33451

==== PAGE 1 ====

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14/01282/B Mr Philip Martin Joynes Erection of a two storey residential extension and additional storey tea room above existing restaurant Beachcomber Shore Road Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6HL Application No. : Applicant: Proposal: Site Address : Case Officer: Photo Taken : Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Miss Jennifer Chance Officer's Report THE APPLICATION IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE SCALE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND AS PORT ERIN COMMISSIONERS HAVE OBJECTED TO THE PROPOSAL Site The application site is The Beachcomer, formerly known as the Bohemian, on Shore Road, Port Erin, Adjacent on one side is the Bay Hotel Public House and on the other is Herdman House (formerly Institute). 1.1 The current use of the ground floor is a restaurant and take-away with the upper floor, accessed via the restaurant's first floor patio area, being used as three one-bedroom residential units. 1.2 The existing property is a white, flat-roofed building notable for its large horizontal picture windows. It is predominantly two storey with a large single storey element to the side, that has an open patio area above it. The site itself is shallow in depth, with only a small outside area behind the building beyond which the land rises sharply. A public footway runs along the rear of the site. 1.3 No parking spaces are associated with the building and to the front is a narrow pavement with double yellow lines along the road. The road is single lane width and is traffic is controlled by lights. 1.4 The site is within a proposed Conservation Area as set out in the Area Plan for the South (see below). 1.5 The proposal 2.1 Proposed is the erection of extensions and alterations to provide an additional flat and tea room. The extensions would comprise; 29 December 2014 14/01282/8 Page 1 of 6

==== PAGE 2 ====

A side extension and additional two storeys on the western side of the building resulting in a four storey building at this point; and An additional storey to replace the balcony area to provide the tea room, with a lantern light above. Planning History 3.1 The premises are well known and have been a restaurant or cafe and an amusement centre in the past. 3.2 An application was submitted for an extension to increase living accommodation under PA 90/1270 and was permitted on appeal. At that time concern was expressed relating to the visual impact of the proposed extension on a building of poor form. The extension proposed an additional living room on the first floor, The creation of a first floor fiat was permitted on review under PA 00/1828. This appears to have subdivided the upper floor into two self- contained residential units and whilst the Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division raised concerns about the lack of parking, the application was permitted, the planning officer noting that parking was available off-site along the Promenade. 3.3 Approval in principle was given to demolish the building and replace with residential development in 2005, this was never taken up and has now expired. 3.4 Permission was given In 2006 for alterations and extension to the side of the building with a roof balcony above. That approval was superseded by one in 2009 and has been implemented. 3.5 In 2008 permission was given to convert the two first floor flats into three, which has also been implemented. 3.6 In 2010 approval was given for the erection of sheds and a flag pole. Development Plan policies The site is designated as being within a Mixed Use area in the Area Plan for the South. Mixed Use Proposals 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are relevant. They seek to encourage a diversity of uses to add to the overall vitality and viability of the village, with a preference for maintaining retail uses on the ground floor and residential or office uses on the first floor. Office and light industrial may be acceptable subject to their merits, and impact on amenities, 4.1 4.2 The site lies within a proposed Conservation Area The following policies from the Strategic Plan are relevant. 4.3 Strategic Policy 1. This encourages development to make the best use of resources by ensuring the efficient use of sites and locating development where it can utilise existing and planned infrastructure. 4.4 Strategic Policy 2 seeks to encourage new development to be located primarily within our existing towns and villages. 4.5 Strategic Policy 5 states; 'New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies'. 29 December 2014 Page 2 of 6 14/01282/B

==== PAGE 3 ====

4.6 General Policy 2 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: (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; (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local (i) highways; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption. (n) Environment Policy 42 states: '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. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans.' 4.7 4.8 Transport Policy 7: The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. For residential units 1 space for 1 bedroom units and 2 spaces for units with two or more bedrooms. There are no specific standards for restaurant uses. Although not yet a formally adopted Conservation Area, some regard should be had to the policies in the Strategic Plan that seek to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Area, as set out in Environment Policy 35. The supporting draft appraisal includes the following; 4.9 "Positive buildings in the area should be used as exemplars for future design in the area, and any planning applications for their demolition should be carefully considered whilst being mindful of the current Planning Policy toward the retention of buildings of merit within a conservation area. Positive buildings identified within the Conservation Area Appraisal are... Marine Biological Station, Old Lifeboat Station and the Herdman Institute, Shore Road" (page 4). "Any proposals for the alteration or replacement of negative buildings should only be allowed where they are designed in a fashion that is more sympathetic to the area. Negative buildings identified are...Beachcomber Amusements, Shore Road" (page 5). "Positive buildings are those which, according to the guidance used in the UK 'make an important contribution to the character of a conservation area'. These buildings are seen as the epitome of the architecture in the area, and the design of any future development in the conservation area should mirror these buildings in preference to the negative buildings listed later In this report. In addition, it would be particularly detrimental to the conservation area if these buildings were demolished, Positive buildings in the conservation area are...Marine Biological Station, Old Lifeboat Station and the Herdman Institute, Shore Road - These are all historic buildings of importance to the village and as such their preservation is important. (Only the older parts of the Marine Biological Station are seen as positive)...Bay Hotel, Shore Road - Similar to the grand hotels on the Promenade, this building provides an example of 29 December 2014 14/01282/B Page 3 of 6

==== PAGE 4 ====

the original design of hoteis in the area and can be used for guidance for future development." (page 23). "Beachcomber Amusements, Shore Road - This is a particularly unattractive 1960s building located between the Bay Hotel and the Herdman Institute. This square and featureless concrete building is unsympathetic to the older buildings in the conservation area and detracts from the visual amenity of this area of the bay." (page 27) "5.3 Specific Actions - Port Erin conservation area 5,3.1, Maintaining the special character of the conservation area The Port Erin conservation area is an area of particular significance. As such, it is of particular importance that any new development ensures the protection and enhancement of these features, The Conservation Area Appraisal will assist in ensuring that informed decisions are made in relation to the suitability of any development proposals. Action: DLGE will use the Conservation Area Appraisal to guide development proposals in the Port Erin Conservation Area and will resist applications which threaten the special character of the conservation area." (page 36) Representations 5.1 Highway Services: Do not oppose (24.11.14). Port Erin Commissioners: Recommend refusal. Concerns were raised regarding the visual impact of the proposed scheme, in particular due to its bearing and close proximity to the Herdman Institute building (which is listed as a positive building in the area in the draft Conservation Plan), concerns over highway safety with the increased footfall in the area, and the lack of parking for the proposed additional residential (unit) (08.12.14) 5.2 Assessment The key considerations in the determination of the application are the principle of development, design/ visual impact and parking. 6.1 Principle of Development: The site lies within a mixed use area and the building already has residential accommodation within. The principle of development is considered to be acceptable. 6.2 Design/Visuat Impact: Although it is clearly a matter of judgement, the existing building is not considered to be one which currently contributes to the visual amenities of the area. The buildings either side are particularly attractive, whereas the application building is of poor form and has little, If any, architectural merit. As the building is white, it is prominent, and is not only visible from the road and beach directly in front of it, but also as part of the wider vista of Port Erin bay from the other side of the village. 6.3 6,4 Pre-application discussions were held between the applicant and officers where it was expressed that the optimum solution to increasing floorspace would be to demolish the existing building and re-develop the site. The applicant has not pursued this option, either because he does not wish to, or is unable to and wishes instead to extend the building. In giving further advice, officers expressed concern regarding an approach that simply increased the size of the building. By extending the building upwards the presence of the building would be increased with the result that its negative impact would be more apparent. The view was expressed that the only way it would be acceptable to increase the size of the building is if there was some improvement in its overall design. It was suggested that the 6.5 29 December 2014 14/01282/B Page 4 of 6

==== PAGE 5 ====

appearance of the building could be improved by providing a different approach to its fenestration, with a uniformity of design of the windows to provide a coherent elegant building. Windows with a horizontal metal banding, akin to the 1930's Crittall style could have provided some improvement to the building which would have offset the impact of the increase in size and its resultant negative impact on the wider area. 6.6 The application does not propose this, the existing window styles are retained with the introduction of further glazing of a different design. The result is that the building is even less cohesive and is more dominant. Parking: The application does not propose any parking for the residents and the restaurant. It is noted that no parking can be provided and that Highway Services do not oppose the application. For most periods of the year parking can be provided on the promenade which is unrestricted. It is only when events are on that parking becomes competitive. On this basis, there is no objection to the proposal on the lack of parking provision. 6.7 Recommendation. That the application be refused on the basis that the proposal would have an adverse visual impact on the character of the area. 7,1 Party status 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, 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) The Highways Division of the Department; and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application. In this instance, no third party comments have been made. Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 29.12.2014 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal 29 December 2014 14/01282/B Page 5 of 6

==== PAGE 6 ====

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals R 1. The proposed development, by reason of its design, proportions and scale would have an adverse impact on the street scene and overall character of the area contrary to Strategic Policy 5, General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 and particularly in view of the identification of the area as a proposed Conservation Area within the Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013. 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. Committee Meeting Date: Decision Made: Signed :...L./.j Presenting ofezer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is requiredi signing officer to delete as appropriate YES/NO 29 December 2014 14/01282/B Page 6 of 6

==== PAGE 7 ====

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Application No.: Applicant: Proposal: 14/01282/B Mr Philip Martin Joynes Erection of a two storey residential extension and additional storey tea room above existing restaurant Beachcomber Shore Road Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6HL Site Address: Case Officer: Photo Taken : Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Miss Jennifer Chance Officer's Report THE APPLICATION IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE SCALE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND AS PORT ERIN COMMISSIONERS HAVE OBJECTED TO THE PROPOSAL Site The application site is The Beachcomer, formerly known as the Bohemian, on Shore Road, Port Erin. Adjacent on one side is the Bay Hotel Public House and on the other is Herdman House (formerly Institute), 1.1 The current use of the ground floor is a restaurant and take-away with the upper floor, accessed via the restaurants first floor patio area, being used as three one-bedroom residential units. 1.2 The existing property is a white, flat-roofed building notable for its large horizontal picture windows. It is predomin^^ly two storey with a large single storey element to the side, that has an open patio area above it. The site itself is shallow in depth, with only a small outside area behind the building beyond which the land rises sharply. A public footway runs along the rear of the site. 1.3 No parking spaces are associated with the building and to the front is a narrow pavement with double yellow lines along the road. The road is single lane width and is traffic is controiied by iights. 1.4 The site is within a proposed Conservation Area as set out in the Area Plan for the South (see below). 1.5 The proposal 2.1 Proposed Is the erection of extensions and alterations to provide an additional flat and tea room. The extensions would comprise: A side extension and additional two storeys on the western side of the building resulting in a four storey building at this point; and Page 1 of 5 29 December 2014 14/01282/B

==== PAGE 8 ====

An additional storey to replace the balcony area to provide the tea room, with a lantern light above. Planning History 3.1 The premises are well known and have been a restaurant or cafe and an amusement centre in the past. An application was submitted for an extension to increase living accommodation under PA 90/1270 and was permitted on appeal. At that time concern was expressed relating to the visual impact of the proposed extension on a building of poor form. The extension proposed an additional living room on the first floor. The creation of a first floor fiat was permitted on review under PA 00/1828. This appears to have subdivided the upper floor into two self- contained residential units and whilst the Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division raised concerns about the lack of parking, the application was permitted, the planning officer noting that parking was available off-site along the Promenade. 3.2 3.3 Approval in principle was given to demolish the building and replace with residential development in 2005, this was never taken up and has now expired. 3.4 Permission was given in 2006 for alterations and extension to the side of the building with a roof balcony above. That approval was superseded by one in 2009 and has been implemented. 3.5 In 2008 permission was given to convert the two first floor flats into three, which has also been implemented. 3.6 In 2010 approval was given for the erection of sheds and a flag pole. Development Plan policies The site is designated as being within a Mixed Use area in the Area Plan for the South. Mixed Use Proposals 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are relevant. They seek to encourage a diversity of uses to add to the overall vitality and viability of the village, with a preference for maintaining retail uses on the ground floor and residential or office uses on the first floor, Office and light industrial may be acceptable subject to their merits, and impact on amenities. 4.1 4.2 The site lies within a proposed Conservation Area The following policies from the Strategic Plan are relevant. 4.3 Strategic Policy 1. This encourages development to make the best use of resources by ensuring the efficient use of sites and locating development where it can utilise existing and planned infrastructure. 4.4 Strategic Policy 2 seeks to encourage new development to be located primarily within our existing towns and villages. 4.5 Strategic Policy 5 states: 'New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies'. 29 December 2014 14/01282/B Page 2 of 5

==== PAGE 9 ====

4.6 General Policy 2 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: (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; (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and (h) manoeuvring space; does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local (0 highways; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption. (n) Environment Policy 42 states: '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, Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted, Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans.' 4.7 Transport Policy 7: The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. For residential units 1 space for 1 bedroom units and 2 spaces for units with two or more bedrooms. There are no specific standards for restaurant uses. 4.8 Although not yet a formally adopted Conservation Area, some regard should be had to the policies in the Strategic Plan that seek to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Area, as set out in Environment Policy 35. 4.9 Representations 5.1 Highway Services: Do not oppose. Port Erin Commissioners: Recommend refusal. Concerns were raised regarding the visual impact of the proposed scheme, in particular due to Its bearing and close proximity to the Herdman Institute building (which is listed as a positive building in the area in the draft Conservation Plan), concerns over highway safety with the increased footfall in the area, and the lack of parking for the proposed additional residential (unit). 5.2 Assessment The key considerations in the determination of the application are the principle of development, design/ visual impact and parking. 6.1 Principle of Development: The site lies within a mixed use area and the building already has residential accommodation within. The principle of development is considered to be acceptable. 6.2 Design/Visual Impact: Although it is clearly a matter of judgement, the existing building is not considered to be one which currently contributes to the visual amenities of the area. The buildings either side are particularly attractive, whereas the application building is of poor form and has little, 6.3 Page 3 of 5 29 December 2014 14/01282/B

==== PAGE 10 ====

if any, architectural merit. As the building is white, it is prominent, and is not only visible from the road and beach directly in front of it, but also as part of the wider vista of Port Erin bay from the other side of the village. Pre-application discussions were held between the applicant and officers where it was expressed that the optimum solution to increasing floorspace would be to demolish the existing building and re-develop the site. The applicant has not pursued this option, either because he does not wish to, or is unable to and wishes instead to extend the building, 6.4 In giving further advice, officers expressed concern regarding an approach that simply Increased the size of the building. By extending the building upwards the presence of the building would be Increased with the result that its negative impact would be more apparent. The view was expressed that the only way it would be acceptable to increase the size of the building is if there was some improvement in its overall design. It was suggested that the appearance of the building could be improved by providing a different approach to its fenestration, with a uniformity of design of the windows to provide a coherent elegant building. Windows with a horizontal metal banding, akin to the 1930's Crittall style could have provided some improvement to the building which would have offeet the impact of the increase in size and its resultant negative impact on the wider area. 6.5 6.6 The application does not propose this, the existing window styles are retained with the introduction of further glazing of a different design. The result is that the building is even less cohesive and is more dominant. Parking: The application does not propose any parking for the residents and the restaurant. It is noted that no parking can be provided and that Highway Services do not oppose the application. For most periods of the year parking can be provided on the promenade which is unrestricted. It is only when events are on that parking becomes competitive, On this basis, there is no objection to the proposal on the lack of parking provision. 6.7 Recommendation. 7,1 That the application be refused on the basis that the proposal would have an adverse visual impact on the character of the area. Party status 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, 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) The Highways Division of the Department; and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application. In this instance, no third party comments have been made. 29 December 2014 14/01282/B Page 4 of 5

==== PAGE 11 ====

Recommendation Recommended Decision; Refused Date of Recommendation: 29.12,2014 Conditions and Notes for Approvai / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approvai N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusai O : Notes attached to refusals R 1. The proposed development, by reason of its design, proportions and scale would have an adverse impact on the street scene and overall character of the area contrary to Strategic Policy 5, General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. 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: Committee Meeting Date: 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 29 December 2014 14/01282/B Page 5 of 5