Loading document...
1.1 The site is a parcel of land which lies between the rear of St. Patrick's Church and adjacent Presbytery to the east and Mill Road to the west. The site has upon it a single storey building which was previously Manx Gas's showroom and which abuts Mill Road. This is a modest building with a frontage of around 9m and is physically adjacent to a two and a half storey traditional cottage - 11, Station Road.
1.2 The site has a frontage to Mill Road of around 35m and includes land which is part of the concurrent application, PA 14/00930 which proposes industrial redevelopment of the remainder of the Manx Gas site - the part which accommodates the large gas storage cylinder. The site includes the existing access into the site through brick walling. A telegraph pole abuts the wall.
2.1 Proposed are the demolition of all structures on site and the erection of two semi-detached dwellings. The northernmost property is attached by way of a one and a half storey link, to 11, Station Road. Parking will be provided alongside an access lane to the rear of the southernmost property. Four spaces are provided within an area which also provides access to the industrial development proposed in PA 14/00930/B and separated from the road by a 2m high sandstone wall with an 11.7m wide opening to provide access. The link with 11, Station Road provides access to the rear of the northernmost new dwelling and 11, Station Road which does not presently have access to the rear.
2.2 The proposed dwellings are marginally (200mm) taller than the ridge of 11, Station Road. The dwellings will have decorative render bands around the windows and doors and steps up to the front doors to take account of the fall in the level of the site from rear to front. The ridge of the link element will be around 1.6m lower than the main ridge.
2.3 Following concerns raised by the neighbour at 11, Station Road, the applicant has had further discussions and amended the plans to take account of the issues raised. As such, the proposal now has a slightly reduced side annex abutting number 11 and a dedicated pedestrian access to their rear garden, separate from the access for the occupants of the proposed dwelling alongside to their rear garden area.
3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Peel Local Plan as Predominantly Industry. The local plan contains only one policy which is considered relevant: "Residential development in the vicinity will be discouraged" (6.8).
3.2 The site also lies on the outskirts and not within the town's Conservation Area.
3.3 As such the following policy is considered applicable:
Environment Policy 36 states; "Where development is proposed outside of, but close to the boundary of a Conservation Area, this will only be permitted where it will not detrimentally affect important views into and out of the Conservation Area."
Environment Policy 41 states: "The Department will require that archaeological evaluations be submitted prior to the determination of proposals affecting sites of known or potential archaeological significance. In cases where remains are affected but preservation in-situ is not merited, the Department will expect to secure excavations and/or recording in advance of
construction work either by the imposition of suitable conditions attached to a planning permission or through a formal agreement entered into with the developer."
4.1 Planning approval has been granted for the lpg vessels (PA 05/00585/B). Permission was refused for the change of use of the existing building on the site and the adjacent building to a launderette (PA 04/01656/C). This was refused for reasons relating to information about the proposed flue and the impact on the Conservation Area.
5.1 Peel Town Commissioners indicate that they object to the application, by way of a letter received on 22nd August, 2014. They are concerned that the Strategic Plan "limits" the number of dwellings in the town to 1,000 and what is proposed would breach that. They also consider that there is inadequate off road parking for the development and note that the dwellings would be immediately alongside the traffic lights.
5.2 Manx National Heritage seek confirmation, by way of a letter received on 28th August, 2014 that the arrangements for access and parking are acceptable, bearing in mind the access to their museum facility which receives between 55 and 60,000 visits per year some of whom travel to the facility by vehicle and some of whom will walk to and around their site. They also seek assurance that appropriate safeguards are in place for protecting archaeological features of interest which may be within the site.
5.3 The owners of 11, Station Road indicate in an e-mail received on 12th August, 2014 that they may wish to make observations on the application on their return from leave on 6th September, 2014. They comment further on 10th October, 2014 indicating that they have discussed the application with the applicant who have amended the scheme and offered to undertake the swap of certain pieces of their site and they indicate that subject to these materialising, have no grave concerns or objections to the scheme, subject to working hours being controlled to exclude evening or weekend work unless otherwise agreed. They foresee this current application as providing some screening to the works proposed in the contemporaneous application and would express concern if that development proceeded without or before the houses proposed here were constructed.
5.4 Manx Utilities Authority (Electricity) seeks consultation by way of an e-mail dated 19th September, 2014 regarding the provision of electricity supplies to the site. This is not a material planning issue and the MUA should liaise directly with the applicant.
5.5 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services raise no objection to the application by way of their e-mail dated 4th September, 2014. They consider that access to the site is improved by the proposed development and complements the existing arrangement whereby traffic lights control vehicular movement along the road. They note, however that setting back the building line will result in the footway being widened and potentially street furniture causing a hazard to pedestrians due to their location in the middle of the footway rather than the back. They recommend a condition which reads:
The building shall not be occupied until all street furniture has been relocated in accordance with details submitted to and approved by the Department.
Reason: in the interests of pedestrian safety.
5.6 They also recommend the following conditions:
No work is to commence on site until the access is constructed and controlled by traffic signals installed in accordance with the drawing submitted to and approved by the Department.
Reason: to ensure safe egress from the site in the interest of highway safety. The car parking spaces provided shall remain unobstructed and available for parking of vehicles in perpetuity. Reason: to ensure car parking provision is retained in accordance with the standards in the interests of highway safety.
5.7 The applicant has responded to the issues raised by way of an e-mail dated 2nd October, 2014 and confirms that prior to the submission of the applications, pre-application advice was sought from both Hazel Fletcher and Kevin Almond of the Highways Division to determine the method and format of the vehicular access to the site. The advice of Mr Almond was that a single access point was the preferred option, and whilst it was acknowledged that the majority of the vehicles likely to access the site are shorter wheelbase transit type and 7 tonne fixed axle vehicles, the applicant was required to demonstrate that the access was suitable for articulated vehicles, hence the tracking plot indicated on the application drawings although it is unlikely that articulated vehicles will actually be accessing or leaving the site. In addition, he states that the section of Mill Road from which the application sites take their vehicular access is controlled by traffic lights, which control traffic to being in a single direction at any one time. As a result, the requirement of articulated vehicles to use the full width of the carriageway to enter or exit from the site is irrelevant, as the full width of the carriageway is available for use as a result of the control of the traffic by the lights.
5.8 He suggests that the reduction of the number of vehicular access and egress points both improves the safety for pedestrians in and around the area, and has a beneficial visual appearance in removing a number of gates in the vicinity
5.9 He explains that a substantial area of the site was used as the former Peel Gasworks. However, the majority of the buildings, pipework and structures which are currently present on the site were constructed within the last 20 years, the holding tanks and wash down unit being constructed in 1997. At this time, a scheme of remediation was carried out by Manx Gas to remove contaminated ground and this was confirmed in the documents of sale to the applicants. Notwithstanding the above, a full ground contamination investigation will be carried out should the applications be approved, once demolition has been completed. Any contaminated ground should it be found under the site of the existing structures, will either be removed to approved disposal sites, or encapsulated with concrete slab structures which incorporate gas-tight membranes and ventilation systems. This is an accepted method of dealing with the remediation and re-development of brown-field sites, and would be normal to be dealt with at the technical building regulations stage of any scheme. As a result of the amount of development carried out on the site by its former owners within the recent past for the production of gas, the applicants do not believe that there will be much, if any, remnants of historic gas production which remain. The archaeological importance of the site is therefore believed to be over-stated.
5.10 With regard to the visual impact of the warehouse storage and distribution units on the surrounding area, the applicants believe that the proposals will be a vast visual improvement in the area, both for visitors to the House of Manannan, and for residents of the area including those of lower Patrick Street, who they understand have not sought to object to the proposals.
5.11 The development of the former showroom site with two dwellings they believe, closes down the view into the industrial unit site form the adjacent Conservation Area. As a result, the applicants believe that the residential proposals have a beneficial effect in providing a buffer between the Conservation Area and the former gasworks site.
5.12 In response to Peel Town Commissioners comments the applicant suggests that the comments relating to the lack of parking for the residents of the proposed dwellings is
somewhat confusing, as the application quite clearly identifies that there are two parking spaces per dwelling, which is compliant with the requirements of the Strategic Plan. The application proposes the demolition of the existing former gas showroom and its replacement with two small dwellings. The identification of a limit of 1,000 new dwellings in the West of the Island within the Strategic Plan, would, the applicants believe, not preclude the development of two small scale dwellings within a brown-field site in the heart of the town, designed to follow and enhance the pattern of the urban fabric, particularly given the extent of large scale estates that have been erected in the Ballawattleworth area of Peel, and which architecturally could be anywhere in the UK. He believes that the increase in the residential population of Peel is beneficial to the economic viability of the town, as any increase in population provides more support to the viability of local businesses and services.
5.13 The comments of Manx Utilities in relation to the schemes and the provision of services is noted and will be progressed should the applications be successful.
6.1 There are a number of issues to consider: firstly, the site is designated as Industrial with a very small part indicated as Mixed Use. There is a policy within the Peel Local Plan which indicates that residential development will be discouraged in the vicinity. No further explanation of this is given in the Plan but it is perhaps to safeguard against unsatisfactory impacts on residential amenity through industrial processes which can be noisy, dirty or result in heavy traffic movements. However, in this case, there is a balance to be struck between preserving residential amenity and achieving an acceptable visual impact on the town, particularly bearing in mind the status of some parts of the town as a Conservation Area - in this case, directly opposite and alongside the site. There is an existing dwelling immediately abutting the industrial area (11, Station Road) and what is proposed now is bringing the residential/industrial transition slightly further south. This has a negligible impact on the effect on residential amenity from industrial use and has a positive impact on the streetscene in that a well and traditionally designed pair of dwellings will now form the corner of Station Road with Mill Road which presents a better built frontage to the Conservation Area than would standard industrial development. As such, it is considered that the proposed residential development is acceptable as a principle of this form of use of the land.
6.2 It is also relevant to consider the visual impact of the proposed development in its context and whether it can be satisfactorily serviced. The properties, it is considered, sit comfortably alongside 11, Station Road, continuing a varied ridge line and with all traditional details and proportions. The dwellings will have the positive impact of hiding the rear flat roofed dormer on number 11. The proposal makes provision for two parking spaces for each of the dwellings, in accordance with the requirements of the Strategic Plan, within relatively close distance of the properties. In this respect, the inclusion of on-site parking facilities close to the building itself can pose design difficulties in that historical townscapes traditionally were not designed to accommodate motor vehicles. The parking spaces are alongside and indeed part of the access to the industrial development proposed alongside this current application proposal but is nonetheless considered acceptable for the above reason.
6.3 The dwellings have plenty of amenity space in the rear garden, significantly more than many properties within the town centre.
6.4 The proposal is considered to be acceptable. However, it is considered appropriate to consider the other points raised by other parties. Manx National Heritage suggest that it may be merit in making an archaeological record of surviving historic industrial remains on the site and a condition should be attached to this effect. Whilst they also express concern about potential contamination of the site, this is largely concerning the industrial development proposed alongside rather than the dwellings proposed here. This, in any case is something which would be a matter for the Building Regulations rather than the planning decision.
6.5 Whilst the neighbours may well benefit from having this development commenced and completed before the other development commences on the land alongside, it is not considered reasonable to try to control the phasing of the development in this way. In terms of hours of operation, there are controls under the Public Health Act 1990 to prevent the impacts from works becoming unacceptable and as such it is not considered appropriate to try to duplicate these controls in the planning decision notice.
7.1 The local authority is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, paragraph 6 (4) (e), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
7.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services is granted interested party status under the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 paragraph 6 (4) d.
7.3 Manx National Heritage is a statutory authority which raises material planning considerations and as such should be afforded party status under Article 6(4)(c) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013
7.4 Manx Utilities Authority does not raise material planning considerations and as such should not be afforded interested person status in this case.
7.5 The owners of 11, Station Road are immediately alongside the site and should be afforded interested person status under Article 2(a) of Government Circular 0046/13 the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2013.
The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
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.
Prior to the commencement of works the applicant must have approved by the Department a scheme for the recording of any features of archaeological interest which may be discovered during the course of construction and demolition and the development must be undertaken in accordance with these details.
Reason: to accord with Environment Policy 41 of the Strategic Plan.
Note: the applicant is advised to consult with Manx National Heritage regarding this requirement and during the development process.
The car parking spaces shown in the approved drawings shall remain unobstructed and available in perpetuity for the parking of vehicles associated with the development hereby approved.
Reason: to ensure car parking provision is retained in accordance with the standards in the interests of highway safety.
C4 The building shall not be occupied until all street furniture has been relocated in accordance with details submitted to and approved by the Department.
Reason: in the interests of pedestrian safety.
C5 No work is to commence on site until the access is constructed and controlled by traffic signals installed in accordance with the drawing submitted to and approved by the Department.
Reason: to ensure safe egress from the site in the interest of highway safety.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
