Loading document...
THE APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE PLANNING COMMITTEE GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSAL AND THE SITE'S PLANNING HISTORY.
1.1 The application site is No. 1 Quine's Corner, Douglas. The site comprises an empty shop situated on the corner of Quine's Corner and the North Quay. It has previously been used as a sweet shop, although the vinyls advertising this have since been removed.
1.2 Above the shop are residential flats. Next to the site is the Bridge Inn public house.
1.3 The site is within the Douglas North Quay Conservation Area.
2.1 The application seeks planning approval for a conversion of the premises to a mixed use shop and wine bar, comprising some small scale external alterations. The wine bar would have approximately 28sqm of floorspace; no details on numbers of covers have been provided.
2.2 The external alterations involve the removal of the tiles at stall riser level (the exposed wall behind would be rendered) along with the installation of two transom bars to the existing window frames. These would run at the same height around both elevations. Frosted glazing would sit above the uppermost of the transoms, while vinyl would be installed beneath the lowermost to provide privacy for those seating within the wine bar. The existing fascia, which is plastic, would be replaced with a timber version.
2.3 The application is accompanied by a sound report, which recommends the installation of an acoustic ceiling within the unit to provide noise attenuation to the residents above. The application shows this acoustic ceiling as being proposed for installation.
2.4 As originally advertised, the application was described as being for "Conversion of premises from retail to off-licence and bar". On 12th December the agent to the application requested that the description be revised to "Change of use from retail to mixed use shop and
wine bar with associated external changes". In view of the representations received by that point (which was one week after the end of the consultation period), the application was fully re-advertised for the statutory 21-day period.
3.1 This application follows the withdrawal of an application for a similar proposal in 2013 (13/00806/C) and the refusal of a similar proposal in 2014 (14/00463/B). The later application differs from the earlier one in that an acoustic report was provided. Both these schemes differed in a small but fundamental way from that now submitted, as they both sought to knock through from the application site into the adjacent Bridge Inn.
3.2 The 2014 application carried a single, but extensive, reason for refusal:
"The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the extension of the public house into the premises would not give rise to noise, vibration and environmental conflict with the residential flats above. In particular:
"(i) No account is taken of the low background noise levels in the residential flat, which means that noise from rowdy behaviour or amplified music below is likely to be clearly audible in the flat above;
"(ii) No detail is provided on the potential from flanking transmission of noise via open windows, doors or through or by mechanical ventilation system within proposed extension to The Bridge Public House; and
"(iii) No detail is provided on the potential noise transmission from The Bridge Public House during licensed loud amplified public entertainment events as the existing ~4ft brick wall is proposed to be knocked through providing a doorway and thereby direct noise transmission pathway. Noise levels at such an event could easily exceed 100 dB(A).
"The proposal is likely to result in a detrimental reduction in amenity of local residents who currently enjoy quiet enjoyment of their properties and are likely to subsequently be subject to occasional annoyance due to rowdy behaviour and loud amplified music, possibly also mechanical ventilation noise. Often the annoyance is not just when the noise nuisance is occurring but it is in the unpredictability of the noise nuisance, not knowing when it will occur again and that it is likely to occur at unsociable hours.
"The proposal fails to accord with criterion (g) of General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 22 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 and is unacceptable."
4.1 The Douglas Local Plan 1998 zones the site and immediate surroundings as being mixed use.
4.2 Several policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 are relevant. General Policy 2 states (in part): "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:
4.3 Environment Policy 22 states: "Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of:
i) pollution of sea, surface water or groundwater; ii) emissions of airborne pollutants; and iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution."
4.4 Environment Policy 35 states: "Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development."
4.5 Other policies in the Business section of the Strategic Plan apply. Business Policies 9 and 10 read as follows: "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".
4.6 "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."
4.7 Finally, Transport Policy 7 states that: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards". In respect of tourist accommodation, those standards are 1 parking space per bedroom, with standards possibly relaxed in urban locations, "...where development:
5.1 The Architectural Liaison Officer within the Isle of Man Constabulary was contacted for his advice. Having previously not objected to the scheme at the pre-application stage, he advised, in an email dated 19th November 2014, in full: "I've spoken to our Alcohol Unit staff and they have nothing further to add".
5.2 The Environmental Health Officer within the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture was contacted for his advice. Again, he was contacted at the pre-application stage (this time by the agent for the application) and, on 3rd November 2014, advised in part as follows: "Thank you for the noise reports from "Soundtesting" attached to your earlier email. From the results of the desk top sound insulation feasibility report produced by "Soundtesting" and the associated test results, it would appear that the proposed measures may well be adequate to satisfactorily attenuate noise arising from the proposed business. However I must point out that this does not exclude the opportunity for this Department to
deal with any statutory noise nuisance, under the terms of The Public Health Act 1990, once the premises is brought into operation." He then continued with comments in respect of other environmental health matters relating to layout and toilet provision, none of which are material planning considerations.
He further advised, once the application had been submitted, in an email of 18th November 2014: "In respect of the planning application I would refer you to the email below which I sent to Mr Andrew Bentley on 03 Nov. My views would be unchanged. The conclusions of the "Soundtesting" report would appear to address the noise issues, but the rider would be that this will not exclude the Department from taking future action should a Statutory Nuisance occur once the premises are brought into practical use.
"I note on the plan that only one (unisex) WC and wash hand basin are to be provided. We would assess the number of toilets required based on the number of patrons the premises can accommodate. The standard adopted by this Department would be up to 50 patrons, two separate toilets are required. However a concession has been made in the past for smaller premises, accommodating 20 or less patrons. Whereby, one toilet and hand basin would be seen as acceptable. In this case if it is proposed that the premises will be designed to hold 20 plus customers, then it will require two separate WC units.
"If the proposal is approved by your committee I would require that the business operator/architect provides me with a detailed layout of the premises in relation to the location of equipment (fridges, sinks, wash hand basins etc) within the servery area of the premises."
It is not considered that these last two paragraphs raise material Planning concerns. However, it is helpful to note the number of customers judged likely to use the premises - given its size - when considering any potential noise nuisance both internally and externally that might arise from the grant of planning approval.
These comments were not updated following the re-advertisement of the application.
5.3 Douglas Borough Council, in a letter received via email on 4th December 2014, advised that the Executive Committee "agreed not to raise an objection to the application providing that a satisfactory response is received from the relevant Environmental Health Officer regarding the proposed acoustic improvements to the floor separating the shop unit from the residential flats above." They also identify that they own the land referred to in the application, and have agreed to amend the existing lease with the applicant that specifically excludes its use as an off-licence.
Following the re-advertisement of the application with the amended description, the Council commented that "The Committee agreed not to raise further comment, save that removal of use as an off-license [sic] in the application now accords with the terms of the lease of the Council (as owner) with the tenant". These comments were received 30th December 2014.
5.4 It is understood that the agent has contacted local residents with respect to the proposal, and it is noted that none have commented on the application even after it was re-advertised. Applications for hot food uses in the area previously did attract concern from local people.
6.1 It is noted that the principle of the proposal to use the unit as a public house (extension) was, previously, considered acceptable. Nothing has materially changed since that time to alter this opinion.
6.2 More than this, the North Quay is considered to be the area where development such as that proposed should be encouraged by the Department and, as such, it is welcome that the applicant has sought to overcome the previous refusal with a subtly amended scheme. It remains important to consider the application against four key issues: (1) the proposed use relative to surrounding uses / the Local Plan zoning; (2) parking and highway safety; (3) effect of the proposal on local residential amenity, and (4) whether or not the proposal preserves or enhances the Conservation Area.
Whether the proposed use of the premises as a mixed use shop / wine bar is acceptable in principle
6.3 The area is zoned for mixed use and is in a vibrant part of the North Quay, which includes a range of shops, drinking establishments and restaurants. It is therefore welcome that reference to the use of the unit as an off-licence has been removed, even if this was unlikely to have been harmful in a material way to this range of business types present. The proposal would not undermine the general offer of night-time economy uses, would help support the economy, and raises no strategic concerns. Therefore, the principle is acceptable.
Parking provision and highway safety
6.4 The site is located in a fairly central location and is part of the town centre. Its location near to Lord Street means it has good access to public transport links, while several car parks are easily accessible. The proposed use would probably result in an increase in parking demand over and above the previous use, but would probably not be considered so significant to warrant a refusal. There is no objection to the application from Highway Services and the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of its impact on parking.
The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area
6.5 The only external changes proposed would probably smarten the appearance of the unit, which currently is a little tired. The use of timber is welcome, and the new fascia especially so. The removal of the tiling is similarly considered an improvement. It is considered that the character and appearance of the area would be enhanced by both the physical works and, in light of paragraph 6.3 above, in terms of the use, as well.
The effect of the proposal upon the amenities of adjacent residents
6.6 It is considered that, as previously, the main issue for the application is the effect of the proposed use on the amenity of residents of the flats above the premises. It was because of this concern that a previous application was withdrawn and another refused. The current application is again accompanied by an acoustic report and this has been scrutinised by the Environmental Health Officer at DEFA.
6.7 The EHO's comments are heavily relied upon. The fact that they offer no objection (subject to the caveat of possible action to investigate noise nuisance complaints in the future) is quite instructive. Evidently, the noise concerns raised with respect to the previous two applications are no longer applicable, and it can be assumed that the lack of connecting passageway between the application site and the adjacent Bridge Inn is more directly related to this than the acoustic ceiling that would be installed, albeit that both elements are welcome.
6.8 It is noted that the Architectural Liaison Officer has no issues in this regard. Equally, it should be noted that any noise disturbance that might result from outside of the premises through patrons congregating and the like are already present to a not insignificant degree given the presence of the aforementioned Bridge Inn, but also nearby restaurants along North
Quay in both directions. While, of course, the cumulative impact should not be ignored, it is judged that the fairly small size of the application site relative to the fairly limited increase in noise disturbance that would, reasonably, be considered to arise following the granting of planning approval, is such as to not warrant an objection on this point.
6.9 However, despite this, conditions restricting the hours of use should still be applied to any approval notice that may be forthcoming. Advice was sought from the applicant, who indicated that a condition limiting the opening hours to 11am to 9pm daily would be acceptable to his client. The adjacent Bridge Inn has the standard late-night licence (albeit not through a Planning condition), and so the reasoning behind the proposed 9pm closure is not fully understood. It is therefore considered that a condition preventing patrons from being served after 11pm (excepting Sundays and Bank Holidays) on every day of the week would not be inappropriate or unreasonable. A closing time of 9pm on Sundays and Bank Holidays would be appropriate.
7.1 For the reasons outlined above, it is recommended that the application be approved.
7.2 Given the specific nature of the proposal, and reflecting on the planning history of the site, it is considered that there could be some concern with respect to the site's being used for a different purpose than that now proposed. However, given that the Planning use proposed is sui generis given the mixture of uses indicated, a fresh planning approval would be required for any use of the site that differed from that now proposed. As such, there are no Permitted Development Rights with respect to this use.
7.3 Conditions restricting the opening times, installation of the acoustic ceiling, and the prevention of the knocking the two units together should still be applied, however.
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.
8.2 In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and Article 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application:
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 14.01.2015
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. No customers shall be served or remain in the building outside of the following hours: 11am to 11pm on Mondays to Saturdays inclusive, and 11am to 9pm on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
Reason: In the interests of protecting public amenity.
C 3. The acoustic ceiling, as shown on approved plan 1422-QC-200 Rev A, shall be installed prior to the application site being put to the use hereby approved, and shall also be retained as such thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of protecting private residential amenity.
C 4. For the avoidance of doubt, there shall be no creation of any openings in the internal wall separating the application site from the adjacent Bridge Inn.
Reason: In the interests of protecting private residential amenity.
The development hereby approved relates to the following plans, date-stamped as having been received 6th November 2014: 1422-QC-100, 1422-QC-101 and 1422-QC-200 Rev A.
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 : APPROVED. Committee Meeting Date: 26th JANUARY 2015
Signed: [Handwritten signature] Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate ☑ YES ☐ NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
