Officer Report

Application No.: 15/00476/C Applicant: Northville Estates Ltd Proposal: Change of use of existing storage units to provide a self- contained office with associated parking provision Site Address: Rear Of 46 Bucks Road Douglas Isle of Man IM1 3AD Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 08.05.2015 Site Visit: 08.05.2015 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site relates to 46 Bucks Road, Douglas. The property is within terrace located in an established residential area, albeit that the frontage of these units is also established as retail and related town centre uses.

2.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY AND THE CURRENT PROPOSAL - 2.1 PA 09/02003/B sought the erection of a three-storey extension to the rear of 46 Bucks Road for use for use as a garage on the ground floor and storage above. The building proposed projected 9.7m from the original rear wall of the building, and had a width of 5.7m. The building would have a maximum height of 8.4m. Access was to be provided from a rear alley that leads from Albert Street. This application was approved in March 2010, subject to three conditions (two relating to timescales and the approved plans), the third of which read as follows:

"The extension hereby permitted shall be used only as a garage and/or for storage only in connection with the use of the existing premises and shall not be let or sold off for use by a separate business."

2.2 The current application seeks approval to change the use of the recently completed rear extension to provide a self-contained office. - 2.3 Consideration of the previous application involved assessment of the physical alterations proposed as well as the use; as the current application concerns itself with solely the use of the building, the following extract from the case officer's assessment is relevant to note:

"The original submission indicated that the building would be separate from the existing building at 46 Bucks Road, a restaurant, and whilst it would remain in the same ownership would be used independently from the restaurant use. Concern was raised by the planning officer about the increase in intensity of use should the storage and garage be used by another business and indeed the lack of space or storage for the effective continuation of the rear yard for use by the restaurant.

"Following discussion it was clarified that the garage would be used by the owner to store his own vehicle and the use of the upper floors would be for storage in connection with the main restaurant (or the owner). The application has been amended to provide a link between the two buildings at ground floor level. Whilst it would have been preferable for the extension to be physically attached at all floors, it is acknowledged that this would be difficult to achieve given the internal layout of the building, the fact that it is terraced and the flue from the kitchen which currently runs up the rear elevation.

"The applicants have indicated that they are happy for a condition that restricts the use of the extension to being solely in connection with the main building, and that it shall not be used separately."

Another relevant extract is as follows:

"With regard to the comments received from the Highways Adviser, contact was made with the applicant asking what the storage would be used as. A letter was received stating that the garage would be used by the owner for his car, which he used rarely."

2.4 These comments are interesting to contrast with the supporting statement submitted as part of the current application, which notes the following:

"The existing premises, behind which this extension is constructed, was at the time of the application, and still is, a restaurant. This is leased from our client who owns the entire building including the extension.

"The restaurant has never had the use of the extension and shows no sign of interest in leasing the extension for use in conjunction with the restaurant. The extension therefore remains as a shell and unoccupied. The restaurant functions within the existing front section of the building and has access via a passageway from the rear lane, retaining its bins area within the passageway.

"Our client now makes application to change the use of the extension to independent office use. The garage will form the parking space for the office which will occupy the upper two floors. A toilet and a tea kitchen will be incorporated in the office area and the office will take access via the passageway and shared stair.

"The net office area is 49.24 square metres, which requires the provision of one parking space, this is provided in the garage."

3.0 PLANNING STATUS - 3.1 The application site is located within an area identified as 'Predominantly Residential' in the Douglas Local Plan 1998. General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan 2007 allows for development in accordance with the zoning of the site subject to various criteria. It is not considered that Environment Policy 36 is relevant to consider in this case since no physical alterations are proposed.

4.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 4.1 Highway Services offered no objection to the proposal on 12.05.2015. - 4.2 Douglas Borough Council offered no objection to the proposal on 26.05.2015.

5.0 ASSESSMENT - 5.1 This is a slightly unusual situation. Planning approval was granted for the erection of an extension primarily on the grounds that the extension would be used in conjunction with the existing premises - officers were concerned about the intensification of non-residential uses within a residential area and how two such uses (that is, the extension and the restaurant in front) would be able to successfully operate independently from one another. The landowner at the time clearly indicated their satisfaction with a condition to restrict the use of the extension to that of the property to which it would be attached. The restaurant does not ever seem to have shown any interest in using the extension in relation to their business. This raises the question of why the extension was ever built at all if its restricted use was of no interest to the only business that would be able to use it. - 5.2 In view of the fact that officers previously considered the erection of the extension acceptable only were it to be used in conjunction with the existing property, the application's acceptability will turn on the following question: to what extent would recommending approval of the current application be taking a contrary view to that of officers in 2010 and, if so, to what extent would it be appropriate to do so? - 5.3 The proposed garaging would provide the parking normally required for a unit of this size. Indeed, the garage is long enough to accommodate two cars in a tandem arrangement, which, although not ideal were the requirement for 2 spaces, is welcome in this case. The parking in the area was noted as being very tight and informally arranged (to the point of being haphazard) on a currently vacant corner of the rear lane and Albert Street that will, evidently, not remain open forever. It would appear that spaces here are leased to individual companies in the vicinity. It is therefore welcome that the proposal would provide sufficient parking within the confines of the application site for the proposed use. - 5.4 There is, however, a resulting loss of a parking space for the restaurant business. Previously the rear yard area would have been available to park cars owned by employees of the restaurant, even if the restaurateur's car was used "rarely" - now, though, there would be no parking available for employees. Highway Services have not objected to the proposal. It is also noted that the site is located within a sustainable location with good access to public transport serving a number of settlements throughout the Island. It is also to be noted that parking associated with a restaurant is more likely to be of an evening than during the day, when the greatest parking pressure in the area will be felt. It is also true that the garage could be made available to restaurant employees of an evening and office workers during the day. While the restaurant use cannot be relied upon to remain permanently such that the future parking situation might alter with any different use of 46 Bucks Road, it is the current and long-established use (since 1997). It is considered that to object to the loss of the parking space in such a location would, on balance, be difficult to sustain were it the only reason the application was considered unacceptable. - 5.5 Visibility onto Albert Road is not ideal but it is a one-way street and the proposal would not intensify car use appreciably more than the approved use of the extension. It would therefore be inappropriate to object to the proposal on grounds of highways safety. - 5.6 Probably the key issue is that highlighted in the previous case officer's report: "Concern was raised by the planning officer about the increase in intensity of use should the storage and garage be used by another business and indeed the lack of space or storage for the effective continuation of the rear yard for use by the restaurant". It is not immediately clear what the concern about the intensity of the use specifically related to, except for the bin storage and perhaps the parking arrangements. There is already a bin storage area and, although this is not easily accessible from the rear access lane, it is also not unduly inaccessible. The addition of further refuse bins here related to the office (were they even to

• be stored here rather than the garage) would not worsen an existing situation to a degree sufficient to warrant the application's refusal. Perhaps another concern was how another business use might affect the living conditions of local people.
• 5.7 While there are residential uses in the area, it is considered that the use of the building as an office would probably be more appropriate for a residential area than a storage use - storage can be accessed at all hours, and often by larger vans or flat-bed trucks that can be noisy, have reversing warning noises and lights, and generally have a more harmful effect on living conditions than the private car. However, access to storage units is often far less common than a daily commute to the building associated with its use as an office. As a whole. the use of the building as an office would probably be more regular in that it would likely be limited primarily to commuter periods of weekdays, and the proposed use would therefore probably be less likely to harm the living conditions of people residing nearby than the potential irregular use of a storage unit. Much of this is hypothesis, but it is not considered to be unreasonable hypothesis.

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION - 6.1 It is considered that the change of use proposed would have a slightly negative impact on the parking situation in an area where parking is already at a premium. This, however, is balanced against the likely improved impact on local living conditions in terms of reduced comings and goings by users of the recently completed extension. - 6.2 A condition should be applied to ensure the garage remains free at all times for the parking of one or more vehicles for employees of the application site as a whole.

7.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;

• (d) The Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; and
• (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation:

03.06.2015

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

- 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. The garage shall remain available for the parking of private motor vehicles at all times. Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to reduce parking pressure in the area.
• C 3. The garage shall only be used to park private motor vehicles used by people employed at the application site. Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to reduce parking pressure in the area.

The development hereby approved relates to the following plans, date-stamped as having been received 30th April 2015: 15 2452 01, 15 2452 02, 15 2452 03 and 15 2452 04.

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 : 04.06.2015 Determining officer (delete as appropriate) Signed :…………………………………….. Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer Signed :…………………………………….. Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer Signed : Michael Gallagher Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control Signed :…………………………………….. Jennifer Chance Head of Development Management