Loading document...
report made and no planning condition attached with regard to its design or provision. It was confirmed the "Ground excavation work will be carried out by and approved constructor. All waste materials will be taken to an approved site". No consideration of its proximity to the Conservation Area was undertaken.
44 Laxey as a village has many old roads with high retaining walls supporting them. Rencell Hill along the stretch parallel to the New Inn boundary shows no sign of damage as a result over the years. To the north of New Inn "Osbourne Cottage" has been extended beside the junction with Rencell Hill with New Road with apparently no adverse impacts.
45 With regard to the statement by E. A. Cowin of Laurel Bank (25th August 2014) para 6 the proposed car parking spaces are on land below the existing retaining wall and presently covered largely by the New Inn itself.
46 Throughout the various schemes the top of the proposed new retaining wall south of New Inn has remained in the same position. Yew Cottage and most of Rencell House are to the west of the existing stone retaining wall which will remain. At closest Laurel Bank will be 7m from the top of the new retaining wall. This is the same as Edgeworth, to the north, is from the existing retaining wall. In the case of Laurel Bank the initial drop to the upper gardens is less than exists from the existing stone retaining wall to ground level opposite the corner of Edgeworth. To the north of the New Inn the garden is already terraced. The proposal results in this format being repeated albeit to ground level. The two earlier schemes required that excavation was the full depth of the embankment to ground level throughout. The current scheme proposes a terraced approach. This means that less material may require to be excavated.
47 While a structural report was requested by the Planning Officer subsequent discussions held by the same officer with Building Control Officers make it clear that such a report and detailed design is the remit of the Building Control Section not the Planning Division. The design with respect to retaining wall structures is in accordance with General Policy 2 (m) "Development which is in accordance with the landuse zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that development ---[inter alia]--- takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and spaces around them".
48 In Para 6.109 of his report the Planning Officer refers to the fundamental acceptability of the scheme proposed. It should therefore be considered as fulfilling Environment Policy 28.
49 During the assessment of this application other issues have been raised. Albeit they do not form part of the reason for refusal the following would be emphasised
50 As the site was also a public house with a function room Community Policy 4 requires a demonstration that the use is no longer viable. In the absence of evidence other than a statement from the applicant's accountants (26th March 2012) supplemented by a further letter dated 27th June 2014 it has been accepted that as there was another public house opposite the site (Queen's hotel) this in itself mitigated the need for more detailed evidence of the lack of viability. In such circumstances, in an Island context marketing the property following its "well-advertised" closure would simply have been a case of throwing away finance. The applicant could have been approached at any time by anyone wishing to acquire the business. No such
approaches were received. Residential use of the whole site was therefore deemed by the Planning Office to be acceptable.
51 It is not generally appropriate to include details of private / business accounts on Planning files which are open to public view. Instead a similar approach to that taken with consultations with Department of Economic Development with regard to applications by individuals of "high net worth" should be taken. That Department assesses the financial information supplied by the applicant and advises the Planning Division accordingly. In this case the Licensing Court has examined the accounts and verified the non-viability of the premises as a public house by removal of its licence. That should be deemed as sufficient evidence in itself.
52 Apart from the Queen's Hotel opposite there are another three public houses within Laxey, two of which are adjacent to New Road and within 300m of the site. The third is in Old Laxey near the harbour. Apart from these there are licensed restaurants and a licensed private club / function room. One public house has a function room and there are five other halls / rooms available for hire in the village.
53 The proposal is beside Laxey’ Conservation Area. The site is currently occupied by the former New Inn originally a Mid - Victorian building, opened as a public house in 1854 but much extended both on south and west sides, and an empty parking lot backed by overgrown banks and retaining wall. There is a terraced garden area on the north side of the building.
54 The proposal comprises detached buildings following the slightly curving alignment of the road with car parking, gardens and yards behind them partly contained within the structure of retaining walls but designed so that the latter will eventually become obscured by controlled plant growth. The proposed houses themselves will largely separate the latter off from the Conservation Area. To the north of the northernmost house a garden area is proposed and the Monkey Puzzle tree which is a feature of the area will be retained. As acknowledged in the Planning Officer’s report the overall site as it exists is not particularly attractive. While the loss of the older part of the New Inn itself may be regretted the proposal has the advantage of tidying up the whole site giving it a stone wall frontage which marries in with other frontages in the area and housing of a scale that is appropriate to Laxey with ridges below the level of Rencell Hill. The development let alone the proposed retaining structure which cannot be considered in this respect separate from the housing which it is behind will thus not detrimentally affect an important view into or out of the Conservation Area.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
