Loading document...
This statement has been prepared in support of an application by Mountaindale Ltd for the conversion of the former Salisbury Street Methodist Church into four houses.
It should be read in conjunction with the other documents submitted with the planning application.
The site forms the end of the terrace of houses on the west side of Farrant Street and fronts onto Farrant Street, Salisbury Street and the rear access lane to the terrace. The redundant church building – see photographs Appendix 1 – occupies approximately 65% of the plot with the open space divided between a back service yard onto the lane and gardens onto Farrant Street where the elevation respects the building line of the other houses in the terrace. Part of the elevation to Salisbury Street abuts the adjacent pavement and part is stepped back from the boundary wall to permit buttresses and windows. The plot extends to some 480 m² with the building footprint c. 300 m². The accommodation is generally at ground floor level, although there is a partial basement and it consists of a large church/communal hall (sub-divided with removable glazed screens), meeting room and vestry with associated sanitary accommodation and storage.
The site is situated in an area of Douglas designated “predominantly residential” which, while not a conservation area in itself, forms a small triangle bordered on the east by the Ballaquayle Road conservation area, to the south the Windsor Road conservation area, and to the west the Woodbourne Road and Selbourne Drive conservation areas. As such the area is part of a mixed urban landscape which as well as housing provides public open spaces (Hilary Road, the Broadway triangle and Hutchinson Square), pre-schools, primary schools, shops (including corner shops etc), doctors, dentists and other small businesses.
As noted the church is located in an area marked predominantly residential and while not registered it forms an important landmark in the urban street scene. The former bus depot immediately to the north west of the site is for sale and will presumably be redeveloped. Similarly, Park Road Secondary School has been demolished and it is understood that this, too, will be redeveloped for residential usage. As such, following discussions with Planning Officers, it is considered that if an alternative use for the existing building can be identified it would be desirable to retain this landmark building, preferably with any alterations respecting its current form.
In the light of the above it is now proposed to convert the building into four town houses by subdividing the meeting hall and inserting intermediate floors. Existing elevations will largely be retained while
dormers and rooflights will be inserted into the pitched roofs as part of the conversion. This will produce three units of approximately $150\mathrm{m}^2$ (1,600 sq ft) and one smaller unit of $\mathrm{c}100\mathrm{m}^2$ (1,080 sq ft) in the vestry area.
Given its position in a predominantly residential area the principle of converting the former church building into housing should not be at issue. More pertinent however, is a detailed appraisal of how this is to be achieved and the author has consulted various interested parties with a view to establishing how best to meet their differing requirements.
In the first instance the Conversation Officer, Steve Moore, was consulted. He had comments on the detailed appearance of the building envelope (Appendix 2 – e-mail dated January 2014) and the design of the building as now submitted follows on from the various suggestions he has made.
In order to ensure that the design would not subsequently be compromised in obtaining building regulations approval, an officer of the Douglas Corporation Building Regulations Department, Sue Sayle, was consulted. All aspects of the design were discussed. In particular she reinforced the need for all four units to have access to the rear yard area where bin storage and the like would be made available and this has been achieved.
Early on the level of parking provision was identified as being a possible problem and Hazel Fletcher in the Department of Infrastructure Highways Division was consulted and early plans (Appendix 3 – Sk2) showed four parking spaces on the site (one per unit). While the standard of parking
provision for new housing is two parking spaces per unit (she advised that she could not take into account any on-street parking), she felt that a lower provision could be justified given the site’s close proximity to amenities, shops, places of work, etc. She was concerned however about the width of the spaces in the back yard such that she suggested that some motorbike parking could be included. While motor bike parking has been included (see below) the width of the back yard, at over 5.0m will accommodate two cars just as readily as many private house garages, so this provision is considered viable and has been retained, particularly as the spaces have been set well back to allow for turning.
Edward Baker, Planning Officer, has also commented on the scheme (Appendix 4 – e-mail dated 20 February 2014). With regard to the parking did feel that on street parking could be taken into account and it should be noted that in the order of seven vehicles can park outside the building without compromising the on site provision. As noted above his concerns regarding the rear yard parking are not considered justified. His observations regarding Farrant Street are accepted however and the carriage crossing/parking in front of the vestry has been omitted (the loss of this parking bay for the smaller unit, Unit 1 has been offset by the motor bike provision in the back yard) The bay off Salisbury Street has been retained however as it is felt this arrangement does not compromise the street scene (Appendix 5 - Photographs).
In his e-mail Mr Baker suggests that limits on parking would possibly restrict the number of units to two – it is felt that houses of the size that this would create would be out of all proportion to the general balance of dwellings in the area while very possibly generating exactly the same level of traffic. It should also be noted that in the past there will have been
numerous occasions when church services (and more latterly auction attendees) would have parked in the area with only limited inconvenience to the neighbouring property owners.
Mr Baker also refers to residential amenity, in particular bin storage and other servicing and is concerned about overlooking. Space has been allocated for both bins and recycling boxes so that they can be managed in an orderly fashion on site.
With regard to the possibility of overlooking, with the exception of the dormer window to the rear of Unit 4 the other windows at first floor level, while being dormers, are no different from the other first floor windows in the houses in the area. The dormer at the rear of Unit 4 does overlook some of the back yards but the views are at such an angle so as not to impinge upon their privacy and indeed most of have been converted to garages (Appendix 6 - Photographs) At second floor level proposed windows in the two gables overlook public open space and the central dormer, due to the roof structure, has a deep internal cill prohibiting anything other than distant views. There is already a degree of overlooking of the back yards by windows in No 1 Bathurst Street so the proposal does not constitute unacceptable overlooking of what are only semi-private spaces
Although new connections will be required there is already a foul sewer serving the property, and there should be no changes to the routing of the surface water drainage.
The MEA, Manx Telecomm, Manx Gas and the Water Authority have been contacted regarding their requirements for servicing the proposed development. Services can be made available and their replies will be provided if requested.
In conclusion we would refer to the penultimate paragraph of Mr Baker’s email where he states: “.. the Planning authority would like to support the re-use of the building to bring it back into viabile use. The building is attractive and has some historic value and it would be a great shame if it were to fall into disrepair.”
The proposal to convert the former Salisbury Street Methodist Church into four housing units would achieve this aim. All design is a compromise but the scheme to which this planning statement refers offers an acceptable use for the building while at the same time maintaining its character. The development fits into the community without undue loss of amenity. The parking provision is shown in a way that does not disadvantage the neighbouring owners or the area. As such we ask that the Planning Committee looks favourably on the scheme and grants planning approval.
Marshall Cryer Architects March 2014
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown