**Document:** Planning Officer Report and Recommendation **Application:** 09/00753/C — Change of use from existing storage building to a health and fitness facility **Decision:** Refused **Decision Date:** 2009-07-27 **Parish:** Braddan **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/63006-braddan-store-shed-change-of-use/documents/1538734 --- # Planning Officer Report and Recommendation ## Planning Report And Recommendations [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Considerations [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Written Representations [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Consultations [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Officer's Report THE APPLICATION SITE AND PLANNING APPLICATION The application site comprises the curtilage of an existing storage shed building that is located on Elm Tree Road in Onchan. The planning application seeks approval for the change of use of the building to a health and fitness facility. PLANNING HISTORY There are no previous planning applications that are considered to be material to the assessment of this current planning application. REPRESENTATIONS Onchan District Commissioners recommend that the planning application be refused on the grounds that it fails to identify adequate car parking provision. The Department of Transport Highways Division do not oppose the planning application. They accept that whilst the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 requires 8 parking spaces the provision of 4 spaces is acceptable given the existence of car parks within the surrounding area. They state that the applicant is to ensure that all clients are to be made aware of the car parks within the surrounding area. The Department of Transport Drainage Division do not oppose the planning application. The owner and/or occupant of 2 Elm Drive, which is located to the north of the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the structure of the building does not readily lend itself to the proposed use and will result in noise and general disturbance, and that car parking is problematic within the area. The owner and/or occupant of 1 Church Avenue, which is located to the north of the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the structure of the building does not readily lend itself to the proposed use and will result in noise and general disturbance, and that car parking is problematic within the area. The owners and/or occupants of 2 Church Avenue, which is located to the north of the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the structure of the building does not readily lend itself to the proposed use and will result in noise and general disturbance, and that car parking is problematic within the area. The Onchan Pensioners Social Club, which is located to the east of the application site, objects to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that car parking is problematic within the area and that the proposal will exacerbate the issue. Mr David J Quirk MHK, Member for Onchan, objects to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that car parking is problematic within the area and that the proposal will exacerbate the issue. ### Planning Policy In terms of local plan policy, the application site is located within a wider area of land that is designated as mixed use (residential/office/retail) under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Onchan Local Plan) Order 2000 Map No. 1. There are no policies within Planning Circular 1/2000, the written statement to be read in conjunction with the local plan, which are considered specifically material to the assessment of the current planning application. In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains two policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application: ### General Policy 2 states: "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: - (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; - (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; - (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; - (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; - (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; - (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; - (j) can be provided with all necessary services; - (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; - (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; - (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." 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." ### Assessment The planning application seeks approval for the change of use of the building to a health and fitness facility. The submitted application comprises a location plan, a site plan, an indicative floor plan, completed application form and supporting statement from the applicant. Having visited the application site it can be seen that the existing building is sheet clad building of general commercial appearance. It has to be said that the building does not instantly appear to be one that readily lends itself to conversion for the proposed use. However that is a matter for the applicant and the planning application should be assessed on the basis that it seeks approval for the change of use of the building. In terms of general principle it is considered that the proposed use is compatible with the land use designation as mixed use. The purpose of this planning application is therefore to primarily assess the site specific impacts of the proposed use. In this respect the two main considerations are concluded to be i) the impact of the proposed use on the surrounding area and; ii) the provision of car parking to serve the proposed use. In respect of the first issue it considered relatively self-evident that the proposed building will have little or no sound proofing within it and that the existing construction does not provide much opportunity to install sound proofing as part of the proposed change of use. Indeed, the submitted planning application does not indicate any sound proofing. Taking this and the nature of the proposed use into account it is concluded that the proposal has the potential to generate significant noise nuisance within the surrounding area. Gyms and fitness facilities are often relatively noisy uses, with amplified music normally being used. Given the proximity of the application site to residential properties it is concluded that the potential for noise and general disturbance would adversely affect the amenity of local residents. This is considered to be reason for refusal of the planning application. As regards the second issue, appendix 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 defines a car parking requirement of 1 space per 15 square metres of gross floor space. Based on the submitted drawings (140sq.m.) this equates to a requirement of a minimum of 9 spaces. The submitted planning application states that the area to the front of the building will be allocated for car parking and can provide 4 spaces. However, it should be noted that this area is outwith the defined red line and therefore technically not within the application site. Even if it is assumed this is a drafting error by the applicant the area to the front could only realistically provide at most 3 parking spaces, as it would be necessary to provide a gap for access to the building. Taking this into account it can be seen that car parking provision for the proposed use is deficient by at least 6 parking spaces. In such instances it is appropriate to take the capacity of the surrounding area into account and assess whether the short fall can be accommodated elsewhere. Having visited the area during the day it can be seen that the lack of available on street car parking is a clear problem and it can only be assumed that this issue is even more significant in the evenings. The applicant assertion that their clients will be instructed where to park and not to park within the surrounding residential streets is not accepted as mitigating the issue. As such, it is concluded that the proposed use fails to provide adequate car parking to the detriment of the surrounding area. This is considered to be reason for refusal of the planning application. On the basis of the above it is recommended that the planning application be refused. ### Party Status It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status: Onchan District Commissioners; The Department of Transport Highways Division; The Department of Transport Drainage Division; The owner and/or occupant of 2 Elm Drive; The owner and/or occupant of 1 Church Avenue; The owners and/or occupants of 2 Church Avenue; and The Onchan Pensioners Social Club. It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded interested party status: Mr David J Quirk MHK, Member for Onchan. ### Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 07.07.2009 ### 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 R 1. Due to the construction of the building and the type of activity proposed within the building it is concluded that the proposed use would cause unacceptable noise and general disturbance to the amenity of the local residents. As such, the proposed change of use is contrary to General Policy 2 (g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. R 2. The proposal fails to provide sufficient car parking to serve the proposed use to the detriment of the surrounding area. As such, the proposed change of use is contrary to General Policy 2 (h) and Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular No 10/09, Delegation of Functions (Development Procedure), GC No 11/09 (Advertisements) and GC No 12/09 (Registered Buildings) all to the Senior Planning Officer Decision Made: Refused Date: 24 July 2009 Signed: [Signature] Senior Planning Officer --- *Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).* *Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/63006-braddan-store-shed-change-of-use/documents/1538734*