DEC Officers Report

Application No.: 19/00203/B Applicant: Empire Garages Ltd Proposal: Demolition of commercial garages and related buildings and erection of 5No three storey town houses and apartment block containing twelve apartments, all with associated parking (in association with PA 19/00204/CON) Site Address: 4 Garages And Car Compound Stanley Road Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1NY Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 18.07.2019 _________________________________________________________________ R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons Reasons for Refusal - R 1. The height and mass of the apartment building and the northern elevation with its bulk and general absence of interesting features would have an adverse impact on the Conservation Area and streetscene generally, whether the viewer is close by on Cross Street or Stanley Road or further afield, contrary to Environment Policy 35 and General Policy 2b, c and g of the Strategic Plan. - R 2. The height and mass of the proposed apartment building would have an adverse impact on the light and outlook available from 21, 23, 25 Christian Street, 27 and 29, Stanley Terrace, - 21 and 26, Circular Road and Octagon House, Cross Street contrary to General Policy 2g of the Strategic Plan. - R 3. The height and mass of the terraced building closest to 3, Stanley Road would have an adverse impact on the light and outlook from the only windows which serve the bathroom and bedroom of this property and as such the development would fail to accord with General Policy 2g of the Strategic Plan. - R 4. 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. - R 5. 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. - R 6. The proposal fails to make appropriate provision for affordable housing or public open space. Whilst a commuted sum towards the provision of public open space may be acceptable in this case, no details of this are provided in the application. Given the nature and location of the site, the provision of affordable housing should be made on site. It is not accepted that there are sufficient grounds not to provide this on site and as such the application fails to accord with Housing Policy 5 and Recreation Policies 3 and 4 of the Strategic Plan. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are 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):

• 3, Stanley Road

• 30, Stanley Road Mullen Beg, Patrick, owners of 22 Stanley Mount

• 33, Stanley Terrace 24, Circular Road

• 5, Stanley Road 37, Stanley Terrace

• 20, Stanley Road

• 18, Stanley Mount

• 5, Stanley Road

• 32, Stanley Road

• 34, Stanley Road

• 29, Stanley Terrace 17, Circular Road

• 26, Stanley Road

• 39, Stanley Terrace

35, Stanley Terrace 22, Stanley Road

• 40, Stanley Road

23, Christian Street 24, Stanley Road

• 16, Stanley Road

• 27, Stanley Terrace

• 9A, Stanley Road

• 31, Stanley Terrace 22, Circular Road

as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018).

It is recommended that the following parties and owners/occupiers of the following properties 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):

Tim Crookall as he does not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy

15, Circular Road

• 25, Bridge Street

• 6, Stanley Mount
• 7, Victoria Terrace

• 7, Stanley Mount 11, Stanley Road
• 8, Gib Lane 31, Shore Road

• 5, Stanley Mount Westholme, Cannan Avenue

• 13, Rockmount Road

21, Queen's Drive 60, Patrick Street 17, Stanley Road 6, Stanley Road 8, Stanley Road

• 24, Bridge Street

• 5, Circular Road Thie ny Scoill, Derby Road

9, Stanley Road

• 13, Stanley Road

4, Stanley Road

• 11, Church Street Albany House, Albany Road The Old Chapel, Patrick, owner of an office in Gib Lane

14, Stanley Mount 14, Bridge Street 19, Stanley Road

• 14, Stanley Road

• 12, Stanley Road Reayrt ny Keylley

• 6, Oak Road

• 6, Circular Road and Garden Flat. Marine Parade, owners of The Old Stables, Gib Lane

as these properties are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy

Manx National Heritage and Peel Heritage Trust as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE DIRECTION OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

THE SITE

1.1 The application site is an area of land which sits to the rear of Stanley Road and to the east of Cross Street in the heart of Peel and within its Conservation Area. The site accommodates a number of buildings, three garage buildings which front onto Stanley Road and further garaging within the site. - 1.2 The building on the corner of Cross Street and Stanley Road is a pitched roofed industrial style building with a rendered frontage onto Stanley Road, incorporating a large vehicular opening and doors and a pedestrian door and window alongside. This building extends along the side of Cross Street in brick and sandstone. The roof is finished in corrugated sheeting.

1.2 The next building up is a brick, pitched roofed garage whose ridge runs parallel with Stanley Road, at right angles to that of the building alongside. This too has a vehicular entrance with timber sliding doors fronting onto Stanley Road. - 1.3 The highest building within the site fronting onto Stanley Road is a two storey office building associated with the garages alongside. This is part dashed render and part brick finish with a pedestrian door and windows. - 1.4 The Cross Street frontage is formed by the gable of the lowest garage building and a sandstone wall with fencing above. The land within the site rises considerably above the height of the roadside wall. Vehicular access is available through an opening at the higher end of Cross Street, to the rear of 21 and 23, Christian Street. There is a single garage set back from Cross Street, between the rear of these properties and the site. There is a patch of Japanese Knotweed to the left of the entrance into the site. This is a Schedule 8 Species in the Wildlife Act 1990. - 1.5 The rear of the site at this point is bounded by the garage and the rear of numbers 21-33 (odd numbers only), Christian Street/Stanley Terrace with a pedestrian lane separating them from the site. 21-25 are two storey as is 33 but 27, 29 and 31 are taller two storey dwellings. The eastern side of the site backs onto 35-39, Stanley Terrace. Further along Stanley Road are two storey houses set above the level of the road with small, walled front gardens. Further down Stanley Road is a terrace of three storey cottages, all stepped in height to reflect the falling level of the road. These do not have front gardens. The houses in Stanley Road have a combination of finishes, some dashed render, some stone and some plain, painted render. - 1.6 21-25, Christian Street have their frontages flush with the public footway whilst 27-41, Stanley Terrace have small front gardens. All the properties have kitchen, bedroom and bathroom windows in the rear elevation as well as large landing windows all of which look out over and up to the application site. All of these properties have at least a small rear yard, some having longer areas of rear amenity space, particularly 39, Stanley Terrace whose rear garden runs back to the rear of 3, Stanley Road and the proposed new town houses. The rear of some of the Stanley Road properties is formed by an old sandstone wall and supports the higher level garden area. - 1.7 3, Stanley Road has a flat roofed annex which abuts the application site where the eastern end of the terrace will sit. Currently the annex sits alongside the flat roof of one of the existing garage buildings which is only slightly higher than the flat roof. The flat roof and the lantern light within it, of number 3 serves a bathroom which provides the only light to that room and together with a bedroom window/door, provide the only apertures in this elevation. There are no windows in the rear elevation and no rear amenity space as the higher land associated with the rear garden of 39, Stanley Terrace abuts the rear boundary of 1 and 3, Stanley Road.

PLANNING HISTORY

2.1 There are concurrent applications for Registered Building consent for the demolition of the buildings on the site including the sandstone wall (19/00204/CON), and for RB consent and planning approval for the redevelopment of other land owned by the applicant and used in association with the car sales and repair operation, at the northern end of Stanley Road (19/00199/B, 19/00200/CON, 19/00201/B and 19/00202/CON). - 2.2 There are previous applications on this site for the alterations to the existing buildings, which are not relevant to the current proposal. - 2.3 Within the vicinity of the site there have been applications to redevelop the buildings on the corner of Cross Street and Stanley Mount (14/00421/B and 05/01016/B granted approval to redevelopment of these plots for residential purposes). THE PROPOSAL

3.1 Proposed is the redevelopment of the site, removing all existing structures on the site, remodelling the level of the site to reduce some of it to Cross Street level and the erection of five terraced dwellings fronting onto Stanley Road and the erection of twelve apartments which front onto Cross Street. - 3.2 Terraced houses

• 3.2.1 The terraced houses will follow the character and appearance of other residential dwellings in the streetscene other than unit 5 which has a n angled section which steps back to join the gable of 3, Stanley Road which at this point is a single storey flat roofed annex which provides a bathroom and flat roofed area accessed from the bedroom through a large window. The buildings will extend no further, and in some parts, less further back than are the existing buildings and will be generally set slightly further forward. They will have small, walled front gardens like some of the properties in the streetscene. The buildings will be taller than both the existing buildings and the existing pair or semi detached dwellings to the north and with the ground floor level established lower than the two dwellings to the north whose ground floor is raised between 1.3m and 2m from road level. 3, Stanley Road has a building depth (front to back) of 7m, number 5 on the other side of Cross Street is almost 8m deep and the properties on the other side of Stanley Road are just under 8m deep. The proposed dwellings will be over

• 9.5m deep other than that which joins the terrace to number 3 which is slightly further back and is 8.5m deep. The proposed terrace will be 5m higher than the existing building on site and 1m higher than 3, Stanley Road in the case of the unit immediately alongside.

• 3.2.2 The dwellings will be three storey like many in the streetscene, particularly those directly opposite and immediately north (downhill) of Cross Street but unlike 1 and 3, Stanley Road. They will be finished in coloured smooth render with each property finished in a different colour using the Colours of Mann pallete and slated roof. The front wall will be rendered also and up to a height above the ground floor window cill levels: those elsewhere in the streetscene differ in that some have low walls with railings above, cappings and all are lower than those proposed.
• 3.2.3 All of the properties will have horizontal banding which mimics those on the rendered properties in the streetscene, sliding sash windows which are slightly shorter and less vertically proportioned than those elsewhere in the streetscene although the pattern of reducing the height of the windows in the second floor is included here with these windows being square in shape. Chimneys are included on the gable of each property other than the northern unit which has a chimney offset from its gable and the frontage angled at the point it meets the boundary with number 3, Stanley Road. The layout includes a pedestrian access through to the rear parking area as the dwellings will not have direct access to this due to differing ground levels and a preference not to have pedestrian access onto the access ramp o the proposed car parking spaces.

• 3.2.4 The sectional drawing CC, 1712-C-004 shows the chimneys on the proposed terraced houses considerably less wide (just over 1m) than in the elevational drawing (1712-C-006) (2.5m wide) and wider still (3m) on the elevations from Cross Street (1712-C-007). The applicant has confirmed that they would wish to install the widest depiction of the chimneys and would also accept conditions to control a lowering of the front boundary wall, the enlargement of the windows, the balconies in the apartments would be Juliet-style, not projecting ones, that the sandstone feature will be sawn cut sandstone. They estimate that the wall to be removed dated from very early twentieth century and a portion of it is to be retained although this does not appear to be shown in any of the proposed drawings.
• 3.2.5 The dwellings will have four bedrooms although the drawings annotate both the first and second floors as having bedrooms 1 and 2 and rear gardens with a set of steps up to a slightly higher level.

3.3 Apartments

• 3.3.1 There is proposed to be an apartment building accommodating 12 apartments: there will be six 2 bed units, three 3 bed units and three 1 bed units. The building will have three full elevations with a partial elevation to Cross Street which, taking into account the sloping nature of the ground down towards Stanley Road, incorporates an aperture which provides vehicular access to the lower ground level parking spaces (10), cycle (24) and bin stores, motorcycle parking spaces (5), lift and stairwell. Each car parking space is 2.5m by 5m with 6.3m separating the fronts of each space.
• 3.3.2 The pedestrian level walling which abuts the lower ground level car park comprises a rendered wall between 0m and 2.3m in height. A pedestrian footway is provided across the frontage with a width of 1.2m.. The carriageway of Cross Street will remain at 6m, the footway being provided on land owned by the applicant.
• 3.3.3 The elevational treatment is of a relatively modern style of building with verticality provided by vertically proportioned windows which are positioned each directly above the other, three projecting full height bays. The building has a heavy parapet with recessed, hipped roof finished in slates. The two smaller projecting bays contain three glazed balconies each with patio doors behind.
• 3.3.4 The rear elevation is plainer without any projecting gables but a series of symmetrically arranged windows and patio doors. All of the windows have a top opening top two thirds, fixed bottom one third style.
• 3.3.5 The building will be 17m to the nearest residential boundary to the east (the rear of 35, Stanley Terrace. The building is closer to the rear of 23-31, Terrace and there will be only high level windows in this elevation. The side of the building will be 1.5m lower than the height of 27, Stanley Terrace and the eaves around 0.7m lower where the distance between these properties is just over 11m.

3.4 The overall site

• 3.4.1 The development will provide ten spaces above ground to the rear of the apartment building and thirteen spaces beneath the building. The ten outside spaces are intended to serve the five terraced houses with the remaining thirteen serving the twelve apartments.
• 3.4.2 The applicant describes the site historically as having been open field/grass since the early 1800s after which the street arrangement evolved around it. They describe the existing industrial use of the site for car sales and repair as more suitably located elsewhere and with new dealers having purpose built premises located in the Douglas area, this has resulted in the closure of some of the smaller businesses. Whilst the development, in conjunction with 19/00199/B and 19/00201/B, will result in the loss of employment, the inclusion in the other applications of commercial floorspace will assist in the mitigation of this. They consider the

• inclusion of these industrial premises as out of place within a residential street scene and thus, the introduction of replacement commercial activity was considered similarly inappropriate. They consider that the development of the terraced houses continue the existing form found in Stanley Road. The setting back of the terraced houses maximises the distance from the houses opposite and creates a small front garden in which the bin could be stored on collection days. They also allow for level entry into the properties.
• 3.4.3 They suggest that the apartment building also picks up on local architectural details - the string courses and window proportions and the inclusion of a sandstone projecting gable incorporating the stairwell and entrance.

3.5 Conservation

• 3.5.1 The applicant has undertaken a study of the local site to identify conservation interest and potential contextual references of merit that would influence the redevelopment of the site. They do not believe that the existing buildings to be removed have any historical, architectural or other interest and their removal is not contrary to Strategic Plan or Planning Policy Statement 1/01 policies.
• 3.5.2 They refer to the Cullen report and the historical development of the town, acknowledging that there are perhaps limits to the architectural styles that can be introduced and absorbed on to the town's skyline but a modern interpretation, rooted in the existing character of the area is likely to create an interesting addition to Peel's cityscape. They note the predominantly residential character of Stanley Road interrupted only by the commercial garages with the predominance of two and three storey town houses with tiered roof lines parallel with the road and the wide chimney stacks. Most have rendered facades and sliding sash windows although some have stone frontages and walled gardens. They note the narrow street frontage with properties opposite each other with a separating distance of around 9-

10m.

• 3.5.3 It describes Cross Street as "more anonymous than Stanley Road" with what are considered several historical commercial units adjacent to Cross Street having been converted to residential specifically 18 and 20, Stanley Mount. They describe the sandstone retaining wall having "no identifiable historic or conservation value" although noting its visual presence in the streetscene and suggesting that it should be referenced in the redevelopment of the site.

3.6 Car parking

• 3.6.1 The full complement of car parking spaces has not been provided on site and the applicant refers to the Strategic Plan guidance which permits the relaxation of the car parking standards in town centre locations and in architecturally or historically sensitive areas. They also suggest that the central location of the site and proximity to local public transport (buses), that Stanley Road currently has restrictions on car parking along the frontage of the terraced houses and this will be released on completion of the development, allowing for more on street parking with the additional benefit that the overspill parking from the current garages estimated to be 3-4 spaces on Cross Street during the week - will no longer occur on with formalised parking here. They believe that cumulatively, the proposal results in environmental improvement including the improvement of outlook from neighbouring properties.

3.7 Public Open Space

• 3.7.1 The proposal makes no provision for on site public amenity, recreational of children's play space within the site however, they suggest that the central location of the site and its proximity to existing public amenities spaces should assist in compensating for that lack of space within the development. They refer to the beach, St. Patrick's Isle, Peel headlands, the open brooghs behind Marine Parade, the bowling green, skate park and tennis courts on Marine Parade all within walking distance of the site and further afield within the town are the swimming pool, the two schools' recreational facilities, Peel camp site and golf course. They are prepared to provide a commuted sum by way of legal agreement to address this shortfall

and this is the subject of discussion between Peel Town Commissioners and the Department of Infrastructure Housing Division.

Planning Policy

3.8 The applicant believes that the development accords with Strategic Policies 1, 3, 4, 5, 7,

10, 11, 12, Spatial Policy 2, General Policy 2, Housing Policies 3, 5, 17, Community Policies 7, 10, 11, Infrastructure Policies 1, 4, 5 are all satisfied by the proposal. They believe that the proposal will increase the choice and location of local housing and will help meet the current shortfall of 770 units in the West identified in the latest Update of the Residential Land Availability Study. They describe the location a sustainable within easy and convenient distance of amenities and services and the development strikes a balance between the immediate and wider architectural contexts of the site, creating a cohesive redevelopment that aligns itself respectfully to its neighbouring properties as well as adding architectural value to the existing street scene and the Conservation Area as a whole.

Affordable Housing

3.9 The scheme does not include the provision of any affordable housing units on site and a commuted sum is proposed for this and for the public open space deficiency although no specified sum has been proposed. PLANNING POLICY

4.1 The site lies within a wider area of Mixed Use on the Peel Local Plan of 1989, reflecting the variety of uses in the area - industrial retail, residential and tourism. The site is also within the town's Conservation Area which was adopted in 1990. - 4.2 The Peel Local Plan identifies that the town has "special characteristics" (paragraph 1.1) and the town plan aims to satisfy these characteristics and to meet its changing needs, stimulating and encouraging development where appropriate and to give a clear locational reference to national policies on development, change of use and conservation. The Plan includes reference to the need to closely control changes to existing retail units to ensure that original features which contribute significantly to the character of the old town are not lost (paragraph 2.5) and that no fixed guidelines on the retail zoning should be adopted given the sensitive nature and originality of the old town's fabric and its status as a Conservation Area (paragraph 2.3). - 4.3 The plan refers to additional residential accommodation in the town as being a priority (paragraph 5.1). - 4.4 The plan encourages "positive schemes of action" to enhance the character of the area (paragraphs 9.2 and 9.15) and identifies the importance of vacant and derelict buildings and what future they have to the town (9.4v), but noting that "demolition of even a single building which in itself may not be of architectural or historic significance and therefore not registered, and its replacement by a new building could prejudice the character or appearance of a Conservation Area" (paragraph 9.5). It continues, "If the development of a site following demolition were to be approved, the prospective developer should be aware that close attention would be paid to the design, location and massing of a replacement building" (paragraph 9.6). It states that, "Any new building will only be encouraged if it conforms to high standards of design and it respects the scale and character of its surroundings" (paragraph 9.17). Strategic Plan 2016 - 4.5 As the site lies within a Conservation Area, Environment Policies 30 and 35 are applicable EP30 delas with the demolition of existing buildings and that element of the scheme is dealt with under 19/00204/CON.

Environment Policy 35 states "Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development." This echoes the provisions of PPS1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man:

POLICY CA/2 SPECIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS When considering proposals for the possible development of any land or buildings which fall within the conservation area, the impact of such proposals upon the special character of the area, will be a material consideration when assessing the application. Where a development is proposed for land which, although not within the boundaries of the conservation area, would affect its context or setting, or views into or out of the area; such issues should be given special consideration where the character or appearance of a conservation area may be affected.

4.6 There are other policies within the Strategic Plan which are applicable to this planning application.

• 4.6.1 Its Strategic Aim, Strategic Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 and 12, Transport Policy 1 all promote sustainable development which preserves the important character of the Island and promotes improvement of its environment.
• 4.6.2 Peel is a Service Centre within the Spatial Strategy where "Area Plans will define the development boundaries of such centres so as to provide a range of housing and employment opportunities at a scale appropriate to the settlement" (Spatial Policy 2). Spatial Policy 5 directs new development to within defined settlements as does Housing Policy 4.

• 4.6.2 General Policy 2 sets out standards of development to be achieved where development accords with the land use designation of the site and states:

General Policy 2: "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;
• (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;
• (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
• (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
• (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;

• (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
• (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

• 4.6.3 Environment Policy 42: "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality".

• 4.6.4 Environment Policy 43: The Department will generally support proposals which seek to regenerate run-down urban and rural areas. Such proposals will normally be set in the context of regeneration strategies identified in the associated Area Plans The Department will encourage the re-use of sound built fabric rather than its demolition."
• 4.6.5 Housing Policy 5 requires that in developments of 8 of more residential units, a contribution towards affordable housing equivalent to 25% of the total number of units should be provided, affordable housing defined as that directly provided by the Department or local authority or which meets the criteria of the Department's House Purchase Assistance Scheme 2004 or any successive scheme approved by Tynwald.
• 4.6.6 Housing Policy 17 provides advice about the development of apartments. Whilst this applies to the conversion of existing buildings, which this is not, it provides guidance on the standards expected in this type of development:

Housing Policy 17: The conversion of buildings into flats will generally be permitted in residential areas provided that:

• (a) adequate space can be provided for clothes-drying, refuse storage, general amenity, and, if practical, car-parking;
• (b) the flats created will have a pleasant clear outlook, particularly from the principal rooms and
• (c) if possible, this involves the creation of parking on site or as part of an overall traffic management strategy for the area.

• 4.6.7 Chapter 10 of the Plan sets out the need for and benefit from the provision of Public Open Space, establishing standards of different types of POS to be provided - formal recreation, children's play and amenity space. Where this cannot be provided on site, which is the preferred method of delivery, commuted sums can be acceptable (Recreation Policies 3 and

4 and paragraph 10.3.9).

• 4.6.8 Transport policy 4 requires that new development must be supported by a satisfactory highway network in a safe and appropriate manner and Transport Policy 7 requires that new development accords with the Department's standards on car parking which are set out in Appendix 7. This requires that new residential dwellings, whether apartments or houses, are generally provided with 1 parking space where there is only one bedroom per apartment and otherwise 2 parking spaces at least one of which is retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the dwelling. These standards may be relaxed where the development would otherwise secure the re-use of a Registered Building or a building or architectural or historic interest, where it would result in the preservation of a sensitive streetscene or would otherwise be of benefit to a Conservation Area and where it is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrate that a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality. A.7.1 specifically states that in the case of town centre and previously developed sites, the Department will consider reducing the requirement to provide on site parking having regard to the location of the site relative to public transport, employment and public amenities, the size of the dwellings, any restriction on the nature of occupancy (such as sheltered housing) and the impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
• 4.6.9 The Department has an Operational Policy on Section 13 Agreements which set out why and how such agreements should be entered into and also provides guidance on how this is done. It states: "It is important that the Planning Committee has sufficient information to understand the Case Officer's recommendation. Therefore applications will not be presented to the planning committee without at least a draft Heads of Terms for the agreement."
• 4.6.10 The Department has also recently adopted guidance on the design of residential development - new dwellings and extensions thereto and this provides advice on design as well

as how the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in nearby dwellings, may be assessed.

REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Highway Services oppose the application on the basis that the application fails to demonstrate that the proposed development and highway changes would be safe and that there is a shortfall in the provision of parking. They suggest that the visibility splays of both entrances must be shown and part of Circular Road must be included to be able to determine the level of visibility required along it from the southern access which is not directly opposite it. The visibility splays shown have not been drawn correctly. No site levels have been provided to demonstrate that the subterranean parking would be feasible or that the ramped accesses would be 1:12 gradient or lower. This must be demonstrated in accordance with the Equality Act as there is no alternative ramp for disabled users. They note that the track plots show that two way traffic cannot be accommodated at either car park entrance and swept path plots need to be done for a large car park over 5m long rather than 4m long as shown. The car park aisles should be wide enough to enable cars to enter and exit. Information on refuse collection should be provided. 2m wide footways need to be provided along Stanley Road and Cross Street. They suggest that the development appears to encroach onto the public highway which is unacceptable and the proposed parking bays on Cross Street should be removed as Highway Services would not agree to any changes to the existing unrestricted on-street parking as part of the development. The scheme fails to provide the full amount of required parking and there is no information in the application to demonstrate that there is sufficient on-street parking in the vicinity to accommodate any overspill. There are no accessible parking spaces and the cycle store may not be large enough to accommodate the required number of cycles (Manual for Manx Roads requires one space per apartment) (12.05.19). - 5.2 Peel Town Commissioners object to the application, considering that the proposal will result in an overall loss of parking spaces in the area and whilst this may be necessitated by the principle of redeveloping the sites, the impact of this should not be ignored. They do not consider that the applicant has demonstrated that there will be no unacceptable impact on on street car parking in the area as is required by the Strategic Plan and a parking survey should have accompanied the application to demonstrate that there is capacity in the car parking areas mentioned. They note that the height of the apartments is comparable with the highest adjacent building and this results in an overbearing impact on the streetscene and removing some of the random heights in the buildings around which add to the character of the surrounding area and the development will an oppressive view from neighbouring properties of the new development and in particular the north facing properties on Christian Street with their living areas looking out over the Cross Street development. They also express concern at the loss of the sandstone wall and no incorporation of this material in the new buildings (15.04.19).

• 5.3.1 Manx National Heritage object to the application, noting that the building would be stepped, as are other properties in the streetscene but its height would be higher than the three storey buildings lower down Stanley Road and significantly taller than the two storey cottage adjacent on the upper side, depriving these properties of natural light. They comment that the development utilises the site very intensively so that it is deeper and taller than their neighbours with the mass and height being apparent to and negatively affecting the adjacent properties. They observe that the photomontage clearly illustrates the dominant appearance to views into Peel from the west and suggesting that a smaller and less intensive scheme would be more sympathetic to the Conservation Area at this point.
• 5.3.2 They suggest that the extreme height of the apartment block emphasises the visual intrusiveness resulting from the mass and unsympathetic detailing and consider that the building will overshadow the nearby cottages on Christian Street, presenting to the rear windows of these properties a blank gable except for a few tiny windows and the building will dominate 19-21, Circular Road and 20, Stanley Mount which are themselves higher than the older properties and which demonstrate the visual dangers of over-tall modern developments

in an historical streetscene. They suggest that the measured heights on the plans seem to indicate that the block will be significantly higher than shown on the photomontages. They consider that these developments would represent a negative impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area (05.04.19).

5.4 Private representations

• 5.4.1 There are a number of private representations all of whom express similar concerns in respect of the development, many expressing the view that they do not object to the principle of redevelopment of these sites, but solely to the scale, mass and design and the impacts therefrom on the local environment. They object to the development on the grounds that there would be insufficient car parking - citing examples of having to drive around in the evening to find a parking space and a number of residents submitting the same parking survey which reveals that at many times of the day and week that there are fewer than three parking spaces, if at all, available in the streets surrounding the site. It is noted that some of the units are four bedroomed which could give rise to a demand for more than two spaces per unit. They share concerns that the buildings would be inappropriate in design and scale to the surrounding area and the Conservation Area and that the height and mass of the building would adversely affect the outlook, light and living conditions of their properties in varying degrees, some residents noting that their properties were specifically designed to have large windows in the rear and dormers. Concern is expressed at the fact that there is Japanese Knotweed on the site which is a Schedule 8 species in the Wildlife Act 1990.
• 5.4.2 Many residents are also concerned about the impact of the development in terms of the amount of earth to be removed, the impact on the stability of the surrounding buildings and walls, much of which is built on sand and the impact of the construction traffic and increased traffic levels generally from the proposed developments, emergency vehicles, noise and dust. Reference is made to loss of view and property values although these are not material planning considerations. Some question the argument that the current garage business is unviable, suggesting that if it were, it would have closed before now and suggest that the applicant has mentioned that he may open another garage. Some residents state that they use the garage and in some cases there is a waiting list for customers to be seen. Concern is expressed at the limited information which has been provided about the impact of the development on the residents of Christian Street and Stanley Terrace and indeed some of the properties are not shown fully on the submitted plans which makes the assessment of the application difficult along with little, if any information on how the land will be excavated and the surrounding land supported during and after excavation and reference is made to the loss of a life during building works in Gib Lane when a sandstone wall collapsed.
• 5.4.3 They question whether two cars would be able to pass each other in the entrance to the site. Concern is also expressed about the accuracy of the plans with discrepancies between 1712-01 and 1712-C-009 the height of the building relative to Stanley Terrace seems to be different and this is compounded by the lack of clarify as to where the surrounding buildings sit in relation to the proposed building which at some points is less than 12m away. One party suggests that the current space within the site offers an opportunity to create a managed green space of genuine wildlife value within the town and that the undeveloped nature of the site belies its topography and difficulty in developing because of it and should be seen as a green lung. Reference is made to what is considered successful redevelopment within the town in Queen Street-Strand Street- Beach Street in the 1970-80s.

• 5.4.3 Representations have been made from the owners of the following properties:

• 33, Stanley Terrace (18.03.19)

• 15, Circular Road (22.03.19)

• 25, Bridge Street (22.03.19)

• 30, Stanley Road (25.03.19) Mullen Beg, Patrick, owners of 22 Stanley Mount (26.03.19)

• 6, Stanley Mount (undated but received on 26.03.19) 24, Circular Road (25.03.19)
• 7, Victoria Terrace (27.03.19)

31, Stanley Terrace (undated and received on 28.03.19)

• 3, Stanley Road (27.03.19)

11, Stanley Road (28.03.19) 37, Stanley Terrace (30.03.19 and 05.04.19 and 16.04.19) 20, Stanley Road (28.03.19) 8, Gib Lane (30.03.19) 18, Stanley Mount (undated but received on 02.04.19)

• 31, Shore Road (30.03.19)

5, Stanley Mount (28.03.19) Westholme, Cannan Avenue (29.03.19) 13, Rockmount Road (29.03.19) 22, Circular Road (31.03.19) 5, Stanley Road (31.03.19)

• 32, Stanley Road (undated but received on 01.04.19)

21, Queen's Drive (29.03.19) 34, Stanley Road (29.03.19) 29, Stanley Terrace (26.03.19 and 30.04.19 - understood to be 30.03.19) 17, Circular Road (31.03.19) 60, Patrick Street (01.04.19) 26, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 22, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 17, Stanley Road (02.04.19)

• 39, Stanley Terrace (03.04.1, 04.04.19 and 11.04.19)

35, Stanley Terrace (03.04.19) 6, Stanley Road (03.04.19) 8, Stanley Road (undated but received on 03.04.19)

• 40, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 24, Bridge Street (02.04.19)

• 5, Circular Road (undated but received on 03.04.19) Thie ny Scoill, Derby Road (03.04.19)

9, Stanley Road (04.04.19)

• 13, Stanley Road (02.04.19)

4, Stanley Road (03.04.19) 11, Church Street (04.04.19) 23, Christian Street (02.04.19) 24, Stanley Road (04.04.19) 16, Stanley Road (03.04.19) Albany House, Albany Road (04.04.19) The Old Chapel, Patrick, owner of an office in Gib Lane (05.04.19) 7, Stanley Mount (02.04.19)

• 14, Stanley Mount (05.04.19)

27, Stanley Terrace (05.04.19) 14, Bridge Street (06.04.19) 19, Stanley Road (05.04.19) 9A, Stanley Road (05.04.19) 14, Stanley Road (05.04.19) 12, Stanley Road (05.04.19) Reayrt ny Keylley (05.04.19)

• 6, Circular Road (06.04.19)

• 6. Oak Road (28.07.19) Garden Flat. Marine Parade, owners of The Old Stables, Gib Lane (03.04.19)

Tim Crookall MLC reiterates many of the points raised by local residents, adding that in his time as representing the people of the town, he has very, very rarely seen so much opposition to a planning application (13.04.19).

Peel Heritage Trust express concern about the impact on the Conservation Area from the size and mass of the proposed buildings, the impact on views from nearby dwellings (which is not a material planning consideration) and the overwhelming impact of the apartment block on the properties round about (28.03.19).

ASSESSMENT

6.1 The principle of the development of residential development on this site is considered acceptable on the basis that this use is presently found in the area, they are included in the definition of Mixed Use and are compatible with the adjacent area. The issues in this case are:

• i) whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area in accordance with Environment Policy 35
• ii) whether the proposal would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area in general in accordance with EP42 and GP2
• iii) whether the proposal would satisfy the requirements of General Policy 2 in terms of impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property
• iv) whether the development would make adequate provision for car parking in accordance with Transport Policy 7 and Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan
• v) whether the proposed apartments and town houses would have sufficient amenity and service provision in accordance with Housing Policy 17 and Transport Policy 7 and Appendix 7
• vi) whether the proposal would have any adverse effect on highway safety in accordance with General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 4 and
• vii) whether there is adequate provision for affordable housing and public open space.

6.2 whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area in accordance with Environment Policy 35

• 6.2.1 The existing buildings on the site will need to be demolished in order to facilitate the redevelopment of the site and the acceptability of this is dealt with in 19/00204/CON. The existing buildings on the site are varied in terms of their architectural treatment, age and appearance but none contribute positively to the character of the area. The sandstone wall does contribute to the character of the area and its removal is dealt with in the relevant RB application.
• 6.2.2 The proposed terraced housing follows the stepped building line established by the properties in Stanley Road. Their general detailing is also reflective of the appearance of the three storey town houses found elsewhere on Stanley Road however their depth is slightly wider. Whilst this may have an impact on the living conditions of those in neighbouring properties, it is not considered to affect the appearance of the properties from a Conservation Area point of view. The height of the property alongside 3, Stanley Road, being higher than its existing neighbour, is not in keeping with most of the street which steps with relative consistency all the way down the street although the section between 5 and 19 includes some variation on this. Again, whilst this additional height may result in impacts on the living conditions of those in adjacent dwellings, it is not considered that this adversely affects the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, particularly when compared with the visual impact of the existing garage buildings.
• 6.2.3 The apartment building could be considered to have an impact on the Conservation Area due to its design and its height, both of which contrast with those of the adjacent buildings. Development within Conservation Areas need not always replicate, or try to replicate existing built fabric although when done successfully, this can help new buildings sit seamlessly with the existing streetscene, as has been achieved on Strand/Beach Streets. Its height, however, opposite new buildings which are lower and existing buildings in the form of 21-25, Christian

• Street, which are lower, results in an impact which is adverse, introducing a building which does not sit comfortably in the streetscene and which does not respect the general order of the buildings around it.
• 6.2.4 The design of the building is not intended to stand out or make a particular architectural statement and is unashamedly not following the vernacular arrangement of windows, finish materials or form. More modern architecture does have its place within historic streetscenes, however, the height and mass of the building and the northern elevation with its bulk and general absence of interesting features would have an adverse impact on the Conservation Area and streetscene generally, whether the viewer is close by on Cross Street or Stanley Road or further afield, as can be seen in the photomontages which show this gable sitting proud above the other rooftops and taking an appearance of more of a large, civic building than a collection of domestic units.

6.3 whether the proposal would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area in general in accordance with EP42 and GP2

• 6.3.1 The conclusion of this is that set out in the preceding paragraphs.

6.4 whether the proposal would satisfy the requirements of General Policy 2 in terms of impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property

• 6.4.1 Little information has been provided to assess the impact of the scheme on the living conditions of those in properties close to the site, particularly 2 and 5, Stanley Road, 19-25, Christian Street, 27-41, Stanley Terrace 26, Circular Road and the relatively new buildings which side onto Cross Street (21, Circular Road and Octagon House, Cross Street). The proposed building would be 6.5m higher than the ridge of the existing garage alongside the site and the gable facing the rear of the Christian Street and Stanley Terrace properties will be 9-9.5m high from ground level alongside the lane at a distance of 12m, 15.5m, 16m and 12m away from the rear of 21, 23, 25 Christian Street and 27, Stanley Terrace respectively and was close as 7m from these properties' rear boundaries. Guidance is provided in the Department's new Residential Design Guidance, March 2019 where neighbourliness is discussed in Section 7. This talks about overbearing development and building which can have an adverse impact on light and outlook. It recommends that we consider taking a dimension which is measured from 2m on the frontage of an affected property, looking 25 degrees across towards the proposed building. If the building appears above this point, there is likely to be an adverse impact on outlook and light. Whilst the applicant has not provided an illustration of this, a simple consideration of this calculation appears to show that the building would extend beyond this height and would therefore have an adverse impact on the outlook and light from 21-25, Christian Street and 27 and 29, Stanley Terrace. Aside from this calculation, the outlook from the rear of these properties is currently out over open land where there is a clear, open aspect, other than that from the lower levels which is obscured by the single storey garage to the rear of 23 and 25, Christian Street. The proposed development would bring a large expanse of rendered wall of a building whose eaves level is higher than those of the two storey Christian Street properties despite the natural ground level being lower. These conclusions on light and outlook also apply to the outlook and light to the two properties which side onto Cross Street

• 6.4.2 The Design Guidance looks at areas where there is a tight-knit building layout and street pattern and suggests that in such cases it may be acceptable to allow closer distances. However, in this case, as the building is much taller than the majority of the dwellings around it, it is difficult to make this allowance. There will be 10m between the side elevations of the Circular Road/Stanley Mount/Cross Street buildings and whilst this is a fairly standard distance between properties in the older part of Peel, in this case, given the three full floors of accommodation and the underbuilding associated with the car park, the number of windows and the height of some of them, in relation to the outlook and privacy of the windows in the Cross Street elevations of the existing properties is likely to result in a significant invasion of privacy for these existing residents. Whilst a two storey building which would be similar to others already in the streetscene, would have an impact on outlook and privacy, what is

• proposed has a higher ground floor level and an additional floor of accommodation and windows resulting in a more significant impact.
• 6.4.3 The building will have less of an impact on other properties further up Stanley Terrace as they are further away although it is fully acknowledged that these properties have windows in their rear elevations which allow open views towards the Castle and the bay. The planning process does not protect a private view regardless of whether property owners may have purchased their home on account of the views that were available to them at the time. It is fully accepted that the building will change the view from these properties and that they would be looking towards the rear of a three storey building but the distances between the properties is such that there is unlikely to be a substantive, adverse impact in terms of how this impact is calculated given the Department's guidance on such things.
• 6.4.4 The easternmost house will be adjacent to 3, Stanley Road which is described above. The proposed dwelling will be taller than the existing flat roofed building and as there is a link which joins the new house with number 3, this has the effect of closing in the space between the main part of number 3 and the new gable. This intervening space accommodates a lantern light which provides the only light to the property's bathroom and the only window within the gable which serves the property's main bedroom. The proximity of the nearest property together with its height would have an adverse impact on the outlook and light to 3, Stanley Road.
• 6.5 whether the development would make adequate provision for car parking in accordance with Transport Policy 7 and Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan

• 6.5.1 The proposed development comprises five houses which each have two parking spaces, which satisfies the Strategic Plan standards The development also includes 12 apartments: six 2 bed units, three 3 bed units and three 1 bed units resulting in a requirement for 21 spaces where only 8 are being provided.

• 6.5.2 The applicant seeks to rely upon the relaxation provision within the Strategic Plan without demonstrating that the failure to provide the full complement of spaces will not result in unacceptable on-street parking in the area. The applicant instead seeks to point out that there are alternative parking spaces on street and note that the removal of the garage will release some on street spaces through the cessation of the operation which involves staff and customers' vehicles being parked on Stanley and Circular Roads and Cross Street. It is accepted that the cessation of the garage business would result in more on-street spaces being available, but this impact is likely to be felt only in the daytime when the garage would not have been operational. These are the times when the parking spaces for residents are less likely to be in demand and as such, the cessation of the garage business here is not likely to have a significant impact on the availability of spaces for nearby residents.
• 6.5.3 Stanley Road, Circular Road and Cross Street often busy and finding a space is difficult at all hours of the day. There is nothing in the application which would suggest that the additional eight spaces which are required for the apartment occupants could be found in the surrounding area without any adverse impact. Whilst a relaxation has been applied in other parts of the town, such as on East Quay (16/00839/B) where the inspector was content to accept one space per apartment, noting the applicant's evidence that it was relatively easy to find a space close to the site and also that the nearby apartments car parking spaces were not always fully utilised which suggested that apartments in this part of the town could be occupied by persons who only had one vehicle per apartment. There is no such evidence here, quite the contrary where parking spaces are difficult to find and where the surrounding area is residential rather than commercial, when parking spaces are likely to be required all at the same time. The objectors' car parking survey would support this.
• 6.5.4 The development would not preserve a sensitive streetscape to justify this: the development does not have to be so large or contain so may apartments to result in something

which would preserve the streetscape and the proposal does not re-use any existing buildings. Whilst redevelopment of some or all of the site may be of benefit to the Conservation Area, it does not have to be of this size. The lack of car parking cannot therefore be justified by parts a, b or c of Appendix Seven.

6.6 whether the proposed apartments and houses would have sufficient amenity and service provision in accordance with Housing Policy 17 and Transport Policy 7 and Appendix 7

6.6.1 The apartments have good outlook and light from the windows in the front and rear. The front windows would be 10m from the Cross Street dwellings and this privacy aspect is dealt with above. They are of a size as to be able to accommodate washing and drying facilities without needing external space for these functions. The proposal does not provide sufficient car parking to satisfy the Strategic Plan standards.

6.7 whether the proposal would have any adverse effect on highway safety in accordance with General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 4

6.7 whether there is adequate provision for affordable housing and public open space

• 6.7.1 The scheme makes no provision for either although there is reference in the application to the payment of a commuted sum. In terms of affordable housing, the Department's preference is for the required housing to be provided on site rather than the payment of a commuted sum, particularly if there is no intended affordable scheme to which the commuted sum would be paid. In this case, the DoI Housing Division have indicated that there is an ongoing demand for affordable units in Peel in the form of first time buyers' and public sector housing as well as housing for older people and the application site would be suitable for these. Housing Policy 5 would result in a requirement for 4.25 units. Whilst the proposed houses may be larger than the first time buyers' standards, this is only because they have been designed as such and of course the units could be made smaller to fit with these standards. There is nothing to suggest that the four bedroomed units would not be suitable for public sector housing.

CONCLUSION 7.1 The apartment building is considered to have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area due to its height and mass. The size and position of the proposed terraced housing on Stanley Road would have an adverse impact on the outlook and light to 3, Stanley Road and the height and mass of the apartment building would have an adverse impact on the outlook and light of Cross Street, Circular Road and Christian Street properties and there would be insufficient car parking provided without any evidence that the lack of parking would not result in an unacceptable impact on existing on-street parking in the vicinity. The application has not demonstrated that the development would have a safe impact on the local highway network and there are elements of the application which are not acceptable to the highway authority. Finally, there is inadequate or no provisions for the delivery of public open space or affordable housing within the application. For these reasons the application is considered to be unacceptable and is not supported.

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:

• (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) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and
• (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

8.2 The decision maker must determine:

• o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

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:…12.08.2019

Signed :………S CORLETT……….. 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 See below

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.