Loading document...
Application No.: 16/00356/B Applicant: M.O.P. Holdings Ltd Proposal: Conversion of existing office to provide seven residential apartments with balcony garden and associated parking Site Address: Canada-Life House Alexandra Road Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1TG Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 18.05.2016 Site Visit: 18.05.2016 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AS THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BUT IS CONTRARY TO THE LOCAL PLAN ZONING FOR THE SITE.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is a roughly triangular-shaped parcel of land located north of Alexandra Road in Castletown. It is very much on the edge of this northern part of the settlement, and sits south of the steam train line (beyond which are open fields), west of some Public Open Space, and north of industrial land. - 1.2 Within the site is a building of irregular shape - perhaps best described, in plan form, as being a pairing of a rectangle but with a smaller triangle attached to the north. It was most recently in office use - and was constructed for that use - but has been vacant for some months. Regarding this, the agent was contacted for details regarding the attractiveness of the building for commercial uses. A response from one of the three estate agents involved reads as follows:
"Further to our conversation I can confirm that interest for office space to rent in Castletown continues to be extremely limited, particularly for larger tranches of space, where we have had no significant enquiries for Castletown for some years.
"What interest there is tends to be for smaller space, and also for short term agreements. The only recent interest we have had for this building, as you know, is for half of the first floor, but that is only for two years. These short term leases make it very difficult to plan for the long term use of the building, and offer very little in terms of long term security of income.
"Ourselves, Chrystals and Chapmans have been directly involved with this property for a 2 year period - since Canada Life informed you of their intention to move to the Business Park in Braddan at the end of their lease, with just a few viewings during this whole timeframe.
"We have been proactive by heavily incentivising the rent down to just £10psf, offering very flexible lease terms with you happy to split floors allowing multiple tenant occupancy, rather than restricting the building to a single tenant. We are also offering the Freehold option but, again, there is extremely limited demand for freehold offices in this location.
"The matter has been exacerbated over the last few years in Castletown by the relocation of other Head Offices other than Canada Life to Braddan/Douglas, such as Capital International, PDMS and Boal and Co.
"Vacant space remains on the market from all of these occupiers, with little or no interest in it.
"Also contributing to the lack of interest is the significant availability of space in Douglas, where extremely attractive incentives are on offer from Landlords desperate to find tenants. Historically, it is much more difficult to let commercial space in Castletown, or any of the provincial towns, when there is good availability in Douglas Town Centre."
1.3 As the site has a significant drop on its northern side (before rising steeply again to provide the bank for the rail line), it is three storeys at the rear but presents as two storeys to the roadside. It is a building presenting a mixture of stone- and render-finished walls to the highway, with three prominent gables here. The building also benefits from a range of well-considered detailing and materials (decorative eaves, slate roof, arch-headed windows, subordinate dormers finished in lead, timber windows and a slate roof). The only feature that clearly suggests it is commercial in use is a clock on the central gable. - 1.4 There is a parking area to the east of the site, highway access to which is via a steep slope and visibility from which is really quite poor. However, road speeds tend towards the lower end at this point as there is a roundabout just to the east. There is another area of parking to the western 'triangle' of the site, and this is level with the highway. The main entrance to the building is at present to the rear, though there is another door facing onto the 'triangular' parking land. - 1.5 To the east and outside the site is a collection of semi-mature trees. Opposite the site to the south are also trees - the industrial uses are beyond this.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for a conversion of the building from office use to seven residential apartments. At the Basement level would be a 'Community Area' along with communal toilets, storage, a kitchenette and a gym room. In separate correspondence, the agent advises that there would be an acoustic ceiling installed at Basement level in order to reduce noise transference to the floors above, while the ground floor is intended to be used for the residents of the building or their guests. Above this at Ground Floor would be three no. one-bedroom apartments and another two-bedroom apartment, while on the First Floor would be an additional one-bedroom apartment and a further pair of two-bedroom apartments. - 2.2 Physically, there would be changes to the elevations with a view to providing more light into the building at the upper floor. The existing flat-roofed dormers - and rooflights to the rear - would be removed and replaced with eight pitched-roof dormers to the front elevation and a further seven to the rear. Two of those to the rear provide for windows with Juliet balconies. - 2.3 Parking would continue to be provided in the two positions as is currently the case.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The site has been the subject of a number of applications that tell the story of its change from containing a building selling garden machinery supplies to its use as fairly high-end offices. The current building was approved under PA 98/00795/B; some signage was approved under PA 09/02094/D but this is the only application submitted since the building's completion.
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 4.1 The site falls just within the settlement boundary of Castletown and is zoned as 'Office' on the Area Plan for the South. The triangular 'part' of the building falls within an area identified as being at Tidal Flood Risk.
4.2 The land is zoned for a use. It is not, however, zoned for the use proposed. Therefore, it might be said to be inappropriate to assess the proposal against the general development criteria as set out in General Policy 2. It is noted that the Strategic Plan contains no policies that presumes against the loss of office floorspace, whether within or without settlement boundaries. (There are policies that refer to protecting undeveloped land zoned for such a use, and others that seek to direct new office floorspace to town centres.) Moreover, there are policies that do specifically direct new dwellings to established town centres and on previously developed land (e.g. Strategic Policies 1 and 2, Housing Policy 6 and Housing Policy 17). - 4.3 In this case, then, it will be appropriate to assess the proposal against those abovementioned policies of the Strategic Plan if it is concluded that a satisfactory case for the loss of the office use has been made.
"Further to additional correspondence a transport and access statement is required to assess visibility and accessibility issues"
"Further to a meeting with the applicant and agent and a further submission Highway Services does not oppose this application subject to the following conditions:
"Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety."
5.2 Castletown Commissioners offered no objection to the application in comments received 6th April 2016. - 6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The key issue in the first instance is the proposed loss of the office floorspace. The building is of modern construction but well-appointed and clearly in good condition; its appearance contributes to the streetscene and it is wholly conceivable that its use as a 'high-end' office would be attractive to a number of operators.
6.2 The loss of such a high-end office is unfortunate. A search of estate agency properties, however, indicates that there are several commercial properties of varying sizes and qualities available in Castletown. Moreover, the comments from one of the estate agents involved in the marketing of the property are noted and understood, and in the absence of any comment from the Department of Economic Development it would seem that to resist this proposal on this ground alone would be overly-protective. While there remains concern with respect to the health of Castletown's
6.3 Turning to the detail of the proposals, and first of all in terms of the physical change proposed, the loss of the rolled lead dormer windows along with the partial loss of the eaves detailing is unfortunate. However, the pitched-roof dormer windows to be installed are judged wellconsidered in reflecting the somewhat 'undulating' nature of the building's form and accordingly no objection is received. The addition of features to the rear of the building, which though only really visible from the steam train line remains somewhat featureless, is welcome.
6.4 The arrangement of the flats inside gives generous space to the occupants, and the arrangement of rooms adjacent one another has been given careful thought - bedrooms sit adjacent and above / below other bedrooms, for example, reducing the likelihood of adverse noise transference between one flat's lounge and another flat's bedroom. - 6.5 It is noted that the basement level, though large, probably would not provide satisfactory living conditions for occupants of a dwelling due to the lack of external windows - and even where windows exist they abut an embankment. As such, a non-dwelling use here is acceptable, especially where there is a formative connection with the remainder of the building. While there is some concern that the basement uses might be unneighbourly in terms of noise generated by their use, the facts are that they represent additional and beneficial facilities within the building and for occupiers thereof, while any prospective resident would be very aware of the possibility of potential impacts on their living conditions before they moved in. In this sense, the uses at basement level are logical and understandable. The intention to install an acoustic ceiling to protect the amenities of those living above is welcome and, it is considered, necessary to require by condition in order to ensure acceptable living conditions. - 6.6 Similarly, it is also considered necessary to add conditions to the approval notice requiring that the basement level be in use only in association with the use of the building, and also to define more clearly the uses that residents moving in can expect to find within that basement level. - 6.7 Outlook for the apartments will be pleasant and somewhat clear / open: all either have views over the steam rail line to fields beyond or over the highway / trees to the south - and indeed some benefit from both these views. The internal space is, as noted, generous, and any shortcomings in
7.1 In view of the above conclusions, it is recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 30.12.2016 Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
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.
2016) and JTM054-P-11 (date-stamped as having been received 29th December 2016), and permanently kept free from obstruction thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety.
The development hereby approved relates to Drawings JTM054-P-01, JTM054-P-02, JTM054-P-03, JTM054-P-04, JTM054-P-05, JTM054-P-06, JTM054-P-10-07, JTM054-P-10-08, JTM054-P-10-09 and JTM054-P-10-10, plus the site plan, all date-stamped as having been received 10th March 2016, and also to Drawing JTM-054-P-11, date-stamped as having been received 29th December 2016.
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: 09.01.2017
Signed : E Riley 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
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown