Loading document...
Town and Country Planning Consultant Phone/Fax: 01624861560
Planning Committee Secretary, DoLGE, Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas
30 JUL 2004
28th July 2004
Dear Madam, ON REVIEW - PA 04/006907/B ERECTION OF A BLOCK OF TWENTY FIVE APARTMENTS WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING TO REPLACE PORT ERIN IMPERIAL HOTEL, PROMENADE, PORT ERIN
The Imperial is a 4 -storey hotel sitting $1 / 2-1$ storey above the level of the Promenade. Its height includes a 15 ft high ground floor. The site slopes down from north - south so that the proposal for much of its height is less than the current building height.
The building is reverse L-shaped and a small grassed garden with shrubs on the north boundary is on its north side adjacent to the service side of the building. The nearest part of the building to the highway is formed by a single storey. The whole building is not of any architectural merit. The site currently has end on parking onto a private street on its south side.
The development proposes a west elevation of 5 storeys with lower ground floor parking up to its full height and width of the site on its west, promenade frontage only (but excluding the access / car parking area), this being the general style favoured by most other buildings along this part of the promenade including the Ocean Castle to the South and Erin Court to the north. The building then goes back for a distance of 15 m (on average) before again being recessed back from the north in the same way that the current building is into a reverse L-shape. Thus it maintains a satisfactory distance between Erin Court properties to the north and north facing windows on the proposal.
The initial application (PA 03/1912/B) comprised the same overall shape of building but included turreted corners mimicking the style of the Port Erin Royal Hotel which is on the south side of the Ocean Castle and hipped gables. This was rejected as being
too high. Two lower ground floor flats were also deemed not to be appropriate as they would have poor levels of residential amenity.
While the current proposal already attends to these concerns in general, given the ongoing concerns on the architectural style further plans will be submitted next week for review. It would then be my clients intention with the Planning Committee's backing to resubmit these as a new application.
The changes that have already been made include
Further changes will be made on the revised plans to extend the castellations, change conservatories into balconies and replace end-on parking in the private road to parking parallel with the south elevation. Together with the added external detail, montage and cross-sections requested, it is hoped this will unify the external appearance.
Concerns of Third Parties
Erin Court
The front flats on the north side are closer to Erin Court than the current hotel building at the upper levels only; however Erin Court has only 2 stairwell windows on its south gable end. There will therefore be no impact from my client's proposed lounge and kitchen windows on the amenity of Erin Court.
Mutual side views may be obtained only from the north-west corner and as both properties have their lounges primarily orientated to the front / west and will still be 7m apart this will not impinge upon privacy. Notwithstanding the above the existence of a private view is of course of little significance in planning terms.
To the rear the proposal's windows are at least 12 metres from its own north boundary. Views towards Erin Court will be no greater than at present. At the rear of Erin Court are garages and on that building only the windows on the south -east corner would be able to view into the garden of both the existing building / proposed car park. Views from other flats at the rear are blocked by the existence of 'outshots' on Erin Court. There will still be bushes between the two - currently Fuschia which could be trimmed down at any time.
The nearest part of dwellings to the east is their garages. These together with the more distant living accommodation are already at the equivalent of first floor level of the hotel. Their amenity will be no more affected than it is at present, the height of the castellated proposal being no greater than the ridge line of the existing hotel. Only stairwell windows are proposed on the part of the building nearest the bungalows. The outlook from these dwellings would be considerably more pleasant and tidy than it is at present. None of the residents of these properties have submitted objections directly to the Planning Committee.
To the South the land is open, part being in the ownership of the Imperial, part being a private access road to both the dwellings to the east and the rear of the Ocean Castle. At the moment there is no demarcation between the two areas which may lead to some confusion. The proposal sees the introduction of properly demarcated spaces along with the access to the lower ground floor parking in the basement of the proposed flats. As above the revised proposals will show parking parallel to the building instead of end-on.
The current proposal has created an additional 12 car parking spaces internally in the lower ground floor of the proposed apartment block. Even with the further proposed replacement of 14 external end-on spaces by 6 parallel spaces on the south side this allows for 44 spaces for 25 flats. This fully complies with the requirements of the planning policy standard of 1.5 spaces per unit and should be welcomed per se.
Particularly when staff parking and servicing vehicles are taken into account for an hotel, the total number of parking spaces is probably the equivalent of what may be generated by the 120 serviced beds stated by the Department of Tourism and which could currently overflow onto the Promenade itself. There is no restriction on parking on-street on the shore side of this part of the Promenade at present.
We understand from the Planning Officer, Mrs Fiona Mullen, that there is no remit for the Planning Committee to comment on the loss of bed spaces but would point out that the Imperial will be only functioning as a Hotel for 131 days in 2004 and at $48 \%$ occupancy. There is simply insufficient return on the investment in the hotel probably in part due to the lack of effort by the Department of Tourism and Leisure to the development of a year round visitor business to the Island.
The Imperial has not been taking 2005 advance bookings and the business will close in October 2004.
For all of the above reasons on behalf of my clients I trust the Planning Committee will reverse their initial decision and approve this application on review. We would request that the review is not actually considered by the Planning Committee until the further revised plans have been submitted.
Yours faithfully Patricia S. Newton
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown