225286

==== PAGE 1 ====

Cabinet Office References DFW/0022 and DF14/0023 Appilcatlon Nos 14/OOS2£S/B and 14/OOS29/D inspector’s report O/i^ t 0 SEP Application by La Piazza Ltd for: Creation of outside seating area; Erection of signage to outside seating area barriers; at ^ Land In Front of La Piazza Restaurant, Peveril Buildings, Lc^Rranii^^^ Douglas. ''''vfrastP-'-^''-' Site Visit: Thursday 17^ July Preamble

1. These two closely related applications seek planning approval for the creation of a restaurant outside seating area (14/00528/B) and advertising consent for associated signage (14/00529/D). The applications were referred to the Council of Ministers in accordance with Section 10 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 because the application involves land owned or controlled by the Department of Infrastructure. Site and Development
2. La Piazza restaurant is on the first floor reached via its own doorway and stairs. It sits above the separately managed Pizza Hut (Delivery) on the ground floor. The premises face onto Loch Promenade on the corner with Walpole Avenue, where the highway has recently been refurbished and upgraded under the Douglas Promenade Improvements Phase 1, creating a footway projection in front of these premises. Next door is the Bordello bar and nightclub, indicated on the application plan and form as being under the control of the applicant.
3. The submitted layout provides for 24 seats at 8 tables, within the widened area, enclosed by removable stainless steel and fabric barriers some 1.0 m high displaying the company's logo. Service would be from the upper floor restaurant. Pedestrians would pass between the building frontage and enclosed area, a width stated to be 3.483 m on the submitted plan but actually overall not less than 3.5 m. The locality is within the Douglas Promenades Conservation Area.
4. Applications 14/00369/B and 14/00370/D made similar proposals with respect to the same location but described as Land at Pizza Hut. These were approved by notice issued for the Council of Ministers on 4^ July, following a report by another planning inspector. During the week of my visit, the area of pavement in question was laid out with a few tables and chairs, partly enclosed by barriers bearing the Pizza Hut (Delivery) logo. Other applications in the locality have related to the restaurant/takeaway uses and to the highway improvement works. Gist of the Representations
5. The applicant; the proposed seating area can be seen from the restaurant windows and balcony; the area would be laid out to meet the requirements of people with disabilities including wheelchair users, for whom toilets in the adjacent ground floor bar would be available as well as those upstairs at the restaurant. A 3.5 m unobstructed passage would be retained past the seating area as sought by the highway authority. The proposals accord with Strategic Plan General Policies 1, 2 and 6, and Environment Policies 35 and 37.
6. The Planning Officer summarises relevant planning policies and considerations that flow from them, concluding that the proposals are in keeping with the locality, would preserve the Conservation Area, need not harm local amenity if subject to restricted times, could provide adequate access without compromising road safety and would have a positive impact on the town economy. Matters raised by PH Isle of Man Ltd are more relevant to licensing than to planning control. 1

==== PAGE 2 ====

Cabinet Office References DF14/0022 and DFM/0023 Application Nos 14/00528/8 and 14/00529/0 inspeoor’s report 7. The Highway Authority seek a 3.5 m wide unobstructed pedestrian route, approval of barrier details and that the outside seating should be observable from inside the premises so that staff can supervise the area as if inside the building. 8. Manx Utility Authority provide technical advice. 9. PH Isie of Man Ltd object; the application is for an area in front of their own ground floor business, restricting their businesses and risking public confusion. Pavement Cafe guidelines as per Douglas Development Partnership confirm that the area must be observable from inside the premises, for supervision purposes, which the applicant on the upper floor could not achieve. The guidelines also confirm that the area must be suitable for disabled/wheeichair-bound patrons, whose needs must be met. La Piazza has no ground floor toilet/washroom and facilities at the adjacent bar are not open at the same time as the restaurant. There Is no indication of how refuse would be dealt with. It is queried whether the applicant has a license for the existing upper floor outside drinking/smoking area. There are no details regarding late night use or how patrons would be dealt with next to the smoking area outside the bar. There is no evidence of an alcohol license with respect to the proposed outside seating, nor how this would be policed should patrons from the upstairs restaurant move to the proposed area. Inspector's Assessment 10. There are here two rival proposals to use the newly created pavement area for outside seating: that subject to this report by Piazza Ltd and that for Pizza Hut on the ground floor, now approved. Each should be determined separately, on its own individual merits, and if both are approved it would be for the parties to resolve the outcome in conjunction with the Highway Authority. There is plainly an element of trade competition behind the submission for PH Isie of Man Ltd (Pizza Hut), not ail of which is material to planning. 11. Assessed on its own merits, this applicant's outside seating area would add vitality and interest to this part of the Promenade, desirably complementing recently undertaken public realm regeneration works. The barrier design is appropriate outside these restaurant premises and sufficient unobstructed passage would remain for passers-by. In these regards the outcome would preserve and in some ways enhance the appearance and commercial character of the Conservation Area. I do, however, have two reservations, the second more serious than the first. 12. Although it is possible to see the seating area from within the restaurant, this does require standing close to the window, or out on the balcony, and deliberately looking down. There would be little by way of natural surveillance. I do not attach a great deal of weight to this; it is mainly an operational issue for the restaurant, but there is a public interest material to planning in the orderly use of outside seating areas. This might be just a little more difficult to ensure here than at the more usual layout of seating directly outside ground floor premises. 13. The second Issue concerns provision for people with disabilities for whom stairs to upper floor lavatories could be an obstacle or complete barrier. This would be evident in advance to anyone contemplating eating upstairs, with the option not to do so but go elsewhere. As an aside, I imply no criticism in this regard, like many restaurants La Piazza simply occupies long standing premises not built or readily adaptable to meet present day accessibility standards. The point is, however, that this would not necessarily be apparent to someone choosing to sit at an outside table. Only later might they suffer discomfort and/or embarrassment on becoming aware of the arrangement. In my view, a planning approval ought not to endorse 2

==== PAGE 3 ====

Cahinet Office References DF14/0022 and DF14/0023 Application Nos 14/OOS2ft/B and 14/0OS29/O Inspector's report this prospect. The applicant refers to facilities in the adjacent bar but I saw that this keeps very different opening times, and in particular was not open during the restaurant's lunch period. 14. In all, on balance I consider that in this instance the planning application should refused. 15. Of itself the advertisement consent sought would be innocuous, simply displaying the restaurant's logo on screens enclosing the seating area, without harm to amenity or public safety. However, if the planning application is refused the applicant would neither own nor have control of the site, and for this reason the advertisement consent should also be declined. Recommendations 16. I recommend that both applications be refused. 17. In the event that the Council of Ministers disagrees and determine to grant approval, then I recommend the following conditions in line with those suggested by the Planning Officer. Planning Application 14/00528/B

1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
2. The seating area shall be limited to the area shown on Drawing Number HLK/14/0118 1 received by the Department on 30*'’ April 2014.
3. No customer shall be sen/ed or remain in the seating area outside the hours of 0900 to
4. The seating, tables, barriers and any other articles required for the seating area shall be removed outside those same hours. Advertisement Application 14/00529/D
5. The advertisement(s) hereby granted consent shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
6. The seating area shall be limited to the area shown on Drawing Number HLK/14/0118 1 received by the Department on 30“’ April 2014. Alan Langton Inspector 3