Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
23/00394/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 23/00394/B Applicant : Mr Mark Pearce Proposal : Retrospective approval for the installation of glass balustrade to flat roof area for the purposes of maintenance and repair only and additional car parking Site Address : Retail Unit Crosby Meadows Main Road Crosby IM4 2EE
Planning Officer: Mr Toby Cowell Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 02.08.2023 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. Within three months of the date that this planning permission takes effect, the existing first-floor doorway on the south-eastern elevation of the building providing access to the balcony shall be replaced with a fire door that fully complies with the requirements of Building Regulations 2014 and subsequent amendments. The door shall be non-opening from the outside on the balcony.
Reason: To ensure an appropriate means of escape from the building in the case of fire, and to restrict access to the balcony from customers of the commercial unit.
C 2. For the avoidance of doubt, the first-floor balcony area hereby permitted as shown on drawing 16/2576/105N shall be restricted to the use of maintenance and repair activities associated with the building only, and shall at no time be accessible to customers of the commercial unit. This restriction shall remain in force in perpetuity.
Reason: To ensure that the amenities of residential properties are sufficiently safeguarded.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The development is considered to be acceptable insofar as it does not pose a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the locality, whilst ensuring that the amenity of surrounding residential properties would be sufficiently safeguarded, subject to the attachment of appropriately worded conditions restricting its use. The development is deemed compliant with General Policy 2 (b), (c) & (g) of the Strategic Plan (2016).
==== PAGE 2 ====
23/00394/B Page 2 of 5
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the following drawings referenced; 16/2576/705 and 16/2576/105N, received 29.03.23.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None. __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site relates to the commercial building, comprising a Co-op food store and Costa Coffee shop, together with its associated parking, on the southern side of Peel Road in Crosby. The commercial building was developed relatively recently as part of a wider residential estate known as Crosby Meadows.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning permission is sought for a first-floor balcony area to the existing Costa Coffee shop on a retrospective basis. The perimeter of the balcony is enclosed by a 1.1m high steel and glass balustrade, and is presently accessed from a seating area at first-floor level via a doorway on the south-eastern elevation of the building.
2.2 Following the recent refusal of planning permission for retention of the balcony and use as an outdoor seating area, the application represents a resubmission whereby the applicant's agent has stated that the balcony area would be restricted to the use of maintenance and repair.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 Whilst the site, and indeed the adjacent residential estate have been subject to a number of planning applications, the most relevant in the determination of this application relates to the most recently refused application for the construction of a new balcony to the first floor of the coffee shop and additional parking (submitted on a retrospective basis), which was refused and subsequently dismissed at appeal (PA 22/00687/B).
3.2 This application was originally refused for the following two reason:
1 The proposal results in an increased floor area taking the overall size of the retail unit beyond the 500sq m floor space threshold requiring a Retail Impact Assessment, and no Retail Impact Assessment has been provided. The proposal fails Business Policy 9 and would also undermine the previous approvals and their conditions stipulating the need for a Retail Impact Assessment if over 500sq m. Failure to provide a Retail Impact Assessment further challenges the principles of Strategic Policy 9 and wider strategic and spatial policy objectives which ultimately seeks to direct major retail development to key centres and on land appropriately zoned.
2 By reason of the siting, height and size of the balcony area and the distances to the nearest neighbours (No. 22 Cherry Tree Drive and properties forming The Laurels) which intensifies the potential level of activity from the balcony to an unreasonable level having an increased adverse impact on the neighbours through noise, overlooking and privacy impact harming the enjoyment of their properties and their general living conditions.
==== PAGE 3 ====
23/00394/B Page 3 of 5
3.3 During the course of the subsequent appeal, the Department withdrew the first reason for refusal which the Inspector accepted. It was therefore considered that the principal issue of the development was the impact upon the living conditions of those living nearby.
3.4 The Inspector considered in their report that the impact of the development upon the occupiers of No. 22 Cherry Tree Drive, subject to the erection of a screen/barrier, would not be sufficiently harmful to warrant refusal of the scheme. However, the Inspector did not that the same principal would apply to the living condition of those occupying The Laurels, and made the following points of note:
"The use of the balcony is likely to be popular given the appellant's view that it is well used by the community and visitors. From my visit I could see that views, whilst screened in part by the existing trees, are available directly into the rear garden of The Laurels. Those views in the winter months being exacerbated by the lack of leaves on the trees.
I am in no doubt the use by customers of the balcony would result in overlooking of The Laurels. Furthermore, whilst I accept there would be some background noise from the nearby playground and other recreational facilities along with the general toing and froing from the development, the introduction of customers and activity at first floor level would introduce a new level of disturbance. To that end I have some sympathy with the occupiers of The Laurels and there is nothing before me to suggest their concerns, that the noise would be more discernible given it would be emanating from first floor level, are not without merit.
Therefore, I find the balcony would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of occupiers of nearby properties by way of overlooking and noise. I come to that view having considered conditions for landscaping, further balcony screening and restricting the times when it could be used both in terms of hours of use and seasonal use. However, further screening on the balcony would compromise the appearance of the building. Landscaping, including additional trees, would take time to establish and harm would still arise even if times and dates of use were restricted.
Thus, the development would be contrary to Policies GP2 and EP23 of the IMSP which, amongst other things, seek development that does not affect adversely, and considers, the amenity of local residents. It would also be contrary to the advice in the RDG. Whilst the development is not residential, the RDG nevertheless provides a guide for what should be considered for balconies and the principles remain the same. They include designs that prevent overlooking and recognise the use of the balcony. In this case the '20m rule' for overlooking would be met but that is countered by the level of activity that would be introduced."
3.5 No further issues were raised by the Inspector in the assessment of the scheme, and in particular did not consider that the balcony was unacceptable from a design and visual impact standpoint.
3.6 Following the dismissal of the above appeal, an enforcement notice was subsequently issued which required the following steps to be undertaken:
o Remove the steel and glass balustrade at first floor level; and o Remove the door at first floor level; and o Stop up that part of the resulting opening and reinstate a window that is similar to those in the remainder of the first floor level; and o Remove all materials and debris from the site as a result of undertaking steps 1 -3 above.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY
==== PAGE 4 ====
23/00394/B Page 4 of 5
4.1 The application site is identified on the Area Plan for the East as land zoned for 'predominantly residential' purposes within the settlement boundary of Crosby. The site is not within a Conservation Area.
4.2 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application;
Strategic Policy 2 Priority for new development to identified towns and villages 3 To respect the character of our towns and villages 5 Design and visual impact
Spatial Policy 4 Development in remaining villages
General Policy 2b,c,g General Development Considerations
Environment Policy 42 Designed to respect the character and identity of the locality
Transport Policy 4 Highways safety 7 Parking provision
4.5 Residential Design Guide (2021) This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Marown Parish Commissioners - No objection, but would expect to see a condition attached to any approval limiting the use clearly to the purposes declared in the application. (18.05.23)
5.2 Highways Services - After reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and /or parking. The delivery bay is safeguarded. The Applicant is advised to protect the pedestrian path adjacent the proposed single bay against obstruction of line of sight and vehicle parking, such as by a barrier and marking with yellow hatching. (28.04.23)
5.3 DEFA Fisheries - no objection. (09.05.23)
5.4 Manx Utilities Authority - no response received at the time of writing.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 In light of the of the Department's assessment of the previous scheme, together with comments made by the Inspector within their report and the outcome of the appeal; the single issue raised related to the potential for overlooking from the balcony by customers of the coffee shop into private gardens of The Laurels to the immediate east. This issue had previously been raised by officers of the Department and formed part of the original second reason for refusal.
6.2 In response to the Department's objection which was maintained by the Inspector, the applicant's agent has stated in the supporting letter that the balcony would only be used for maintenance and repair activities, and therefore would not be accessible to the
==== PAGE 5 ====
23/00394/B Page 5 of 5
public/customers of the coffee shop. Subject to appropriately worked conditions safeguarding this restriction of use, and in light of the Inspector's assessment of the scheme, it is considered that the development as presented would now be acceptable.
6.3 No further material planning issues are considered to remain in this context of this application.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The development is considered to be acceptable insofar as it does not pose a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the locality, whilst ensuring that the amenities of surrounding residential properties would be sufficiently safeguard, subject to the attachment of appropriately worded conditions restricting its use. The development is deemed compliant with General Policy 2 (b), (c) & (g) of the Strategic Plan (2016), and therefore recommended for approval.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested 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.
Decision Made : Permitted
Date: 04.08.2023
Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Principal Planner
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/ customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal