Loading document...
Application No.: 17/00976/B Applicant: Red Pen Limited Proposal: Demolition of existing building and construction of three apartments with on site parking/garages Site Address: Bay View Hotel Primrose Terrace Port St. Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5AP Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 02.11.2017 Site Visit: 02.11.2017 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 06.11.2017
Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
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.
Reason: The building is a prominent one in the streetscene and an old one and a record of it is considered necessary before the building is demolished.
Reason: It is important that all elements of the building are considered appropriate from all perspectives, particularly from a pedestrian's view. Additional details are therefore required which demonstrate how the front boundary wall will add positively to the character of the building and the streetscene.
Reason: To ensure that there is sufficient car parking available in accordance with the standards of the Strategic Plan. This decision relates to drawings 1501/01, 1501/01, 1501/03, 1501/04 and 1501/05 all received on 12th September, 2017. _______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following persons should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
The owners of Mount Pleasant, 4, Seafield Avenue and 11, Kallow Point Road, none of whom are close enough to the site to be directly affected by the development
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE PHYSICAL PROMINENCE OF THE SITE AND THE OBJECTION FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY TO THE PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS OF THE SITE
1.1 The site is the curtilage of an existing public house with guest accommodation above, situated on the corner of Bay View Road and Lhargan which runs behind and merges with Cronk Road to the north. The building is a three storey property which is taller than the rest of the terrace which lies to the north. The building is relatively plain, with diminishing floor heights as one progresses up through the building. Whilst traditional in general form, the building is surprisingly simple, with a relatively shallow pitched roof, no chimneys and a more squat appearance than the more vertically proportioned vernacular properties in the vicinity. - 1.2 The existing property is at its highest, 11.5m tall and is 17m long across Bay View Road. The building is built right up to the footpath and has a smaller, two storey element with castellated top between it and number 12, a semi-detached properties with a hipped roof. The footprint of the building continues right up to the highway around to the side and rear, the rear having an area of monopitched roofing and a section of single storey walling. An area across the road is included within the site, used for providing the property with its only car parking spaces. Also included is a small area on the other side of Bay View Road which provided a small beer garden for the public house. - 1.3 The premises closed for business around 2013. The existing building is described as suffering from extreme damp and internally the building has been remodelled with an emphasis on functionality and compliance with modern fire and Building Regulation requirements. The basic structure of the building is solid and stone built but the walls suffer from damp ingress due to the prevailing weather and proximity to the coast and despite having been internally lined, the damp has pervaded the walls. Any conversion project would require the building to be fully exposed and dry lined to provide modern levels of insulation. Uncovering the walls may, the applicant suggests, reveal areas of wet rot and dry rot in supporting timbers. They also advise that an injected damp proof membrane would need to be provided and the external render may need to be removed and re-finished in a waterproof render and painted. - 1.4 Whilst the existing roof appears sound, it would be good practice to remove it, all purlins and rafters checked and treated if necessary and the roof insulated before being re-finished. The joist
2.1 Proposed is the demolition of the building and its replacement with a new building which accommodates three apartments with on-site garaging and parking. The ground floor will provide an entrance lobby on the right hand side of the front elevation with a lift and stairs to the flats on the upper floors. The ground floor will be used for garaging - two units each 5.8m long and at least - 3.25m wide. A store for the third apartment will be available alongside the garaging as there is insufficient space to provide three garages together with the required turning and access space. In front of the garages there will be two further spaces associated with the garaging with direct access out onto Lhargan. A further two spaces are available across Lhargan for the third apartment. A second access from the rear will be provided into a larger entrance lobby.
2.2 The first and second floor plans will accommodate two three bedroomed units which have a bathroom, one of the bedrooms has en-suite facilities, a lounge and kitchen. The top floor apartment will have the same layout but the area immediately in front of the lift would not be generally available due to it only serving that top floor flat. All of the units have a glazed balcony on the lounges looking out over the bay. - 2.3. The new building will be almost 14m high with a roof pitched at 30 degrees, with a substantial chimney at each end and finished in natural slate. The front elevation will be finished in horizontal banded render on the ground floor with plain render above and two eaves peaks, the one on the left of the front elevation being wider than that towards the right and will windows below - the wider peak accommodating a series of patio doors and glazed balconies on the first, second and third floors and decorative, fixed, obscured glass windows in the ground floor serving the garage. The building will have an elevated ground floor level due to the natural fall of the level of the site from back to front and the underbuild will be accommodated by a 1.2m high wall with planting behind. A stepped access leads from the pavement off Bay View Road to the entrance which is 1.3m higher than the pavement level. - 2.4 The smaller peak will have below it a series of three Juliet-style balconies. The remaining windows will be a bottom fixed quarter, top three quarters top hung opening light in vertically proportioned apertures. - 2.5 The side elevation will have a symmetrical arrangement of windows to match the smaller windows in the front elevation with a fixed, obscure glazed window at ground level 2m above the pavement. - 2.6 The rear elevation introduces a different palette of materials - using render and standing seam prefinished steel grey vertical cladding and raised metal cladding to the window surrounds together with the rendered finish seen on the other elevations. One section will be flat roofed and the other, projecting slightly further forward than the flat roofed section, which is pitched roofed and finished in the metal cladding. The flat roofed section will have an open ground floor with the upper floors above supported by a cantilevered construction with two supporting steel columns to accommodate the parking. - 2.7 The elevation facing 12, Bay View Road will have three windows serving the three private entrance lobbies and three lift entrances. The existing building adjoins number 12 and after the existing building is demolished, this wall will be made good as part of the work.
3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South as Predominantly Residential and it also lies within a proposed Conservation Area. The draft CA Appraisal refers to the Bay View Hotel as having a neglected external appearance but otherwise does not refer to it. - 3.2 As the site lies within a proposed CA it is worth considering the policy requirements in such adopted areas which seek to preserve or enhance what exists, with a presumption in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area as stated in Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man (CA/6). It also states,
"... in less clear cut cases, for example, where a building could be said to detract from the special character of the area, it will be essential for the Department to be able to consider the merits of any proposed new development when determining whether consent should be given for the demolition of an unregistered building in a conservation area. Account will be taken of the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the building for which demolition is proposed, and in particular of the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole."
3.3 General Policy 2 sets out the general requirements for development to be considered acceptable and the following are considered relevant:
"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:
4.1 Planning approval was granted for the replacement windows under 03/01021/B with various other alterations and extensions approved in the 1990s. The site to the rear was developed for two dwellings under permissions granted more recently, in the 2000s. REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 The Conservation Officer comments as follows:
"When asked to consider a building for addition to the Protected Buildings Register, the starting point is always the proposed list which dates back to 1976. That list has variously been updated over the years to include further buildings that Local Authorities etc have requested be investigated. The Bay View Hotel does not appear on those lists. Similarly, the 2009 Draft Consideration Area Character Appraisal carried out as part of the Area Plan for the South lists Key Unregistered Buildings in the village as well as several buildings that merit further investigation into their historical merit. The Bay View Hotel is only referred to in reference to its 'neglected external appearance'.
With this in mind, I undertook a site visit to the above property on the afternoon of Wednesday 25th October with a view to ascertaining whether the building had sufficient architectural and/or
historic interest to warrant suggesting that the building be added to the Protected Buildings Register.
I met the Architects and agents for the Planning Application, Sam and Voirrey Samson who escorted me around the building. I was able to look at every room from the roofspace to the cellar. In doing so, it became obvious very quickly that there is very little remaining of the historic fabric with perhaps the exception of a fireplace on the first floor (missing its surround), the main stair case and one or two doors and associated casings. The building had clearly been the subject of numerous alterations which had altered its layout and removed the historic detailing that you would expect to see in such a building (fireplaces, doors etc).
Externally, the chimney stacks have been removed, the windows to Bay View Road replaced in PVC and a number of additions to the rear have detracted from the exterior of the building. In this respect, the Architectural Interest of the property is diminished.
Considering its Historic Interest; the Planning Policy Statement 1/01, 'Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man', is quite clear on buildings of this period. The section 'Age and Rarity' within Policy RB/1 in particular is pertinent as it states; 'Thus, those buildings, or parts of those buildings, which survive in substantially their original condition and whose origins can be established as being prior to 1800, would be worthy of consideration for Registration.'
In my view, there is not sufficient remaining architectural or evidential historic interest to suggest that the building be considered for addition to the Protected Buildings Register. If the recommendation is to approve the application and thereby agree to the building's demolition, I would advocate that a condition be placed on the application requesting a photographic survey is undertaken prior to its demolition" (03.11.17).
5.2 Highway Services comment as follows: "The proposal is to demolish a building and replace it with a new development of 3 apartments with
Visibility is improved at the existing blind corner by providing a low boundary wall. This will improve visibility for all road users.
Highway Services does not oppose this application subject to the following conditions:
Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety (29.09.17)."
5.3 Port St. Mary Commissioners approve the principle of the development but consider that the scale is overbearing and potentially it represents overdevelopment of the site (02.10.17). - 5.4 Objections have been received from two local residents and support from one:
6.1 The issues in this case are whether there is any reason why the existing building should not be demolished, whether what replaces it sits comfortably in the streetscene and whether there would be any adverse impact on the living conditions of those in nearby property. It is also relevant to consider whether the proposal would have any adverse impacts on highway safety. Demolition
6.2 The demolition of any building within a Conservation Area is treated with caution and is required to be the subject of an application for Registered Building consent under the tcp. However, in this case the Conservation Area is not yet adopted. In addition, there is no reference in the Conservation Area appraisal to suggest that the existing building is of particular note other than that is has a neglected external appearance. The Conservation Area has considered whether the building should be entered onto the Protected Buildings register and after having made a detailed internal and external inspection of the building, concludes that there is very little remaining of the historic fabric with the exception of a fireplace which is missing its surround, the main staircase and one or two doors. Externally, he notes that the chimney stacks have been removed and a number of changes have detracted from the rear of the building all of which diminish the historical interest of the building. He does not consider that the building meets the requirement in PPS 1/01 for it to be a building or its parts which survive in substantially their original condition even though its origins may be established as being prior to 1800. He does not oppose the application but requests that a photographic survey is undertaken prior to its demolition.
6.3 It is not considered that there is justifiable reason why the building should not be demolished and replaced. Design of the new building - 6.4 The existing building is of a relatively plain design which sits relatively unobtrusively in the streetscene, despite being taller than its neighbours and despite being at the end of a terrace of buildings does not make a particularly strong statement, due partly to the narrow gap between it and number 45 which results in the two buildings generally not appearing as particularly separate. It is important then that whatever replaces it has a similar impact - sitting comfortably in the streetscene and not trying to make a particular statement. The building is generally simplistic in form but with a series of glazed balconies which will add interest on the front elevation. The inclusion of chimneys, as had the original building, is a welcome feature which will help the building relate to its neighbours. Perhaps the least sensitive element of the front of the building is the expanse of undetailed blockwork walling which takes the users from ground floor level on the street up to the ground floor of the building. It is suggested that this should be the subject of a more detailed approach which presents a more interesting feature at pedestrian level - perhaps by a continuation of the Ashlar scribing or some other feature which would add interest.
6.4 At the rear the building is of a different style ith a more modern flat roof and cladding as opposed to traditional render. This is considered an improvement to the existing rear elevation which appears as a series of diiferent height extensions and finished in an unsympathetic dashed render. The use of a flat roof is not dissimilar to what exists and will limit the height of the building as viewed from the rear. Whilst there is a balcony included in the rear, this is at a level higher than the dwellings behind so should not result in any adverse impact there. - 6.5 The windows in the front elevation are in vertically proportioned apertures but are subdivided not into equal halves but with a lower quarter and and clear top three quarters. Whilst not a traditional form of glazing, the transom lines up with the rail of the balconies on either side. These may be better if they were subdivided into two equal parts, as are the patio doors by the rail level. - 6.6 The restrained but modern approach to the redevelopment is considered appropriate in this instance, retaining sufficient traditional features to sit comfortably in a streetscene which does not comprise wholly vernacular buildings. Size and height of the new building - 6.7 The building will be higher than the existing from the front and from the rear. However, it already steps up considerably from the existing house to the north and number 45 to the south. The vertical orientation of the windows and the inclusion of chimneys helps the building sit more confidently with this extra height than does the existing which looks more squat than vertical due to the absence of windows and the shorter height of the windows in the top storey. Its set back from the existing frontage will also help it sit more comfortably with the property to the north which is already set back further from the highway and allowing more light into the front windows of this property. AS stated above, the inclusion of a flat roof at the rear helps reduce its impact on that streetscene. - 6.8 It is not considered that the height or size of the building is unacceptable. Even if it were, it is important to consider the viability of producing an attractive scheme on this site which is financially attractive and where there is sufficient car parking and access. The demolition of the existing building will come at a cost in addition to the building of the new one. The requirement for on-site parking will reduce the amount of space available for habitable accommodation. What is proposed is considered to be a reasonable conclusion to all of these constraints whilst providing a development which is financially worth undertaking. Access and parking
6.9 There are no objections to the application from Highway Services. The scheme provides six full sized car parking spaces for three apartments which accords with the Strategic Plan parking standards. The development is considered acceptable in terms of access and car parking provision.
7.1 From the comments received, professionally and from local people and the local authority, there are clearly mixed views about the loss of the building and the approach taken for its replacement. The views of the Conservation Officer are that the building has little, if anything which would justify an insistence of its retention and from an external appearance, it has lost its chimneys and has unfortunate alterations and extensions at the rear all of which diminsh its interest and originality from an outside point of view, even from a lay person's point of view. The building which will replace the existing is taller, but there is little to demonstrate why the additional height is objectionable. The scheme is supported and considered to accord with all the relevant adopted planning policies. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : …Refused.. Committee Meeting Date:…13.11.2017
Signed :………SCORLETT……….. Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO
Application No. : 17/00976/B Applicant : Red Pen Limited Proposal : Demolition of existing building and construction of three apartments with on site parking/garages Site Address : Bay View Hotel Primrose Terrace Port St. Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5AP Presenting Officer : Miss S E Corlett Addendum to the Officer’s Report
The Planning Committee declined to accept the Planning Officer's recommendation and refused the application for the reason that they were not satisfied that the existing building, which they consider contributes positively to the character of the streetscene could not be retained and reused and also that the proposed building, particularly with the inclusion of balconies, its height and the variety of windows, would not sit comfortably in the streetscene in accordance with Strategic Plan polices.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
