Loading document...
PA 05/01307/B
Demolition and Rebuilding of Rear Outlet Together with Renovations and Alterations to Existing Building to Form 3 Self-Contained Apartments with Adjacent Parking
Parnassus, 3 King Edward Road, Onchan, IM3 2JA
submitted on behalf of P & M Purcell c/o Nerin House Ridgeway Street Douglas
23 NOV 2005
RECEIVED ON 23 NOV 2005 DEPT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Prepared by: McGarrigle + Jackson 19 Mount Havelock Douglas IM1 2QG Tel: 01624 628141 Fax: 01624 629334 e-mail: [email protected]
23 November 2005
1.01 Our client submitted an initial Planning Application no. 04/00923/B in April 2004. This application was for four apartments in the same address, with six parking spaces.
1.02 This initial application received planning approval in the Notice dated 12th July 2004.
1.03 This was upheld at Review in the Notice dated 14th September 2004, but subsequently overturned at Appeal in the Notice dated 8th March 2005.
1.04 The Planning Inspector concluded:
“The proposed development of the site to create four apartments would result in an over development of the property causing significant harm to the living environment of adjoining residents and with inadequate parking and access arrangements”.
1.05 Subsequently the building was redesigned to address comments made by the Planning Inspector in his report. To address the issue of over development the number of apartments was reduced down to only three. To address the impact of the design on the terrace and its neighbours the overall height has been reduced. To address the parking, the number of spaces provided remains as six, a provision of two per flat.
1.06 A revised Planning Application no. 05/01307/B, for this reduced scheme of 3no. flats and 6no. parking spaces was submitted in July 2005.
1.07 The application was refused at the meeting of 7th October 2005, with the reasons for refusal as follows:
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.
2.01 The Department of Transport in their letter dated 5 September 2005, listed their objections as:
2.02 B P and B M Frost in their letters dated 2nd and 11th August 2005 made the following objections:
2.03 Whilst not formal objections Anthony Holmes, Planning Officer raised a few matters in his letter dated 7 September 2005. These can be summarised as:
2.04 No other objections were received.
"The two parking spaces at the side of the property do not afford vehicles an area to turn around and enter the highway/electric railway in a forward gear".
We do not agree. This property enjoys full access rights to the rear area, equal to all adjoining properties who manage to manoeuvre their vehicles quite satisfactorily. We expect vehicles to turn around in the rear area, as other residents, then proceed to the two spaces and reverse into the parking spaces, so that when leaving the space they will enter the highway/electric railway in a forward gear.
"The width of the lane at the side of the development is too narrow to accommodate a two way flow of vehicular traffic".
The lane only serves three properties at present and under this scheme it would serve 5no. properties. Therefore it is our opinion this lane at 3.9m wide would meet the requirements of a Private Drive in 'Manx Roads, A Guide to the Design of Residential Roads, Footpaths, Parking and Services', date April 1993. Therefore it is our opinion the lane exceeds the minimum width of 3.0m and there is no requirement for it to accommodate a two way flow of vehicular traffic.
The lane also meets with the requirements of Manx Roads in that the ends are intervisable and it is not of such a length to require passing places.
Therefore in conclusion it is our opinion the access lane meets with the Department of Transport's own Manx Roads guidelines.
"The construction of the access lane is inadequate to support the additional volumes of traffic".
It is worth noting that our client does not have sole control over the lane. The lane is shared by all the property owners who enjoy equal access and rights.
It would seem unfair to penalise our client over an issue which would require legal agreement with all other residents and perhaps others who enjoy rights over the lane.
It is also unlikely that the existing residents will fund the upgrade of the lane. If this were the case they would have done so by now. It is worth adding that our client has said that he would consider improving the surface of the lane, if it were a condition of approval of the project.
We do not agree with this view. The designed building is only just deeper than the existing building as follows:
The designed building rear section is also only just higher than the existing rear outlet. The existing outlet has an eaves height of approximately 5.7m. The new designed rear section has for a depth of 6.5m, an eaves height of 5.7m, the same as the existing. It is only over the stairwell where the height of the proposed design exceeds the existing outlet height by 900mm.
Therefore it is our opinion the new rear section will have little effect on the quality of light in the adjacent property.
We do not agree with this view. As already state in 3.02.1 above, we do not believe the new designed building will have an impact on the quality of light. We are of the opinion that the design is sensitive to the scale of the existing buildings. It is our opinion that the property will improve their immediate environment. This scheme will be a vast improvement on the existing dilapidated building and yard.
With regards to over development we do not share this view. It is our opinion that three flats, spread over three floors of this large property, does not constitute over development. The scale of the design is sympathetic and in keeping with the adjacent properties in the terrace.
We are of the opinion the scheme will have benefits for their environment and neighbourhood. 3.02.3 "On site access and parking still not addressed and they refer to comments made by the Department of Transport in their letter". We are of the opinion we have dealt with these issues under item 3.01 Department of Transport earlier in this statement.
3.03 Anthony Holmes, Planning Officer:
3.03.1 "The two angled car park spaces may not be usable".
As already stated under 3.01.1 we do not agree with this. We expect vehicles to turn around in the rear area, as do the neighbours, then proceed to the two spaces and reverse into the parking spaces, so that when leaving the space they will enter the highway/electric railway in a forward gear.
3.03.2 "The access lane may not be an adequate or proper access".
As already stated under 3.01.2 and 3.01.3 we are of the opinion the lane meets the requirements of Manx Roads for a Private Drive serving 5no. dwellings. We have also stated that it is unfair to impose a restriction based on the quality of the lane when it is a shared responsibility of adjacent owners to maintain or upgrade the surface. However our client has said he would consider improving the surface of the lane if it were a condition of approval for the project.
3.03.3 "Apartment 2 may be contrary to Planning Circular 2/88, paragraphs 2 and 3".
It is our opinion that these paragraphs were intended as protection for mid-terrace properties' refurbishment and not as in this case an end-terrace property.
It is our opinion this end-terrace property is unique in its enjoyment from its side elevation of views over Onchan Head to Douglas Bay. The site enjoys views to the front and to the side.
Therefore we are of the opinion that Apartment 2, whilst within the 'outlet', still enjoys 'a pleasant, clear outlook, particularly from the principal rooms of the flat'. Therefore we respectfully suggest this part of paragraph 3 does not apply to this special situation. We would add that the previous Planning Officer (and Committee) in our initial planning application recognised this in the granting of planning permission in the first instance.
3.03.4 "Height of the building is still higher than existing and the extent is similar to the previous scheme"
As already stated under 3.02.1 and 3.02.2 we do not agree with this statement. The height of the designed outlet building is the same height as the existing outlet for a depth of 6.5m. It is only over the depth of the stairwell where the height of the new designed outlet exceeds the existing outlet height by only 900mm.
Also as already stated the new designed outlet is only 2m deeper than the existing outlet on ground and first floor and 2.5m deeper than the existing outlet on second floor.
It is our opinion the new rear section will have little impact upon the adjacent property.
3.04.1 "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".
As already stated under 3.03.3, it is our opinion that the purpose of Planning Circular 2/88 was to protect development in mid-terrace properties.
This property is an end-terrace which enjoys spectacular views to both front and side over Onchan Head towards Douglas Bay. Whilst the apartment 2 is in the 'outlet' it does enjoy a good aspect for the principal rooms.
We respectfully suggest the previous Planning Officer and Planning Committee, in our initial planning application, recognised this in the granting of planning permission in the first instance.
3.04.2 "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".
As already stated in 3.02.1, 3.02.2 and 3.03.4, we do not agree with this statement. The new designed rear outlet only exceeds the height of the existing outlet for the depth of the new stairwell and it only exceeds that height by 900mm for a depth of approximately 2.5m. The depth of the new designed outlet only exceeds the existing outlet depth by 2.0m on ground and first floor and exceeds the existing outlet depth by 2.5m on second floor. It is our opinion this small increase in overall depth, will in context, have very little effect in the amenity and living environment of the adjoining dwelling.
3.04.3 "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".
As already stated under 3.01.2, 3.01.3 and 3.03.3 we do not concur with this view. The lane at a width of 3.9m and being of a relatively short length, with intervisible ends, serving only 5no. dwellings meets the requirements of Manx Roads for a Private Drive. Therefore there is no requirement for the lane to allow two motor vehicles to pass each other.
With regard to the 'poor state of repair' of the lane – this is not within the sole control of our client. There is a shared responsibility for all the residents of the terrace to maintain the lane. It is our view that to impose this is unfair to our client as it is something over which he has no control.
However our client has said he would consider improving the surface of the lane, if it were a condition of approval of the project.
3.04.4 "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".
As already stated in 3.01.1 and 3.03.1 we are of the opinion that car parking spaces 5 and 6 are useable. The manoeuvring of the cars to access these spaces is no more than the existing residents of the terrace undertake in the rear area at present.
We expect the cars to turn around in the rear area, then proceed to the two spaces and reverse into the parking spaces so that when leaving the space they will enter the highway/electric railway in a forward gear.
4.01 Our client has redesigned the building to take into account the comments of the previous Planning Inspector in his report. Specifically the design has changed in the following:
4.02 It is our opinion that the lane can comply with the Manx Roads guidance for a Private Drive serving five dwellings.
4.03 Car park spaces nos 5 and 6, are useable and involve no more manoeuvring of the cars than the residents undertake at present. This allows the cars to be in a forward gear when entering the highway.
4.04 The condition of the lane is not something our client is able to control and therefore should not be penalised. But he is willing to consider resurfacing if part of a conditional approval.
4.05 It is our opinion the proposed building design is sympathetic in scale to its neighbours and will not impact upon their amenity and living environment. If anything the renovation of this building will improve the immediate environment of the neighbourhood.
4.06 It is our opinion that due to the unique end-terrace location where the rear outlet enjoys views over Douglas Bay, Planning Circular 2/88 – the Conversion of Buildings into Flats, the relevant paragraph concerning flats in outlets should not apply.
4.07 In conclusion, our client respectfully requests the Committee review their decision in light of this further submission.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown