Officer Planning Report

Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:91773}} ### Considerations {{table:91774}} ### Written Representations We have received 1 private representation for this application. ### Consultations {{table:91775}} {{table:91776}} {{table:91777}} {{table:91778}} {{table:91779}} {{table:91780}} ### Policy

Officer's Report

The site represents the curtilage of number 44, The Promenade which is an end-of-terrace property. The rear of the site stretches behind this property and number 45 and fronts onto James Road. The site lies within an area designated as Predominantly Residential on the adopted and emerging Castletown Plans.

Planning History: PA 87/2734 - approval in principle for conversion to flats with entrance on eastern elevation and erection of bungalow behind - refused

PA 91/1972 - approval in principle for erection of two dwellings - approved on review PA 98/2185 - approval in principle for erection of two semi-detached dwellings - approved PA 00/00085 - erection of pair of semi-detached dwellings - refused at review PA 00/1044 - approval in principle for erection of dwelling - approved PA 00/1897 - erection of dwelling - approved on appeal

PA 03/1283 - erection of an apartment block of six apartments with parking - refused on appeal. The reasons for refusal related to over-development in terms of little meaningful amenity space, parked vehicles in front of the main ground floor windows. The Inspector notes that the scheme "shoe horns" the building onto the site.

Now proposed is the erection of four apartments - a reduction of two. The building is smaller, 12.4m by 9.2m and 9.3m in height to the ridge compared with 14m by 8.6m by 10m respectively in the case of the previous application, leaving space around the side of the building, particularly to the north and more space shown on the site at the rear. Four parking spaces are shown with space around the side and rear. Those at the front are all still in front of the building although the cill level for the front windows which will look over the parking spaces are 1.8m off ground level, compared with 1.1m previously. As such, with most modern family cars, the viewers will look over the roofs of the cars: this may not be the case with four wheeled drive vehicles or people carriers.

I feel that this scheme overcomes the objections raised in the case of the previous application. Whilst the DoT has objected on the basis of the perceived lack of parking there was only one space per apartment proposed last time which generated no objection from the DoT.

Whilst concerns have been raised in respect of the parking in the front and it being desirable to reinstate the frontage, the applicant suggests that the alternative parking would be at the rear thus taking away amenity space. The alternative would be to have a pair of semi-detached houses with parking alongside and the frontage restored and rear gardens.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision : Permitted

Date of Recommendation : 07.12.2004

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal

• : Notes attached to refusals

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 building incorporating four apartments with associated landscaping and parking as shown in drawing reference SC758/P/10-10 received on 30th September, 2004.

C 4. For water connections that comprise more than a single connection to a water main or service, or where new water mains and hydrants will be required, the applicant should contact the Isle of Man Water Authority Planning and Projects Section, telephone 695958.

N 3. The Chief Fire Officer recommends the installation of mains wired interconnected domestic smoke detection.

Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...

Application No: U4 2037	Page of
Views Expressed - Name	Invite	Inform
App -
Castetown Comm -
Dot Highway -
Newspapers -
Fire -
MFP -
Watc -
Mr McHarrie (late) -