Loading document...
The site represents the footprint of the Imperial Hotel on the top of the Promenade, together with part of the unadopted lane to the south of the building and the space around it.
The site is within an area designated as Tourism / Recreation on the Port Erin local plan adopted by Tynwald in 1990.
Previously, permission was sought for the demolition of the existing building and its replacement with a new building accommodating 27 apartments and associated car parking (03/1915). This was refused on the basis of the height, massing and scale and as the apartments in the basement would have a sub-standard outlook. This was without prejudice to a further application for another building smaller in scale.
Another application was submitted for a building which would accommodate 25 apartments (04/0697). Whilst Fiona Mullen considered this to be acceptable, the Planning Committee refused this proposal initially and at Review for reasons relating not to its size but to its design and appearance. A sketch was submitted with the Review information showing a different design and this was viewed much more favourably by the Planning Committee. This latest application proposes a building as shown in the details submitted at Review but required by the Planning Committee to be the subject of a new application.
The replacement building is the same height to eaves level as the existing but with a pitched roof, which is recessed from the sides of the building by between 3 and 4m. The proposed building is more attractive and interesting than the existing.
There is a dentiled cornice at the eaves and two heavy string courses running horizontally across the building, tying into five tiers of balconies in the centre of the building. The string courses and cornice continue around onto the main part of the southern elevation. All the apartments now are above ground level - the underground level is dedicated to car parking - 25 spaces with a further 6 spaces alongside the lane (on street) and 11 of the ground floor behind the building a total of 42 spaces for 50 bedrooms.
There is an objection from the DoT Highways and Traffic Division on the basis that the lane which gives access to the site in unsuitable for further traffic. This was not judged a sufficient reason to justify a refusal in previous applications. The letter from the DoT also notes that "a significant proportion" of the spaces are on street: in fact only 6 of the 42 spaces are.
Port Erin Commissioners raised no objections to the proposal (they had previously objected).
Erin Court Management Company Ltd state that this scheme is an improvement on the previous ones. However, they maintain concern about the distance between the two buildings (they say the windows are 2m away and ask for 4m: they are in fact between 3 and 4m and not looking straight at the adjacent building). They also express concern at the excavation required to provide the parking and state that the applicant maintains responsibility for the stability of "Erin Court". Concern is also expressed about the proximity of some of the car parking spaces and effects of fumes, lights etc. The rear is slightly lower than the adjacent site so this should not cause a problem. Additional planting along this boundary may help (some planting is shown).
An objection has also been received from the owners of the Ocean Castle Hotel, on the grounds of obstruction of their fire doors, noise, the future of the tourist industry - a concern shared by the Department of Tourism and Leisure. There is no reason to suggest that the fire doors are any more likely to be obstructed as a result of this proposal (which provides significantly more off-road parking
than is available at present) and the concern regarding noise is similarly unfounded in fact it may be less likely that people will create a noise nuisance if the building is permanently occupied by the same residents.
The Planning Committee has not previously given as a reason for refusal the loss of tourist bed spaces. The applicant has clarified in her letter of "October 2004" that over the last 5 years there has been a continued decline in building with only 48% occupancy in a 4 month open season. A building with such large overheads as this (physical maintenance of the building, heating, internal decoration etc) cannot be viable. There are other hotels of this nature still operating as such and I don't agree that hotel accommodation such as this succeeds only by virtue of economics of scale. The existing building is unattractive and other hotels on the Promenade have been successfully redeveloped.
I feel that the applicant has gone as far as he can to respond to the Planning Committee's criticisms and the building now proposed is attractive and will fit into the streetsceene better than does the existing building.
Recommended Decision : Permitted
Date of Recommendation : 25.11.2004
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : 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 demolition of the existing building and its replacement with that shown in drawings 04/2521/6, 04/2521/7 and 03/2521/2 (d) and the location plan all received on 21st October, 2004.
C 3. The development must include the making up of the access road which falls within the defined site including the marking out of parking spaces therein as shown in drawing reference 03/2521/2(d): this must be completed prior to the occupation of any of the proposed apartments.
C 4. Prior to the commencement of works on site, details of the windows and balconies, drawn at a scale of 1:20 including recesses, profiles and opening styles of opening windows and details of the louvres must all be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority.
Prior to the occupation of the proposed apartments, the car parking and turning facilities must be completed in accordance with the approved drawings and available for use.
N 6. The applicant should consult the Isle of Man Water Authority with respect to the regulations and byelaws applicable to the provision of a water supply to this development.
N 7. The applicant should consult the Fire Safety Department with respect to the Fire Precautions (Flats) Regulations 1996.
Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown