Loading document...
For
Salamander (Perwick Bay) Ltd
Proof of Evidence of
Mark Savage BA Dip Arch RIBA, Maps, ACA
July 06
1.1 My name is Mark Savage, I am a Chartered Architect, a member of the Manx Register of Architects, a Member of the Royal Institute of British Architects, a Member of the Association of Planning Supervisors and a member of the Association of Construction Adjudicators.
I have been a practising Architect for 20 years, is of which as a Practice principal and Partner.
I have been in practice on the Isle of Man for the last 16 years for Lovell Ozanne & Partners and subsequently Savage & Chadwick and have extensive experience in the submission and representation of Planning Applications, Planning Appeals and Public Inquiries.
1.2 This evidence is submitted in support of the Approval of the Planning Committee of Application PA 06/00147/B and addresses all relevant points of Architectural design, layout, context and scale, in answer to the Third Party Objections raised against the Approval.
There have been several previous Applications relevant to the current scheme. In summary these are
(a) 03/1915/B (27 apartments) refused. Reason: height massing and scale (b) 04/0697/B (25 apartments) refused. Reason: Appearance (of building) (c) 04/2180/B (25 apartments): Approved
Savage & Chadwick were commissioned by Salamander (Perwick Bay) Ltd subsequent to the Approval of 04/2180/B in December 2005.
Our Brief was to create a building which offered greater architectural interest and quality – potentially at a cost of a smaller number of apartments – than the approved scheme.
It was noted that several precious agreements/decisions had been reached either directly or indirectly as part of the Planning Approval process for 04/2180/B and such agreements/decisions would influence our Brief. These were:
(a) The change of use from Hotel to Residential had been accepted by the Planning Department/Committee (b) The Principle of a substantial building on the site – both in terms of site coverage and height - had been accepted by Planning Department/Committee. (c) An agreement (outside the planning process) had been reached between the previous Applicant and the Residents of Erin Court that the proposed building should maintain a minimum distance of three metres from the boundary. (d) A similar agreement as reached in (c) above had been reached that there should be no overlooking of windows from the proposed development to any principle rooms within Erin Court. (e) Vehicular access had been established (and was preferred) from the side access road. (f) A parking ratio of approximately 1.5 car parking spaces per apartment had been established.
(g) There would be no requirement for a 25% affordable housing provision in view of the Planning History of the site.
2.4 Pre application consultations/discussions then took place with the Planning Department, the Department of Transport (Highways & Drainage Divisions) and the Fire Officer.
2.5 The Application was approved on 26th May 2006 after several submissions of further information which addressed the concerns of some of the third Party Contributors.
2.5 Initial objection by Port Erin Commissioners was withdrawn and the commissioners recommended Approval of the application.
2.6 The initial concerns of the Dept of Transport Highways Division (access/visibility splays) were addressed – see drawing SC783/C/10-01 B
2.7 No other Third Party objections other than concern raised by D.A. Edwards and the objection of the Erin Court Management Company Ltd exist. This Company now seeks an Appeal of the current Approval.
3.0 DESIGN CONCEPT
3.1 Port Erin promenade was developed for the Tourist industry in the mid late 19th/Early 20th Century. It was a fine example of grouped Victorian Architecture and town planning and the buildings were typically developed to four or five storeys in height – the ground and first floors usually extending to at least 1.5 storeys in comparison with current hotel or residential design. The buildings were, in the main, rendered brickwork with profiled and decorative string courses and window heads, with tower or castellated features often used as a method of turning and highlighting corners. In recent years the decline of the tourist industry has resulted in redevelopment of many of these properties as residential accommodation – a principle generally accepted by the Planning Department in line with their current policies. In general such development has been respectful of the existing architecture, and the height and
mass of the replacement buildings has been comparable/compatible with both the Buildings they have replaced or the promenade as a whole. It should be noted however that due to the differences in current floor to floor requirements of domestic properties and the Victorian buildings they have replaced, buildings of at least six stories in height have been possible in such redevelopment. The photographs in appendix 2 illustrate a development pattern (in both contemporary and original development) extending in a southerly direction along the Promenade from the Application Site. Three of the blocks to the south – the Ocean Castle, the Royal Hote,; and Princess Towers are developments of 5.5 –6 storeys (effective height) at the south western end of these buildings, and 4.5 –5 storeys at the north western end. This is exactly the same principle as the current application design concept.
3.2 Our initial design concept was to break the mass of the single (approved) building into two apartment blocks that could be developed separately.
To the leading corner of the site (south west corner) we proposed a tower feature in the manner of many of the existing original buildings within the area
The previously approved scheme was five stories in height and we saw no reason to alter this concept for the frontage building, however we believed the inclusion of a fully pitched (rather than shallow pitch with high parapet) roof would not only offer a better appearance to the promenade frontage but also offer advantages for longevity of the building fabric in such an exposed location. Taking this decision one step further we then used the resultant roof void to create a single apartment lit by combination of dormer windows and roof lights.
With regard to the rear building we reduced this height to four storeys to step down the scale at the site edge. A similar design technique was used adjacent Erin Court where the proposed bay window feature steps down below the eaves and a hipped roof is incorporated, visually reducing the building mass.
The resulting comparisons in height to the previously approved (04/02180/B) scheme are that the eaves level of the current proposal is similar (and slightly lower) than that scheme. The ridge is higher (by some 2.8m) than 04/02180/B, and the ridge recedes from eye line at height. Consequently the pitch will only be visible from distance.
Parking to the scheme is located either in the basement of the frontage building or to the rear of both buildings and therefore largely hidden from public view.
3.3 The building does respect and improve upon the design principles established in previous paragraph 2.3 in that:
(a) The proposed use (residential) is the same. (b) The proposed building is substantial in mass and height but is now broken in its mass into two blocks and adopts a more sympathetic architectural approach appropriate to its context. (c) A 3m distance is maintained to the Erin Court boundaries. (d) No overlooking to the principle rooms of Erin Court takes place (see later paragraph 4.1 (b)). (e) Vehicular access from the side access road is maintained. (f) A parking ratio of 1.5 spaces per apartment is maintained. (g) There is no 25% affordable housing provision.
3.4 As a result of this redesign the number of apartments has reduced (from 25 to 21) 4.0 THIRD PARTY OBJECTIONS 4.1 Erin Court Management Company Limited From their letters 10th April, 3rd April 06 & 27/02/06 it would appear that the Management Company have concerns in three areas
(a) Height (b) Overlooking (of the proposed building to Erin Court) (c) The location of proposed parking spaces 6 & 7
Dealing with each of these points in turn:
(a) Height
Comparisons are made to the height of the existing building. Whilst this may have
been relevant to previous application 04/02180/B the Approval of that scheme renders such a comparison irrelevant. Comparison should of course now be made to the height of 04/02180/B.
It is stated that the proposed scheme is 11 metres higher than that approved. This is a misleading comparison in that such a dimension appears to relate to the top of the finial of the proposed Tower Feature. A more equitable comparison would be that of the eaves (comparable) and ridge (2.8 metres higher that the roof of the approval scheme)
Our submission of 23/03/06 contains a drawing SC783/P/11-01 (appendix 2) which illustrates that for the immediate vicinity the eaves line is most relevant, in that the roof pitch and ridge will not be visible from eye level. We have extended this study to illustrate that the proposed roof will become more visible from a distance of 19 metres in the northerly direction and 27 metres is the southerly direction of the Promenade (appendix 4). Whilst it is accepted that the dormer windows are visible above eaves it is however clear that the main body of the roof is not visible, unless a distant view is adopted.
(b) Overlooking (of the proposed building to Erin Court)
The principal cause of concern is the projecting bay to the north end of the west elevation and in particular the north west façade and window of that bay feature.
We have included a sight line plot (from internal to external) toward the principal windows of the relevant part of the Erin Court elevation (appendix 5) which clearly illustrates the oblique angle that would apply to any overlooking criteria. It is respectfully suggested therefore that such concerns are unfounded – particularly as sight lines are plotted without taking into account the (likely) inclusion of curtains or blinds.
(c) The Location of Proposed Car Parking Spaces 6 and 7
(d) Car parking spaces 6 &7 are located some 1.8 metres from the Erin Court Boundary and 6m from the Erin Court Building Corner, at a level considerably lower than the external rear level of Erin Court see Appendix 6. In addition these spaces are surrounded by dense soft landscaping which will visually screen and absorb any sound impact. The Applicant accepts that any soft
landscaping conditions imposed upon the Approval could contain a further provision that dense fast growing evergreen landscaping be incorporated in the area of concern.
Concerns exist as to the continued stability of the property 'Reayrt Villa' adjacent. A letter from Consulting Structural & Civil Engineers Curtins is provided (appendix 7) which offers the required comfort.
By pre application discussion and our submission 23/03/06 which re profiled the proposed rear building to allow the visibility splays requested by DOT Highways we believe the request for referral of the application as contained in the Planning Officers Report has been superceded, as the Highway Officers concerns have been addressed.
5.1 I believe the design of the current application is an improvement upon approved design of 04/02180/B architecturally and contextually.
5.2 I believe the effective height of the current application is broadly the same as 04/02180/B as demonstrated by the facts contained within this proof.
5.3 I believe that the further concerns of the Erin Court Management Company have been demonstrated as being unfounded as demonstrated by the facts contained. Within this Proof
5.4 I believe the conclusions of the Planning Officer and the decision of the Committee to be correct and respectfully request that the Appeals Inspector recommends that this decision be upheld at Appeal.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown