Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/91259/B Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 24/91259/B Applicant : Tynwald Mills (IOM) Ltd. Proposal : Installation of external fire excape to rear elevation and change of use of part of retail space from a home furnishings store into an indoor play area. Site Address : Shop 1 The Courtyard Tynwald Mills St Johns Isle Of Man IM4 3AD
Senior Planning Officer: Jason Singleton Photo Taken : 05.12.2024 Site Visit : 05.12.2024 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 13.12.2024 __
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 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. The proposed fire escape hereby approved shall be installed prior to the opening as an indoor play area, and retained thereafter in perpetuity.
REASON: In the interest of fire safety and emergency escape.
C 3. Prior to the opening as an indoor play area as hereby approved, the Flood Risk Assessment shall be displayed in a prominent place for staff and customers and these details shall be adopted as part of the use of the premises and retained thereafter.
REASON: To ensure safe staff and public can leave the property in a safe manner during a flood event.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposed change of use and the erection of an external fire escape would accord to Strategic Policy 1,2,5, Spatial Policy 3, Business Policy 10, Community Policy 2, Environment Policy 10 and General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. Plans/Drawings/Information;
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/91259/B Page 2 of 6
This decision relates to drawings and supporting information referenced; EX 101 Site Location Plan and Existing Floor Plans and Elevations PA 101 Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations __
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:
DoI - Highways Services - No Objection DoI - Flood Risk Management - No Objection __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is within the wider curtilage of Tynwald Mills Shopping centre. This building is located to the east of the main retail building and fronts onto an internal courtyard and smaller retail buildings. The building comprises a number of attached buildings mainly single story and a central two storey painted render building with an arched roof structure.
1.2 To the rear side elevation (south east corner) is a metal framed lean-to structure with a polycarbonate roof that provide a covered area outside the rear ground floor double doors giving access to the ground floor area.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the change of use of the buildings from a home furnishings retail area to an indoor play area. The application also proposes the installation of an external fire escape to the rear/ side (west) elevation.
2.2 The only material alteration would be the creation of an opening where at present the wall is blank. The opening would be approx. 900mm wide and would see the insertion of a pedestrian width fire door and the installation of a galvanised steel fire escape, measuring 4m in length with a half landing and 2.0m at the widest. The staircase would measure approx. 1.2m wide leading out from the first floor level and down towards the rear of the building.
2.3 Internally the area will be subdivided and laid out according to the use as a play area across two floors to part of the building. The ground floor would accommodate party and event space with areas for adult seating and segregated play areas for babies, toddlers and older children. The first floor would see the placement of soft play equipment to have the floor area and the remainder left for free play with the former stair case being used as a slide to the floor below.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area recognised as being predominantly Retail on the St.Johns Local Plan 1999. The site is also within a proposed Conservation area.
3.2 It is also appropriate to consider Policy C/P/1, Policy C/P/2 and Policy C/P/3 of the St Johns Local Plan Written Statement; Policy C/P/1 - In accordance with the Adopted Policy of Tynwald, no retail developments will be permitted in St John's with the exception of retail provision which is appropriate both in terms of scale and character, to the environment of the village. Where practicable, new retail uses should be based upon existing buildings in order to encourage their refurbishment. This policy is in keeping with Planning Policy W/R/P1 as defined in Paragraph 2.3 of the western sector
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/91259/B Page 3 of 6
plan (D) 1991. Where possible, off street parking should be provided to cater for staff, visitors and delivery vehicles.
Policy C/P/2 - In order to improve the existing facilities in St John's and in particular the Tynwald Hill Area, improvements to existing retail and restaurant buildings will be encouraged. Where facilities are to be extended, some provision for parking should be provided.
Policy C/P/3 - Apart from minor alterations to and renovations of existing buildings to tourist/craft uses, no further buildings shall be permitted at the Tynwald Mills Centre.
3.3 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application;
Strategic Policy 1 Efficient use of land, resources and buildings 2 Priority for new development to identified towns and villages 5 Design and visual impact
Spatial Policy 3 St. Johns is defined as a Service village
General Policy 2 General Development Considerations
Environment Policy 10 Need for flooding risk assessment and mitigation 35 Preservation of Conservation Areas
Business Policy 10 Retail only to established towns and villages
Community Policy 2 Provision of community facilities and use of existing buildings
3.4
Paragraph A.6.3.1 of the IOMSP states: "It has been argued that access to large gardens and transport reduces the importance of the children's playing space standard in certain areas. Gardens of private dwellings need to be of a sufficient size to accommodate the day to day needs of very young children; however, as children grow older, the role of the private garden, irrespective of its size becomes less important as play space. Children need access to play areas, where they can meet others of their own age and learn the important art of socialisation, which private gardens do not facilitate. Private gardens perform a multitude of other functions and are specifically excluded from the standard."
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The wider site of Tynwald Mills has been the subject of a number of planning applications over the years, the following approvals are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this application; o 13/00821/B - Creation of a link way and alterations to existing covered walkway. Approved. o 95/00437/B - Formation of covered walkway between Cubbon & Bregazzi and Abode Furnishings. Approved.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 German Parish Commissioners have not commented at the time of writing despite being written to on 20/11/24 inviting comments. 5.2 Highways Services commented (25/11/24) with no objection.
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/91259/B Page 4 of 6
5.3 DoI Flood Management Division (27/11/24) "would like to see a Flood Risk Assessment which includes emergency egress details during a flood event". (11/12/24) gave updated comments on the submitted Flood risk assessment and notes "The Flood emergency plan in the FRA should be posted in a prominent place so that staff and customers know the procedure. FRM do not object."
6.0 ASSESSMENT The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are; (i)
(i) PRINCIPLE 6.1 The site falls within the settlement boundary of St.Johns and an area zoned for retail use and principally would be in general in accordance with STP2 and SP3. The proposed use would make use of the current building and supported though STP1 for its reuse and supported through CP2 as the siting is within a designated village and is using a existing vacant building. Whilst the building is not strictly empty it is understood the tenants lease is coming to an end. As such this aspect would be seen also conform to Business Policy 10 as the use and the land designation would be compatible for public engagement within the wider retail use.
6.2 Furthermore, whilst the element of retail would be minor compared the previous / current uses as household furniture sales, there would not be an overall loss of retail provision on site given the size and scale of the existing retail elements within the adjacent (main) building.
6.3 Visiting members of the public would be able to make use of the existing parking provisions on site and in terms of intensification of use, the proposals are making use of an existing floor area rather than adding to the overall area on site, as such there is no concerns regarding any increase in intensity of public engagement for the use as a soft play area. The proposed use which would also be seen to be complementary to the neighbouring retail uses and also the existing outdoor play equipment on the wider site.
(ii) VISUAL IMPACT 6.4 The proposed creation of a single width doorway and installation of a galvanised fire escape would be located toward the rear aspect of the building and away from the public realm and views. Whilst this proposal would be introducing a new opening in the side elevation at first floor level this would be directly above an existing doorway and would be an apocopate fenestration addition in terms of size and scale. The additional built form of the fire escape in terms of size, height and the general appearance, would be considered proportionate to the west elevation and designed to serve that specific purpose in terms of providing an emergency exit from first floor level and would be visually in keeping with the character and appearance of the building. It is noted this being at the rear would not be visible from the public realm at the front and the rear is "private" and not for public wandering. As such this aspect is deemed to be an acceptable form of development without harming the visual character and quality of the building in accordance with STP1, GP2(b,c).
(iii) NEIGHBOURING AMENITIES 6.5 In terms of nearest residential dwellings and considering any adverse impact upon those properties, whilst it is noted we have not received any third party comments, it is noted that nearest dwellings are Millfield and Mill House located to the East of the site and more than approx.20m to the nearest elevations.
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/91259/B Page 5 of 6
6.6 Between the site and the nearest dwelling are also other retail used buildings (referred to as the Court Yard) at single storey in height and mature planting on the neighbouring boundary. Given this proposal is for indoor play within a solid brick built building as opposed to outdoor play which could result in an increase noise levels of children playing, the proposed use of the building would be contained within and would be considered acceptable without being detrimental to the neighbouring properties in terms of noise nuisance.
6.7 In terms of any overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy towards the neighbouring properties and the change of use. There are four windows at first floor level on the east elevation looking towards the nearest residential properties. The proposed internal layout at first floor level would be used for open area play with some fitted play or obstacle equipment. Given the internal floor heights in relation to the window proportions, the first floor, floor level, starts half way up the window and would not give the ability to see out of the window. It was noted at the site visit that the upper proportions of the window (approx. half) is screened of internally. It is also noted the outlook from those windows if achievable at all would be towards a large open area of garden and not the immediate private area around the dwelling house. Given the proposal is also for a fire escape with a half landing, given this is only for a fire escape it is not considered there to be any adverse impact though overlooking towards the neighbours as this would only be used in an emergency.
6.8 The level and scale of the development (fire escape and doorway) proposed here, especially being contained to the rear elevation of the property are considered to be relatively modest and not judged to cause harm to the neighbouring amenity or on their use of the private gardens associated with the respective dwelling houses. On balance, these aspects would be considered to be compliant with those sections of General Policy 2(g).
(iv) FLOOD RISK AND MITIGATION 6.9 The comments from the DOI flood risk Management team are helpful and it is noted that the site is within a Surface water flood risk area with a low likelihood. This is on account of the River Neb being approx. 60m to the north of the front elevation of this building and the old mill channels. The level of vulnerability here is likely to be low and the site is not a residential use. In such an instant there is no need for people to remain on site in a potential flood event but their egress from the building and the area needs to be managed. The FRM team have requested a flood risk assessment with a focus on emergency egress details, for all users of the premise to ensure safety.
6.10 At the site visit it was observed the difference in level at the front of the building when looking from the ground outside to the threshold inside and the internal use of ramps to gain access up to the ground floor areas. The comments from FRM were address by the applicant and a floor risk assessment was submitted and agreed as acceptable by the Flood risk management (email dated 11/12/24) and deemed acceptable from a planning provision.
6.11 As this application does not proposed any built development per say and is only for a change of use and the installation of a fire escape of an existing premises where members of the public already frequent. The comments from FRM are noted and their emphasis is on emergency planning for egress details. As such this can be secured as part of a condition to correspond with the use of the premises.
(v) HIGHWAY SAFETY 6.12 Highway Services have considered the merits of the proposal, access to and from the site from the highway, as well as the parking available to the whole site. As the transport professionals their comments are heavily relied upon and as they do not object, the proposal would be considered to align with the principles of General Policy 2h&I in terms of highways safety.
7.0 CONCLUSION
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/91259/B Page 6 of 6
7.1 The planning application would be an acceptable form of development within a defined retail area that would not harm the existing uses of the wider retail area or be considered detrimental to the visual appearance nor would the use have an adverse impact upon enjoyment of neighbouring properties amenities.
7.2 As such the proposals would comply with the aforementioned sections of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016) and is therefore recommended for approval.
8.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 8.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).
8.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to: o applicant (in all cases); o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.
8.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10.
8.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required): o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant); o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area; o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and o in the case of a petition, a single representative.
__
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.
Decision Made : Permitted
Date: 18.12.2024
Determining Officer
Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Principal Planner
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal