Officer Report Continuation

The effect of the proposed use on the amenity of the surrounding area primarily relates to the effect on the residential properties within the area. The main impacts on those properties will arise from the proposed type and level of use. For example, concern has been raised regarding potential noise disturbance from the proposed use. In this respect, whilst it is difficult to assess noise disturbance arising from the proposed use of the building it is considered reasonable to conclude that use on the scale estimated by the applicant, i.e. congregations of up to 400 people, is likely to be audible within the surrounding area. Whether this level of noise is sufficient to warrant refusal of the planning application is debatable and due to a combination of indicated sound-proofing and an absence of conclusive proof it is concluded that it would be unreasonable to refuse the planning application on such grounds. As previously stated the applicant intends to use the building for a number of different types of activity, including church services, youth clubs, nursery pre-school clubs, senior citizens clubs, training events and social event hire. The overall estimated level of use is likely to lead to significant movements to and from the application site, well in excess of what would reasonably be expected from the use of the building for light industrial purposes. Concerns have been expressed regarding the attraction, congregating and control of certain groups to the area as a result of the proposed use. To a large extent the management or operation of the building is not controlled by the planning system and only limited weight can be given to such issues in the assessment of the planning application. The local resident's concern about anti-social behaviour is not grounds for refusal of the planning application as the concern cannot be conclusively demonstrated and other enforcement authorities have the powers to deal with any problems. The final issue to consider is the impact of the proposed use on the public highway. This issue, which leads on from and also affects to some degree residential amenity, comprises of two elements. Firstly the adequacy of proposed car parking provision and secondly the effect on the surrounding highways. Based on the submitted drawing the gross floor space of the building measures approximately 868 square metres. Under appendix 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (1 space per 15 square metres gross floorspace) this equates to a car parking space requirement of 58 car parking spaces. The planning application shows a provision of 25 on-site car parking spaces, although 5 of these spaces could potentially be blocked by the use of other spaces, which is 33 spaces short of the 58 space requirement. Taking this and the estimated Sunday congregations of up to 400 people into account it is concluded that the car parking provision for the proposed use is inadequate. This is likely to result in excessive overspill car parking within the surrounding area, which can only be problematic. There is also likely to be an increase in the overall level of traffic within the area, although it is difficult to say that this would be to a level that would warrant refusal of the planning application. Overall, although the Department of Transport Highways Division do not oppose the planning application it is considered that the inadequate level of car parking provision is grounds for refusal of the planning application. In conclusion, having regard to the above it is considered that the planning application should be refused on the grounds of the principle of the use of the land and the specifics of the car parking provision for the use. ### 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 owner and/or occupant of 5 Birch Hill Crescent; and - The owners and/or occupants of various flats within Springfield Court. 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: - The Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service; - The Disability Access Office; - The Isle of Man Water Authority; - The owner and/or occupant of Seacliffe; and - Mr David Quirk MHK. ## Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 07.08.2007

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. The proposed development and use of the application site is contrary to the land use designation of the site as light industrial use under the Onchan Local Plan. Given that the application site is capable of being used for light industrial purposes without causing undue harm to the surrounding area the loss of such land is contrary to Strategic Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and should be resisted. The loss of available employment land within Onchan and the East area would be to the detriment of the provision of a range and distribution of employment sites. Such loss is inappropriate and should be avoided in the economic interests of the area.

R 2. The proposed development fails to provide sufficient car parking provision to meet the requirements set out by appendix 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. Given this and the estimated level of visitors to the application site it is concluded that the use of the building as proposed would result in the unacceptable overspill of car parking into the surrounding area to the detriment of the area.

Decision Made: REFUSED Committee Meeting Date: 16/8/07