Loading document...
The site<br/> The site represents the domestic curtilage of an existing property located on the northern side of Loch Road. The site backs onto the rear of numbers 5,6 and 7, The Quay.
Planning Status and relevant policies
The site lies within an area designated as Residential on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982, confirmed in the draft Port St. Mary Area Plan which progressed as far as a public inquiry but which was not placed before Tynwald for approval.
Planning history
Planning permission has been sought on a number of occasions for the demolition of the existing property, all unsuccessfully - PAs 04/1676, 03/1159 and 03/0084. These developments have all been of a similar height.
The proposal
Proposed here is a development similar to that proposed and refused under PA 04/1676 except insofar as there are to be fewer windows in the rear elevation - now only one at first floor level and two rooflights. The size and massing of the buildings is the same as that proposed under PA 04/1676 although the frontage is now to be finished in stonework with timber paneling to a projecting gable feature and balconies.
The proposed accommodation will be two 4-bedroomed dwellings, one with a single car garage and the other a single car parking space alongside the house.
There is a discrepancy between the elevations and the plans in terms of a second floor bedroom which is not shown on the elevations, where the space above the garage (first floor) is facilitated by a dormer window which is in the only level. There is no second floor above this so there cannot be a third bedroom above this.
There is a slight overhang (0.3m) of the proposed balconies over the highway as there is with the eaves and roof overhang. Representations The Isle of Man Water Authority recommend the inclusion of standard note 2 (sn23) in any approval. Fire Prevention Officer recommends the installation of domestic smoke detection (SN 16).
Port St. Mary Commissioners recommend that the application is refused as the plans are considered to be poor in quality, of limited detail, the fourth bedroom is unfeasible, the lack of available car parking spaces is not addressed and as has been mentioned previously by an appeal inspector (PA 04/1676), the site is not considered suitable for 3 storey development.
Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and the Environment who object to the development, reiterating the comments of the Inspector in respect of PA 04/1676.
Planning Man who represents the owners of 5 and 6, The Quay who objects to the application for the same reasons as those cited in the case of PA 04/1676 and suggests that the application should not be considered as it is substantially the same. [The proposal is not the same as the frontage is improved and the number of windows in the rear are reduced so I would not concur with this recommendation]. He also expresses concern at the feasibility of the drawings, the lack of parking provision, the appearance of the buildings, the windows will have a detrimental impact on the amenities (privacy and outlook) of his clients' properties.
The owner of 7, The Quay reiterates the objections she made in respect of PA 04/1676 in terms of the height of the development and the impact on her property's outlook and light. She recommends the refurbishment of the existing property.
Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division indicate that they do not oppose the application on the basis of their stance in respect of PA 04/1676.
It is disappointing that only some of the adverse comments and conclusions reached by the Inspector reporting on PA 04/1676 have been taken into account in this new application. For example, the Inspector concludes that "The existing dwelling is a characterful building and makes a very positive contribution to the street scene. It is a sound planning objective that any replacement development, whether one or more dwelling, should also make a positive and sympathetic statement in the street scene, to do otherwise would be to harm that street scene". He goes on to state "Of particular concern are the views from the west and south where the front elevation would be the dominant influence. Given the single storey nature of development on either side of the appeal site I find the proportions of the main three storey elevation particularly jarring and incongruous. They would appear as tall and narrow elements that have no harmonious visual relationship to their surroundings in terms of proportion or building mass. This disharmony is made all the sharper by the stepping down to the garages. I consider the impact on the street scene unacceptable".
He goes on to discuss the relationship between the proposed development and the properties to the rear - 5, 6 and 7, The Quay. His comments regarding this and the fact that this scheme reduces the amount of windows in the rear elevation, I do not consider that overlooking of these properties is warranted as a reason for refusal. However he suggests that "I judge that the objection is not one of potential overlooking" but of the overbearing nature of the tall building immediately adjoining the lower, small rear patio which forms the only external amenity space for that dwelling [number 7]." These concerns have not in my view been overcome with this scheme which proposes a development which is essentially the same height and mass.
Port St. Mary, Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division, the Fire Prevention Officer and the Isle of Man Water Authority are or represent statutory authorities and as such should be afforded party status in this case.
Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and the Environment are not directly affected by the proposal and as such should not be afforded party status in this case.
The occupants of 5, 6 and 7 are directly affected by the proposals and should be afforded party status in this case.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 04.05.2006
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1.
Whilst the proposed development proposes fewer windows in the rear elevation than was proposed in the previous application, PA 04/1676 and as such has less of an impact on the privacy of these properties, the proposed buildings are basically the same size and shape as those refused in the previous application where the Inspector commented that "Of particular concern are the views from the west and south where the front elevation would be the dominant influence. Given the single storey nature of development on either side of the appeal site I find the proportions of the main three storey elevation particularly jarring and incongruous. They would appear as tall and narrow elements that have no harmonious visual relationship to their surroundings in terms of proportion or building mass. This disharmony is made all the sharper by the stepping down to the garages. I consider the impact on the street scene unacceptable". Whilst the buildings now proposed benefit from stonework and more interesting detailing on the front elevation, the same criticisms still apply regarding the height and massing of the buildings and their impact on the streetsce.
The proposed buildings would also adversely affect the amenities and outlook of 5 and 6, The Quay: this aspect of the scheme is similar to the previous application where the Inspector notes "I judge that the objection is not one of potential overlooking but of the overbearing nature of the tall building immediately adjoining the lower, small rear patio which forms the only external amenity space for that dwelling [number 7]."
There is a discrepancy in the plans in that the floor plans show a room at second floor level above the garage which appears in the elevations to have only two floors - ground and accommodation in the roofspace.
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: 12/5/06 Signed: [Handwritten signature] M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown