Loading document...
Waterfall Hotel, Glen Maye, Kirk Patrick
15 HGV 2017
1.1 The application site is positioned centrally to the public car park on Shore Road, Glen Maye. The exact construction date of the Waterfall Hotel is unknown but it is of traditional stone wall construction and deeds of purchase found run back to August 1944 with discussions made dating back to 1907. It is two storeys in height ( 7.6 m approx to top of ridge) with an additional attic area used for storage. 1.2 The site back in 1944 totalled 16.5 acres and included the National Glen and a large portion of land running down both sides and including Shore Road. Large portions of this land have obviously been sold off over the years and numerous property developments undertaken. It should be noted that the proposed site is not located within a Conservation Area. Nor is Glen Maye as a whole. 1.3 The site is approximately 787 sq metres in total. The adjacent car park and beer garden which the applicant owns totals an additional 1,580sq metres. 1.4 The building is currently vacant and was last used as a business over three years ago. This was along with multiple previous attempts that ended unsuccessfully. 1.5 To the South side of the site is located the public car park and
access into Glen Maye National Glen. To the North is Glen Close Cul De Sac which mainly houses one storey bungalows. To the East is the entrance into Glen Close and the vehicular entrance into the car park and Shore Road from the A27 running through Glen Maye. To the West is Waterfall House set over two stories and Shore Rd continues to run down to the National Glen, with properties being located up to 0.5 km down. 1.6 The building is finished in painted render to all elevations. The roof is dark slate or cement tiles. The front elevation is traditional in style but has white uPVC casement windows, two modern rooflights and only two chimneys which makes the overall appearance less traditional and asymmetrical. 1.7 The rear elevation from inspection seems to have been extended multiple times in the past it would seem and has no aesthetic positives. The garden area to the rear at most is 20 m long and is split levelled and runs right up to the boundary with Glen Close. This is overgrown and laid to both paving and grass. 1.8 Existing parking is via the public car park. There are approximately $45-50$ vehicular spaces. The owners of the Waterfall Hotel own the car park. Within the 1960 deeds there is an agreement with the Forestry Board. This allows visitors to the National Glen to use the car park along with the patrons to the Waterfall Hotel. 1.9 Extract from 'www.isleofman.com' Glen Maye Glens description:
The glen was purchased by the Forestry Board in 1960 from the proprietor of the Waterfall Hotel, Agnes Welstead, who had previously acquired it from two men who owned the separate areas of the glen, Richard Edward Hughes in 1950 and Thomas Samuel Caleb Sidney Counsell (who owned the lower section) in early 1960. The trees in the glen
were valued for the Forestry Board at £124.6s.6d, firewood value only, due to the difficulty in extracting it.
2.0 Proposal
2.1 Full Planning Approval is sought for the demolition of the existing Waterfall Hotel and erection of 4 terrace dwellings in it's place.
2.2 The existing is in a poor state of decay and has been vacant for more than 3 years. The proposed replacement dwellings whilst having a more contemporary take also respect the traditional style of the existing hotel and immediate surroundings. The materials used will match in with the local vernacular.
2.3 The proposed terrace dwelling would be set over three floor levels but with a minimal height increase of 1.3 metres with the upper floor being located within the roof space.
2.4 Each dwelling would house 4 bedrooms, living space and integral garage and be approx 129m2 internally each.
2.5 Each dwelling would have it's own garden to the rear with the minimum size being 60m2. Each dwelling would have a small garden space to the front along with drive way for a minimum 1 vehicle.
2.6 The two parking space requirement for dwellings is achieved via the driveway and integral garage.
Below are the key Strategic Planning Policies that have been reviewed and taken into consideration during the creation of this proposal.
The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of "Residential/Woodland" under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area; nor within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
General Policy 2 contains some useful wording: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways".
Strategic Policy 1
Strategic Policy 1: "Development should make the best use of resources by:
(a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials;
(b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services." Strategic Policy 2
Strategic Policy 2: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3."
Strategic Policy 3
Strategic Policy 3: "Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by:
(a) Avoiding coalescence and maintaining adequate physical separation between settlements; and
(b) having regard in the design of new new development to the use of local materials and character."
Housing Policy 14: " Where a replacement dwelling is permitted, it must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, unless changes of siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement; the new building should therefore generally be sited on the "footprint" of the existing, and should have a floor area, which is not more than $50 \%$ greater than that of the original building (floor areas should be measured externally and should not include attic space and outbuildings)".
Community Policy 4 - " Development (including the change of use of existing premises) which involves the loss of local shops and local public houses, will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that the use is no longer commercially viable, or cannot be made commercially viable.
3.1 Multiple attempts have been made over recent years to make the business work but have been unsuccessful. These have been at a considerable cost to the applicant. 3.2 The catering industry be it food, drink or both has taken a different route over the last 10 years, especially after the last recession. On top of this awareness has been given in a very positive way to the risk of drink driving. 3.3 The public are not going out as much now for the sake of it to eat and drink due to the above reasons. Rising costs are meaning
people stay at home more and if they do go out it is to one of the main hubs for ease of getting home. Peel is the closest location for this and as can be seen, public houses and restaurants are flourishing their due to the ease of access. Unfortunately people are not going to commute out to Glen Maye when there are closer locations. It could be said the industry is over populated. 3.4 The Waterfall Hotel used to flourish due to the greater flexibility there used to be in the past. Competition from premises in Peel has been deemed impractical to keep up with. 3.5 The community of Glen Maye would probably argue the above and will state that a community facility is being removed. However it is deemed that only a small percentage of local residents would utilise the Waterfall Hotel as was the case with the previous attempts to run and would also not allow for a successful business to be run given the small population of the area. This in conjunction with point 3.3 creates the unfeasible situation. The village of Glen Maye is not of a sufficient size to sustain a public bar in high or low season 7 days a week and is not on a well used thoroughfare so as to generate passing trade. 3.6 Surrounding businesses have closed through the years for similar reasons. These include the old cafe, the shop which has been given permission to change to tourist accommodation, and the old post office. 3.7 Just recently the Liverpool Arms has closed it's doors to the public which is very similar to the Waterfall Hotel. Not a local position but with surrounding dwellings. However it shows a sign of the times and how public houses/hotels are not being utilised enough to continue business. The same can be said for the Ballacallin Hotel in Dalby.
4.1 The existing hotel has been empty and vacant for over three years. This follows multiple attempts to run the business successfully. 4.2 This has led to the building slowly creeping into a bad state of decay. It is of original construction with stone external walls, render finish and slate roof. Given time on their own these buildings start to feel the severe effects of damp. It would require a considerable financial investment to do this. 4.3 The existing building would have to be carefully stripped right back to the bare external walls. From brief inspection, at least the internal walls, floors and roof construction are not up to current Building Regulation Standards if converted. 4.4 The existing would need considerable investment to get up to standards, especially from a thermally efficient perspective. Upgrading the insulation to the building would generally involve constructing secondary stud walls internally which would encroach on the existing floor area and take away from the usuable floor space. 4.5 Conversion to one dwelling is not feasible due to the investment already put into the site and the additional investment needed to renovate. A single property would not be valued high enough to cover this. 4.5 Due to the current layout it would be required to construct a new extension onto the rear of the existing that brought it up to two storey's in height to create sufficient floor space to convert into dwellings. From reviewing, any extension to the rear would have to be
similar to the proposed. However the work involved would be considerably more to tie in with the existing, create more disruption to the surroundings and also create something that was not as efficient and had a limited lifespan. 4.6 The existing whilst in a prime position at the start of Shore Rd, has minimal architectural value. Asymmetrical chimneys, uPVC windows and rooflights. The rear as stated is an amalgamation of bad design and does not have any intrinsic value. 4.7 The proposal would create dwellings that far exceeded the U-value requirements set out in the Building Standards. They would be thermally efficient and work alongside modern energy systems to completely minimise energy consumption both electrical and heating. This would not be achievable with a conversion of the existing. 4.8 Cost involved to convert or build new would be very similar. Buyers of course would have to undertake regular maintenance on the converted option. 4.9 Through the above thought processes it is deemed that demolition and construction of new would be the most practical, feasible and efficient for both applicant, surroundings and potential purchasers.
5.1 There has been a considerable amount of applications over the years including and around the Waterfall Hotel, especially in the near vicinity of the site. They vary in type but include a number of new dwellings extensions. Some are listed below:
| Application Number | Details | Local Authority | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/02097/B | Erection of a glazed enclosure to front, external stair to side and alterations to rear elevation Waterfall Hotel Shore Road Glen Maye Isle Of Man IM5 3BG | PATRICK | 1 Mar 2010 |
| 09/02098/D | Erection of illuminated signage Waterfall Hotel Shore Road Glen Maye Isle Of Man IM5 3BG | PATRICK | 6 Jan 2010 |
| 92/00799/B | Internal alterations to kitchen area and outbuilding, Waterfall Hotel, Glen Maye, Patrick, Waterfall Hotel Shore Road Glen Maye Isle Of Man IM5 3BG | PATRICK | 8 Sep 1992 |
Address: Creg Ny Shee Shore Road Glen Maye Isle Of Man IM5 3BG Parish: PATRICK Proposal: Erection of new dwelling & conversion of outbuilding to garage Application Date: 28 Jun 2000 Status: Permitted Date the decision was issued: 19 Sep 2000
Address: Plot 1 (Field 939) Shore Road Glen Maye Isle Of Man Parish: PATRICK Proposal: Erection of dwelling and garage (amendment to approved PA 98/1818) Application Date: 20 May 2002 Status: Permitted Date the decision was issued: 8 Aug 2002
Address: Plot 3 The Falls Shore Road Glen Maye Isle Of Man Parish: PATRICK Proposal: Erection of a detached dwelling with integral garage (Amendments to PA 07/02182/B) Application Date: 11 Apr 2011 Status: Permitted Date the decision was issued: 31 May 2011
Address: Parish: Proposal: Application Date: Status: Ballakerkey Farm Shore Road Glen Maye Peel IM2 3BG PATRICK Approval in principle for the erection of replacement dwelling 21 Oct 2002 Permitted
Date the decision was issued: 22 Jan 2003 Planning Application: 12/00904/B (Show on map)
Address: Parish: Proposal: Application Date: Status: Shop Land Opposite Waterfall Cottage Shore Road Glen Maye Isle Of Man IM5 3BG PATRICK Demolition of former shop and erection of a dwelling to be used as tourist accommodation 8 May 2013 Permitted
Date the decision was issued: 4 Jul 2013 Date an appeal was lodged: 10 Jul 2013 Status of the appeal: Appeal Withdrawn Date the appeal was determined: 15 Aug 2013
Application Number Details Local Authority Date
04/01421/A Approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling. A two year extension was approved to the AIP by delegated minute 2.6 PATRICK 16 Jul 6/10/06 Land Adjacent To Waterfall Hotel Carpark Shore Road Glen Maye Isle Of Man 2004
12/00543/B Erection of a residential development comprising three apartments and one house Land Adjacent To Waterfall Hotel Carpark PATRICK 17 Shore Road Glen Maye Isle Of Man 2012
90/00019/A Approval in principle for construction of cafe with flat and holiday accommodation, site of former Waterfall Cafe, Glen Maye, PATRICK 2 Apr Patrick, Shop Shore Road Glen Maye Isle Of Man IM5 3BG 1990
93/00097/B Provision of cafe, flat, holiday accommodation and garage, Waterfall Cafe site, Glen Maye, Patrick, Shop Shore Road Glen PATRICK 21 Maye Isle Of Man IM5 3BG Apr 1993
6.0 Visual impact upon character of the village and the street scene
6.1 The proposal would result in a two and half storey building located within a prominent position within Glen Maye Village. When travelling through the village, along the A27 road, the majority of properties are characterised as traditional in appearance, ranging from single storey Manx cottages to two storey properties. There are also more modern properties in the village, including single storey
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
