226791

==== PAGE 1 ====

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Application No.: Applicant: Proposal: 14/00463/B Heron & Brearley Ltd Conversion of existing retail shop into an extension of adjacent Bridge Inn public house, including replacement front tiles 1 Quines Corner Douglas Isle Of Man IMl 4LF Site Address: Case Officer: Photo Taken ; Site Visit: Expected Decision Level : Mr Edward Baker 31.07.2013 Officer Delegation Officer's Report THE APPLICATION SITE The appiication site is No. 1 Quine's Corner, Douglas. The site comprises an empty shop situated on the corner of Quine's Comer and the North Quay. It has previously been used as a sweet shop. 1. Above the shop are residential flats. Next to the site is the Bridge Inn public house. 2. The site is within the Douglas North Quay Consen/ation Area. 3. THE PROPOSAL The application seeks planning approval for a change of use of the premises to provide additional floor space for the Bridge Inn immediately next door; as well as the re-cladding of the miniature tiled plinth. The proposed floor plan shows a doorway knocked through the existing shared wall to provide access through to the public house. 4. 5. The appiication relates to the ground floor only. The application follows the withdrawal of an application for the same proposal in 2013 (13/00806/C). The new application differs from the previous scheme in that an acoustic report is provided. 6. PLANNING HISTORY The following planning history is relevant: 7. 13/00807/D - advertisement consent granted in 2013 for the associated signage. 13/00806/C - application withdrawn in January 2014 for a change of use of retail shop into an extension of adjacent Bridge Inn public house. PLANNING POUCY 1 July 2014 14/00463/B Page 1 of 6

==== PAGE 2 ====

The Douglas Local Plan 1998 identifies the site and immediate surroundings as being 8. in mixed use. 9. General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 is relevant: 'Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; does not affect adversely public views of the sea; incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and (e) (f) (g) (h) manoeuvring space; does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local (0 highways; can be provided with all necessary services; does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption.' 0) (k) (I) (n) Environment Policy 22: 'Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of: i) pollution of sea, surface water or groundwater; ii) emissions of airborne pollutants; and iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution.' Environment Policy 35: 'Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development.' REPRESENTATIONS 10. Douglas Borough Council - no objection. 11. Highways Service - no objection. IJuly 2014 14/00463/B Page 2 of 6

==== PAGE 3 ====

12. Environmental Health Officer, DEFA - objection: 1 have had a quick look at reports, sound insulation test provided same result 49 dB DnTw so there is no argument that there is good sound insulation between the proposed public house extension and residential fiat above and proposed detail is likely to increase sound insulation of the floor. However, I would point out the following: The acceptability criteria referred to is NR Curves and whilst noise from a typical restaurant may not exceed NR 30, no account is taken of the low background noise levels in the residential flat which has been measured as low as 20 dB LA90 which means noise from rowdy behaviour or amplified music below is likely to be clearly audible in the flat above. This would represent a detrimental change in the character of the flat above in respect of their right to the quiet enjoyment their premises, as the Planning Authority would in granting permission change this character.

No detail is provided on the potential from flanking transmission of noise via open windows, doors or through or by mechanical ventilation system within proposed extension to The Bridge Public House. 2. No detail is provided on the potential noise transmission from The Bridge Public House during licensed loud amplified public entertainment events as the existing ~4ft brick wall is proposed to be knocked through providing a doorway and thereby direct noise b'ansmission pathway. Noise levels at such an event could easily exceed 100 dB(A). 3. My advice remains the same that this is likely to represent a detrimental reduction in amenity of local residents who currently enjoy quiet enjoyment of their premises and are likely to subsequently be subject to occasional annoyance due to rowdy behaviour and loud amplified music, possibly also mechanical ventilation noise. Often the annoyance is not just when the noise nuisance is occurring but it is in the unpredictability of the noise nuisance, not knowing when it will occur again and that it is likely to occur at unsociable hours. If planning permission is granted any complaint of alleged noise nuisance will have to be considered based on the change in character of the area where the residents are living directly above a public house extension and benefit from the statutory defence of 'best practicable means'. Also the applicant is advised to consider that by putting a door way through the ~4ft wall, negating the probably fantastic sound insulation that you would not likely achieve from current construction details without specialist design, this may put at risk the public entertainment licence for The Bridge Public House if loud amplified music events subsequently cause noise nuisance.' ASSESSMENT Whether the proposed use of the premises as an extension to the public house is acceptable in principle The proposal will provide additional floor space for the Bridge Inn next door. The area is zoned for mixed use and is a vibrant part of the North Quay which includes a range of shops, drinking establishments and restaurants. The proposal would support the economy and raises no strategic concerns. 13. The effect of the proposal upon the amenities of adjacent residents It is considered that the main issue for the application is the effect of the proposed use on the amenity of residents of the flats above the premises. It was because of this 14. ljuly 2014 14/00463/B Page 3 of 6

==== PAGE 4 ====

concern that the previous application was withdrawn. The new application is now accompanied by an acoustic report and this has been scrutinised by the Environmental Health Officer at DEFA. The Environmental Health Officer has provided detailed comments on the application (as provided above). They are critical of the acoustic report provided with the planning application because: 15. (i) No account is taken of the low background noise levels in the residential flat, which means that noise from rowdy behaviour or amplified music below is likely to be clearly audible in the flat above; No detail is provided on the potential from flanking transmission of noise via open windows, doors or through or by mechanical ventilation system within proposed extension to The Bridge Public House; and (ii) (iii) No detail is provided on the potential noise transmission from The Bridge Public House during licensed loud amplified public entertainment events as the existing ~4ft brick wall is proposed to be knocked through providing a doorway and thereby direct noise transmission pathway. Noise levels at such an event could easily exceed 100 dB(A), 16. The Environmental Health Officer advises that: '[The proposal is]... likely to represent a detrimental reduction in amenity of local residents who currently enjoy quiet enjoyment of their premises and are likely to subsequently be subject to occasional annoyance due to rowdy behaviour and loud amplified music, possibly also mechanical ventilation noise. Often the annoyance is not just when the noise nuisance is occurring but it is in the unpredictability of the noise nuisance, not knowing when it will occur again and that it is likely to occur at unsociable hours. If planning permission is granted any complaint of alleged noise nuisance will have to be considered based on the change in character of the area where the residents are living directly above a public house extension and benefit from the statutory defence of 'best practicable means'. Having regard to the comments of the Environmental Health Officer, it is considered that the proposed extension of the public house into the premises would give rise to a harmful and unacceptable impact on the living conditions of the fiats above. This situation would be highly appropriate and harmful to people’s lives. The proposal fails to accord with General Policy 2 and Environmental Policy 22 of the Strategic Plan and should be refused. 17. The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area The only external changes are the retiling of the plinth, which would probably smarten the appearance of the shop front. It is considered that the character and appearance of the area would be preserved. 18. Parking provision The site is located in a central location and is part of the town centre. It has good access to public transport and car parks. The proposed use would unlikely result in a significant increase in parking demand over and above the previous use. There is no objection to the application from the Highways Service and the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of its impact on parking. 19. RECOMMENDATION 20. It is recommended that the application is refused. 1 July 2014 14/00463/B Page 4 of 6

==== PAGE 5 ====

PARTY STATUS 21. The following parties should be afforded interested person status: The local authority, Douglas Borough Council is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2013, paragraph 6 (4) (e), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status. The Highways Service is granted interested party status under the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2013 paragraph 6 (4) d. Environmental Health Officer, DEFA - raises material planning considerations Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 01.07.2014 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal 0 : Notes attached to refusals R 1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the extension of the public house into the premises would not give rise to noise, vibration and environmental conflict with the residential flats above. In particular; No account is taken of the low background noise levels in the residential flat, which means that noise from rowdy behaviour or amplified music below is likely to be clearly audible in the flat above; (i) No detail is provided on the potential from flanking transmission of noise via open windows, doors or through or by mechanical ventilation system within proposed extension to The Bridge Pubiic House; and (ii) (iii) No detail is provided on the potential noise transmission from The Bridge Public House during licensed loud amplified public entertainment events as the existing ~4ft brick wall is proposed to be knocked through providing a doorway and thereby direct noise transmission pathway. Noise levels at such an event could easily exceed 100 dB(A). The proposal is likely to result in a detrimental reduction in amenity of local residents who currently enjoy quiet enjoyment of their properties and are likely to subsequently be subject to occasional annoyance due to rowdy behaviour and loud amplified music, possibly also mechanical ventilation noise, Often the annoyance is not just when the noise nuisance is Page 5 of 6 lJuly 2014 14/00463/B

==== PAGE 6 ====

occurring but it is in the unpredictabiiity of the noise nuisance, not knowing when it wili occur again and that it is iikeiy to occur at unsociabie hours. The proposai faiis to accord with criterion (g) of Generai Poiicy 2 and Environment Poiicy 22 of the Isie of Man Startegic Pian 2007 and is unacceptable. I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control /Head of Development Management/ Senior Planning Officer. Decision Made: Refused Date : Determining officer (delete as appropriate) Signed :... Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer Signed :... Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer Signed :... Jennifer Chance Director of Planning and Building Control Head of Development Management Signed : Michael Gallagher 1 July 2014 14/00463/B Page 6 of 6