Loading document...
Application No.: 10/00745/B Applicant: IM9 Ltd Proposal: Conversion of two dwellings into a single dwelling and two apartments with rear extensions and garaging Site Address: Ben Varrey And Sentosa Athol Street Port St. Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5DT ### Considerations Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 06.07.2010 Site Visit: 06.07.2010 Expected Decision Level: Senior Planning Officer ### Written Representations ### Consultations Consultee: Mr B J Boyle Notes: Comments received Consultee : Highways Division Notes: Do not oppose has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications. Note: This proposal can only provide 3 off street parking spaces, IOM Strategic Plan requires 6 spaces. The No. of bedrooms has been decreased from 7 to 6 . Taking all the above into account the proposal does not provide increased off road parking. Consultee : Port St Mary Commissioners Notes: no objection to the application Consultee : EPU \& Public Health - DEFA Notes: Comments received
The site represents the curtilages of two properties - Ben Varrey and Sentosa (2 and 4, Athol Street). The properties front onto Athol Street and back onto Shore Road and the harbour. There is a significant difference in level between the two streets, leading to three floors of accommodation from Athol Street upward and four from Shore Road with a small garage beneath the lower floor of accommodation on the Shore Road side.
The properties are two separate ones but with a patio area at the rear of Ben Varrey which wraps around the rear windows of Sentosa, right in front of its windows on the ground floor. The front elevations are very traditional with Ashlar scribing on the ground floor, two large square shop type windows on the ground floor and two floors of three vertically proportioned windows per property per floor above. The windows are modern casements with bottom three quarters opening. Sentosa has a dashed render applied to the first and second floor front elevation and both properties have a slated roof with substantial chimneys at each end.
The rear elevations are a mixture of original and modern flat roofed annexes which have been added at various points in the buildings' histories. The garage with study above sits alongside another property - Quay Cottage which previously had its own integral garage which was converted to living accommodation, the internal dimensions of the original garage being smaller than the average vehicle.
The properties sit at the southern end of the terrace of properties on Athol Street, Quay Cottage sitting lower down and fronting principally onto Shore Road. The ground floor of the application property at the rear is finished in stone to match Quay Cottage with the upper floors in render to match the properties to the north. The properties at Shore Road level tend mostly to be stone-faced.
The site lies within an area of Predominantly Shopping on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982. On the draft Southern Area Plan published on 23rd October, 2009 the site is within an area of Mixed Use. Within the draft plan the site also lies within a proposed Conservation Area.
The following applications have been submitted in respect of these two properties: PA 84/0925 - formation of basement level yard, 4, Athol Street - permitted PA 84/1148 - alterations and extensions, 4, Athol Street - permitted PA 85/0360 - alterations and conversion of dwelling into two self- contained units, 2, Athol Street permitted
PA 85/0781 - conversion of existing dwelling to form two self-contained units, 2, Athol Street permitted
PA 87/0952 - conversion of void under existing patio to study, 2, Athol Street - permitted PA 87/1544 - extension to form sun lounge - 4, Athol Street - permitted PA 88/1479 - erection of screen wall, 4, Athol Street - refused at appeal PA 94/0922 - installation of new door and windows, 2, Athol Street - permitted PA 97/1830 - erection of conservatory, 2, Athol Street - permitted
Now proposed is the removal of all of the non-original rear extensions and their replacement with a new rear annex designed for both 2 and 4, Athol Street. Also, internal walling within both properties is to be removed, extending the rooms towards Shore Road and extending number 4 to the full width of the site. The second floor, which presently has no rear extensions, is to be extended rearwards. The new rear extensions will extend 0.8 m further rearward than the existing rear elevation of number 2, but not as far as the existing rear porch or the extension of number 4. At the basement level the building will step back more than it does at present and in place of the steps
leading from Shore Road to the basement level, there will be three garaged parking spaces and a lift to gain access to the basement and upper levels. A lift shaft is included which takes the form of a three storey, slim stone structure which also serves to enclose the basement level balcony patio area.
The angled rendered side will have a set of high level glass blocks in each floor giving light but no view from this elevation.
There is a side window in the stone building alongside which currently looks out over a small balcony associated with Ben Varrey and will look out over a larger patio area without the complicated steps arrangement.
On the front elevation, the Ashlar scribing effect is to be removed and replaced with smooth render, the windows replaced with plastic framed sliding sash windows. New windows are to be inserted in the southern elevation of number 2. They are slightly more square than those in the front elevation and appear to be fitted with casement windows.
Internally, both properties will be subdivided into two units, one on top of the other.
Highways and Traffic Division indicate that whilst the proposal does not provide the amount of parking required by the Strategic Plan it is an improvement on the existing situation and is therefore acceptable.
The Environmental Health Inspectorate has contacted the applicant in respect of the Housing (Flats) Regulations 1982.
Port St. Mary Commissioners indicate that they do not oppose the application but advise that there are underground springs beneath the site and a culverted stream is understood to run beneath the garage. As such they recommend that a note is attached to any planning permission to require professional investigation of this and provision for protecting or diverting any watercourses found. This is a matter for the Building Regulations but a note to any planning permission would be helpful.
The drainage authority, represented by Port St. Mary Commissioners, indicate that they do not oppose the application subject to conditions requiring that no surface water is discharged to the main foul sewer. The proposal does not include any new areas of hard surfacing and there are no opportunities for the provision of a soakaway. As such, the proposal is not likely to result in any change in impact from whatever is the existing method of discharge of surface water.
The application is not in conformity with the land use zoning of the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as the property is not presently commercial. However, the principles of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan are relevant as there is to be no change of use of the property. GP2 states: "Development which is in accordance with the land use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the space 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 adverse effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; j)can be provided with all necessary services; k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; I) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
CONSERVATION OFFICER'S SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT: At present, Ben Varrey and Sentosa, 2 and 4 Athol Street, Port St Mary respectively, are three storey dwellings, possibly former shop units on the ground floor at least with a conglomeration of poor quality flat roofed extensions to the rear facing Shore Road and the inner harbour. The properties are located within the area of the town currently being considered for Conservation Area status in the draft Southern Area Plan. These proposals are for the removal of all of the existing flat roofed extensions to the rear, the re-organisation of the interiors of the two houses and the substantial extension to the rear creating a pair of apartments to Ben Varrey and a large, single dwelling in Sentosa.
The drawings are a little difficult to follow and are not as clear as would have been liked. There is a lot of interpretation necessary in order to fully understand what is intended by the proposals. There are potential inaccuracies between the Section A-A, the South East Elevation and the North East Elevation. The section shows a dotted line seemingly behind the ridge of the first part of the extension over Ben Varrey. If this were the case, it would be reasonable to expect, that there were some form of cut in the main roof as this is at a different angle. In a similar vein, the Roof Plan would appear to have a valley between the intersection of the existing ridge and the new ridge coming in at 90 degrees, which appears to be in the wrong place. It would be reasonable to expect that the valley would spring from the intersection of the two ridges joining up with the intersection of the eaves. The impact on the elevations would mean that the roof light on the main roof over Sentosa might have to move over to the right, to avoid the re-positioned valley. None of these issues should have a major impact on the proposed elevations, but it is worth considering that that drawn, might not translate itself as approved to site. However, the proposals are in the main, acceptable.
The proposed rearward extensions are in terms of material finishes and massing acceptable as that which is to be demolished to make way for the rearward extensions is of limited architectural and/or historic value and its loss is correspondingly negligible. Discussion with the applicant's agent at preapplication stage about 'double piling' the rear extension to offer a facade more in keeping with the predominant 'ridge parallel to road' format found in Port St Mary was disregarded by the applicant. The proposed rear elevational treatment is typical of apartment schemes in this type of locale around the shores of the UK, but is nonetheless acceptable. The garage treatment on to Shore Road is a little different to that that exists and might benefit from a more appropriate type of garage door, perhaps a vertically boarded painted timber item?
To conclude, the proposals are acceptable in terms of their massing, materials usage and design.
The drawings have been amended to address the above Conservation Officer's concerns about inaccuracies and also the windows in the side elevation have been amended to be more vertically proportioned to be more sympathetic to the style in the original building.
The local authority is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.
The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.
The Environmental Health Inspectorate does not raise material planning considerations and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 03.08.2010
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2. This permission relates to the alterations, demolition and extensions all shown in drawings08A received on 8th July, 2010 and 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06 and 07 all received on 18th May, 2010.
C 3. There must be no discharge of surface water to the main foul sewer. N 1. The applicant is encouraged to consider the installation of vertically detailed garage doors rather than those shown on the drawings, which may be more sympathetic to the location of the property.
N 2. The applicant is advised that the Commissioners have information on water springs under the site and as such is recommended to engage the services of a structural engineer to ensure the stability of the site both during and after the commencement of works on site.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to the Senior Planning Officer. Decision Made: Permitted Date: 4 August 2010 Signed: __________________________ Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown