Loading document...
This application is recommended for consideration by the Planning Committee rather than under delegated powers as it is related to 09/02098/D which is likely to be of interest to the wider community and the Parish Commissioners object to the development and the recommendation is to permit the application.
The application site relates to the Waterfall Hotel, Shore Road, Glen Maye, Patrick, a bar and restaurant with flat above located on the northern side of Shore Road on a corner plot adjacent to the entrance of Glen Close.
This application seeks approval for the erection of a single storey glazed enclosure to the front of the building, an external stair case to the western elevation providing a fire escape for the first floor accommodation and alterations to the rear of the building.
The glazed enclosure would span the width of the front façade and would be of a modern design. The enclosure would have a flat roof with a modest overhang and would be fitted with glazed timber sliding doors. The entrance to the building would be recessed and the fascia running along the top of the structure would be finished with powder coated aluminium and would contain rear illuminated stainless steel signage which is the subject of concurrent application 09/02098/D. The enclosure would provide additional seating for the bar/restaurant and would replace the existing open forecourt which provides outdoor seating.
The proposed fire escape would be installed on the western elevation and would be set back slightly from the front of the building.
The works to the rear elevation would consist of the creation of a raised dormer with roof light and a set of folding doors providing service access and emergency access to the rear of the property.
The application site is located within an area identified as being residential use by the 1982 Development Order. The site is not within a Conservation Area and the building is not Registered.
The following previous planning application relates to the proposal site: 92/00799/B sought approval for internal alterations to kitchen area and outbuilding. This was permitted.
09/02098/D is a concurrent application which proposes the erection of illuminated signage to the building.
Patrick Parish Commissioners object to the design of the proposed glazed enclosure stating that it is not in-keeping with the existing building which essentially comprises a terrace of two Manx cottages. They conclude that the design would be unsympathetic to the building and its surroundings representing "the conversion of a historic building into what appears to be a modern bistro in this rural location."
The owner/occupier of Waterfall House has expressed an interest in this application. The Department of Transport Highways Division does not object to this application. The Department of Transport Drainage Division has commented on this application stating that there must be no discharge of water to any foul drainage system.
The main issues to be assessed in the consideration of this application are the impact of the proposed development upon the existing building, the surrounding area and properties adjacent to the application site.
The existing building, which is a commercial premises, is served by an outdoor seating area to the front however the applicant has set out in pre-application discussions that this area is underused due to the local climate and even on sunny days the wind can make using the terrace uncomfortable for
customers. The proposed enclosure will provide a covered area whilst also allowing the space to be opened up with the aid of sliding window panels. The design of the enclosure is modern, having clean lines and utilising a palette of contemporary materials.
Design
It is acknowledged that the Local Commissioners have concerns regarding the design of the proposal, and it is accepted that the design language employed for the proposed enclosure would contrast with the simple, traditional form of the existing building. However, it is judged that the proposed design would result in an interesting juxtaposition between the simple yet substantial form of the existing building and the sharp, sleek appearance of the glazed enclosure. Moreover, the proposal would represent a relatively light-weight addition to the building which would allow the works to be reversed in the future should this be desired, leaving the existing building largely intact, save for some alterations to the window apertures.
An alternative way of designing the enclosure would be to adopt a more traditional approach. However there is limited height to allow for anything other than a flat roof structure and such extensions are not typical features of properties such as this. It is judged that it would be difficult to combine a flat roof structure with vernacular detailing without it appearing contrived and it is not considered that such an approach would be more appropriate than the design proposed.
Turning to the other aspects of the development, the fire escape would be set back from the front of the property and whilst views of the staircase would be possible when passing the gap between the Waterfall Hotel and Waterfall House, it would not appear prominent within the streetscene so as to warrant refusal of this application.
The works to the rear of the property would be well screened from public view and would assist in breaking up the rear roof of the property.
A visit to the site found that there has been a structure erected between the Waterfall and the adjacent store. This does not benefit from planning permission and is not shown on the submitted plans. The applicant's agent has clarified that this structure will be removed as part of the proposed development.
Impact upon the Surrounding Area
The enclosure would be clearly visible within the streetscene and would be a prominent feature of the immediate locality. However the design is judged to be of a high quality and as set out above, it is considered that the design approach is acceptable.
Amenity
The closest property to the application site is Waterfall House. The proposed enclosure would replace the existing open area to the front of the building which is currently used for outdoor seating. The enclosure of this space would reduce the level of any existing disturbance to the occupants of Waterfall House and would benefit privacy between the restaurant and the adjacent dwelling improving residential amenity.
The fire escape would not be used as the main entrance to the first floor living accommodation (the main access is provided on the other side of the building). It is judged that no unacceptable impacts upon the residential amenity of Waterfall House would arise from the proposed fire escape staircase.
Patrick Parish Commissioners originally raised concerns that the alterations to the rear of the property could lead to customers using the rear garden as a smoking area which could cause disturbance to adjacent properties. The applicant has responded to this concern by amending the plans to show that the door way is to be used only as a service and emergency access. The Commissioners have acknowledged this revision to the proposal.
25 March 2010
09/02097/B
RECOMMENDATION Permit.
PARTY STATUS It is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, accord with the requirements of Planning Circular 1/06 and are therefore, afforded Interested Party Status:
Patrick Parish Commissioners The owner/occupier of Waterfall House, Shore Road, Glen Maye The Department of Transport Highways Division The Department of Transport Drainage Division
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 23.03.2010 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
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. This approval relates to the erection of a glazed enclosure to front, external fire escape staircase to the side and alteration to rear elevation, Waterfall Hotel, Shore Road, Glen Maye, Patrick as shown by (EX)01, (PE) 10, (PE)22, (PE)13, (PE)21, (EX)10, (EX)12, (PE)20 and (PE)21 all received 23rd December and (PE)22, PE(13)A and (EX)10 A all received 1st March 2010.
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 : .............................................. Committee Meeting Date : ..............................................
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 25 March 2010 09/02097/B Page 4 of 5
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
