Design Justification Letter

Ref: 06 0168 CM JO Date: 14th July 2008

Miss J Callow Secretary to the Planning Committee Department of Local Government & and the Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas Isle of Man

Dear Madam,

This letter submitted in support of this application provides clarification and explanation of the design of the proposed application.

Planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a block of three apartments with the same footprint and similar appearance at the rear yard of 23 Michael Street, and Factory Lane, Peel, was granted for the previous application on 14th March 2006 and was submitted by Promoor Limited on behalf of Mr & Mrs Horne.

We were employed to gain Building Control permission for the above approval based upon the approved planning drawings.

Upon perusal of the approved drawings it quickly became apparent that these drawings were grossly flawed from a construction and legal standpoint making this application entirely unworkable and from a flat registration point uninhabitable.

The main issues are these:

1. Site topography: The site indicated is not flat as indicated upon the approved elevation drawings so heights of the proposal cannot be accurately established (a fall of approx 1000mm occurs across the Factory Lane elevation). The change of direction of the main Factory Lane elevation would result in either a rise in slate line or a large overhang to this corner. (Again an accurate slate line could not therefore be attained from these drawings)

1. Fenestration: The Proposed window layout as indicated upon the approved drawings is unworkable to the North West elevation (noted rear elevation on the approved drawings) and on the South West elevation (not indicated in the approved application). The two number windows indicated within the former elevation are on the neighbouring boundary and after seeking legal advice on these windows it was established that the neighbouring plot could (and would under the current application no.08/00946/B) build over these windows negating their use entirely as habitable rooms under the building regulations and fire precautions act. Although future development may not be as likely on this elevation, the five number windows to the latter SW elevation for this same reason should not be placed directly upon the site boundary. (These windows would require fire glazing due to the amount of unprotected area they represent)

1. Means of Escape: As presently indicated on the approved drawings, two of the apartments only means of escape would not meet either the Building Regulations Part B or the Fire Precautions Act as it discharges directly into the covered parking area, a place of fire risk.

1. Structure: The approved plans indicate the Upper Third floor plan, supported upon the Second floor plan supported upon nothing at the First floor and nothing to the Ground floor. In order to carry this structure, the support walls, columns and steel beams would need to be incorporated within the Ground floor covered parking area and the first floor apartment. The placing of a support columns would effectively rule out one of the basement car parking spaces.

A number of schemes were attempted to try to alleviate these issues, but withought success. A meeting was held at planning with the area planning officer Mr Steven Stanley and the conservation officer, Mr Steven Moore, where Mr Moore reiterated the desire to replace the now demolished old smoke house building with something reflecting its previous mass, shape, form and in particular character.

The window to boundary situation is now negated along the North West elevation and the new rear wall of the proposals sets back along the South West elevation away from the boundary wall leaving a small yard for access and bins storage to each property.

The accommodation gives floor to ceiling proportions applicable to new housing accommodation and although altogether slightly higher (700mm at the tower) than the previous approval, it is a small increase on the overall height of the old smoke house section. The overall site level could additionally be reduced by approx 300mm to assist if required.

The reason for the taller 2500mm eaves height shown in the Third floor Bedroom to Section A-A is to allow the staircase behind in the second dwelling a 2m clear headroom on its landing and through the cavity wall into the Third floor Bedroom (not sectioned) behind. If this were not the case a gable addition would be required on the North East elevation instead of the more traditional sloping "catslide" type roof indicated making this Factory Lane elevation a more imposing one.

The Factory Lane elevation indicates fenestration of a type found throughout the narrow Peel Streets and as identified at the previous appeal this type of neighbouring window proximity is commonplace.

The proposals now achieve a realistic build and hopefully attain the mass, shape, form and character of the previous smoke house and give excellent habitable accommodation on this very restricted site, with many aspects of the design process worked in conjunction with Mr Stanley and Mr Moore.

Yours faithfully,

Chris Millar, Dip Surv. PENKETH-MILLAR

Encl