Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
20/01302/B Page 1 of 11
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 20/01302/B Applicant : Fancy A Coffee Limited Proposal : Alteration and first floor extension Site Address : Costa Coffee Small Retail Unit Adjacent To Main Retail Unit Crosby Meadows Estate Peel Road Crosby Isle Of Man
Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 15.04.2021 __
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. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2019 or Town and Country Planning (Change of Use) (Development) (No. 2) Order 2019 or any order amending, revoking or re-enacting these Orders, the first floor of the smaller unit shall be used only as a cafe with related hot food takeaway and shall not be used for any other purpose within Use Class 1.3 or Class 1.4 without the express grant of planning approval from the Department.
Reason: To enable the Department to consider the implications of any subsequent change of use on the amenities of the area.
C 3. Approval is only given for the area annotated as "First Floor" defined by the redline boundary on the submitted proposed first floor plan to be used as food and drink (class 1.3) with related hot food takeaway (class 1.4) as associated with the ground floor element as approved under 20/01294/B: no approval is given for any Class 1.3/1.4 use in or on any other part of the building or site. The approval does not include any operational development.
Reason: to clarify the extent of the approval.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason.
==== PAGE 2 ====
20/01302/B Page 2 of 11
The application is considered to accord with General Policy 2, Transport Policy 1 and Environment Policy 15 of the Strategic Plan and is supported.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to the Planning Letter and Drawing Nos. 16/2576/105G and 16/2576/105i, all received on 11 November 2020. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties 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):
19 Cherry Tree Drive, Crosby
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.
It is recommended that the following organisation 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):
Marown Memorial Playing Fields Ltd,
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
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THERE IS AN OBJECTION FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is part of a retail unit (currently under construction and near completion) which lies to the south west of the junction of the A1 Main Road through Crosby and the north-south intersection of Eyreton Road (A23) and Old Church Road (B35). The site lies southeast of new residential dwellings which were approved with the application building under PA 17/00852/B.
1.2 Opposite this building and on the other side of the main road, is 1-6, Eyremont Terrace, 1, Crosby Terrace and on the corner of Main Road and Eyreton Road is a pair of semi-detached houses - Crosby House and Eyrebrook. To the south east of the site is a tree-lined watercourse beyond which are public toilets, a children's playground, a bowling club, Marown Millennium Hall, a BMX track and a sports pitch.
1.3 Planning approval was granted for the retail unit under two applications - 18/00339/REM and 17/00852/B. Both schemes proposed essentially the same building but were handed with the former having the commercial vehicle loading and parking area on the south eastern side of the building and the latter having this between the north western gable of the building and the rear of plots 27 and 28. The development has however been implemented in accordance
==== PAGE 3 ====
20/01302/B Page 3 of 11
with 17/00852/B, although with new elements which are at variance with the approved scheme.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The planning application seeks approval for Alteration and first floor extension to the Small Retail Unit Adjacent to Main Retail Unit (Costa Coffee). This scheme would create an additional floor area on the first floor measuring 91sqm and stairs to provide access to this floor. A WC will also be created by the stairs on this floor.
2.2 The site plan also shows alterations to the parking area as the turning area on the northern section of the parking area has been removed to enable the creation of five additional parking areas. This is however, outside the red line boundary and as such will not be the subject of the current application, although it has implications for the current scheme.
2.3 The applicant had provided additional information which indicates that: i. The first floor extension would add more floor space to the coffee shop unit.
ii. The ground floor only seat 30 people which would make it unsustainable.
iii. The first floor addition is required to increase the number of internal seats adding a further 43 seats of differing styles such as sofas and arm chairs as well as bench seating and chairs.
iv. There are 38 car parking spaces proposed to the retail car park, which is five spaces more than originally indicated including an additional disabled car parking space.
v. The area of the whole building internally for car parking numbers is as follows: a) Co-op storage area - 132sqm. b) Co-op Retail area - 229sqm. c) Costa Ground Floor area (including stair case) - 96sqm. d) Costa First Floor area (including stair case) - 91sqm e) Total Area - 543sqm.
vi. The retail area is 396sqm.
vii. Storage and staircase area equate to 147sqm.
viii. There is expected to be a combination of both part time and full time staff with current estimate being 8.
ix. This supporting information further highlighted the need for the expansion of the coffee shop as it is the only coffee shop within 5km of the Crosby and Glen Vine area with the next café/restaurant beside the one at Nobles which is 5km away, situated 5.6km away at St. John's. Also, the nearness to the playing fields and play area, as well as proximity to the Heritage trail was also considered to be an advantage for the facility as a greater proportion of the visitors would come on foot.
x. It concluded by stating that the distance of the Cafés at St. John's and Nobles Hospital would ensure that there would be no impact on these cafes.
2.4 Although the application form indicates that the scheme would involve operational development, the scheme would only involve the extension of the approved use within the ground floor area of the smaller retail unit to the first floor area and would not involve any operational development. The works to erect the stairs and WC are internal alterations which are also not considered to be operational development.
==== PAGE 4 ====
20/01302/B Page 4 of 11
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site of the proposed retail unit is designated on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as Proposed Residential. Proposed residential designation can include non-residential development where this is complementary to a residential area, such as shops, churches and amenities which contribute to the sustainability of a settlement. On the Area Plan for the East (Map 10), the site is designated as 'Predominantly Residential', which re- establishes the previous designation of the site on the Development Plan. The site is not within a Conservation area, although part of the site is classed as being within an area with low likelihood of flood risk on the Isle of Man Indicative Flood Maps. As such, the following parts of the Strategic Plan are relevant:
3.2 General Policy 2 states that "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 unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
3.3 Transport Policy 7 states, "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. Appendix 7 requires neighbourhood shops to have "Spaces for staff, customers, and service vehicles".
3.4 Transport Policy 1: "New development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes."
3.5 Section 9.4: Retailing 9.4.1 As with office accommodation, and for similar reasons, retailing is largely concentrated in our town and village centres. Of these, Douglas is the largest and includes branches of many of the shops which are familiarly found in high streets around the UK. However, locally based retailers add variety and interest to our shopping streets, and this is particularly noticeable in Ramsey, Peel, and Castletown. It is interesting to note that in Ramsey and Peel, locally based furniture shops operate successfully from within the town centres, whereas Douglas town centre has now largely lost its furniture shops to edge-of-town or out-of-town sites.
9.4.2 The reasons for directing retail development to town centre sites are essentially those set out in paragraph 9.3.3 in respect of offices, but to these must be added the need for there to be a sufficient range and choice of goods available in the one shopping trip, without the need to travel between sites. Experience in the UK illustrates the impact which out-of-town retail development has on the traditional town centre high street and on small village shops, and it is pertinent to note the reversal of policy by the UK Government. The Department therefore proposes to adhere to the established policy which was embodied in the Tynwald resolution of 1987 (see paragraph 9.2.5).
9.4.3 Exceptions to this general policy have been identified in paragraph 9.2.6. In addition, there are community benefits associated with neighbourhood shops (see paragraph 10.6.1). The following general policy is therefore appropriate:
==== PAGE 5 ====
20/01302/B Page 5 of 11
Business Policy 9: 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 (1).
Appendix 1: Retail Impact Assessment An assessment undertaken for a planning application for major retail developments (those over 500m sq of floor space measured externally). The assessment examines the impact of development on the vitality and viability of existing shopping centres within the catchment area of the proposed development. The assessment usually includes the likely cumulative effect of recent planning permissions, development under construction and completed development.
3.6 Business Policy 10: 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.
9.4.4 For the purposes of Business Policy 9 major retail development will be classed as any new or increase in existing retail development of more than 500 sq. metres of floor space measured externally. For the purposes of Business Policy 10 new neighbourhood shops within new residential developments will not normally comprise more than 100sq metres of floor space measured externally.
9.4.5 It is accepted that in some circumstances a mix of uses can be appropriate within town centre locations such as residential flats above retail units or office accommodation, particularly where this can help to ensure the use of the area at different times during the day, thus helping to ensure the security and vitality of these areas.
3.7 It is also relevant to consider the status of Crosby within the Strategic Plan: Spatial Policy 4: In the remaining villages development should maintain the existing settlement character and should be of an appropriate scale to meet local needs for housing and limited employment opportunities.
These villages are: Bride, Glen Maye, Sulby, Dalby, Ballaugh, Ballafesson, Glen Mona, Colby, Baldrine, Ballabeg, Crosby, Newtown, Glen Vine, Strang. Area Plans will define the development boundaries of such settlements so as to maintain their existing character.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The following previous planning applications are considered to be specifically material in the assessment of the current application:
4.2 PA 21/00175/MCH for Minor changes application to PA 17/00852/B involving alterations to retail unit, car parking, cladding, and retaining walls. Note: i. The scheme proposed the installation of balustrade 900mm high to the entrance canopy at first floor level, although the Planning Statement dated 27 March 2021 clearly stated that the canopy is to be used for maintenance and repair of the glass façade and that under the CDM Regulations, a guard or protection must be fitted to allow access.
ii. The elements of the application relating to alterations to the retail unit were refused as their approval would be contrary to extant conditions with potential to increase impacts on neighbours, and as such were recommended to be the subject of full applications.
==== PAGE 6 ====
20/01302/B Page 6 of 11
4.3 PA 20/01294/B for Variation of conditions 2 and 3 of PA 20/01024/C, Change of use from retail (class 1.1) to a combined use as food and drink (class 1.3) with related hot food takeaway (class 1.4). Approved.
4.4 PA 20/01024/C for change of use from retail (class 1.1) to food and drink (class 1.3), Small Retail Unit Adjacent to Main Retail Unit, Crosby Meadow Estate, Peel Road, Crosby - approved with the following attached conditions:
"C2. The food and drink (class 1.3) (Small Retail Unit), hereby approved, shall only be open for use by customers between the hours of 0700hrs and 2200hrs, 7 days a week.
Reason: The application proposes the times listed and has been considered on this basis only and in the interests of the amenity of neighbouring occupants in accordance with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
C3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that order with or without modification), the use hereby permitted shall not include use for the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises or any activity involving such sales whether ancillary or incidental to the use of the premises.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of occupiers of adjoining properties."
4.4.1 This approval allowed the smaller retail unit to operate as food and drink (class 1.3), and as such it is not considered to be in retail use, as the larger retail unit.
4.5 The site has also been the subject of a number of applications which includes the detailed application PA 17/00852/B for the erection of 28 residential units and retail unit with associated parking and landscaping. Approved. This is the approval that has been implemented on the site.
Note: The unit which is the subject of the current application was approved as part of this application which has currently been built with works currently underway to complete the landscaping works around the retail building.
4.5.1 This scheme was subject to an appeal which upheld the decision to approve and imposed the following condition which is considered relevant to the current application:
C14: The retail building must be erected, laid out and used as shown in drawing 16/2576/105F received on 20th November, 2018. In particular, the two units must be arranged as shown and may not be combined or merged, and there may be no additional floor space introduced either through the introduction of mezzanine flooring or other means.
Reason: The proposal as approved represents less than 500 sq m of retail floor space which would not require a Retail Impact Assessment (RIA) to demonstrate that it would not have an adverse impact on the viability and vitality of the town centres; any increase in floor area would be in excess of this and no RIA has been provided.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 The Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division have made the following comments regarding the application in a letter dated 7 December 2020:
==== PAGE 7 ====
20/01302/B Page 7 of 11
The access is to be retained and 38 car parking spaces are to be laid out with four for mobility impaired use. This represents five more than the 33 spaces consented under 16/01131/REM for retail use with a ratio of one car parking space per 14 sqm being applied; although a previous iteration showed 38 spaces under 15/00775/A.
The Strategic Plan car parking standards are silent on coffee shops. Usually, for such, Highway Services would base the amount of car parking on the amount of floor available to the public which would include part of the outdoor terrace, options for sustainable travel and the opportunity for undertaking l inked trips. Typically, the applied criterium is one space per four or five sqm of the public space. In this instance, the proposed floor plan does not show the fitting out associated with coffee shop of staff room, storage space, and the area to be allocated to serving and food selection. Additionally, there could be a hot food takeaway element on grant of planning approval for 20/01294/B where there could be a greater number of staff and need for spaces to allow a relatively quick turnaround. Some linked trips could arise from customers visiting the Co-Op store and users cycling or walking. No indication is given for measures to support sustainable travel of low emissions, such as bicycle provision.
As the public floor area is unknown, an alternative method is apply a rate of six spaces per 100sqm for the coffee shop to the total indoor floor area of 182sqm plus 21sq, reflecting approximately half of the outdoor terrace, equivalent to 13 spaces then add an allowance for staff at one per four staff of which there are to be eight, equivalent to two car parking spaces and a total requirement for the coffee shop of 15 spaces.
On applying a ratio of one car parking space to 14sqm for the shop at 361sq, equivalent to 26 spaces, there would be a need for a total of 41spaces on adding the requirement for the coffee shop, equivalent to a shortfall of three spaces. Some linked trips are likely to reduce the overall requirement and, on balance, the total amount proposed of 38 spaces appears reasonable. There are an acceptable number of bays for mobility impaired use at four bays.
Notwithstanding, there are adjustments necessary to the layout. The first space at south after the intersection is too close to the junction and there is risk from conflicting vehicle and pedestrian movements as well as overrunning of the adjacent tactile crossing and should be omitted, reducing the amount to 37 spaces. Again, on balance, the remaining amount would be reasonable.
There should a minimum 1.0m overrun area at the end of the aisle at west to facilitate reversing.
Provision is necessary to benefit objectives for sustainable and Active travel and low emission. This covers the installation of bicycle parking and other users. For bicycle parking, the typical requirement is one space per 200sqm plus one space per 60 sqm for staff and similarly for customers, giving a total of six or three stands. These should be positioned in a secure location and ideally covered. Necessary too is a space for motorcycle parking. Typically, an allocation at 11⁄2% of the total number of car parking spaces should apply, equivalent to one space at a dimension of 2.3 x 0.9m. Electric vehicle charging points should be considered at 10% of the allocation equivalent to four spaces, with, at least, one of these being allocated to a bay for mobility impairments.
The turning from and to the loading / unloading bay requires use of the bays opposite. This is not an unusual occurrence, and is a managed activity due to the frequency and times of collection and delivery being known in advance.
The proposal is unlikely to cause significant highway safety or network efficiency issues. Accordingly, Highway Services raise no opposition subject to conditions for minor revisions to the layout to reduce the total car parking requirement to 37 spaces on the omission of the first
==== PAGE 8 ====
20/01302/B Page 8 of 11
bay at entry to the car park and a reversing area at its western end. Details are necessary for the provision of bicycle and motorcycle parking spaces.
Recommendation: DNOC.
5.1.1 Having reviewed the additional information provided by the applicants, the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division have made the following comments in a letter dated 8 January 2021:
Further to the email from Ellis Brown on 4 January 2021 with amended Drawing No. 16/2576/105i, the revisions are acceptable and welcomed to Highway Services for the most part and we continue not oppose this application subject to conditions. There remains a concern over the first car parking bay after the junction. This could be removed under this proposal as it is a separate planning application from PA17/00852/B, and like the other changes that have been agreed, these are all outside of the red line. It would just make the area safer for pedestrians. The swept paths are tight and as drawn under approval PA17/00852/B clip the disabled bay, but it is not an issue should there be a need to cross parking bays as deliveries as known in advance.
5.2 Marown Parish Commissioners objected to the application in a letter dated 17 December 2020 on the following grounds:
The Commissioners have received information subsequent to their comments on 20/01024 that the Biodisc unit serving the estate and into which this shop unit is drained is rated for domestic use. The capacity of the Biodisc unit must be certified as sufficient firstly foe a cafeteria and secondly for a unit more than twice the size as the one for which current approval exists so as to avoid the risk of effluent polluting the River Dhoo: a café and take- away unit will produce more waste water than a shop selling goods.
The existing retail units were approved under 18/00339. During the application process of the above (and earlier unsuccessful applications), the total size of the units was reduced so as to fall below 500sqm. This application seeks to increase the floor space, by the Applicants calculations, to 543sqm. A retail impact statement is therefore required: to say otherwise is to make a mockery of the decision to prohibit the inclusion of an internal alteration comprising additional floor space and of the principle of requiring such a statement on larger retail developments.
Similar arguments apply to the proposed balcony seating area. Further, the Commissioners would be concerned that the balcony would overlook adjacent properties and the playing field area to the detriment of occupiers of the former and users of the latter. The Commissioners have received a presentation from the applicant which shows 18 seats round 6 tables on the balcony.
The car park for both shops comprises 33 spaces. It is not clear how many of these spaces would be used by staff at both the retail units. The Commissioners believe that an enlarged coffee shop together with the large retail unit would overwhelm the available parking and result in vehicles parked on the estate and on the main Douglas to Peel road: the bus stop layby appears particularly vulnerable in this respect. It is noted that the applicant believes that the customer base will become established over the period of 12 months but has not given any opinion on whence the demand is likely to come or what proportion will be local walking distance, longer-distance workers or vehicles drivers.
Likewise, there is a concern that there is no stated provision for litter bins or who would be responsible for servicing these: the applicant has not discussed this provision with the Commissioners and it is noted that service to commercial premises is not provided as of right.
==== PAGE 9 ====
20/01302/B Page 9 of 11
5.2.1 Marown Parish Commissioners have made the following additional comments regarding the application in a letter dated 21 January 2021:
A member reported being contacted by a resident whose property is overlooked by the proposed balcony which appears to have been constructed already. There is real concern about this overlooking, and in the event that the application is approved, the Commissioners would require a condition to the effect that the balcony is screened to such a height that the adjacent and nearby dwellings cannot be overlooked.
5.3 The Owners/occupiers of 19 Cherry Tree Drive, Crosby which abuts the north-western boundary of the retail building have made the following comments regarding the application in a letter dated 9 December 2020:
Dear Planners, Our original understanding was this would be entirely a coop or retail. To change both the usage from retail to takeaway and double the size of the seating is not agreeable.
Bearing in mind the Co-op is also based there, the maximum number of parking spaces 38, currently 33, will not be sufficient for its customers and these additional customers of the coffee shop.
This will lead to parking on the street, leading to access issues for residents the majority of which have young children using the street.
Even for the other application, 20/01294/B with 30 seats could lead to congestion.
5.4 The Marown Memorial Playing Fields Ltd, Old Church Road, Crosby have made the following Comments regarding the application in a letter dated 22 December 2020:
Following a recent meeting held by Marown Memorial Playing Fields Ltd the committee discussed the above. The majority vote decision was in favour of the proposed application.
We are however aware of a breach of planning regulation relating to the creation of the door on the upper level outdoor balcony and we are disappointed that planning enforcement officers did not notice this addition.
Also, any planning approval for a second floor would take the development over the 500m2 area and would require a "Retail Sales Impact Assessment" to be carried out. Whilst we cannot condone the methods employed, we appreciate that the coffee-shop business needs to be viable and that is why we are giving our support for the planning application.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 In assessing the current application, it would first be vital to ascertain the works to be assessed within the current scheme. The red line boundary clearly defines the work area which would only involve works within the internal area of the smaller retail unit (Costa Coffee); works which would include the extension of the Costa unit to allow more operating space on the first floor and the addition of stairs to provide access to this area. Based on the foregoing, any works related to changes to the parking arrangement within the site, the extension of the canopy and the inclusion of the balustrades will not be assessed in the current application. These works are outside the red line boundary and not indicated as works to be assessed on the submitted plans.
6.2 Therefore, the main issue to be considered in the current application is whether the principle of adding a second floor area would be acceptable in terms of potential impacts on the wider amenity (in terms of noise, parking and capacity of Biodisc), and when considered against the need to carry out a retail impact assessment for the inclusion of additional floor
==== PAGE 10 ====
20/01302/B Page 10 of 11
areas in excess of 500sqm as stipulated by Condition 14 under PA 17/00852/B which has been implemented on the site. The highway safety implications would also be assessed as the proposal would increase the customer capacity for the Costa unit.
6.3 Impacts on Wider Amenity
6.3.1 With regard to impact on noise levels generated and impacts on other site amenities such as parking, it is considered that the increased floor area (service area) would not considerably alter the conditions resulting from the change of use as previously assessed under PA 20/01024/C. The proposal documents have indicated that the activity would be carried out within the building and as such it is not considered that there would be any increase in noise levels beyond that which is associated with the general use of the retail building. This is hinged on the fact that the design of the building is such that any noise levels generated as a result of an increase in activity within the building would be contained within the unit and would not impact on the wider area.
6.3.2 Whilst there may be an increase in the comings and goings of customers, this not considered to be out of character with the broader retail facility (which is commercial) and as such it is not considered that this increase in number of visits would be sufficient to warrant refusal of the proposal. The fact that the number of customers requiring parking provisions may increase as a result of the development is considered, however, given that the target of the scheme is for the local population who would not always require the use of their cars as the facility is within walking distance to most parts of the village is considered to be a positive for the development. Besides, the facility is within a public transport corridor which will encourage the use of public transport, thus limiting the need for more parking.
6.3.3 With regard to the comments related to the capacity of the Biodisc to serve the additional floor area, it is not considered that the addition of a single WC to serve users of the first floor would significantly exacerbate the pressure on the existing Biodisc serving the facility. Besides, the installation of Biodiscs is not a matter for planning control as they are the subject of other regulatory controls such as the 'Discharge Licence' and 'Building Control Regulations'. As such, this would be better addressed via the appropriate instruments under the remits of Environmental Protection and Building Control.
6.4 Compliance to Condition 14 of PA 17/00852/B.
6.4.1 As has been noted in Section 4.5.1 of this report, condition 14 required that the addition of retail floor area in excess of 500 sqm would require a Retail Impact Assessment (RIA) to demonstrate that the facility would not have an adverse impact on the viability and vitality of nearby town centres. With the current application, the increase in floor area by 91sqm which increases the total floor area to 543sqm would not require a retail impact assessment. This is hinged on the fact that the additional floor area is not a retail space and the current application does not seek to use the additional space as a retail area. However, in the event that approval is south in the future to revert the use of the unit to a retail space, then a retail impact assessment would be required for the building.
6.5 Highway Safety Implications 6.5.1 In considering the highway safety impacts, consideration is given to section 6.3.2 above which considers the need for reduced dependence on parking as a result of the proximity of the facility to most parts of the village and the fact that the site is within a public transport corridor. Therefore, it is not considered that any increase parking would be at levels sufficient to warrant refusal of the scheme. Besides, DOI Highways have indicated support for the scheme which is a clear indication that they do not consider the proposal to have detrimental impacts on highway safety and parking requirements.
==== PAGE 11 ====
20/01302/B Page 11 of 11
6.5.2 Whilst the request by Highways for a condition regarding revision of the parking area is imposed, the parking area is not within the development area and is the subject of another application which is not currently under review or assessment and as such a condition on the parking area would not be applicable to the current scheme.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION 7.1 For these reasons the proposal is considered to comply with the relevant polices of the Strategic Plan and therefore recommended for an approval.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 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 above who should be given Interested Person Status __
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Permitted
Committee Meeting Date: 26.04.2021
Signed : P VISIGAH
Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
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