Loading document...
Government Railly: Ellen Vannin
Cornerstone Architects 79 Parliament Street Ramsey Isle of Man IM8 1AQ
In pursuance of powers granted under the above Act and Order, the Department of Infrastructure determined to REFUSE planning application by Mr Roy Tilleard, ref 13/00797/B, for the conversion of houses 1-6, Callow's Yard and cottages 1-3, Callow's Yard to 18 apartments, conversion of 8 apartments over 10,12,14,16,18 and 20 Arbory Street Castletown into 18 apartments and conversion of the Function Room at the rear of 28 Arbory Street into 5 apartments and an office at Callow's Yard Arbory Street Castletown Isle of Man for the following reason:
Date of Issue: 1st October 2013
Director of Planning and Building Control
This decision was made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority delegated to it.
Any appeal against this decision must be in writing and must be received by this Department within 21 days of the date of this notice.
An appeal form and guidance notes are available from either the Planning Office, Tel 685950, or to download from the Department's website
http://www.gov.im/categories/planning-and-building-control/planning-development-control/planning-decisions-and-powers-of-appeal/
Please note that a copy of the Officer's report which led to the decision (copy enclosed), together with correspondence relative to the application, are available for inspection at the Department.
If no appeal is lodged within 21 days of the date of issue overleaf, and this decision becomes final, the Department's public reference copy (counter copy) of the planning application may be collected by the applicant or their agent from Murray House.
Please note that if the counter copy of the application is not collected within THIRTY DAYS following the last date on which a planning appeal can be made it will be destroyed without further notice.
Department of Infrastructure, Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2SFTel (01624 685950) email; [email protected]
13/00797/B
| Application No. : | 13 / 00797 / B | | :-- | :-- | | Applicant : | Mr Roy Tilleard | | Proposal : | Conversion of houses 1-6, Callow's Yard and cottages 1-3, | | | Callow's Yard to 18 apartments, conversion of 8 apartments | | | over 10,12,14,16,18 and 20 Arbory Street Castletown into 18 | | | apartments and conversion of the Function Room at the rear of | | | 28 Arbory Street into 5 apartments and an office | | Site Address : | Callow's Yard | | | Arbory Street | | | Castletown | | | Isle Of Man |
Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE NUMBER OF OBJECTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE
1.1 The site is the curtilage of what has become known as Callow's Yard; a mixed use development of dwellings, offices, catering and retail uses within an area which has been redeveloped through the conversion and replacement of existing fabric. The scheme emerged in 2002 for the development of the land between Malew Street and Arbory Street and after a number of schemes were submitted, the development which forms the basis of the existing facilities was approved under PA 05/01539 which was approved on appeal, following approval by the Planning Committee but a recommendation by the reporting Inspector for refusal on the basis of inadequate parking. 1.2 Since that original approval, the site has been the subject of expansion into some of the units surrounding the original site, and various applications for changes of use of the units to and from retail, offices, residential accommodation, a function room and associated facilities.
2.1 Proposed now is the conversion of the housing units on the inside of the complex (houses 1-6 and cottages 1-3, Callow's Yard) and the apartments above numbers 10 to 18 Arbory Street which are retail and catering premises on the ground floors with apartments in the floors above, to a greater number of units but retaining the same number of bedrooms. 2.2 The houses and cottages in the middle of the two streets will be changed from terraces of single dwellings to having an apartment on each floor - a total of eighteen single bedroom apartments in place of nine dwellings. 2.3 The apartments above 10-18, Arbory Street will change from eight apartments some of which are spread over two or three floors, to sixteen single bed apartments and an office space above the cafe will change to a further single bedroomed apartment. The two storey houses within the courtyard in the two streets will change from nine semi-detached and terraced two
bedroomed properties to eighteen single bedroomed units. Also proposed is the conversion of a former function room with retail unit above, which is situated to the rear of the communal refuse facility and alongside two of the terraced houses, to a single unit with office to the rear on the ground floor and four single bedroomed apartments above. The upper floor of this building is served by rooflights and dormer windows.
3.1The site lies within an area of Mixed Use on the Southern Area Plan. Mixed Use Proposal 4 of the Plan states: "The upper floors of buildings in the Mixed Use areas of Castletown Port Erin, Port St. Mary and Ballasalla may be appropriate for office use although there will be a presumption in favour of the retention of the existing residential uses subject to the circumstances and merits of any alternative uses". The desire to promote a mixture of uses in town and village centres is also promoted (paragraphs 6.6.1, 6.6.2 and 6.6.3).
3.3 As the proposed use complies with the provisions of the relevant development plan, the provisions of General Policy 2 are applicable as follows: "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: 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; g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; i) does not have an adverse effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways." 3.4 Environment Policy 35 is also applicable here: "Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character of appearance of the area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development." 3.5 The creation of apartments is the subject of Housing Policy 17 which states: "The conversion of buildings into flats will 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 clear 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." 3.6 Car parking is required to be provided at a ratio of one space per bedroom for apartments, two spaces per residential unit otherwise. Appendix Seven of the Strategic Plan 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." 3.7 The Appendix includes the following: "A.7.1 High levels of car ownership have led to an increase in the level of parking expected for new residential development, and outside of town centre locations these standards should not be relaxed. New-built residential development should be provided with two parking spaces per dwelling, at least one of which should be within the curtilage of the dwelling and behind the front of the dwelling, although the amount and location of parking will vary in respect of development such as terracing, apartments, and sheltered housing. In the case of town centre and previously developed sites, the Department will consider reducing this requirement having regard to: (a) the location of the housing relative to public transport, employment, and public amenities; (b) the size of the dwelling; (c) any restriction on the nature of the occupancy (such as sheltered housing); and (d) the impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area."
4.1 Planning permission was granted for the creation of the mixed use redevelopment scheme firstly under PA 05/01539/B. This included provision for the upper floors of the retail space as residential units and retail/food and drink outlets. Over time, various applications have been submitted for this site including ones to change the use of some of the residential areas to office use (PA 10/00334 and 09/001536). 4.2 When the original application was considered, the main area of concern was car parking with objections and concerns raised by local residents. The then Department of Transport Highways Division required that off street parking be provided by way of an arrangement on the basis of a residents' parking permit system with Castletown Commissioners somewhere in the vicinity of the site. Castletown Commissioners raised no objection to the application, considering it "vital for the regeneration and viability of the town centre". 4.3 The Inspector considering the application was of the view that there was only one issue to be considered and that was car parking on the basis of whether the vehicles owned by the residents of the proposed development may be adequately parked within reasonable distance of the development, and if not, whether the conservation and regeneration attributes of the proposal are such that it should proceed nevertheless" (paragraph 64). He concluded that without any firm evidence of parking space usage and availability of spaces, there was no justifiable reason for completely setting aside the parking requirements for the scheme. 4.4 The Minister however considered that "the disadvantages arising from the absence of parking provision are not so great as to outweigh the undoubted advantages of the proposal and that the expeditious progress of this scheme should not be jeopardised by the obvious difficulty of securing a satisfactory arrangement for off-site parking provision" and approved the application, recommending that the Department of Transport and Castletown Commissioners continue their investigation and formulation of proposals for resolving the long term problems of parking in the Town. 4.5 Department of Infrastructure commissioned a parking and public transport study in April, 2012 for Castletown. This found that in the longer term future, whilst the number of spaces available may well exceed that required or demanded, work needs to be done to better control parking within the Town, consideration of the introduction of paying for parking, making residents' parking permits apply to specific areas of the Town closer to their areas of residence and improvement of enforcement of parking restrictions. These responsibilities largely fall with Department of Infrastructure and Castletown Commissioners
4.6 Planning permission has recently been granted for the conversion of office accommodation within the complex, mainly above the Malew Street retail units, to apartments (PA 13/00251).
5.1 Architectural Liaison Officer objects to the application on the basis of the concentration of single bedroomed units, the lack of a mixture of house types and occupants and resultant concerns for policing the area and suggests that this would have "an inexorable negative impact upon the demographic makeup of the site's residents" and would be an over-intensive use of the site. He comments that single bedroomed units tend to attract younger, single, male occupants who have a tendency not to engage positively with their neighbours, cause noise nuisance to neighbouring properties and display anti-social behaviour towards neighbours, whether this be intentional or not. He suggests that there is a real risk of this becoming a bed sit community with poor levels of social cohesion with associated levels of complaints and antisocial behaviour. This may in turn make it difficult to let other units - residential or retail and may make the other residential units unattractive to anyone other than the younger, male, single potential occupant. He is not aware of such a large concentration of single bedroomed units elsewhere on the Island. The nearest comparison would be areas where former boarding houses have been converted to apartments and experience shows that these properties are frequently the locus of neighbour disputes and complaints of anti-social behaviour due in part of their poor levels of social cohesion and lack of a sense of community. 5.2 The occupant of 4, The Promenade, Castletown objects to the application on the basis that the function room is still widely needed in the town and that there is inadequate car parking for the existing development, never mind additional units. 5.3 The occupant of 36, Arbory Street, Castletown objects to the application on the basis that parking is already inadequate and the proposed works would make the situation worse. She considers that apartments are not needed. 5.4 The occupants of The Malt House on Bridge Street, Castletown object to the application on the basis that the works will turn the existing complex into "some sort of Dickensian warren without parking" and the town centre will continue to be "blighted by unsuccessful development". They consider that the solution to the issues at the site are to reduce the rents and prices until they are occupied or sold rather than to continue to change the use and intensity. Increasing the density of occupation will increase parking difficulties in the area. 5.5 Castletown Heritage object to the application on the basis that the concentration of single bed units in the centre of town is too high and "against the ethos of the Conservation Area". They are also concerned at the lack of parking which will put pressure on the narrow streets and already limited parking available there. They feel that shops should be reinstated in the units to promote the viability of the town and are concerned at the absence of the link between Malew and Arbory Streets which was an initial core concept of the scheme which led to its approval. There is also a lack of play facilities for any children who may occupy these units. 5.6 The owners of 45, Arbory Street object to the application on the basis of inadequate parking and the decrease in highway safety for users of the town's streets. The additional parking spaces required to serve the proposed units could result in spaces not being available for shoppers and thus could adversely affect the vitality and viability of the scheme. 5.7 The owner of 5, Knock Rushen objects to the application on the basis of inadequate parking and increase in the amount of traffic which will have a detrimental impact on highway safety. Also he is concerned that the ratio of housing to commercial outlets will be skewed such that this will adversely affect the viability of the town from a commercial perspective. The opening of the link between Malew Street and Arbory Street would help the attractiveness of the commercial units from a shopper's as well as a resident's perspective.
5.8 The owner of 47, Arbory Street object to the application on the basis of inadequate car parking and the resultant impact on surrounding streets. 5.9 Castletown Commissioners share the concerns of the Architectural Liaison Officer in respect of the implications for lack of parking, over-intensive use of the site, the potential social impact from having so many single bed units in this location. They also believe that had the original application for the creation of Callow's Yard included this amount of housing then it may well not have been approved. 5.10 Mr. Ronan MHK objects to the application of the lack of practical car parking available to the site and also that the conversion of the approved residential units all to single bed units will not be sustainable as the site will not be able to accommodate the changing needs of the occupants over time - for example if any of the occupants started a family, the site is no longer suitable for families, nor would the units be suitable for conversion to suit. He also considers that the scheme would not result in the sort of quality accommodation or tourist accommodation which the town requires and deserves and that the social impacts of having so many single bed units concentrated in one area in the centre of town, placing very different types of occupant ion close proximity to each other - elderly persons close to younger people could result in noise and behavioural issues. 5.11 The owner of 35, Malew Street objects to the application on the basis that the "ever increasing traffic congestion" will be exacerbated by the proposal, particularly the junction of Bank Street and Malew Street. 5.12 The owners of 38, Arbory Street object to the application on the basis that there is no parking provided, the amount of bins which will be required will exacerbate an existing problem when the bins are put out onto the street for emptying, creating an access problem for other users of the street. There are already enough apartments available for rent. The size of the units and their number will result in a significant concentration of people in the area which is uncharacteristic of the town and the resulting issue of potential noise nuisance may be detrimental to other residents in the area. They believe that the function room should be retained to provide additional commercial or complementary facilities in the town. 5.13 The owners of 40, Arbory Street object on the basis that there is no parking provided for the occupants of the units, more commercial premises should be encouraged to promote the viability of the scheme rather than yet more residences and note that there is already plenty of rentable properties in the town. 5.14 Department of Social Care recommend that as 24 new permanent dwellings are to be created, provision should be made for affordable housing (ie 6 units). They recommend that on the basis of the nature of the properties, a commuted sum towards more appropriately designed dwellings may be appropriate rather than the provision of the units within the existing development. 5.15 Manx Electricity Authority seek consultation regarding the provision of electricity supplies to the site. 5.16 Highways Division consider that there will not be an adverse traffic impact from the proposed development as the requirement for parking spaces resulting from the proposed use of the units is marginally less than that which is required to serve the existing number of units. 5.17 Inspector Bibby from the Southern Neighbourhood Police unit based in Port Erin supports the views of the Architectural Liaison Officer and is concerned that approval of this application could lead to further increases in density from further changes of use to more, smaller residential units. He queries that the units would not end up being let to those on social care support and refers to a suggestion made to him from the applicant to reduce the number of
conversions by three (ie six proposed units would remain as three apartments) and comments that whilst this would help but would still leave 30 units available for single bed usage. He comments that if the current units were let with 108 persons, they would include families and couples which would have the impact of a reduction in car ownership and use compared with an occupancy on the basis of single units. They refer to current housing lists and note that there are 6 couples on the list and 41 individuals waiting for single occupancy housing so it is very likely that the units will be occupied as single person occupancy. He considers that as such, it is likely that the area will become a "bed sit" community with poor levels of social cohesion and could then adversely impact on the company's ability to market and rent out the remaining units. For example, it is unlikely that the complex as proposed would remain attractive to families and couples. He fully accepts that many of his concerns are based upon hypothesis of what may happen but bases this on almost twenty years of community policing and on the basis that areas like this have been the subject of complaints, neighbour disputes, anti-social behaviour which draw upon police resources and other public sectors and of course cause local difficulties. 5.18 The applicant has had the opportunity to respond in writing to the comments which have been raised and put forward the following points in support of the application. They confirm that their primary objective is to ensure that the units are occupied and particularly that the space above the commercial units are occupied and suggest that they are "converted to offer much needed quality residential accommodation in Castletown". Indeed they refer to the Castletown Local Plan policy 5.4 which states "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". It also states, "Within the historic town, the conversion of suitable buildings to residential use will be encouraged as will the use of upper floors as apartments. It is felt that this policy will encourage the maintenance and repair of upper levels which might otherwise deteriorate due to lack of use" (policy 5.9). Of course the local plan of 1991 has been superseded by the Southern Area Plan of 2013. 5.19 They go on to clarify the nature of the occupancy of the existing units, which include DSC individuals, fathers and sons, retired couple, family units and staff. They point out that 9 of the 14 two bed units are occupied by single people and a further seven single bed units are occupied accordingly, illustrating that the majority of occupants seek single bed units. Currently, of the 28 units available, nine are occupied by one or more DSC supported individuals. they consider that this supports the need for single bed units as proposed in this application. 5.20 They do not consider that there will be an issue in respect of parking as the parking requirement is no less being satisfied than it would be in the current occupancy situation. They refer to the findings of the Castletown Parking Survey which does not conclude that there is a parking issue in relation to the number of spaces at the present time. They reject reference to the term "bedsit" and suggest that they would be within a category of houses in multiple occupation which is not what is proposed here. They ask whether the police are an interested party to the application. 5.21 To clarify the last point, the police are part of the Department of Home Affairs which is a statutory authority. They raise issues which are accepted as material planning considerations and as such should be afforded party status in this case (see below).
6.1 The proposal will not result in any significant external change to the buildings and the proposal is to change the accommodation from one form of residential use to another. As such, the policies in the local plan are of limited use as they simply refer to the acceptability of residential use in the town centre and the issue here is the size and nature of the accommodation and the number of units which would result. The critical considerations in this case are therefore whether the resultant mix of unit types and the number of units would have
an adverse impact on the operation of the town centre as a place to live and work and where people come to shop and enjoy the historic environment and also whether there is an impact on highway safety and traffic. 6.2 Currently the layout accommodates a number of different unit types - from nine terraced dwellings, to a variety of single, two, three and four bed apartments, some spread over more than one floor. This can, and does as has been indicated by the applicant, accommodate a range of users, including couples, families and father and son/mother and daughter couples. If the proposal were to be approved, this would change to all single bed units and the vast majority accommodating only one person. The information provided by the applicant not only indicates that the current units provide a range of accommodation but also that all but one unit is occupied ( a two bed unit). 6.3 At the time of writing, advertised for sale with local estate agents (Chrystals, Cowley Groves, Propertywise, Harmony Homes, Black Grace Cowley, ManxMove) there are available to rent 7 one bed apartments, 14 two bed apartments, 1 three bed apartment, 6 two bed houses, 10 three bed houses, 3 four bed houses and two with more than four bedrooms all in Castletown. As such, there are more two bed apartments for rent but there are available single bed units within the town. Clearly the attractiveness of particular units relate to a number of things - the rental price, location, age, furnishings and it is not to say that all single or two bed apartments are directly comparable with any other. 6.4 The views of the local police officer and the Architectural Liaison Officer are material considerations, particularly in respect of the implications from previous experience of having a large number of small units in such close proximity. It is relevant to consider whether what is proposed would affect the operation of the town as a place to live as well as a place where visitors come at all times of day and night, to shop, eat out and go for a drink. To have such a large number of single bed units may end up creating an environment where non-residents do not feel comfortable, regardless of whether there is any anti-social behaviour or nuisance on the basis that the area is occupied by a large number of similar types of people, rather than a mix. It is relevant that the complex was originally designed as a focus for the town, where people would be encouraged to filter through the site from Arbory Street to Malew Street and with a central area where events could be held or people could sit and relax. It is unlikely that this would happen if the number of units were increased as proposed or perhaps that the congregation of a large number of young people in the one place, out of the public gaze, would be a cause of concern for the police and for the occupiers of commercial property in and around the complex. This is speculative but the views of the police, which are based upon experience elsewhere on the Island, should not be disregarded in this respect. 6.5 It is therefore considered that the increase in units and them all being single bed units will result in a change to the character of the site, to the detriment of the interest and attractiveness of the complex to shoppers and visitors and which would thus be to the detriment of the town as a whole. This would be relevant in any town centre but is of particular concern here as the town is of considerable historical interest, reflected in its Conservation Area status. 6.6 The highway authority has recommended that the proposal will not result in an adverse traffic impact. In mathematical terms, there will not be any greater demand for parking as a result of the change in unit type and the number of apartments. It could also be argued that those people who elect to occupy a single bed unit, perhaps on the basis of cost, are less likely to have a private vehicle available to them and as such the change in apartment type could result in a decrease in demand for car parking space. It is difficult to support a refusal of the application on the basis of the impact on car parking on this basis. 6.7 The applicant has indicated to the Southern Community Police Officer that they are willing to retain three of the dwellings in the courtyard as two storey dwellings and the Committee
should consider whether this change would result in the scheme becoming acceptable. It should be noted that within the courtyard area there are nine two storey cottages and the proposed amendment would still result in six of these being converted to twelve single bed apartments. It is considered that this ratio is likely to result in the three remaining cottages being unattractive to potential tenants as they would be effectively surrounded by single bed units. As such, it is not considered that this would overcome the concerns raised above. 6.8 The Government Strategic Objectives include under "Social", "to promote high standards of residential amenity in new development and to provide a physically safe environment for all communities" and "to promote community safety and security within new development, regeneration and refurbishment by encouraging the adoption of the principles of "Designing Out Crime", included within the Strategic Plan (Chapter 3). The advice from the Architectural Liaison Officer is such that this scheme has the potential to give rise to anti-social behaviour. As such, the proposal is considered to be contrary to this Social Strategic Objective, as well as General Policy 2 b, c and g and would not preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area in which the site lies. 6.9 The present economic climate is difficult and the residential property market is currently slower than it probably was when the scheme was initially considered. The whole Callow's Yard scheme has changed substantially since its original approval, to the extent that it is on the verge of losing some of the characteristics which resulted in its approval initially - the inclusion of a function suite, a mix of houses and apartments and a range of shops. The approvals which have been granted have tried to accommodate these changes in order to maintain the scheme as a viable investment such that the shops and commercial units will be attractive to occupiers but the high turnover of tenants and the number of unoccupied units would appear to suggest that this has not been as successful as was hoped. However, the Planning Committee's objective should not be to try to have the units occupied by anyone at any cost and they should remain committed to preserving the character of the scheme and the town as a whole. It is considered that this change, even with the retention of three of the central units as houses, would achieve this and the application is recommended for refusal.
PARTY STATUS 7.1 The local authority, Castletown Commissioners are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status. 7.2 Architectural Liaison Officer, Southern Community Police Officer and Department of Social Care represent a statutory authority raising material planning considerations and as such should be afforded party status in this case. 7.3 The residents of the following properties are considered close enough to the site to be directly affected by the proposal (predominantly by the impact of there not being any parking provided) and as such are recommended as having party status in this case:
35, Malew Street 36, Arbory Street 38, Arbory Street 40, Arbory Street 45, Arbory Street 47, Arbory Street 7.4 The residents of the following properties are not considered to be close enough to the application site to be directly affected by the proposal and as such they should not be afforded party status in this case:
4, The Promenade, Castletown
The Malt House on Bridge Street, Castletown 5, Knock Rushen 7.5 The following parties are not directly affected by the proposal and as such should not be afforded party status:
Castletown Heritage Mr. Ronan MHK 7.6 Manx Electricity Authority does not raise material planning considerations and as such should not be afforded party status in this case. 7.7 Highways Division is part of the Department of Infrastructure and as such should not be afforded party status in this case.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of 18.09.2013
Recommendation:
R 1 . The conversion of so many of the apartments and dwellings to single bedroomed apartments added to the change of use of the function room, would result in a concentration of such accommodation that would change the character of the complex, to the detriment of its interest and function. It is likely to become less attractive as a place for different types of occupier and as a place for non-residents to visit, particularly in the evening. As such, it would have a detrimental impact on other users of the complex and residents of the town centre and to the detriment of the Conservation Area, in contravention of General Policies 2b,c and g and Environment Policy 35.
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
Committee Meeting Date : 30.9.13
Signed : \qquad 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
