Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
15/00365/C
Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 15/00365/C Applicant : Mr Benjamin Mark Drewry Proposal : Change of use from existing place of worship to a male grooming parlour Site Address : Gospel Hall Switzerland Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 4NG
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 21.04.2015 Site Visit : 21.04.2015 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THES APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE BECAUSE THE PROPOSED USE IS CONTRARY TO THE LAND USE ZONING FOR THE SITE.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is a former place of worship known as the Gospel Hall on Switzerland Road in Douglas. Included within the site is both the building and also the land around it, which is set out as hardstanding. The site is on the inside of a hairpin bend at the end of Switzerland Road, the access to which is also on that hairpin. The highway very quickly degenerates into a track after the application site, which goes on to provide pedestrian access to the office uses off Victoria Road above.
1.2 The other active uses in the area are residential, but there is also the old chair lift runs alongside the site while on the Promenade is a row of shop units. Highgrove Mansions is adjacent the site while the other residential dwellings in the area are fairly well-removed from the site.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Planning approval is sought for the change of use of the building to a "male grooming salon". No physical alterations are proposed. A plan showing the proposed floor plan has been provided, and it is understood that, at least initially, there will be one or two staff members with an expected customer level of 10-12 per day. The opening hours would be Mon-Weds 8am-6pm, Thurs-Fri 8am-8pm, Sat 8am-5pm and Sun 10am-2pm.
2.2 The proposal was subject to pre-application advice, which indicated a number of potential issues that might need to be addressed as part of the application, and the applicant has provided a response to each of these issues.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 The Hall was purpose-built following the grant of planning approval in 1986 under PA 86/01298/B.
==== PAGE 2 ====
15/00365/C
Page 2 of 5
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
4.1 The site is within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential on the Douglas Local Plan.
4.2 The site is within land that is zoned for development; while it is a matter of fact that the zoning is for "predominantly residential" use, it is also true that the general principles against which to test the acceptability of development proposals are set out in General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan. 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 is indeed General Policy 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 It is still appropriate to consider a pair of Business policies.
Business Policy 9 reads in full: "The Department will support new retail provision in existing retail areas at a scale appropriate to the existing area and which will not have an adverse effect on adjacent retail areas. Major retail development proposals will require to be supported by a Retail Impact Assessment".
4.4 Business Policy 10 reads in full: "Retail development will be permitted only in established town and village centres, with the exceptions of neighbourhood shops in large residential areas and those instances identified in Business Policy 5".
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Highway Services indicated on 20.04.2015 that they did not object to the proposal, commenting that there is "Adequate off road parking for staff and customers".
5.2 Douglas Borough Council offered no objection to the proposal on 30.04.2015.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 As no external works are proposed, the issue at hand is very much the extent to which the proposed use is acceptable for the location. The predominant use surrounding, and zoning for, the application site is residential (which does not have a Use Class), and a change of use to what is essentially a barber (Class 1(e)) 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.
==== PAGE 3 ====
15/00365/C
Page 3 of 5
6.2 Business Policies 9 and 10 are clear that new retail provision will be supported where it is within established town (and village) centres. An assessment is therefore appropriate in respect of the effect the proposal could have on Douglas' town centre. The issue here is the extent to which the proposal would harm the vitality and viability of Douglas' town centre. The applicant indicates that he would be offering a unique service unavailable elsewhere, which suggests potential customers would be drawn from the town centre to the Gospel Hall. The scale of the proposal, though, (10-12 customers per day) alongside the relative commonness of hairdressing salons in the town centre, is such as to reasonably conclude that the proposal is unlikely to draw significant footfall away from the town centre. There are also a number of shops within walking distance on the Promenade, to which the proposed use would be complementary.
6.3 It is also noted that the applicant has attempted to find town centre locations these are not financially affordable. While this is not itself a material Planning consideration, it should not be ignored as an issue that is driving the proposal.
6.4 On the flipside, the applicant has contacted the estate agent for advice about the likelihood of the present use being attractive to other groups. The estate agent advised that "I think that would be very unlikely as I think the present church society has dwindling numbers and that would possibly apply in today's environment with somebody else". Such an observation is logical and not disputed. It is therefore concluded that the loss of the existing use, albeit one that was only instigated less than 30 years ago and which is also understood to not be active or regular, could not be objected to.
6.5 The applicant's suggestion that the proposal would be unlikely to harm residential amenity in the area is agreed with. There is significant off-street parking (discussed further later) and there is therefore unlikely to be parking congestion created. There would quite possibly be additional comings and goings on what is a fairly small highway, but at possibly 20-24 per working day, all using cars (which is a big assumption given the site's location near housing and offices), this would amount to a maximum of 3 extra vehicle movements per hour. This could not be considered materially harmful. Although the unit has the possibility to expand beyond these numbers, it still seems unlikely that even a quadrupling of these numbers would result in a seriously harmful impact to the amenity of people living nearby. Moreover, the use would be unlikely to result in additional noise levels or any other change to the nature of the use likely to cause harm to people living nearby.
6.6 The site would provide for significant parking. From the site visit, it is arguable whether or not as many as the indicated 25 cars could be accommodated. The access onto the highway on a hairpin is also not ideal given the lack of visibility towards the left, although to the right it would be good as the hill slopes down in this direction. In view of this, in addition to Highway Services' lack of objection, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of its impact on highway safety.
6.7 The lack of conflict with Business Policies 9 and 10 or the relevant parts of General Policy 2 is viewed positively. However, it is not necessarily the case that any retail use (that is, those uses set out in Schedule 4, Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012) would be similarly acceptable. As such, it is recommended that a condition restricting the unit's use to that of a hairdressing salon be attached to any approval that may be forthcoming.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 It is recommended that the planning application be approved subject to conditions.
==== PAGE 4 ====
15/00365/C
Page 4 of 5
7.2 Officers have assessed the impact of the proposal on the basis of the specific use proposed, and any alternative uses within the same Use Class will require further consideration. It is likely that male hairdressing would have a different impact to female hairdressing - there would likely be fewer and less regular customers with respect to the former due to longer appointment times. However, it is not considered that these specific uses would be so different to one another. As such, a condition restricting the use purely to "hairdressing", rather than simply "male hairdressing", would be appropriate.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
(a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material; (d) The Highways Division of the Department; and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 06.05.2015
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. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 the premises shall not be used other than for hairdressing purposes and associated uses and for no other purpose in Class 1 of Schedule 4 of the Order at any time.
Reason: The Department has assessed the impact of the proposal on the basis of the specific use and any alternative uses within the same Use Class will require further consideration.
--
==== PAGE 5 ====
15/00365/C
Page 5 of 5
The development hereby approved relates to the following plans, date-stamped as having been received 2nd April 2015: the untitled Site Location Plan (scale 1:1000) and the untitled proposed Floor Plan (scale 1:50).
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 : ...PER... Committee Meeting Date:...18.05.2015
Signed :...E RILEY... Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph).
YES/NO
The Committee accepted the recommendation of the case officer and the application was approved subject to the modification of the conditions so as not to exclude female hairdressing.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal