SOC Sarah Corlett Tpc Appeal Statement on Behalf of the Applicant

APPEAL SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

23/01454/GB - ALTERATIONS TO FACILITATE A CHANGE OF USE FROM A PLACE OF WORSHIP TO GYM WITH ASSOCIATED FACILITIES (IN ASSOCIATION WITH 23/01453/CON), ALL SAINTS’ CHURCH, ALEXANDER DRIVE, DOUGLAS, ISLE OF MAN IM2 3QH

• 1.0 Introduction
• 1.1 I am Sarah Corlett, Director of Sarah Corlett Town Planning Consultancy Ltd, established on the Isle of Man in 2021. I have been instructed by the applicant, Landscope Limited, in respect of the appeal against the approval granted to 23/01454/GB to prepare a statement which responds to and addresses the grounds for the appeal.
• 1.2 I was employed by the Isle of Man Government as a planning officer between 1990 and 2021, ultimately in the role of Principal Planner. My duties included the determination of planning applications, the preparation of reports on planning applications, presentation of applications to Planning Committee and representation of the Planning Committee at planning appeals and representing the Department in Court.
• 1.3 I hold a Bachelor of Science Degree in Town Planning from Heriot-Watt University and have been a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute since 1992.
• 1.4 Further information on me and my practice can be found on my website sarahcorlett.com.
• 1.5 This statement has been prepared having regard to the established principles of town planning and the relevant policies, legislation, guidance and regulations of the Isle of Man Government and represent my professional opinion in the matter of the proposed development.

• 2.0 The planning application and appeal
• 2.1 Planning approval was granted for this development on 25th March, 2024 with unanimous support by the Planning Committee members with the decision issued on 28th March, 2024. It should be noted that approval was also granted in the same meeting for Registered Building consent for alterations to the existing building - 23/01453/CON although there is no appeal against this decision. The time for requesting an appeal against that decision has now passed so that decision remains extant.
• 2.2 It might be helpful at this point to clarify that planning approval is required for any material physical alterations to the exterior of this building, and for any material change of use. Registered Building Consent is required for any material changes to the inside and outside of the building. Planning approval is not required for any internal changes to the building and Registered Building Consent is not required for any change of use. As a result, the internal changes to the building approved under 23/01453/CON could in theory be implemented, although given that the change of use has not been finally approved it is unlikely that this work would be commenced. Essentially, the non appeal against the Registered Building Consent for this proposal has no substantive effect on the consideration of the appeal against the planning approval.
• 2.3 An appeal to be held on the basis of written evidence, was requested on 12th April, 2024 by the owner of 17, Selborne Road and “the four other households who have been afforded Interested Person Status in connection with the planning decision made on 25th March, 2024.” These four other parties are understood to be the owners of 15 and 16, Selborne Road, 2, Selborne Drive and 23, Primrose Avenue.
• 2.4 The reasons for the appeal summarised as follows:

• 1. The development would have an adverse impact on their properties by virtue of long opening hours which are to commence from 0500hrs Monday to Friday.

The appeal request clarifies that the Noise Act defines “night hours” as between 2300hrs and 0700hr and indicates that the purpose of the law and the Act is to protect residents’ right to 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep and peaceful quiet in their neighbourhood. They state that the proposed opening time of 0500hrs is clear within the definition of “night: and it is anti social, unfair and unreasonable to to encourage and impose any noise activity during night hours for such residents. They refer to the definition in the Act of

“unreasonable noise” being a “level of noise of any kind which adversely affects the amenity of any person present in a dwelling”.

• 2. The development would result on encroachment by patrons of the gym utilising disc zone parking in the close vicinity at times of peak usage, preventing legitimate parking permit holders from accessing car parking.
• 3. The development would result in an increase of traffic in an already busy area.

• 3.0 Response to the appeal
• 3.1 The objections and reasons for the appeal relate to three main areas: noise nuisance, impacts on parking space availability and increased traffic.
• 3.2 Noise

• 3.2.1 The application sets out why we believe the proposal will not result in unacceptable noise nuisance. The gym will not be operated like other gyms that have been referenced: as stated in the application, there will be no organised classes and no amplified music. Attendance will be on the basis of individual participation without fixed times of comings and goings. The purpose of this approach is to have a very spread out pattern of attendance, which is aided by the longer opening hours which is designed to lower the overall impact of its operation. To put this into context and to understand the consideration shown this is in comparison to the adjacent church hall which is understood to accommodate parties, keep fit classes, computer gaming groups, group meetings and on Sundays, worship gatherings all events where a varying number of attendees turn up and leave at the same time and to our knowledge there has not been any residential complaints in relation to noise or traffic.
• 3.2.2 It is fully accepted that people coming to and leaving the site in the early hours has the potential for nuisance in terms of vehicular noise but it must be noted that the building is located on a main route into the city of Douglas. Individuals attending in the earlier hours will not be numbers of high attendance and should not be assumed that all will be travelling by car. It is also generally accepted that these individuals attending at the early time are not ‘social training’ but are attending at this time because of a specific reason. People are generally mindful of being within a quiet environment and there is no reason to think that persons attending the gym will not be mindful of what is expected to be a quiet ambient environment when they arrive and leave and to be respectful of it and not make a noise, any more than anyone else coming to the area such as persons leaving for an early shift or coming back from a night shift, leaving for an early boat or plane.
• 3.2.3 The objectors have made reference to legislation concerned with addressing noise nuisance. The preamble on the website to the Noise Act includes the following:

A complaint may be made to the local constabulary by a person in a nearby dwelling to the source of a noise nuisance. To constitute a night time noise complaint, the noise will have to be at an unreasonable level, and be between the hours of 11pm and 7am. There are exceptions, these can include agricultural

land, emergency services, local authorities, and licensed premises and clubs, where restrictions exist that dictate sound levels and times of operation.

• 3.2.4 The information then goes on to provide advice on the process where a complaint is made and that the police may issue a warning notice to the offending person, the notice stating that the noise is believed by the officer to be unreasonable and state when the noise has to stop and the person to whom the notice is given will be warned that they may be guilty of an offence. It then goes on to clarify the implicates of being found guilty of an offence.
• 3.2.5 The Noise Act 2006 states at the outset that its purpose is “to make provision for the reduction of unreasonable noise at night and for the reduction of noise caused by vehicle alarms; and for connected purposes.” It has not been possible to locate within the Act any reference to “peaceful”, “quiet” or 8 hours sleep as is referred to in the request for the appeal.
• 3.2.6 It is fully accepted that the Noise Act is not limited to Construction industry. The discussion within the Planning Committee meeting was understood to relate to the control over hours of any activity taking place which was interpreted by the applicant’s agents at that time to be reference to the Public Health Act 1990 which also deals with noise nuisance and which has a specific section on construction noise and the power within the Act to impose time constraints on the such activities.
• 3.2.7 It is clear from both of these pieces of legislation that there is provision in law to protect people from unreasonable nuisance and very serious implications if the applicant were to operate in breach of these. The applicant wishes this facility to be something which will serve, support and enhance the local community not cause issues for it.
• 3.2.8 It is important when considering the impact of the proposal, to bear in mind that this is an existing building with a lawful planning use as a church/place of worship with a listed seated capacity of up to 350 people. This in itself creates a level of usage and with that, potential nuisance for those living near it. Whether the church is used for regular services, weddings, funerals, Sunday school, choir practice or christenings, these all involve significant numbers of people attending and arriving and leaving at once. The proposed gym use will involve nowhere near the number of people being within the building at any one time and therefore nowhere near the amount of noise or disruption from any source - cars, car doors,

• people talking, church doors opening or any noise from within the building which could include the organ, choirs and on occasion brass bands.
• 3.2.9 In addition, this building is Registered and within a Conservation Area which gives greater weight to the need for and benefits from finding a new use for the building which will secure its continued maintenance and future existence. The building is a large and tall building which could physically be converted to a limited number of sustainable uses. Any potential use will bring different potential issues and impacts to the area.
• 3.2.10 The building would require significant internal changes to enable it to be used for industrial or offices which are also unlikely to be compatible with its Registered status. These uses would be likely to generate greater issues for noise and also overlooking, bin storage, and car parking where a higher number of occupants would be in the building for much longer periods of time and would almost certainly clash with the times when existing residents would be looking for a car parking space. Another example is that many businesses now operate globally and require staff cover for various time zones so again this would also potentially present greater issues for time of operation.
• 3.2.11 All businesses have to be sustainable and competitive and as such the operating times for the gym have been considered to be able to offer a sustainable business model. This type of location and being a registered building means more consideration has to be given to the level of investment needed to comply with not only the building type but also the surrounding area. Such consideration includes not only the types of materials needed to increase the amount of internal sound absorption, but also the timings that any works can be carried out showing that a very considerate approach has been made in relation to this application. A reference was made regarding the floor coverings ‘falling short of what is required’. This is certainly not the case as specific and in some cases specialist floor coverings need to be used not only to protect the fabric of the building and for sound absorption but also to protect the equipment that will be used so I believe this has been misunderstood by the appellant.
• 3.2.12 The restriction of the opening times to a 0700hrs start would substantially detract from the business and would concentrate more visits into a shorter period of time.

• 3.2.13 In respect of any air handling units, it should be noted that any installation will have to conform to the permitted levels allowed and all efforts will be made to reduce these further but it is not anticipated that this will create any significant or adverse impact.
• 3.2.14 In relation to the surveyed gyms on the Island, there was an omission of Evolution Gym located in Castletown which is a 24/7 operational facility. One of the gyms listed in the survey is Nuno’s which is surrounded by residential properties. This facility has operated there for approximately 20 years and opens at a similar time of 0530hrs. To our knowledge there are no issues with noise and there have been no residential complaints which demonstrates that this type of facility can successfully operate within such locations.

3.3 Parking

• 3.3.1 The applicant attempted to investigate the potential parking availability in the area by undertaking a parking survey of the area and at the times that would apply to the proposed gym when operational. What he found was that there were parking spaces available at the times when they might be required. This information was considered acceptable by both the Planning Officer and the Highway Services Division of Department for Infrastructure.
• 3.3.2 As stated above, the length of time that people will be parked in neighbouring streets, if they are so, will be two hours at most, likely less. Much of the time when these spaces are required - ie during the day - will be less likely to conflict with the times when the neighbouring dwellings will be occupied. Early morning and later evening visits are likely to coincide with times when the majority of residents will already have their parking spaces so there is not likely to be a conflict at those times with residents looking for parking spaces.
• 3.3.3 As stated above, the building exists and it would be highly beneficial to find a use for it, its lawful use as a place of worship being no longer viable. We believe that the proposed use is less impactful in terms of parking demand than many of the available alternatives and as stated above, those other uses bring with them other issues which make them unviable, undesirable or both.
• 3.3.4 As per the parking survey detailed in the planning application the parking is not limited to the roads where the appellant resides. It is acknowledged that these roads are likely to have limited spaces available and the availability was illustrated to be on the other

surrounding roads all within a 2-4 minute walk from the property which is deemed to be an acceptable distance for those travelling by car.

3.4 Increase in traffic

3.4.1 As stated above, the lawful use of the building and indeed alternative future uses such as residential offices or industry would generate as many if not more occupants and traffic movements. As such, it is not accepted that the proposed development would result in an unacceptable increase in traffic.

3.5 Impact on Registered Tree RT0375

• 3.5.1 Whilst this might not have been raised previously by those opposing the application, we have acknowledged the Registered Trees on site and stated in the application that there will be care taken in respect of the Registered Trees on site and in fact the proposal will remove car parking from the proximity of RTs 0373 and 0374 and the works to create additional parking are not within the canopy spread or predicted Root Protection Area of RT0375 which is the tree to the north east of the proposed additional parking area. If required, a condition could be attached to require the details of the RPA for this tree prior to any works commencing on the creation of that additional parking area. In any case, the parking area will involve only the scraping off of the top grass surface and the installation of hardcore. No excavation is proposed or envisaged.

• 4.0 Conclusion
• 4.1 It is fully understood that the current situation of a vacant church results in the site generating no noise or car parking demand. Any use of the building compared with that even resurrecting the lawful use as a church - would increase the impact.
• 4.2 It is also fully appreciated that those living within the vicinity of the site would wish for any new use of the building to be compatible with and not have an adverse impact on those adjacent properties, most of which are residential.
• 4.3 The building is an important one within a Conservation Area and its continued use and maintenance is considered vital to the historic interest of the area as well as the specific interest of the building itself. The building has been listed for sale since 2022 and there has been limited enquires with no other viable or sustainable use.
• 4.4 It has not been suggested by any of the objectors what the solution is for this building and what, if any use would be acceptable. We believe that the use as a gym will not conflict with the adjacent residential area as proven at other, similar sites. Persons coming to the site will generally be occupying the building at times when residents are not at home and will be there for relatively short periods of time. Other uses of the building could easily have a much more significant impact that what is proposed.
• 4.5 The proposed use is compatible with the existing building and could be accommodated without significant change to the internal layout and it retains a number of important elements of the building. This is reflected in the Registered Building Consent approval.
• 4.6 We believe that the proposed application represents a highly suitable and beneficial use not only for the building itself but also for the area in general and would ask that the appeal is dismissed and the approval issued by the Planning Committee is upheld.

Sarah Corlett 16.05.24