Loading document...
PROPOSAL FOR THE CREATION OF 13 RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR THE ELDERLY AT 13 & 15 ATHOLL STREET, PEEL
Design Statement
March 2009
Applicant: Street Heritage Limited
130309
Received DoLGE 09 00426 Town and Country Planning Act 1999 PLANNING and BUILDING CONTROL DIRECTORATE
| Decision | Date and Order Initials |
|---|---|
| Initial | |
| Appeal | |
| Revised | |
| Revised |
FOR THE ELDERLY AT 13 \& 15 ATHOLL STREET, PEEL
1.1. Street Heritage Limited (SH) wishes to obtain detailed planning permission for the clearance of the existing buildings and build thirteen residential units on sites they own across nos. 13, 15 and the adjacent vacant building plot in Atholl Street, Peel. Please see appendix 1 - a location plan. 1.2. As stated in paragraph 1.1, SH owns the sites, which comprise of two early 20th century townhouses in poor structural order and an adjoining derelict and unattractive plot. Figure 1 highlights the site plan and indicates the make up of the site. Appendix 1 shows the poor structural condition of the buildings and a reporting letter from SH's Structural Engineer. 1.3. The purpose of the development would be to create purpose built accommodation suitable for elderly persons. There would be a legal covenant put in place stipulating the site's use solely for persons aged 55 and over. 1.4. There would be provision for 7 car parking spaces. Please refer to paragraph 2.7 for rationale. 1.5. Each apartment will be serviced by gas central heating and hot water.
Figure 1: The Proposed Site The Make Up \& Existing Approval {{image:305625}}
2.1. Under approval 06/01805/B, permission was given for the creation of 8 residential units. This was to be achieved by the restoration of the townhouses and a 'new build' on the adjoining building plot. It is of note, and therefore possible to contend, that a precedent for a 'new building' within the existing architectural genre has been established and approved under the above permission. This development's attraction centred upon the creation of what could be called 'a third element or bay' to the facade as viewed from Atholl Street. The rationale being to continue the terraced theme of Atholl Street (illustrated in photographs 1 and 2 in appendix 1), with the replication in the new build element being based upon extending the architectural detail that typifies the existing elements of the site. 2.2. It was intended therefore to try and 'marry in' existing detail such as string bands into the facade of the new structure. Whilst sound in theory this would arguably be difficult to achieve to the exact detail in practice due to the age and different rendering techniques. Certainly new mouldings and other treatment, simply 'planted on', would be a case of 'making good'. Whilst SH has a successful track record, built up over 15 years, in renovating old buildings however to marry two existing to one new would be 'best efforts' at trying to interpret or mirror old with new. They would possibly lack some of the authenticity, which are the essential components of the symmetrical principals that define the existing character of the buildings. 2.3. The new proposal however is to create 13 residential units, based upon complete demolition and site clearance. These units as can be viewed from this new application are to be created in a new building, offering a better internal layout, coupling practicality, sustainability and affordability that only a purpose built building could achieve. They will however mirror the existing architectural detail defined by 13 \& 15 Atholl Street. It therefore seeks to extend the precedent established under planning approval 06/01805/B and seeks to avoid the pitfalls of paragraph 2.2. This new application is designed upon the principles of sustainability, convenience and cost effectiveness and easy management, four essential components that SH believe are fundamental to elderly persons accommodation. This application is therefore, the bi-product of the examination of a number of alternative schemes on the site. SH however is confident this application laid before the Committee, reflects the optimum strategy i.e. best use for the site. Please see appendix 1 - a location plan. 2.4. Whilst SH accepts in the first instance the case for demolition is often, but understandably viewed as perhaps 'excessive', as set out by the Isle of Man Strategic Plan it would draw the Committee's attention to Section 19 (sub section 2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and its relation to demolition of registered buildings. Notwithstanding this, 13 \& 15 Atholl Street are not registered but are within the Conservation Area. As such they do naturally form part of the 'built' heritage of Peel and SH therefore recognises the case for demolition must be
articulated well. SH would suggest in light of the existing approval precedent, it is perhaps not the buildings themselves that form the heritage, rather the design principals of symmetry and heavy moulding that typify the existing structures and the 2006 approval to 'replicate'. Moreover the appended photographs in the appendix, illustrate the symmetrical principles that make up the Atholl Street panacea. In the long term therefore SH would contend there would be no negative impact upon the surrounding environment as the final position would be neutral. In fact it would greatly enhance both aesthetically and practically the functioning's of the streetscape by the creation of the third bay and filling in a vacant and unattractive plot. 2.5. SH would reuse as many of the existing materials as possible, for example, both existing front doors complete with frames will be removed, restored and reused within the new structure. Again reusing existing materials is a hallmark of SH. 2.6. Moreover, extending paragraph 2.4 and the background with which Environmental Policies 30 \& 39 of the Strategic Plan are conceived, SH would draw the Committee's attention to table 2.1 which applies the criteria for demolition detailed on pages 52 and 55 to this proposal. 2.7. In accordance with the Strategic Plan, specifically Appendix 7, and following consultation with Planners and Department of Transport highways representatives, this development by virtue of its 55 plus covenant would afford 7 parking spaces. This compares very favourably with a ratio of 1 space to 1.86 units, well above the minimum requirements which are 1 space to 3 units. Therefore this site affords ample parking based on its proximity to the town's amenities. Figure 1 highlights the very close proximity of the site to the chemists, public houses, civic facilities, post office, shops, churches, beach and notably the bus station. Therefore, the core strength of this site is its location, enabling an often overlooked section of society, to access and fulfil active lives in the community. It is probable these residents will not own a car. SH's proposal the rights of older residents to live heart of the community they have probably lived in all their lives. They feel integrated rather than isolated on an out of town location. Please see appendix 1 - a location plan. 2.8. Moreover developing elderly person's accommodation would yield a positive step towards an integrated transport policy. At the core of re-using this site is the benefits afforded by its location. By developing in the heart of the town, the residents of this proposed development have an increased likelihood of participating both socially and financially in the functioning's of the town and its community. This participation will be based upon, for example, walking to the library or shops, rather than driving or getting a taxi. This helps to ensure efforts towards sustainable livings are made by design, thus helping to reduce the carbon footprint. To achieve this, the building must be purpose built, as the development is most cost sensitive and to achieve fully functional units at 63 square metres (a guideline set by DoLGE
precedent) for this type of accommodation, greater scrutiny must be given to the financial and logistical issues underpinning this proposal. 2.9. Another reason that demolition and rebuild is preferable to retention is that certain window heads on the front have dropped, please see figure 3-6 (appendix 1), which indicates at best lintel failure. Through demolition the 'best of both worlds' can be achieved i.e. it can be built to modern building standards, including a lift and a green flow fire sprinkler system, thus making it safe and low maintenance for the residents but also, as previously stated, it can be rebuilt in its entirety to reflect the existing architecture. As previously stated, SH contends that they have an established track record of blending new buildings into 'historic' settings very successfully within the Conservation area of Peel. 2.10. The three apartments on the ground floor will have their own individual external gardens adding to the quality of life for the residents. Equally there will be a small communal private garden at the rear of the apartments for resident use. Also two rear apartments, one on the first and another on the second, will have their own private balconies. Please see Appendix 2 to see the view afforded to the residents at the rear of the apartments looking over 'Old Peel' towards Peel Hill.
3.1 Between the approved plans in application no. 06/01805/B and this current submission there is no material change in the building footprint. The only addition is a partial infill between the two gables at the rear. The front and side elevations do not change and it is arguable that the proposed rear elevation is more architecturally pleasing than under the current approved plan. 3.2 SH's goal to create 13 elderly persons units, can be seen to rest upon a strategy of building socially desirable units. Its intention is to define a new quality era, in extending quality housing stock to the elderly citizens of Peel. This is to be achieved by designing a building a 'purpose built' complex that couples sustainability, convenience and cost effectiveness within an external appearance that bears the due respect, and is fully informed by its surroundings. 3.3 SH would urge the Committee to consider this application based upon the above reasoning, based upon the benefits of encouraging the reuse of brown field sites right in the heart of the town centre. This application it would argue is the result of detailed examination of alternate proposals. This application is the optimum scheme, i.e. best use, for the site and its objective. SH further believe given its 15 year pedigree of working within Peel's Conservation area, that there genuinely is an opportunity to define a new era in elderly persons accommodation.
| Citation of Strategic Plan (p52) | Table 2.1: Application of Demolition Criteria |
|---|---|
| the condition of the building; | of Close Application <br> Please refer to Appendix 1. This includes a letter from the Structural Engineers, Glasspool and Thaiss (GT) engaged by SH, advising of the intrinsic structural and logistical difficulties of retaining the facade. Also photographs taken at the rear of the property show the existing buttressing or propping that is currently in place to help prevent outward movement. <br> Given the fact that these properties are intended to be 'affordable' it would be cost prohibitive to develop specialist retention frameworks. It is clear from GT's letter that the resultant party wall would be substandard in any event. Moreover it would not conform to a requirement stipulated by DoLGE for all units to be in excess of 63 square meters. Due to complex VAT regulations SH could also be liable to a significant sum of VAT forfeiture if the buildings were retained in their present form. The present building cannot be rehabilitated on the grounds of cost and structural logistics. |
| the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the value derived from its continued use (based on consistent longterm assumptions); | As highlighted above and given the end user parameters, approval 06/01805/B is unviable in the present economic climate. It would be considered commercially too high risk to speculatively build 8 apartments. <br> Owing to market forces, SH have undertaken with DoLGE to devise this new proposal on the grounds of 13 units suitable for elderly persons, in an effort to reduce unit cost and minimise risk whilst affording a new quality standard. <br> Hence, a scheme of 13 units of a minimum 63 square metres each has been drafted. This type of layout and size cannot be achieved within the existing buildings on the grounds of retention. <br> Therefore without demolition the scheme is unworkable. The streetscape left, certainly in the short term, remain dilapidated. Resulting in lost employment possibilities for the construction industry at a time when capital projects are needed. Furthermore is a loss of affordable housing in a key location. <br> Moving forward it is a loss of a genuine opportunity to define a new quality standard in elderly person's accommodation right in the heart of an established community with all its amenities. It also encourages reuse of existing brown field sites. |
| the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use; and | As above. |
| the merits of alternative proposals for the site. | As above. 06/01805/B is as stated unworkable, with regards to logistics and costs in this current economic climate. Any new scheme must therefore reflect a compromise between the finite budgets of affordable housing and respect the sensitive needs of the development's surroundings. SH contends this scheme represents a suitable and pragmatic solution to balancing the need to be cost sensitive and give the upmost respect to the Conservation Area and at the same time provide employment opportunities in these uncertain times. <br> This submission is based upon a 'neutral impact'. In the first instance it works from an aesthetic perspective, replicating the exact detail of the existing building and completes the street scene by utilising an unattractive and redundant plot. <br> SH also contends that they have an established track record of blending new buildings into 'historic' settings very successfully. |
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown