Planning Officer Assessment Report

The Site The site represents the curtilage of the Imperial Hotel which sits on the eastern side of The Promenade in Port Erin. The site sits on the northern side of a narrow lane which serves the Ocean Castle Hotel which lies to the south and a number of other properties in this cul de sac. ## Planning Status And Relevant Policies The site lies within an area designated as "Tourism/Recreation" on the Port Erin Local Plan which was adopted by Tynwald in 1990. This plan identifies areas of architectural interest which include this part of the Promenade (although I doubt it refers to this particular building), and to the suitability of some of the Promenade hotels for conversion to elderly persons' accommodation. ## Planning History Planning permission was sought for redevelopment of this site to apartments under the following applications: PA 03/1915 - refused on the basis of the height, massing and scale and the substandard outlook in the basement apartments. PA 04/0697 proposed 25 apartments which was refused due to its appearance. PA 04/2180 proposed 25 apartments and was approved. ## The Proposal Proposed now is a development comprising two buildings - a main apartment building alongside the Promenade and a second building accommodating apartments, to the rear. The buildings will accommodate 21 apartments (all 2 bedroomed - although some of the apartments have a study which could double as a small third bedroom) and 33 car parking spaces some under the main building and the others behind the secondary building. This parking ratio (1.57 spaces per unit) complies with the requirements of the Port Erin Local Plan (1.5 spaces per unit) but is less than the 1 space per bedroom which is more generally being required in the case of apartment developments and as set out in the emerging draft Strategic Plan. The parking provided is slightly lower proportionately than the ratio proposed and approved previously (1.68 spaces per unit). This new main building will be 4.3m higher than the existing building, 2.8m higher than the approved scheme (PA 04/2180) (although the eaves level is roughly the same) and now includes a tower which rises to 5.7m above the main ridge and a further 2.4m to the top of the finals. The main building will have five full floors and a floor within the roof space with eaves level dormers. The new scheme proposes a building which projects 2fn closer to the Promenade than the previous scheme although the main frontage is slightly further back. The secondary building is further from Erin Court and closer to the cul de sac with a gap between the main building and it whereas the previous scheme proposed one continuous building. Buildings which front on to the Promenade and side onto the road at right angles tend to be close to the secondary road, as is the Ocean Castle and both buildings are in keeping with this in respect of their relationship with the cul de sac. This scheme proposes two parking spaces perpendicular to the boundary with Erin Court where there was previously a turning facility. There are now to be 15 windows in the side of the property which faces Erin Court compared with 10 previously. These windows previously served one kitchen and one bedroom per floor. The new scheme has a bedroom, kitchen and lounge window per floor on this side of the building. ## Representations The owner of Reayrt Vradda, 1 Rowany Drive expresses concern regarding the stability of the boundary between the site and his property. Port Erin Commissioners raise no objection to the application following the submission of amended plans. Erin Court Management Company Limited express concern regarding the height of the new building, the impact of parking spaces 6 and 7 on their property and the impact of the windows of the north tower which they suggest will overlook Erin Court. Disability Access Officer recommends that the development makes provision for disabled persons. Isle of Man Water Authority recommends the inclusion of standard note 1 (SN22) to any approval. Environmental Health Inspector recommends that the flats must comply with the Housing (Flats) Regulations 1982 and be registered thereunder on completion. The owner of the Ocean Castle raises no objection to the application but request that dust is kept to a minimum, no work is undertaken during 16th – 20th August as there is an international viola competition being held and that the parking for visitors to the Ocean Castle is not compromised. Fire Prevention Officer recommends the inclusion of standard note 2 regarding fire safety. Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division recommend deferral pending clarification of the visibility available to users of the new access to the car park. ## Assessment The Department is required following the resolution of Tynwald in July 2005 to normally require the provision of 25% affordable housing in new residential schemes which result in 8 or more dwellings. In practice the Planning Committee has not tended to require this where there is a history of planning approvals on the site where such housing has not been previously required. In this case the development clearly does provide more than 8 new housing units but on a site where more units have been previously proposed. It may be considered unreasonable to now require such housing when the developer could go ahead with a scheme for more units where none would be made available as affordable units. The new scheme presents what is in my view a more attractive and interesting building in the streetsce. The impact of the additional height, over and above that of the existing and approved buildings is a material consideration and the main impact of this is not on the immediate public view from the Promenade in front of the site but from further to the south west - from the harbour and the bay from where the whole stretch of the Promenade is a prominent element in the landscape. Also of material importance is the impact of the building on the buildings immediately adjacent to the site, all of which are lower than the existing, approved and proposed buildings. The impact of the new building in the streetsce will, in my view, be one improved from the previous scheme and will present a more attractive building than what is presently on site. Clearly the principle of the redevelopment of the site and the loss of the existing building is one which has been dealt with previously and there does not appear to be an objection to the principle of either of these issues. The introduction of a tower reflects similar elements at the Port Erin Royal Hotel and tower features which have been incorporated in the new developments at the Eagle Towers, Milner Towers and Princess Towers. The new building will be taller than its neighbours. However, the natural ground level does rise up and any new building on this site would be expected to be higher than the Ocean Castle. The relationship between buildings in the same context as the site and the Ocean Castle vary - for example the Port Erin Royal Hotel and the new Princess Towers are roughly similar in height although the tower on the former is higher than those of the latter. The new Princess Towers are higher than the adjacent Countess Hotel and there is a general similarity in the height of buildings until the Milner Towers development which are taller than the buildings to the north and around a storey higher than the Falcon's Nest hotel to the south. The existing building on the site is already quite a lot taller than the adjacent Erin Court building and the proposed development will increase this difference in height although not, in my view to any significant detriment. I do not as such conclude that there would be damage to the streetsce which would warrant refusal of the application on this basis. The impact on the immediate public view from the Promenade is limited by the restricted distance from the building which spectators have compared with the relative height of the buildings. In the case of most if not all of the buildings to the south, it is not possible from the Promenade itself to gauge an accurate idea of the relative heights of the buildings to the east and as such I am satisfied that there will be no detrimental impact on the public view from the Promenade itself if this development were to proceed. The impact on Erin Court will be increased as the building immediately alongside it will be higher and there will be more windows in the side facing this existing accommodation. The building will be closer to Erin Court than is the existing although not significantly different from that already approved. The additional height is however above eaves level so the impact of the wall which faces Erin Court will be similar to that already approved. The secondary building is further away from Erin Court and as such has less of an impact than the back part of the previously approved building. The windows in the elevation of the main building which faces towards Erin Court are north-facing and as such will not be a principal source of light or view. The inclusion of parking spaces where there was previously a turning facility may actually reduce the amount of activity and impact on Erin Court and I do not consider that there will be an impact from this sufficient to warrant refusal of the application. The matter of stability of the boundary between the site and adjacent detached dwellings is really a civil matter although a note could be attached to any approval to recommend liaison between the parties and the advice of a suitably qualified engineer to design and oversee any works to alter the levels at these points. This would generally be required as part of the Building Regulation application in any case. The applicant has provided a further drawing, reference SC783/C/10-01B which demonstrates that the visibility required by Department of Transport is available, albeit slightly affected by the front of the new secondary building. However, this is a lightly trafficked roadway. Bearing in mind the approval already granted and what I consider to be improvements in the visual appearance of the scheme, I would recommend that the application is approved. ### Party Status The owner of Reayrt Vradda, 1 Rowany Drive, Erin Court Management Company Limited and the owner of the Ocean Castle all represent property which is directly alongside the site and as such should be afforded party status in this instance. Port Erin Commissioners, Disability Access Officer, Isle of Man Water Authority, Environmental Health Inspector, Fire Prevention Officer and Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division are all or represent statutory authorities and as such should be afforded party status in this case.