Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
22/00876/B Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 22/00876/B Applicant : JM Project Management Ltd Proposal : Construction of new balcony to first floor of coffee house and additional parking at ground floor (retrospective) Site Address : Retail Unit Crosby Meadows Crosby IM4 2EE
Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 12.10.2022 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposal results in an increased floor area taking the overall size of the retail unit beyond the 500sq m floor space threshold requiring a Retail Impact Assessment, and no Retail Impact Assessment has been provided. The proposal fails Business Policy 9 and would also undermine the previous approvals and their conditions stipulating the need for a Retail Impact Assessment if over 500sq m. Failure to provide a Retail Impact Assessment further challenges the principles of Strategic Policy 9 and wider strategic and spatial policy objectives which ultimately seeks to direct major retail development to key centres and on land appropriately zoned.
R 2. By reason of the siting, height and size of the balcony area and the distances to the nearest neighbours (No. 22 Cherry Tree Drive and properties forming The Laurels) which intensifies the potential level of activity from the balcony to an unreasonable level having an increased adverse impact on the neighbours through noise, overlooking and privacy impact harming the enjoyment of their properties and their general living conditions.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties 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 and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
==== PAGE 2 ====
22/00876/B Page 2 of 6
o The Laurels, Main Road, Crosby o No. 22 Cherry Tree Drive, Crosby (shown as No.28 on the submitted drawings)
as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status. __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application relates to the relatively new retail unit in Crosby and its associated car parking and forecourt area. The unit was developed along with a number of new dwellings forming a new residential estate known as Crosby Meadows.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application form and covering letter provided indicate that approval is being sought for the creation of first floor balcony with balustrading, creation of 5 new car parking spaces, provision of 6 cycle racks and 2 motorbike car parking spaces.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There have been a considerable number of applications relating to the development of the residential estate and the retail building. Within part of this building is a smaller retail unit which was approved for Use Class 1.3 under 20/01024/C and which is currently occupied by 'Costa' coffee.
3.2 There were a number of applications approved for the unit including 18/00339/REM and 17/00852/B. A later minor change application 21/00175/MCH sought changes to the 17/00852/B approval (indicating the approval implemented). This MCH was granted a split decision with a number of works being refused including increased car parking and balustrading (as included now) which were considered to be beyond minor and warranting a separate application.
3.3 The original 17/00852/B application was approved subject to a number of conditions, some of these relating to the floor areas of the retail unit, prevention of mezzanine floor levels and ensuring car parking was providing in accordance with the plans. These will be covered in more detail later in the report.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the East 2020 as 'residential'. There are a number of paragraphs and policies throughout the Strategic Plan 2016 which seeks to direct development to existing centres and settlements. Spatial Policy 4 indicates Crosby as a village. Strategic Policy 9 directs all retail development with exception to neighbourhood shops) to town and village centres and on land designated. Paragraph 9.4.3 and 10.6.1 outline community benefits associated with neighbourhood shops and Business Policies 9 and 10 provide assessment criteria for retail development including the need for a Retail Impact Assessment for development over 500sq m. Appendix 7 indicates car parking for out of town much provide sufficient space for staff, customers and delivery.
4.2 In assessing visual and amenity impacts regards shall also be given to General Policy 2 which contains general standards towards acceptable development, Residential Design Guide 2021 that contains information on how such impacts may be assessed including specific sections on balcony's and good neighbourliness. Environment Policy 23 covers environmental changes and potential increased impact on neighbours.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
==== PAGE 3 ====
22/00876/B Page 3 of 6
Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Marown Commissioners - objection (17/06/2022) They express concerns for the balcony and the level of detail shown in the application for its true length across the building. They feel the balcony will result in overlooking on the rear of three neighbouring dwellings and users of the balcony will impact on the outlook and enjoyment of these properties by being able to see and hear people. The Commissioners also wish to note that some of the property owners in the estate are contractually prevented from commenting directly on applications and that the Commissioners have received comments from a resident expressing concerns.
5.2 Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highway Services - Do Not oppose (24/08/2022) no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and /or parking. The delivery bay is safeguarded. The Applicant is advised to protect the pedestrian path adjacent the proposed single bay against obstruction of line of sight and vehicle parking, such as by a barrier and marking with yellow hatching.
5.3 DEFA Fisheries - comments (24/08/2022) they want to make the applicant aware of their legal obligations under both the Fisheries Act 201 and Wildlife Act 1990 and the protection of species and watercourses.
5.4 The owners of No. 22 Cherry Tree Drive - Objection (06/09/2022) they have concerns with overlooking and loss of privacy on their personal spaces including bedrooms, with visual amenity also being affected and both matters having an impact on the right to enjoyment of their home. They also have concerns with potential noise and disturbance, while the existing wall blocks noise from the car park the balcony is much higher, from which there is also a clear viewing point. They also share concerns with the potential of things fall off the balcony onto pedestrians or vehicles below.
5.5 The owners of The Laurels - Objection (30/09/2022) - they raise concerns with the balcony overlooking directly into their rear garden and backyard taking away privacy. They have already had to replace their rear gates with taller ones to limit the retail patrons from looking directly into their yard. The only privacy that we have currently comes from the trees that are between their house and the Coop/Costa site and unfortunately some of these trees were removed last year and weren't replaced which has cut down their privacy. They close their comments by stating that they understand the need for a retail building and café in Crosby, and they have not objected to anything previously to this, but feel the lack of privacy, along with the increased noise that outside chatting and dining will bring, is going to completely destroy the pleasure we get from living here.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 There are a number of matters to consider as part of this application i) clarification of the works proposed within the application, ii) the assessment of the increased floor area, iii) assessment of the visual and amenity impact of the external first floor balcony and balustrade works and iv) assessment of the proposed car park modifications including cycle and motorbike parking.
i) Clarification of Works Proposed: 6.2 The application form and covering letter indicate works being for a first floor balcony and balustrade only and for modifications to the car park to increase car parking spaces by 5 and provide 6 cycle and 2 motorbike parking.
6.3 It is apparent from looking at planning history that previous approvals and conditions have specifically revoked the installation of any mezzanines in order to control the floor area and it being below the 500sq m Retail Impact Assessment (RIA) threshold. It is clear from this
==== PAGE 4 ====
22/00876/B Page 4 of 6
application that there is now a first floor added to the smaller retail unit and this now further increased by the proposed balcony.
6.4 It is also clear that previously approved plans for the car parking had 34 spaces approved and not 33 (on count). Therefore the proposal now is only for an increase in 4 spaces up to 38. These 4 spaces are shown hatched on the submitted plans.
6.5 Between existing plans and elevations (DWG 705) and proposed plans and elevations (DWG 105N) it also appears that a side gable roller shutter doors is to be removed, air conditioning units are shown, and an ATM on the front elevation and modification's to windows, doors and walls, as well as internal floor layout changes. An ATM was assessed and approved for the building under 21/00708/B, this was advertised only for the ATM and the application form only asked for the ATM, however things are somewhat complicated by the submitted drawings for the ATM which also appear to show other changes which have not properly been addressed in the submission or advertised.
6.6 The planning history for this site and the piecemeal applications has created a convoluted situation, it is not clear whether the agent is simply confused by their own assortment of applications or whether they are purposefully trying to complicate matters to make it difficult for the decision maker or to disguise works in a stealth manner.
6.7 There is a significant lack of clarity in what the full extent of the works now proposed is or which require approval or regularisation. In the case of this application the following assessment will take into account the floor area increased and first floor balcony and works relating to the car park.
ii) Increased Floor Area 6.8 The appeal decision notice for 17/00852/B included a specific condition relating to the 483sq m floor area of the approved retail building:
"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."
6.9 The proposal now shows a first floor being added within the retail unit, and an additional balcony area creating floor space. Whilst there is only a partial floor plan for the proposed balcony, on judgement of the elevation drawings the floor area calculations for the proposal are as follows:
a) Internal first floor of small retail unit: 93.23sq m b) Balcony = 39.95sq m Total increased floor area = 133.18sq m.
c) Approved floor area of building = 483sq m d) Proposed floor area of building = 616.18sq m.
6.9 It is quite clear that the overall proposed floor area is above and beyond the 500sq m threshold for the RIA. The proposed development would therefore constitute a 'major retail development'. Business Policy 9 of the Strategic Plan requires that major retail development proposals should be supported by a Retail Impact Assessment which would examine the impact
==== PAGE 5 ====
22/00876/B Page 5 of 6
on the vitality and viability of existing centres. As no such assessment has been submitted, the proposed retail development fails to meet this requirement.
iii) Balcony and Balustrade - Visual and Amenity Impact 6.10 From a visual perspective the physical works relating to the balcony and balustrade are fairly in keeping with the overall modern appearance of the existing building which already contains large areas of glazing across its frontage and would be visually acceptable.
6.11 From an amenity aspect, concerns have been raised from two nearby dwellings and the Commissioners as to the potential overlooking and privacy impact on properties from the proposed external balcony areas. For the avoidance of doubt it is understood that No.22 (objector) is actually shown on submitted plans as No.28 and on review of the drawings the proposed balcony measures approx. 18m from the rear boundary of this dwelling and around 30m from their rear elevation. It is also to be noted that there are two properties shown on the submitted drawings as The North Laurels and The South Laurels. The proposal is also around 30m from the boundary of both and around 38m from their nearest elevations, with there being a number of trees in-between.
6.12 It is undeniable that there is an increased level of activity at the site through the estate and its retail units attracting locals and visitors to the area. This anticipated level of use would have been considered by surrounding residents as part of original applications and also taken into consideration when the occupant of No. 22 would have been purchasing their dwelling. The scheme now introduces a first floor external balcony area where there would be further activity and at a higher level far more apparent from neighbouring properties. Crosby is indicated as being a smaller settlement and Spatial Policy 4 says that in these villages development should maintain the existing settlement character and should be of an appropriate scale. Whilst agreed that this site is in the centre of Crosby there remains a somewhat semi-rural nature to the area, and it is felt that in this specific case that the height, positioning and size that the proposed balcony area would give rise to an unreasonable level of activity which would have an adverse impact on The Laurels dwellings and on No. 22 (no.28) Cherry Tree Drive as to harm their living conditions and impact on the enjoyment of their properties.
iv) Car Parking inc. bicycle and motorcycle - Highway Safety and Visual Impact 6.12 There is no quantitative car parking standard for retail development in the Strategic Plan. The 18/00339/REM appeal Inspector's report stated that "the proposed provision of 33 spaces equates to about one space for every 15m2 of retail floor area, and seems to me to be reasonable." The proposal now results in a floor area measuring 616.18sq m and using the 1 per 15 ratio this would require 41 car parking spaces in total. Proposed is 38 car parking spaces which is a 3 space short fall, however minded that the scheme now includes 6 bicycle spaces and 2 motor bike spaces, and taking into account the short walking distances within the village and being on an arterial route served by public buses, that the 3 space short fall is not expected to result in any unacceptable on street parking in the locality or to adversely affect highway safety.
6.13 From a visual perspective, the overall appearance of the parking forecourt remains largely unchanged as a result of the works, and considered to be visually acceptable.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The car parking, bicycle and motorcycle parking changes are considered to be acceptable in terms of highway safety and visual impact. The visual impact of the balcony and balustrade is also considered to be acceptable, however the amenity impacts of the balcony are a little more complex in that the measured distances between sites is near to the 20m rule of thumb, however by reason of the siting, height and size of the balcony area and the distances from the nearest neighbours intensifies the potential level of activity on the balcony to an unreasonable level having an increased adverse impact on the neighbours through noise,
==== PAGE 6 ====
22/00876/B Page 6 of 6
overlooking and privacy impact harming the enjoyment of their properties and their general living conditions.
7.2 In addition to the above conclusions, the increased floor area would now take the size beyond the 500sq m floor space threshold requiring an RIA, and no RIA has been provided failing Business Policy 9. In this respect the proposal would also undermine the previous approvals and their conditions stipulating the need for any development over 500sq m to provide the necessary RIA, and lack of such further challenges the principles of Strategic Policy 9 and wider strategic and spatial policy objectives which ultimately seeks to direct such major retail developments to key centres and on land appropriately zoned.
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
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner 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 : Refused Date: 25.10.2022
Determining officer
Signed : J SINGLETON
Jason Singleton
Principal Planner
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