Development Management Officer Report Committee Application
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Development Management Officer Report Committee Application Summary Committee Meeting Date: 6th August Item Number: 2019 Application ID: LA09/2017/1027/F Target Date: Proposal: Location: Demolition of existing porch area, 86 Chapel Street Cookstown relocation of existing smoking area (Amended plans) Referral Route: REFUSAL Recommendation: REFUSAL Applicant Name and Address: Agent Name and Address: Kilmegan Ltd Clarman and Co 53 Main Street Unit 1 Coalisland 33 Dungannon Road Coalisland BT71 4HP Executive Summary: Taking into account history on the site and objections to the proposal, and consultations responses, refusal has been recommended for the proposal as detailed in the report. Signature(s): Application ID: LA09/2017/1027/F Case Officer Report Site Location Plan Consultations: Consultation Type Consultee Response Statutory Historic Environment Content Division (HED) Non Statutory NIEA Substantive Response Received Non Statutory NIEA Consulted in Error Statutory DFI Roads - Enniskillen Advice Office Statutory DFI Roads - Enniskillen Standing Advice Office Non Statutory Environmental Health Mid Substantive Response Ulster Council Received Statutory DFI Roads - Enniskillen Advice Office Statutory Environmental Health Mid Content Ulster Council Statutory Environmental Health Mid Ulster Council Representations: Letters of Support None Received Letters of Objection 30 Application ID: LA09/2017/1027/F Number of Support Petitions and No Petitions Received signatures Number of Petitions of Objection No Petitions Received and signatures Characteristics of the Site and Area The site is located at no.86 Chapel Street, Cookstown. Currently contained within the site is a Licensed Premises- a mid-terrace two storey building finished in a smooth white render, black framed windows with a slate tile roof. The building is located to the South of the town centre and fronts directly onto the Eastern side of Chapel Street. There is a two storey projection located centrally to the front facade of the building which provides the main entrance to the premises. There is a projection to the rear- a two storey section which then drops down to single storey towards the Eastern boundary of the site. The adjoining property to the South of No.86, fronting onto Chapel St, is an off licence whilst another adjoining property to the rear fronting onto the Fountain Road is a vacant commercial unit. The proposal is to extend the licenced premises into the area of the demolished vacant retail outlet, which had been an electrical shop. Currently deliveries to the existing bar would seem to be serviced via a right of way, which also provides access the rear of other properties on Chapel Street as well as some residential properties on Fountain Road. The surrounding area is urban in character. The site is located to the South of Cookstown Town Centre and within the development limits as designated in the Cookstown Area Plan 2010, but outside the town centre. The site fronts onto the A29 Protected Route. There is a mixture of land uses in the immediate vicinity, residential and commerical; To east; semi detached dwellings with detached dwellings to rear of same. To south; vacant car sales garage and associated compound, with detached residential units beyond on Fountain Road. To west; existing two story building with off sales to ground floor. Beyond that Chapel Street and residential properties beyond again. To north; residential properties, some of which have rear access from the adjoining right of way. Description of Proposal Demolition of existing porch area, relocation of existing smoking area. History on the site includes; Demolition of single storey retail unit and construction of a single storey extension to existing bar - I/2012/0324/F 23.12.2013 refused I/2014/0193/F - Proposed alterations and single storey extension to Moe's Bar. 06.05.2015 refused for two reasons; Application ID: LA09/2017/1027/F 1. The proposal is contrary to DES 2 of the Department's Planning Strategy for Rural Northern Ireland, Planning Policy Statement 1: General Principles, and DCAN 7 Public Houses in that the proposal would if permitted unduly affect the amenity of the existing adjacent and nearby residents to the site by reason of nuisance and general disturbance. 2. The proposed development is contrary to PPS 3 - Access, Movement and Parking and would, if permitted, prejudice the safety and convenience of road users since provision cannot be made clear of the highway for the parking, turning, loading and unloading of vehicles which would be attracted to the site On 28.04.2016 - appeal on the above dismissed. Only reason 2 was upheld. This has been included in Annex A. Planning Assessment of Policy and Other Material Considerations Regional Development Strategy Strategic Planning Policy Statement for NI (SPPS) Cookstown Area Plan 2010 PPS3 Access, Movement and Parking PPS6 - Planning, Archaeology and The Built Heritage DCAN7 - Public Houses The main issues in regard to this application are the impact on the amenity of nearby residents by reason of noise, nuisance and general disturbance and parking/road safety issues. Parking and road/traffic issues Parking Standards document sets out the parking standards that should be taken into regard in assessing proposals for new development. The principle objective is to ensure that in assessing development proposals, appropriate consideration is given to the accommodation of vehicles attracted to the site within the wider government policy aimed at promoting modal shift to more sustainable forms of transport. Currently there is no parking provision at the property. They rely on using on-street parking entirely. In paragraph 6.14 of the appeal decision (Appendix A), the Commission carried out a detailed site visit of the premises to take account of parking movements, and concluded a 'particularly localised parking demand generated by the appeal property at the busy Chapel Street/Fountain Road junction. With no parking provision the proposal is likely to exacerbate the situation to the detriment of the safety and convenience of road users'. Therefore the provision in the Parking Standards, which is that case was a shortfall of 10 spaces, was not to be set aside and refusal for that reason was sustained. Whilst there is disagreement on the exact extent of the new bar floorspace, I have calculated it based on the following, Under Parking Standards 'Non-residential ' ; Application ID: LA09/2017/1027/F Existing floor space is 338.38m2 Adding the proposed outdoor/smoking area of 80m2 and then minusing the existing smoking/beer garden area of 28m2 (which is to be demolished), equals an increase of 52m2. This equals a proposed total of 390.38m2. Bars inside the development limits =1 space per 5m2 NFA. so using 1 space per 5m2 for the 52m2 increase = (10.4 spaces), therefore 11 spaces are required. Allowing 4 spaces for the existing electrical shop of 80m2, using 'Class A1 : Shops , non- food retail = 1 space per 20m2 GFA' , Whilst recognising the difficulties in being able to provide car parking, there is still a shortfall of 7 spaces, which the Council still feel is unacceptable and a reason to refuse on this basis. DFI Roads state in their response of 2nd August 2018 that the PAC considered there was a lack of parking required for application I/2014/0193/F. The PAC here ruled there was no reason to set aside the provisions set out in Car Parking Guidelines and that no additional parking would likely exacerbate the parking situation to the detriment and safety and convenience of road users and therefore they sustained the refusal reason under PPS3. This stated this application is similar in the previous application in that the required additional parking is not being provided, therefore to be consistent with the PAC decision they again recommend refusal. There has been no change to policy or guidance in the intervening period and I have no basis to take a different view. The PAC decision is a material consideration to which I feel weight should remain determining. Noise and general disturbance Members in considering the previous application I/2004/0193/F felt that nuisance should be added to its decision to refuse the proposal. In considering the appeal the commissioner adopted a different view and justified his decision on the following basis; that guidance note DCAN7 states that public houses can be a source of annoyance due to problems of noise and disturbance. The appeal sites context is that of an existing public house in a mixed use area at a busy junction. Whilst the Council have sympathy for the residents, this is not a noise sensitive location and it is an area where a degree of disturbance is inevitable. Paragraph 6.8 of the appeal decision acknowledges an open courtyard would be a new source of noise along Fountain Road, different in character from the existing noise of traffic. There have been further design changes since previous application, to aid in reducing noise and disturbance on this part of the street including the replacement of a parapet roof with a more permanent roof structure. Application ID: LA09/2017/1027/F No noise impact assessment was submitted with this application, however proposed walls and structures are similar to application I/2014/0193/F, where the noise impact assessment was accepted by Environmental Health (EH) and Commissioner and that even with open railing the noise generated at peak times would not be excessive to justify refusal of the application for this reason. Amended plans show acoustic door lobbies on the front and side entrances which EH have stated will reduce noise breakout from the premises. It is also noted that plans show no amplified music or PA system to be used in external smoking area. EH have viewed the objector letters and having assessed the amended scheme have provided conditions to be attached to any planning approval.