Loading document...
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF A PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBER
1.1 The site is the curtilage of an existing dwelling which lies on the northern side of Loch Road, backing onto the rear of numbers 4, 5, 6 and 7, The Quay. The existing dwelling is up to 9.2m in height with a single storey lean-to garage which sit to the east. The dwelling has a single storey flat roofed annex at the rear which stretches the full length of the rear yard. The properties to the rear are set lower than the application property.
1.2 The frontage of the site is almost 19m in length and the current dwelling and garage occupy 13m of this. There is a large sycamore tree growing to the left of the front elevation.
1.3 The existing dwelling is attractive to a point, finished in a mix of roughcast render and sandstone quoin and lintel details, two full floors of accommodation with accommodation in the roofspace, served by two pitched roof eaves level dormers on the front elevation. The attractiveness of the property is spoiled somewhat by a single storey lean-to roofed garage which lies to the right of the main frontage. This has a small window and garage door in the front elevation and a relatively shallow pitched roof linking in with the side of the main house. The property has an air of neglect but could be renovated and occupied without the need for any planning permission.
1.4 The property is presently not protected through any Conservation Area or Registered Building status so could be demolished without the need for planning permission. The area is identified as having the potential to be designated as a Conservation Area (see below).
2.1 Proposed is the replacement of the existing dwelling with a pair of semi-detached dwellings. The height of the new building will be 100mm lower than the highest part of the existing structure, the eastern part being up to 6m higher than the top of the garage. The frontage of the new building would be 11.5m wide. The building would be 300mm to the east of the western part of the existing dwelling. The existing sycamore is not shown on either the proposed or existing plans and the application form does not indicate that the tree is to be removed.
2.2 The present building has four windows over four different levels in the rear elevation and two further windows and a door in the rear of the garage. As proposed, the rear elevation of the property has two sets of patio doors at the lowest level, and two bathroom windows in the first floor. Rooflights are proposed in the rear main pitch of both properties and in the rear pitch of the single storey annexes at the rear of the property. The proposed dwellings will extend 3.1 m from the rear elevation compared with the existing annex which extends out 6.4 m . 2.3 The front elevation will have dormer windows in the front pitch, each dwelling has a patio door with Juliet-style balcony with single window alongside at first floor level and a front door with canopy above and window beside. Car parking will be provided to the west of the dwelling in an area which is 9.4 m long and from 5.3 m wide. This is slightly less than a sufficient space for two full length parking spaces which should be at least 4.8 m long and ideally 6 m long to allow for access to car boots. There is space for the provision of spaces of 5 m each in length without significantly affecting the amount of amenity space for the proposed dwellings or the impact of parked vehicles on the property behind (number 5, The Quay).
3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Southern Area Plan as Residential. The site also lies within a proposed Conservation Area which includes all of The Quay, Loch Road, Lime Street, the public open space at the top of Loch Road abutting Queen's Road and Mount Tabor Methodist Church as well as land to the north all the way up to and including The Promenade. This has not yet been progressed to adoption. Mount Tabor Methodist Church is also recommended for consideration for Registration. The process of registration of buildings and the designation of Conservation Areas takes a different path from the area plan process. Nothing has been published to date on the progress of the designation of any Conservation Area here. 3.2 As such, there is a presumption in favour of residential development either in the form of alterations to the existing property or redevelopment of the property which is not currently protected from demolition. 3.3 Development should be in accordance with the principles of General Policy 2 which states that 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." 3.4 Regard should also be had to Strategic Policy 5 which includes the following: "New development including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island." Also, Environment Policy 42 includes the following: "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." 3.5 The planning history of the site is a material consideration in the assessment of the application and gives guidance on the matters which have previously been considered of concern in the re-development of this plot.
4.1 The site has been the subject of a number of unsuccessful applications for redevelopment: i) PA 03/00084 proposed the erection of three mews houses and was refused for the reason that: The proposed dwellings, by reason of the site coverage and proximity to dwellings to the rear, would appear overbearing and unneighbourly and detract from the level of residential amenity currently enjoyed by occupiers of adjacent dwellings. ii) PA 03/01159 proposed the erection of six apartments and was refused for the reason that: The proposed apartments, by reason of the site coverage and proximity to dwellings to the rear, would appear overbearing and unneighbourly and detract from the level of residential amenity currently enjoyed by occupiers of adjacent dwellings. iii) PA 04/01676 proposed the construction of two mews houses and was refused iv) PA 06/00402 proposed the demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of two detached mews type dwellings and was refused for two reasons: "Whilst the proposed development proposes fewer windows in the rear elevation than was proposed in the previous application, PA 04/1676 and as such has less of an impact on the privacy of these properties, the proposed buildings are basically the same size and shape as those refused in the previous application where the Inspector commented that "Of particular concern are the views from the west and south where the front elevation would be the dominant influence. Given the single storey nature of development on either side of the appeal site I find the proportions of the main three storey elevation particularly jarring and incongruous. They would appear as tall and narrow elements that have no harmonious visual relationship to their surroundings in terms of proportion or building mass. This disharmony is made all the sharper by the stepping down to the garages. I consider the impact on the street scene unacceptable". Whilst the buildings now proposed benefit from stonework and more interesting detailing on the front elevation, the same criticisms still apply regarding the height and massing of the buildings and their impact on the streetscene." Also, "The proposed buildings would also adversely affect the amenities and outlook of 5 and 6, The Quay: this aspect of the scheme is similar to the previous application where the Inspector notes "I judge that the objection is not one of potential overlooking but of the overbearing nature of the tall building immediately adjoining the lower, small rear patio which forms the only external amenity space for that dwelling [number 7]." v) PA 11/01206 for the erection of two semi-detached dwellings was withdrawn before a decision was taken.
5.1 Port St Mary Commissioners have no objection.
5.2 The owner of 8 , The Quay objects to the application on the same basis as she objected to earlier applications. The proposal is not exactly the same so it is difficult to accept the objections as set out as, for example, the dwellings are not right up against the garages at the rear of The Quay without confirmation that the objector has seen this new scheme. A further letter was received from this party, confirming that she had seen the plans and that her concerns remain the same - that is that she considers the scheme over-intensive and worries about the relationship between the new properties and the rear of the garages at the rear of number 7. She accepts that the design of the properties are better than proposed previously but is concerned at the parking provision on the basis that the spaces may not be full sized and that the area is already over-subscribed and provides photographs of the area where car parking is almost continuous on the surrounding highways. She considers that the only suitable solution is one dwelling for the site. 5.3 Highways Division indicate that whilst the spaces do not accord with their ideal standard of 6 m by 3.25 m but that "approval was granted in May 2012" and that the highway authority would not accept parking standards of these dimensions in any new development. 5.4 the Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority do not object to the application but request that no surface water is discharged to the main foul sewer.
6.1 The proposal has sought to overcome the reasons given previously in respect of the impact on the properties to the rear and now the proposed building is no higher than the highest part of the existing building and moved so that there is no less light available to number 5, The Quay than is currently the situation. The impact on number 6 is greater in that currently there is a single storey garage alongside the dwelling and as such there will be a greater mass to the rear of this property. The building is narrower than previously proposed and thus has less of an impact on the properties to the rear and side. 6.2 The use of stonework on the front elevation will help the property sit comfortably into the streetscene and this could be enhanced by the use of sandstone quoin and lintel details, matching the existing property (which has a rendered finish rather than stone). 6.3 The parking spaces as shown are shorter than would ideally be required, although they could be increased to a length of 5 m without significantly altering the amount of amenity space available to the proposed dwellings. 6.4 Whilst the existing dwelling is attractive, it is not protected currently and whilst Conservation Area status would require planning permission for the demolition of the building and some presumption against the loss of fabric of value to the area, this is not yet in place and it is also relevant that the building has not been identified as being of sufficient interest to be registered, nor has the loss of the building been identified in previous applications as a reason for refusal. As such, the critical issues are considered to be the appearance of the proposed building and the impact it will have on those nearby, particularly numbers 5 and 6 The Quay. Also to be considered is whether the provision for car parking is or could be satisfactory. 6.5 It is certainly the case that a single dwelling as a replacement for the existing could be accommodated satisfactorily on the site with, it is likely, fewer issues of potential overlooking or overbearing impacts on the properties to the rear and an easier accommodation of the parking required to be provided. However, what is the issue is whether two dwellings can be accommodated on the site satisfactorily. As stated previously, the building has been reduced and moved so that more light remains available to the rear of number 5, The Quay. There are fewer windows in the rear elevation than either at present or as previously proposed and as such it is considered that the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the rear of number 5, The Quay.
6.6 The impact on number 6 is slightly greater as part of the rear of this property has currently a single storey structure to the rear. However, what is also currently present on site is a single storey element to the existing dwelling, which is higher than the adjacent rear yards and which stretches right back to abu the rear yards of both numbers 5 and 6 . This will be removed and the single storey element of the new dwelling will be some 3.3 m further back. The outlook for numbers 5 and 6 will therefore be improved through the removal of the 2.5 m high structure and its replacement with a lower wall which is 850 mm high alongside the rear yards. The assessment of the impact on number 6 is therefore a balance between these changing elements and it is concluded that on balance, the proposed dwellings would not have an adverse impact on number 6 so as to warrant refusal of the application. 6.7 The impact on number 7 will also be such that there is a greater mass closer to the rear yard of the property which abuts a garage onto Loch Road. The upper floor windows in the main part of the dwellings will look out over the garage and the ground floor side window in the rear annex will look towards the rear yard of number 7 . However there is a wall between the proposed window and the yard which should provide adequate screening between both. It is relevant that there have been no objections to the application from any of the residents at number 5, 6 or 7 , The Quay. 6.8 There are four parking spaces proposed which in numerical terms complies with the provisions of the Strategic Plan (2 spaces per dwelling). The spaces are not as long or wide as would usually be encouraged by the highway authority but could be made with slight extension to be acceptable and such that they would be used and vehicles would not be parked on the highway. 6.9 In summary, it is considered that the proposed development represents a satisfactory form of developing the site. Whilst the relationship between the properties is closer than one may expect on perhaps a more modern estate, Port St. Mary's character is formed by a closely knit form of development with different levels and heights of building close to each other and the proposed development will adhere to this characteristic. As such the application is recommended for approval.
7.1 The local authority, Port St. Mary Commissioners are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2013, paragraph 6 (4) (e), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status. 7.2 The Highway Authority is granted interested party status under the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2013 paragraph 6 (4) d. 7.3 The owner of 8 , The Quay is not immeidately adjacent to the site but bearing in mind the close relationship of the properties in the vicinity to each other and the proximity to the application site, it is recommended that this party should be afforded party status in this case.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of 17.09.2013
Recommendation:
N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2. This approval relates to the erection of a pair of dwellings with associated parking as a replacement for the existing dwelling on site, all as shown in drawings 273-06a, 273-08c both received on 14th August, 2013.
C 3. The parking spaces provided on site must each be 5 m in length.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Decision Made : Committee Meeting Date : 2019113
Signed : Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown