**Document:** Planning Review Statement **Application:** 03/01283/B — Erection of an apartment block of six apartments with parking **Decision:** Refused **Decision Date:** 2003-12-23 **Parish:** Malew **Document Type:** report / planning_statement **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/74146-malew-44-promenade-james-road-apartment/documents/1565237 --- # Planning Review Statement ## Appendix B Planning Review Statement Our Ref: PC/dg/SC758/authorities 3rd February 2004 The Secretary to the Planning Committee Planning Department DoLGE Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas Isle of Man IM1 2SF F.A.O. Ms E J Callow Dear Ms Callow, Re: **Application ref: 03/01283/B - Erection of an apartment block of six apartments with parking. Land to rear of 44 The Promenade, James Road, Castletown, IM9 1BQ.** Further to receipt of the Notice of Refusal dated the 23rd December 2003 and the applicant's subsequent request for a review of the Committee's decision, we would be grateful if you could please put the following points forward for consideration by the Committee at their forthcoming review meeting. From the documentation received, the applicant notes that there were no objections raised to the application either from the DoT Highways Division, the IoM Fire and Rescue Service or the IoM Water Authority. The comments/recommendations made by the above authorities have been noted by the applicant, who will comply with their requirements fully. The applicant notes that there are three further items of correspondence, these being the refusal notice, a letter from Castletown Commissioners and a letter of objection to the proposal, from Messrs Simcocks Advocates on behalf of Mr McHarrie, the owner of 'Stonybeach' No.45, The Promenade and 'Sunnycot', No.46, The Promenade, Castletown. Taking the refusal notice first, there is only one reason noted for the refusal of the application, which is: 'The proposed apartment block would represent an over development of the plot with limited off street parking and amenity space around the building'. The applicant's architect carried out extensive consultations prior to the submission of the application, both with the planning officer for the area, and with the DoT Highways Division. The resultant application reflects the comments and recommendations of those consultations. The DoT Highways Division in their letter of 7th October advised the planning department 'No adverse traffic impacts', the level of car parking provision being an integral part of their considerations. The applicant would therefore contend that the Committee appear to have disregarded the advice of the Government's own specialist transport advisors, in determining that the car parking level is inadequate. With regards to the assertion that there is limited amenity space, the applicant does not consider this to be justified. The area of the site is approximately 391 Sq.m. The footprint of the building is approx 121 Sq.m. Therefore there is 270 Sq.m. approximately of open space within the site, of which only 69 Sq.m. is used for car parking, leaving 201 Sq.m. approx of clear open and landscaped amenity space for the use of the occupants. In addition to this, there is a further 28.6 Sq.m. of yard and refuse storage area, shared with No. 44 The Promenade. Coupled to the above, the applicant would also wish the committee to note that the application site is within 20 m of the Promenade and beach, giving immediate access to plentiful further amenity space. The second item of correspondence is from Castletown Commisioners, who recommend that the application be refused as they consider the proposed development to be an over intensive use of the site which would be injurious to the amenities of the area and in particular the adjoining properties' The main thrust of the Commissioners comments would seem to relate to their perception that the proposal is an over development of the site. As such, the applicant's views in relation to this are as have already been stated. With regards to the Commissioners views that the development would be "injurious to the amenities of the area and in particular adjoining properties," the applicant assumes that the Commissioners actually mean the 'amenity of the area and in particular the adjoining properties'. The applicant, however, does not believe this to be the case, given that there is a gap of over 24 metres to the properties on the other side of James Road, and the adjacent properties on James Rd are over 7 metres away, and have no windows in their gable walls. The two nearest properties adjacent to the site on The Promenade, are owned by a Mr McHarrie, who has made a representation via his advocates Messrs Simcocks, although the applicant notes that Mr McHarrie has not been granted third party status to the application, due to his representations being time barred as a result of late submission. However for completeness we would comment on Mr McHarrie's submission Mr McHarrie's advocate makes nine points within the letter, to which we would make the following comments; 1 The applicants' architect carried out full consultations with the planning officer prior to the submission of the application. The applicant acknowledged that separate applications would be made on the adjacent land within the applications. It is the applicant's understanding that whilst the two applications are running concurrently, the Committee has a duty to consider this application on its own merits, and reach a decision accordingly. 2 The siting of the building was determined after detailed consultations with the planning officer for the area, who advised that the front of the proposed apartment building should not protrude in front of the line of the offshot of No. 44 The Promenade. A preference was expressed for the building to be set back further to accord more with the building line of the adjacent properties on James Road. Given the above, it is not possible to re-site the proposal in accordance with Mr McHarrie's wishes, whilst complying with the advice of the planning officer in relation to the building line. The applicant believes that the best solution is therefore to site the building on the building line of James Road, and provide parking to the front. This also means that the only vehicular access to the rear is for the maintenance of access to No. 45 The Promenade for Mr McHarrie, thus minimising any traffic impact to him as a result of the development. Mr McHarrie's advocate states that he 'has always enjoyed an open aspect at the rear of his property'. The applicant would draw the Committee's attention to photograph No.1, which highlights the extent of the open aspect enjoyed by Mr McHarrie, in particular the fact that of the five window openings to the rear elevation, one is a kitchen window, two are obscure glazed windows to w.c's/bathrooms, one is obscure glazed to the staircase, leaving actually only one window clear glazed from a habitable room, and this is actually the farthest away from the proposed development, and therefore the least affected. The Committee should also note that this photograph was taken at 3.35 pm on a bright and sunny day, indicating that the garden to the rear of No. 45 is already overshadowed by the existing building of No. 44 The Promenade, and due to its North facing attitude, does not get direct sunlight as is suggested by Mr McHarrie. Photograph No. 1 - View of rear of No. 45 The Promenade. Mr McHarrie's advocate also states that he 'owns both 45 and 46 The promenade and he purchased from the previous owner of Waters edge an area of land at the rear of 45 and 46 The Promenade which is used as part of the garden to such properties'. The applicant would draw the committee's attention to photograph No.2, which indicates the boundary (in red) of the land purchased by Mr McHarrie from the previous owner of Waters Edge. In particular, it can be seen that the land is actually remote from the garden area of No. 45 and is separated by a fence from the garden of No.46, and is unkempt and overgrown. It is clear that Mr McHarrie is not and has not for some time, used this area of land as part of the gardens associated with his properties, and his statement is clearly misleading to the Committee. ![A grainy photograph showing an existing white building with a dark roof on the left and a large white wall on the right, separated by a dark slope or vegetation.](https://images.planningportal.im/2003/09/340791.jpg) Photograph No. 2 - Area of land purchased highlighted within dashed line. With regards to the legal ownership of this piece of land, the applicant does not claim ownership. Similarly, the applicant does not seek to use this land in the application. In contrast, the only person using this section of land will be Mr McHarrie, who will be using it for access to his own property. Given that the applicant has proposed a clear maintenance of access for Mr McHarrie, it would seem unreasonable of Mr McHarrie to object to the adjustment of the route of his access, particularly as the proposal will also allow him to gain vehicular access to the rear of No. 46 The Promenade, which he does not currently enjoy. With regards to Mr McHarrie's comments regarding his loss of privacy, the applicant does not accept his suppositions. Indeed, in paragraph 9 of the letter, it is stated that he is not opposed to the development per se, but requests that it is sited immediately adjacent to James Road. As has been mentioned previously, the building could only be sited in line with the offshot of No.44, and therefore this is only 3 m further away than it is currently proposed, which would not in fact reduce any perceived loss of privacy. The only windows to the rear of the proposal are from bedroom/study areas, and are therefore only in either infrequent or dormant use. The applicant also notes that the occupants of No.47, 48 etc. The Promenade, have not made any representations in relation to the proposal. 3 The applicant's architect carried out full consultation with the Planning Authority prior to the submission of the application. The imposition of a building line no further forward than the offshot of No. 44 The Promenade precludes the use of vehicular access and parking to the rear of the proposal, which in the opinion of the applicant, would also be more detrimental to Mr McHarrie, due to the fact that the vehicles associated with the proposal, would be in closer proximity to his own properties. 4 The applicant's views in relation to item 3 are valid in this case. 5 The applicant's views in relation to item 3 and 4 are again valid in this case. In addition, the applicant notes that Mr McHarrie's comments relate to conditions imposed on a specific application made over ten years ago, and to which there was no reference made in the discussions with the planning officer. ![A photograph of a grassy site featuring red spray paint markings on the ground, likely indicating a boundary or layout, with a stone wall covered in dense vegetation in the background.](https://images.planningportal.im/2003/09/340792.jpg) 6 The applicant would contend that access to No. 45 The Promenade is maintained by the proposal, and would be for Mr McHarrie's own use. In addition, No. 46 The Promenade does not currently have vehicular access from the rear, and cannot without works being carried out at Mr McHarrie's expense to resolve the level differences. As the proposal both maintains access to No. 45 and creates access at the correct levels for No. 46 at the applicant's expense, it would seem that Mr McHarrie benefits significantly as a result. The applicant recognises that Mr McHarrie has a legal right of way over the applicant's property, and would wish the committee to note that it is not his intention to action the construction of the proposal, should it be approved, without having first negotiated terms acceptable to Mr McHarrie for the relocation of his right of way. 7 This item relates primarily to over-intensive use of the site, which the applicant has addressed in previous paragraphs. However, Mr McHarrie also states his opposition to the proposal on the grounds of increased domestic activity and considers the volume of vehicular traffic to and from the development will be unreasonable. The applicant finds it hard to understand why Mr McHarrie in three paragraphs of his letter, states that vehicular access should be to the rear of the proposal, effectively closer to his own properties, and then objects to the volume of traffic in the proposal as it stands, which actually keeps the vehicular access away from his property, and therefore having little impact on him. 8 Mr McHarrie makes no further comments within this paragraph that have not already been covered in previous paragraph's. 9 The applicant would contend that were the proposal re-sited in accordance with Mr McHarrie's comments, there would be no reduction in any perceived loss of privacy, and the impact of the vehicular access and traffic are more likely to result in an assortion of nuisance to his properties. On behalf of the applicant, we would respectfully request that the Planning Committee consider the above views when reviewing the application, and see fit to reverse their initial decision to refuse the application, and grant approval at review. Yours faithfully, Phil Chadwick For Savage \& Chadwick Architects Limited Cc: Arragon Properties --- *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/74146-malew-44-promenade-james-road-apartment/documents/1565237*