Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
19/00176/B Page 1 of 12
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 19/00176/B Applicant : Mr Steen Heidemann Proposal : Alterations, erection of extensions and additional use of residential dwelling as tourist living accommodation Site Address : Beach House Stanley Mount East Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 1NP
Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken : 13.03.2019 Site Visit : 13.03.2019 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 04.11.2019 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
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 tourist unit hereby approved as annotated with a green line on plans BH1(A) & BH2(A) dated stamped 7th August may only be used no earlier than three days before the first practice associated with the TT races & MGP Festival of Motorcycling and up to three days after the last race in each event. No permission is given for the use of the approved tourist unit between the two events and must revert to additional living accommodation associated with the main house Beach House.
Reason: The application is for the use of the unit for the TT & MGP Festival of Motorcycling periods only and the impact upon on street parking has be considered on this basis only.
C 3. All new windows shall be painted timber double hung vertical sliding sashes with joinery details to match the originals, and shall be retained as such.
Reason: To ensure the satisfactory preservation of the existing property
C 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling(s) hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, shall be carried out, without the prior written approval of the Department.
==== PAGE 2 ====
19/00176/B Page 2 of 12
Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
C 5. No development shall commence until a schedule of materials and finishes and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. 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.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings reference numbers:
Date stamped 13th February 2019 Site Location Plan
Date stamped 7th August 2019 BH 1(A), BH 2(A), BH 5(B), BH 6, BH 7
Date stamped 16th October 2019 BH 3(B) & BH 4(C) __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
Lyndhurst, Stanley Mount East, Ramsey - Flat 3 Lyndhurst, Stanley Mount East, Ramsey - Apartment 41 Block C, Queens Pier Apartments, Stanley Mount East, Ramsey - Apartment 44 Block C, Queens Pier Apartments, Stanley Mount East, Ramsey - Pier House, Stanley Mount East, Ramsey - The Nook, 51 Stanley Mount East, Ramsey - Flat 3, Ascog Hall, Stanley Mount East, Ramsey - Flat 4 Ascog Hall, Stanley Mount East, Ramsey - Apartment 35 Block B, Queens Pier Apartments, Stanley Mount East, Ramsey - Flat 1, Ramsey House, Stanley Mount East, Ramsey - Flat 2 Ramsey House, Stanley Mount East, Ramsey - Flat 3 Ramsey House, Stanley Mount East, Ramsey - Flat 4 Ramsey House, Stanley Mount East, Ramsey - Flat 2 Pier View, Stanley Mount East, Ramsey - Flat 4 Pier View, Stanley Mount East, Ramsey - Flat 5 Pier View, Stanley Mount East, Ramsey -
As they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018).
It is recommended that the following persons should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
Sunnyside, Ballure Road, Ramsey is not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy.
==== PAGE 3 ====
19/00176/B Page 3 of 12
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS MORE THAN 5 REPRESENTATIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR AN APPROVAL
0.0 PREAMBLE 0.1 The planning application was deferred by the Planning Committee Members at its sitting 23rd September 2019 after Members sought clarification on the accuracy of the plans in respect of the removal of the first floor roof terrace and some visualisation of the proposal - to gain a better understanding.
0.2 The applicant has amended the plans to omit the first floor roof terrace to the front of the dwelling and has submitted some photomontages to visualise the application as requested.
0.3 In terms of the accuracy of the plans the Principal Planning Officer asked the Principal Planning Office for Enforcement whether she considered the plans to be acceptable and if required whether the proposal could be enforced. She confirmed it could as the extent of the proposed development is clear and from consideration of a planning enforcement perspective, with the reference point of existing building, would enable an assessment of any extensions against it.
0.4 Additional representations have been received and these have been added to this report. Further the removal of the condition relating to the first floor roof terrace has been removed given the proposal no longer proposes this aspect. Paragraph 6.16 of this report has also been altered due to this.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Beach House a part three storey/part two storey dwelling (roadside frontage) sited to the eastern side of Stanley Mount East and to the southwest of the Queens Pier within Ramsey. To the rear, given the topography of the land the property is part three/part four storeys in height. The dwelling is traditional in appearance; albeit facility unusual in design. The main section of the dwelling is the three/four storey central section, which is flanked on either side by one/two storey wings. The dwelling includes a number of traditional features which includes ornate detailing around the traditional sliding sash windows and main entrance; a large chimney stack running through the centre of the dwelling and being finished in painted render with a slate roof.
1.2 To the north of the dwelling is a large yard/garden area which is enclosed by a painted render wall.
1.3 The dwelling currently has 2 garages (southern wing) which access directly onto the public highway Stanley Mount East.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The planning application seeks approval for the alterations, erection of extensions and additional use of part of the residential dwelling as tourist living accommodation during TT and Manx Grand Prix (MGP) only.
2.2 The physical works proposes can be split into a number of different sections; 2.2.1 The first is the erection of first floor extension above the existing two wings, either side of the main building (north and southern gables). These would have a width of 3.2m, a depth of 9.4m and would be symmetrical to each other. They would be setback of the front elevation by 0.2m.
2.2.2 The second aspect of the works is a two storey side extension to the northern gable end wall of the property. This would project across the existing yard/garden area of the property to
==== PAGE 4 ====
19/00176/B Page 4 of 12
the northern boundary of the site. The extension would have a width of between 7m & 8.5m, a depth of 6.8m and a height of 5.5m (measured from front elevation). The extension would have a flat roof design with parapet wall included. This extension would be setback 4m from the existing front boundary wall which runs along Stanley Mount East and 2m setback from the main front elevation of the dwelling. Further, giving the sloping topography of the area/site and the design, this extension would be 6.1m below the roof ridge of the main dwelling house and 3.7m lower than the highest point of the first floor roof extension outlined within paragraphs 2.2.1.
2.2.3 The third aspect of the application is the erection of a single storey extension to the north of the existing main entrance of the property which has a width of 1.7m and a depth of 3m. While providing a small amount of floor area internal to the lobby; the proposal also enables the installation of classically styled columns/pillars entranceway around and above the existing entrance to the dwelling. The first floor extension identified within paragraph 2.2.1, would be partially above this extension, albeit setback 0.2m from its ground floor frontage.
2.2.4 The fourth aspect of the proposal is the demolition of the existing single storey garage building (southern gable end elevation) and replaced with a single storey extension of greater height and footprint. The overall extension would have a width of between 5.5m and 5.7m, a depth of 11.7m and a height of between 4m and 4.3m (measured from front elevation). This extension does not include to replicated the existing garaging, but for living accommodation. The first floor extension identified within paragraph 2.2.1, would be partially above this extension, albeit setback slight back from its frontage.
2.2.5 The final aspect of the proposal includes the use of some of the accommodation provided by the proposed extensions for tourist accommodation during TT & MGP periods only. It is essentially proposed during these periods the applicants would remain living at the property (main central section of the dwelling) and the single tourist unit would be let out. These tourist units would be created by the winged extensions listed within paragraph 2.2.2.
2.3 The application initially proposed to use part of the extension listed within paragraph 2.2.4 as an additional tourist unit (total of two within the site) and also a rear conservatory. However, these two aspects have now been omitted from the application following amended plans. Further, the time of letting has been reduced from TT periods and summer periods to now only TT & MGP periods.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The following previous planning application is considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application;
3.2 Alterations and erection of extensions - 08/00807/B - APPROVED. This application essential proposed the works listed within paragraph 2.2.1 of this report, i.e. the first floor winged extensions. This application was not implemented.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area recognised as being within predominantly residential use under the Ramsey Local Plan. The site is not within a Conservation Area.
4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains one policy that is considered specifically relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:
4.3 Strategic Policy 10 states: "New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to: (a) minimise journeys, especially by private car; (b) make best use of public transport; (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and (d) encourage pedestrian movement"
==== PAGE 5 ====
19/00176/B Page 5 of 12
4.4 Spatial Policy 2 states: "Outside Douglas development will be concentrated on the following Service Centres to provide regeneration and choice of location for housing, employment and services o Ramsey o Peel o Port Erin o Castletown o Onchan
Area Plans will define the development boundaries of such centres so as to provide a range of housing and employment opportunities at a scale appropriate to the settlement."
4.5 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; (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
4.6 Transport Policy 1 states: "New development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes."
4.7 Transport Policy 7 states: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards.
The current standards are set out in Appendix 7."
4.8 Business Policy 11 states: "Tourism development must be in accordance with the sustainable development objectives of this plan; policies and designations which seek to protect the countryside from development will be applied to tourist development with as much weight as they are to other types of development. Within the rural areas there may be situations where existing rural buildings could be used for tourist use and Environment Policy 16 sets out the circumstances where this may be permitted."
4.9 Permitted Development Order 2012 states: "Class 3 Taking in guests
==== PAGE 6 ====
19/00176/B Page 6 of 12
The change of use of a building from use as a dwellinghouse to combined use as a dwellinghouse and as a guest-house.
Condition: No more than 3 bedrooms in the building may be used as such by guests."
4.10 Residential Design Guide July 2019.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Ramsey Commissioner's raise no objections (27.03.2019 & 27.08.2019).
5.2 Highway Services initially objected to the application on the following grounds (21.03.2019): "The proposals would remove 2 existing garages to provide additional living accommodation. The 'Manual for Manx Roads' (MfMR) design guide specifies that a single garage must be at least 3m x 6m in size with a 2.4m wide garage door to be counted as a car parking space. The existing garages are of size 4.4 x 2.7 and 4.8 x 2 with a 2.1m and 1.8m wide door respectively which are below MfMR standards, but should be able to accommodate at least one small parked car which would be lost by the development.
There is no existing parking in front of the garages and therefore the development would result in no off-street parking being provided on the site, and rely on on-street parking in an area where there are already on-street parking pressures. The parking standards in 'The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016' require 2 spaces for a dwelling.
Highway Services opposes the application due to the removal of existing site parking which is in contravention of the parking standards in 'The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016'.
Recommendation: O"
5.2.1 Following additional amendments/information from the applicants, Highways made the following comments (28.08.2019); "Following the previous highway response dated 21/03/19, the applicant has submitted revised information to reduce the number of proposed tourist units from 2 to 1, and only intends to let out the new unit during the motor racing periods.
Whilst it is not desirable to remove the existing garage parking as stated in the previous highway response, it is noted that there is poor visibility from the existing vehicular access for cars exiting the garage, and zero visibility in one direction due to the presence of the existing high wall. The use of the existing garage for parking cannot be considered as safe in terms of existing highway visibility standards, although it does provide off-street parking provision (or the potential for parking if not currently used as such) which is a highway benefit.
The increased site parking demand from the proposals would be minimal if it would only occur during the two racing periods from 1 tourist dwelling. It is also anticipated that the occupiers of the existing dwelling are already likely to park on-street bearing in mind a dwelling requires 2 spaces to comply with the parking standards and the existing garage could only accommodate 1 small car. On balance it is considered that the development does not warrant a highway objection, but it is requested that a planning condition be imposed to only allow the tourist unit to be let during the racing periods to limit the site parking demand.
Summary Highway Services does not oppose the application subject to a planning condition for the tourist unit to only be let out during the motor racing periods.
Recommendation: DNOC"
==== PAGE 7 ====
19/00176/B Page 7 of 12
5.3 There have been a total of 17 individual objections (some multiply from one address) to this application and the details of which can be views on the Online Planning Services. There are also a number of representations received from the applicant in response to some of these objections. The following addresses of the person's objecting are:
o Flat 3 Lyndhurst, Stanley Mount East, Ramsey (10.03.2019 & 11.03.2019) o Apartment 41 Block C, Queens Pier Apartments, Stanley Mount East, Ramsey (12.03.2019 & 09.04.2019) o Apartment 44 Block C, Queens Pier Apartments, Stanley Mount East, Ramsey (22.03.2019) o Sunnyside, Ballure Road, Ramsey (28.03.2019, 19.08.2019 & 28.10.2019) o Pier House, Stanley Mount East, Ramsey (14.03.2019) o The Nook, 51 Stanley Mount East, Ramsey (25.03.2019, 23.04.2019, 23.08.2019, 24.10.2019 & 31.10.2019) o Flat 3, Ascog Hall, Stanley Mount East, Ramsey (19.03.2019) o Flat 4 Ascog Hall, Stanley Mount East, Ramsey (21.03.2019, 01.04.2019, 03.04.2019 & 28.04.2019) o Apartment 35 Block B, Queens Pier Apartments, Stanley Mount East, Ramsey (21.03.2019) o Apartment 41 Block C, Queens Pier Apartments, Stanley Mount East, Ramsey (12.03.2019 & 13.08.2019) o Apartment 44 Block C, Queens Pier Apartments, Stanley Mount East, Ramsey (25.03.2019) o Flat 1, Ramsey House, Stanley Mount East, Ramsey (14.03.2019 & 13.08.2019 - initially commented as 5 Close Beg, Ballawattleworth, Peel) o Flat 2 Ramsey House, Stanley Mount East, Ramsey (24.03.2019) o Flat 3 Ramsey House, Stanley Mount East, Ramsey (18.03.2019, 08.04.2019, 29.08.2019 & 24.10.2109) o Flat 4 Ramsey House, Stanley Mount East, Ramsey (17.03.2019, 18.03.2019 & 12.08.2019) o Flat 2 Pier View, Stanley Mount East, Ramsey (14.03.2019, 27.03.2019, 04.09.2019 & 28.10.2019) o Flat 4 Pier View, Stanley Mount East, Ramsey (10.03.2019, 12.04.2019, 25.04.2019, 14.08.2019 & 28.10.2019) o Flat 5 Pier View, Stanley Mount East, Ramsey (16.03.2019, 02.09.2019 & 31.10.2019)
5.3.1 The main material planning objections to the planning application made the owners/occupiers of the properties listed within paragraph 5.2 of this report are summarised as:
o Concerns of loss of outlook; o Insufficient on-road parking spaces in the area; o Road next to Beach House is very narrow making parking impossible; o No parking proposed within the site; o Question validity of submitted photographs to demonstrate parking in area; o Proposed tourist accommodation (B&B) will create parking problems in an area suffering with parking issues; o Bollards have already been installed in are to prevent parking; o The age and original features of Beach House would be lost be these extensive works; o Photographs submitted with application to demonstrate available parking provision where taken during the day when the majority of people are out at work; o Removal of garaging and increasing the amount of traffic on the street is not a positive enhancement; o Loss of light to living room (basement level); o Loss of privacy by windows directly overlooking (bedrooms); o Concern of increase in noise by more people coming and going from site; o Applicants trying to turn Beach House into a Boutique Hotel;
==== PAGE 8 ====
19/00176/B Page 8 of 12
o Already have problems with parking of vehicles on the road and footpaths which block traffic and pedestrian footpaths; o Increase in visitor numbers will exacerbate the parking issues; o No parking in area during overnight and weekend periods; o Concerns of accuracy of plans; o No over spill parking in area; o Parking could be provided within the site; o Proposed extension totally out of character with its surroundings; o Stanley Mount East is a quiet residential area and proposals would not be suitable; o Contrary to General Policy 2 (g, h & i); o Overlooking from front balcony of the street and peoples windows; o No change to initial scheme concerns remain; o Parking is already limited due to the Pier works an parking in front being removed; o How is the building going to build over a water culvert; o No measurements on plans; o No guarantee that any visitors won't have cars during TT & MGP; parking at premium at the proposal would lead to 67 bedrooms with no parking; o no justification for need of building; o needs to be reason from planning office why 17 complaints by local residents have been ignored; o will require 18 average truck loads for excavate the site; o concerns of foundations as the land is sand and concerns to sea wall foundations; o Same concerns remain; and o question the accuracy, detail and appropriateness of drawings again.
5.3.2 It should be noted there are some comments relating to loss of view, loss of value to their property and impacts during the construction periods. While such concerns are understandable, none of these is a material planning considerations and cannot be taken into account when determining the application.
5.3.3 It should be noted that following initial comments being received the applicants amended the scheme to reduce the number of tourist units from 2 to 1 and also reduce the time the unit can be let out for tourist purpose to TT and MGP basis only, with the rest of the year being used as part of the main dwellinghouse as living accommodation. Since the re-advertisement of this application a total of eight written representations where again received, again highlighting concerns raised initially.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The key issues to considerer in the assessment of this planning application are firstly the potential impacts upon the visual amenities of the street scene; secondary the potential impact upon neighbouring residents and thirdly potential impact upon on-street parking provision.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON THE VISUAL AMENITIES OF THE STREET SCENE 6.2 The proposed works would be apparent from public views, namely to the north (Queens Promenade), east (beach) and to south/west when travelling along Stanley Mount East. Accordingly, the proposed works would be apparent from various surrounding public views.
6.3 In relation to the two first floor winged extension, these follow along similar lines as the previously approved scheme in 2008. It is considered this aspect of the works would be acceptable once again.
6.4 The two storey extension to the northern gable end wall would likely be the aspect with the greatest visual impact within the street scene, given its increase the width of the overall property. It would also be the only aspect of the works which is not replacing existing built development, with the remainder of the extension; in the main, replacing existing built development. Whilst two storeys in height, the existing boundary walling around the boundaries
==== PAGE 9 ====
19/00176/B Page 9 of 12
of the site and the sloping topography (Stanley Mount East falls in a south to north direction) of the area, would essentially screened the lower ground floor level of the extension from the majority of public views, with only the upper ground floor being apparent. Its set back position (apx 4m) from the roadside frontage and to the rear boundary also helps reduce the visual impact of the development. Further as outlined within paragraph 2.2.2, the design and topography of the area also ensure the height of the extension is significantly below that of the main ridge level of the main dwelling house and even of the proposed first floor extension.
6.5 The demolition of the existing garages and replaced with a larger single storey extension to the rear again is considered appropriate. The extension would project forward of the existing garages doors, in line with the neighbouring properties (The Nook) main entrance (porch). However, it is considered givens its design and height, it would not become a prominent or adverse feature in the street scene.
6.6 Overall, whilst the proposed works would increase overall size, footprint and mass of the existing dwelling, it is considered the proportion, form, designs, size, finishes would all fit well within the street scene and would still ensure the main central aspect of the dwellinghouse would still be the main feature of the property and the extensions subordinate to it. Accordingly, it is considered the extensions would comply with General Policy 2.
6.7 It should be noted that while the property is not a Registered Building, nor within a Conservation Area, the applicant did have pre-application discussion with the former Registered Building Officer who raised no concerns with the works proposed.
POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON NEIGHBOURING RESIDENTS 6.8 The properties mostly like to be affected are those immediately to the west of the site, namely flats within Queens Pier Apartments, Ramsey House & Pier View. The main impacts are through potential overbearing impacts, loss of light and/or overbearing impacts. This is not to say other properties in the area would not be affected; albeit not as much as the properties listed.
6.9 Due to the proposed extensions essential being to the northern and southern gable end elevations, different extensions proposed would potentially impact the above mentioned properties in different ways.
6.10 Dealing with the impact of the extensions to the northern gable end (i.e. the two storey extension and first floor extension), these would be directly opposite Queens Pier Apartments and slightly offset and to southwest the apartments within Ramsey House. The first floor/two storey extension (as outlined within paragraphs 2.2.1 & 2.2.3) would their closest points (lobby extension) be approximately 15m away from the bay windows of the apartment of Queens Pier Apartments and Ramsey House apartments. The additional two storey side extension would be approximately 17m away from the bay windows of the apartments of Queens Pier Apartments and Ramsey House apartments.
6.11 Without doubt the proposed extension will have an impact, any development on this site would. The questions are therefore whether the potential impacts are so significant to warrant a refusal. In terms of loss of direct light it is not considered the impact of the development would be so great to warrant a refusal. The site being to the east of the neighbouring apartments (those directly opposite) are already potentially impacts by the height of the existing dwelling; albeit during early morning periods only, given the suns orientation (east to west). It is not considered the extensions to the northern gable end wall would result in such loss of light to warrant a refusal.
6.12 In terms of overlooking, there would be a total of seven windows within the front elevation of overall extensions to the northern gable end, of theses none serve primary habitable rooms (i.e. living rooms) but rather non habitable rooms (bathrooms/landings/toilets) or habitable rooms (kitchen). Further a total of three windows are set below and behind the
==== PAGE 10 ====
19/00176/B Page 10 of 12
existing front boundary wall, which would prevent any possible overlooking. Whilst the Design Guide generally seeks a 20m gap be retained between directly facing windows, this proposal would be below that guideline figure. However, it is considered given the windows in the main are small and none serve primary habitable rooms, it is considered the potential for significant overlooking would not occur. It is also noted that there is already a level of overlooking from the larger and greater in number of windows, found without the currently property. Accordingly, there is already "mutual" overlooking between the properties in this urban area, and it is not considered this proposal would significantly alter this.
6.13 As mentioned earlier, the loss of a view is it not a material planning matter which can be considered. However, the potential overbearing impact upon an outlook is a matter to consider. All the apartments opposite the site have their primary habitable rooms (living rooms) being served by front projecting bay windows which face towards the application site. In terms of the extensions to the northern gable end, it is considered, their design, siting, being setback from the frontage, the existing tall boundary walls, distance from neighbouring properties and the sloping nature of the site, all ensure that such outlooks would not be adverse affected to warrant a refusal. It is very understandable the concerns of the residents opposite the site, as their direct views of the sea will be lost in part, with only angled views to the north east of the sea being achieved. However, as mentioned, loss of a view is not a reason to refuse the application.
6.14 The next aspect of the works to consider their potential impacts are the extensions to the southern gable of the property, as outlined in paragraphs 2.2.1 and 2.2.4. As identified earlier these works in the main replace existing built development; albeit replaced with taller and greater footprint. The properties directly opposite these works are the apartments within Pier View. Again the proposed extensions being greater in mass and height will have a greater impact to the residents of the opposite apartments. However the question is whether these impacts are so significant to warrant a refusal. Currently the majority of the views from these apartments (especially lower and ground floors) are of Beach House and The Nook. The exception being an approximate 3 to 5m gap between these two properties, where more distance views can be potentially achieved. The remainder of views within the front elevation of Pier View are of existing built development. The first floor extension and the increase in the height of the single storey extension will reduce the "gap" between the existing properties and while a view will be lost, again this is not a reason to refuse the application. The proposed singles storey extension (replacing garaging) would be sited approximately 11.5m from the front bay windows of Ramsey House and the first floor extension would be approximately 13.5m away.
6.15 In terms of loss of direct sun light; it is considered the impact resulting by the southern gable extensions would not be so significant to warrant a refusal. The existing dwellings (Beach House/The Nook) to the east of Ramsey House will already reduce direct sun light greatly, and the extensions proposed, which are small in size and height compared to the main dwelling, replacing in the main existing built development (garaging); would not significantly increase the amount of direct sun light lost.
6.16 In terms of overlooking again there is already a level of mutual overlooking as mention previously. It is not considered the three additional windows (two at ground level serving a utility room and one at first floor serving a bedroom) would give rise to a significant additional level of overlooking. The proposal does include a first floor terrace to the front elevation. This small in nature and perhaps could accommodate a table and two chairs. This perhaps would introduce an additional and new feature which does have the potential to increase overlooking to an unacceptable level being approximately 11.5m from the neighbouring windows. Terrace, can in their very nature give more changes for overlooking and also the perception of being overlooked. The applicant considered these would be acceptable, given terraces been included to the opposite Queen Pier Apartments. However, these balconies are smaller and located only to the fifth floor apartments. Accordingly, while all applications are considered on their own merits, in case of the Queens Pier Apartments it could be considered given their size, no direct line of sight into neighbouring windows and greater distance to neighbouring properties the impacts are less. However, as mention all application are judges on their own merits and in the
==== PAGE 11 ====
19/00176/B Page 11 of 12
case of the proposed terrace it is not considered acceptable. Accordingly, it is considered should the application be approved, this aspect of the proposal should be omitted via a planning condition; given it would be a minor alteration.
6.17 Overall, it is acceptable the proposed extensions will have greater impacts upon neighbouring properties than the current situation; however, for the reasons indicated it is not considered the impacts would be so significant to warrant a refusal.
POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON ON-STREET PARKING PROVISION 6.18 As outlined within this submission the proposal would result in the creation of an additional tourist unit (TT & MGP only) and result in the loss of the existing garaging. One of the garages measures 5m x 2.1m and therefore cannot accommodate a car. The second space measures 5m x 2.9m so could accommodate a car, albeit does not meet modern parking standards. However, visiting the site, it was very clear that visibly out of either of the garages was extremely limited given existing boundary walls along the frontage of the dwelling and also the neighbouring property "The Nook". Accordingly, a car would need to exit the garages and pull out onto the road before obtaining visibility along the road, which at this location is narrow and often single width, as the opposite carriageway can be used for on street parking. It is considered the remove of the garage is a significant benefit to highway safety. This view is accepted by Highway Services. The applicant explains that they do not use the garaging due to this issue and they currently relay on on-street parking
6.19 The proposal would increase the potential requirement of on- street parking during TT & MGP periods due to the proposed single tourist unit. The applicant comments that it is likely most visitors would arrive by motorcycle or not have a car, which is generally accepted to be the case during the racing periods, more so than normal tourist periods. While objectors have indicated that this cannot be guaranteed, and it can't; it is considered to be a reasonable assertion. Overall, it is not considered the proposal would result in significant impacts to on- street parking in the area to warrant a refusal. It is acknowledged from photographs submitted and from visiting the area on a number of occasions, that parking in the immediate area is difficult (i.e. Stanley Mount East); this has been made worse with the loss of parking fronting the Pier (temporary arrangement while renovation works are undertaken). However, a number of spaces can be found along the Promenade to the north of the site.
6.20 Consideration is also given to its location, which in terms of encouraging visitors not to bring a vehicle during the racing periods; is in a good location. The site is within 10mins walk (850m) from Ramsey Bus Station & 7mins (600m) from the Main station of the Manx Electric Railway; both of which are main links to other towns/villages on the Island. Further there are bus stops along Queens Pier and Waterloo Road (2mins walk - 190m). Further it is within an 8 min walk (650m) of Parliament Street (shops/services). Consideration should also be given to Strategic Policy 10 which states that new development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to: (a) minimise journeys, especially by private car; (b) make best use of public transport; (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and (d) encourage pedestrian movement.
6.21 It is considered this would comply with this policy
6.22 Overall, given the site is within the town centre, close to services and shops, close to public transport links; and with a appropriated worded condition to restrict the use of the tourist unit for TT and MGP periods only; it is considered that the lack of off street parking provision in this case is acceptable and would not significantly effect on street parking in the locality. The loss of the garage is considered a considerable highway safety improvement to the benefit of all uses of the public highway.
7.0 CONCLUSION
==== PAGE 12 ====
19/00176/B Page 12 of 12
7.1 Overall it is concluded that the planning application accords with the provisions set out in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the Ramsey Local Plan and the Residential Design Guide and as such the planning application is recommended for approval.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), 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 (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. __
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 : Permitted
Committee Meeting Date: 11.11.2019
Signed : C BALMER Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
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