184537

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      19/00199/B                                     Page  1  of  20

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 19/00199/B Applicant : Empire Garages Ltd Proposal : Demolition of showroom and related structures and erection of a three storey building to provide ground floor commercial / retail units (Use Class 1, 2 and 3) with seven apartments above with associated parking and facilities (in association with PA 19/00200/CON) Site Address : Car Showroom Empire Garages Marine Parade Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1PA

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 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 and whereby the height of the building would remove certain public views of the Castle and the sea. The development would therefore be contrary to Environment Policy 35 and General Policy 2e 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.

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      19/00199/B                                     Page  2  of  20

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 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.

R 5. The development of this site is inextricably linked to the demolition of buildings on the site on the other side of Gib Lane as the widening of the lane and the provision of bin storage is on that site where there are currently buildings. This demolition is not part of the current application and as such, the application is deficient and incapable of being implemented on its own. The demolition of the other buildings is the subject of 19/00202/CON which is recommended for refusal and the redevelopment of that site is proposed in 19/00201/B is also recommended for refusal. As such, were this current application to be approved and the buildings demolished on the other side of the lane with no redevelopment, the rear of the proposed building would be publicly visible and it is not considered that the functional design and appearance of the rear elevation would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area at this point, nor provide an acceptable visual impact, contrary to Environment Policy 35 and General Policy 2b, c and g 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 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):

18, Castle Street 4, Duke Street 15, Circular Road (owner of a garage on Gib Lane) 30, Stanley Road 6, Stanley Mount 24, Circular Road 7, Victoria Terrace 31, Stanley Terrace 3, Stanley Road 11, Stanley Road 37, Stanley Terrace 20, Stanley Road 10, Gib Lane 5, Stanley Mount

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      19/00199/B                                     Page  3  of  20

Westholme, Cannan Avenue, Kirk Michael 8, Gib Lane 13, Rockmount Road 18, Stanley Mount 5, Stanley Road 1, Victoria Terrace 22, Circular Road 21, Queen's Drive 23, Bridge Street 60, Patrick Street 26, Stanley Road 17, Stanley Road 22, Stanley Road 32, Stanley Road 17, Circular Road 39, Stanley Terrace 8, Stanley Road 40, Stanley Road 24, Bridge Street 5, Circular Road Thie ny Scoill, Derby Road 6, Circular Road 16, Queen's Terrace, Douglas 12, Stanley Road 14, Stanley Road 9A, Stanley Road 19, Stanley Road 14, Bridge Street 14, Stanley Mount 7, Stanley Mount The Old Chapel, Patrick Corner who rents an office in Gib Lane 16, Stanley Road 24, Stanley Road 6, Stanley Road 11, Church Street 4, Stanley Road 13, Stanley Road 9, Stanley Road Reayrt ny Keylley 25, Bridge Street 6. Oak Road Garden flat, 4, Marine Parade

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. Many of these parties have not met the other requirements of the Operational Policy but it has not been considered necessary to further assess their submissions against these other criteria.

The following parties or owners of the following properties have 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.

4, Gib Lane and Tim Crookall MLC

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      19/00199/B                                     Page  4  of  20

In respect of Manx National Heritage and Peel Heritage Trust, neither party owns property which is 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.

Finally, in respect of the Peel Residents' Association, as they have not provided an address, 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. __

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

THE SITE 1.1 The application site is an area of land which sits at the junction of Stanley Road and Marine Parade. The site accommodates two buildings: one a single storey car showroom and the other a single storey warehouse whose gable fronts onto Marine Parade as well as a small part of the adjacent site across Gib Lane which is Site B, the subject of concurrent applications 19/00201/B and 19/00202/CON. The car showroom is formed from a pitched roofed building which has been extended westwards with a flat roofed annex and the elevational treatment of this section, with a thick, metal, profiled cladding at the upper part of the elevation, continues along the remainder of the building with brick below. The windows and doors are framed in blue and the roof is finished in corrugated sheeting.

1.2 The other building has a rendered gable to Marine Parade but otherwise sandstone walls to eaves level underneath a corrugated sheeted roof whose ridge is taller than that of the car showroom. The gable has a vehicle sized door and similarly sized window alongside and three small windows at the upper level.

1.3 Both buildings sit on the northern side of Gib Lane which is a vehicular access to the various properties which back onto the lane and there are no restrictions to traffic travelling in both directions to and from Walpole Road and Stanley Road.

1.4 Elsewhere along Marine Parade there are dwellings, some with projecting square bays, some with plain frontages, some three storey, some with only two, some finished in painted render with others to the east of Walpole Drive in sandstone and facing brick. The character of the area is of a mix of building types, heights and materials with predominantly residential land use.

THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a three storey building accommodating three commercial units on the ground floor and two floors of residential accommodation above in the form of three two bedroom units on each floor and one duplex split between on the first and second floors. The residential accommodation will be served by two stairwells, each also accommodating a lift shaft.

2.2 Eight parking spaces are accommodated at the rear off Gib Lane (although the supporting statement refers to only seven). A commercial bin store is shown on the plans but is across the lane, within the area defined as site B. As such, if site B is not developed, this facility will not be available to the current application development. A condition could address this which requires the provision of the bin store prior to the commencement of work on the rest of the scheme to ensure that it is available to the proposed development.

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                      19/00199/B                                     Page  5  of  20

2.3 Access to the apartments isto be from Marine Parade in through a lobby which also serves the commercial units and there is access also from Gib Lane to this lobby, the easternmost access incorporating stairs down to the lobby, recognising the difference in level between Gib lane and Marine Parade.

2.4 The building takes the form of a terrace of four three storey buildings from the front, each with a projecting bay with a pitched roofed dormer on the second floor projecting into the roof plane. The first and second floors will be served on the front by a balcony with patio doors and a glazed screen in front. Each element is shown in a different colour taken from the Sea Scape spectrum from the Colours of Mann pallete.

2.5 The building will be finished in a slated roof with painted rendered walling.

2.6 At the rear the building is very plain with horizontally proportioned windows, garages doors at ground floor level and four small single lights at the western end. The rear pitch accommodates the top of the lift shafts.

2.7 The elevation facing down Shore Road is a pitched roofed gable with a symmetrical appearance of two long vertically proportioned windows with two smaller fixed lights within the first and second floors and a wider commercial frontage at ground floor level with similar fixed lights either side.

2.8 Between the proposed building and that on site B to the rear is a decorative archway with "Gib Lane" within it, materials unspecified. Gib Lane is to be widened as part of the application although this requires the demolition of the buildings on the other side of the lane which are not within the defined site.

Supporting Planning Statement 2.9 The supporting Planning and Design Statement explains that each of the three applications proposed concurrently on the applicant's land are to be treated separately and each form separate applications. It suggests that evidence shows there having been buildings here since the early 1880s with its current use as a commercial garage and car showroom coming along in the 1950s.

2.10 It refers to the adjacent town houses of Thie ny Treisht, Bay Vista, Castle View, Rock View and Ballaquane House. The Statement describes the main workshop as of masonry construction with fibre cement sheeting on the roof and a rendered frontage to Marine Parade. No reference is made to the Peel sandstone side and rear elevations. It describes the showroom as also being of masonry construction with sheeted and flat roofing, cladding panels and with a reduced width pedestrian pavement and vehicular access to Gib Lane which is acknowledged as a public right of way and which serves a number of private garages and residential properties, culminating in a junction with, it is suggested, Christian Street and Walpole Road although in reality it joins Walpole Road, not Christian Street.

2.11 It suggests that there is no on-site parking for customers and staff at the premises with both using either Marine Parade of the car park thereon.

2.12 In its historical and conservation appraisal, it suggests that there is very little if any of the original or historical structures still on the site and neither the workshop or the garage are considered to have any architectural, civic or conservation value, going so far as to suggest that the buildings are now out of context with Marine Parade and the promenade as a whole.

Use of the site 2.13 It is suggested that the motor trade in recent years has changed and new main dealers with purpose built premises located in the Douglas area has contributed to the demise of smaller and independent garages across the Island resulting in the closure of some. As such,

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                      19/00199/B                                     Page  6  of  20

the commercial challenges of maintaining a profitable motor trade business within Peel has influenced the present owners of Empire Garage to consider alternative uses of the site and whilst there will be a loss of employment through the closure of the garage, there could be mitigation through the inclusion of commercial units within the proposed development.

Architectural treatment 2.14 It describes the transition between the existing three storey houses in the streetscene with the rest of the promenade as pronounced and disjointed with the building line and floor levels contrasting with those of the adjacent properties. Whilst they considered terraced housing for the site, "the constraints of this site rendered it unsuitable for current housing spatial standards as confirmed by DoI Housing Division" although the relevant appendix does not appear to provide any evidence of this confirmation. As the units are not intended to be made available as affordable units, due to there being fewer than 8 as is required by the Strategic Plan as the threshold for when affordable units would be required as part of the scheme, it is unclear what spatial standards are referred to and why a site of this size could not have provided acceptable residential units which comply with whatever spatial standards are applicable.

2.15 They suggest that they have considered the relationship with Ballaquane House and the amenities of those in that property, particularly the light to the ground and first floor windows as well as maintaining a 1200mm wide footway in front of the building, noting that this could be increased to 2m if necessary. They suggest that the proposed building integrates more successfully into the streetscape than the existing. The incorporation of string courses at the upper levels help associate the building with its neighbours along with a consistent eaves and ridge line and the western end has been design to have an acceptable impact from the approach further along the promenade. It refers to the proposed building on site B being set back to provide greater manoeuvring space within Gib Lane.

Conservation importance 2.16 It refers to a study of the local site context to identify conservation interest and potential contextual references of merit which would influence the design of the new building on the site. It identifies two long barns having been on the site in the 1880s with their gables fronting onto Marine Parade with a two storey cottage at the junction of Stanley Road, Marine Parade and Shore Road. The cottage appears to have been demolished some time in the early 1990s and replaced with a single storey masonry building with its gable facing towards the junction. The two barns were replaced in the 1930s with a single gable fronted unit which they believe is the structure that is there today. They suggest that there is no historical, architectural, civic or conservation value of the buildings on site.

2.17 The report refers to the Cullen study of Peel in 1971 which makes no specific reference to this site but refers to the organic development of the town and its very different architectural styles and they suggest that a modern interpretation of the existing architecture is likely to create an interesting addition to the townscape whilst preserving and enhancing the Conservation Area. They make references to the Castle View hotel, Waldick Hotel and Creg Malin Hotel in their architectural references with their formers and balconies as well as the simpler properties closer to the site and they suggest that it is important to make a clear distinction between these and the proposed development. They also refer to other properties in the immediate vicinity of the site as well as some on East Quay which, in pre-application discussions, it was suggested would not be relevant given the very different functional and architectural treatment of these buildings.

Access and parking 2.18 The application refers to the widening of the existing pavement and the potential for providing a pedestrian crossing from the site to the other side of Stanley Road/Shore Road with conservation approved surface finishes to the new areas of footway and the shared surface entrance to Gib Lane. They refer to the widening of the lane as part of the redevelopment of

==== PAGE 7 ====

                                      19/00199/B                                     Page  7  of  20

site B from 3m to 4.2m-6m. It refers to the availability of public transport in the area thus satisfying the various Strategic Plan policies on sustainable transport.

2.19 It refers to the Strategic Plan parking standards which require spaces for service vehicles for town centre shops and the requirement for two spaces for each apartment of two bedrooms or more. It also refers to the potential for relaxation of these standards where the development would secure the re-use of a Registered Building or a building or architectural or historic interest, where it would result in the preservation of a sensitive streetscene or is otherwise of benefit to the character of a Conservation Area and where the site is within reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated that a reduced level of parking would not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality.

2.20 They describe commercial deliveries continuing to be made from Marine Parade but with the widening of Gib Lane potentially making deliveries there a possibility. It is proposed that the car parking standards for the apartments are relaxed due to the achievement of the preservation of a sensitive streetscene, is otherwise of benefit to a Conservation Area and as it s within reasonable distance of public transport and would not result in unacceptable on street parking. They refer to the scheme providing seven spaces where the plans show eight. They also refer to the Creg Malin public car park nearby and the proximity of local bus services.

Public open space and recreation 2.21 As the scheme proposes fewer than ten units, the provision of public open space is not required. However, they refer to the many areas of public open space within walking distance of the site and within the town, the swimming pool, camp site, golf course, school recreational facilities. However, they suggest that their client would be prepared to provide a commuted sum to address no open space being provided on the site.

Planning policy 2.22 They believe that the proposal satisfies Strategic Policies 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11 and 12, Spatial Policy 2, General Policy 2, Housing Policies, 3, 5 and 7, Business Policies 1 and 9, Community Policies 7, 10 and 11, Infrastructure Policies 1, 4 and 5.

2.23 They believe that the development will help to address the identified shortfall of 770 dwellings in the west of the Island and the retail units will contribute to the local economy.

2.24 Additional information has been provided from the applicant, following the raising of issues in the submitted representations. The agent explains that aside from the remains of a sandstone wall the existing buildings either side of Gib Lane are relatively modern sheds of not particular interest and in contrast, the proposed buildings will make a positive architectural contribution to the area. He suggests that the existing use is commercial and the proposed development will make a positive contribution to the vibrancy of the town by the provision of commercial units. The use of colour and massing and design, whilst contemporary in nature in some respect, reflects the evolution of the promenade. The proposed car parking and impact thereof is dealt with in the application which does not appear to have been considered by Highway Services as yet.

PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within a wider area of Mixed Use on the Peel Local Plan of 1989, 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

==== PAGE 8 ====

                                      19/00199/B                                     Page  8  of  20

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 and 35 are applicable EP30 deaLs with the demolition of existing buildings and that element of the scheme is dealt with under 19/00204/CON.

Environment Policy 35 states "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." This echoes the provisions of PPS1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man:

POLICY CA/2 SPECIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS When considering proposals for the possible development of any land or buildings which fall within the conservation area, the impact of such proposals upon the special character of the area, will be a material consideration when assessing the application. Where a development is proposed for land which, although not within the boundaries of the conservation area, would affect its context or setting, or views into or out of the area; such issues should be given special consideration where the character or appearance of a conservation area may be affected.

3.6 There are other policies within the Strategic Plan which are applicable to this planning application.

3.6.1 Its Strategic Aim, Strategic Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 and 12, Transport Policy 1 all promote sustainable development which preserves the important character of the Island and promotes improvement of its environment.

3.6.2 Peel is a Service Centre within the Spatial Strategy where "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" (Spatial Policy 2). Spatial Policy 5 directs new development to within defined settlements as does Housing Policy 4.

3.6.3 General Policy 2 sets out standards of development to be achieved where development accords with the land use designation of the site and states:

==== PAGE 9 ====

                                      19/00199/B                                     Page  9  of  20

General Policy 2: "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; (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; (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."

3.6.4 Environment Policy 42: "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality".

3.6.5 Environment Policy 43: The Department will generally support proposals which seek to regenerate run-down urban and rural areas. Such proposals will normally be set in the context of regeneration strategies identified in the associated Area Plans The Department will encourage the re-use of sound built fabric rather than its demolition."

3.6.6 Housing Policy 5 requires that in developments of 8 of more residential units, a contribution towards affordable housing equivalent to 25% of the total number of units should be provided, affordable housing defined as that directly provided by the Department or local authority or which meets the criteria of the Department's House Purchase Assistance Scheme 2004 or any successive scheme approved by Tynwald.

3.6.7 Housing Policy 17 provides advice about the development of apartments. Whilst this applies to the conversion of existing buildings, which this is not, it provides guidance on the standards expected in this type of development:

Housing Policy 17: The conversion of buildings into flats will generally be permitted in residential areas provided that: (a) adequate space can be provided for clothes-drying, refuse storage, general amenity, and, if practical, car-parking; (b) the flats created will have a pleasant clear outlook, particularly from the principal rooms and (c) if possible, this involves the creation of parking on site or as part of an overall traffic management strategy for the area.

3.6.8 Chapter 10 of the Plan sets out the need for and benefit from the provision of Public Open Space, establishing standards of different types of POS to be provided - formal recreation, children's play and amenity space. Where this cannot be provided on site, which is the preferred method of delivery, commuted sums can be acceptable (Recreation Policies 3 and 4 and paragraph 10.3.9).

==== PAGE 10 ====

                                      19/00199/B                                     Page  10  of  20

3.6.9 Transport policy 4 requires that new development must be supported by a satisfactory highway network in a safe and appropriate manner and Transport Policy 7 requires that new development accords with the Department's standards on car parking which are set out in Appendix 7. This requires that new residential dwellings, whether apartments or houses, are generally provided with 1 parking space where there is only one bedroom per apartment and otherwise 2 parking spaces at least one of which is retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the dwelling. These standards may be relaxed where the development would otherwise secure the re-use of a Registered Building or a building or architectural or historic interest, where it would result in the preservation of a sensitive streetscene or would otherwise be of benefit to a Conservation Area and where it is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrate that a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality. A.7.1 specifically states that in the case of town centre and previously developed sites, the Department will consider reducing the requirement to provide on site parking having regard to the location of the site relative to public transport, employment and public amenities, the size of the dwellings, any restriction on the nature of occupancy (such as sheltered housing) and the impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Town centre shops are required to provide space for service vehicle use.

3.6.10 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. 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.

3.7 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."

3.8 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.

PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The site has been the subject of a number of applications for alterations of the existing garage buildings, none of which is considered relevant to the consideration of the current application.

REPRESENTATIONS 5.1.1 Peel Town Commissioners object to the application (16.04.19). 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

==== PAGE 11 ====

                                      19/00199/B                                     Page  11  of  20

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.

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 strong 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. The proposed garages would have no visibility in either direction and would therefore be unsafe. The proposed block paving and the arch above the adopted highway of Gib Lane are unacceptable and the

==== PAGE 12 ====

                                      19/00199/B                                     Page  12  of  20

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. 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 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.

==== PAGE 13 ====

                                      19/00199/B                                     Page  13  of  20

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:

18, Castle Street (23.03.19 and 31.03.19) 4, Duke Street (20.03.19) 15, Circular Road (owner of a garage on Gib Lane) (22.03.19) 30, Stanley Road (22.03.19) 4, Gib Lane (26.03.19) 6, Stanley Mount (undated but received on 26.03.19) 24, Circular Road (25.03.19) 7, Victoria Terrace (27.03.19) 31, Stanley Terrace (undated but received 27.03.19)) 3, Stanley Road (27.03.19) 11, Stanley Road (28.03.19) 37, Stanley Terrace (30.03.19 and 05.04.19) 20, Stanley Road (28.03.19) 10, Gib Lane (29.03l.19) 31, Shore Road (30.03.19) 5, Stanley Mount (28.03.19 and 29.03.19) 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 02.04.19) 5, Stanley Road (31.03.19) 1, Victoria Terrace (01.04.19) 22, Circular Road (22.03.19) 21, Queen's Drive (29.03.19) 23, Bridge Street (02.04.19) 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) 17, Circular Road (31.03.19) 39, Stanley Terrace (03.04.19, 05.06.19 and 16.04.19) 8, Stanley Road (undated but received on 03.04.19) 40, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 24, Bridge Street (02.04.19) 5, Circular Road (undated but received on 03.04.19) Thie ny Scoill, Derby Road (03.04.19) 6, Circular Road (06.04.19) 16, Queen's Terrace, Douglas (05.04.19) 12, Stanley Road (05.04.19) 14, Stanley Road (05.04.19) 9A, Stanley Road (05.04.19) 19, Stanley Road (05.04.19) 14, Bridge Street (06.04.19) 14, Stanley Mount (05.04.19) 7, Stanley Mount (02.04.19) The Old Chapel, Patrick Corner who rents an office in Gib Lane (05.04.19)

==== PAGE 14 ====

                                      19/00199/B                                     Page  14  of  20

16, Stanley Road (03.04.19) 24, Stanley Road (04.04.19) 6, Stanley Road (undated but received on 04.04.19) 11, Church Street (04.04.19) 4, Stanley Road (03.04.19) 13, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 9, Stanley Road (04.04.19) Reayrt ny Keylley (05.04.19) 25, Bridge Street (21.03.19) 6, Oak Road, (28.07.19) Garden flat, 4, Marine Parade (09.04.19)

5.4.10 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 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).

5.4.11 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 19/00200/CON. The

==== PAGE 15 ====

                                      19/00199/B                                     Page  15  of  20

development also requires the demolition of the buildings on the other side of Gib Lane which are not part of the application and the application is deficient in this respect. It is relevant that the demolition of these other buildings are the subject of another application, 19/00202/CON which is subject to objections and which is recommended for refusal. The existing buildings on the site are varied in terms of their architectural treatment, age and appearance but it is safe to say that the modern showroom building contributes little to the historic interest and the character of the Conservation Area. Its redevelopment in the form of something more sympathetic is not considered objectionable.

6.2.3 The proposed building does not follow the varied roofline of the rest of the adjoining terrace but mirrors the more regimented terrace of the properties which sit between Walpole Road and the bowling green, albeit that it is finished in sandstone and has a generally more subdued impact on the streetscene. There are other buildings of size whose individual or cumulative impact on the streetscene result in more sizeable buildings occupying their place alongside the promenade but none so long as would be proposed here. Simply because there is nothing of a similar mass would not be a reason for refusing the application, particularly as the building is no higher than the buildings further along in the terrace and the building has been visually broken into different elements through the use of projecting bays and colour. 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, setting aside any concern about the loss of fabric of historical importance or interest which is dealt with in the RB application, what is proposed is considered overall to result in a better appearance of buildings 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.

6.2.4 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 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. It is also relevant that this development necessitates the demolition of buildings on the other side of the lane and as the proposal for the redevelopment of that is recommended for refusal, it cannot be accepted that the development proposed here will be development in association with a development on the other plot. It may be the case therefore, that site A is developed and site B is cleared of its buildings with the rear elevation of the building hereby proposed on full view for anyone travelling down Stanley Road. The rear elevation is clearly functional in design and would not preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area.

6.2.5 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 B and as such, if it were retained the proposed building would be visible over the top and from Stanley Road. 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.

==== PAGE 16 ====

                                      19/00199/B                                     Page  16  of  20

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. The proposed building would be 3.3m higher than the highest part of the existing buildings on the site but this is unlikely to have a significant impact on any residential properties in Gib Lane or Marine Parade given the distance between them and the orientation of the existing buildings. The building would have an impact on the residents of the lower part of Stanley Road, however, if the proposed development on Site B were not to go ahead as the proposed building will be higher than the existing buildings on that site. However, given the distance of almost 30m between the proposed building and those properties and the intervening other site, it is not considered that the development would have an adverse impact on the living conditions of those, or any other nearby residential properties.

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 6.5.1 The proposed development comprises seven apartments which each accommodate two bedrooms. This equates to a requirement for fourteen car parking spaces in accordance with the Strategic Plan. The Plan does not require any parking spaces for users of the commercial units - and indeed there is none serving the existing showroom if site B is considered a separate entity - only space for service and deliveries.

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. On another day, not a public holiday in June, and during the late morning, there were four spaces free.

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 six 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 many 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. The lack of car parking cannot therefore be justified by parts a, b or c of Appendix Seven.

==== PAGE 17 ====

                                      19/00199/B                                     Page  17  of  20

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 good principal outlook and light from the windows which look out to the bay. 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 units which are proposed to be serviced as existing from either Marine Parade or Gib Lane. However, the lane is being widened by around 1.2m which will assist not only the servicing of the proposed units but also the general users of the lane. Given the existing situation regarding the servicing of the garage, it is not considered that the provisions for the new commercial units is unacceptable.

6.7 whether the proposal would have any adverse effect on highway safety in accordance with General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 4 6.7.1 There is clearly inadequate car parking to be provided which will have an impact on the surrounding area and the safety of the highway network in this respect. No information has been provided by the applicant to demonstrate that this is not the case. Highway Services recommend that the application does not demonstrate that the scheme would be acceptable and certain elements - access to the garaging and the archway for example, and the treatment of the new areas of public highway in Gib Lane. The application cannot therefore be said to comply with GP2 or TP4 in this respect.

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 principle of the redevelopment of the modern, commercial building in this prominent position is welcomed and whilst the scheme has elements to commend it, the size, height and layout of the building would result in an adverse impact on the surrounding area in terms of the public enjoyment of Gib Lane, highway safety, inadequate car parking. In addition, it is not considered that adequate information has been provided which would justify the loss of the sandstone buildings which back onto Gib Lane. The absence details of the provision of affordable housing and public open space are also considered sufficient to refuse the application. For these reasons, the application is recommended for refusal.

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.

==== PAGE 18 ====

                                      19/00199/B                                     Page  18  of  20

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 :... 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.

==== PAGE 19 ====

                                      19/00199/B                                     Page  19  of  20

PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 12.08.2019

Application No. :

19/00199/B Applicant : Empire Garages Ltd Proposal : Demolition of showroom and related structures and erection of a three storey building to provide ground floor commercial / retail units (Use Class 1, 2 and 3) with seven apartments above with associated parking and facilities (in association with PA 19/00200/CON) Site Address : Car Showroom Empire Garages Marine Parade Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1PA

Principal Planner : Miss S E Corlett Presenting Officer As above

Addendum to the Officer’s Report

The Planning Committee accepted the officer's recommendation, with the replacement of the references to sites A and B in reason 4 with the relevant planning application numbers.

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 and whereby the height of the building would remove certain public views of the Castle and the sea. The development would therefore be contrary to Environment Policy 35 and General Policy 2e 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.

==== PAGE 20 ====

                                      19/00199/B                                     Page  20  of  20

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 application site relies upon the demolition of the buildings on the site of 19/00201/B, 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.

R 5. The development of this site is inextricably linked to the demolition of buildings on the site on the other side of Gib Lane as the widening of the lane and the provision of bin storage is on that site where there are currently buildings. This demolition is not part of the current application and as such, the application is deficient and incapable of being implemented on its own. The demolition of the other buildings is the subject of 19/00202/CON which is recommended for refusal and the redevelopment of that site is proposed in 19/00201/B is also recommended for refusal. As such, were this current application to be approved and the buildings demolished on the other side of the lane with no redevelopment, the rear of the proposed building would be publicly visible and it is not considered that the functional design and appearance of the rear elevation would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area at this point, nor provide an acceptable visual impact, contrary to Environment Policy 35 and General Policy 2b, c and g of the Strategic Plan.