Loading document...
The statement takes the form of the case officer’s report which was considered by the Director of Planning and Building Control when determining the application.
The recommendations in the report were accepted by the Director except for that in respect of party status and the report has been modified to clarify this.
Yours sincerely,
Miss Sarah Corlett Planning Officer
| Application No.: | 05/92284/B |
| Applicant: | A J Lees Limited |
| Proposal: | Erection of a replacement builders store |
| Site Address: | Builders Yard Adjacent To 2 Droghadfayle Park Port Erin Isle Of Man |
| Case Officer: | Miss S E Corlett |
| Photo Taken: | 11.01.2006 |
| Site Visit: | 11.01.2006 |
| Expected Decision Level: | Delegated decision 2005 |
| Mr & Mrs M Couch |
| Mr And Mrs Kearsley |
| D Metaxas |
| AS And MJ George |
| Mr And Mrs Quayle |
| Mr J & Mrs S Horn |
| Consulttee: | Highways Division |
| Notes: | |
| Consulttee: | Port Erin Commissioners |
| Notes: | request to impose a condition restricting further extensions or the change of use of the site |
The site represents a rectangular piece of land which fronts onto Droghadfayle Park. The site represents half of the depth of a vacant piece of land which in its entirety stretches between Droghadfayle Park and Sunnydale Avenue.
The site is within an area designated as "Predominantly Residential" on the Port Erin Local Plan which was adopted by Tynwald in 1990.
The site has been the subject of four previous applications all for the development of residential property on the site:
PA 01/1339 was for the erection of a dwelling and garage - refused.
PA 01/2163 was for the erection of a dwelling and garage - refused on appeal. For reasons relating to a lack of adequate space around the new house, cramped appearance and unneighbourly appearance for residents. The Inspector refers to the existing building as "no more than a small storage shed".
PA 04/2500 was for erection of a garage to the rear of Oakdene - permitted and PA 05/0885 - erection of a block of garages - refused (the building stretched across the whole width of the site). Also, planning applications have been submitted in respect of the other half of the site, fronting onto Sunnydale Avenue: PA 88/0451 - approval in principle for erection of dwelling adjoining Kildare, approved on appeal, PA 04/0941 - erection of a dwelling - refused on review, PA 04/2506 - approval in principle for the erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings - refused on review and PA 05/0037 - erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings - withdrawn.
Now proposed is the erection of a replacement builder’s store. The existing use of the site is described as a builder’s store used by the applicant’s building company. The building would, as with the previous application for the garages be squeezed alongside the boundaries of the site, this time in the northern corner of the site (within 0.7m of the rear and north eastern boundaries).
The new building would have a footprint which is twice the size of that of the existing store. This new building is tall enough to have two storeys although there are no stairs shown in the drawing (although it would be possible to install them and a mezzanine or first floor once the building is in place). The ground floor accessed by a pedestrian door and two shed doors each of which will be 2.5m wide. The upper area is illuminated by two modern windows 1.6m by 0.9m. The remainder of the site would be hard-cored and used for open storage.
Port Erin Commissioners have raised no objection subject to the imposition of a condition which restricts further changes of use or extensions to the building. There is no explanation for this - for example why would further extensions be unacceptable compared with a building of the size now proposed? What other uses are likely to be proposed and why would these be unacceptable, particularly bearing in mind that the existing and proposed uses are non-conforming?
There are two identical letters, one (unsigned) from the occupants of 13, Droghadfayle Park and Kingsley Ville, Athol Park, both of whom express objection on the basis of the increase in size, traffic, the appearance of the building and the possibility that the building could be converted to residential use in the future.
The occupants of 4, Droghadfayle Park object on the basis that the land use designation of the area is Residential and the use is industrial. Also they point out that the present usage of the site is low and the proposal would [could] intensify this with an increase in traffic on the surrounding residential roads. They feel that the appearance of the building is inappropriate and that the site should be considered and developed in conjunction with the land to the rear.
The occupants of Primrose Lodge object to the application on the grounds that they believe that the plan is not drawn to scale although they do not clarify exactly why they believe this to be the case. They point out that the proposed use is light industrial [it could actually be heavy industrial, depending upon the nature and intensity of use], the proposed building is surprisingly tall, much larger and taller than the existing and they express concern at the proposed increase in hard surfacing and the impact this may have on the disposal of surface water.
Finally, the occupants of 11, Droghadfayle Park object to the application on the grounds of increased noise and traffic and the impact on road safety in a residential area, safety issues from potential trespassing, possible requirement for high fencing or walling. They also express concern that the erection of a two storey building would possibly affect their privacy as the building looks directly at their front lounge [as there is no first floor the amount of overlooking from the building is no more than is already available from the roadway although of course this would change if a first floor were proposed]. They also point out that the building has only a limited existing use and has up to the time when it was purchased by the present owner/applicant, had trimmed private hedges and a grassed area and does not look like a builder's yard nor is it used as such. Since the change of ownership its appearance and condition has deteriorated [this is a matter for Port Erin Commissioners under Section 14 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1984]. They suggest that should the application be approved, this would justify their request for a rates reduction.
I visited the site on 11th January, 2006 and observed that the site, whilst not particularly tidy has on it significant vegetation which reduces the impact of the various pieces of equipment (cement mixer) and materials (fencing, a canoe, blocks) which are presently on the site. The existing building is an overgrown and modestly sized shed which is clearly not used on a regular or frequent basis, although of course, it could be.
The proposal would clearly intensify not only the built development on the site but would also increase the potential level of use and the impact which all of this would have on both the neighbouring properties (those either side and opposite), the impact of the new building and associated activity on the streetscene and the impact of the increase in activity and traffic on the road network serving the site and those living alongside this network. The proposal would perpetuate and intensify a non-conforming industrial use within a residential area and should not be approved for the above reasons.
I would recommend that the following correspondents should be afforded party status over and above the statutory consultees (Port Erin Commissioners and the Department of Transport):
We have received a copy of a letter sent from a number of residents to Port Erin Commissioners who have not objected to the application. This letter was sent from the occupant of Clifford House, Droghadfayle Park and is signed by all those who have already submitted views directly to the Planning Office. As this letter was received after the appointed time and as the letter is not addressed to the Planning Authority I would recommend that the occupants of Clifford House are not afforded
interested party status, although of course they could be involved as witnesses by those who are afforded such status. The Director of Planning and Building Control subsequently concluded that the letter from the occupant of Clifford House was before him when the decision was taken and that they do have sufficient interest in the application and should as such, be afforded interested party status in this case.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 12.01.2006
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals
R 1.
The site lies within an area designated on the Port Erin Local Plan as Predominantly Residential. The site, whilst not presently used for residential purposes has on it significant vegetation which reduces the impact of the various pieces of equipment (cement mixer) and materials (fencing, a canoe, blocks) which are presently on the site. The existing building is an overgrown and modestly sized shed which is clearly not used on a regular or frequent basis.
The proposal would clearly intensify not only the built development on the site but would also bring with it the potential to significantly increase the level of use and to increase the impact which all of this would have on the neighbouring properties (those either side and opposite).
The new building and associated activity would significantly and adversely affect the otherwise residential streets cene would also result in an adverse impact through increased industrial traffic on the residential road network which serves the site and those living alongside this network.
The proposal would perpetuate and intensify a non-conforming industrial use within a residential area.
I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular Nos 44/05 (Delegation of Functions to Director of Planning and Building Control) and 47/05 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer)
Decision Made : Refused Date : ...
Signed : ...
6 March 2006 05/92284/B Page 5 of 5
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown