Loading document...
Application No.: 16/01317/B Applicant: Callows Yard Limited Proposal: Additional use and conversion of retail units to form two residential units for permanent and tourist use Site Address: 17 & 19 Malew Street Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1AB Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 15.12.2016 Site Visit: 15.12.2016 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSALS AND THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE
1.1 The site is part of the wider development known as Callow's Yard in the heart of Castletown. The development involved the linking of Malew and Arbory Streets with the redevelopment and alteration of buildings creating a mix of residential, retail, offices, cafes and tourist accommodation with a pedestrian link between the two streets with a communal public area in the middle. - 1.2 Since its original approval the scheme has been changed, seeing the creation of a public house/restaurant which has since been converted to residential. The link between Malew Street and the central courtyard has not been available since the retail units at 17 and 19 have been closed for business. A toilet and storage building within the scheme and a function suite have also been the subject of successful applications for conversion to residential use. - 1.3 The area of the scheme which is the subject of the current application relates to numbers 17 and 19 which front onto Malew Street and back onto the rear of the units behind which front onto the inner courtyard. It is between these two units that the pedestrian access passes to link Malew and Arbory Streets. - 1.4 The units have a floor area of around 70 sq m (19 is slightly smaller than 17) and a frontage to Malew Street of around 7m each and number 17 would also have a door onto Malew Street. The units would have their front door access from the pedestrian passageway. The units each have a large window and a slightly smaller one, all with low cill levels, looking out onto Malew Street and no other windows. - 1.5 The units are currently unoccupied and are devoid of signage. The unit at number 21 is the home of an electricity substation and has a large window to the right of the front door, the window is obscured with opaque vinyl, the glazed part of the door also. To the left of the door is a set of double doors with vents in the lower third and obscured glazing above. To the left of these is another pedestrian door. - 1.6 To the north of the substation are a mixture of retail units interspersed with residential properties. Up until this point the frontages are all commercial in appearance and use. THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Proposed is the use of the front units at 17 and 19, Malew Street as residential and/or tourist use. The units would be in the form of two one bed units. No external changes are proposed. PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013 as Mixed Use, reflecting the mixture of retail, offices, cafes, take-aways, residential and tourist uses which prevail in the area. Within Callow's Yard itself the complex accommodates units which have dual use as residential or tourism and retail and offices to enable easy changes between uses which are deemed acceptable and in accordance with the land use designation. The site also lies within the town's Conservation Area.
3.2 The Strategic Plan sets out standards of car parking required for different sorts of development residential units generally require two spaces per unit and retail uses spaces for service deliveries. It also states that:
"These standards may be relaxed where development: a) would secure the re-use of a Registered Building or a building of architectural or historic interest; or b) would result in the preservation of a sensitive streetscape, or c) is otherwise of benefit to the character of a Conservation Area d) is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality" (A.7.6).
3.3 Paragraph 6.1.2 describes "The majority of the retail provision in the South is within the existing settlements. Most of this is located in the Service Centres of Castletown and Port Erin both of which offer some comparison and convenience retailing." It goes on at paragraph 6.6.1 "In order to achieve town and village centres which are attractive, viable and full of vitality it is essential to encourage a mix of different uses to locate within the Mixed Use areas. This will include elements of retail, office, light industrial, community facilities, leisure and tourism uses and residential as well as dedicated public spaces which will be a focus for community activity. Uses which are not compatible with residential developments will not be supported within the Mixed Uses areas. Generally there will be a presumption in favour of changes of use between the range of approved uses. Whilst planning approval may be required for some changes, this would normally be supported subject to the buildings being suitable for the new use."
3.2 At paragraph 6.6.2 of the Plan. "Development within an area of Mixed Use (as designated on the Proposals Map/Inset Maps) or those sites proposed for Mixed Use (identified on the Maps as 'Proposed Mixed Use') will comprise a mix of some or all of the following uses: residential; shops; financial and professional services; food and drink; research and development, light industry; hotels and hostels; hospitals, nursing homes and residential institutions; community uses; leisure; tourism and open space. For applications relating to sites proposed for Mixed Use, the mix and types of uses on the site will be determined on their merits in accordance with the Proposals in the Area Plan and the Isle of Man Strategic Plan Policies. - 3.3 Paragraph 6.6.5 of the Area Plan states, "In order to ensure that the vitality of the town and village centres is retained in terms of visitor attraction and activity after working hours, it is considered that retail should be the preferred use for ground floors of buildings within those areas designated for Mixed Use with residential use encouraged for the upper floors. Office use will also be acceptable on the upper floors but not at the expense of residential uses, and in certain circumstances on the lower floors.
Mixed Use Proposal 1: In order to maintain and enhance the vitality of the Mixed Use areas in Port Erin, Castletown and Ballasalla, there will be a presumption in favour of the retention of existing retail units on the ground floor although each case will be determined upon its circumstances and merits."
3.4 The Strategic Plan contains the following which is considered relevant to this application: Paragraph 9.4.5 states "It is accepted that in some circumstances a mix of uses can be appropriate
3.11 Community Policy 4 states that: 'Development (including the change of use of existing premises) which involves the loss of local shops and local public houses, will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that the use is no longer commercially viable, or cannot be made commercially viable.' The preceding text sets out 'The loss of facilities such as neighbourhood shops in towns and or village shops and public houses reduces customer choice and can also necessitate people travelling further to meet their needs. This is a particular problem in rural areas where village shops, post offices and public houses can be central to village life. It would be preferable to retain viable facilities, or those that can be made viable and where a change of use or re-development is proposed developers will be expected to show evidence of attempts to market the property as a business in these areas.' - 3.12 Transport Policy 7 requires all new development to provide parking in accordance with the Department's Standards, set out in Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan. These parking standards can be reduced or set aside in sustainable locations or in Conservation Areas, as appropriate. - 3.13 Paragraph 9.5.8 states, "The use of existing private residential properties as tourist accommodation may be acceptable if it can be demonstrated that it will not compromise the
4.1 The site as a whole has been the subject of a number of applications, the most recent of which have sought to increase the number of residential units, with concerns raised about the amount of car parking provided, the impact of changes to some frontages and the acceptability of so many units of this size within the town centre. The most useful decision in this respect is in respect of PA 14/00338/B which was approved at appeal following a refusal by the Planning Committee and recommendation for approval by the inspector which was finally accepted by the Minister, following an earlier refusal by another acting Minister whose decision was successfully challenged in the courts, quashed and referred back to the Department.
4.2 This application is not identical to the present application as it concerned largely the upper floors of the complex with a single proposal for change of a stairwell at ground floor level to facilitate the living accommodation above with alterations to the frontage which lost the shopfront and replaced it with a residential frontage with smaller windows and a door. The inspector notes at his paragraph 74 that, "8 Arbory Street is not a shop and its function as a stairwell is clearly apparent to passersby. Its ground floor does, however, at least have the outward appearance of a retail frontage, which is appropriate to its location on this pedestrianised shopping street. From townscape and retailing perspectives, the application would have been that bit better had the ground floor of these premises converted to retail use." - 4.3 The gist of the main objection from the acting Minister was that there was inadequate car parking for the development which would have resulted in inconvenience to the neighbourhood. Whilst there was some disagreement between the parties, the inspector and the acting Minister on the number of spaces required, the final determination was that the number of spaces should be lowered to account for the applicant's evidence from assessing the car parking requirement for
those who actually live within the complex, fewer than normal having their own vehicles and, also considering the parking survey commissioned by Department of Infrastructure which concluded that if that Department and Castletown Commissioners continue to improve the management of the spaces within the town then the number of spaces which could be available would suffice, and that as such what was proposed was acceptable from a car parking and highway perspective.
REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Castletown Commissioners object to the application on the basis that all ground floor premises currently designated as retail should remain as such and they suggest that there are encouraging signs of investment in the historic centre of the town and the conversion from retail space to residential at this juncture is considered a retrograde step (06.12.16).
5.2 The owner of 31, Arbory Street does not believe that the applicant has demonstrated that the units are incapable of operating successfully as retail units particularly since losing the application for an alcohol licence for Tesco and the units have been left in a neglected state for a considerable period. They consider it unlikely that if converted, the units would be changed back to retail. They believe that there is commercial desire for these units and object to the application (12.12.16). - 5.3 The owner of The Malt House on Bridge Street, Castletown observes that prior to the redevelopment of what has become Callow's Yard, there was only one unoccupied unit, now there are many. Subsequent tenants have complained of excessive rent increases and interference by the landlord and those other operational businesses in the town are busy. They are also concerned about the impact on car parking with residents seeking to park on the quay (15.12.16). - 5.4 Highway Services note that the proposal is to change the use of 2 retail units to combined residential / tourist accommodation within the Callow's Yard complex. Previous planning approvals have altered many retail units to combined residential / tourist use and assessment has demonstrated that there will be no adverse traffic impact from this change (19.12.16).
6.1 As there are no physical changes to the buildings, there can be no objections to the scheme in terms of the appearance of the units per se although how they are used may affect how they appear and this will be explained further below. The areas of potential concern relate to the possible impact of the changes on car parking, the impact of the use on the character and appearance of the area, the loss of commercial units and finally whether the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for those in the new units. Car parking
6.2 The units have no parking provision on site whatever their proposed use. Whilst deliveries to the commercial units could happen on street, a similar arrangement could not occur for residential vehicles which would require longer term parking provision. The issue of parking in the town has been well covered in previous applications with the conclusion that with better management, the town will have sufficient provision in the future. It is not considered that two additional single bedroomed units will add significantly to the current or future demand and as such it is not considered that the application should be refused for this reason. The impact of the proposed use on the character and appearance of the area - 6.3 Whilst the units will not be physically changed, it is likely that the occupation of them will result in a subtle change to the windows which will belie the residential rather than commercial uses within - for example curtains and ornaments being within the windows alongside the street and the pedestrian walkway through the units rather than items for sale and signage. This is apparent further down Malew Street where residential properties are intermixed with commercial. This subtle but visible change will visually and perhaps effectively shorten the commercial area of the town and perhaps even dissuade people from using the walkway through into the central area and on to Arbory Street and venturing further down Malew Street where there are still a few commercial premises.
7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.
In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons do not have sufficient interest to be awarded the status of an Interested person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13:
the occupants of The Malt House and 31, Arbory Street, neither of whom are sufficiently close to the application site to be directly affected by the proposal.
With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 29.12.2016
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 : Refused Committee Meeting Date: 09.01.2017
Signed : S CORLETT 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
