve charging bays, installation of storage containers and creation of new vehicular access 25/90205/B - Refused (no appeal made) on the following grounds; "R 1. The proposed use as an electric vehicle charging station car park business would not be in accordance with the land use designations and Mixed Use Proposal 7 of the Area Plan for the East 2020. Furthermore, such use would likely also detract from neighbouring sites from being development in compliance of Mixed Use Proposal 7, given the proposed use and appearance of the site in question.
5.1 Highways Services have commented (29.05.2023); "No objection". - 6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are;
Gp2bc & EP36);
6.2 The Strategic Plan is explicitly clear through its policies (GP6&7) in how it expects applications for advertisements to be considered. In that those adverts should relate to the specific uses of the building to which they are attached. Advertisements that are not related to the land or building to which they are generally attached are considered not acceptable. The rationale is to prevent an unwarranted proliferation of adverts that could compromise the appearance and attractiveness of the town and villages. However, these policies can only be applied within the parameters of the legislation as noted above and so are limited to impacts in terms of amenity and public safety. - 6.3 Having said this, the refusal of PA 25/90205/B is a material consideration, given the proposed signage can't be physically installed (requires canopies and structures which were refused) and also the signage would not relate to an approved use on the site. Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary to GP6&7.
6.4 As outlined previously PA 25/90205/B was refused, one reason being; "The proposal would be contrary to Environment Policy 36 and General Policy 2 as the proposal would detrimentally affect important views into and out of North Quay Conservation Area.". The inclusion of illuminated signage would only further highlight the unacceptable development and the visual harm it has upon the North Quay Conservation Area opposite. Accordingly, it is considered the proposal would have a detrimental effect upon important views into and out of the Conservation Area contrary to Environment Policy 36 and General Policy 2.
6.5 The main aspect to this proposal is of safety of the users of the highways (pedestrian footpath and carriageway) who may be viewing the proposed sign. It is noted that Highway Services do not object to the application nor do they consider the proposed signage and media is hazardous to the use of the highway. On this basis and as there is no objection from highways, it is considered the proposal would comply with General Policy 6(c) & Gp2h and Regulation 5(3) of the Town and Country Planning and would not cause a highway safety hazard.
7.1 For the above reasons, the application is recommended for refusal as it is considered the proposed illuminated signs would harm the amenities of the area, impact upon important views from the adjacent Conservation Area contrary to General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 36. Furthermore, the proposed signage to not relate to an approved development or use and physically cannot be installed therefore contrary to General Policy 6 a & b and General Policy 7. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
8.2 The decision maker must determine:
Person Status.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.
Determining Officer Signed : J SINGLETON Jason Singleton
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown