Loading document...
The site represents the curtilage of the Port Erin Royal Hotel together with Wilson House which lies to the rear and is a much taller building. The Port Erin Royal Hotel is split into three sections fronting onto the Promenade - the upper section is a square set building with three storeys plus dormer accommodation and a slated roof, two projecting bays each side of the main entrance which is a flat roofed porch supported by pillars. The second section steps down by a half a storey on the ground, first, second and third floors but retains the same eaves line and dormers as the upper section. This has a central wider three storey bay and a less steeply sloping slated roof. The third section includes a vertically proportioned corner tower with steeply pitched slated roof and five floors of accommodation below with a significant amount of windows. This building is rendered and painted white with blue painted timber window frames.
Wilson House sits behind the main building and is higher than the Port Erin Royal Hotel and has three sections - two corner towers and a middle section with fewer windows and substantial windows on the ground floor. This building is unpainted and stands out in the Promenade streetscene less than the frontage buildings which are generally lower although the building is easily visible from the south from the Athol Park area and if painted would be a significant element in the townscape.
The site lies within an area designated on the Port Erin Local Plan of 1990 as Tourism/Recreation. The Written Statement also refers to the area in which this site sits at paragraphs 9.4, 9.7 and 11.3 which state:
"9.4 THE FOREGOING ZONES OF INTEREST ARE GENERALLY RESIDENTIAL OR TOURIST RELATED AND WHERE IT IS CONSIDERED THAT MAINTENANCE OR REFURBISHMENT MAY BE ENCOURAGED PARTICULARLY AT THE UPPER LEVELS, MIXED USE WILL BE PERMITTED WHERE APPROPRIATE. MIXED USE WOULD INCLUDE RETAIL, RESIDENTIAL AND USE FOR TOURISM BUT NOT OFFICE USE".
The "zones of interest" referred to include sections of The Promenade as clarified in paragraph 9.3i.
"9.7 ALTHOUGH NO CONSERVATION AREA EXISTS IN PORT ERIN IT IS RECOGNISED THAT IN THE ZONES OF INTEREST IN PARTICULAR, SPECIAL ATTENTION SHOULD BE PAID TO ALTERATIONS AND REPLACEMENT BUILDINGS WHICH MIGHT AFFECT THE GENERAL ENVIRONMENT".
"11.3 WHERE HOTEL BUILDINGS OF A SUITABLE FORM AND IN AN APPROPRIATE LOCATION ARE REDUNDANT, THEN CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THEIR CONVERSION TO OLD PERSONS' ACCOMMODATION. BUILDINGS ON THE PROMENADE FROM THE BAY VIEW HOTEL TO THE IMPERIAL HOTEL ARE NOT HOWEVER CONSIDERED TO BE AN APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR SUCH A PURPOSE".
No planning applications have been submitted in respect of the application site.
Development and re-development has been proposed and has taken place along the Promenade in close proximity to the application site as follows:
Immediately to the north of the site, the Ocean Castle Hotel has had permission for change of use to a retirement hotel under PA 91/00791. No applications have been submitted to date for the re-development of the site and it remains in its original form.
To the north of the Ocean Castle Hotel, the Imperial Hotel site is presently being re-developed as a two blocks totalling 20 apartments under PA 07/0158.
To the south of the application site, Princess Towers is a modern building which replaced the Countess and Princess Hotels under the provisions of PA 97/1602.
To the south of Princess Towers, Snaefell House was redeveloped under the provisions of PA 99/2320.
Redevelopment of Windsor House and the Brobourne Hotel was refused on appeal under PA 07/00989/B. The reasons for refusal related to the design and appearance of the replacement building.
Proposed here is the principle of the re-development of the site for residential purposes. No information other than confirmation that the buildings are redundant and the Conservation Officer has recommended that the existing buildings are of insufficient merit to withhold permission for the demolition of the building. The property is not within a Conservation Area nor are they Registered so permission is not required for the demolition of any of the buildings on the site, provided that if buildings are attached, all the buildings are removed.
Department of Tourism and Leisure comment that it is their duty to maintain, encourage, develop, protect, promote and facilitate tourism on the Island and they do not support this application as it would result in a loss of a significant tourist premises.
The Manx Electricity Authority raise issues regarding working practices around existing supplies, which are not material planning considerations and as such the MEA should not be afforded party status in this instance.
Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division do not oppose the application subject to a number of provisions relating to the need to provide visibility onto the highway, off street parking in accordance with the Strategic Plan and turning within the site.
The occupant of 4, Links Close raises no objection to the application but wishes to be kept informed of any detailed plans.
The owner of 1, Rowany Terrace seeks assurance that contractors have a designated parking area which does not adversely affect the parking of residents in the vicinity.
The owner of 2, Rowany Villas expresses concern at the need for management of the parking associated with the project and the height which the building will achieve.
Princess Towers Management Limited express an interest in the application and state that they have no objection to the demolition of the existing buildings but would prefer that no site access is
provided through the lane separating the application site from Princess Towers and also express interest in the details to be proposed.
Port Erin Commissioners raise no objection to the application provided that adequate arrangements are in place for the management of contractors' vehicles.
A resident of Port Soderick suggests that the proposal is "short sighted" at a time when the Island should be maintaining and developing its tourist industry. These comments were not made in respect of either the Imperial or Brobourne Hotel/Windsor House sites.
The prevailing land use and policies within the local plan would suggest that the acceptable land use for this site is tourism or possibly recreation. However, since the adoption of the local plan, planning permission has been granted for the redevelopment of a number of the hotels in the vicinity, suggesting that the principle of the loss of the buildings and the use of new buildings for residential purposes is acceptable. In this case, there are no special circumstances which would warrant a different conclusion. Most recently, in the appeal for the redevelopment of the Windsor House and Brobourne Hotel site, the Inspector did not comment on the principle of the loss of the building but makes reference to Environment Policy 42 which states:
"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. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans."
Similarly, in the re-development of the Imperial Hotel site, to the north, the Inspector considering PA 06/0147 makes no reference to the loss of the tourism use and indeed Department of Tourism and Leisure objected to neither the re-development of the Windsor House/Brobourne Hotel or the Imperial Hotel sites. As such, it is considered that it would be inconsistent to refuse the principle of the re-development of this site on the basis of the loss of a tourism-related facility.
Other Strategic Plan Policies which are relevant in the consideration of this application include the following:
Strategic Policy 1 which states: "Development should make the best use of resources by: a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings and re-using scarce, indigenous building materials; b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards and c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services".
Housing Policy 5: In granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas the Department will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more".
The site is not designated for residential development but does lie within an area of predominantly residential use and as such it is considered that this policy should be applied to the development of this site.
Environment Policy 5 states: The Department will prepare a Planning Policy Statement on Energy Efficiency. Pending the preparation and adoption of that PPS the Department will require proposals for more than 5 dwellings or 100 square metres of other development to be accompanied by an Energy Impact Assessment".
Appendix 7: "New built residential development should be provided with two parking spaces per dwelling, at least one of which should be within the curtilage of the dwelling and behind the front of
the dwelling, although the amount and location of parking will vary in respect of development such as terracing, apartments, and sheltered housing. In the case of town centre and previously developed sites, the Department will consider reducing this requirement having regard to: a) the location of the housing relative to public transport, employment and public amenities, b) the size of the dwelling, c) any restriction on the nature of the occupancy (such as sheltered housing) and d) the impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area (paragraph A.7.1). This goes on to recommend that one space is provided for a one bedroomed apartment, 2 spaces for two or more bedrooms but that "These standards may be relaxed where development: a) would secure the re-use of a Registered Building or a building of architectural or historic interest; or b) would result in the preservation of a sensitive streetscape, or c) is otherwise of benefit to the character of a Conservation Area d) is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality" (A.7.6).
The existing property is neither Registered, nor does it appear on the proposed list of buildings to be considered for registration, nor is it located within a Conservation Area. The Conservation Section has been asked to comment on the proposed replacement of the existing Victorian building.
The character of the upper promenade has been altered by the replacement of several of the Victorian blocks with more modern blocks which utilise many of the Victorian design 'cues' mentioned above. In some ways, the modern blocks maintain the Victorian rhythm of the promenade by their use of similar materials, roof lines and the vertical emphasis of their windows.
A previous application 07/00989/B sought approval to demolish an existing block further down the promenade and replace it with a modern block of four storeys plus a penthouse. That application was refused at Appeal;
"By virtue of the use of a flat roof and of the horizontal lines of the balconies, the brown stone facing on the lower part of the building, and the zinc or lead clad penthouse, the proposed building would be out of keeping with its neighbours. The development would thus be out of keeping with its neighbours. The development would thus be contrary to Environmental Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan."
Having mind to the building currently on the site and the recent replacement of similar buildings in the locale, this application would seem acceptable.
The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
The owners of 1, Rowany Terrace and 2, Rowany Villas share an access onto the Promenade with the site and as such should be afforded party status in this instance.
4, Links Close and Princess Towers both abut the site and as such should be afforded party status in this case.
Department of Tourism and Leisure represent a statutory authority and raise issues which are material planning considerations and as such should be afforded party status in this instance
The Manx Electricity Authority raise issues regarding working practices around existing supplies, which are not material planning considerations and as such the MEA should not be afforded party status in this instance.
The resident of Port Soderick is not directly affected by the proposal and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 23.03.2009
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals
C 1. This approval is in principle only and will remain valid for a period of two years within which time no development may take place until such time as details of the reserved matters (siting, design, external appearance, internal layout, means of access, landscaping) have been approved by the Planning Authority. Such reserved matters should form the subject of a single application.
C 2. This permission relates to the principle of the demolition of the Port Erin Royal Hotel and Wilson House and associated buildings and their replacement with new residential buildings and associated parking, access and landscaping.
C 3. The application for the reserved matters must demonstrate that:
a) parking is to be provided at a ratio of one space per one bedroomed apartment and two spaces for all other apartments or dwelling units in accordance with Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan, b) 25% of the units to be provided are affordable if the overall scheme proposes 8 units or more, in accordance with Housing Policy 5 c) access to the site and any on-site car parking must provide satisfactory visibility splays for drivers of vehicles emerging from the site d) an Energy Impact Assessment has been prepared in accordance with Energy Policy 5 and e) that the design of the proposed building(s) is sympathetic to the streetscene formed by the remainder of the Promenade.
N 1. Whilst not generally a planning consideration, the application is encouraged to consider submitting with the application for approval of the reserved matters, a management plan for contractors’ vehicles during the construction period, bearing in mind the proximity of adjacent residential property, the narrow width of the roads along the side of the site and the use of the Promenade by residents and visitors.
I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular No 31/07 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer)
Decision Made : Permitted Date: 25/3/07 Signed: J. B. A. Senior Planning Officer
Decision Made : Permitted Date: 25/3/07 Signed: J. B. A. Senior Planning Officer
24 March 2009
24 March 2009
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
