07/02313/BRefused

22 February 2008 · Planning Committee

Vary condition one of PA 07/00197/B, and reposition containers to improve vehicular access

Heathfield Yard Patrick Street Peel Isle Of Man

Received21 Dec 2007

Validated21 Dec 2007

Committee15 Feb 2008

Decided22 Feb 2008

2 months

Received21 Dec 2007

Validated21 Dec 2007

Committee15 Feb 2008

Decided22 Feb 2008

2 months

Why was this refused?

vehicular access and manoeuvring restrictions to units 7/8/9
insufficient parking space for lawful storage/garage uses
containers generating additional parking demand
perpetual harm despite current low use
non-substantial change from prior refused scheme

The proposal sought to retain five temporary metal storage containers in Heathfield Yard, a courtyard of lock-up garage/storage units accessed from Patrick Street, but reposition them against the eastern wall (3m from unit 7 south, 3.8m from unit 9 north) following Highways consultation.

Refusal Reasons

✗The retention of the containers, which was the subject of two previous applications where both concluded that the containers must be removed from the site, would restrict the amount of space available for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles associated with the legitimate use of the existing units on site. In addition, the containers would, if used, generate a need for parking and manoeuvring space. Finally, the position of the containers would restrict vehicular access to units 7, 8 and 9 within the yard.

Documents (7)

Find Similar Applications

Click a button above to find applications similar to this one.

⚖️

Compare this application

See how this application compares to similar ones — policies, conditions, and outcomes side by side.

Search for an application to compare with

Decision & Reasoning

Refused22 February 2008

The officer's assessment focused on whether retention of containers causes unacceptable limitation on access to storage/garage units and vehicle manoeuvring in the yard, concluding the original condit…

Public Comments (4)

SupportHighways Division(statutory consultee)

Do not oppose

SupportPeel Town Commissioners(parish)

None received

ObjectionTynwald Woodcrafts, Patrick Street, Peel(other)

Objection56 Patrick Street, Peel (Mr & Mrs Allen)(neighbour)

People

Sarah Corlett

Case Officer

Key Information

Reference: 07/02313/B
Decision: Refused
Date: 22 February 2008
Parish: German
Year: 2007
Type: Full Planning Application
Category: Other
Scale: minor

Property Details

Property Type: commercial
Proposal Type: other
Context: urban

Planning History (7)

94/0698Approvednot in database

change of use to retail supply of building materials

permitted on appeal; prior non-residential use

01/1571Refusednot in database

change of use for parking/storage depot

previous refusal for storage-related use

03/0283Refusednot in database

erection of eight apartments with garaging to replace existing outbuildings

previous refusal for residential development

03/1453Refusednot in database

refurbishment of existing and erection of five additional garages

refused on review for garage expansion

05/0665Approvednot in database

retrospective application for erection of four lock-up private storage units

permitted on appeal with condition requiring container removal

05/1273Approvednot in database

retrospective application for the renovation of existing workshops and garages to provide private lock-up storage units

permitted with no external storage condition

07/0197Approvednot in database

approval to discharge condition one to retain containers

permitted on appeal but with condition for removal by 1 Dec 2007

Why was this refused?

vehicular access and manoeuvring restrictions to units 7/8/9

insufficient parking space for lawful storage/garage uses

containers generating additional parking demand

perpetual harm despite current low use

non-substantial change from prior refused scheme

Refusal Reasons

✗The retention of the containers, which was the subject of two previous applications where both concluded that the containers must be removed from the site, would restrict the amount of space available for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles associated with the legitimate use of the existing units on site. In addition, the containers would, if used, generate a need for parking and manoeuvring space. Finally, the position of the containers would restrict vehicular access to units 7, 8 and 9 within the yard.