Loading document...
The application seeks approval for the conversion of an end-terrace dwelling on King Edward Road in Onchan into three self-contained apartments. The proposal comprises of the conversion of the existing building, the demolition and rebuilding of the rear outlet, and the formation of six car parking spaces.
An objection has been made by neighbour, who is concerned about the impact of the proposed development on their property and made reference to the previous planning application. Onchan District Commissioners have recommended that the planning application be approved. The Department of Transport Highways Division have objected to the planning application on the grounds of the usability of two proposed car parking spaces, the width of the lane in terms of its ability to accommodate a two-way flow of traffic and the construction of the lane in terms of its ability to support the additional traffic generated.
A previous planning application, 04/00923/B, which sought approval for the conversion to four self-contained apartments was refused following the appointed Planning Inspector's recommendation at appeal. I consider that the report of the appointed Planning Inspector into this previous planning application represents a strong material consideration in the assessment of this current planning application.
After an examination of the proposed development, the previous Planning Inspector's report and a comparison of the two proposals I raised a number of concerns with the applicant's agent. The applicant's agent has responded by basically saying that they either do not consider the issue to be a problem or do not agree with my concerns. I do not agree or accept their response to my concerns.
Firstly, one of the proposed apartments, namely no. 2, is entirely contained with the rear outlet and the outlook from its principal room, the lounge, is either of a parked car or an adjacent boundary wall. This is clearly contrary to the provisions of Planning Circular 2/88 – The Conversion of Buildings into Flats – which states that every flat must have an outlook from the front of the buildings, no flat must be entirely contained within an outlet and all flats must have a pleasant, clear outlook, particularly from principal rooms.
Secondly, in his assessment of the previous planning application the appointed Planning Inspector concluded that the increase in height and depth of the rear outlet would cause unacceptable harm to the living environment of the neighbouring property. I interpret this conclusion as meaning that any rebuilding of the rear outlet should be no larger than the existing outlet. The new outlet proposed by this current planning application still represents an increase in height and depth, which I would therefore suggest is contrary to the previous findings.
Thirdly, the access to the rear of the site and the proposed car parking spaces is a rough, partially made surface. As far as I can tell the planning application makes no provision for improving this situation. In his report into the previous planning application the appointed Planning Inspector made specific reference to this issue. The Department of Transport Highways Division has also raised concerns regarding the construction of the access lane being able to appropriately handle the additional volume of traffic.
Finally, the actual usability of the proposed car parking spaces is questionable. In particular spaces 5 and 6, to the side of the site, would require what I consider to be excessive manoeuvring to be used, which would probably mean that they would either not be used at all or be used in an inappropriate manner. As such I would suggest that the proposed development only has four truly useable car parking spaces associated with it.
I recommend that the planning application be refused.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 29.09.2005
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1.
The proposed development is inappropriate and unacceptable by reason that:
a) The proposed development is contrary to the provisions of Planning Circular 2/88 – The Conversion of Buildings into Flats. Specifically, the layout of apartment no. 2 is contained entirely within the rear outlet and the outlook from its principal room (the lounge) is neither pleasant nor clear;
b) The increase in height and depth of the proposed rear outlet would cause significant harm to the amenity and living environment of the adjoining dwelling;
c) The existing access arrangements and those proposed by the planning application are inadequate to cater for the additional traffic generated by the proposed development. Specifically, the access lane does not allow two motor vehicles to pass each other and is in a poor state of repair.
d) The proposed development fails to provide sufficient readily useable car parking to serve the needs of the apartments. Specifically, the position and orientation of car parking spaces 5 and 6 mean that their use would require excessive and unreasonable manoeuvring.
Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
05/1307 1/1
Review DECISION PLANNING COMMITTEE RESOLVED TO CONFIRM REFUSAL REVIEW REFUSAL AS PER INITIAL REFUSAL
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown