**Document:** DEC Officers Report **Application:** 14/01212/B — Erection of a building to provide two apartments to replace demolished dwellings **Decision:** Permitted **Decision Date:** 2014-12-01 **Parish:** Rushen **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/35394-rushen-plot-formerly-1-replacement-new-build/documents/1092149 --- # DEC Officers Report [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Officer's Report #### 1.0 The Site 1.1 The application site is the curtilage of Plots 1 and 2 The Promenade, Port St Mary which is a vacant site which is to the northern side of The Promenade. #### 2.0 The Proposal 2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of a building to provide two apartments. The building would be three storey with additional accommodation in the roof space and would be very similar to the application which was approved under PA 11/01682/B, the difference between the 2011 application and the existing application is at ground floor level windows are proposed whereas previously there were two garage doors. The building would adjoin a property which is currently under construction on the adjacent site. #### 3.0 Planning History 3.1 The following previous applications are considered to be specifically material in the assessment of the current application: PA 04/00389/A Approval in principle for the erection of replacement dwellings on vacant site (both the application site and adjoining site to the east) - Refused on Review PA 05/00558/B Erection of a four storey dwelling to replace two demolished dwellings (application site) - approved PA 05/01265/B Erection of a four storey building to form two self contained flats (both the application site and adjoining site to the east) - approved PA 05/92286/B Erection of a pair of apartments with garaging to replace two demolished dwellings (application site) - approved PA 09/01130/B Erection of a dwelling (site to the east) - approved PA 11/01682/B Erection of pair of apartments with garaging to replace two demolished dwellings (application site) - approved #### 4.0 Development Plan Policies [Table omitted in markdown export] 4.1 The application site is within an area zoned as "Mixed Use" identified on The Area Plan for the South 2013. Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider Strategic Policy 1, Strategic Policy 2, Strategic Policy 3, Strategic Policy 5, Spatial Policy 3, General Policy 2, Environment Policy 42 and Housing Policy 6 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007). Mixed Use Proposal 2 of The Area Plan for the South 2013 is also relevant in the assessment of the application. ### 5.0 Consultations 5.1 Highway Services, in an email received 14th November 2014, comment on the application. They do not oppose. 5.2 Port St Mary Commissioners, in an email received 6th November 2014, comment on the application. They have no objection. 5.3 Manx Utilities Authority (electricity), in an email received 31st October 2014, comment on the application. They recommend that the applicant contact the Authority prior to the commencement of works. ### 6.0 Assessment 6.1 The key considerations in the assessment of the application are the principle of the development, the impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene, impact upon the adjacent properties and impact upon highway safety. 6.2 The application site is within an area of Mixed Use, the site was previously used for residential and the application now proposes residential. The Mixed Use Proposal set out in The Area Plan for the South indicates that residential uses will not generally be accepted, however, in this area of Port St Mary there are a number of residential properties in the street scene and in this instance the use of the site is considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact upon the general character of the area and in this instance is acceptable in principle. The development is within the village of Port St Mary and therefore takes account of Strategic Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42. 6.3 The proposed building would almost replicate the previous approval but would differ in terms of the ground floor. The ground floor as proposed now would have windows which would serve living accommodation rather than providing a garage for each of the apartments. 6.4 The proposal in terms of design and finish follows the traditional appearance of the nearby properties along The Promenade. However, the scale and massing is reduced, albeit still retaining three storeys with dormer accommodation, similar to these existing properties. This also has a knock-on effect with window levels between the existing and proposed. The proposed building would take account of the existing character which takes Strategic Policy 5 and Housing Policy 6 into account. 6.5 However, the Planning Authority has previously accepted this height/window level difference on this site and on the adjacent site Plot 3 and 4, which would be 0.8m taller than the proposal. 6.6 It is considered that the design of the proposal would be in keeping with the surrounding properties and would respect the traditional properties along The Promenade. As explained above, the property is very similar to what was previously approved and what is extant under PA 11/01682/B. It is judged that the proposed design would be much more sympathetic than the previous proposal which had garage doors in the ground floor. It is considered that the proposal would make a positive contribution to the street scene on a site which is currently vacant. 6.7 The site has been previously developed but the buildings on site required demolition and therefore the site is currently vacant. So while the proposed building would have an effect on the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties it is important to note there have been buildings on the site and there is an extant approval for a building similar to what is proposed under this application. 6.8 It is considered that the property most likely to be affected by the development would be Ayr House, this property is located to the north west of the application site, Cornaa and Shefferlands are to either side of Ayr House, the three properties form a terrace. The rear of the proposed development would look towards the rear yard of Ayr House. There are six windows and two roof lights in the rear elevation, but these windows serve the landings and staircases. There would be no windows directly facing windows within Ayr House given the orientation of Ayr House in relation to the new building. 6.9 Regarding the potential for loss of light, again Ayr House is likely to be affected the most. The proposal would be likely to result in the restriction of light during early afternoon, namely to the rear yard area/conservatory. This is due to the position of the building which would be to the south of the yard of Ayr House and the height of the building. It is considered that the buildings which were previously on the site would have had a similar impact upon the light to Ayr House. 6.10 Given that there would be no windows in Ayr House which would look directly towards the proposed building it is considered that the outlook from Ayr House would not be adversely affected. It is judged that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties and therefore would be in accordance with General Policy 2 part g). 6.11 The difference between this application and the one approved in 2011 PA 11/01682/B is the removal of the garages. The application now does not propose any off street parking. The loss of the garages balances against the retention of two on street parking spaces to the front of the site. The proposed development would therefore not result in an overall reduction in parking from the previous scheme, it would be neutral. 6.12 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan states that two off street parking spaces should be provided for each of the apartments; however, a reduction in parking to one parking space per apartment was accepted under the previous application. This application does not propose any off street parking. 6.13 It is considered that the removal of the garages would enhance the appearance of the building and would allow two on street parking spaces to be retained to the front of the site. There is a public car park to the east and is within walking distance of the main amenities of Port St Mary including areas of open space, shops, cafes and restaurants. It is also within walking distance of Port Erin, the Steam Railway and a bus route. 6.14 It is considered that a reduction in parking is acceptable in this location. Highway Services do not oppose. 6.15 For the above reasons the application is considered to be acceptable. ### 7.0 Party Status 7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons: - (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant’s agent; - (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; - (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material; - (d) The Highways Division of the Department; and - (e) The local authority, Port St Mary Commissioners in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. ### Recommendation **Recommended Decision:** Permitted **Date of Recommendation:** 24.11.2014 ### Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: Notes attached to refusals #### C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. **Reason:** To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. This approval relates to drawings location plan, 1254.1, 1254.2, 1254.3 and 1254.4 date stamped 22nd October 2014. I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control /Head of Development Management/ Senior Planning Officer. **Decision Made:** Permitted **Date:** 27.11.14 ### Determining officer (delete as appropriate) **Signed:** _________________________ **Signed:** *S. O’Connor* **Chris Balmer** **Sara h Corlett** **Senior Planning Officer** **Signed:** _________________________ **Signed:** _________________________ Michael Gallagher Jennifer Chance Director of Planning and Building Control Head of Development Management Michael Gallagher Jennifer Chance Director of Planning and Building Control Head of Development Management 24 November 2014 24 November 2014 --- *Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).* *Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/35394-rushen-plot-formerly-1-replacement-new-build/documents/1092149*