Loading document...
THIS APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE RATHER THAN UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY AS THE SITE OF CALLOW'S YARD HAS A RELATIVELY LONG PLANNING HISTORY AND APPLICATIONS HAVE, IN GENERAL BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE.
The site defined in red represents Arbory Court - a new building proposed for retail use, rebuilt on the site of the former Arbory Court which was a detached building accessed from Arbory Street and formerly used for offices.
The new building is in the same position as the original but there is a waste processing facility associated with Callow's Yard between the site and Arbory Street, blocking off direct access to the
building and access is now from within Callow's Yard - from the public space between the streets and from the first floor level of the units to the rear of 21, 19 and 17, Malew Street as well as access provided by internal stairs, down into the ground floor of the building which had approval for a commercial kitchen which was to provide cooked food for the outlets within Callow's Yard. The upper floor had permission for retail use and an application had been submitted to turn this into a function room but the application was withdrawn before a decision was taken.
Access to the ground floor is via the front elevation where there are three front doors, two doors on the northern elevation, one door on the rear elevation and one on the southern side which leads to the stores to the rear of 21, Malew Street and into what is presently a bar/lounge which is the subject of PA 10/0334 for a change of use to retail or offices.
From the first floor access is available into the ground floor of the same building and also into the area to the rear of 21, Malew Street which provides toilet facilities and on into the first floor of the bar/lounge which is the subject of PA 10/0334 - see above.
The site lies within an area designated on both the Castletown Local Plan of 1991 and the draft Southern Area Plan which was published on 23rd October, 2009 as Mixed Use reflecting the variety of uses - residential, offices, cafes, bars and retail which exist within the town centre.
The extant local plan contains advice regarding commercial use of premises in Mixed Use areas as follows:
2.12 USE OF THE UPPER FLOORS OF EXISTING RETAIL PREMISES FOR RESIDENTIAL OR OFFICE USE WILL BE ENCOURAGED. THEIR CONVERSION FROM RESIDENTIAL USE TO OFFICE USE WILL HOWEVER BE DISCOURAGED"
3.5 IT IS RECOGNISED THAT THE AVAILABILITY OF SUFFICIENT AREAS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANY SIGNIFICANT NEW OFFICE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE TOWN CENTRE IS LIMITED.
3.7 THE CONVERSION OF UPPER LEVELS TO OFFICE USE IN THE COMMERCIAL AREA OF ARBORY STREET, MALEW STREET AND BANK STREET WILL BE PERMITTED AS WILL THEIR USE AS RESIDENTIAL (SEE ALSO 2.12)
Other relevant policies include 5.4 which states that the introduction of housing into the town itself will be encouraged but will require to be to a suitably high standard of design in line with the Conservation Area policy.
The car parking section suggests that there is limited parking available and that "discretion in the provision and location of parking may therefore need to be exercised" (7.6) and that bearing in mind the Conservation Area status, the policy need not universally be applied. There is specific reference to this site in paragraph 7.19 where it states that "any future development of the area between Arbory Street and Malew Street will be required to incorporate the maximum car parking provision which is feasible in this area but must not prejudice the bowling green, tennis courts and play area".
The section on Conservation Area does not mention this site specifically but refers to the need for a high standard of design, the importance of controlling demolition and replacement buildings.
The draft Area Plan includes the following within the draft Written Statement: "5.6.3 It is considered that future office development within the South may be accommodated primarily by the use of existing buildings. Within the central Mixed Use area this will normally take the form of the upper floors of buildings which are not currently in residential use. However, it should be recognised that an office use can be located on the ground floor of a building where it would present an interesting frontage and would not detract from the overall character and setting of the area." "Business Policy 1: The upper floors of buildings in the mixed use areas of Castletown, Port Erin, Port St Mary and Ballasalla are appropriate for office use as long as this does not result in the loss of residential dwellings. The ground floors of buildings will normally be deemed inappropriate for office development except where it can be shown that such a development would add to the interest of the frontage and the overall vitality and viability of the area."
The re-building of Arbory Court was permitted under PA 06/2208 and the creation of the refuse facility approved under PA 07/0950.
Planning permission was sought for the change of use of the first floor to a function room (PA 09/0612) and the ground floor to the commercial kitchen to serve the rest of Callow's Yard (PA 09/0611). The latter application was permitted and use commenced. The former application was deferred pending consultations regarding potential noise nuisance to those in adjacent residential properties, discussions which were not resolved and the application was withdrawn before a decision was taken.
Proposed now is the conversion of the building to either offices or retail with no external changes to the building.
The occupants of 3, Haven Court seek clarification of the proposal and required parking standards which were provided by e-mail dated 14th April, 2010 (the same day of receipt of the query).
Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division (now Department of Infrastructure) indicate that they do not oppose the application.
The owner of 24, Brewery Wharf objects to the application, stating that parking spaces are in very short supply for the residents of Victoria Road and Brewery Wharf and that the proposed conversion will exacerbate this situation.
The proposal involves the change of use of an approved retail area which had permission to change the ground floor to a function kitchen, to either all retail over both floors, or all offices. The change to retail is little different in terms of usage, generation of pedestrian traffic and times of operation - the former use being commercial on the upper floor. The change to offices is slightly different in that this will generate activity which is presently not already within the complex. This in turn will have impacts on the demand for parking and the potential support for local shops and services through the greater presence of people in the town centre for longer periods of time. However, it should be remembered that the former use of the site, the original Arbory Court, was a building used for offices.
The Strategic Plan sets out the parking requirements for all types of land use and in respect of retail in town centres, requires that parking provision is made for servicing. In respect of offices, the requirement is for one space per 50 sq. m nett of floor space. Provision is made for flexibility to be applied to these standards where it states: "These standards may be relaxed where development: a) would secure the re-use of a Registered Building or a building of architectural or historic interest; or b) would result in the preservation of a sensitive streetscape, or c) is otherwise of benefit to the character of a Conservation Area d) is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality" (A.7.6).
When the original scheme for Callow's Yard was approved (PA 05/1539), which did not include this part of the site, the decision was taken, supported by both the planning authority and the Highways Authority (then the Department of Transport) that to provide car parking within the site would result in vehicle movements in areas which are predominantly used by pedestrians and that the shopping environment would not be enhanced by vehicles coming in and out of the site. As such, the scheme was approved with no on-site parking provided. The issue of providing designated parking spaces outside of the site was discussed but it was felt that reserving spaces for users or residents within the scheme would be reducing the amount of spaces available for other users of the town centre and that as the site is close to the public transport route, it was not necessarily the case that all customers, residents and staff would be coming by car to the site in any case and that spaces may be being reserved for no purpose. Whilst the Inspector recommended that there should be parking provision made off site, the Minister considering the Inspector's recommendation did not agree and approved the application with no parking provision on or off-site.
The application proposes the change of use of the function kitchen and retail space above, to either all retail or all offices. The car parking requirement for all retail would be the same as it was for the approved retail and there is no parking standard for a function kitchen. As such, it is unlikely that the proposed use for retail would generate more traffic and a demand for more parking spaces than was the case with the approved uses.
The office use is slightly different in that there is a specific parking requirement for this use and this is for permanent spaces to be provided at a ratio of one space per 50 sq m nett of office floor space in this case approximately 220 sq. m . There is no opportunity for the provision of this space on site and this takes us back to whether the planning authority should be asking for existing parking spaces to be reserved for users of the offices and the same arguments as are set out in the paragraph above would be made. There is also the point that there has previously been concern expressed in previous planning applications, that the scheme contained too many cafés/food establishments and as the units in question are already there, the office use could provide a better use, accommodating people
who will be in the town centre and will use the existing shops and services, to boost the town's economy.
There is also an argument that office use will result in a demand for parking spaces which will further reduce the amount of spaces available for shoppers and those living in the town and it is a balance between this concern, and the benefit, if there is one, of office use, as set out in the preceding paragraph. There is also the proviso that the site is within the town centre and close to public transport. Office workers coming to the town by car are likely to require longer stay parking spaces which should not conflict with the shorter-term spaces required and which are provided for shoppers who only stay in the town for a few hours at a time. Within the town centre, there are generally spaces available on Bridge Street, (4 at the time of the site visit - 2/40 pm on Thursday 15th April, 2010), a small number within the School House car park, very few, if any within the car park alongside the fire station on Farrant's Way, (most of these spaces are reserved) but almost all of the pay and display car park on Farrant's Way was available for use. This is typical of the spaces available at any time during the week in the town centre.
The critical issue is whether the new uses will result in such a new demand for parking spaces that other users of the town centre will be disadvantaged. It should be remembered that the application relates to existing floor space which would have generated a demand for parking in some shape or form.
In summary, the proposed use of the function kitchen to retail is considered acceptable as it would have little impact in terms of parking demand, and the retail use is compatible with the shops around it and the designation of the area as Mixed Use.
The use for offices will create a demand for parking spaces over and above those required for the retail space and for a longer period. However, there is a pay and display car park which is almost always available to satisfy the demand for this parking. The Strategic Plan makes provision for the relaxation of parking standards in town centres close to public transport networks and the environment which Callow's Yard has sought to create is pedestrian-friendly with an absence of vehicles. The use of all of the building for offices or retail will be in accordance with the provisions of the draft Southern Area Plan and is recommended for approval. It is relevant that neither the highway authority nor the local authority object to the application.
The local authority is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.
The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.
The owners of 3, Haven Court in Derbyhaven and 24, Brewery Wharf are not directly affected by the proposal and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 19.04.2010 19 April 2010 10/00336/C
C 1. The use must be taken up within four years of the date of this notice in order for this approval to remain valid after that time.
C 2. This permission relates to the use of the building as either retail or offices as shown in drawings PA612/01, PA612/02, PA612/03, PA612/03A, PA612/04 and P612/04A all received on 11th March, 2010.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Authority in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Decision Made : Authority Meeting Date :
Signed : Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Authority an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown