Loading document...
From: Henley, Sheila To: Porter, Vanessa Subject: RE: PA20/00880/B - Knock Rushen House Date: 06 October 2020 14:49:26
Vaness
I disagree with parts of the highway response made under 19/01133/B and I noted the contents of the officer report and that the application is permitted with approximately 16 car parking spaces.
The highway response for 19/01133/B took limited account of the shared use which would occur between the existing use with dwelling and some letting rooms and the proposed spa, as well of the relatively small floor area of the spa and of the operating pattern of the spa’s staff and clients where there would be employee shift working and at least some clients and staff travelling by non car modes. This would result in shared use and limited overlap. Perhaps only on the weekday evening opening and some weekends given that the spa would first open at 10AM. Furthermore, it would be unlikely that the combined maximum number of staff and clients for the spa would be on site at the same time on a regular basis.
Additionally, whilst the site is on edge of the urban town and there is no direct bus route, one can walk to and from town via Scarlett Road and cycle, or be dropped off and picked up by taxi and a limited relaxation of the parking standards from 1 space per guest room could be reasonable approach to adopt even without the bus route and a more typical requirement is likely to be at 75% of the available rooms.
Furthermore the officer report noted that there were nine rooms being let based on advertising evidence and that there would be a further application to formalise the usage at the site, which is I have taken as being the current application 20/00880/B.
As there are 16 car parking spaces at the site an increase in the number of letting rooms to nine there would appear to be space available at one space per room equivalent to nine spaces (six car parking spaces at 75%), plus an allowance for the manager and other permanent residents, plus the remainder for the salon and other visitors.
There is no known parking issues associated with the site and ample space within for parking and turning.
As the current application is insignificantly different in highway terms from the existing position and unlikely to cause overspill, I considered that it did not warrant an objection or a separate response.
As this is a recommendation, you may consider otherwise. I could have added that bicycle parking and electric vehicle charging points should be considered to aid the promotion of sustainable travel and low emission objectives.
I trust the above explains.
Regards
From: Porter, Vanessa Sent: 06 October 2020 11:57 To: Henley, Sheila Subject: PA20/00880/B - Knock Rushen House
Good Morning,
I am hoping you will be able to help me, I am currently doing the above application which is for the addition of 6 B&B rooms within Knock Rushen House and not that you do not oppose the application. This is in direct contradiction to the previously approved application 19/01133/B which was for the additional use as a spa and I am just slightly confused. Would it be possible for you to explain to me how the previous application, a refusal was recommended due to the proposed car parking spaces but now you are not opposing.
Many Thanks
Nessy
Mrs Vanessa Porter Planning Officer Planning & Building Control Directorate Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture (DEFA) Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas Isle of Man IM1 2SF
Tel: (01624) 685870 e-mail: [email protected]
From the 1st January 2020 planning is changing - see www.gov.im/planningreform
To be kept up-to-date on changes to the planning service, sign up to our mailing list by sending your request (including contact details) to [email protected]
Any views expressed in this email are those of the officer only and are without prejudice to any formal decision made under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and any relevant secondary legislation.
P please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown