Why Was This Refused?
- ✓Building height, mass, and design would harm the character of Gib Lane and remove public views of the Castle and sea
- ✓Insufficient car parking provision within the building against required standards
- ✓Unresolved highway safety issues including missing visibility splays and features above the public highway
- ✓No provision for affordable housing or public open space despite cumulative housing numbers with an adjacent linked site
- ✓Application could not be implemented independently as it relied on demolition works on a separate site not included in this application
- ✓Rear elevation would be publicly visible if linked demolition proceeded without redevelopment, harming the Conservation Area
- ✓character
- ✓design
- ✓scale
- ✓highways
- ✓parking
Empire Garages Ltd applied to demolish the car showroom and related structures at Marine Parade, Peel, and replace them with a three-storey building providing ground-floor commercial and retail units with seven apartments above, along with associated parking. The application was linked to a separate conservation area consent application. The committee refused the application on 16 August 2019. The building's height, mass, and design were found to be harmful to the character and appearance of Gib Lane and would remove valued public views of the Castle and the sea. Parking provision fell short of required standards, and highway safety concerns were not adequately addressed, including the absence of correctly drawn visibility splays and the inclusion of features within or above the public highway. The committee also found that the development, considered alongside a linked application on the adjacent site, would generate enough housing to require affordable housing and public open space contributions, neither of which had been adequately secured.
The committee refused the application on five grounds. The proposed building's height, mass, and design were considered harmful to the character of Gib Lane and would block public views of the Castle and the sea. The parking provision was inadequate and highway safety concerns were not resolved, including missing visibility splays and features encroaching on the public highway. The application also failed to provide affordable housing or public open space, and was considered undeliverable on its own because it depended on demolition works on an adjacent site that were not part of this application.
Refusal Reasons
- ✕1. The building, by virtue of its height, mass and design, would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Gib Lane for the benefit of users thereof and whereby the height of the building would remove certain public views of the Castle and the sea. The development would therefore be contrary to Environment Policy 35 and General Policy 2e of the Strategic Plan.
- ✕2. The proposed development would not make adequate provision for car parking spaces within the building in accordance with the standards of the Strategic Plan (Appendix Seven) and there is insufficient information to demonstrate that this would not have an unacceptable impact on on-street parking and highway safety in the area. The development is therefore contrary to Transport Policy 7 and General Policy 2h of the Strategic Plan.
- ✕3. The development does not demonstrate that it would have an acceptable impact on highway safety, through the inclusion of features within or above the public highway which are not acceptable to the highway authority and by the absence of correctly drawn visibility splays at junctions. It has not been demonstrated that there is sufficient visibility for users of the proposed garaged parking spaces for them to be used safely. The proposal is therefore contrary to Transport Policy 4 and General Policy 2h and i of the Strategic Plan.
- ✕4. The proposal makes no provision for public open space or affordable housing. Given that the adjacent site is also owned by the applicant and is being proposed for development at the same time, and particularly as the development of the application site relies upon the demolition of the buildings on the site of 19/00201/B, or at least some of them, to provide the bin store and the widening of Gib Lane, it is considered appropriate to consider the cumulative impact of the developments which would together result in sufficient housing numbers to warrant requiring both affordable housing and public open space. No provision is being made for affordable housing and whilst a commuted sum has been referred to in respect of public open space, there is nothing definitive in the application to demonstrate the impact of this. It cannot be concluded that there is sufficient provision for affordable housing or public open space. The development is therefore contrary to Housing Policy 5 and Recreation Policies 3 and 4 of the Strategic Plan.
- ✕5. The development of this site is inextricably linked to the demolition of buildings on the site on the other side of Gib Lane as the widening of the lane and the provision of bin storage is on that site where there are currently buildings. This demolition is not part of the current application and as such, the application is deficient and incapable of being implemented on its own. The demolition of the other buildings is the subject of 19/00202/CON which is recommended for refusal and the redevelopment of that site is proposed in 19/00201/B is also recommended for refusal. As such, were this current application to be approved and the buildings demolished on the other side of the lane with no redevelopment, the rear of the proposed building would be publicly visible and it is not considered that the functional design and appearance of the rear elevation would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area at this point, nor provide an acceptable visual impact, contrary to Environment Policy 35 and General Policy 2b, c and g of the Strategic Plan.
