133420

==== PAGE 1 ====

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Application No. : Applicant: Proposal : 14/00100/B Redmayne Investments Ltd Demolition of existing hotel and erection of an apartment block containing fifteen units for either residential or tourist use with associated parking (comprising amendments to PA 12/01540/B) Grosvenor Hotel Promenade Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6LA Site Address: Case Officer: Photo Taken : Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Mr Chris Baimer Officer's Report THIS APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE RATHER THAN UNDER DELEGATED POWERS AS THE PROPOSAL IS FOR A MAJOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN PORT ERIN PROMENADE WHICH WOULD CREATE MORE THAN 500 SQUARE METRES OF NEW FLOOR SPACE AND HAS THE POTENTIAL TO RESULT IN A DEVELOPMENT OF MORE THAN 8 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. 1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site represents the curtilage of the Grosvenor Hotel, Promenade, Port Erin which sits on the eastern side of the Promenade between Victoria Square and Bay View Road and with a rear lane running behind the building between the two side roads. The street view of the property is mostly a four storey property with a semi-basement beneath with four and five storey bays to the front elevation and with pitched roofed dormers within the roof space. To the rear there are two large three/four storey rear outriggers which project right up to the rear access lane. The building is rendered with string courses and some dentilled cornicing beneath the slated roof and with vertically proportioned sliding sash windows. The property was last used as a 42 bed hotel which was in need of total modernisation; however, the hotel is now closed. 2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for demolition of existing hotel and erection of an apartment block containing fifteen units for either residential or tourist use with associated parking (comprising amendments to PA 12/01540/B). The replacement building will accommodate the apartments over seven floors including a basement level and the top floor being set back from the main elevations of the building. There will be 18 car parking spaces provided, 11 in the basement which will be accessed from Victoria Square and 7 spaces at ground floor level (undercroft) which would be accessed via the rear access lane and Victoria Square. A secure cycle store is included within the basement level. 2.2 For reference, the previous application which was approved included 17 car parking spaces provided, 14 in the basement which will be accessed from Victoria Square and 3 spaces at ground floor level (undercroft) which would be accessed via the rear access lane. 2.3 14/00100/B Page 1 of 9 8 September 2014

==== PAGE 2 ====

The present building has dormers which extend above the eaves line thereby reducing the appearance of the pitched slated roofing behind, but which increases the mass of the property in the street scene. Furthermore, one of the bays to the front is five storeys and projects to the same level as the dormer windows and above the main roof ridge of the building. The existing building front elevation has a maximum ridge height of 14.5 metres. 2.4 The proposed building would have a maximum height of 18.6 metres although the main front elevation of the building would have a height of 15.8 metres. The additional height is due to the top floor which is set back approximately 3 metres from the main front and side elevations of the building. The previously approved scheme proposed a building which would have a maximum height of 19.8 metres although the main front elevation of the building would have a height of 15 metres. 2.5 In a southern direction, the proposed building including the top floors would be approximately 2.7 metres taller than the adjacent block of Windsor House apartments, which are either nearing completion or finished, which themselves are 4.3 metres taller than Eagle Towers (9 apartments) which are to the south of Windsor House apartments. The last approved application resulted in the building being 3.2 metres taller than the adjacent block of Windsor House apartments, i.e. the proposal currently under consideration is lower in height. 2.6 In a northern direction the proposed building would be 2.3 metres taller than the immediately adjacent property York House, and the main front elevation would be 0.5 metres taller than the front elevation of York House. Previously, the approved proposed building would have been 3.8 metres taller than the immediately adjacent property York House, albeit the main front elevation would be one metre lower than York House. 2.7 The proposed building would be set back from the pavement on the Promenade by 2 metres and would have two projecting square bays which are full height features from ground floor up to the fourth floor level, where they terminate. Between, the two bay windows are individual balcony areas which have frameiess glass balustrade. The fifth level is a rectangular shaped structure finished with large amounts of infilled glazed windows and dark cladding surrounds. The footprint of the fourth floor is the same as the floor below, however, the copings, band course and surrounds around the windows/baiconies will be coloured in a dark grey colour. The fifth floor also has a smaller footprint than the floors below, which would enable balcony areas which surrounds the rectangular glazed, set behind frameless glazed balustrading. 2,8 The main bulk of the building would be finished in white painted render, with the ground floor up to second floor levels including routed detail up to band course level which would be painted dark-mid grey colours, as would all the heads and cills above and below all the windows. All windows and doors would be double glazed, coloured a dark grey. 2.9 PLANNING STATUS The site lies within an area designated as 'Residential' on the Area Plan for the South. The site is not within a proposed Conservation Area, albeit the building borders the proposed Conservation Area (west of site). 3.0 3.1 It should be noted that when the last application was determined the site lied within an area designated as "Tourism/Residential" under the Port Erin Local Plan of 1990. This plan has since been superseded by the adoption of the Area Plan for the South. 3.2 3.3 In addition, the following policies from the Strategic Plan are considered relevant: Environment Policy 42 states; "New development In existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and 3.4 8 September 2014 Page 2 of 9 14/00100/6

==== PAGE 3 ====

landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular are will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans". General Policy 2 states: "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; respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; does not affect adversely public views of the sea; incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and 3.5 (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) manoeuvring space; does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local (i) highways; can be provided with all necessary services; does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption." a) (k) (I) (m) (n) Housing Policy 5 states: "In granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas the department will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more". This policy was adopted by Tynwald resolution in July 2005 ahead of approval of the Strategic Plan in July 2007. 3.6 Appendix 7: "New built residential development should be provided with two parking spaces per dwelling, at least one of which should be within the curtilage of the dwelling and behind the front of the dwelling, although the amount and location of parking will vary in respect of development such as terracing, apartments, and sheltered housing. In the case of town centre and previously developed sites, the Department will consider reducing this requirement having regard to: a) the location of the housing relative to public transport, employment and public amenities, b) the size of the dwelling, c) any restriction on the nature of the occupancy (such as sheltered housing) and d) the impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area (paragraph A.7.1). This goes on to recommend that one space is provided for a one bedroomed apartment, 2 spaces for two or more bedrooms but that "These standards may be relaxed where development: a) would secure the re-use of a Registered Building or a building of architectural or historic interest; or b) would result in the preservation of a sensitive streetscape, or c) is otherwise of benefit to the character of a Conservation Area d) is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality" (A.7.6). 3.7 4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 14/00100/B Page 3 of 9 8 September 2014

==== PAGE 4 ====

The previous planning application is considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application: 4.1 Demolition of existing building and erection of an apartment block to provide seven residential and seven tourist apartments with associated parking - 12/01540/B - APPROVED 4.2 A number of applications relating to the use of the building as a hotel were determined and an application for change of use to flats was approved in the late 1980s. 4.3 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Port Erin Commissioners have recommended the application be approved. DOI Highway Services do not oppose - the reduced car parking provision is acceptable and the arrangement of the car parking is acceptable. 5.2 Manx Utilities Authority - ELECTRICnY and DEFA - Environmental Health make no comments to the merits of the application but ask for informative notes are attached to any approval. 5.3 Department of Economic Development - Tourism Division comments that over the last number of decades there has been a significant loss of bed spaces (tourism) in the South of the Island. The closure of the Grosvenor Hotel has resulted in a further loss of visitor accommodation. Self-catering is a growth market and comprises over 50% of the Island's registered tourist accommodation and feedback suggests that those businesses achieving a quality of 3 Star and above are thriving. Accordingly, the Tourism Division fully supports the application for the re-development of the site, providing 4 or 5 Star accommodation. 5.4 The Member Of The House Of Keys For Rushen, Minister Watterson has objected to the application which can be summarised as; concerns with the loss of the Victorian style sea front with modern, Mediterranean style building; and believes it is not too late for planning authority to consider this matter and guide the developers towards development that is more in keeping with this Victorian street scape. 5.5 ASSESSMENT From the information and plans submitted and from visiting the site/area it is considered the following issues need to be considered when determining the application: 6.0 6.1 Principle of the use of the land for tourist/residential; Potential visual impact upon the street scene; Parking provisions/highway issues; and Affordable housing provision. 0 0 0 0 Principle of the use of the land for tourist/residential Firstly, it should be noted that the proposal would result in fifteen units for either residential or tourist use or a mixture. Currently, the applicants propose seven would be used for residential use, whilst the remaining eight would be for tourist purposes. The site is now designated as ’residential' and therefore the seven residential units and/or all the apartments used for residential is acceptable. Furthermore, the site lies within an area where residential use is not only acceptable in respect of the local plan, but has been permitted in the form of new buildings in the case of Windsor House and Eagle Towers both to the south. The tourist aspect of the proposal again is considered acceptable, given the last use of the building as a hotel, the previously planning approval which included tourist use and as such use would be appropriate in the area, and not conflict with proposed or existing residential uses. 6.2 6.3 Overall, it is considered the proposed use of the building for residential apartments and/or self-contained tourist apartments would be compatible with the land use designation 8 September 2014 14/00100/B Page 4 of 9

==== PAGE 5 ====

and the predominate land uses surrounding it and therefore the use of the building is considered acceptable on this site. Potential visual impact upon the street scene The positioning of the site along the Promenade and on a corner plot results in the site being in a prominent position both in terms of immediate views along the promenade, but also distance views from Port Erin beach, the Lower Promenade and from the breakwater Road (Life Boat Station). Accordingly, it is critical to ensure the design, massing, proportion, form and finish of the building are acceptable. 6.4 The Conservation Officer has indicated previously that the upper Promenade in Port Erin is predominantly Victorian in character, with a vertical emphasis due to the proliferation of sliding sash windows, canted bays and dormers breaking the eaves at roof level, terminated with a blue/black slate roofscape. Furthermore, the existing Grosvenor Hotel is three/four storeys with an additional attic storey formed in the roof, lit by dormers. Like many of its Victorian neighbours, it is painted render with canted bays. The detailing is spartan, save for the dentilled string courses and the decoration to the left hand bay window and dormers. The building is otherwise relatively unremarkable. In recent years, there have been applications to demolish a number of the former hotels and guest houses. This is particularly pertinent in this case as the site immediately adjacent to the application site (Windsor House) has approval for a similar development. Indeed, the applicants drew on some of the architectural forms and details in the design of the proposed. 6.5 The design of the proposal draws upon details and forms of the surrounding Victorian buildings in addition to some of the better aspects of the more recent approvals, in order to form a link with the streetscape within which it is located. This and the previously approved proposal draws from the existing Victorian buildings with a more contemporary twist. This is best demonstrated by the inclusion of bay windows, but instead of the traditional canted bay windows, the proposal would have squared bays infilled with floor to ceiling glazed windows at ground fioor and first floor levels. These coupled with the finish of the materials and colours proposed to be used all would give the building a vertical emphasis which is most clearly demonstrated in the photomontage. This vertical emphasis is not only applied to the front elevation facing the promenade, but also to the elevation (south) facing Victoria Square and the rear elevation (east) facing towards the rear access lane and the detached workshop and the Erin Arts Centre. 6.5 The finish and design of the proposal makes reference to the recently approved and nearing completed/finished Windsor House Apartment block (12/00169/B & 09/01388/B), which also included squared bay windows and large expanses of glazing giving the vertical emphasis. It was considered at the time of determination that although Windsor House did not replicate any other buildings on the Promenade it retained verticaiity and a staggered profile which reflects that of many other buildings in the streetscene but with a modern interpretation. 6.6 With the approval of Windsor House development, an alternative approach to design along Port Erin Promenade and has given scope for more contemporary designs. There is a danger in consistently repeating existing or previous architectural features, that an area does not develop or create an evolving architectural style or character and that buildings are committed to retaining a character, style or appearance which appertains to a time long past. Also, the architectural style of many of the Island's promenade buildings relate to their internal layout, ceiling heights and arrangement. Modern day buildings do not correspond too many of these features and the proportions of such buildings often do not lend themselves to the same external appearance. 6.7 The height of the proposed building has been reduced compared to the previous approval, but would still be taller than the existing, and the new development will increase the 6.8 14/00100/B Page 5 of 9 8 September 2014

==== PAGE 6 ====

amount and massing of built development on the site and appearance within the street scene. As indicated previously, to reduce the impact of the building the top floor is designed to be set back from the main front, rear and side elevations. Furthermore, the fourth floor surrounds, copings and band courses would be finished in a dark grey colour. Consequently, when walking along the Promenade or in the vicinity, the main view of the building would be ground level up to the fourth floor level. This level is set slightly above (0.5m) the roof ridge level of York House, but level with the roof ridge of Windsor House. Essentially, the proposal would be a storey higher than Windsor House Apartment block which itself is slightly more than a storey taller than Eagle Towers. The proposal would continue this gradual increase in height It should be noted that the proposal would be taller than York House, It is perhaps unfortunate that the applicant has been unable to incorporate York House into the overall development Other redevelopments along the Promenade have generally included entire terraces of existing buildings, rather than the application site which would result in approximate a quarter of the overall terrace remaining and three quarters redeveloped. The previous approved scheme, arguably, did address this issue better, having the floor and window levels of York House through to the new development which continues horizontal emphasis, albeit a more contemporary approach rather than continuing the traditional design. This approach also helped to try unifying between old and new and also helps the vertical emphasis of the two neighbouring properties. This application in this respect is not as successful, as there is a difference in floor levels between the two sites; however, it is not considered the appearance is of such significance to warrant a refusal. 6.9 6.10 As indicated previously the existing bay window immediately adjacent to York House is five storeys in height and has the same height and width as the bay window tower which creates a prominent corner feature of York House. Essentially, the new proposal would create similar sized bay windows in terms of height and width (albeit squared instead of canted bays) and therefore this area of the proposal would help tie the two properties together in an appropriate way. 6.11 Whilst the proposal is taller than neighbouring properties, it is considered the design will help reduce its appearance especially when viewed from the Promenade and Victoria Square. More distant views (Port Erin beach. Lower Promenade and Breakwater Road) will give better views of the two upper floors; however, the use of a large expanse of glazing infilling dark grey coloured dad surround, dark coloured render, will help give the impression of a slate roof from distance views and therefore help blend within the street scene. Again a similar approach has been used and accepted with the redevelopment of Windsor House, which included the entire front elevation of the upper floor being almost one large continuous expanse of glazing. The previous approved scheme also used similar finishes and design. For these reasons it is considered the proposal would comply with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. Parking provisions/highway issues 6.12 The application proposes a total of fifteen apartments, seven for permanent residential use and eight for self-contained tourist units. All units have at least two bedrooms. Appendix 7 (parking standards) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, states that apartments should have 1 space for a 1 bed unit and 2 spaces for 2 or more bedrooms. The application only proposes 18 spaces which is short of the required 30 car parking spaces. 6.13 Appendix 7 indicates circumstances where these standards maybe relaxed. One of these is where the site is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated that a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality. 8 September 2014 14/00100/8 Page 6 of 9

==== PAGE 7 ====

6.14 The applicant has indicated that the former hotel (42 bedrooms) had no private parking spaces for visitors, staff or deliveries. They highlight that whilst there are double yellow lines immediately outside the building on the west side of the road, on the east side (Promenade) there is unrestricted parking. There is also on-street parking along Victoria Square, Bay View Road and further along the Promenade to the north and south of the site (varying parking restrictions from 2 hrs to 24 hrs). The applicant also identifies that the site is within a 5 minutes' walk of the main shopping area and Shoprite. The site is also on the Nr 8 bus route (Peel - St Johns - Foxdale - Airport - Castletown - Port Erin) and is within a 5 minutes' walk of Nr 1,2, 11 & 12 bus route which runs from Bridson Street (Birch Hill - Promenades - Douglas - Airport - Castletown - Colby - Port Erin - Port St Mary). The train station is also a few minutes’ walk away. 6.15 The applicant also indicates that there was no shortage of on-street parking available, even during the summer months, as they observed one third of the Promenade spaces were available during the day time (6th Sept - Manx Grand Prix week 2012) and 90% of the two hour spaces in Bay View Road which is only 2 minutes' walk away were vacant. 6.16 A secure cycle store is also incorporated into the scheme. 6.17 The applicant also argues that it is likely that the tourist units would only generate the need for one car per unit given their size and the cost of car travel to and from the island. They indicate that each of the eight tourist apartments would be allocated a single parking space. They indicated that the last approved scheme has a similar parking provision i.e. one space per unit. 6.18 Highway Services have considered the application and the applicant's case for reduced parking provision and have no objection. Overall, for the reasons indicated above it is considered the applicants have provided 6.19 sufficient information to determine that the proposal would not have a unacceptable impact upon on street parking in the locality whilst still providing at least one off street parking space per unit and not having a significant impact upon highway safety to all users of the public highway. Affordable housing provision 6.20 When considering any development which has the potential to provide 8 or more dwellings Housing Policy 5 needs to be considered. This policy relates to affordable housing and that the Department will normally require that approximately 25% of new housing provision should take the form of affordable housing when planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas. The previous approved application did not propose any affordable housing or a 6.21 commuted sum contribution. The applicant had suggested that he is willing to enter into a legal agreement for affordable housing should any of the tourist units become residential. However, securing this was considered problematic. Firstly the application was for seven permanent residential units which falls below the threshold in Housing Policy 5. There are currently no policies that require affordable provision for tourist units, agreement may only be entered into to make an application acceptable. Consequently, the proposal put before the Committee did not generate the need for affordable units under the existing Strategic Plan and therefore the development was acceptable in its own right. A Section 13 In this case detailed discussion has taken place between the applicants, the Housing 6.22 Division of DSC and the Planning Authority. The main issue with this submission is the amount, how and what would be the trigger points for the commuted sum payments to be made. As indicated within the description of the Development and comments within this report the Planning Authority does not have any objection whether all the units are used for 14/OOlOO/B Page 7 of 9 8 September 2014

==== PAGE 8 ====

tourist or residential or a mix which is what is currently proposed. Due to this, the Section 13 Legai Agreement is more complex than normal, However, the heads of terms of the agreement have essentially been agreed. These will require the applicant to provide an initial lump sum upon the completion/occupation of the first seven residential units and thereafter should the tourist units become residential use (being occupied or let for periods of 4 weeks or more), a fee per unit, would be required. 6.23 The principles of such Section 13 Legal Agreement are accepted by the Department of Social Care - Housing Division. RECOMMENDATION It is considered that the proposal would comply with the relevant planning policies of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007), and for the reasons set out in this report, it is recommended that the application be approved, subject to a Section 13 Legal Agreement. 7.0 7.1 PARPf STATUS In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application; the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application; Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits. 8.0 8.1 In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013 and paragraph 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: 8.2 Manx Utilities Authority * Electricity DEFA - Environmental Health Department of Economic Development - Tourism Division The Member Of The House Of Keys For Rushen, Minister Watterson Recommendation Recommended Decision: Approve subject to Legal Agreement 08.09.2014 Date of Recommendation: Conditions and Notes for Approvai / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusai O : Notes attached to refusais C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. Page 8 of 9 14/00100/B 8 September 2014

==== PAGE 9 ====

To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Reason: Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumuiation of unimplemented planning approvals. C2. Prior to the occupation of any of the residential apartments or tourist apartments all the basement parking and undercroft parking must be available for use only by those occupying the apartments hereby approved. Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles In the interests of highway safety. C3. No development shall commence until a samples of all external facing materials to be used have been submitted and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. This approval relates to / / x ^ ^ Drawings reference numbers 8033-L01, 803^-L02, 8033-L03, 8033-L04, 8033-L05, 8033-P15B, 8033-P16b, 8033-PL7F, 8033-P18B, 8033-^19, 8033-P2^1A and 8033-P22 received on 27th January 2014 and l^th June 2014. tX, - P A 'll fit- Hi. & -5 n.-’ / r I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority. Decision Made : Committee Meeting Date: Signed :... Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additionai report/condition reason is reguiredi signing officer to delete as appropriate YES/NO 8 September 2014 14/00100/B Page 9 of 9