Loading document...
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER.
1.1 The application site forms the curtilage of the former shop which is directly opposite the Waterfall Cottage and on the southern side of Shore Road in Glen Maye. The existing property is a single storey and is currently in a poor state of repair. To the western boundary of the site is a public convenience.
1.2 The National Glen entrance is located directly adjacent to the application site (southern boundary). From this entrance there is a public footpath which runs down a steep slope (steps) and continues through the Glen. Currently, a retaining wall exists (western boundary) which supports the ground level of the triangular parcel of land adjacent to the footpath/entrance to the Glen. This retaining wall is proposed to be retained, but the hardstanding would be removed and a small garden would be created.
2.1 The application seeks approval for the demolition of former shop and erection of a dwelling to be used as tourist accommodation. The proposals would have a width of 5.9 metres, a depth of 7.5 metres (excluding rear cantilevered balcony) and a ridge height of 6.2 metres. The proposal would be on a similar footprint to the existing property, although the proposal would be 1.5 metres taller in height, which enables living accommodation (kitchen/living area) within the roof space. A first floor rear covered cantilevered balcony (3 metres) is proposed to the rear gable end elevation accessed via a pair of glazed doors.
2.2 The applicant has indicated that the current property is in a state of disrepair and has not traded as a sweet shop in over twenty years. They indicated that the property in its present for is an eye sore for local residents and visitors to the Glen.
3.1 The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of "Residential/Woodland" under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not
within a Conservation Area; nor within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
3.2 Due to the site location, zoning and the type of proposal, the following policies are relevant for consideration:-
The Spatial Distribution Policies within the Strategic Plan set out the hierarchy of settlements, indicating that Douglas will remain the main employment and service centre for the island, with other towns as supporting service centres. Some large villages are identified as service villages where appropriate increase in employment and housing should be provided to meet local needs. Glen Maye, is classified as not within any of those service villages and consequently Spatial Policy 4 set out that these villages should maintain the existing settlement character and be of an appropriate scale to meet local needs for housing and limited employment opportunities. Area plans will define the development boundaries.
General Policy 2 states: "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:
Housing Policy 4 states: "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(1) of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances:
Community Policy 4 states: "Development (including the change of use of existing premises) which involves the loss of local shops and local public houses, will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that the use is no longer commercially viable, or cannot be made commercially viable."
4.1 There are no previous planning applications which are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application.
5.1 Patrick Commissioners have objected to the application for the following reasons:
"1) the balcony above the toilet block is unacceptable. Not only is it likely to remove current natural light in the facility (there is no artificial lighting), but it is an overhang of property belonging to another.
2) the building appears from the plans to be singularly unattractive. Further, it will be visible from the footpath coming from the Glen Maye waterfall. The applicant has undertaken to provide electricity supply for the public toilet block and pay for ongoing electricity supply.
It is believed the toilets are owned by DEFA. Should the Planning Committee be minded to approve this amendment, the Commissioners believe that any approval should be subject to sight of a legal agreement committing the applicant to this course of action and to a full consultation with DEFA."
5.2 Highways Division do not oppose as they consider the proposal would have no traffic management, parking or road safety implications.
5.3 Department of Economic Development – Tourism Division which can be summarised as; the proposal is in sympathy with the Departments policy to encourage quality tourist accommodation and to encourage the diversification of such sites to boost the local economy; The Tourist Industry still makes a significant contribution to the Islands economy and in the current economic climate we must strive to preserve and enhance the assets we have. The encouragement of any tourist accommodation on the Island will impact upon the tourist industry's ability to contribute to the economy; and they support the scheme.
5.4 The Water and Sewerage Authority have no objection to the proposal.
5.5 The owner/occupier of 15 Creggan Aashen, Glen Maye(initial plans only) has objected to the proposal which can be summarise as; grandparents use to own the shop; and the shop should be re-instated as a shop or coffee shop.
5.6 The owner of Waterfall Public House, Shore Road, Glen Maye (initial plans only) has commented to the proposal which can be summarise as; there is a restrictive covenant on the property which limits its use to a gift shop and no agreement to remove this convent has been made or would be accepted; and we own and control the car park and the property does not have a car parking space nor do we intend to grant one.
5.7 The owners/occupiers of 1 Glen Bank, Glen Maye have written to support the scheme and consider any development will enhance the area around the Glen entrance.
6.1 It is considered there a number of issues which need assessing when determining this application. These are:-
a) Visual impact upon character of the village and the street scene; b) Visual impact upon the entrance of the National Glen; c) Potential amenity level for future occupants; d) Provision of car parking and potential impacts upon highway safety; and
6.2 Visual impact upon character of the village and the street scene
The proposal would result in a single storey property with accommodation within the roof space, within a prominent position within Glen Maye Village. When travelling through the village, along the A27 road, the majority of properties are characterised as traditional in appearance, ranging from single storey Manx cottages to two storey properties. There are
more modern properties in the village, but these are generally single storey bungalows, a row of two storey terraced properties (commissioners houses) are off the main thoroughfare (A27), located to the rear of the majority of older properties within Glen Maye. The proposal would be apparent from a number of public viewpoints in relation to the street scene (access to car park from A27 road, within the car park, along Shore Road).
6.3 In terms of planning policy General Policy 2 paragraph b and c are the most relevant to consider. Paragraph b indicates that development will only be permitted if the proposal respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them. Paragraph c states that any development should not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape.
6.4 It should be noted that the existing property has little architectural interest. It is constructed of brickwork and finished mainly with pebbledash painted render. Being unoccupied the property is also in a poor state of repair. It is considered the existing property results in an adverse visual impact upon the amenities of the area, and the principle of the building being demolished is acceptable.
6.4 In terms of the proposed building, the footprint and size is very similar to the existing property. The main difference is the proposal is taller having a ridge height of 6.2 metres, compared to the existing having a ridge height of 4.7 metres. This provided the additional roof space for further accommodation. Furthermore, the rear first floor rear covered cantilevered balcony would project 3 metres from the rear gable, and would be above the public toilet block below.
6.5 It is also considered given the size of the plot, it would be difficult to design an alternative scheme which would be appropriate for the area. A full two storey property would appear out of proportion, whilst a single storey property as is, would likely make any re-development of the site uneconomical/unviable.
6.6 The proportions and form of the proposal are traditional in appearance, albeit the large expanse of glazing to the first floors of both gable ends gives a more contemporary appearance. The rear cantilevered balcony is usual design, albeit has traditional proportions and its appearance would not have a adverse impact upon the visual amenities of the area.
6.6 The proposal in terms of its design, scale, proportion, form and finish makes references to certain aspects of the traditional character and appearance of Glen Maye, whilst also adding a more contemporary twist. Overall, it is consider the proposal would represent an improvement over the existing property which has a detriment impact upon the visual amenities of the locality and the village of Glen Maye.
6.7 As identified previously the National Glen entrance is located directly adjacent to the application site (southern boundary). From this entrance there is a public footpath which runs down a steep slope (steps) and continues through the Glen. Due to this the proposal will be apparent when walking up or down the adjacent public footpath.
6.8 Again General Policy 2 paragraph c is relevant to consider as development will only be permitted if it does not affect the landscape. Paragraph g also requires to be considered as this indicated that development will only be permitted if it does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality.
6.9 Overall, the proposal would represent an improvement over the existing built form, and whilst it is taller and larger, it is not considered the proposal would be obtrusive and/or towering feature detrimental to the public amenities given its size, scale and massing being
only modestly large than what exists. It is also considered the removal of the existing concrete hardstanding (adjacent to the entrance) and would provide a small garden area will also be an improvement to the visual amenities of the entrance of the Glen.
6.10 Regarding this garden area, it is considered that Permitted Developments rights should be removed to ensure no inappropriate fencing is erected along the boundaries which are shared with the Glen footpath (does not appear to be a public footpath and therefore falls outside the definition of a highway).
6.11 The proposal would create an approximate useable floor area of 63 square metres (excludes rear balcony), with the two bedrooms and a bathroom being located at ground floor level. The roof space accommodates a kitchen area and living room. The outlook and light to the primary living spaces (kitchen/living room) are provided via the large glazed windows within the front and rear gable ends. The front windows overlooking the Glen car park and to the hills to the east of the site, whilst the rear window would have views towards the Glen. Further to this are a total of three velux roof lights (north & south elevations).
6.12 In terms of external amenity space, a small garden area would be provided, a covered veranda to the front elevation and the rear cantilevered balcony is proposed. The property has an enclosed bin store to the northern elevation facing Shore Road. It is also worth noting that given the proposal is for a tourist use the level of external amenity space is generally less than if the property was a permanent dwelling. This is due to how the accommodation is used. Generally a visitor would spend the majority of the day and possibly night out visiting the Island. It is also worth noting that the occupants would have access to the National Glen, which would also be beneficial to their amenities. Overall, it is considered the internal and external amenity space would be appropriate for tourist accommodation.
6.13 The issue of parking provision has been brought to the attention to the Planning Department by the owner of the Waterfall Public House who has indicated that they believe there is no parking associated with the shop and that there is no permission to park in the adjacent car park. The applicants have responded to these comments by stating they their deeds to the property entitles them to a car parking space on the car park and right of way. The submitted deeds and plan do seem to indicate that this view is correct. Notwithstanding this, it needs to be considered even if the unit does not have a car parking space designated, it is not considered a single car would result in a significant impact upon highway safety to warrant a refusal. Parking could be provided along the main thoroughfare through Glen Maye (A27) or in Glen Close. Whilst either solution is not ideal, it is not considered a single parked vehicle for a tourist unit would likely give rise to a significant impact upon the existing parking in the area or upon highway safety. It should also be noted if the unit was re-used as a shop (or any other similar use) it is likely the requirement for parking and traffic generation from staff & visitors coming and going, would be far greater than a single tourist unit which visitors will likely only have a single vehicle.
6.14 As indicated within the IOM Strategic Plan, Community Policy 4 Development which involves the loss of local shops and local public houses, will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that the use is no longer commercially viable, or cannot be made commercially viable. Whilst the application does not include a specific details to this issue, knowledge of the site from officers in the Department and evidence found within the book titled "Our Heritage ...This was Our Island" states; "...On the other side of the road was a souvenir shop, which today (book was published 1998) sells garden ornaments, etc". Either way it is clear from the evidence researched or provided that the unit was never a post office/ convenience shop and therefore was not a vital facility/service to the village, which
Community Policy 4 relates to. Consequently, it is considered the loss of this unit is acceptable.
7.1 Overall, it is considered that the proposal would comply with the relevant planning policies of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007), and for the reasons set out in this report, it is recommended that the application be approved.
8.1 It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d) and should be afforded interested party status:
Patrick Commissioners
The owner of Waterfall Public House, Shore Road, Glen Maye The owners/occupiers of 1 Glen Bank, Glen Maye
8.2 It is considered that the following do not meet the criteria of Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d) and should not be afforded interested party status:
The Water and Sewerage Authority
Department of Economic Development – Tourism Division The Water and Sewerage Authority The owner/occupier of 15 Creggan Aashen, Glen Maye
8.3 The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 19.06.2013
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2.
The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in full accordance with the following plans 1160.1 REV A, 1160.5.REV A, 1160.6.REV A, 1160.7.REV A received on 22nd June 2012, 9th May 2013 and 14th June 2013.
C 3.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no extensions, greenhouses, polytunnels, walls, gates, fences, garden sheds, summerhouses, flag poles, decking, garages, car ports, flag poles or tanks for the storage of oil or gas for domestic heating shall be erected nor windows or rooflights, solar panels or ground or water source heat installations replaced or installed (other than those expressly authorised by this approval).
C 4.
Between the 1st March and 1st October in any one year the holiday accommodation hereby approved must be used only for individual lets not exceeding four weeks in duration. Outside of this period longer lets to tourists are permissible. For the avoidance of doubt, no approval should hereby be conferred by this approval for the use of the new accommodation as a separate dwelling.
C 5.
Prior to the occupation of the tourist unit the bin store and external garden area are to be completed in accordance with the approved plan 1160.5.REV A and maintained and retained thereafter.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Decision Made : A Committee Meeting Date : 1/7/13
Signed : Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
