Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
16/01110/B
Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 16/01110/B Applicant : Intelligent Developments Limited Proposal : Demolition of existing building and remains of adjoining former boathouse and erection of two residential dwellings with associated integral off street parking and gardens Site Address : Shore House Shore Road Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6HH
Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : 24.10.2016 Site Visit : 24.10.2016 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Officer’s Report
THE SITE 1.1 The site is the curtilage of an existing building, Shore House which sits on the eastern side of Shore Road (the lower promenade highway which leads north to the Cosy Nook cafe) with a separate but associated garden which sits on the other side of the highway abutting the beach. The site incorporates Shore House and also a former boat house alongside to the south.
1.2 The existing house is a three storey dwelling with the highest floor living partly in the roofspace served by eaves level dormers. This property is over a floor taller than the two storey terrace to the north of which Shore Cottage is the nearest property, and slightly less tall than Tower View and Frontignac to the south. This property is separated from the boathouse by a 900mm gap. Tower View has a pedestrian door in the gable facing towards the application site.
1.3 The property is clearly visible from both the lower promenade and the upper promenade from where one looks down on the rear of the property across the grassed broogh.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the demolition of the existing dwelling and its replacement with a pair of semi- detached houses. Also proposed is the introduction of a new pedestrian entrance into the garden area opposite and the subdivision of the garden area into two through the introduction of 900mm high post and wire fence with planting either side, each having its own access and area for bin storage.
2.2 The new building will be slightly (300mm) higher than the existing but slightly (400mm) lower than Tower View. The new building takes its lead from Tower View with integral doors serving the internal garages (one per unit) and balcony features at first floor level although the proposed balconies are Juliet style rather than the recessed balconies in Tower View. The new building has canopies above the front doors like those on Westwinds.
2.3 The windows in the front elevation will be timber framed sliding sashes unlike the plastic framed casements in Tower View and Frontignac.
2.4 There will be some alteration to the bank to the rear of the property but there are no details of this.
==== PAGE 2 ====
16/01110/B
Page 2 of 5
2.5 The applicant explains that the existing property suffers structurally with water and damp ingress, deterioration of fixtures, fittings, wall and floor surfaces, damaged render, failure of window seals, irregular flooring surfaces and the opportunity for a new dwelling will bring remedies to all this plus a building built to modern standards of construction, insulation and energy saving principles.
2.6 The applicant has provided additional information by way of a letter dated 18th November, 2016, a report from Burroughs Stewart Engineers dated 17th November, 2016 and a plan, reference 16/2557/04, all received on 21st November, 2016. The letter clarifies that the chimney and gable are common to the existing application building and Shore Cottage and the proposal is to retain both elements with propping of Shore Cottage's walling if necessary and method statements for this will be provided ahead of any works. The new building will tie back in to the retained gable. The Structural Engineer has advised that the chimney is leaning towards Shore House and recommends that it is rebuilt which the applicant is happy to do. They confirm that they have no intention of using any land other than that belonging to their client and no intention of carrying out work to the existing retaining wall holding up the brooghs. The new building will be constructed clear of this wall. The removal of the outhouse will be undertaken with appropriate propping.
PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 Planning approval has been granted for the development of the boat house for a dwelling, PA 14/01262/B. Tower View and Frontignac were approved under PA 05/01108/B.
PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South (2013) as Residential and within a proposed Conservation Area. The Port Erin Local Plan of 1990 identified Shore Road as an area of interest in terms of local history and architecture.
4.2 The Conservation Area appraisal identifies the following as making particular positive contribution to the Area:
...Cosy Nook Café, Shore Cottage, Surfside, Condor House and Edmund and Margaret Christian cottage, Shore Road and Sycamore, Strand Road - These are all buildings relating to the earlier settlement of Port Erin [Primrose Cottage is also registered]. Although the actual dates of construction for these buildings are unknown, the Edmund and Margaret Christian cottage has a plaque above the front door giving a date of 1781, which may therefore be the date the building was erected. These buildings should be seen a providing a positive contribution to the area as they are the most complete examples of their type in the conservation area.
4.3 The application building is not referred to specifically although the row of buildings is referred to as one of the original parts of the village, centring around its fishing history.
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Port Erin Commissioners support the application but subject to the provision of a full structural and civil engineering report before any work commences. They note that a number of land slippages have occurred along Shore Road and they have serious concerns about the stability of the broogh to support the development, a broogh which is owned by the Commissioners. They advise that suitable levels of insurance must be in place as any movement may affect the brooghs, its paths and the highway. They also advise that the development should not encroach into any land not owned by the applicant and that agreement must be reached in respect of the location of the boundary of the site with adjoining land (12/10/16). The further information submitted satisfactorily addressed their concerns which they confirm on (14.12.16).
5.2 The owner of Shore Cottage expresses concern about the impact of the works on Shore Cottage which is very old (at least 1867). There is a large working fireplace in Shore Cottage which is served by a chimney pot on the stack on Shore House. Their drainage is shared with the curtilage of Shore House and this isn't clarified in the drawings. They are unsure as to whether the existing gable of
==== PAGE 3 ====
16/01110/B
Page 3 of 5
Shore House is to be retained as it abuts Shore Cottage which would address their concern about the chimney but they wonder what will support this wall once the other walls of Shore House have been removed. They are not clear whether the rear wall supporting the brooghs is to be removed and if so how the broogh will continue to be supported. They are generally concerned about the structural stability of the area which they believe is based on sand and would prefer that Shore House is retained as it is as they believe it is in good condition with no mention of subsidence in the accompanying report and they seek conditions, if the application is approved to address their concerns as having contacted the applicant, they received no reply (08.10.16).
5.3 This contributor writes in again on 04.12.16 advising that they have written separately to the applicant and the engineer but have received no reply. He believes that the methods to be employed during the works should be established now rather than after approval has been granted and he remains concerned about the drainage of Shore Cottage which passes through the rear yard of the application site which is the subject of a legal written right. He is concerned that the works may render the Cottage uninhabitable if they adversely affect the drainage. He is still not clear about whether the mutual wall will at the rear of the Cottage will be retained and he still has questions about the foundations of that wall and how they will be affected. He is concerned that there are watercourses which run under Shore House and suggests that there should be a hydrological survey undertaken before works are approved. He is concerned that these issues are not being addressed by the applicant and that there is insufficient detail available to enable a decision to be properly taken.
5.4 Highway Services indicate that "The proposal is to demolish a dwelling and a boathouse and replace them with 2 dwellings; the proposed dwellings will have integral double garages.
The propsed garages provide 'nose to tail' parking; the garage for the left hand dwelling is approx 11.6m long and will have no difficulty accommodating 2 vehicles; the right hand garage is approx 10.4m long and it will be more difficult to accommodate 2 vehicles within this space, although not impossible.
There is sufficient road width at this location to accommodate the required manoeuvres to access the garages.
In order to preserve the car parking provision it will be necessary to protect the integrity of the garages and prohibit any permanent alteration that will result in the loss of the car parking priovision therefore a condition is requested.
Highway Services does not oppose the application subject to the following condition:
Reason: to ensure that the car parking standards are met in the interests of highway safety (24.10.16).
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issues here are whether the proposal will have any adverse impact on the character and appearance of the property and whether the finished property will adversely affect the living conditions of those in either adjacent property - Shore Cottage or Tower View. Whilst the concerns of the owner of Shore Cottage which is currently physically attached to the application property which is to be demolished, are perfectly understood, many of them are related to Building Control and/or civil issues relating to rights of ownership or drainage. The planning application should be concerned only with whether the development could be undertaken in a way which would not adversely affect the drainage and structural stability of the adjacent property and it is considered that it could. How it does this is a matter for the Building Regulations and the fact that the applicant
==== PAGE 4 ====
16/01110/B
Page 4 of 5
has engaged the services of a structural engineer is helpful. It is not in the applicant's interest to undertake work which will destabilise any adjacent property.
6.2 There appear to be no objections raised to the appearance, size or layout of the proposed dwelling and whilst there is clearly an historical importance to the area in general, of the properties which individually contribute to the history, the application building is not one. In addition, the properties alongside to the south are relatively new. It is not considered that the property as proposed will adversely affect the streetscene from either promenade.
6.3 The proposed dwelling will be on a similar footprint to the existing but with part of the rear annex further away from Shore Cottage than is the existing. It is not considered that the proposed building will adversely affect the living conditions of those in adjacent property.
6.4 Additional car parking will be provided which should assist what can be a congested area.
6.5 The proposal is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval.
PARTY STATUS 7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material, in this case Highway Services of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.
In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13:
The owner of Shore Cottage which is adjacent to the site
With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 20.12.2016
Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
==== PAGE 5 ====
16/01110/B
Page 5 of 5
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. The windows must be installed as shown and described in the application and may not be replaced other than in accordance with these descriptions and illustration, without the written approval of the Department.
Reason: the site lies within an area of historical importance and the detailing of the property is considered important.
C 3. The garages shall remain free from obstruction and available for the parking of vehicles in association with each dwelling.
Reason: to ensure that the car parking standards are met in the interests of highway safety
This approval relates to drawings 16/2557/01, 16/02557/02 and 16/2557/03 all received on 23rd September, 2016 and 16/2557/04 received on 21st November, 2016.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Permitted
Date: 05.01.2017
Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Senior Planning Officer
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal