Loading document...
Case Officer: Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 10.10.2013 Site Visit: 18.10.2014 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation
1.1 The application site is the curtilage of 22 Castle Street, Douglas, which is a two-storey, mid-terrace retail unit. The application site is situated to the eastern side of the pedestrianised Castle Street, and is occupied by the Joe Jennings Bookmakers. At the ground floor, the unit is dominated by its corporate colours of green (that surrounds the doors and windows and provides the signage backdrop) and yellow and white for the lettering. Two doors sit either side of two large window frames; both the doors and the window frames have arched wooden frames at the top and timber panels with raised beading below.
1.2 The built environment in the immediate area is characterised by a variety of uses, architectural styles and finishings; adjacent is a hairdresser and restaurant, with the former presenting a contemporary shopfront characterised by significant glazing and the latter very much more traditional in that it presents what appears to be the original shopfront complete with windows with glazing bars and timber panels with painted, raised beading.
2.1 Approval is sought for a replacement shopfront to include doors both sides of a new central window, which would have stall risers below. The new window would not have a central mullion, but instead would be formed of a single sheet of double-glazing. Otherwise, the existing decorative, features and dimensions are identical between the existing and proposed. The sole other difference between is the material: powder-coated aluminium would replace timber. Although no colours are shown on the submitted plan, it is assumed that the corporate colours of the business (dark green; yellow for writing) are to be used.
2.2 A replacement sign is also proposed; this would be 0.1m higher and 0.5m wider than the existing, which measures 0.7m high by 2.1m wide. This element of the proposal, which would see the sign affixed to the fabric of the building, is considered to have deemed consent under Schedule 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2013 and is therefore not assessed in this Report.
3.1 The application site has been the subject of several previous planning applications, two of which are considered to be specifically material in the assessment of the current application.
| Application No.: | 14/01104/B |
| Applicant: | Joe Jennings Ltd |
| Proposal: | Installation of replacement shop front |
| Site Address: | 22 Castle Street Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 2EZ |
3.2 09/00966 sought and gained approval for the "Erection of illuminated signage"; this application referred to a projecting sign above the existing shopfront and, on the site visit, it was evident that this had been installed.
3.3 Of more direct relevance is the refusal issued to PA 13/91013/B, which sought approval for a replacement shopfront. This decision was upheld at appeal, and carried the following reasons for refusal:
"1. The proposed replacement shopfront would not retain the traditional design features of the existing property, and is therefore not considered to respect the site and its surroundings, and would thereby have an adverse impact on the character of the townscape, contrary to General Policy 2 (b) and (c) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2007)."
"2. The proposed replacement shopfront would not, by virtue of its inappropriate design, make a positive contribution to the built environment of the Island, contrary to Strategic Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2007)."
3.4 The current application has been submitted following pre-application discussions and in an attempt to respond to the previous reasons for refusal.
4.1 The application site is in an area zoned as "Predominantly Shopping" identified on the Douglas Local Plan 1998. No written statement accompanies the Douglas Local Plan.
4.2 In terms of Strategic Plan, two policies are considered relevant: Strategic Policy 5 and General Policy 2.
4.3 The relevant extract from Strategic Policy 5 states that: 'New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island'.
4.4 The relevant extract from General Policy 2 is: '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:
5.1 Douglas Borough Council, in correspondence date-stamped as having been received 7th October 2014, offers no objection.
5.2 Highway Services, in an email dated 7th October 2014, do not oppose the application.
6.1 Taken together, Strategic Policy 5 and General Policy 2 are clear that proposed development should not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape and should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the Island's built environment. Moreover, the recent refusal on the site is clear on the fact that an 'off the peg' design proposal is not acceptable in this location.
6.2 As noted, the application site has some attractive and traditional design features that are welcome, and worthy of retention, in the context of Douglas' main shopping street. That which is now proposed more or less replicates the existing situation but with two key differences: one, aluminium is proposed and, two, the existing mullion would be lost. While this mullion is perhaps one of the key features of the shopfront, the replication of the other important and traditional design features currently found on the unit.
6.3 As such, it is considered that not only does the current submission appropriately reflect on, and respond to, the previous reasons for refusal but it also satisfies the provisions of the key policies of the Strategic Plan. As such, it is recommended that an approval should be issued.
6.4 While no colour for the shopfront has been stated on the submitted plan, it is not considered necessary to control this via planning condition as the key issue is the structural format of the new shopfront rather than its colouration. It seems extremely unlikely in any casethat a colour other than the corporate green of the applicant would be used.
7.1 On the basis that the proposed replacement shopfront would be appropriate to the streetscene in which it would sit, a recommendation of approval is made.
8.1 In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application; Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 18.10.2014
C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: Notes attached to refusals
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.
This approval relates to the plan carrying reference 11 879 1 Rev A, date-stamped as having been received by the Department on 18th September 2014.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control /Head of Development Management/ Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made: Permitted Date: 20/10/14
Signed: _________________________ Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer
Signed: _________________________ Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control
Signed: _________________________ Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer
Signed: _________________________ Jennifer Chance Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
