Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
18/00628/B Page 1 of 14
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 18/00628/B Applicant : Mrs Linzi Michelle Brown Proposal : Removal of condition 3 of application 17/00851/C, to remove the restrictions in respect of days and hours of operation Site Address : The Switzerland Gospel Hall Switzerland Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 4NG
Head of Development Management: Mr S Butler Photo Taken : 11.09.2018 Site Visit : 11.09.2018 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 11.09.2018 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. For the avoidance of doubt, the use hereby approved shall be limited to that of a dance studio.
Reason: Any materially different uses may have different impacts that will require fresh assessment as to their impact on the living conditions of neighbours.
C 3. Prior to the implementation of the approval hereby given, details of air conditioner units to be provided shall be approved in writing by the Department. No customers shall be present on site at any time that the units are not installed and operational in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To enable the building to be ventilated without the need to open doors or windows and so to reduce the potential noise impact of the use of the building on nearby residential properties.
C 4. Prior to the implementation of the approval hereby given, sound insulation and noise attenuation measures shall be implemented in accordance with details which have first been
==== PAGE 2 ====
18/00628/B Page 2 of 14
approved in writing by the Department, to include the installation of sound absorbing materials within the main hall and sound deadening material within the window reveals. The measures shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan and thereafter retained.
Reason: To minimise the potential noise impact of the use of the property on nearby residential properties.
C 5. Prior to the implementation of the approval hereby given, the car park shall be marked out in accordance with details which have first been approved in writing by the Department and show spaces and vehicle manoeuvring room. The car park shall be marked out in accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter.
Reason: To maximise the use of the car park and to discourage additional on-street parking to benefit other users of the public highway, albeit with spaces which may be below the current standards as set out in the Manual for Manx Roads.
C 6. No customers shall remain in the building outside the hours of 8:30 to 21:00 on any day.
Reason: In order to protect local residents' amenity in terms of noise or any other disturbance that may arise from additional classes. This condition does not restrict the building being accessed by staff and is not intended to restrict the carrying out of related activities (such as cleaning) at other times.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the following plans/drawings/informations:
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the Isle of Man Constabulary should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations.
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4) and they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018):
Owner/Occupier of 1 Highgrove, Switzerland Road (Comment 9) Owner/Occupier of Flat 2, Highgrove, Switzerland Road (Comment 4) Owner/Occupier of 4 Highgrove, Switzerland Road (Comment 1) Owner/Occupier of Flat 5, Highgrove, Switzerland Road (Comment 7) Owner/Occupier 1 of Flat 7, Highgrove, Switzerland Road (Comment 8) Owner/Occupier 2 of Flat 7, Highgrove Mansions, Switzerland Road (Comment 3) Owner/Occupier 1 of Flat 8, Highgrove Mansions, Switzerland Road (Comment 2)
==== PAGE 3 ====
18/00628/B Page 3 of 14
Owner/Occupier 2 of Flat 8, Highgrove Mansions, Switzerland Road (Comment 6)
Note: The addresses provided are as above, however it is understood that they all relate to the apartments known as Highgrove Mansions.
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL.
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is a former place of worship known as the Gospel Hall on Switzerland Road in Douglas. Included within the site are both the building and also the land around it, which is set out as hardstanding. The site is on the inside of a hairpin bend at the end of Switzerland Road, the access to which is also on that hairpin. The highway very quickly degenerates into a track after the application site, which goes on to provide pedestrian access to the office uses off Victoria Road above.
1.2 The other active uses in the area are residential, but there is also the old chair lift which runs alongside the site while on the Promenade is a row of shop units. Highgrove Mansions is adjacent the site while the other residential dwellings in the area are fairly well-removed from the site.
1.3 The site has recently been converted into a dance studio (see below).
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application is to remove condition 3 of the previous approval (operating hours - see planning history below.
2.2 The applicant has indicated that the timetable submitted as part of the original application (17/00851/C) was to show class times, however this was taken and approved as the opening hours which was not the intention as it allows no change of flexibility. The church previously had unrestricted hours of business and they wish to have the same. The floorplan shows the main hall taking up the majority of the building with a small office and restroom and a small waiting area.
2.3 The applicant provided additional information (30/07/18) in response to highway concerns. They indicate that in relation to highway safety they have checked with the Fire and Rescue Service who have confirmed they have no objection to the use. They have also contacted the Ambulance Service who have confirmed here are no recorded issues with access. They highlight the points made within the Isle of Man constabulary response in relation to access, parking, noise and general obstructions (See Representations - below). They also note that not all vehicles parked on the road belong to their customers. They indicate they have arranged for the car parking spaces to be painted (it is understood from discussion with the applicant that this is the repainting of existing, faded, markings). They have sent notices to parents to use the car park and provided photographs of the car park being used. They
==== PAGE 4 ====
18/00628/B Page 4 of 14
confirm they are the only full-time member of staff although there are two other part time members of staff who work 'minimal' hours. Parents of younger children normally stay during lessons however parents of older students drop-off and pick up at the start/end of classes. They indicate they will consider comments made around lesson times (to allow a gap between lessons to reduce the number of people on-site at one time).
2.5 The applicant has indicated that if they are able to move forward they intend to fit air conditioning and improved glazing in the building (e-mail dated 02/08/18).
2.6 Further information was provided (09/08/18) which indicates that the works asked for have been carried out - the lines in the car park painted and the sound proofing has been installed (photographs are provided). In a meeting with the applicant the same day they advised that there were at least 16 spaces (i.e. potentially room to park in addition to the spaces).
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The Hall was purpose-built following the grant of planning approval in 1986 under PA 86/01298/B.
3.2 In 2015 approval was given for the change of use of the building to a 'male grooming salon' under PA 15/00365/C. The application was approved subject to a condition limiting the use to that use specifically. No physical changes were proposed to the building. The business that submitted that application subsequently found premises within Douglas town centre and so the approval, while extant, remains unimplemented.
3.3 In 2017 approval was given for Change of Use to a dance studio (17/00851/C). The description of that development (as set out in the Case Officer's Report) is quoted below for ease of reference.
"3.1 A change of use is now sought to enable the building to be used as a dance studio. The applicant has been in pre-application discussions with officers with regards finding a premises for this use, and has been guided away from industrial estates owing to the potential highway safety issues arising from the relationship between potentially large numbers of children and commercial vehicle movements.
3.2 The applicant notes that there are 25 parking spaces within the site, which means there will be no congestion in terms of footfall or vehicles. The estate agent acting on behalf of the applicant has stated that the present church has dwindling numbers and it being retained for this use is unlikely to be feasible. Roughly 30 students are expected to attend over the course of an evening, which would run to roughly three and a half hours. Most students would be dropped off and collected. Classes are proposed to be run on the following days / times:
o Tuesdays (4pm to 7:30pm) o Wednesdays (4pm to 8pm) o Thursdays (4pm to 8pm), and o Saturdays (9am to 10am).
Exams for progression are also held, but this would be on a bi-annual basis. There are currently three members of staff that work on different evenings. There is the possibility of placing a traffic mirror to assist visibility for drivers, while the applicant also intends to paint white lines for car parking spaces. The applicant notes that from her own tests, the music she would use cannot be heard outside of the building but that further sound-proofing would be carried out if necessary.
3.3 The applicant wishes to emphasise that the dance school is small, and offers fun classes aimed at improving fitness and learning for small children. It is a club that is involved in
==== PAGE 5 ====
18/00628/B Page 5 of 14
community events and charity fundraisers and having a place for people to come that engages in this way is great for the community".
3.4 Planning approval was granted subject to two conditions (in addition to the standard 4 year commencement condition). One condition was that the use was limited to a dance studio (for avoidance of doubt) and the other was as set out below.
"Unless otherwise agreed in advance in writing with the Department, no customers shall remain in the building outside the following days and hours: o Tuesdays - 3:30pm to 8:00pm; o Wednesdays - 3:30pm to 8:30pm; o Thursdays - 3:30pm to 8:30pm, and o Saturdays - 8:30am to 10:30am. Reason: In the interest of protecting local residents' amenity in terms of any noise or other disturbance that may arise from additional classes being held on other days or at different times"
3.5 The Case Officer Report noted:
"This is also a facility that is likely to have clear benefits to children and the wider community. It is a safe and relatively quiet area in which to locate such a business and one that is far better than the other alternatives that the applicant has found available previously. It is not considered that many better such sites as this would exist and, in view of the continued availability of the property, it is also not judged appropriate to protect this use from loss as per the requirements of Community Policy 3".
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4.1 In broad terms, the Strategic Plan (2016) directs development in accordance with a settlement hierarchy which puts most emphasis on Douglas for employment and services (Spatial Policies 1 - 7).
4.2 The site is within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential on the Douglas Local Plan (1998). The emerging Area Plan for the East (2018 Consultation Draft) proposed to allocate the site (and adjacent housing as Mixed Use). This carries less weight than the extant local plan, but is capable of being a material consideration.
4.3 The site is within land that is zoned for development within the extant local plan; while it is a matter of fact that the zoning is at odds with the proposed use, it is also true that the general principles against which to test the acceptability of development proposals are set out in General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan (2016), these including considering issues such as not adversely affecting the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality (part g), there being adequate parking (part h), not having an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flow (part i) and taking account of community safety and security (part m).
4.4 Whereas the previous barber-style use was assessed against Business Policies 9 and 10, as both of these refer to retail uses specifically such an assessment on this occasion would not be appropriate. Community Policy 3 was referred to in the assessment of the Dance Studio which provides some useful guidance given the current use of the building, and perhaps would have been helpful given consideration in the assessment of the previous application here:
"Development (including the change of use of existing premises) which results in the loss of a local community facility (other than shops and public houses) will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that it is no longer practical or desirable to use the facility for its existing use or another use likely to benefit the local community."
==== PAGE 6 ====
18/00628/B Page 6 of 14
4.5 Environment Policy 22 also applies, which indicates that development will not be permitted which would unacceptably harm the amenity of nearby properties in terms of noise pollution.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS A summary of the representations is set out below. The full response can be viewed on the website.
5.1 Douglas Borough Council indicated no objection on 23/07/18 (Consultation 1)
5.2 Isle of Man Constabulary made detailed comments on 27/07/18 (Consultation 2). They indicate that with regard to the extended hours the Constabulary do not have any objections to the application but appreciate that some hours of operation will be required that will meet all interested parties. They provide a detailed assessment which includes the points set out below.
5.2.1 Comments are provided by the accredited Architectural Liaison Officer who has received training in crime reduction strategies. It is his role to advise on Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design strategies. This includes a number of accepted principles including anonymity and surveillance. He visited the area on 26/07/18 (Thursday evening) at 6pm, 8pm and leaving at 9.15pm - including discussion issues with the owner.
5.2.2 He considers it a good location for the business, noting that police records show the building and area has been the subject of previous problem and has attracted youths loitering and an attempt on the premises in recent years. He is confident that having a capable guardian and frequent users will disrupt any anti-social behaviour problems in the area and reduce fear of crime for all living in this community.
5.2.3 He notes the property is detached on a large footprint with parking for approximately 20 cars and which is gated when not in use. He indicates that the general area is shadowed by trees on North East boundary and these continue along the highway and the pedestrian path leading to Victoria Road.
5.2.4 During visits, he witnessed residents travel in vehicles to the top of the road and perform a U-turn in front of both Highgrove and the Dance Studio and ark on the left hand side with no issues. There is no visible restriction to parking on this side of the road, although yellow lines are visible on the other side. The road is used by pedestrians travelling along entire length. Noticed on the lower part of the road that it is common practice to leave wheelie bins on the pavement and road.
He was present in the building during a class and the rear doors were open to create a flow of air. In his professional the music was not excessive and instructors voice could be heard over the music but was not shouting. He notes the glass in the windows is a 6mm single glazed unit and the premise sites lower than Highgrove. He has suggested some form of noise suppression be placed on the inside of the window reveal and behind the one music speaker to reduce the sound being heard on the north east boundary. Suggested the owner also contacts a Music Sound engineer and a DEFA Environmental Health Officer.
==== PAGE 7 ====
18/00628/B Page 7 of 14
Stresses that nobody wants to see a repeat of the fatal fire in the 1990s and with modern day fire detection devices safety is paramount.
5.3 DEFA Environmental Health (Consultation 3) confirmed that an e-mail they had sent to Mrs Corlett (MHK) on 09/08/18 could be logged as a consultation response.
Consider installing noise attenuating/sound deadening drapes panels and other sound absorbing materials within the hall.
5.3.2 They indicated that an officer had visited on the evening of 02/08/18 and reported no discernible noise breakout from the building - the window panels have since been installed so it is anticipated that noise breakout will be minimal provided the above advice is follows vigilantly. The complainants have been asked to contact the department should they be affected by noise from the dance school in the future.
5.4 DOI Highway Services commented on 17/08/08 as set out below.
"Following the previous highway response dated 19/07/18, the applicant had provided additional information and marked out car parking spaces on the site.
All three emergency services have been consulted on the application and have no objection to the proposals in terms of emergency access to the site and adjacent premises. It is noted that the Fire Service stated that they would use a smaller appliance to access Switzerland Road than their largest fire appliance. Highway Services are therefore satisfied with the access to the site and consider that the proposals should not adversely affect emergency and vehicular access on Switzerland Road.
The 17/00851/C application stated that there were up to 25 parking spaces within the site which the applicant intended to mark out with white lines. The hardstanding on the site was therefore considered to be sufficient to accommodate the site parking demand. However, Highway Services visited the site on 14/08/18 and it is now clear that it is not possible to accommodate this number of spaces on the site. Whilst the applicant has recently marked out parking spaces, they are too small and well below the 2.5m x 5m size in the current 'Manual for Manx Roads' design guide. There is also inadequate vehicle manoeuvring space to allow cars to turn in and out of the spaces. There should only be one row of spaces on each side of
==== PAGE 8 ====
18/00628/B Page 8 of 14
the building and not two as currently shown. It is impractical for spaces to be marked out which would involve vehicles blocking each other in and this should be avoided, even if motorists choose to do this in reality.
It is acknowledged that cars have been parking on the site unmarked, and that it is a constrained site where parking space sizes and manoeuvring room would be below current standards, but it could still operate as it has been up to now. However, due to the small parking spaces now marked on the site there is highway concern that this could discourage staff and visitors from using the car park, thereby creating more overspill parking onto the adjacent public highway than before.
In order to resolve this issue it is requested that a planning condition be imposed for the applicant to submit a scale site plan showing a revised car park layout for planning approval, with suitable size spaces and adequate vehicle manoeuvring room albeit below current standards. The existing markings could then be removed (or painted over) and the parking spaces remarked out in accordance with the approved plan. This would maximise the use of the car park and should discourage additional on-street parking to the benefit of other users of the public highway.
Highway Services does not oppose the application subject to a planning condition for a plan to be submitted and approved in writing by the Planning Authority showing a revised site parking layout, with adequate size car parking spaces and vehicle manoeuvring room. Prior to the development being brought into use, the car park layout should be marked out as per the approved plan and the markings for the existing spaces removed. Reason: to maximise use of the car park and minimise overspill parking onto the adjacent public highway.
Recommendation: DNOC"
5.5 Occupant of 4 Highgrove, Switzerland Road (Comment 1) - They are concerned that the current use has an impact in terms of music volume and extra traffic affecting parking and the "previous tranquillity we relished, which was always one of the advantages we had living on that road". They note some residents have small children and babies who need to sleep during the day and may be affected by music. They are concerned that lifting the restriction on hours will increase these impacts.
5.6 Occupant of Flat 8, Highgrove Mansions, Switzerland Road (Comment 2) - They indicate that the current hours result in music is played too loudly and with the fire door open, biggest concern is volume of traffic and the road which is already in disrepair. They are concerned that road may be blocked when access is required for emergency services and potential for accident if there is an increase in cars manoeuvring in the area. References a previous incident where the fire engine was unable to get through. They state that lifting restrictions will make the situation worse and increases risk to children entering the hall. There is an issue with parents congregating in the road. Notes that it was previously a tranquil residential area before the dance school opened. They indicate that lifting restrictions could impact on property prices.
5.7 Occupant of Flat 7, Highgrove Mansions, Switzerland Road (Comment 3) - They note restrictions are in place to reduce the impact on residents and to date there has been no consideration of local resident, original application had misleading information about parking facilities, biased testing of noise levels by the applicant. Feels there will be a dire impact on the tranquil environment. Raises concerns about road congestion - there has been some parking in the business park above but this appears to be a temporary solution, number of vulnerable people live in the building (elderly and children 5) who are affected by evening noise. Notes that owner has control of the music and agreed in the committee to remedy noise (music and shouting) but nothing has been done. Access and egress of customers is disruptive. Feels there should be proper nose testing. Impacting their residence as unable to
==== PAGE 9 ====
18/00628/B Page 9 of 14
open doors and windows or enjoy outside areas during classes. Undue antagonism and restrictions on using balcony is a loss of privacy. Very stressful and anxious. Feels that the studio has enough business hours already and they have a right to peaceful and quiet enjoyment of their homes inside and out. The applicants should be held accountable to their agreements and there are too many discrepancies between what they have said and what they have done.
5.7.1 (Comment 3.1) - Thanks the police for visiting the site but is concerned that comments are made on the basis of one visit, which was during the studio's summer holiday programme and on one of only a handful of days where the music was at an acceptable level. Indicates the owners have tried to address the traffic situation, but only the week the new application was displayed.
5.8 Flat 2, Highgrove, Switzerland Road (Comment 4) - They note that applicants said there would be no noise and would do sound proofing if necessary, there would be no more than 10 children per session, all cars would be parked within the site (none on the road). Applicants have disregarded their promises to limit noise and traffic and gave created a dangerous situation, including in relation to access by emergency vehicles. References a fire c15 years ago in which fire engines were prevented from accessing a building due to parking. When widows are opened the noise coming from the studio is "deafening" and "almost certainly meets the definition of a statutory noise nuisance under the Environmental Health Regulations". Customers have been "hostile and abusive to the local residents".
5.8.1 (Comment 4.1) - provides additional information including photos of parking and reiterates concerns about cars being double/triple parked and the impact on access. Includes an e-mail to Douglas Police asking them to review the parking situation.
5.8.2 (Comment 4.2) - provides additional comment highlighting the noise problem emanating from the dance studio and the seriousness of this in, "what is supposed to be a quiet residential area". Indicates that since the use has started it has become clear that it is not the right place for this sort of business. Asks for further restrictions to be placed on the dance studio and hopes that they will find an alternative location in the near future.
5.8.3 (Comment 4.3) provides two sound recordings.
5.8.4 (Comment 4.4) inidcates the studio was welcomed as they want to see local businesses thrive and believed the school would respect the restritions and act in a neighbourly manner. Whilst the applicants have recently made some changes (painted lines and soundproofing) these were made to correct probles which they promised would not occur int he first place. It is unfair on local residents to allow any additional hours pending a period of time to see if the noise, traffic and generally hostile behaviour has been corrected. The changes have been made during the quieter summer months and while the applicants realise they are being scrutinised. The school has exaggerated the parking capacity. The lines are too narrow and short to be used - the parking solution is not viable and a 'sham'. Withut adeqaute parking there will continue to be 'dengerous congestion' while parents ignore the inconvenient/inaccessible parking. Large groups of parents have aloud conversations in the street up until 9pm. This is inconsistent with a quiet resiential area and what condition 3 was designed to avoid.
5.9 Lakelands, Westhill Village, Jurby Road, Ramsey (Comment 5) - indicates 100% agreement with the residents of Highgrove apartments the business being in this position is "hardly satisfactory" and raises concerns with noise pollution and traffic management issues (including emergency services access). Indicates the business is operating out of hours. Raises concerns as the impact "to our quality of life" living so close to the Dance Studios. Indicates relationship to site is "Special Interest Group".
==== PAGE 10 ====
18/00628/B Page 10 of 14
5.10 Flat 8, Highgrove Mansions (Comment 6) objects because: noise pollution is already excessive, additional traffic is causing distress (blocking/restricting access), danger to children as students walk in the road not on the pavement and pay no attention to other road users, parents congregate in the road to talk and stare at other road users if they also wish to use the road, owner of the dance studio said she did not need the license extension but has since advertised extra lessons and days, local residents should not be subject to excessive noise and disruption, especially on a poorly maintained road, extra congestion reduces access to emergency services.
5.11 Flat 5, Highgrove (Comment 7) - Switzerland Road is narrow and a cul-de-sac with limited space around the entrances to the Highgrove apartments and the dance studio. The gateway to the apartments has in the past been damaged by being used as a turning bay and the proposed increase in the use will increase the changes of this happening again. In 2000 a fire in an apartment resulted in a death and though not the cause of the death, the difficulty of access was remarked on by the emergency services at the time. Subsequently the no parking yellow lines were switched to the other side of the road which improved matters. Heavier traffic at start and finish of sessions could be a problem.
5.12 Flat 7, Highgrove (Comment 8) - Lack of publicity for previous application and no notice of this application. Currently operates 3.5 days of the week into evenings which has impact on nearby residents enjoying their properties (including outside areas). In a mixed use area with high number of residents who are affected, current hours are sufficient. Applicant refuses to show consideration in the use of the road and will not turn music down or keep doors closed. The Council have been requested number of times to deal with the closed off road above Highgrove as there are drainage and subsidence issues - these are being accelerated by higher levels of traffic going up and attempting to turn around in the narrow road.
5.13 1 Highgrove, Switzerland Road (Comment 9) - Aware that other people have raised concerns. Notes enforcement request to investigate. Has been advised to take the issue of parking up with DOI Highway Services. Does not agree as it was that section which agreed there was parking for 27 cars and so provided information upon which the previous application was considered. As that information was correct considers DOI Highway Services should be asked for an explanation. The extension of hours and days will make the situation worse. Currently a lot of drivers park at the top or bottom of the road and walk down/up, sometimes children walk down/up unaccompanied. During winter this is unlikely to continue particularly as closed off section is already overgrown and neglected by Highway Services (despite asking them to look at this). Considers it is the wrong use of the site and an office development would have been better.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
Impact on the highway (drainage and subsidence)
Procedural issues
6.3 The principle of the use of the site as a Dance Studio has been established by the previous approval which has been implemented. In assessing the current application
==== PAGE 11 ====
18/00628/B Page 11 of 14
therefore, the question is whether an increase in the hours of operation could exacerbate the impact of the use in terms of those issues set out in 6.1 above.
6.4 In determining the application it is open to the decision maker to either refuse the application, to approve it and remove condition 3 or to remove condition 3 on the basis that the outcomes which that condition sought to achieve could be achieved with alternative conditions. The decision maker cannot simply impose a more onerous version of condition 3, as the applicant could simply chose to not implement the new approval.
6.5 The concerns raised by local residents are noted. A number of references are made to the 'tranquil' nature of the street. However, the relatively central location within Douglas (close to a variety of uses, including non-residential) the broad approach of the Strategic Plan (and the proposed zoning within the Draft Area Plan for the East) and the previous use of the site as a Church suggest an expectation that the site would be promoted for an active use which could be expected to have some level of impact on nearby properties. Indeed, the level of 'tranquillity' that could reasonably be expected in such a location could be argued to be lower than in other more remote and less built up areas.
6.6 The detailed comments from the Constabulary, DOI Highways and DEFA Environmental Health suggest that noise and traffic impacts are not sufficient to justify refusal of the application. However, a number of measures are outlined which could mitigate the impact of the use and in light of these is it considered that the need for a restriction on hours (or a restriction to the level currently in place) could be avoided. Although some measures have already been undertaken, to avoid these being removed in future (not least as the approval runs with the land not the applicant) conditions could be attached to ensure they remain in place, and any additional measures are taken. Proposals to replace the actual windows are noted but depending on the nature of this separate planning approval may be required.
6.7 The concerns in relation to anti-social behaviour are noted, however in light of the comments from the Constabulary it is considered that the use of the site is a net benefit in terms of anti-social behaviour and fear of crime. An extension of the hours/regularity could increase that benefit.
6.8 The concerns in relation to highways and parking are noted. Again, the advice of consultees is relied upon and in particular it is noted that a condition could be imposed in relation to painting the car park. However, all that can realistically be required is for the applicant to make it as easy as possible for people to choose to park in the car park. It would not be realistic to expect the applicant to prevent people from legally parking their cars on the public highway (and such a condition is likely to be unenforceable). The suggestion of signage is noted, although depending on the detail of this it may require approval under the Advertisement Regulations (2013).
6.9 The impact on the highway in terms of subsidence and drainage is noted however if present this would appear to be an existing issue and, given DOI have not objected to the application, is not considered to be a reason for refusal.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 It is recommended that the planning application be approved subject to conditions.
7.2 As with the original application, officers have assessed the impact of the proposal on the basis of the specific use proposed. Any materially different uses may have different impacts that will require fresh assessment. The condition limiting the use to that defined within the application is recommended for retention accordingly.
7.3 It is recommended that the hours could be extended as long as alternative conditions are imposed in relation to:
==== PAGE 12 ====
18/00628/B Page 12 of 14
7.4 Notwithstanding the above, in light of the nearby residential uses it is considered, on balance, that some hours restriction is still justified (although not to the extent as is currently imposed). A condition is proposed accordingly.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:
(a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material; (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure, and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status. __
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:...17.09.2018
Signed :...S BUTLER... Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
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.
==== PAGE 13 ====
18/00628/B Page 13 of 14
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 17.09.2018
Application No. :
18/00628/B Applicant : Mrs Linzi Michelle Brown Proposal : Removal of condition 3 of application 17/00851/C, to remove the restrictions in respect of days and hours of operation Site Address : The Switzerland Gospel Hall Switzerland Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 4NG
Head of Development Management : Mr S Butler Presenting Officer As above
Addendum to the Officer’s Report
During the committee meeting the Case Officer explained further advice had been received from Environmental Health and therefore he was withdrawing the recommended conditions 3 and 4 (as stated in the agenda report and in relation to air conditioning and sound proofing).
During presentation of the proposal, including noting that the approval would run with the land, there was discussion about whether the proposed conditions were sufficient.
The Case Officer also amended his recommendation in relation to hours of operation (proposed condition 5) to clarify that outside the specific hours customers should not be on site. The Committee accepted the amended recommendation.
In relation to Interested Person Status, it was clarified that the provider of comment 5 was the owner of flat 5 within Highgrove Mansions (although this was not stated within their submission). On the basis of this clarification the Case Officer amended his recommendation to extend the contributor Interested Person Status. The Committee agreed with this amended recommendation.
REVISED Conditions of Approval
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
==== PAGE 14 ====
18/00628/B Page 14 of 14
C 2. For the avoidance of doubt, the use hereby approved shall be limited to that of a dance studio.
Reason: Any materially different uses may have different impacts that will require fresh assessment as to their impact on the living conditions of neighbours.
C 3. Prior to the implementation of the approval hereby given, the car park shall be marked out in accordance with details which have first been approved in writing by the Department and show spaces and vehicle manoeuvring room. The car park shall be marked out in accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter.
Reason: To maximise the use of the car park and to discourage additional on-street parking to benefit other users of the public highway, albeit with spaces which may be below the current standards as set out in the Manual for Manx Roads.
C 4. No customers shall remain in the building or within the site outside the hours of 8:30 to 21:00 on any day.
Reason: In order to protect local residents' amenity in terms of noise or any other disturbance that may arise from additional classes. This condition does not restrict the building being accessed by staff and is not intended to restrict the carrying out of related activities (such as cleaning) at other times.
Plans/Drawings/Information
This approval relates to the following plans/drawings/information:
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal