Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
23/01198/C Page 1 of 9
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 23/01198/C Applicant : Harbour Quay Ltd Proposal : Change of use of ground and first floor into a two surgery Dental practice and maintain the top floor as a residential flat Site Address : Shore House The Promenade Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1BG
Planning Officer: Mr Toby Cowell Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 04.03.2024 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
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 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. The hours of use of the dental surgery hereby approved shall be as specified as part of the application submission, namely 8.30am to 5.30pm Mondays to Thursdays, Friday 9am to 1pm, and Saturdays 9am to 2pm.
Reason: The application has been assessed on the basis of the opening hours provided as part of the submission. Any extension to opening hours would require further assessment in the context of residential amenity and highway safety considerations.
C 3. The second-floor 1-bedroom flat hereby approved shall only be used and occupied in connection with the approved dental surgery, and shall only be occupied by persons in gainful employment of the dental surgery. The residential flat shall not be rented out or sold to persons who are not in gainful employment of the dental surgery.
Reason: The residential flat does not benefit from a separate pedestrian access and has been assessed and approved purely on the basis that it would operate as staff accommodation in connection with the dental surgery.
==== PAGE 2 ====
23/01198/C Page 2 of 9
C 4. The use of the premises, namely the ground and first floors of the property, shall only be for the purposes of a dental surgery and for no other use falling within Use Class 1.2 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2019.
Reason: Permission has been granted solely on the basis and merits of the proposed use. Any subsequent change of use of the premises within the same use class would require further assessment.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in principle by providing a much needed dental surgery within Castletown, without detriment to the visual amenities of the locality, the amenities of surrounding residential properties within immediate proximity to the site, nor give rise to a detriment impact upon the safety and capacity of the local highway network. The proposals are therefore deemed to be compliant with Strategic Policies 2, 4 and 5, Spatial Policy 2, General Policy 2, Housing Policy 18, Community Policy 6 and Transport Policies 4 and 7 of the Strategic Plan (2016).
Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the following drawings and documents;
Location plan Existing floorplans Proposed floorplans Parking location plan Car park site plan Parking survey description document Parking survey Covering letter Site photos - front elevation Site photos - side elevation 1 Site photos - side elevation 2 Received 16.10.23
Additional confirmation from applicant - Commissioners car park Received 26.01.24
Additional confirmation from applicant - opening hours and x-ray equipment Received 28.02.24
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings:
Grey Cottage, 34 The Promenade, Castletown
as they have explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy.
It is recommended that the following should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
==== PAGE 3 ====
23/01198/C Page 3 of 9
4 Greenside Court, Brookside Avenue, Ramsey 7 Queen Street, Castletown The Anchorage, Parliament Lane, Castletown 41 Close Rushen, Castletown 16 Malew Street, Castletown
as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site relates to Shore House and its associated curtilage; a 4-bedroom dwellinghouse laid out across three storeys. The property effectively comprises an end terrace of dwellinghouse situated on the northern side of The Promenade whilst also comprising a corner plot bounding Shore Road to the immediate west.
1.2 Historic mapping from the 1860s shows a property was present at this location but suggests a north to south orientation in line with the remainder of properties along this particular stretch of The Promenade. By contrast, the principal three-storey element of the property now in situ fronts onto Shore Road just before the junction with The Promenade, with a single-storey curved addition including a first-floor balcony mirroring the adjacent pavement being physically connected to the adjacent property. An existing public car park adjoins the site to the immediate north.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning permission is sought for the conversion of the ground and first-floors of the property into a dental surgery, comprising a reception area, 2 no. surgery rooms, a decontamination room and x-ray room at ground floor, with a consulting room, staff room and associated toilet facilities at first floor. The top (second) floor of the property would be retained for residential use and converted to a 1-bedroom flat, comprising a single bedroom, bathroom and lounge/kitchenette. Subsequent information provided by the applicant has confirmed that the residential flat would be used solely for the purposes of providing staff accommodation when required and would not be let out or sold off on a commercial basis. No physical alterations are proposed to the property to facilitate the change of use aside from remedial works to the existing rendering.
2.2 Opening hours for the practice would be as follows:
Monday to Thursday - 8.30am to 5.30pm Friday - 9am to 1pm Saturday (one per month) - 9am to 2pm
2.2 The applicants have provided the following information in support of their proposals:
"Castletown has seen an increase in residents which has driven a need for provision of Dental services; the 2021 Census showed 3200 residents indicating the area is currently undersupplied (UK recommended ratio 0.52 Dentists per 1000 population).
The Meadows Housing scheme within the Castletown settlement area is a short walk from Shore House and comprises family homes, this scheme is due for further expansion in October 2023. There are also further large housing developments under construction in Ballasalla. It is essential to provide a local amenity for these new residents.
==== PAGE 4 ====
23/01198/C Page 4 of 9
There are two secondary schools and one primary school in Castletown, all are within walking distance of Shore House. Shore House has been vacant for over 2 years and is in disrepair, with significant water ingress and damage as a result of the marine environment. It will benefit enormously from the required repairs and maintenance which will generally improve the external appearance; and enhance the local area. As shown in the building photographs we will need to undertake remedial work to the external rendering and the flat roof. There is a Veterinary Surgery across the road on Shore Road, therefore the addition of a Dental Surgery will enhance local services.
The business will employ 2 full time staff members and 4 part time staff members, 2 of the employees reside locally and therefore walk to work. There is ample car parking available at the adjacent Commissioners car park which has a maximum capacity of 41 cars and as shown by the parking survey is significantly underutilised throughout the day. There is also additional off-street parking and street parking within 1 minute walk of the property.
We have conducted a Parking Survey to reflect demand for parking during the proposed surgery hours and this shows there is indeed excellent parking provision adjacent and within 1 minute of the property. We have consulted the Highways Department and they have no objections to our proposal; although they did request that Staff parking should be provided in the adjacent Commissioners Car Park, to avoid the use of street parking on a long term basis (the adjacent streets are non-disc zone).
The Commissioners support our proposal and have given consent for use of their car park as required, and specifically for staff parking. There is also car parking across the road in front of and to the side of the property, in addition to Shore Road, The Promenade and nearby public car parking. As the patient appointments are generally no longer than 20-30 minutes any patient arriving by car will not be parked for extended periods. The location is also easily accessible on public transport, and on foot for residents of Castletown. We will provide bicycle parking at the rear entrance of the building.
In summary, this development will provided an essential service locally to the residents of Castletown. We have searched extensively for a property that will meet our clinical requirements and find that Shore House is one of the few properties that meets our needs."
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 None of material relevance.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as 'predominantly residential' in the Area Plan for the South and within the settlement boundary of Castletown. The site is not located within a Conservation Area or an area at risk of flooding.
4.2 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application;
Strategic Policy 2 Priority for new development to identified towns and villages 3 To respect the character of our towns and villages 5 Design and visual impact
Spatial Policy 2 Development in the Service Centres
General Policy 2 General Development Considerations
==== PAGE 5 ====
23/01198/C Page 5 of 9
Housing Policy 17 Conversion of buildings into flats 18 Loss of housing
Environment Policy 42 Designed to respect the character and identity of the locality
Community Policy 6 Community health care facilities
Transport Policy 4 Highways safety 7 Parking
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Castletown Commissioners - Further to our earlier conversation I can confirm that the board did not oppose this application. Whilst there was not any formally resolution to write a letter of support, I can confirm that confirm that members were supportive of the proposals. The car park adjacent is owned by the town and is already used by local businesses for parking. At this time we do not offer any contact bays on this site, however there is an order in place which would facilitate that same should capacity become an issue. You will note that there is a valid planning approval for the demolition of the garages at the rear of the site and this should also boost capacity. (25.01.24)
5.2 Highways Services - The proposal would see the conversion of the building from solely residential use to a dentist practice retaining the top floor for residential use. There are to be no access alterations for pedestrians or vehicles, meaning the highway considerations for this application are primarily parking.
The Strategic Plan provides parking standards for a range of uses. Medical / health services have a parking standard of three spaces per consulting room plus staff parking. For this application, the parking requirement would equal approx. ten spaces based on the detail provided in the planning statement. The statement itself assumed the need for nine spaces based on customer turnover and staff commuting behaviour. No parking is to be provided within the site, instead the proposal will rely on public parking options within the locality.
Nearby parking options identified by the application are; the commissioners car park adjacent to the building, off-street parking along College Green and the Promenade, and on-street parking along College Green, the Promenade and Shore Road. None of the parking options identified have any apparent parking restrictions. To accompany the application, a parking survey has been provided. The survey has only been conducted on the commissioners car park and not on any other of the parking options identified. In order for the proposal to be acceptable, there must be a minimum of nine/ten accessible and closely located parking spaces available in order to support the operation of the practice, and ensure there is not an unacceptable impact on the road network.
The survey was carried out from Monday to Saturday at two hour intervals between 8am and 6pm, reflecting the proposed operating times. The date of the survey has not been provided. With a given maximum capacity of 41 spaces, average occupancy over the day was just under half, with peak occupancy times coming later in the evening (6pm) and throughout Saturday indicating that the car park is mostly for residential use. The parking survey provided has indicated that the parking demand created by the proposal can be supported by the adjacent commissioners car park, and has received support/permission from the commissioners to be used. From officer observations and site visits of the surrounding parking options identified, it was evident that there are more than sufficient additional parking spaces available in the event that the commissioners car park was to become more frequently used.
==== PAGE 6 ====
23/01198/C Page 6 of 9
The proposal will retain the use of the top floor for residential premises. As a one bedroomed unit, there would be an additional parking requirement of one space. The survey has identified that later in the evening occupancy of the car park increases, however with peak occupancy at this time at 24 when the majority of residential vehicles would have returned, it is expected that the additional one space for residential use can also be accommodated overnight.
From pre-application discussions, Highways requested that parking spaces for staff use were to be provided within the commissioners car park. This was to ensure that staff could utilise an off-street parking option for all day parking, rather than parking a vehicle on-street for the duration of the working day. Whilst the application has stated that the commissioners are in support of this request, it would be preferable if the staff spaces were marked or appropriately signed so that parking off the road network can be guaranteed.
The application has stated that bicycle parking is to be provided to the rear. No further details of the parking provision have been provided. Manual for Manx Roads details the parking standards for different building uses. Healthcare has a requirement for short stay provision at 1 per 50m2 or 1 per 30 people capacity (greatest of the two), and long stay provision of 1 per 5 employees. The long stay provision is typically for staff who would be parking a bicycle for the duration of the day, with the short stay providing for clients. For this application, provision would be approx. one short stay space and one long stay space. Due to the low requirement, Highways would accept both parking types to be provided together. The parking provision should be sheltered and able to be secured.
The proposal raises no significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues. Accordingly, Highway Services Development Control raises no objection to the proposal subject to:
5.3 Manx Utilities Authority - no response received at the time of writing.
5.4 DEFA Fisheries - no response received at the time of writing.
5.5 5 letters of representation have been received from local residents, X of which provide the following comments in support of the proposals. A summary of such comments is as follows:
Agreement that other issues raised in relation to noise and the presence of an x-ray room should be addressed by the applicant.
==== PAGE 7 ====
23/01198/C Page 7 of 9
1 Further letter of representation has provided comments raising concerns over the proposals. A summary of which is as follows:
Request confirmation and proof that the proximity of the proposed x-ray equipment would not cause any health risks.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The application site falls within the settlement boundary of Castletown, a defined Service Centre within the Strategic Plan which is a focus for development, including proposals related to commercial development.
6.2 The proposals would result in a change of use of the majority of a single residential property to a dental surgery, thereby resulting in a reduction of residential floorspace. Housing Policy 18 seeks to resist the loss of existing housing stock in the Island unless such proposals were accompanied by firm proposals for replacement housing. In this instance however, it is recognised that the proposals would retain a residential element in the form of ancillary staff residential accommodation on the top floor. Therefore, whilst the proposals would result in the loss of a single larger 4-bedroomn bedroom, the retention of a residential element within the scheme ensures that the proposals would demonstrate technical compliance with this policy.
6.3 In any case, the proposals would include the creation of a new dental surgery, of which there is a clear demonstrable need in Castletown that gains further support in principle from Community Policy 6. Whilst the immediate locality is generally residential in nature and indeed zoned as such in the Area Plan for the South, additional commercial uses are noted in the site's relative vicinity, including a veterinary practice.
6.4 On this basis therefore it is not considered that the introduction of a dental surgery would appear wholly incongruous to the established character and amenity of the locality. Likewise, the proposals would involve no external alterations to the existing property aside from modest remedial works to the existing external rendering. Therefore, the proposals would not give rise to a material visual impact and are acceptable from a design standpoint.
6.5 Moreover, the general layout and outlook of the proposed second floor flat is considered to be acceptable whilst providing a good standard of amenity for future occupants, in compliance with Housing Policy 17. Whilst it is recognised the flat would not benefit from its own external access, it has already been noted and accepted that the flat would be used for staff accommodation in connection with the dental surgery, and therefore such a situation is considered to be acceptable. This however is subject to the use of the flat to be restricted to staff members in gainful employment of the dental surgery.
6.5 Whilst the proposals have generated support from a number of residents, it is noted that the adjoining property has raised concerns of the proposed change of use in relation to potential noise and disturbance associated with the dental surgery, together with the
==== PAGE 8 ====
23/01198/C Page 8 of 9
introduction of an x-ray room. With respect to potential noise impacts, it is not considered that the general level of activity associated with the surgery would be significant with the reception area to be located at the front of the property away from the adjoining property.
6.6 Moreover, noise emitting from surgery rooms in relation to associated activities, such as any drilling, is likely to be at a very low level and intermittent in any case, and therefore not give rise to a demonstrable impact in terms of noise levels. In any case, the opening hours of the surgery would be within the working day (i.e. 8.30am to 5.30pm Monday to Thursday, and 9am to 1 pm on Fridays), and therefore not at unsociable hours. Activity would further only occur on one Saturday per month from 9am to 2pm, which is not considered to be inappropriate from a residential amenity aspect.
6.7 With respect to the presence of an x-ray, internal works to a property do not constitute development for planning purposes and therefore such matters fall outside of control of the Department. Nevertheless, the applicant has advised that they are required to consult with an independent radiological advisor prior to any new installation of radiological units, who advise the applicant on all aspects of their radiological practice and ongoing compliance. Prior to finalising the floor plans, they will conduct a shielding report and advise the applicant of any necessary/and or additional shielding requirements, in addition to any other considerations and requirements prior to installation and use. This will include a critical exam, acceptance test, controlled area designation and acceptance test.
6.8 Matters relating to radiation, particularly with respect to the use of medical equipment, are covered by separate primary and second legislation with reference to separate powers of enforcement, such as the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2019 and the Ionising Radiation (Basic Safety Standards and Justification of Practices) Regulations 2019.
6.9 Turning finally to parking and highway safety matters, Highway Services have confirmed that they deem the proposals to be acceptable on the basis that sufficient unrestricted parking options are available within the immediate vicinity of the site, and particularly within the adjacent public car park owned by the Commissioners.
6.10 Further support has been given by the Commissioners over the use of the car park for staff and visitors to the surgery. Whilst Highway Services have requested that 2 no. parking spaces be marked out for use by staff of the surgery, it is not considered that this can be appropriately conditioned or enforced as the car park sits outside of the application site and does not fall within the ownership of the applicant. In any case, given the results of the parking survey and general support from Highway Services, it is considered that there would likely be sufficient parking available for staff during the proposed operating hours without the need for such provision to be formalised. Should however the applicants and the Commissioners wish to come to an agreement for such parking provision to be formally marked out for these purposes then they are free to do so, but this requirement does not need to be formalised via the planning process.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in principle by providing a much needed dental surgery within Castletown, without detriment to the visual amenities of the locality, the amenities of surrounding residential properties within immediate proximity to the site, nor give rise to a detriment impact upon the safety and capacity of the local highway network. The proposals are therefore deemed to be compliant with Strategic Policies 2, 4 and 5, Spatial Policy 2, General Policy 2, Housing Policy 18, Community Policy 6 and Transport Policies 4 and 7 of the Strategic Plan (2016). The application is therefore recommended for approval.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
==== PAGE 9 ====
23/01198/C Page 9 of 9
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
8.2
The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status
Decision Made : Permitted Date : 04.03.2024
Determining officer Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal