Loading document...
Application No.: 06/00505/B Applicant: Heritage Homes Ltd Proposal: Erection of an apartment block to provide 60 apartments with associated parking Site Address: Manx Petroleums Depot & Adjoining Scrubland Between South Quay & Head Road Douglas Isle Of Man ### Considerations Case Officer: Mr B J Sinden Photo Taken: Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee ### Written Representations {{table:129892}} ### Consultations {{table:129893}} Consultee: Manx National Heritage Notes: Consultee: Notes: Highways Division Consultee: Notes: Douglas Corporation Consultee: Notes: Chief Environmental Health Officer Consulttee: Disability Access Officer Notes: Where parking is provided, which includes provision for visitors then five percent of unassigned spaces should be designated for disabled parking. The ground or primary entrance level should include at least one entrance that is accessible to an unassisted wheelchair user. Any sanitary facilities provided which are accessible to the public should include a disabled toilet. All public corridors should be of sufficient width and free from obstruction as to allow a wheelchair user to pass other users of the corridor. The primary entrance to all apartments should be of sufficient width as to be accessible by an unassisted wheelchair user. Where apartments and/or parking are provided over more than one level then a lift should be provided of sufficient dimensions as to allow an unassisted wheelchair user to enter, turn around and use the controls. Consulttee: S.P.M.C. & E. Notes: See letter for comments Consulttee: IOM Water Authority Notes: Consulttee: Chief Fire Officer Notes:**
The site comprises an irregularly shaped area of land between South Quay and Douglas Head Road, the lower part of which is used by Manx Petroleums as an oil distribution depot. Immediately east of the site are the swing-bridge control tower, which is a Registered Building, and the steps which lead up to the Head Road from South Quay. There is a fall of some 18m from the Head Road to South Quay, and the upper part of the site, above the retaining wall, is essentially scrubland with some trees - hawthorn, elder and holly for the most part.
The application proposes that the existing use should cease and that the existing buildings on the lower part of the site should be demolished. On the lower part of the site would be erected buildings which would accommodate 60 flats. There would also be six garages and nine parking spaces. On the upper level would be a 2 level car-park, accessed by vehicles from Douglas Head Road and by residents of the flats on foot along elevated walkways. There would be 72 spaces, of which 50 would be for residents, and 22 would be public spaces operated on a disc-zone basis, to replace the 14 roadside spaces which would be lost (for reasons of visibility).
There is no relevant planning history to the site.
The site is zoned for Residential use on the Douglas Local Plan. The site is not within a Conservation Area, and the existing buildings are not Registered. The swing bridge control-tower is a Registered Building.
The gist of the written representations received by the Department is as follows:-
a) Highway Authority: defer for further details demonstrating mitigation of i) traffic speed on the Head Road; ii) danger to pedestrians crossing South Quay; and iii) traffic congestion at the junction of the Head Road and South Quay. b) Local Authority: No objection, but concern about the increased traffic on the Fort Anne Road. c) Manx National Heritage: clearance of scrub and trees should be outside of the nesting season. d) Fire Safety Department: consult relating to the Fire Precautions (Flats) Regulations 1996. e) Environmental Health Inspectorate: consult relating to the Housing (Flats) Regulations 1982. f) Water Authority: Notes 1 & 4. g) Disability Access Office: standard comments. h) Local Residents: objections relating to parking, traffic, impact on outlook, construction disturbance, likelihood of encouraging "anti-social" gatherings (in the car-park), and other related matters. i) Clover Asphalte: establishment of status and interest. j) Mr D Cretney MHK: endorsement of the concerns of local residents. k) SPMCE: objections relating to use and design. l) Mr A Jessopp: concerns relating to the north-facing aspect and to the design.
The principal issues in this matter are as follows:-
a) Land use, in terms of zoning and sustainability. b) Site Clearance, in terms of demolition and loss of trees and green space. c) Highway Issues, including parking provision, adoption / maintenance of the public parking space, traffic movements on the Head Road, South Quay, and at the junction, and pedestrian movements. d) Appearance / Visual Impact, in itself, in the broader context of the harbour, and as it would affect the setting of the Registered Building. e) Impact on neighbours, principally in terms of traffic, parking, and outlook. f) Impact on the development potential of the Clover Asphalte site. g) Quality of the environment for the flats. h) Provision of Affordable Housing. i) Establishment of precedent for further harbour-side development.
The proposed land use would accord with the land-use zoning on the Douglas Local Plan.
In terms of sustainability, the site fares well in most respects, in that it can be serviced by existing infrastructure, is close to town centre facilities, employment opportunities, and other amenities, and appears to be under-used land.
It should be noted, however, that there has not been submitted any evidence of redundancy in terms of the current use.
The site is not within a Conservation Area, and none of the existing buildings is Registered or of particular interest.
The higher land at the back of the site (as viewed from the harbour) is green, but mostly bramble and gorse, with hawthorn, elder, sycamore, and holly, none of which is very substantial. However, as green backcloth to the roadside buildings, this land has a positive visual impact as viewed from the harbour. This land also supports bird-life, and any clearance should take place outside the nesting season in order to comply with the Wildlife Act.
Loss of the roadside wall would be of positive visual benefit.
There is in the submitted application a Transport assessment which has been prepared by professional highway engineers. This concludes, in essence, that the proposals are consistent with the aims and objectives of the Draft Strategic Plan and with all relevant transport policies, and that traffic generation would not result in material change to the operation of the local highway network.
The Highway Authority has asked for proposals to mitigate traffic speed on the Head Road, congestion at the junction, and road safety issues arising from pedestrian movements across the Principal Traffic Route.
The applicant has responded by letter of the 16th June 2006 (copy attached).
The parking provision proposed is
a) 59 spaces and 6 garages for the residents of 60 flats; and b) 22 public spaces to replace the 14 existing roadside spaces on the Head Road.
Having regard to the sustainability of the site, and to the increase in public spaces, this provision is arguably adequate. There is not within the application any detail of how the public spaces would be administered or maintained. In the event of approval, these arrangements would need to be the subject of condition (or, possibly, Agreement).
Increased traffic levels on South Quay should not present a capacity problem on a Primary Distributor Route. On the matter of the junction, we should be guided by the Highway Authority.
On the Head Road, additional traffic may be within the carrying capacity of the highway, but any increase would add to the environmental impact that such traffic has on the residents occupying roadside dwellings.
In plan, the building would be arranged in two linked parts – one set close to South Quay, next to the "Clover Asphalte" building, and the other set back behind a landscaped space and behind the back wall of the Registered swing-bridge control tower. Behind the first part at ground level would be garaging, parking, and refuse storage. These arrangements would serve to enhance the setting of the control-tower, and would create a pleasant civic space close to the southern end of the bridge.
However, the building itself is largely of disappointing appearance. There are two tall, warehouse-like gables, one of which is in Manx stone, and there is some use of timber boarding, but much of the building is comprised of rendered box-like elements in which are set rectilinear arrays of rather dull windows.
At its tallest, the building would be seven storeys high. Having regard also to the rather confusing massing of the main block, and to the disappointing elevational treatment, the overall impression is one of over-development.
In the longer views from across the harbour, the building is likely to be prominent, both because of its height and its position. The eye would be drawn to an overlarge building of little attraction.
The immediate setting of the control tower would probably be improved by the creation of the space immediately west of it, but it is hard to see how (if at all) the new building responds architecturally to the design of the Registered fabric.
From the Head Road, the foreground would be occupied by the proposed car-park, beyond which would be the upper parts of the rear elevation of the flats. These are, at best, bland.
Local residents living on Douglas Head Road would experience a change in their outlook to the north, increased traffic on the highway, and the introduction of parking activity on the proposed car-park.
The Transport Assessment estimates an increase in traffic flow of approx. 7%. I doubt that this is sufficient to warrant refusal in itself.
However, the change in the character of the outlook from, in particular, the upper floors of the north-facing dwellings on the Head Road opposite the site would be both significant and, largely, adverse. In place of green space (admittedly of only average quality), there would be a car-park and the rear elevation of a rather bland building.
The additional turning and parking manoeuvres, and the activity of those leaving or arriving at their cars would be new sources of disturbance within an area zoned for Residential use.
The shape of the proposed building where it meets the Clover Asphalte building would act as a constraint on any redevelopment of that site. I doubt that this constraint would be such as to prejudice unreasonably the design or execution of redevelopment, and I cannot conclude that the composite effect would be unsuccessful. However, the proposed form is rather contrived, and a more sensible shape leaving a space to the boundary would have been preferable.
The proposed flats would comply with the Housing (Flats) Regulations, and would have access to an external area of communal, landscaped space. Some would have balconies. Having regard to the proximity to the harbour, I judge that the proposed flats would have an adequate general environment and outlook.
There is a reference in the submitted Planning Statement to the provision of 25% affordable housing, but no specific proposal. If the Committee is minded to grant approval, there should be imposed a condition requiring prior conclusion of arrangements to make available as Affordable Units at least 15 of the flats.
Whilst the redevelopment of sites around the harbour, particularly on South Quay, will be governed primarily by site-specific considerations, it is nevertheless pertinent to consider whether an approval
here might establish a precedent or standard for further development in terms of height, quality, and intensiveness.
I recommend that, having regard to the traffic issues raised by this proposal, all of the local residents who have made representations should be accorded interested party status.
All of the statutory bodies making representations should also be accorded interested party status, as should Clover Asphalte.
Mr Cretney, the SPMCE, and Mr Jessopp should not be accorded such status.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 23.08.2006
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1. Having regard to the prominent position of the site within the harbour area, the proposed building would, by virtue of its height, confused massing, and generally bland design, have a negative visual impact as viewed from nearby, from across the harbour, and from the Head Road.
R 2. By virtue of a) the change in the character of the north-facing outlook, whereby existing green space would be replaced by a car-park and the rear of a rather bland building; and b) the additional disturbance arising from turning and parking manoeuvres and the activity of those leaving and arriving at their cars; the proposed development would have an adverse impact on local residents living on Douglas Head Road.
Decision Made : Refusal Committee Meeting Date : 31.08.06
[Please see amendment to Reason 2, directed by P.C.]
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown