Loading document...
Application No.: 06/01623/B Applicant: A J Lees Ltd Proposal: Erection of a pair of semi-detached holiday cottages with parking Site Address: Old Builders Yard Adjacent To 2 Droghadfayle Park Port Erin Isle Of Man ### Considerations Case Officer: Miss S E Corlett Expected Decision Level: Delegation ### Written Representations ### Consultations Consulttee: IOM Water Authority Notes: Consulttee: Highways Division Notes: Do not oppose Consulttee: Port Erin Commissioners Notes: Consultee: Chief Fire Officer Notes: Consultee: Manx Electricity Authority Notes:
The site represents a piece of land which fronts onto Droghadfayle Park and extends approximately half way towards Sunnydale Avenue, the road which runs roughly parallel with Droghadfayle Park. The site has existing dwellings on each side - to the south west is 4, Droghadfayle Park, to the north east is the rear of 2, Droghadfayle Park which faces north east. To the rear is an undeveloped piece of land which is used as part of the rear garden of Primrose Lodge which adjoins 2, Droghadfayle Park.
The site has a frontage to Droghadfayle Park of some 25m and extends some 12.2m towards the rear garden of 2, Droghadfayle Park.
The site lies within an area of Predominantly Residential use on the Port Erin Local Plan of 1990.
There have been several attempts at obtaining permission to develop this site over the past few years, for a variety of uses.
PA 01/1339 was for the erection of a dwelling and garage - refused as the proposal made provision for less than one space between the garage and the road and was without prejudice to a further application which made provision for two parking spaces within the curtilage.
PA 01/2163 was for the erection of a dwelling and garage - refused on appeal for reasons relating to a lack of adequate space around the new house, cramped appearance and unneighbourly appearance for residents. The Inspector refers to the existing building as "no more than a small storage shed"
PA 05/0885 - erection of a block of garages - refused (the building stretched across the whole width of the site) and PA 05/92284 - erection of a replacement builder's yard adjacent to 2, Droghadfayle Park - refused on appeal. Also, planning applications have been submitted in respect of the other half of the site, fronting onto Sunnydale Avenue: PA 88/0451 - approval in principle for erection of dwelling adjoining Kildare, approved on appeal and PA 04/0941 - erection of a dwelling - refused on review. The following applications were submitted in respect of the whole site stretching from Droghadfayle Park to Sunnydale Avenue: PA 04/2506 - approval in principle for the erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings - refused on review and PA 05/0037 - erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings - withdrawn.
Proposed now is the erection of two holiday cottages. Each will be two storey with a lounge/kitchenette and three bedrooms - all with en-suite toilet facilities. Car parking will be available alongside each of the houses and which will accommodate two vehicles each. Most of the front garden is to be paved: the opening onto the highway extends to 9m.
There have been two previous applications for the erection of one dwelling on the site now the subject of this application. The first was refused for reasons relating only to car parking. The second, PA 01/2163 proposed a dwelling with a rear elevation 14.5m long and of this 7.5m of this was to be two storey. This was refused on appeal for reasons relating to the lack of adequate space around the building, a cramped appearance and an unneighbourly impact for neighbours, particularly Kildare (now Primrose Lodge) where the Inspector states "...there would be just one metre between the two storey rear elevation of the new dwelling and the boundary. In my opinion, such a situation would be very unneighbourly to the adjacent residents and create a poor standard of development in a location where most dwellings are sited within plots that provide adequate space around the property" (his paragraph 21).
This latest application exacerbates the situation described above in that the two storey houses have a rear elevation which is 18.5m long and 1m from the boundary with the rear garden of Primrose Lodge. It would be inconsistent and inexplicable to recommend that this is anything other than unneighbourly bearing in mind the findings of the previous Inspector. Whilst there are no windows in the rear elevation (there was one in the refused dwelling), the bulk of the dwelling so close to the boundary is unacceptable.
The lack of space around the buildings is perhaps less of a concern than in the previous application, as the buildings are proposed to be used for holiday accommodation. However, the units proposed are for all intents and purposes designed as permanent living accommodation which have a proposed immediate use as holiday accommodation. It is unlikely that there would be a demand for holiday accommodation in this location and of this type all year round and as such, it is more likely that the units would at some point be used for longer lets, either within the terms of any approval which could allow longer lets outside the summer months, or as a result of a change of use which is supported by claims that there is no requirement for holiday accommodation of this type and in this location. It is also likely or certainly possible that those wishing to stay in this accommodation will have children, bearing in mind the number of bedrooms and there is inadequate space for children to play safely as well as accommodating refuse storage.
Referring to the Housing (Flats) Regulations 1982, the proposed accommodation - around 80 square metres of floor space in each unit would accommodate 5 permanent residents or over 6 holiday makers (the Tourist Flats standards go up only to 56 sq.m).
One may also question whether the semi-detached two storey form of building is sympathetic in the streetscene, particularly when the buildings are to be set back from the highway by 5m compared with 9m in the case of number 4, Droghadfayle Park. Whilst number 2 is much closer, this is the side of the property which faces onto a different highway.
The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
Whilst Manx Electricity Authority, Fire Prevention Officer, Isle of Man Water Authority represent statutory authorities, the points raised in correspondence relate to Building Control matters and working practices and not planning and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
Signed: ... M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control
The occupant of 5, Droghadfayle Park is not directly alongside the site, nor does the property face the plot. However, concern is expressed regarding car parking which, if founded would affect neighbours other than just immediate neighbours of the site and as such this party should be afforded party status in this instance.
The occupants of 4, 13, Kingsley Villa, Primrose Lodge are all alongside the site, are directly affected by the proposal and should be afforded party status. These parties were afforded party status in the case of the previous application.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 13.11.2006
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals
There has been a previous application for the erection of a single residential dwelling on this plot (PA 01/2163). That application was refused on appeal where the Inspector concluded that "such a situation would be very unneighbourly to the adjacent residents and create a poor standard of development in a location where most dwellings are sited within plots that provide adequate space around the property". Whilst this latest application proposes tourist accommodation, the buildings would present a longer and taller structure to the rear garden of Primrose Lodge and as such, these proposed buildings cannot fail to be as, if not more, unneighbourly than the building previously refused.
The provision of three bedroomed tourist units in this location are unlikely to be required or desired for tourist accommodation for the whole of the year and as such, the concerns expressed in respect of the previous decision regarding lack of amenity space and over-development would be equally applicable to this development.
The development would be out of keeping in the streetsce ne which is generally, on this side of the road, characterised by detached single storey properties. Furthermore, the erection of properties much closer to the road than are the other properties to the south, together with the significant amount of hard surfacing in each front garden, would exacerbate this concern.
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: 15.11.2006
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown