Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
V * -pnifDee f PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Application No. : Appiicant: Proposai : 14/00338/B Callow's Yard Limited Alterations to create two storey commercial building; conversion of existing apartments to form one town house and one and two bed apartments and the conversion of bar/restaurant to three apartments with associated storage facilities with all apartments to be used as residential or tourist accommodation Callows Yard Nos. 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 & 20 Arbory Street And Fusion Bar Unit Located Behind 17 -19 Malew Street Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 IDQ Site Address: Case Officer: Photo Taken : Site Visit: Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee Miss S E Coriett Officer's Report THIS APPUCATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE AND DUE TO THE PUBUC INTEREST IN THE APPLICATION THE SITE 1.1 The site is part of the Callow's Yard site which sits between Arbory Street and Malew Street in the heart of Castletown. The application concerns numbers 6-26, Arbory Street, even numbers only, odd numbers 7-21, Malew Street and the units in between which include an office with function room above and nine two storey dwellings which have permission for use as residential or tourist accommodation. All of the commercial units which are the subject of this application are presently vacant other than 20, 22 and 24, Arbory Street which accommodates The Curry Club restaurant and I love Kebab hot food take away and 11 and 15, Malew Street which are occupied as a clothing shop and art shop respectively. 1.2 TTie site accommodates commercial units at ground floor level along the public highways with living accommodation in various forms above other than 8, Arbory Street which accommodates stairs to the floors above. Within the space between the two streets there are residential units in the form of terraced cottages - a row of four, one of three and one of two which is attached to the function room and offices at the north of the site. There are commercial units on both sides of Arbory Street up to around number 24 on the northern side and 23 on the southern side although there are a few retail units further out to the west. 1.2 The scheme makes provision for pedestrian access from Malew Street to Arbory Street and back through walkways: on the Arbory Street side this is through a corridor between units; on the Malew Street side this is into the complex and between retail units. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the retention of all of the commercial units as such at ground level and the conversion of the stairs at number 8, Arbory Street to a residential unit over two floors (unit 1). On the first floor, the Fusion Bar and dining area over two floors is to be converted to five apartments (three 2 bed units over two fioors (units 33, 34 and 35), a single bed unit over 13 June 2014 14/00338/B Page 1 of 12
==== PAGE 2 ====
!» one floor (unit 32) and one two bed unit over one floor (unit 45) and a function room area will be converted to storage areas for the apartments. The apartment on the first floor of number 20, Arbory Street will become two single bed units (units 8 and 9). The single unit (currently apartment 21) on the first floor of numbers 14, 16 and 18, Arbory Street will become three single bed units (units 5, 6 and 7).The space above 10 and 12, Arbory Street will be re-arranged as three units (units 2, 3 and 4). 2.2 The sum total of the changes to the units result in what is presently 26 apartments ( 12 single bed, 13 two bed and a three bed unit) to 41 units (30 single bed units and 11 two bed units). All of the units being created are also proposed to be used as tourist accommodation as well as permanent residential use, 2.3 The external appearance of only number 8, Arbory Street will change insofar as currently what is a shopfront with the staircase and lack of retail space obviously visible from the street, will become a domestic door with two vertically proportioned windows beside. 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 paragraph 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 Paragraph 6.6.5 states, "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 Baltasalla, 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 Tfie 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 14/00338/B Page 2 of 12 13 June 2014
==== PAGE 3 ====
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. 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. The following are considered the relevant parts of this policy in this case. Criterion (b) requires that development respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the space around them; (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; i) states that development should not have an adverse effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (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 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 5 states: In granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas the Department will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more". 13 June 2014 14/00338/B Page 3 of 12
==== PAGE 4 ====
3.13 Housing Policy 17 provides guidance on the provision of apartments: The conversion of buildings into flats \wilt generally be permitted in residential areas provided that; (a) adequate space can be provided for clothes-drying, refuse storage, general amenity, and, if practical, car-parking; (b) the flats created will have a pleasant dear 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. 3.14 Community Policy 4 states that: '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 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.' 3.15 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. Development (including the change of use of 3.16 Community Policy 4 requires that, 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." Mil 3.17 Paragraph 9.5.8 states, "The use of existing private residential properties as tourist accommodation may be acceptable if it can be demonstrated that it will not compromise the amenities of any neighbouring residents." Business Policy 13 states: "Permission will generally be given for the use of private residential properties as tourist accommodation providing that it can be demonstrated that such use would not compromise the amenities of neighbouring residents." 3.18 Community Policy 4 statse, "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". 3.19 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 at paragraph 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. The 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 Page 4 of 12 14/00338/B 13 June 2014
==== PAGE 5 ====
aspiration. Developing high quality town centre retaii 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. White Douglas is the Island's main centre, Ramsey, Peei, Port Erin, Castletown, Onchan and other centres all play important and complementary roles which should be encouraged." 3.20 The Strategy recommends that, "The commitment of centre traders and businesses is essential 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 retaii units and a public thoroughfare linking Arbory and Malew Streets. This was modified by further appiications 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 introduction of commercial use of the upper floors of the units on Malew Street and after that the introduction of a greater number of smailer units in terms of the residential accommodation - for exampie, a two bedroomed unit over two floors became two single bed apartments, one of each floor. 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, into single bed units and the conversion of the central units into twice as many apartments as existing residential units, and the conversion of the function room into further apartments, resulting in 28 unite with 57 bedrooms becoming 47 unite with 48 bedrooms (PA 13/00797). This was refused for the reason that the creation of so many singie bed unite (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 A recent application submitted for the change of use of these central unite from residential to either residential or tourist use (PA 13/91537/B) was permitted. 4.4 Most recently, two appiications were submitted for the conversion of all three floors of most of the Malew and Arbory Street properties from commercial and residential, to predominantly residential - PAs 14/0007 and 14/00148. These applications were withdrawn prior to a decision being taken, but the published recommendation was for the appiications to be refused on the basis that the loss of commercial unite on the ground floor would be contrary to policy and to the vitaiity and viability of the town centre. Whilst concerns had been raised in respect of the amount of singie unite and the lack of car parking, these were not considered to be reasons for refusal. REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 There are a significant number of local representations from individuals and businesses which own or occupy Castletown properties and in a few cases, properties in Baliasalla. The objectors are listed below. The comments are summarised as follows but with the 13 June 2014 14/00338/B Page 5 of 12
==== PAGE 6 ====
predominant concerns being the absence of any parking provision for the increased number of apartments and the loss of the commercial units at the first floor being detrimental to the amenities and attraction of the town. Other comments include:
==== PAGE 7 ====
V 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. In some cases there are individual objections from each of a number of residents at the same address. 5.4 Castletown Heritage objects to the application on the basis that it would contradict the objectives of the Isle of Man Retailing Study Report of May 2009, the Area Plan for the South and the Strategic Plan. 5.5 Castletown Commissioners have engaged the services of Hargest Planning Ltd to provide an assessment of the impact of the proposals which culminate in an objection to the application on the basis of it being contrary to planning policy and would result in a detrimental impact on car parking within the town. They are also of the view that the number of single bed units is still unacceptable and their use for tourist accommodation is not acceptable. 5.6 Mr Ronan MHK - objects as the MHK for Castletown on the basis that this is the latest in around 30 applications for the site and another which is not based upon any fact, impact, market or need analysis and notes that there is a lot of rental accommodation available and Castletown already has the highest density of rental accommodation on the Island and the highest density of social housing and he feels that if this application is approved he feels it will add to the towns social problems. He notes that Castletown needs a long term provision for new housing but that the concentration of apartments here is not right for the town. The number of alcohol licenses in the town have led to a relatively high crime rate but that the Fusion bar had provided a "safe environment to socialise and eat out" and feels that the loss of a bar here would be a retrograde step for the town. 5.7 The same submission which was submitted by the owner of 18, Bowling Green Road has been submitted under the headings of Radcliffe Butchers Ltd and from Castletown Residents and Traders Association (in formation). There is no explanation as to who is entitled to be, or who are members of this organisation, their constitution or objectives. The submission from Castletown Heritage states that they reiterate these concerns without including them under their own cover. The residents of 12, Bowling Green Road also add their support to this submission. 5.8 A resident of James Road supports the application on the basis that it is in compliance with the Strategic Plan aims to retain Castletown as a major retail centre in the south,the Southern Area Plan and every Castletown Plan before it which state that the town centre should comprise retail units with residential accommodation above and the Government's housing review which states that the Island needs the provision of more affordable housing including increasing the number of rented accommodation available. He considers that the present accommodation in Callow’s Yard is well managed. He comments on the parking situation, noting that the car park on Farrant's Way is almost always empty (70 spaces) and that the introduction of car parking on the site would compromise the amount of open space available to the residents and users of the complex. 5.9 The Department of Health and Social Care request that 25% of the new housing is provided as affordable housing and that a legal agreement should be entered into to ensure this provision. 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); whether the proposal would have an 13 June 2014 14/00338/B Page 7 of 12
==== PAGE 8 ====
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. It is relevant that this application seeks to address the reason for refusal given in previous applications for the loss of retail and commercial floor space on the ground floor and that this application does not result in the loss of any existing commercial or retail floor space on the ground floor. INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF SINGLE BED APARTMENTS 6.2 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 wouid have had a deleterious impact on both the Conservation Area and the community such that this application was refused. This previous application was the subject of an objection from the Architectural Liaison Officer, Isle of Man Constabulary, who has not commented on this current proposal. This current scheme has tried to address this by reducing the number of single bed units - effectively from 46 to 30 although this is an increase from the current 12 units. It is also relevant that the central units are no longer proposed to be single bed units (they will remain two storey residential or tourist units) such that the spread and span of single bed units is less concentrated. It is also relevant that the Department of Economic Development's representatives have previously 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. There will be only a slight decrease in the number of two and three bedroomed units, from 14 to 11 which is not considered significant. The two and single bed units are also mixed within the area rather than a concentration of a particular type of unit in one part of the scheme, creating the "ghetto" about which some objectors have expressed concern. CAR PARKING 6.3 The previous application, PA 13/00797 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 clearly a limited amount of parking in Castletown and the amount and nature of the demand would differ from that at present and what was envisaged when the scheme was originally approved. As such, it is not reasonable to assume that because the scheme was initially approved despite concerns about parking being expressed, that now, a larger area with a different array of units and uses should automatically be approved. 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. The relatively recent Castletown Town Centre Parking Study and Parking Policy Development Options generally concluded that for the foreseeable future there are sufficient spaces available in the town to serve the current and short term demands and dependent upon future parking restrictions, there may or may not need to be additional spaces provided. The Study found that the key times for demand which outstrips supply is on Friday nights. 6.4 The number of spaces required by the parking standard applied to the current number of apartments would be 40 spaces (12 one bed and 14 two or more beds) and the number required in connected with the proposed units would be 52 (30 one bed and 11 two beds). There is therefore an increase in the number of units which would be required in connection with this aspect of the scheme. However, it must not be forgotten that the scheme involves the loss of the nightclub/bar/restaurant which wilt be responsible for some part of the increase in demand for parking spaces at peak times of Friday nights as identified in the Castletown Town Centre Parking Study and Parking Policy Development Options (paragraph 5.4.1). 14/00338/B Page 8 of 12 13 3une 2014
==== PAGE 9 ====
PHYSICAL CHANGES TO THE BUILDINGS 6.5 The only physical change to the building which will be appreciable by the public is the removal of the shopfront from 8, Arbory Street to a residential frontage. Whilst this will remove some of the interest in the streetscene, the predominant character is still of a retail street. It is also relevant that the present view into number 8 is not into a shop but of a staircase. As such, it is not considered that the proposed change to number 8 would adversely affect the character of appearance of the area. IMPACT ON THE AMENITY OF THE AREA 6.6 Whilst there have been comments which request the reinstatement of the public access between Malew and Arbory Streets, this access has never been extinguished. It is currently not available as the Malew Street side relies, as it always has, upon the access between retail units which are currently vacant and this access is closed, albeit still there and not incorporated into the adjacent units. It is not proposed to change this. On the Arbory Street side the pedestrian access is available through number 14 and 20 and it is proposed to retain that at number 20. Whilst the access through number 14 is to be enclosed this is to provide an enclosed retail area which is not considered objectionable as pedestrian access remains available further up the street. 6.7 The Callow's Yard development has never been the commercial success which the owner and the townspeople of Castletown had hoped. Tliis is due to a number of reasons, not least of which is the economic recession which would have deterred people moving their business or establishing new business in the town and the Callow's Yard units are not the only ones in the town centre which are vacant and/or for sale/rent. The concept for the development was always to be a mixed development with commercial uses on the ground floors of the external units and office, retail or residential above, in line with the historic uses of buildings in the town and in line with the Strategic, Area and Local Plan policies. What is proposed here is no change from that but merely an intensification of the number of residential units which is in part a reflection of what has been indicated as being the type of accommodation which is rentable in this area. The occupation of the upper floors will potentially add to the patronage of the local shops and services, boosting the viability of the town. 6.8 However, this is not to say that the more units which can be accommodated on the upper floors the better this will be. There are aspects to consider about the impacts of so many units In terms of nuisance and impact on neighbouring proprietors and the town centre, the impact on the character of the town and the impact on social behaviour. What is proposed now is a mix of units with predominantly but not exclusively single bed units. It is highly relevant that there are no adverse comments from the Architectural Liason Officer or the police who have been very involved in previous application where they have had concerns. The loss of the bar on the first floor is likely to improve the residential amenities of those in the residential units around the site such that the central area will at night become more private and quiet with noise and traffic restricted to Malew and Arbory Streets. TOURIST USE 6.9 The possibility of the residential units being used as tourist accommodation as well as residential is something which would appear to be encouraged within the Strategic Plan and would also seem to sit well in Castletown's role as a tourist attraction. The use of the units as tourist accommodation is also likely to dillute the concentration of social care tenants within the scheme, which is of concern to many who have written. 6.10 Whether the units are purchased or rented or who rents or occupies them is not a matter for the planning process as it will be at the discretion of the landowner as to how they make the units available. This is not controllable by the planning process. AFFORDABLE HOUSING 13 June 2014 14/00338/B Page 9 of 12
==== PAGE 10 ====
6.11 Whilst the creation of additional units could result in a requirement for affordable housing to be provided (in this case 4 units), in this case, the site is not designated as Residential and is not in a predominancy residentiai area. As such, the policy is not directly applicable to the application. However, as the scheme is being sought on the basis of trying to make the development commercially viable, it would not appear appropriate or constructive to require the delivery of four affordable units or an appropriate commuted sum to be paid in this instance. LOSS OF THE BAR/RESTAURANT 6.12 The proposai will result in the loss of the first floor restaurant/bar facility. This could be considered to be contrary to Community Policy 4. However, this is by no means the only licensed premises or restaurant in the town and there is no evidence to suggest thk the loss of this facility would be in any way detrimental to the attractiveness of the town. It could be argued that the inclusion of a licensed facility in this position, surrounded by residential/tourist accommodation is non conforming and could potentially harm the residentiai amenities of these properties through the comings and goings of patrons and staff often at anti-social hours. As such, on balance it is not considered that the loss of the restaurant/bar warrants refusal of this application. CONCLUSION 6.14 It is considered that the development has responded to the previous concerns about the loss of commercial ground floor units in the town centre whilst at the same time retaining a mix of dwelling types and sizes. Whilst there is no car parking provided on site, the car parking study undertaken in 2013 indicated that there was not an immediate problem in car parking provision other than at peak times on a Friday night, for which the removal of the Fusion Bar is likely to be beneficial. As such, the application is recommended for approval. 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 TTie 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 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 perhaps further reaching than for a smaller scheme and there could be a legitimate claim to be affected by an increase in demand for on street car parking and as such, it is recommended that all those who occupy premises, whether commercial or residential, in Malew Street, Arbory Street or The Crofts, Castletown should be afforded party status in this case. As such the following parties are recommended as being afforded party status
==== PAGE 11 ====
-9, 15, 27, Scarlett Road
==== PAGE 12 ====
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 proposal would result in an increase in the overall number of residential units, such as would result in a requirement for parking spaces, not all of which could be satisfied at all times. This would therefore result in an adverse impact on the town centre and those living and visiting it, with residents potentially being unable to find parking spaces conveniently close to their homes and visitors not being able to park conveniently close to the amenities which they are visiting, to the detriment of the attractiveness of the town centre. R2. The proposal would result in an over-intensive number of single bed units which would be a concentration of such a type of accommodation which would alter adversely the sense of community within the town centre. R3. The physical changes to number 8, Arbory Street would result in diminution, albeit relatively slight, which would dilute the commercial appearance of the street and its attractiveness to potential customers. This could also establish an unfortunate precedent for further shop fronts to be replaced with domestic frontages to the detriment of the streetscape. 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: Committee Meeting Date: Signed :... Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is reguired* signing officer to delete as appropriate YES/NO i4/00338/B Page 12 of 13 June 2014 12
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
