Officer Planning Report

Application No.:	11/01755/C
Applicant:	Mr Niyls Skillicorn
Proposal:	Variation of condition 3 of approved car workshop (87/01441/C) to enable use as a car valet premises separate from former adjacent car sales premises
Site Address:	Workshop Elm Tree Road Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 4EF

Officer's Report

Introduction

1. This application seeks permission for the variation of a condition of a previous approved application to enable use as a car valet premises separate from the car sales premises. The workshop is in an area zoned as Mixed Use. The application is considered to be unacceptable and is not in accordance with the relevant policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

The Site

1. The application site is the curtilage of the Workshop on Elm Tree Road, Onchan which is a detached building situated to the south east side of the highway. The building sits between Morton Hall and the car show room.

1. To the front of the building there is a forecourt area, from the front of the building to the edge of the pavement there is approximately 5m. The building measures approximately 9.8m in width and 14.3m in length. There is an up and over door in the front elevation and a pedestrian access in the side elevation.

1. There is currently a condition which restricts the use of the building. The condition states: "The proposed use of the building must be confined to works associated with the adjoining motor sales showroom belonging to the applicant and there must be no general vehicle repairs carried out therein."

The Proposal

1. The application seeks approval for the variation of the condition to allow for the workshop to be used as a separate car valet.

1. The car show room next door has currently ceased operating and the application building is empty.

1. The applicants have stated that the car valet operation would employ only two people and would serve more up-market vehicles. To start with, it is likely that there will only be three cars per day but at a maximum there would be ten to fifteen per day with two vehicles being dealt with at a time.

Case Officer :	Miss Laura Davy
Photo Taken :	12.01.2012
Site Visit :	12.01.2012
Expected Decision Level :	Officer Delegation

1. The hours of operation would be 9:15am until 17:00pm Monday to Saturday. The premises would not operate on a Sunday.

Planning History

1. There was an application in 1987 which was for the change of use to preparation, repair, display and storage of motor vehicles. This application was permitted.

1. There was a further application in 2009 for the change of use from existing storage building to a health and fitness facility. This application was refused.

1. The applicant has indicated that there has not been a change of use from the approval which was granted in 1987.

Development Plan Policies

1. The application site is in an area zoned as "Mixed Use – Residential/Office/Retail" identified on the Onchan Local Plan 1998. It is appropriate to consider General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007).

13. General Policy 2

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:

a) Is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; b) Respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; c) Does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; d) Does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; e) Does not affect adversely public views of the sea; f) Incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; g) Does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; h) Provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; i) Does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; j) Can be provided with all necessary services; k) Does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; l) Is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; m) Takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and n) Is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption.

Consultations

1. Onchan Commissioners recommend that the application be refused for the following reason: "The proposals could exacerbate the problems of traffic flows and parking. Additionally there are no details of operational hours or any indication of means to adequately control the discharge of water from the cleaning process". Having received additional information Onchan Commissioners comments remain the same.

1. The owner/occupier of 1 Church Avenue, Onchan has some concerns regarding parking facilities and noise levels. They have concerns with parking as the area is already heavily congested. In terms of noise, there is already noise disturbance from the pensioners club,

there is concern that the business will add to this as there is no indication of the hours of service.

1. Highways Division has made the following comments: Recommend approval subject to the imposition of the following condition: Due to the residential/commercial location of the site, parking is already of a premium and as such the following should be taken into consideration: The site in question can only accommodate 2 vehicles on the forecourt, whilst two vehicles are being valeted within the building. No more than 4 vehicles should be on site at any one time. Agent has stated that a maximum of 15 cars per day could be valet. In accordance with the figures provided by the agent one vehicle could take up to hours to be valet, this would require their operational hours to be extended past their suggested 17:00pm closing time. It is therefore suggested that only 10 vehicles could be valet within the proposed opening hours.

1. The Chairman of Onchan Pensioners Social Club has objected to the application. Their concerns are regarding the area of forecourt and vehicles overhanging the pavement. There is also concern regarding parking in the area and given that there are no regulated hours activities may go on late into the night.

1. The owner/occupier of 2 Church Avenue, Onchan objects to the application. They feel that the premises are unsuitable for the use which is being applied for. There is a lack of suitable parking in the area and this will aggravate the present situation. Permitting vehicles to be washed and cleaned on the road would create a hazard to both pedestrians and passing traffic. The forecourt is not wide enough for this type of operation and would interfere with pedestrians. No indication of operational hours has been given so this could lead to disturbance late at night.

1. The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority have no objection subject to a condition.

1. The occupier of the car showroom which is adjacent to the application site has requested to be kept informed of the outcome of this application.

Assessment

1. The site is in an area of Mixed Use – Residential/Office/Retail, the site has been used for a number of years in connection with the car showroom which is adjacent to the application site.

1. A condition which was attached to the 1987 approval limited the use of the building, it stated:

"The proposed use of the building must be confined to works associated with the adjoining motor sales showroom belonging to the applicant and there must be no general vehicle repairs carried out therein."

1. The proposed use of the site as a car valet would be similar to the existing in that the activity carried out therein would be cleaning of vehicles. However, the former use was ancillary to and supportive of the use of the neighbouring building as a car showroom. No independant cleaning or repair service was carried out. Consequently the number and frequency of cars attending the site would be limited to the number of cars that were bought and sold in any one day or week.

1. The variation of the condition would significantly alter how the building is to be used. By removing the condition the use of the application site would not be restricted to those works associated with the adjoining motor sales showroom.

1. The applicant has indicated that the building would be used for a full valeting operation and would serve more up-market vehicles. For a full valet this would likely take up to one and

a half hours, initially it is likely that there will only be about 3 cars per day but at a maximum there would be 10-15 vehicles with two vehicles being dealt with at a time.

1. A number of local residents have concerns regarding the existing parking situation around the application site and on a number of residential streets which are within the locality of the application site. Local residents have also raised concerns regarding noise disturbance.

1. The applicant has indicated that the hours of operation would be 9:15am until 5:00pm. Whilst the intensity of use is likely to increase it is judged that noise and disturbance would not increase so significantly as to have an adverse impact on the amenities of local residents. The proposed hours are considered to be fairly standard business hours and do not appear to be un-neighbourly.

1. In terms of parking and highways safety, the Highways Division have suggested that a condition be attached if the application is to be approved which would restrict the number of vehicles on site and the number of vehicles to be valeted in the day. This type of condition would be difficult if not impossible to enforce.

1. Whilst there is no suggested parking standards set out in the Strategic Plan for such a proposal, the nature of the business suggests that there would be a need for more parking than what is available. Highways Division indicate that, in their view, the site can only accommodate four vehicles at any one time. The applicants have submitted a plan to show that six vehicles could be accommodated on the site with adequate manoeuvrability.

1. The width and length of the building is certainly restricted, and even if six vehicles could be accommodated, manoeuvring would be difficult to the point that it is unlikely the building will be used in the manner shown. Certainly it would be difficult to work on cleaning them (i.e having doors and/or boots open)

1. There is no indication as to how the valet will be operated in terms of whether the business will collect vehicles and bring them to the premises for valeting or whether customers will drop their cars for valeting and either wait for them or collect them later.

1. Irrespective of whether the building can accommodate four or six cars, or whether space will be given over to staff parking, the size of the building means that only a few vehicles could be serviced at any one time. Any vehicles waiting on the forecourt would need to be moved into the building to be worked upon, which would involve reversing on the highway on a frequent number of occasions during the day which would have an unacceptable impact on road safety. Photographs show that larger vehicles (which might be expected to be up-market) cannot be easily accommodated on the forecourt.

1. It is not known where other vehicles would be expected to wait, but it would be unreasonable for those vehicles to take up on-street spaces to serve the business needs.

1. It is considered that the removal of the condition would significantly alter the intensity of use of the building which would have an unacceptable impact to the surrounding area. The proposal fails to demonstrate how the building would be used and fails to provide sufficient car parking for the proposed use.

1. For the above reasons the application is considered to be unacceptable and is recommended for refusal.

Party Status

1. The local authority, Onchan Commissioners is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.

1. The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.

1. The owner/occupier of 1 Church Avenue, Onchan is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2006, paragraph 2 (1) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.

1. Onchan Pensioners Social Club, Elm Tree Road is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2006, paragraph 2 (1) (a), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.

1. The owner/occupier of 2 Church Avenue, Oncha is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2006, paragraph 2 (1) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.

1. The occupier of the Showroom, Elm Tree Road, Onchan is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2006, paragraph 2 (1) (a), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.

1. The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority do not meet the criteria of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005 and therefore are not afforded party status.

1. Mr David Quirk MHK does not meet the criteria of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005 and therefore is not afforded party status.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 02.04.2012

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 proposal due to the restricted size of the building and its forecourt and the nature of the proposed use, would be likely to give rise to an unacceptable level of general disturbance and inconvenience; and potential harm to users of the highway.

R 2.

The proposed variation of condition fails to demonstrate that there is sufficient car parking to serve the proposed use to the detriment of the surrounding area. As such, the proposal would be contrary to General Policy 2 (h) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager/ Senior Planning Officer.

Decision Made : Refused Date : 3 April 2012

Determining officer (delete as appropriate)

Signed : ... Anthony Holmes Senior Planning Officer

Signed : ... Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control

Signed : ... Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer

Signed : ... Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager