Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
19/00201/B Page 1 of 18
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 19/00201/B Applicant : Empire Garages Ltd Proposal : Demolition of garages and related structures and erection of three storey building to provide ground floor commercial/retail unit (classes 1, 2, and 3) with seven apartments above with associated parking and facilities (in association with PA 19/00202/CON) Site Address : Garage And Premises Stanley Road Peel Isle Of Man
Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : 10.04.2019 Site Visit : 10.04.2019 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 18.07.2019 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposed development would neither preserve nor enhance the Conservation Area by virtue of the presentation of the rear elevation to Gib Lane. In addition, were the development of Site A not to be undertaken, the rear elevation of the proposed building would be visible above the existing car showroom with a resultant deleterious effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, contrary to General Policy 2b, c and g and Environment Policy 35 of the Strategic Plan.
R 2. The proposed development would not make adequate provision for car parking spaces within the building in accordance with the standards of the Strategic Plan (Appendix Seven) and there is insufficient information to demonstrate that this would not have an unacceptable impact on on-street parking and highway safety in the area. The development is therefore contrary to Transport Policy 7 and General Policy 2h of the Strategic Plan.
R 3. The development does not demonstrate that it would have an acceptable impact on highway safety, through the inclusion of features within or above the public highway which are not acceptable to the highway authority and by the absence of correctly drawn visibility splays at junctions. It has not been demonstrated that there is sufficient visibility for users of the proposed garaged parking spaces for them to be used safely. The proposal is therefore contrary to Transport Policy 4 and General Policy 2h and i of the Strategic Plan.
R 4. The proposal makes no provision for public open space or affordable housing. Given that the adjacent site is also owned by the applicant and is being proposed for development at the
==== PAGE 2 ====
19/00201/B Page 2 of 18
same time, and particularly as the development of site A relies upon the demolition of the buildings on site A, or at least some of them, to provide the bin store and the widening of Gib Lane, it is considered appropriate to consider the cumulative impact of the developments which would together result in sufficient housing numbers to warrant requiring both affordable housing and public open space. No provision is being made for affordable housing and whilst a commuted sum has been referred to in respect of public open space, there is nothing definitive in the application to demonstrate the impact of this. It cannot be concluded that there is sufficient provision for affordable housing or public open space. The development is therefore contrary to Housing Policy 5 and Recreation Policies 3 and 4 of the Strategic Plan.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties 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):
31, Shore Road and 9, 9A, 11, 13, 17, 19, Stanley Road
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 owners/occupiers of the following properties 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):
Peel Residents' Association as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy
25, Bridge Street 30, Stanley Road 6, Stanley Mount 31, Stanley Terrace 3, Stanley Road 24, Circular Road 37, Stanley Terrace 20, Stanley Road 10, Gib Lane 5, Stanley Mount Westholme, Cannan Avenue, Kirk Michael 8, Gib Lane 13, Rockmount Road 18, Stanley Mount 5, Stanley Road 18, Castle Street 21, Queen's Drive 17, Circular Road 60, Patrick Street 26, Stanley Road 22, Stanley Road 32, Stanley Road
==== PAGE 3 ====
19/00201/B Page 3 of 18
39, Stanley Terrace 6, Stanley Road 8, Stanley Road 40, Stanley Road 24, Bridge Street 4, Stanley Road 11, Church Street, 6, Stanley Road 24, Stanley Road 16, Stanley Road The Old Chapel, Patrick who rents an office on Gib Lane 7, Stanley Mount 14, Stanley Mount 14, Bridge Street 14, Stanley Road 12, Stanley Road Reayrt ny Keylley 6, Circular Road Thie ny Scoill, Derby Road 5, Circular Road 6, Oak Road Garden Flat, 4, Marine Parade (owner of the Old Stables on Gib Lane)
as these properties are 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
Tim Crookall as he has not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy.
Neither Peel Heritage Trust nor Manx National Heritage own property 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. __
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE DIRECTION OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
THE SITE 1.1 The application site is an area of land which sits at the lower end of Stanley Road just before it reaches Shore Road and Marine Parade, bounded by Stanley Road and Gib Lane, a two way lane which runs westwards from the higher end of Walpole Road to meet Stanley Road.
1.2 The site contains a two storey warehouse building which has attached at its eastern end, two single storey garages all arranged in an L shape. The site is bounded to Stanley Road by a sandstone wall of varying heights, part of which has a concrete capping and part of which looks like it may at one time in the past, have been the front of a cottage, the apertures of two windows and a central door having been blocked up in brick.
1.3 The two storey building has a sandstone wall to Gib Lane with high level windows in this elevation which sits right alongside the lane. The elevation facing towards Stanley Road is finished in dashed render and has ground floor vehicular sized openings with timber doors and
==== PAGE 4 ====
19/00201/B Page 4 of 18
a similar sized window with a row of windows above, all within a brown pea dashed wall. The elevation facing west is also finished in brown pea dash and has a pedestrian door, two windows and a door sized opening fitted with a fixed pane.
1.4 The single storey buildings sit below the level of the sandstone wall. One is built of sandstone with part brick on the upper part of the rear elevation, the other in front in brick, both having a monopitch corrugated sheeted roof. The brick structure has a vehicle sized opening within it, the sandstone building a pedestrian door.
1.5 The site was most recently used as parking and workshops associated with the Empire Garage operation which sits on the other side of Gib Lane.
1.6 The property sits opposite a terrace of three storey, plain fronted, rendered houses whose frontages sit flush with the footway. On the other side of the road the terraced housing stops at the Masonic Hall, a much wider two storey building with a dashed finish and with its gable to the road. There is a footway along this side of Stanley Road until the access into the site where it stops and recommences in front of the existing two storey building on the site. There is currently between 16m and 25m between the existing two storey building and the frontages of 11-19, Stanley Road.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 This is one of six current applications which propose the redevelopment of this site together with the site on the other side of Gib Lane and other land at the higher end of Stanley Road - 10/00199/B, 19/00201/B and 19/00203/B together with the associated applications for Registered Building consent for the elements of demolition - 19/00200/CON and 19/00204/CON. Registered Building consent is required for demolition within a Conservation Area under Section 19(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999. The applications for RB consent are therefore concerned only with the impact of the demolition works on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and not with any aspect of the redevelopment proposals.
2.2 Proposed here is the demolition of all of the structures within the site listed in paragraphs 1.1 - 1.4 above including the sandstone boundary wall adjacent to Stanley Road, which would not require planning approval but also proposed is the redevelopment of the site to create a commercial unit on the ground floor at the western end of the building together with bin storage areas adjacent to the land, two lift shafts and associated stairwell and eight parking spaces. On the upper ground floor there are to be four apartments, two single bed units, one two bed unit and a three bed unit split between the second and first floors. On the first floor are to be two one bed units and a two bed unit. All of the units will have their bedrooms and bathrooms facing into Gib Lane.
2.3 The building will be set back from Stanley Road by between 1.4m and 3m where it appears there will be a footpath which will continue to Gib Lane. The building line to Gib Lane is to be set back to widen the lane by 1.2m but which also relies upon the demolition of the building to the north on the site of 19/00199/B and 19/00200/CON to provide the wider lane and improvements to the junction with Stanley Road: these works are all outside the application site of 19/00201/B It should be noted that unlike 19/00199/B, the implementation of the current application does not rely upon the demolition of the buildings on the site of 19/00199/B across the lane, although the existing low stone wall there would need to be demolished in order to provide the full 6m distance between parking spaces into which emerging vehicles could travel to exit the spaces on both sides. Bin stores are to be provided in a further recess into the site including bins associated with the unit proposed on site A. The re-paving works on Gib Lane cannot be considered as part of the current application as the site does not include this area.
==== PAGE 5 ====
19/00201/B Page 5 of 18
2.4 The proposed building will be 10m from the frontages of numbers 11 to 19, Stanley Road with a frontage which is between 9m and 7m to the eaves. The building will have a stepped frontage but a consistent eaves level which is 1.5m higher than the ridge of the existing building (which is set back further on the site). It will have a rendered main facade with a sandstone plinth to accommodate the upper part of the lower ground floor level, one single glazed pedestrian door in the eastern side of the front elevation and uniform windows across the first and upper ground floor levels separated by a decorative string course. The pitched roof will be finished in slate.
2.5 The rear of the building is functional with a mix of small, single lights and the lift shaft tops protruding out of the rear roof plane. The ground floor will feature bin stores with a row of doors to the lane, a roller shutter door with warning light to provide access to the eight internal parking spaces and a cycle store.
PLANNING POLICY Peel Local Plan 1989 3.1 The site lies within an area of Mixed Use, reflecting the variety of uses in the area - industrial retail, residential and tourism. The site is also within the town's Conservation Area which was adopted in 1990.
3.2 The Peel Local Plan identifies that the town has "special characteristics" (paragraph 1.1) and the town plan aims to satisfy these characteristics and to meet its changing needs, stimulating and encouraging development where appropriate and to give a clear locational reference to national policies on development, change of use and conservation. The Plan includes reference to the need to closely control changes to existing retail units to ensure that original features which contribute significantly to the character of the old town are not lost (paragraph 2.5) and that no fixed guidelines on the retail zoning should be adopted given the sensitive nature and originality of the old town's fabric and its status as a Conservation Area (paragraph 2.3).
3.3 The plan refers to additional residential accommodation in the town as being a priority (paragraph 5.1).
3.4 The plan encourages "positive schemes of action" to enhance the character of the area (paragraphs 9.2 and 9.15) and identifies the importance of vacant and derelict buildings and what future they have to the town (9.4v), but noting that "demolition of even a single building which in itself may not be of architectural or historic significance and therefore not registered, and its replacement by a new building could prejudice the character or appearance of a Conservation Area" (paragraph 9.5). It continues, "If the development of a site following demolition were to be approved, the prospective developer should be aware that close attention would be paid to the design, location and massing of a replacement building" (paragraph 9.6). It states that, "Any new building will only be encouraged if it conforms to high standards of design and it respects the scale and character of its surroundings" (paragraph 9.17).
Strategic Plan 2016 3.5 As the site lies within a Conservation Area, Environment Policies 30, 35 and 39 are applicable:
Environment Policy 30: There will be a general presumption against demolition of a Registered Building. In considering proposals for demolition or proposed works which would result in substantial demolition of a Registered Building, consideration will be given to:
o the condition of the building;
==== PAGE 6 ====
19/00201/B Page 6 of 18
o the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the value derived from its continued use (based on consistent long-term assumptions); o the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use; and o the merits of alternative proposals for the site.
Environment Policy 35: Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development.
Environment Policy 39: "The general presumption will in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area."
Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man 3.6 Unlike the Strategic Plan, this document has specific guidance on demolition in Conservation Areas as follows:
POLICY CA/6 DEMOLITION Any building which is located within a conservation area and which is not an exception as provided above, may not be demolished without the consent of the Department. In practice, a planning application for consent to demolish must be lodged with the Department. When considering an application for demolition of a building in a conservation area, the general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area. Similar criteria will be applied as those outlined in RB/6 above, when assessing the application to demolish the building, but in less clear cut cases, for example, where a building could be said to detract from the special character of the area, it will be essential for the Department to be able to consider the merits of any proposed new development when determining whether consent should be given for the demolition of an unregistered building in a conservation area. Account will be taken of the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the building for which demolition is proposed, and in particular of the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole.
3.7 General Policy 2 is also applicable as follows:
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:
(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; (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; (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.
==== PAGE 7 ====
19/00201/B Page 7 of 18
3.8 Transport Policy 7 requires that development is carried out in accordance with the Department's parking standards which are set out in Appendix Seven of the Plan and is applicable as follows:
Residential A.7.1 High levels of car ownership have led to an increase in the level of parking expected for new residential development, and outside of town centre locations these standards should not be relaxed. 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.
Where new dwellings are created by the conversion of existing buildings, parking space should be formed by the clearance of outbuildings and low-grade annexes or "outlets" if it is reasonable and practicable so to do; however, in general, the need to find a use for redundant buildings which are in sound condition will outweigh the drawback of any shortfall in parking provision.
Retail A.7.4 Most shopping facilities in established centres do not have on site parking provided due to the intensive form of development and their location off the main highway, often in pedestrianised streets (Peel, Castletown, Douglas and Ramsey in particular). In most of these cases, provision is made for servicing outside trading hours from relaxation of the access regulations and the use of de-mountable bollards and rear access lanes. It is impracticable to require on site car parking for either staff or customers in such locations although it must be feasible for retail developments to be serviced. It is equally essential that there are available sufficient areas of public car parking either in car parks or on street, and that adequate controls are in place for these spaces to be available to those who need them.
Standards required are as follows:
Apartments - 1 space for 1 bedroom; 2 spaces for 2 or more bedrooms
Town centre shops - space for service vehicle use
Appendix Seven notes: 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.
3.9 It should be noted that as the proposal is for seven apartments, there is no requirement for the provision of affordable housing or public open space. It should also be noted, however, that the adjacent site, part of which is required for the servicing of this development, is also within the applicant's ownership and is simultaneously proposed for development.
==== PAGE 8 ====
19/00201/B Page 8 of 18
Cumulatively, the developments amount to fourteen apartments and together, these developments would result in enough units to require both affordable housing and public open space under Housing Policy 5 and Recreation Policies 3 and 4. The applications suggest that as each is proposing fewer than 8 or 10 units, these policies are not applicable but they would be prepared to offer a commuted sum to the local authority, but noting that there is significant public open space already in place in the vicinity.
3.10 The Department has an Operational Policy on Section 13 Agreements which set out why and how such agreements should be entered into and also provides guidance on how this is done. It states: "It is important that the Planning Committee has sufficient information to understand the Case Officer's recommendation. Therefore applications will not be presented to the planning committee without at least a draft Heads of Terms for the agreement."
3.11 The Department has also recently adopted guidance on the design of residential development - new dwellings and extensions thereto and this provides advice on design as well as how the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in nearby dwellings, may be assessed (Residential Design Guidance March 2019).
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 Alterations to the existing buildings have been submitted in the past, none of which is relevant to the consideration of the current proposal. There are concurrent applications for the redevelopment of the buildings on the northern side of Gib Lane (19/00199/B and 19/00200/CON) which are relevant to the consideration of the current application, together with two applications for the redevelopment of other garage premises owned by the same applicant, further up Stanley Road (19/00203/B and 19/00204/CON).
4.2 Most recently planning approval was granted on appeal for the demolition of the building at the front of the site and the erection of five lock up garages for residents in the locality (13/90930/B). The inspector made a number of comments about the lack of importance of the building to be demolished, the low profile of the building to be erected and the character of the site formed by the commercial activities on the site.
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1.1 Peel Town Commissioners object to the application (15.04.19). They note that the applications cumulatively result in the loss of 6 public on street car parking spaces in a location where demand currently exceeds the availability of spaces and whilst they understand that this may be necessary to enable the development, it should not be ignored. Whilst the Strategic Plan enables a relaxation of the standards which require two parking spaces per dwelling and two for every apartment with two bedrooms or more, this is only where it can be demonstrated that there will not be an unacceptable impact on on-street parking in the vicinity and this has not been demonstrated in the application. Furthermore, the car park operated by the Commissioners on Marine Parade is intended for users of the beach and for coach parking and any spare capacity must include provision for manoeuvring of these larger vehicles. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Commissioners believe that the developments will result in an exacerbation of parking issues in the area. They are of the view that the applicant has not considered a less intensive form of development which would reduce the amount of car parking required.
5.1.2 They also believe that the height of the development, seeking its reference from the tallest buildings in the area, fails to conform with paragraph 9.17 of the Peel Local Plan and will result in an overbearing presence in the streetscene and removing the random nature of building heights which contributes to the character of the area and will be particularly noticeable when using Gib Lane and when viewing the promenade from the breakwater and Peel Castle. They refer to the East Quay Design Guide and consider that the advice which restricts new buildings to 2/3 storeys should equally apply to the promenade and these sites.
==== PAGE 9 ====
19/00201/B Page 9 of 18
5.1.3 They believe that the development will adversely affect the living conditions of nearby residents through the height and mass of the buildings and their being built right up to the roadside and footways. The properties at the bottom of Stanley Road which face north and Christian Street will have an oppressive view of the development although this does not include the development proposed in this particular application. Finally, they note that there are a number of sandstone buildings on the sits and this material adds to the character and historic nature of Peel and is not incorporated into any of the new buildings. Additionally, one of the warehouse buildings appears to be in sound condition and the development could seek to reuse the materials from or refurbish this building.
5.2.1 Manx National Heritage submit an objection to all six of the applications on the basis that there the proposals would result in the loss of fabric of historical importance for the town due to their former association as a warehouse and a net loft for Peel's fishing industry and are rare examples of this type of building. They consider that the historical assessment of the site includes a number of errors and wrongly dismisses these as of no historical significance. They recommend that permission is not granted for the demolition of these buildings unless and until a detailed, professional assessment of significance of these historic structures has been undertaken and which demonstrates that they are not of sufficient interest and value to justify their removal. A sensitive renovation and conversion scheme which re-uses the historic buildings would be preferable.
5.2.2 They consider that the size and scale of the development is inappropriate and the considerable continuation of the ridgeline, unbroken, would be inappropriate as the character of this part of the town is marked by differences in height and character and it would also block out glimpses along Gib Lane through to the castle and beach, ignoring conservation importance of views and vistas, the sense of open space and the role played by the sea. They consider that the architectural details is an austere expression of the local Victorian vernacular lacking the architectural embellishments and proportions that might be expected within the fenestration - the string courses, doorways and cornices. They consider it falls short of the warehouse types of buildings which were common in this part of Peel which would have run at right angles to the road facilitating views in and out and breaking up the long ridge of the building. They also note that there is no ecological assessment and bats have been known to be present here. (05.04.19)
5.3 Highway Services object to the application (31.05.19). They are concerned that the application fails to demonstrate that the proposed development and highway changes would be safe and in addition, there is inadequate car parking. The applicant should have provided a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit in respect of the proposed highway changes and additional design work needs to be undertaken to support this. In addition, a Transport Statement needs to be provided to address the proposed total amount of commercial floorspace. The visibility splays should be shown on the drawing as they have been drawn incorrectly. A continuous footpath should be provided along the length of Stanley Road across the site. The proposed block paving and the arch above the adopted highway of Gib Lane are unacceptable and the proposed building would encroach onto the public highway, which is also not acceptable. Swept path drawings are required to demonstrate how vehicles will be able to exit and enter the garage/parking spaces along with how a refuse vehicle would use and exit Gib Lane. The proposed roller shutter door access to the car park is unacceptable as vehicles would have to wait in the lane until the door opens. Finally, there are no parking surveys of the surrounding area which demonstrate that there is sufficient car parking in the surrounding area to accommodate the lack of the full complement of parking being provided on site and there is no bicycle parking being provided on site. They advise that doors may not open out over the highway.
Private representations 5.4.1 There have been a number of representations on all six of the current applications for the Empire Garage premises, many of which have applied the same comments and submitted the
==== PAGE 10 ====
19/00201/B Page 10 of 18
same letter or e-mail to all six proposals. It is clear that some of the submissions relate to one of the applications not all, but all have been included for completeness.
5.4.2 Representations have been made from a number of local residents, some of whom consider the proposed development to be a positive contribution but others who consider the development too high and over-intensive and of a character which will adversely affect the appearance and character of the town. Some express concern at the loss of the sandstone walling. Many express concern at the lack of car parking on site given that the area is congested already and it is difficult to find a car parking space for their existing dwelling. Concern is also expressed for the presence of bats which have been seen in the vicinity and the safety of users of Gib Lane. Some comments have been received referring to the impact of loss of a view and the negative impact on the value of property, neither of which is a relevant planning consideration.
5.4.3 Some express concern at the even-ness of the roofline which is uncharacteristic of the area and the design does not incorporate the detail or quirky nature, variety of heights and materials of the existing buildings in the vicinity. Some express concern at the widening of Gib Lane which will adversely affect its character and that the buildings will result in the loss of a public view of the sea from the higher part of Gib Lane. Some suggest that the building could be anywhere, not even on the Isle of Man.
5.4.4 Some of the residents who live close by suggest that they will be affected by loss of light and that the narrow and historic highway network will not be able to safely accommodate the proposed developments.
5.4.5 One submission includes a car parking survey which reports that between Christian Street, Church Street, Circular Road, Creg Malin car park, Cross Street, Derby Drive, Gib Lane, Philip Christian Centre, Police Station car park, Stanley Mount, Stanley Road, the town hall car park and Walpole Road, there were at most times between none and 3 parking spaces available in all of these areas (exact figures are provided).
5.4.6 Many point out that owners of properties in Peel are required to install sliding sash windows and retain all historic elements of their properties whilst the proposed building has none of these features. Some suggest that there is no need for commercial units here when some are lying empty elsewhere in the town.
5.4.7 One submission suggests that the sandstone building behind the car wash is at least 120 years old and is part of the fishing heritage of Peel, formerly known as The Bark House and was where fishermen spent a lot of time barking and drying their nets until the introduction of synthetic fibres in the 1950s. They suggest that the pit in which they immersed their nets was still visible until Farghers took over the warehouse. Whilst some redevelopment could occur, efforts could be made to retain the sandstone buildings on site. There is a concern that the plans neither preserve nor enhance the Area.
5.4.8 It is noted that there is no provision for renewable energy in the scheme and some properties would have their outlook and privacy adversely affected by so tall a building so close to their property.
5.4.9 Finally, many express concern about the impact of the development whilst it is being undertaken, on traffic safety, car parking and pedestrian and private residential amenity.
5.4.10 These representations have been received from the owners of the following properties:
Reference is also made to the recent approval for garages on Site B which are not taken into account in the car parking calculations and the loss of the sandstone walls on Gib Lane
==== PAGE 11 ====
19/00201/B Page 11 of 18
25, Bridge Street (21.03.19) 30, Stanley Road (22.03.19) 6, Stanley Mount (undated but received on 26.03.19) 31, Stanley Terrace (undated but received on 28.03.19) 3, Stanley Road (27.03.19) 11, Stanley Road (28.03.19) 24, Circular Road (25.03.19) 37, Stanley Terrace (30.03.19 and 05.04.19) 20, Stanley Road (28.03.19) 10, Gib Lane (29.03.19) 5, Stanley Mount (28.03.19 and 29, 03.19) 31, Shore Road (30.03.19) Westholme, Cannan Avenue, Kirk Michael (29.03.19) 8, Gib Lane (30.03.19) 13, Rockmount Road (29.03.19) 18, Stanley Mount (undated but received on 02.04.19) 5, Stanley Road (31.03.19) 18, Castle Street (23.03.19 and 31.03.19) 21, Queen's Drive (29.03.19) 17, Circular Road (31.03.19) 60, Patrick Street (01.04.19) 26, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 17, Stanley Road (30.03.19) 22, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 32, Stanley Road (28.03.19) 39, Stanley Terrace (03.04.19, 05.04.19 and 16.04.19) 6, Stanley Road (03.04.19) 8, Stanley Road (undated but received on 03.04.19) 40, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 24, Bridge Street (02.04.19) 9, Stanley Road (04.04.19) 13, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 4, Stanley Road (03.04.19) 11, Church Street, (04.04.19) 6, Stanley Road (undated but received on 04.04.19) 24, Stanley Road (04.04.19) 16, Stanley Road (03.04.19) The Old Chapel, Patrick who rents an office on Gib Lane (05.04.19) 7, Stanley Mount (02.04.19) 14, Stanley Mount (05.04.19) 14, Bridge Street (06.04.19) 19, Stanley Road (05.04.19) 40, Stanley Road, (02.04.19) 9A, Stanley Road (05.04.19) 14, Stanley Road (05.04.19) 12, Stanley Road (05.04.19) Reayrt ny Keylley (05.04.19) 6, Circular Road (06.04.19) Thie ny Scoill, Derby Road (03.04.19) 5, Circular Road (undated but received on 03.04.19) Garden Flat, 4, Marine Parade (owner of the Old Stables on Gib Lane) (03.04.19) 6. Oak Road (28.07.19)
5.4.11 Tim Crookall MLC reiterates a number of the above views, commenting on the lack of the re-use of existing sandstone, the parking, highways and traffic issues, loss of light to existing residents. He also notes that in his time as representative of the people of Peel, he has
==== PAGE 12 ====
19/00201/B Page 12 of 18
very, very rarely seen such local opposition to a development scheme and whilst he believes that there is generally no opposition to the redevelopment of the sites, what is proposed is not acceptable (13.04.19).
5.4.12 Peel Residents' Association, established following the submission of the six applications and representing the owners of unspecified properties on Christian Street and Stanley Terrace (05.04.19) submit the same parking study as was submitted by the resident of 37, Stanley Terrace and reiterate the concerns of others regarding the height, design and impact of the development on traffic and car parking. They suggest that the members all share boundaries with the site and should be given Interested Person Status although each member has written in separately. No addresses have been provided, only names.
5.5 Peel Heritage Trust (28.03.19) comment on all of the applications but in respect of this current proposal, they suggest that "this is of less concern for us apart from the general traffic issues" which relate to already congested roads where it is difficult to find a parking space.
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The principle of the development of residential and commercial development on this site is considered acceptable on the basis that both uses are presently found in the area, they are included in the definition of Mixed Use and are compatible with the adjacent area. The issues in this case are:
i) whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area in accordance with Environment Policy 35 ii) whether the proposal would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area in general in accordance with EP42 and GP2 iii) whether the proposal would satisfy the requirements of General Policy 2 in terms of impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property iv) whether the development would make adequate provision for car parking in accordance with Transport Policy 7 and Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan v) whether the proposed apartments and commercial units would have sufficient amenity and service provision in accordance with Housing Policy 17 and Transport Policy 7 and Appendix 7 vi) whether the proposal would have any adverse effect on highway safety in accordance with General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 4 and vii) whether the proposal makes adequate provision for affordable housing and public open space in accordance with Housing Policy 5 ad Recreation Policies 3 and 4.
6.2 whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area in accordance with Environment Policy 35 6.2.1 The existing buildings on the site will need to be demolished in order to facilitate the redevelopment of the site and the acceptability of this is dealt with in 19/00202/CON. The existing buildings on the site are varied in terms of their architectural treatment, age and appearance. The main two storey building contributes little from the front and side, but from the rear, the building appears completely differently with a sandstone elevation to Gib Lane.
6.2.2 The proposed building does not follow the varied roofline of the rest of the terraces on Stanley Road but mirrors the more regimented terrace of the properties which elsewhere and mainly on the main promenade frontage. Simply because there is nothing of a similar mass would not be a reason for refusing the application, particularly given the Masonic Hall which is out of scale with the rest of Stanley Road albeit with its ridge running at right angles to those on the rest of the street. That is not to say that it would not have been a more welcome approach to adopt the mixed roofline and components of more modest scale within the site. However, the test is not whether there would be a better way of developing the site but whether the development represents a preservation or enhancement of the CA. In this case, it cannot be considered a preservation as nothing the existing is being retained. However, what is proposed is considered overall to result in a better appearance of buildings as viewed from
==== PAGE 13 ====
19/00201/B Page 13 of 18
Stanley Road, on this prominent site and the development is considered to satisfy EP35 of the Strategic Plan and the corresponding parts of the Planning Policy Statement 1/01. It is not accepted that comparisons with East Quay, whether by the applicant or the Commissioners are appropriate given the very different architectural and functional qualities of the buildings in that part of the town.
6.2.3 The much taller building will have an impact on the vistas available within the Conservation Area, particularly Gib Lane and will change the character of the lane from one with lower, mixed finish industrial style buildings to the rear of an apartment block with a row garages, gated bin stores and a roller shutter door fronting onto the lane. This may not be a concern were the lane not a public highway used by property owners and the public generally, but it is and this would be a significant change for those users of the lane. Whilst the mass of the front can be absorbed into a much wider landscape where there are other, taller buildings, Gib Lane is much shorter and with a much more varied streetscene with some much smaller scale buildings. The impact on the character and appearance of Gib Lane is not considered to be acceptable as the development would neither preserve or enhance the character of appearance of it.
6.2.4 It is also relevant to consider what would result if the development proposed here were implemented but that on the adjacent site were not. The proposed building is higher than the existing building on site A and as such, if it were retained the proposed building would be visible over the top and from Gib Lane and the promenade. The building is clearly intended to have a principal, well designed front elevation whilst its rear elevation appearance follows its function, with horizontally proportioned windows and the lift shaft tops. If this were clearly visible, it would not have a positive impact on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.
6.3 whether the proposal would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area in general in accordance with EP42 and GP2 6.3.1 The conclusion of this is that set out in the preceding paragraphs.
6.4 whether the proposal would satisfy the requirements of General Policy 2 in terms of impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property 6.4.1 Little information has been provided to assess the impact of the scheme on the living conditions of those in properties close to the site, particularly 11-10, Stanley Road. The proposed building would be 1.5m higher than the highest part of the existing buildings on the site and not only that, the building will be closer, built onto the back of the footpath. Guidance is provided in the Department's new Residential Design Guidance, March 2019 where neighbourliness is discussed in Section 7. This talks about overbearing development and building which can have an adverse impact on light and outlook. It recommends that we consider taking a dimension which is measured from 2m on the frontage of an affected property, looking 25 degrees across towards the proposed building. If the building appears above this point, there is likely to be an adverse impact on outlook and light. Whilst the applicant has not provided an illustration of this, a simple consideration of this calculation appears to show that the building would extend beyond this height and would therefore have an adverse impact on the outlook and light from 11-19, Stanley Road.
6.4.2 The Design Guidance looks at areas where there is a tight-knit building layout and street pattern and suggests that in such cases it may be acceptable to allow closer distances. In this case, there could be an argument for replicating the existing street pattern in a similar form to the Stanley Road properties and the submitted drawing 1712-B-006 suggest that such a replication would result in a building of a similar height.
6.5 whether the development would make adequate provision for car parking in accordance with Transport Policy 7 and Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan
==== PAGE 14 ====
19/00201/B Page 14 of 18
6.5.1 The proposed development comprises seven apartments three of which have a single bedroom. This equates to a requirement for eleven car parking spaces in accordance with the Strategic Plan. The Plan does not require any parking spaces for users of the commercial units
6.5.2 The applicant seeks to rely upon the relaxation provision within the Strategic Plan without demonstrating that the failure to provide the full complement of spaces will not result in unacceptable on-street parking in the area. The applicant instead seeks to point out that there are alternative parking spaces, including the Commissioners' car park next to the Creg Malin which the Commissioners indicate is intended for coach parking and use by visitors to the town and the beach, particularly in the summer months. Of note is that on Saturday 4th May, a Bank Holiday weekend and a sunny day, the coach park had one spare parking space and the promenade had two free spaces at the western end, one of which was about to be occupied by a vehicle when the officer passed it.
6.5.3 Stanley Road and the promenade are often busy and finding a space is difficult at all hours of the day. There is nothing in the application which would suggest that the additional three spaces which are required for the apartment occupants could be found in the surrounding area without any adverse impact. Whilst a relaxation has been applied in other parts of the town, such as on East Quay (16/00839/B) where the inspector was content to accept one space per apartment, noting the applicant's evidence that it was relatively easy to find a space close to the site and also that the nearby apartments car parking spaces were not always fully utilised which suggested that apartments in this part of the town could be occupied by persons who only had one vehicle per apartment. There is no such evidence here, quite the contrary where parking spaces are difficult to find and where the surrounding area is residential rather than commercial, when parking spaces are likely to be required all at the same time.
6.5.4 The development would not preserve a sensitive streetscape to justify this: the development does not have to be so large or contain so may apartments to result in something which would preserve the streetscape and the proposal does not re-use any existing buildings. Whilst redevelopment of some or all of the site may be of benefit to the Conservation Area, it does not have to be of this size, particular the full depth of the site from Stanley Road to Gib Lane where the existing building is less wide. The lack of car parking cannot therefore be justified by parts a, b or c of Appendix Seven.
6.6 whether the proposed apartments and commercial units would have sufficient amenity and service provision in accordance with Housing Policy 17 and Transport Policy 7 and Appendix 7 6.6.1 The apartments have reasonable principal outlook and light from the windows which look south towards 11-19, Stanley Road. The rear outlook is poor, being only 4m-11m from the rear of the building proposed on site A although if this was not implemented, the upper floor would have a view out over the top of the garage. They are of a size as to be able to accommodate washing and drying facilities without needing external space for these functions. The proposal does not provide sufficient car parking to satisfy the Strategic Plan standards. No space is provided for the servicing of the commercial unit which is proposed to be serviced as existing from either Marine Parade or Gib Lane although the existing layout includes a space between the building and Stanley Road in which parking and deliveries could occur. However, the lane is being widened by around 1.2m which will assist not only the servicing of the proposed unit but also the general users of the lane. Given the existing situation regarding the servicing of the garage and workshops, it is not considered that the provisions for the new commercial unit are unacceptable.
6.7 whether the proposal would have any adverse effect on highway safety in accordance with General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 4
==== PAGE 15 ====
19/00201/B Page 15 of 18
6.7.1 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services are not satisfied that the development has been demonstrated to have a safe impact on the highway network and have identified certain elements of the scheme which are unacceptable or which require amending. They also comment that there is inadequate parking proposed and no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that this will not have an unacceptable impact on on-street parking in the vicinity.
6.8 whether the proposal makes adequate provision for affordable housing and public open space in accordance with Housing Policy 5 ad Recreation Policies 3 and 4. 6.8.1 The proposal makes no provision for public open space or affordable housing. Given that the adjacent site is also owned by the applicant and is being proposed for development at the same time, and particularly as the development of site A relies upon the demolition of the buildings on site A, or at least some of them, to provide the bin store, it is considered appropriate to consider the cumulative impact of the developments which would together result in sufficient housing numbers to warrant requiring both affordable housing and public open space. No provision is being made for affordable housing and whilst a commuted sum has been referred to in respect of public open space, there is nothing definitive in the application to demonstrate the impact of this. It cannot be concluded that there is sufficient provision for affordable housing or public open space.
CONCLUSION 7.1 The development is considered to neither completely preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area by virtue of the exposure of part of the rear elevation to views from the north in the event that Site A is not also developed at the same time or before. In addition, there would be insufficient car parking provided with no evidence that this would not have an adverse impact on on-street parking in the vicinity. Finally the development fails to make adequate provision for affordable housing or public open space.
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 : ...Refused... Committee Meeting Date:...12.08.2019
Signed :...S CORLETT... Presenting Officer
==== PAGE 16 ====
19/00201/B Page 16 of 18
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.
==== PAGE 17 ====
19/00201/B Page 17 of 18
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 12.08.2019
Application No. :
19/00201/B Applicant : Empire Garages Ltd Proposal : Demolition of garages and related structures and erection of three storey building to provide ground floor commercial/retail unit (classes 1, 2, and 3) with seven apartments above with associated parking and facilities (in association with PA 19/00202/CON) Site Address : Garage And Premises Stanley Road Peel Isle Of Man
Principal Planner : Miss S E Corlett Presenting Officer As above
Addendum to the Officer’s Report
The Planning Committee accepted the officer's recommendation, amending reason 1 to reflect the wording of the refusal of 19/00199/B and also replacement of the references to sites A and B in reason 4 with the relevant planning application references.
The building, by virtue of its height, mass and design, would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Gib Lane for the benefit of users thereof. The development would therefore be contrary to Environment Policy 35 and General Policy 2e of the Strategic Plan. In addition, were the development of the site of 19/00199/B not to be undertaken, the rear elevation of the proposed building would be visible above the existing car showroom with a resultant deleterious effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, contrary to General Policy 2b, c and g and Environment Policy 35 of the Strategic Plan.
Reason for Refusal
R 1. The building, by virtue of its height, mass and design, would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Gib Lane for the benefit of users thereof. The development would therefore be contrary to Environment Policy 35 and General Policy 2e of the Strategic Plan. In addition, were the development of the site of 19/00199/B not to be undertaken, the rear elevation of the proposed building would be visible above the existing car showroom with a resultant deleterious effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, contrary to General Policy 2b, c and g and Environment Policy 35 of the Strategic Plan.
R 2. The proposed development would not make adequate provision for car parking spaces within the building in accordance with the standards of the Strategic Plan (Appendix Seven)
==== PAGE 18 ====
19/00201/B Page 18 of 18
and there is insufficient information to demonstrate that this would not have an unacceptable impact on on-street parking and highway safety in the area. The development is therefore contrary to Transport Policy 7 and General Policy 2h of the Strategic Plan.
R 3. The development does not demonstrate that it would have an acceptable impact on highway safety, through the inclusion of features within or above the public highway which are not acceptable to the highway authority and by the absence of correctly drawn visibility splays at junctions. It has not been demonstrated that there is sufficient visibility for users of the proposed garaged parking spaces for them to be used safely. The proposal is therefore contrary to Transport Policy 4 and General Policy 2h and i of the Strategic Plan.
R 4. The proposal makes no provision for public open space or affordable housing. Given that the adjacent site is also owned by the applicant and is being proposed for development at the same time, and particularly as the development of the scheme shown in 19/00199/B relies upon the demolition of the buildings on the current application site,, or at least some of them, to provide the bin store and the widening of Gib Lane, it is considered appropriate to consider the cumulative impact of the developments which would together result in sufficient housing numbers to warrant requiring both affordable housing and public open space. No provision is being made for affordable housing and whilst a commuted sum has been referred to in respect of public open space, there is nothing definitive in the application to demonstrate the impact of this. It cannot be concluded that there is sufficient provision for affordable housing or public open space. The development is therefore contrary to Housing Policy 5 and Recreation Policies 3 and 4 of the Strategic Plan.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal