223991

==== PAGE 1 ====

PLANNING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Application No.: Applicant; Proposal: 14/00148/B Callows Yard Limited Alterations to provide ten apartments and domestic storage rooms Callows Yard 9 - 11 & 17 -19 Maiew Street And Fusion Bar Occupying First, Second & Third Floor Unit Located Behind 17 -19 Maiew Street Castletown Isle Of Man Site Address: Miss S E Corlett Case Officer: Photo Taken : Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Officer's Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE NUMBER OF RESPONSES AND THE LINK TO PA 14/00007/B THE SITE 1.1 The site is the curtilage of Callow's Yard, a mixed use development which stretches between Arbory Street and Maiew Street. The application concerns numbers 9 and 11 and 17 and 19, Maiew Street which are part of a terrace of properties on the western side of Maiew Street and which accommodate commercial units at ground floor level and residential accommodation above. Numbers 9 and 10 are part of a three storey building and are separated from number 17 and 19 by one and a half storey rendered building (number 13) and a tall, brick three and a half storey building (number 15), Numbers 17 and 19 are three storey buildings, number 17 having direct access onto Maiew Street and number 19 has access from within the Callow’s Yard complex. Between numbers 17 and 19 is a pedestrian access through the Maiew Street units into the space between the two streets and linking in with the Arbory Street pedestrian access into the site. To the rear of numbers 17 and 19 are two further retail units. 1.2 On the first floor, all of the accommodation is used as residential accommodation (in the form of apartments - one per floor) other than "Fusion" which is a bar serving alcohol and food. Fusion is not listed in the 2014 telephone book despite being listed in 2013. 1.3 On the second floor there are apartments and the upper floor of the Fusion bar. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed now is the conversion, including physical changes to the buildings, of the ground floor of the two shop units at 9 and 11, Maiew Street to a single residential unit (one bed), of the ground floor of the retail units at 17 and 19, Maiew Street and the two retail units to the rear, each to single bedroomed residential units, the conversion of the former bar and restaurant and associated toilets to living accommodation: one single bed unit on the first floor and three two bedroomed units spread over the first and second floors. The former "function 14/00148/B Page 1 of 11 11 March 2014

==== PAGE 2 ====

room" along from the former bar on the first floor is to be converted to storage facilities for the occupants of the apartments. 2.2 The physical changes to the buildings are largely confined to the Malew Street elevation other than the installation of a small window in the first floor of the inward facing elevation. The Malew Street elevation changes involve the removal of the shopfronts and their replacements with sliding sash-look vertically proportioned windows to match the windows above.. The pedestrian doors to the units and the pedestrian access through to the inner area are to be retained although the latter will have pedestrian access from the access corridor, but no windows fronting onto the access way. PLANNING STATUS AND POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area of Mixed Use on the Area Plan for the South of 2013 and within Castletown's Conservation Area. Paragraph 6.1.2 describes "The majority of the retail provision in the South is within the existing settlements. Most of this is located in the Service Centres of Castletown and Port Erin both of which offer some comparison and convenience retailing." It goes on at 6.6.1 "In order to achieve town and village centres which are attractive, viable and full of vitality it is essential to encourage a mix of different uses to locate within the Mixed Use areas. This will include elements of retail, office, light industrial, community facilities, leisure and tourism uses and residential as well as dedicated public spaces which will be a focus for community activity. Uses which are not compatible with residential developments will not be supported within the Mixed Uses areas, Generally there will be a presumption in favour of changes of use between the range of approved uses. Whilst planning approval may be required for some changes, this would normally be supported subject to the buildings being suitable for the new use." 3.2 At paragraph 6.6.2 of the Plan. "Development within an area of Mixed Use (as designated on the Proposals Map/Inset Maps) or those sites proposed for Mixed Use (identified on the Maps as 'Proposed Mixed UseO will comprise a mix of some or all of the following uses; residential; shops; financial and professional services; food and drink; research and development, light industry; hotels and hostels; hospitals, nursing homes and residential institutions; community uses; leisure; tourism and open space. For applications relating to sites proposed for Mixed Use, the mix and types of uses on the site will be determined on their merits in accordance with the Proposals in the Area Plan and the Isle of Man Strategic Plan Policies. 3.3 6.6.5 "In order to ensure that the vitality of the town and village centres is retained in terms of visitor attraction and activity after working hours, it is considered that retail should be the preferred use for ground floors of buildings within those areas designated for Mixed Use with residential use encouraged for the upper floors. Office use will also be acceptable on the upper floors but not at the expense of residential uses, and in certain circumstances on the lower floors. Mixed Use Proposal 1: In order to maintain and enhance the vitality of the Mixed Use areas in Port Erin, Castletown and Ballasalla, there will be a presumption in favour of the retention of existing retail units on the ground floor although each case will be determined upon its circumstances and merits." 3.4 The Strategic Plan contains the following which is considered relevant to this application: Paragraph 9,4.5 states "It is accepted that in some circumstances a mix of uses can be appropriate within town centre locations such as residential flats above retail units or office accommodation, particularly where this can help to ensure the use of the area at different times during the day, thus helping to ensure the security and vitality of these areas." It should be clarified that where there is an apparent conflict of policy, whichever document was adopted later should carry more weight. 11 March 2014 14/00148/B Page 2 of 11

==== PAGE 3 ====

3.5 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan provides, at the outset, on page 9 the Strategic Aim: To plan for the efficient and effective provision of services and infrastructure and to direct and control development and the use of land to meet the community's needs, having particular regard to the principles of sustainability whilst at the same time preserving, protecting, and improving the quality of the environment, having particular regard to our uniquely Manx natural, wildlife, cultural and built heritage. 3.6 The Strategic Plan policies require that development makes the best use of resources by utilising under-used land and buildings (Strategic Policy 1); that new development be located primarily within our existing towns and villages (Strategic Policy 2); proposals should protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments and Conservation Areas (Strategic Policy 4): all new retail development must be sited within town and village centres (Strategic Policy 9); and favourable consideration will be given to proposals for improving the quality and condition of the existing housing stock and for the creation of flats by conversion of vacant and under-used space above commercial premises (Strategic Policy 12). 3.7 Spatial Policy 2 identifies Castletown as a Service Centre that should provide regeneration and choice of location for housing, employment and services. 3.8 General Policy 2 provides assessment criteria that should be applied to any new development. Criterion (c) requires development to not affect adversely the character of the surrounding townscape; (g) seeks to ensure that development does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) states that development should provide satisfactory amenity standards including where appropriate safe and convenience access for all highway users with adequate parking; (k) states that development should not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the Area Plan; and (m) requires the decision maker to take into account community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them. 3.9 Environment Policy 24 (no 2) sets out that 'pollution sensitive development will only be allowed to be location close to sources of pollution where appropriate measure can be taken to safeguard amenity'. The preamble to the policy setting out that in the case of new residential development, this would not be allowed where properties would suffer unacceptable loss of amenity due to exposure to pollution where this is from inter alia noise generation or odours. 3.10 Environment Policy 35 seeks to ensure that in Conservation Areas only development that would preserve or enhance the character of appearance of the area will be permitted. 3.11 Environment Policy 43 supports proposals which seek to regenerate run-down area. Such proposals will normally be set in the context of regeneration strategies identified in Area Plans. The Department will encourage the re-use of sound built fabric rather than demolition. 3.12 Housing Policy 17 provides guidance on the provision of apartments: The conversion of buildings into flats will generally be permitted in residential areas provided that: (a) adequate space can be provided for dothes-drying, refuse storage, general amenity, and, if practical, car-parking; (b) the flats created will have a pleasant clear outlook, particularly from the principal rooms and (c) if possible, this involves the creation of parking on site or as part of an overall traffic management strategy for the area. 3,13 Community Policy 4 that states: 'Development (including the change of use of existing premises) which involves the loss of local shops and local public houses, will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that the use is no longer commercially viable, or cannot be made commercially viable.' The preceding text sets out 'The loss of facilities such as neighbourhood shops in towns and or village shops and public houses reduces customer choice and can also 14/00148/B Page 3 of 11 11 March 2014

==== PAGE 4 ====

necessitate people travelling further to meet their needs. This is a particular problem in rural areas where village shops, post offices and public houses can be central to village life. It would be preferable to retain viable facilities, or those that can be made viable and where a change of use or re-development is proposed developers will be expected to show evidence of attempts to market the property as a business in these areas,' 3.14 Transport Policy 7 requires all new development to provide parking in accordance with the Department's Standards, set out in Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan. These parking standards can be reduced or set aside in sustainable locations or in Conservation Areas, as appropriate. 3.15 It is also relevant to have regard to Government's Retail Sector Strategy, developed by Department of Economic Development and published in 2013 although it acknowledges, "1.11 While any future review of planning policy via the Strategic or Area Plans will have regard to the contents of this Retail Sector Strategy, it is noted that formulation of planning policy or land allocations must follow the procedures laid out in planning legislation, i.e. be based on a robust evidence base, be subject to formal public consultation and be capable of withstanding scrutiny and examination at a Planning Inquiry held by an independent Planning Inspector." The core aim of the strategy is "To promote competitive and accessible retail and leisure environments in our town centres, which offer choice and convenience for consumers, improve the economy and enhance resident's quality of life". It goes on, "Retailing is the central activity in the Isle of Man's town centres and a key component of the economy. Tbe clear majority recommendation from the Retail Committee was for continuation of a town centre focussed approach. Future reviews of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, Area Plans and other documentation should consider how to address this aspiration. Developing high quality town centre retail and leisure environments, making sure suitable sites and premises are available in them and that they are served by good transport and parking facilities will be the physical platform for a re-energised retail sector. While Douglas is the Island's main centre, Ramsey, Peel, Port Erin, Castletown, Onchan and other centres all play important and complementary roles which should be encouraged." 3.16 They recommend that, "The commitment of centre traders and businesses is essentia! to protect and enhance the quality of town centre environments. Their involvement in developing appropriate maintenance regimes (e.g. control of litter and paved areas) and measures to improve the quality of retail frontages will be encouraged" and "3.41 Unused sites and premises can affect the quality and appeal of town centre retail and leisure environments. Existing legislation and other measures should be strengthened to encourage owners or tenants to improve them through effective enforcement actions and timely processes." PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The site as a whole has been the subject of many applications only some of which are considered relevant to the consideration of this current application. The original concept for the redevelopment of the area as it generally currently appears was shown in PA 05/01539 which proposed the creation of 14 houses, 10 apartments, 3 maisonettes, 9 retail units and a public thoroughfare linking Arbory and Malew Streets. This was modified by further applications which proposed the rebuilding of some of the buildings in the scheme and the complex expanded further up and down Malew Street. Subsequent to the implementation of the scheme, changes of use were proposed which involved the change of use of upper floors from residential to office use (PA 97/01848) and the introduction of a greater number of smaller units in terms of the residential accommodation - for example, a two bedroomed unit over two floors became two single bed apartments, one on each floor - PAs 13/00251). 4.2 The take up and occupation of units within the scheme has been poor and for some time at least some of the units have lain empty. As an attempt to try to find users and occupants for the buildings, the applicant recently sought approval for the conversion of the existing residential accommodation on the first floors above the Arbory Street commercial units, as single bed units and the conversion of the central units into twice as many apartments as Page 4 of 11 11 March 2014 14/00148/B

==== PAGE 5 ====

existing residential units, and the conversion of the function room into further apartments, resulting in 28 units with 57 bedrooms becoming 47 units with 48 bedrooms (PA 13/00797). This was refused for the reason that the creation of so many single bed units (46) would result in a concentration of such accommodation as would change the character of the town and would likely become a less attractive place for residents and visitors, to the detriment of the town and the Conservation Area. 4.3 Following this, further applications were submitted for the additional use of the houses in the central area between the two streets as tourist accommodation as well as residential use (PA 13/91537) which was approved and PA 14/00007 for the change of use of some of the ground floors of the Arbory Street properties to residential accommodation. This has yet to be determined. REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 There are a significant number of local representations, from individuals and businesses which own or occupy Castletown properties including those in the application site and in a few cases, properties in Baliasalla. The addresses are listed below. The comments are summarised as; • Castletown experiencing difficulty at the moment, this should not lead to irreversible change • My business is in its infancy but growing steadily. Have invested heavily in the premises but renewal of my lease will not be granted until the planning decisions are made. • Own grocery store, expended significant sums upgrading and improving property. The investment will be undermined as will the vitality and viability of the town centre. • Attractiveness of Castletown reduced • Castletown has historic significance and important place in Isle of Man. It is visited by coaches of tourists therefore object to reducing retail opportunities. Retail could be encouraged if shops had better storage facilities. The shops are not let because rents too high. Loss of retail would be detrimental to town centre and detrimental to life line of the community. • Area Plan for the South clear that the ground floors should be retail. • Proposal would undermine the vitality, viability, diversity and character of Castletown town centre would damage tourism to the South and to the Island generally as referred to in the Strategic Plan. • Negative impact on the Conservation Area. • Do Manx Authorities really want this for the Island's ancient capital? • The flats are only large enough for single occupancy and are unsuitable for families. They would never achieve a demographic mix desirable in a community. Concentration of too many transient single person occupants which could lead to a change in character of the area. • Residential accommodation disgracefully small. • Social disruption. • Proposals would increase noise disturbance which is already being experienced. • Population wants more retail choice not less. Town should not be robbed of shop premises where others could make a success in future • Support attempts to regenerate area, but proposals to replace shops and businesses with more flats will seriously undermine the town centre. There will be a reduction in range and choice of shops and other facilities, there will be increasing pressure to travel to other towns which undermines the economy of the town and increases carbon emissions. • Other shops need footfall to survive and loss of other businesses are likely to undermine the viability of existing shops • A town needs a mix of shops, cafes and other business to provide an attractive destination. Regressive step contrary to regeneration aims. Regeneration been successful in Ramsey Physical changes to facades would lose ancient town's character. Page 5 of 11 14/00148/B 11 March 2014

==== PAGE 6 ====

Castletown already has a disproportionate amount of social housing. Application should be subject to an Inquiry due to the importance of it. Development has no car parking, but demand would increase. Lack of proper refuse storing facilities Increase in congestion and illegal parking in Arbory Street traffic impact Already a surfeit of flats in Castletown Will schools, doctors and police be able to cope? 2, 6, 11, 35, 37, 79, 90, Maiew Street 3, 5a, Ellerslie Gardens the freehold owner and the tenant of 4, Arbory Street, 11, 21, 31, 38, 61 and Bagnio House, Arbory Street Croft House, Crofton, The Crofts Brooklyn, Crossag Road, Ballasalla who own 5, Arbory Street and 2, Maiew Street 30, Knock Rushen 4, The Promenade I, 10, 15, 27, 37 Scarlett Road 37, Castle Court apartments Farrant's Way II, Queen Street 16 and 18 Bowling Green Road 3, Tyson Terrace Ballasalla 5, Mona Terrace 1, Norwood and Westham, Arbory Road 6, Close Maiew The Malt House, Bridge Street 10. Pickard Close These submissions include a range of objections which are summarised in the heading to this paragraph. Many refer to local expectations and experiences of shopping in and visiting the town centre and what they feel should be provided and what is reflected in policies for the area. The fact that they have been summarised in a single list of addresses does not denigrate or undermine the importance and contents of each submission. 5.2 The Highway and Traffic Division of Department of Infrastructure indicate that ttiey do not oppose the application. They indicate that the lack of parking has been established by the previous consent. 5.3 The Department of Economic Development, who developed the Isle of Man Retail Sector Strategy 2013 were approached for their views and have engaged the services of PBA Roger Tym to prepare a response. This indicates that the Retail Sector Strategy found that Maiew and Arbory Streets provide 90% of Castletown's retail units. It refers to the Strategic Plan and APS policies which aim to strengthen and protect the vitality and viability of the town centre. They state that the proposal, whilst providing a potential use and occupation of presently vacant units, will be unlikely to contribute to the goals of Castletown as a service centre although they acknowledge that Mixed Use Proposal 1 allows some flexibility in dealing with ground floor uses. They state that the change of use will reduce footfall in the town which will not help maintain the viability of the town centre which is contrary to the objectives of the regeneration strategy and note that in Ramsey, following the physical regeneration of areas in the public realm, 28 businesses moved to that town. If similar works were undertaken in Castletown, and some work has already been undertaken in this respect, there would not be as many opportunities for new commercial uses if the existing units were to change to residential. They advise that in the 2013 Strategy local surveys were undertaken and over two thirds of local residents undertaken their main grocery shopping outside Castletown, more than half do their clothes and shoe shopping in Strand Street and more than a third put this down to a lack of local alternatives and the variety and quality of shopping elsewhere. They suggest that in the 14/00148/B Page 6 of 11 11 March 2014

==== PAGE 7 ====

absence of suitable floorspace opportunities, this is likely to intensify. They estimate that Callow's Yard represents around 5,000 sq ft of retail floor space out of a total of almost 29,000 sq ft and the proposal would reduce this by around 3,750 sq ft - approximately 13%. This could equate to between £2.1m and £3.1m annual turnover for convenience goods and £1.4m annual turnover of comparison goods. 5.4 They state that statistically, single person residential units result in the highest average weekly per capita expenditure of any household group. This will clearly have significant advantages in supporting the local economy. However, they acknowledge that this must be balanced against the implications for the loss of retail floor space set out above. 5.5 DEFA recommend that the apartments will need to be registered with them prior to occupation. This is not a material planning consideration. 5.6 Mr Ronan MHK - objects as the MHK for Castletown, Chairman of the Regeneration Committee , Member of Castletown Chamber of Trade and DED political member. The proposals are contrary to the basis for the approval of the original planning application, it will weaken the town centre and undermine the role and importance of the Area Plan for setting out the detailed basis of planning for the South, Retail is important to retain life and health and vitality of a town centre, it will increase parking demand. ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issues to be considered in this application relate to the reasons for refusal given in the case of the most recent application (PA 13/00797) for the Arbory Street properties. Also it is relevant to consider whether the proposal would have an adverse impact on the commercial vitality, interest and viability of the town centre, car parking in the town and the character of the Conservation Area in terms of the physical changes to the buildings. It is also relevant to consider the amenities of those In the proposed apartments. These considerations are the same as those considered in the assessment of PA 14/00007 although the context for each Is different as the applications refer to different parts of the Callow's Yard scheme. Increase in the number of single bed apartments 6.2 Setting aside for the moment the implications of the use of ground floor units for residential accommodation, it was previously a concern that PA 13/00797 would have resulted in so great a concentration of single bedroomed units within the town centre that this would have had a deletrious impact on both the Conservation Area and the community such that this application was refused. There is a smaller area to be converted in this case than was the case with the Arbory Street application which was refused and as such, less likelihood of the issues which may have arisen with that application. This application also includes provision for storage and the units have shared corridors and more communia! space, potentially leading to better integration between the occupants and more consideration for neighbouring occupants. It is also useful that the Department of Economic Development's representatives have advised that single person units are the highest spending per capita individuals of all household sizes, which will have a positive impact on the local economy. It is also relevant that the continued vacant or underused units in the town centre, whether at ground floor or above is not positive in attracting and presenting an interesting and healthy town centre to those who visit it. 6.3 As such, whilst not ideal, it is recommended that the application should not be refused for reasons relating to the number of single bed apartments nor the number of apartments which would result from the scheme. Car parking 6.4 The previous application was not refused for reasons relating to car parking and the Highways Division have not objected to it. Therefore it would not be reasonable for this application which proposes a reduced number of apartments, to be refused for this reason. The concern by residents regarding car parking is however acknowledged. There is dearly a limited Page 7 of 11 11 March 2014 14/00148/B

==== PAGE 8 ====

amount of parking in Castletown and the amount and nature of the demand would differ from that at present. Residential use provides for a requirement at a different time of day to commercial and retail. The choice of whether to have or use a car also differs. It is difficult to compared the likely demand for parking spaces between commercial units and residential, particularly single bed units which perhaps could give rise to fewer occupants who own their own vehicle (although this is by no means guaranteed). This is not to acknowledge that there are not concerns which have been raised regarding car parking and that future applications for further changes should not have regard to the implications for car parking. In this case, it is not judged that there would be so significant a change in the demand for parking as would justify refusal of the application for this reason. Impact from the loss of commercial units 6.5 Whilst a balance has to be struck between trying to fill vacant units which are neither attractive to the eye nor positive in presenting a healthy town centre in which people are invited to shop and invest, there is little in the way of evidence which supports a justification for approval of this application on the basis that there are no other means of achieving occupation of the units and in fact at least one of the units for conversion, (number 11) is currently used for commercial purposes. Whilst a cursory study of the comparative rental values of these units compared with those outside of Callow's Yard would suggest that it is not the cost of renting the units which is preventing occupation, and indeed it is not only the Callow's Yard units which are presently vacant or for sale/rent - two properties on the other side of Malew Street are currently for sale/rent, there is no information from the applicant to demonstrate how long the units have been vacant, what efforts have been employed to try to overcome the existing situation. It is also relevant that there are other commercial units which are vacant or for sale and as such, if approval were granted to this scheme, there could there be a further spread of conversions of ground floor premises from commercial to residential use outside of the Callow's Yard site. 6.6 It is very important, as highlighted by the Retail Sector Strategy that town centres must remain capable of offering a range of services and facilities in order to both serve their local communities but also to be able to compete with other retail centres as well as more modern methods of shopping, such as the internet. This will not happen if the number and range of shops and services is reduced. The fact that the conversion to residential involves physical changes to the buildings also suggests that future change back to retail would be less likely than if the proposals simply involved a change of use without such physical changes. 6.7 It is also important to consider the impression of the commercial centre of the town in terms of when the visitor feels they have left the commercial area and when they are venturing into less commercial and more residential areas. In the case of Malew Street, one has the impression that the retail opportunities are starting to wane when reaching the junction of Malew Street and Bank Street. If the proposed conversions are approved, the shopper may turn around at number 7, Malew Street, assmuing that the rest of Malew Street is residential and return towards The Parade. The effect of this application would be to cut short this extent of shopping in Malew Street as one heads out of the town centre, reducing the scale of the retail opportunities but also potentially adversely affecting the attractiveness of those properties in Malew Street namely numbers 13, 15, and 23 and on the other side, numbers 10, 12 and 14. 6.8 For the above reasons, it is considered that the conversion of the units at ground floor level from commercial to residential use would result in a significant and negative impact on the appearance, vitality and viability of the town centre, to the detriment of the town as a whole and its future as a retail centre within the south. It is also likely to have a direct and negative impact on those commercial premises to the north in reducing the footfall and potential customer numbers to these premises. Impact of the changes to the buildings at ground floor level 11 March 2014 14/00148/B Page 8 of 11

==== PAGE 9 ====

6.9 Like PA 14/00007/6 the changes to the buildings are not considered unacceptable in their own right in terms of the fact that vertically proportioned windows will be used in sympathy with features on the existing buildings above and around. However, there will be an automatic change in the character of these buildings, a change from obviously commercial uses where shoppers are invited to enter the premises and browse in the windows to private properties where closer inspection would neither be appropriate nor welcome. This is likely to have a negative impact on the streetscene in terms of its character which would become an uncomfortable mix of private residential and commercial which would also be harmful to the character and appearance of the streetscene. Creating a successful sense of place involves the presentation of buildings whose function is clear from its appearance so that users will know how to find what they are looking for. The appearance of residential properties within an otherwise commercial streetscene will create a confused and mixed character which is not considered appropriate for a town centre. Amenities of future residents 6.10 It is the case that the ground floor residential properties will have little in the way of private space and many windows are adjacent to public thoroughfares resulting in little privacy and potential problems of noise and disturbance in the later hours. As such, It is likely that the occupants of the ground floor premises will have inadequate private space and be likely to be adversely affected by the operation of the town centre as such and could potentially adversely affect the otherwise legitimate operation of other town centre businesses. Whilst it is fully accepted that the first and second floor units are also in some respect susceptible to such impacts, there is greater separation between the potential source of nuisance and those to be affected. 6.11 There is an additional aspect of this application which was not the case with the other applications for conversion of Callow's Yard units. The proposal will result in the removal of the nightclub/bar facility within the complex. This has the potential to be very unneighbourly for the other residences within the complex in terms of late night comings and goings, noise and antisocial behaviour. The removal of this element arguably positive in terms of improving residential amenity, although it could also be argued that the change of use of this unit would reduce the attractiveness of the town to visitors. 6.12 There is no objection to the proposed changes above ground floor level. Summary 6.13 Whilst there is considerable sympathy with the applicant, any other business proprietor who cannot find investors in their property, it is considered that the impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre outweighs any positive impact of finding occupants for these units. In addition, the physical changes to the buildings will have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the streetscene and the new ground floor units are not likely to have satisfactory levels of privacy and amenities. As such the application is recommended for refusal. PARTY STATUS 7.1 The local authority, Castletown Commissioners are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, paragraph 6 (4) (e), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status. 7.2 The Highway Authority is granted interested party status under the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 paragraph 6 (4) d. 7.3 Department of Economic Development is a statutory authority which raises material planning considerations and as such should be afforded party status under Article 6(4)(c) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013. Page 9 of 11 14/00148/B 11 March 2014

==== PAGE 10 ====

7.4 Whilst the local residents and tenants of Castletown who have written in are not all immediately adjacent to the site, the implications of the development are far reaching and as such, it is recommended that all those who occupy premises, whether commercial or residential, in the town should be afforded party status in this case. 7.5 The resident of 3, Tyson Terrace is not sufficiently affected by the development to warrant being afforded interested party status in this case, although their interest in the application is very welcome. 7.6 DEFA does not raise material planning issues and as such should not be afforded party status in this case. Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 01.03.2014 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals R 1. The loss of commercial use on the ground floors of the properties proposed for conversion would have a significant and negative impact on the attractiveness of Castletown as a shopping and commercial centre both in terms of the immediate loss of these units and the resulting reduction in the range of shops and services available to those visiting the town, and the ability of the town in the future to attract and accommodate futher and new retail investment. This impact outweighs any positive impact of finding occupants for these units. This loss would be contrary to Mixed Use Proposal 1 of the Area Plan for the South and Castletown’s function as a service centre. R 2. The physical changes to the buildings - ie the loss of shopfronts which provide visitors with opportunities for browsing and an inviting to enter into the units,will have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the streetscene and would create a confused mix of commercial units which invite the custom and interest of those passing by and private properties where such interest is neither appropriate nor welcome. Such a mix is likely to deter potential shoppers from continuing north along Malew Street past the first proposed residential properties, to the detriment of the town centre and particularly any commercial units further north on this street. As such the development is contrary to Environment Policy 35, R3. 14/00148/B Page 10 of 11 March 2014 11

==== PAGE 11 ====

The new ground floor units would not have satisfactory levels of privacy and amenities due to no private amenity space and the very close proximity of most if not all windows to areas frequentable by the public. As such the proposal is contrary to Housing Policy 17. I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to It under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005 Decision Made: Committee Meeting Date: Signed :... Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required, signing Olficer to delete as appropriate YES/NO 11 March 2014 14/00148/B Page 11 of 11