Loading document...
one that had been established over time and probably began prior to planning legislation. It is clear from objectors comments that the level of vehicular activity related to that activity was low. Office uses tend to require a relatively high level of parking where occupants park for the entire day. The area has a very limited amount of on-street parking and demand for this is high. It is felt that whilst any use could generate parking, the proposed use, in addition to that of the ground floor would intensify the use of the building to such an extent that it would be detrimental to the amenities of residents.
6.7 The introduction of an office use to the building is likely to increase the potential for impacts on the privacy of those in the Berkeley Street properties which back onto the site as the office use is likely to involve more people being within the building for longer periods of time and indeed one of the windows which looks towards these properties is a staff kitchen window alongside a sink. If the proposed use is considered acceptable, a condition should be attached to require that this window is fitted with glass obscured to Pilkington level 5 or equivalent and retained as such unless otherwise authorised by the Planning Authority.
6.8 In summary, whilst the building may not be being used for its full potential, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed use is the only or is an acceptable use of part of this building, due to the potential impacts on the surrounding area and occupants thereof from traffic generation and the need for car parking. The area is designated as residential and as such the existing and proposed uses are considered to be non-conforming and it is important that whatever the building is used for is compatible with this and it has not been demonstrated in this application that the proposed use will be. Trying to find a use for buildings such as these, without a proper frontage and with limited parking and close to existing other residential properties can be difficult and emphasises the number of environmental constraints involved in applications such as this.
7.1 The local authority, Douglas Corporation is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
7.2 The Highway Authority is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the Planning Authority is part. As such, the Highway Authority cannot be afforded party status in this case.
7.3 The residents of 3, 6, 13, 15, Berkeley Street, 53, Woodbourne Road are all either close to the site or likely to be affected by car parking and traffic issues and as such should be afforded party status in this case.
7.4 Mr. Corkish MLC is not directly affected by the proposal and should not be afforded party status in this case.
Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 15.04.2013 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1. The proposal would introduce an additional, separate and different use into the application building, thus increasing the amount of comings and goings - pedestrian and vehicular - in a residential area where on-street parking is in great demand and for which demand frequently exceeds supply. The office use is likely to result in greater and longer periods of occupation of the building which will result in an exacerbation of the existing car parking difficulties experienced by residents in the locality and as such the proposed use is considered to be unneighbourly and unacceptable.
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 Officer to delete as appropriate YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown