Loading document...
Our Ref: 23/01454/GB
Mr. A. Johnstone Planning Appeals Secretary Cabinet Office Government Offices Buck’s Road Douglas IM1 3PN
Tel: (01624) 685950 Email: [email protected]
Toby Cowell Principal Planning Officer
31st May 2024
Dear Mr Johnstone, PA No: 23/01454/GB Proposal: Alterations to facilitate a change of use from place of worship to gym with associated facilities (in associated with 23/01453/CON) Address: All Saints Church, Alexander Drive, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 4EB Please find a statement that sets out the position of the Department in respect of the above planning application.
The statement relies upon the Planning Officer’s original report, and minutes of the Planning Committee, who determined the application at their meeting of 25th March 2024, with the decision dated the 28th March 2024.
The Planning Officer’s report is online and forms part of the planning file, with minutes of the Planning Committee’s 25th March 2024 meeting also available online at the following link:
https://www.gov.im/media/1383300/pc-minutes-25th-march-2024_compressed.pdf The enclosed statement comprises the following parts:
Yours sincerely,
STATEMENT OF THE
Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Planning & Building Control Directorate
Planning statement on behalf of the Department relative to:
Alterations to facilitate a change of use from place of worship to gym with associated facilities (in associated with 23/01453/CON) All Saints Church, Alexander Drive, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 4EB PA Reference: 23/01454/GB Prepared on behalf of the Planning Department by Toby Cowell
Principal Planning Officer
The application was recommended for approval by the Planning Officer and subsequently approved by the Planning Committee in line with the officer recommendation. The application is noted as having been approved on the decision notice for the following reason:
“The proposals are considered to result in the appropriate use of a vacant place of worship, which would ensure the continued use, upkeep and maintenance of a Registered Building, without detriment to its character, architectural significance, or the character and appearance of the wider Conservation Area. The proposals are further considered to not result in a demonstrable level of harm to the amenities of local residential properties, whilst providing a sufficient level of on-site parking and not resulting in a detrimental impact upon the safety and convenience of the local highway network. The proposals therefore are deemed to comply with Strategic Policy 5, Spatial Policy 1, General Policy 2, Environment Policies 32, 33, 35 and 42, Community Policy 3 and Transport Policies 4 and 7 of the Strategic Plan (2016).”
In accordance with S10 of the Town Country Planning Act the application has been considered; S(4) In dealing with an application for planning approval or an application under subsection (3), the Department shall have regard to —
There is a statutory duty to take into account the above, and while it is recognised that weight to be given is a matter for the decision maker.
That being said, it shall be noted that the Development Plan and other Adopted Policies do not have primacy as they do in the UK. The Isle of Man is also different from the UK as there is no presumption in favour of development as set out in the NPPF, and there is no 5-year land supply requirement.
In this application, the most weight has been given to the Strategic Plan (2016) and the Area Plan for the East (2020) as they have been through a statutory process, which includes evidence base and public consultation process, and are adopted by Tynwald.
Other material considerations referred to in the officer report include the Residential Design Guide (RDG) which followed targeted consultation and adoption by the Minister and has therefore been afforded greater weight.
It is not considered that the other material considerations outweigh that set out above.
FOLLOWING SECTION ADDRESSES THOSE ISSUES DIRECTLY
Matters relating to potential noise and disturbance associated with the proposed change of use have been comprehensively considered and assessed within paragraphs 6.6 to 6.9 the officer report. The consideration of potential impacts upon the living conditions of surrounding residential properties has further reflected the conditions attached to the decision notice, namely conditions 4, 5 and 7, which are deemed to be robust in their wording and fully enforceable in order to further safeguard residential amenity.
In particular, the restriction upon organised formal fitness/exercise classes is considered sufficient to alleviate realistic impacts upon residential amenity, particularly in the context of larger groups of people visiting the premises at any one time and the absence of louder music to be played to accompany such classes. Likewise, the requirement for all external windows to be non-opening would further mitigate potential noise associated with customers using the facilities.
Concerns raised in relation to opening hours, particularly during weekdays from 5am to 10pm are duly noted. However, such hours of operation are not considered to be unreasonable in the context of a gym whereby having a facility being able to open at such times (i.e. early morning and late evening) is generally necessary to ensure those working long or indeed abnormal hours are able to utilise the facilities. In any case, it is not expected that a significant proportion of customers would visit the site at the extremities of the opening hours, and instead a more general flow of customers is deemed more realistic with spikes at peak times later in the morning and after normal working hours.
Residual noise associated with customers visiting the premises, such as the opening and shutting of car doors, is not considered likely to result in a noticeable impact upon the living conditions of surrounding residents, with such an issue beyond the powers of enforcement from any statutory body in any case. The measures outlined by the applicant as part of their submission, and indeed further controlled by condition/s, are considered more than sufficient
to mitigate any potential noise impacts associated with the proposed use, which would in any case be limited to moderate degrees of background music and lifting/dropping of free weights.
For the avoidance of doubt, it should be stressed the that wording of the conditions and reasons given is such to make clear that a further planning permission would be required to be submitted should the applicant wish to deviate from the requirements of the conditions in any way, particularly in relation to the approved layout of the facility, opening hours and the introduction of formal exercise/fitness classes. Any subsequent application seeking to vary such conditions would be fully assessed against adopted planning policy and additional material planning considerations.
Highway Services have provided a comprehensive assessment of the scheme from a parking and highway safety standpoint, including an analysis of the attendance data for another larger gym in Douglas which was submitted by the applicant. Highways considered that the proposals would provide sufficient off-street parking within the site with the development deemed to not raise any significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues. Moreover, sufficient on-street parking was also noted as being available following analysis of the parking surveys which also accompanied the submission. The Inspector is kindly referred to the full comments submitted by Highway Services which is available online. On this basis, the Department has no further comments to add from a parking and highway safety standpoint.
On the basis of the scheme’s assessment by the Planning Officer which was subsequently ratified and approved by the Planning Committee, in addition to further points of clarity within the Department’s Statement of Case; the Inspector is politely requested to recommend to the Minister that the appeal be dismissed and the grant of planning permission, subject to conditions, be upheld.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown