Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
Department of Local Government and the Environment Rheynn Reiltys Ynnydagh as y Chymmyltaght 1tt Isle of Man Government Oric"- CcF)j JO C\c Please reply to the Chief Executive Our ref: KAK/EL 23 May 2007 Dear Sir/Madam ON APPEAL: 06/01623/B - A) Lees Ltd - Erection of a pair of semi-detached holiday cottages with parking - Old Builders Yard Adjacent to 2 Droghadfayle Park, Port Erin, Isle of Man I refer to the recent appeal hearing in respect of the above planning application. In accordance with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, I am enclosing herewith a copy of the report of the person appointed to hear this appeal. The Minister has considered the report, concurs with the appointed person's conclusions, and accepts the recommendation that the appeal should be dismissed. Accordingly, he has directed that the refusal of the application under Article 6 of the Town & Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005 should be confirmed. Yours faithfully Chief Executive. Please see over for circulation list/. Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2SF. Tel: (01624) 685859 Fax: (01624) 685873 E-mail: [email protected] Chief Executive K. A. Kinrade
==== PAGE 2 ====
Appeal 06/0284 APPEAL NO 06/0284 PL4NNINGAPPUC4 TION 06/01623/B Appeal made by A 3 Lees Ltd against the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for the erection of a pair of semi-detached holiday cottages with parking, at the Old Builder's Yard adjacent to 2 Droghadfayle Park, Port Enn This Is an appeal by written representations. I visited the site on 26 March 2007. THE APPEAL SITE AND SURROUNDINGS, AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The appeal site stands In a residential area of Port Erin. To the south west No 4 Droghadfayle Park Is a bungalow with dormer windows, whilst to the north east are a pair of substantial semi detached dwellings fronting Athol Park, which runs at right angles to Droghadfayle Park Kingsley Villa occupies a site adjacent to the side of the appeal site, whilst Kildare has a garden which Is the mirror Image of the appeal site, adjoining its back boundary, and fronting Sunnydale Avenue. A medium sized hedge divides the two plots. A stone wall runs along the site frontage, backed by a privet hedge. The wall continues along the street frontage. The site is about 25m on its frontage, with a depth approaching 12m. There is a significant drop to the site from the road, and from the rear of Kingsley Villa. The proposal is to construct a pair of 2 storey houses each having a lounge/kitchenette, and one bedroom on the ground floor, with two further bedrooms on the first floor. All bedrooms would have en suite bathrooms. The buildings would have dormer windows for the upper bedrooms, bay windows to the lounge, and porches under pitched roofs over central front doors. The building would be set hard against the rear boundary, and would be some 4.9m to the rear eaves, 7.6m to the ridge. There would be no windows in the rear wall, and small roof lights in the rear slope of the roof. The ends of the building would be 3. im from either boundary. The whole site around the building would be paved. The existing stone wall would for the most part be removed, to provide wide entrances to the paved parking areas. At the rear of the garden of Kildare a garage was under construction at the time of my visit.
==== PAGE 3 ====
Appeal 06/0284 PLANNING HISTORY In 2001 an application was made for the erection of a dwelling, and following a refusal a further application was refused on appeal' for reasons relating to a lack of space around the house, cramped appearance and unnelghbourliness. In 2005 a proposal for a block of garages occupying the full width of the site was refused; and in the same year an applicatlonfor a replacement builder's yard was refused on appeal. In relation to the land fronting Sunnydale Avenue, an application for approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling was approved on appeal In 1988, but In 2004 an application for the erection of a dwelling was refused on review. For the two pieces of land together, an application made In 2004 for the erection of a pair of dwellings was refused on review, and in 2005 a further application for the same was withdrawn. THE CASE FOR THE APPELLANT The material points are: It was not possIble to consider the development of the two sites together, the second owner being unwilling to sell. The present proposal sought to overcome the shortcomings found in the report on appeal 1950 relating to the 2001 proposal for the erection of a single dwelling on the site. The area was zoned as predominantly residential in the approved Port Erin Local Plan, and the type of development proposed would normally be acceptable in such an area. A use such as now proposed, or more intensive than that was inherent In the designation. Any form of development would have some effect on neighbours. Because the proposal was for tourist accommodation it was not necessary to provide the level of private amenity space normally required for private residences, and In any event lar9e amounts of green space would pose a maintenance difficulty for such a use. There should be no concerns that there was a lack of privacy for visitors to the proposed cottages, since the rear boundary was a hedge, and beyond it would be a garage wall. Nor would there be any loss of privacy for users of the garden of Klldare, since there would be no windows In the rear wall, nor would there be overlooking from either gable towards the properties either side of the site. The use of the words cramped and unneighbourly Implied that all development should have significant amounts of space around it, and should be of similar style. What was proposed was a design which was 'Appeal 1950 2
==== PAGE 4 ====
Appeal 06/0284 transitional between the substantial dwellings with limited surrounding space to the north east, and the single storey dwellings to the south west. Whilst It was accepted that there would be some loss of sunlight to the garden of Kildare, this would not occur at all times of the day, and was In any case likely to be the case with any development of the site. There was adequate space for storage of a refuse bin In a position not readily visible. There was adequate space within the site to accommodate guests' cars. In Appeal 1950 the Inspector had accepted that a building line forward of that in Droghadfayle Park was acceptable, and that the principle of a layout brought forward to be in line with the side of Kingsley Villa would be acceptable. The appeal proposal was generally similar in length and height to that proposal. Port Erin was the second most important settlement on the Island in terms of the provision of tourist accommodation. There was however a shift from hotel to self catering accommodation, and the appeal proposal was supported by the Department of Tourism, Leisure and Public Transport, who were prepared to grant aid it. The establishment of tourist accommodation in residential areas was acknowledged in the draft Strategic Plan, and nearly half of the listed guest houses In Port Erin were in residential areas. There was no evidence of any lack of demand for tourist accommodation, and any proposal to make permanent residential use of the site would require specific planning approval. THE CASE FOR THE PLANNING COMMITIEE The material points are: Appeal 1950 had concerned a proposal for a building 14.5m long, of which 7.5m would have been two storey, set one metre from the boundary with the garden of Kildare. This was refused due to lack of adequate space around the building, cramped appearance, and unneighbourly Impact, particularly on Kildare. The Inspector had stated that the situation would be very unneighbourly, and would create a poor standard of development in a location where most dwellings are sited on plots that provide adequate space around the property. The appeal proposal would worsen these objections, since the 2 storey building would be 18.5m long, similarly dose to the boundary The previous proposal had been refused due to a lack of space around the building. For holiday accommodation this was a lesser concern. However, it was unlikely that there would be a demand for this throughout the year, and longer lets may have to be accepted, or if 3
==== PAGE 5 ====
Appeal 06/0284 there was little demand, a change to residential use. The nature of the accommodation meant that visitors may bring children. The lack of safe play space was therefore a concern. It was questionable whether the 2 storey semi detached form of building was sympathetic to the street scene, particularly in view of the closeness of the proposal, 5m from the highway when compared to 4 Droghadfayle Park, which was set 9m back. THE CASES FOR INTERESTED PARTIES The material points are: The Port Erin Commissioners object that the proposal would be out of keeping in design temis with other properties In the area; would be an over intensive use of the site; would impinge upon the established building line in Droghadfayle Park; and would create additional parking problems in an already congested area. Objections are made by neighbours, Mr & Mrs Couch, Primrose Lodge; Mrs Metaxas, Kingsley Villa; Mr & Mrs Kearsley, 4 Droghadfayle Park; Mr Kent, 5 Droghadfayle Park; Mr & Mrs George 13 Droghadfayle Park; and several other neighbours not given party status. Taken together, these objections are a set out below, The objections are that the present proposal did not overcome the objections found by the Inspector in the earlier appeal, that that dwelling was too large for the site; too close to the rear boundary, and was lacking in privacy and amenity space. Its elevation towards the garden of Primrose Lodge would be even more intrusive. The properties proposed would have three double bedrooms each. There could be as many as 12 people using them, leading to amounts of coming and going, noise and disturbance out of character with the residential area. There would be inadequate parking space on site, leading to on street parking. The almost total paving of the site, and removal of vegetation would be out of character with the street. Tourist accommodation in the area was shown to be in demand only in the summer and at Christmas. At other times longer lets were necessary. The appeal proposal was unsuitable for this type of use, since there was no amenity space around the building. No objections are made by the Isle of Man Fire and Rescues, the Isle of Man Water Authority, the Manx Electiicity Authority or the Department of Transport (Highways Division). 4
==== PAGE 6 ====
Appeal 06/0284 INSPECTOR'S CONCLUSIONS The main issue In this appeal is whether there are sufficient changes in this proposal to overcome the deficlendes found by the Minister when dismissing appeal No 1950. The earlier proposal was for a single dwelling. It would have been built at the same distance from the rear boundary as now proposed. Its 2 storey length would have been 7.5m in a total elevation of 14.5m. The appeal proposal would have a two storey length of 18.5m. The earlier proposal would have been separated by 3m from its neighbour to the north, and 9m garden area from its neighbour to the south. The appeal proposal would have no garden area, but would be separated by 3.1m from each of the northern and southern boundaries. Given these differences, it is difficult to see that the appeal proposal would do other than strengthen the objections to development which was the subject of the previous appeal. The earlier appeal was dismissed because the Minister accepted the Inspector's conclusions, first that whilst there was no objection In principle to building dose to the highway, when the reduced front garden was viewed together with the shallow depth of the plot, the new house would appear cramped on the site. In my view this objection remains, and the greatly reduced space to the south of the building would make it appear more cramped. Second, the previous Inspector conduded that the closeness of that proposal to the rear boundary would be very unneighbourty to the adjacent residents. Given that the present proposal more than doubles the length of two storey wall facing the garden, the proposal would be more objectionable than the design refused permission earlier. To my mind it would overshadow the garden, and be oppressive to residents of Primrose Lodge. Even though a garage is now being built on part of the garden, this does not alter my view that the enjoyment of the remainder of the garden would be severely diminished. Third, it was conduded that the space allowed around that building would be insufficient to ensure a proper living environment for residents. The appeal proposal would locate a greater number of people on the site, there being two dwellings now proposed. Even for holiday accommodation a good standard of amenity is necessary, but this proposal reduces the space around the building to little more than half that proposed in the earlier design, and most of it would be set aside for car parking. Furthermore, on the basis of the evidence I consider it probable that at some stage in the life of the development change would be required to normal residential accommodation. 5
==== PAGE 7 ====
Appeal 06/0284 Undoubtedly, the space around the building would be even more insufficient for a proper living environment. The Appellant suggests that because the site Is designated for predominantly residential use, some development must be accepted. Whilst I do not rule out development, if a suitable scheme can be found, I do not accept that the designation implies that development here must be acceptable. The designation simply means that there is no objection in principle to a residential use of the land, but this could indude a wide range of uses other than the erection of a dwelling. In my view this is an ill conceived scheme, which pays little regard to the objections found to apply by the Minister in the earlier appeal. The appeal should be dismissed. Should the Minster disagree with my conclusions, and grant planning permission, this should be subject to the normal conditions relating to commencement and the plans to which the permission relates. Further conditions should require the prior approval of samples of walling and roofing materials, and the provision on site of two car parking spaces per dwelling before the dwellings are occupied, and their retention for the duration of the development. RECOMMENDATION I recommend that the appeal be dismissed. p David Ward BSc(Hons) CEng MICE FIt-IT Inspector 'P C61) k4 1~ 01
6
==== PAGE 8 ====
CHIEF SECRETARY'S OFFICE .lA ci>' Oik yn Ard-Scrudeyr I r PLANNING APPEALS OFFICE Isie of Man Government Office Government DOUGLAS Isle of Man IM1 3PN Direct Line: (01624) 685204 Fax Number: (01624) 685710 E-mail: [email protected] CHIEF SECRETARY M Williams, CPFA Our Reference : L04NEW/AP06/0284 7 ,,. 16th April 2007 Planning Secretary Planning And Building Control Division Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas Dear Sir/Madam, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE) ORDER 2005 Planning Application: 06/01623/B Applicant: A) Lees Ltd Proposal: Appeal against refusal for erection of a pair of semi-detached holiday cottages with parking, Old Builders Yard Adjacent To 2 Droghadfayle Park Port Erin Isle Of Man Further to my previous letter concerning the above appeal I now enclose copies of the written submissions received from the parties involved. It has been indicated by those concerned that this appeal should be considered on the written submissions with the Inspector visiting the site prior to making his/her recommendation to the Minister for the Department of Local Government and the Environment. In due course you will therefore be advised by the Minister of his decision based on that recommendation. For more information please visit our website http:/www.gov.im/cso/ Yours faithfully, A )ohnstone Planning Appeals Administrator End.
==== PAGE 9 ====
(_ , ChiLr Ref PA 06/01623/13 Erection of pair of semi detached Holiday cottages with Parking. Adjacent to 4 Droghadfayle Park, Port Erin. Ref Statement of case on behalf of A.J Lees Limited. With reference to the statement made by Patricia S Newton on behalf of her client A.J. Lees Limited We wish to state that all our previous objections over the years still stan (1 This piece of land is too small for housing which fits in with the surrounding area. Mr. Lees appears to be deliberately neglecting this tiny plot in order to upset the surrounding neighbours so much that they will agree to anything in order to get the site tidied up. The two large rusting vans which have been abandoned alongside the plot back up this theory. We are disappointed not to be able to discuss with Mr Lees his abandoned vans and feel more could have been done to resolve his problems if he or his agent had attended the appeal. With particular reference to this statement we would like to comment as follows: The plot of land in question has never been officially designated a builders yard.
==== PAGE 10 ====
Item 14 - This section is misleading as the application was refused for the over usage of the land which is again the case. Item 15 -At no time has the front entrance of Kingsley Villa, been changed from the front to the side. It is fronting Athol Park. The entrance to the front door is from Athol Park. The postal address for Kingsley Villa is Athol Park. As has been discussed and proved many times before in previous planning applications Kingsley Villa is not in Droghadfayle Park and should not be taken as a building line for Droghadfayle Park. . Item 23- The building inspector only needs to visit the lower end of Droghadfayle Park on a normal day to see the parking problems that are now being experienced and which can only get worse with this development. It is worthy of note also that the deliberate parking and subsequent non usage of the two unsightly rusting vans adjacent to this yard in an attempt to intimidate the immediate neighbours can only have a detrimental effect on Mr Lees case. Mrs. D. Metaxas Mr.& Mrs AS & MJ George. Kingsley Villa 13 Droghadfayle Park Athol Park Port Erin Port Erin 3 April 2007
==== PAGE 11 ====
Primrose Lodge Athol Park Port Erin 1M9 6ES Mr A Johnstone Planning Appeals Administrator Chief Secretary's Office Government House Douglas IMI 3PN 30 March 2007 Your ref: L03NEW/AP06/0284 Dear Mr Johnstone PA 06/01623/B A J Lees Ltd HEE SECRETAS OF!CE L. HiiL:T We were disappointed to receive your letter of 19 March informing us that neither Mr Lees nor his agent Patricia Newton is to attend the scheduled appeal hearing. We feel very strongly that the current planning legislation appears to favour the appellant; in that in other areas of law an appeal would be dismissed if the appellant failed to attend a hearing. We would like to point out that at a planning decision appeal hearing in respect of the same plot held in June last year, at which both Mr Lees and his agent appeared, a large number of relevant points which had been made in their statement of case were proved under cross examination to be false. We feel that there are a number of similarly false points in the statement of case which has been submitted in respect of the appeal currently under review and are disappointed that we will not now have the opportunity to cross examine. We are grateful however, for the opportunity to respond to the statement of case in writing and have approached this on a paragraph by paragraph basis. We apologise that this may have led to a lengthy letter, but feel that it is important that we raise all of the issues that we would have had the opportunity to question had a hearing taken place. Paragraphs I to 3 'Background' These comments were originally made in Ms Newton's statement of case in respect of the last appeal hearing held in June last year and therefore are out of date and misleading. It was established during that hearing that Mr Lees' business has not used this plot as a builder's yard during its period of ownership and that the company had not undertaken any building projects for at least two years prior to the date of that hearing. This
==== PAGE 12 ====
4 background information is therefore incorrect as well as being irrelevant to the current application under appeal. Please also note that the measurements of the plot are 24.85 metres x ii .6 metres; not those stated. Paragraph 6 Ms Newton stales that the current proposal seeks to overcome the major concerns outlined by the Inspector in a previous refusal. In fact it only, addresses one of the Inspector's conclusions in that case, namely that the building is set back further from the highway at 5 metres rather than 2.4 metres. The other concerns outlined by the Inspector in respect of the proximity to the rear boundary and the lack of adequate space around the property have not been addressed at all, in fact the proposed building is nearer to the boundary and there is less amenity space around it. Paragraph 7 It is douhtftil that anyone would consider that unbroken wall 5 metres in height and 18.8 metres in length would be 'normally acceptable' next to a garden in a residential area. Paragraph 8 Ms Newton dismisses the concerns of the planning officer over the use of the holiday cottage for other purposes and the requirement for children's play areas. Having contacted other owners of similar self catering holiday accommodation in Port Erin it appears that, with the exception of the Christmas period, it is difficult to let the properties outside the summer season unless longer term lets of several months are entered into. As the proposed properties would have three bedrooms, it is not unreasonable to assume that families with children are likely to be interested in letting them. Paragraph 9 Our research has showed that almost without exception holidaymakers enquiring into three-bedroomed accommodation ask 'Is there a garden?' This serves to confirm that there is an expectation of some amount of amenity space around a property which is aimed at the family market. It is also surprising to note that the applicant appears to believe that it is normal that holiday makers are responsible for the upkeep of the garden of the property they let. Apparently it has not occurred to him that a gardener could be employed. Paragraph 10 The plot does not extend to Sunnydale Avenue and therefore these comments are irrelevant.
==== PAGE 13 ====
Paragraph 12 The depth of the site and the boundary has never altered. It has never been sold off. It might be useful at this stage to provide a little background information about the plot. The area in which Athol Park and Droghadfayle Park are situated was created by deed in 1900 and the layout amended in 1904. We enclose a copy of the latter. One of the purchasers of plots was Mr W Hudson and he purchased a block of four as follows: 111 - Now Kingsley Villa, 112 - Now Primrose Lodge, 122 - The plot under appeal, 121 - The garden of Primrose Lodge. As you can see from the plan, plot numbers 121 and 122 were to be a pair of semi- detached houses mirroring Ill and 112 but facing a parallel road behind Athol Park. Mr Hudson built the first two houses but did not develop the other two plots. In 1920 Mr Hudson sold plot number 121 to the then owners of 112 (now Primrose Lodge) and the two plots have been conveyed as house and garden ever since. rl A large number of plots on the envisaged estate were never purchased from the Athol Park Estate Company and therefore the road layout that exists today is somewhat different from that shown on the plan. The road onto which plots 121 and 122 were designed to front was never built and instead, many years later, Droghadfayle Park was simply continued up the hill. This of course had the effect of changing the frontage of plot 122 onto Droghadfayle Park. It is for this reason that the plot is such a narrow one, i.e. it was never intended that a house be built on it facing onto Droghadfayle Park. Paragraph 13 It is irrelevant that our house has a front garden. Our measurements show that the proposed building will represent 66% of the distance from the rear wall of our house (after building works completed) to the end of the garden. Although Ms Newton states that this is not the whole of the garden, we consider that it is a substantial part of it. We would also like to point out that the work currently being undertaken on our property to remove the old garage and build a replacement at the end of the garden received planning approval some three months prior to the date of the application from Mr Lees for the holiday accommodation which is the subject of this appeal.
==== PAGE 14 ====
Paragraph 14 Ms Newton states that the length and height of the proposed building do not differ greatly from a previous proposal. The new proposal is over 30% wider than the previous one, a figure which we consider does differ greatly. Ms Newton also states that the previous application was not refused for reasons of the design per se. She has of course failed to mention the three principle reasons why it was refused, namely: That it was too large for the site. That it was too close to the rear boundary. That there was a lack of privacy and amenity space around the property. None of these aspects has been addressed other than to make them worse by proposing a larger building which is closer to the boundary and has less amenity space around it. Paragraph 15 Ms Newton refers here and at other paragraphs to number 2 Droghadfayle Park. It should be noted that there is no such address as 2 Droghadfayle Park. Ms Newton is in fact referring to Kingsley Villa, Athol Park. It is surprising to read the assertion that Kingsley Villa has changed its front entrance. This is absolutely untrue. Paragraph 18 This site is not 'zoned for development'; it simply sits in an area zoned as predominantly residential in the Port Erin Local Plan. This does not mean that the plot has to be developed as housing, or indeed developed at all. Paragraph 19 In this paragraph Ms Newton continues to refer to the 'extended garden' and the 'original garden' of Primrose Lodge. The repeated use of the word extended in this context can only be being used to be misleading. A garden that has been conveyed with a house for 87 out of its 103 years of existence can surely no longer be described as extended. We are at a loss to see how a building which is 7.6 metres high can not cause more overshadowing than a single garage which is only 2.7 metres high. Please note the incorrect address once again given for Kingsley Villa. Paragraph 20 We understand that Mr Lees and his company have redeveloped many of the sites of the old hotels in Port Erin. He can hardly now claim to be concerned about the lack of tourist accommodation in the village.
==== PAGE 15 ====
Paragraph 21 Please note that of the nine premises listed, three are bed and breakfast accommodation and it is therefore misleading to include these in an appeal relating to self-catering accommodation. Paragraphs 22 and 23 Ms Newton implies that the proposed holiday units would be fully occupied with short lets and that long lets would therefore not be required. Indeed she states that the properties are not suitable for longer term accommodation as they have only a small kitchen/lounge area downstairs. What she does not appear to have anticipated is that if the properties were unviable as holiday lets (see comments at paragraph 9) the other downstairs room, shown as bedroom I, could no doubt be used as a lounge to overcome the otherwise lack of downstairs living space. Paragraph 23 It is misleading to imply that a previous application for garages to assist with the parkiig problems on Droghadfayle Park was refused because there was no proven parking problem on the road. The application was refused due to the nature of the building proposed and its over-intensive use of the site. Paragraph 25 It is not clear what is meant by the comment 41t is unreasonable to expect the proposal to meet higher standards than that which such a proposal would normally be expected to meet.' Finally we wish to point out an error in the officer's report dated 13 November provided by the Planning Department. The first paragraph on page 3 incorrectly states that 'the opening onto the highway extends to 9m'. Please note that the drawings show two openings of 9.5 metres each, either side of a 6 metres stretch of stone wall. We look forward to receiving the Inspector's comments in the near future. Yours faithfully Malcolm Couch Caroline Couch
==== PAGE 16 ====
(r ¶P (i) TRW IE1tll t_ Zoo Ile- LD1 A 3L LK I 7 7 40 /1 /< 40 /t / / // •/- / / : Ic- 0
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
