Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
15/00011/B
Page 1 of 10
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 15/00011/B Applicant : Ashford Ltd Proposal : Conversion of retail unit into a restaurant Site Address : Former Topshop Building Corner Of Duke & Lord Street Douglas Isle Of Man
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 27.01.2015 Site Visit : 27.01.2015 Expected Decision Level :
Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT.
1.0 THE SITE
1.1 The application site is the large building single commercial unit sited on the corner of Duke and Lord Streets in Douglas, and also adjacent to Muckle's Gate to the east. The proposal relates to one large unit within that building, most recently occupied by Topshop. This ceased when the company moved into their new premises on Strand Street roughly 12- 18 months ago.
1.2 The unit is two-storey, which puts it lower than the other three corner buildings in the vicinity - one is three storeys and the others four storeys. It does, however, have a basement. Being a fairly utilitarian, flat-roofed building it is also the least attractive of the four buildings at what is a prominent junction lying at the southern starting point of the Island's main shopping street, although it does offer some interesting nods to an art deco architectural style in its window arrangement / detailing. To its Lord Street side, there is a pavement alongside the highway, while the Duke Street side is fully pedestrianised.
1.3 The uppermost floor is given over to office space, while at ground floor there is an existing café use on the Lord Street side.
1.4 In the nearby vicinity of the application site are a number of uses, such that the area is perhaps characterised by this mixture of uses rather than by a predominance of retail.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the conversion of the unit's basement and ground floors into a restaurant. The whole building would be utilised for the proposed use, with 90 covers on the ground floor and 50 covers in the basement. There would be between 6 and 8 staff working at any one time, although some 15 staff would be employed by the business, which would be open daily from 11am to 9:45pm (the latter time would be the last order time rather than closing time).
==== PAGE 2 ====
15/00011/B
Page 2 of 10
2.2 Internally, there would be a separate waiting area, bar, kitchen, restaurant, boiler room, preparation area and rooms for chilled goods, two separate stores and WCs for both sexes on both floors with a disabled WC on the ground floor. A lift would connect the two floors in addition to the staircase. Several areas within the unit would remain unused.
2.3 Also proposed is the installation of a chimney flue to the rear of the building where it overlooks Mickle's Gate to the east. The flue would have a diameter of 0.6m and sit just over 1m higher than the flat roof of the building.
2.4 Nothing is proposed to change on the top floor of the building.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 The site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications and applications for advertisement consent, although very few in recent years. The most relevant to the assessment of the current proposal was an application for a change of use of the unit to a public house in 2002. PA 02/00850/C went forward with an officer recommendation to approve, but was ultimately refused by Planning Committee under the now-defunct Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) (Douglas 2000 Area) Order 1994 for the following reason: "The proposed use would result in noise and activity late at night which would disturb residents living close to the site". An appeal against this decision was lodged but subsequently withdrawn such that the decision remains as issued.
3.2 The planning officer composed a lengthy report covering seven separate issues: (a) loss of retail floor space; (b) effect of the proposal on the shopping street; (c) disturbance to local residents; (d) vandalism / litter / security; (e) servicing (i.e. deliveries); (f) appearance of the building, and (g) suitability for wheelchair users. On each of these, the officer concluded favourably on balance. Perhaps the key issues in his assessment were (a), (b) and (c).
3.3 With regard the former, he commented in full that "The existing shop is rather larger than the average unit in the shopping area - 300+sqm + 100sqm basement. There are only a few opportunities for retailers who require this much space. However, it would be difficult to prove that the supply of retail floor space within the shopping area is so precarious that we should refuse this particular loss."
3.4 He continued in respect of (b): "There is a range of uses existing in Duke St., and there are public houses elsewhere in the main shopping street. During the day-time i.e. during shopping hours, the contribution could well be positive."
3.5 In respect of the latter issue, he stated that "Activity in the late evening could result in disturbance to local residents (just to the west of the site and perhaps also in flats over the shops). There are other public houses which may already have this effect - the Corner House, The British, The Albert, etc."
3.6 That application was objected to by a number of local residents.
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
4.1 The site falls within an area zoned as Predominantly Shopping on the Douglas Local Plan, which has no adopted Written Statement. Although a strict reading of the wording of General Policy 2 indicates that it might not directly apply, the principles of that policy are such that it is considered the most appropriate Strategic Plan policy to consider given the nature of the environment.
==== PAGE 3 ====
15/00011/B
Page 3 of 10
4.2 It reads (in part): "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, and (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways".
4.3 Environment Policy 22 builds upon some of these issues: "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."
4.4 There are no policies relating to proposals for new restaurant uses specifically, and nor are there policies that specifically protect against the loss of retail floorspace.
4.5 Also of relevance, albeit that it is unfortunately silent in respect of the specific requirements of this application, is Transport Policy 7, which requires that new development should meet the Department's current parking requirements. While these requirements are set out, and for town centre shops the requirement is "Space for service vehicle use", there is no standard for restaurants.
4.6 Community Policy 4 states that: "Development (including the change of use of existing premises) which involves the loss of local shops and local public houses, will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that the use is no longer commercially viable, or cannot be made commercially viable." Although this is not considered to apply to the proposal given its town centre location, relative to the context of Community Policy 4 that relates to village or isolated shops, it has been raised by an objector to the proposal (see below) and so is included in the report for reference.
4.7 The same applies for Environment Policy 36: "Where development is proposed outside of, but close to, the boundary of a Conservation Area, this will only be permitted where it will not detrimentally affect important views into and out of the Conservation Area."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 The Environmental Health (EH) team within the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (DEFA) were contacted for their views. On 28th January 2015, they commented that a condition requiring the submission of details regarding the flue in respect of noise and sound attenuation would be expected.
The EH Officer further commented: "I appreciate that the technical specification submitted by the applicant may provide a useful guide as to how the system MAY work if properly installed. Should Planning place specific conditions on an application, (such as noise levels, discharge heights etc), then the onus should be on the applicant to satisfy the Planning
==== PAGE 4 ====
15/00011/B
Page 4 of 10
Officer/Department that the said conditions are being met. This type of service cannot be provided by this Department, at this time, and may require the services of external consultants, obviously at a cost to either the Applicant or your Department. However should a nuisance be reported once the business is brought into operation, it will be dealt with using the statutory powers placed on this Department by the current Public Health Legislation".
5.2 Highway Services advised on 21st January 2015 that they had no objection to the proposal.
5.3 Douglas Development Partnership were contacted for their view. On 20th January 2015, they provided their vacancy rate figures, which showed that at least 7.05% of the units within Douglas have been vacant since their records began in June 2012. The highest such figure was 12.24% in October 2013. They commented as follows: "The current vacancy rate is 9.24%. My thoughts are that the nature of town centres is changing and that leisure and food and drink are very quickly becoming part of the normal mix of uses. I have no concerns about the proposed change of use in this instance as I believe it's much better to have an occupied unit that contributes to the vibrancy and offer of the town centre, particularly in such a prominent position, than trying to retain units exclusively for retailing".
5.6 PC Rob Midghall, Police Architectural Liaison Officer, responded to the application on 11th February 2015. He stated that "I have examined the documentation submitted in relation to the said application and it is noted that the proposed application stated hours when the cafe and restaurant facility will operate will be:
"Opening times are envisaged at this stage to be from 11am until last order at 21.45hrs Monday -Sunday.
"It should be remembered that the position of premises is in near locations of other late night establishments and residential homes on Coronation Terrace, Peel Road, Douglas.
"I would strongly recommend that the trading hours are controlled and request that a time condition be placed upon any approval granted in respect of the said application. To the effect that:
"The premises may only operate from 11am until last order at 21.45hrs Monday - Sunday."
5.5 Douglas Borough Council have not responded to the proposal.
5.6 Natalie Radford, on 23rd January 2015, objected to the application on behalf of Baker Tilly Isle of Man, operating from 2a Lord Street (within the application site building). She raises 15 separate concerns:
==== PAGE 5 ====
15/00011/B
Page 5 of 10
10) Impact on neighbouring premises not shown as part of the application; 11) Change of use from Class 1 to Class 3 will impact on the use of the upper floors as high quality professional offices; 12) The development falls within the Douglas Regeneration Area (Scheme 2013) but does not enhance the appearance and quality of the Island's town centre; 13) No design statement, retail impact assessment or transport assessment have been submitted; 14) No information in relation to window and an external signage has been submitted, and 15) Community Policy 4 states that development is only permitted where it can be demonstrated that retail use is no longer commercially viable and cannot be made so.
5.7 The agents for the application provided a response to this objection on 11th March 2015. They have indicated, in summary, that:
5.8 The proprietor of ZEAL Caff Limited, which operates within the application site building, objected to the proposal on 10th February 2015, raising concern with regards to the egress of smells in the small courtyard along with a lack of ventilation system; the facilitation of refuse in a highly used area, and the facilitation of emergency services in a tightly restricted area.
5.9 The agents for the application provided a response to this objection on 11th March 2015. They have indicated, in summary, that: any flue installed would meet regulatory
==== PAGE 6 ====
15/00011/B
Page 6 of 10
requirements; the rear courtyard has been used by the previous tenants and a shop use might result in more refuse than a restaurant; the emergency exits are no different to the previous situation, with emergency egress available to both front and side of building and the emergency exit to the courtyard is unlikely to be so used by the majority of patrons.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The three key issues at hand are whether the proposed flue is acceptable from the point of view of public and private amenity, and also the extent to which the proposed use is acceptable for this location. Also important to consider is the issue of parking and highway safety.
Principle of the loss of retail
6.2 The predominant use surrounding, and zoning for, the application site is retail, and a change of use of the unit to a restaurant is therefore in conflict with the Development Plan. However, the key test in circumstances such as this is the extent to which a proposed change of use would harm the character of the area to the extent that the application warrants being refused.
6.3 As noted earlier, the wider area contains uses that also fall outside of the zoning. It is equally true that the zoning refers to "predominantly" retail uses, not "entirely" retail uses; the slight variety of uses within the wider area, to include those more commonly associated with town centre uses, is reflective of the relatively vibrant nature of this part of Douglas. It would also reflect the general presumption in favour of such uses as outlined in the Central Douglas Masterplan, albeit that the site itself is not specifically mentioned therein.
6.4 The findings in respect of the other similar application on this site are also quite instructive. While these were obviously reached some years ago, it is considered that the conclusion reached in respect of the loss of retail is an equally appropriate conclusion today. Douglas Development Partnership's comments are extremely instructive on this and reflect what is considered to be an appropriate way of managing the changing nature of town centres in general, while also reflecting on the fact that Douglas' town centre does seem to be contracting slightly. It is also considered that to apply Community Policy 4 would be to misunderstand its purposes and also potentially have the effect of artificially retain vacant shop units for longer than would normally be expected.
6.5 The Isle of Man Retail Strategy 2013 includes some useful words in respect of comparison shopping in Douglas: "The main comparison shopping areas in Douglas town centre are the Strand Shopping Centre, the Tower House Shopping Centre, Strand Street and the adjoining streets. These are occupied predominantly by high street and fashion retailers". While the Island does not differentiate (in Planning terms) between different types of retail, it is noted that the main comparison shopping units are located away from the application site such that its attractiveness to a similar end-user is, logically, fairly limited. It is therefore considered that the loss of this unit from retail use does not form a fundamental reason to object to the application and, in fact, the proposal to bring it back into active use is to be welcomed in principle.
6.6 It is also interesting to note that Topshop found a site within the town centre that they were able to assemble, redevelop and move into such that, while there might be few units of the size of the application site within Douglas (or, indeed, elsewhere on the Island), this does not preclude a retail operation from acting similarly should they have a need for a large unit.
The principle of the proposed change of use
==== PAGE 7 ====
15/00011/B
Page 7 of 10
6.7 Perhaps the main concern in respect of the principles involved is more to do with the loss of the existing retail use rather than the new restaurant use. Indeed, the principle of the new use, given the views of DDP and also the general feeling that the town centre is contracting slightly, is such as to mean that the proposed new use, which would be complementary to the surrounding uses in the area, is judged to be an appropriate one for this location.
The proposed physical change
6.8 The proposed position for the flue, despite the open nature of the land alongside it, is not readily visible from public viewpoints. It would sit fairly snugly against the wall and would be on an elevation that does not even directly face Mickle's Gate. The visual impression given by this part of the building is not especially good. While of course it would be inappropriate to approve something that was inappropriate simply because the area in which it would sit is already of poor form, the fact is that this part of the site is characterised by a mixture of external paraphernalia (staircases, an air conditioning unit, balustrades, satellite dishes) that the proposed flue would sit comfortably amongst. The proposed flue is fairly 'of its type' and would not be unnecessarily obtrusive. It would also not be visible from Duke or Lord Streets and would not harm the setting of the three Registered Buildings in the vicinity, and could certainly not be said to be in conflict with Environment Policy 36.
Local amenity
6.9 From the point of view of assessing the proposal's impact on living and working conditions, however, the situation is less easy to assess. The fact that two business operators have raised concerns indicates that it is more than just residential amenity that needs to be considered. Concerns raised by the Architectural Liaison Officer are understandable and helpful in making the assessment.
6.10 There are some residential units in this area, and this proposed use would, if implemented, bring a late-night use into an area that does not currently have one. Restaurants, however, are rather less likely to cause nuisance or disturbance to those living in the area than a public house or nightclub, which are by their nature noisier than restaurants. This is not to say that restaurants do not bring with them some anti-social behaviour at times, but it is noted and welcomed that fairly early closing times are proposed and that the offer is primarily to be that of sitting down to eat rather than takeaways, which, again, tend to have some unsociable implications. Any approval would need to carry a condition limiting the opening hours, and it is considered that slightly more specific timings than "last orders" would need to be required.
6.11 The fact that this would be a new late-night use is important to note. While it is common for residential units to exist fairly close to late-night uses, and indeed there is a very recent case of an approval being granted at appeal for new residential flats above a public house in Douglas (PA 14/01059/B), the introduction of a new use is rather different to the addition of another such use next door to an existing use. That said, it should not be ignored that there are several licensed premises nearby though not immediately proximate. It is also true that town centres are vibrant places and some level of night-time activity - and concomitant noise - is to be expected.
6.12 It is further noted that no resident in the area has objected, which compares favourably to the situation of 13 years ago when fairly significant local objection was raised. There do not appear to have been any change in use applications gaining approval for a change from residential to alternative uses in the area, and on the number of site visits conducted the site notices have been present and prominent, so it is not altogether clear why no local concern has been raised. Of course, those living in the area 13 years ago could well
==== PAGE 8 ====
15/00011/B
Page 8 of 10
have moved on since that time and new residents could be less concerned. While no dwellings in the area were actively contacted seeking their views, the lack of comment is instructive, especially since there have been private representations received.
6.13 As such, it is considered that the proposal, with specific respect to the impacts it would have in respect of noise and disturbance of those living in the local area, would be acceptable on balance. A condition limiting the opening hours of the premises, in line with the hours suggested by the Architectural Liaison Officer is recommended accordingly. A condition also requiring the building to be empty of patrons by 11pm on every day is also recommended in order to minimise late-night noise or disruption that might caused by patrons leaving the premises. Takeaway uses often occur as ancillary to a main restaurant, but it is not considered that any such ancillary use would be harmful to local amenity, especially since its use would be constricted to the same hours as the restaurant itself.
6.14 The next issue to consider is that of whether or not the flue proposed would be acceptable in terms of its impact on the living conditions of those residing nearby. The flue would be located in a recess to the rear of the building and this, from the point of view of noise and odour transmission, would presumably be of positive benefit. Some technical information has been provided but this is not clear on the level of odour or noise control that would be provided and whether or not this would be sufficient to prevent a statutory nuisance arising.
6.15 It is therefore concluded that a condition requiring the submission of full and complete technical information, possibly to include a survey as to how the proposed equipment would not result in a statutory nuisance, would be appropriate to apply. The lack of information at this stage is unfortunate and could comprise a basis on which to refuse the application. However, in view of the otherwise acceptable nature of the proposal, it is considered that to seek this information via condition would be appropriate in this instance.
6.16 Subject to the imposition of this condition, and having had regard to the proposed location of the flue, which appears to be fairly well-secluded relative to neighbouring residential properties, the proposal is judged to be acceptable in respect of the provisions of Environment Policy 22 and would therefore not result in an unduly harmful impact on the living and working conditions nearby.
Parking provision and highway safety
6.17 In the absence of a specific parking standard, and noting that any use to which this building would be put would carry with it a parking requirement such that a default objection on parking grounds would likely result in the building never being brought back into use, it is considered appropriate to judge the proposal having regard to its town centre location. In this, the building is located in very possibly the most sustainable position on the Island. Almost opposite the bus station, which has good links throughout the Island, and also within the main population centre of the Island, it is concluded that the non-private car connections are sufficiently good to set aside any parking concerns that might exist. Moreover, for those patrons that do arrive in a private vehicle, there are off-road parking facilities available in fair abundance nearby.
6.18 It is not considered that the proposal raises any other highway safety concerns, and it is to be welcomed that although access to the bus station is across a road, there is a pedestrian crossing immediately adjacent the site to enable a safe connection.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 In view of the above, it is recommended that planning approval be granted.
==== PAGE 9 ====
15/00011/B
Page 9 of 10
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application; Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits.
8.2 In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and Article 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application:
The Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture o The Department of Home Affairs, Police Architectural Liaison Officer o Douglas Development Partnership o The owners/occupiers of The Caff and o The owners/occupiers of 2a Lord Street
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 10.02.2015
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. Prior to the operation of the restaurant, full details of the ventilation and odour control system to include full elevational drawings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department (Planning and Building Control Division) and thereafter the approved system shall be installed and retained as such and operated in accordance with the manufacturer's specification.
Reason: in the interest of protecting local residential amenity.
==== PAGE 10 ====
15/00011/B Page 10 of 10
C 3. No customers shall be served outside of the following hours: 11:00am to 9:45pm on Mondays to Sundays inclusive.
Reason: In the interests of protecting public amenity.
C 4. No customers shall be allowed to remain in the building later than 11pm on Mondays to Sundays inclusive.
Reason: In the interests of protecting public amenity.
--
This approval relates to the following plans, date-stamped as having been received 8th January 2015: 14-J051-BW 01, 14-J051-BW 02, 14-J051-BW 03, and A, and the technical information relating to the flue and extractor fan.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : APPROVED Committee Meeting Date: 23.03.2015
Signed : Edmond Riley Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal