Planning Officer Report 09/00982/B

The application contains photographic record of the existing building and supporting information which states that the amount of hard surfacing is significantly less in the proposed scheme than is presently the case, car parking is provided. The new building will be approximately 5 m and 6.5 m higher (the existing building steps down the site) than the existing ridge (there is a roof behind the existing castellated parapet on the existing building) and the eaves parapet is between 1.7 m and 2.8 m higher than the existing. ## Representations Environmental Health Inspector recommend that the applicant consults them in respect of registration under the Housing (Flats) Regulations). This is not a material planning concern and should not be referred to in the planning decision notice. Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division raise no objection subject to conditions requiring that the car parking space to the front of the building be increased to 5.5 m and tactile paving be provided in accordance with current standards. There are no parking spaces to the front of the building and it would not be possible to increase the length of the internal parking spaces other than by removing the storage space to the rear. The parking space standards which are generally applied to new development is that a space should be 2.4 m wide and 4.9 m long and indeed the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005 requires private garages to be a minimum of 2.4 m wide and 5 m long. The parking spaces proposed adhere to these standards. The owners of 4, Rowany Villas register an interest in the application and advise that over the past few years the residents of this area have endured difficulties for traffic through construction vehicles blocking entrances and exits. The owners of Charnwood House, Bradda West Lane describe the proposed building as "virtually a clone" of the Imperial Heights building and the former Imperial Hotel building as of little or no merit whereas the Ocean Castle has more historic interest and could be converted without demolition to which they would have no objection. They commend the provision of such a substantial amount of garden. Manx Electricity Authority recommend a note regarding the provision of electricity supplies. This is not a material planning consideration and should not be referred to in any planning decision notice. The owner of 5, Erin Court suggests that a comparison of the proposed building with the existing would be helpful and suggest that the new building appears to be approximately 8 m taller than the existing. He reiterates the comments made by the above party regarding parking and access during construction. The owners of 1 and 2, Rowany Terrace reiterate the concerns about difficulties in access and parking during construction. The owner of 1, Rowany Drive suggest that the height of the proposed building would adversely affect their skyline view and would interfere with the break between the Imperial Heights building and the lodge at this site and would interrupt the flow of buildings along the promenade. Port Erin Commissioners raise no objection subject to the formulation of a traffic management plan, sensible working hours and adequate parking for contractors. Hon Mr. Gawne MHK for Rushen expresses sympathy with concerns raised about the "continuing loss of the formerly attractive Victorian Promenade" and would encourage retention and refurbishment. Department of Transport Drainage Division raise no objection subject to the drainage being undertaken in accordance with the submitted drawings. As such no additional conditions are required in this case. Disability Access Officer suggests that the apartments could be made accessible for disabled persons with minimal change. This is a matter for the Building Regulations as it deals with internal layouts of the building and as such should not be referred to in the planning decision notice. ## Assessment The building is unusual within the streetscene of the promenade in that it is the only one with any castellated features other than the Falcon's Nest Hotel at the lower end of the promenade and where this feature is not exactly the same as on the application building. The existing building however does have projecting bays as are found on the Port Erin Royal Hotel. The applicant has confirmed that the existing building has been closed for business as a hotel since the beginning of 2007 and had been making trading losses before then. As the applicant is the same as that for the adjacent Imperial Hotel, there was experience of the present demand for high quality larger apartments. Consideration was given to the retention of the facade but this was rejected for reasons relating to the existing floor to ceiling heights (generally in excess of 4500 mm compared with around 2500 mm in modern buildings), changes within the building across floors, the existing layout, demand is not for refurbished buildings which can represent a compromised of the original building but for new, modern buildings which comply with up to date safety requirements (sprinkler systems, access for disabled persons, acoustic and thermal insulation) all of which are difficult to accommodate in an older building. They also comment that the proposed building accommodates a basement car park which enables part of the site to provide green private space which would be impossible in a refurbishment scheme. The applicant also comments on the submissions made and suggests that conditions are attached to require that all site cabins, materials and contractors' parking are provided within the site, deliveries are via a designated construction delivery route and outside peak traffic periods, where possible the site hoarding will be located so that parking can still take place on the roadside, construction will be restricted to Monday to Friday 0800 - 1800hrs and Saturday 0800-1300hrs. The roads and pavements will be regularly cleaned, an area on site will be provided for washing down vehicles and access for the public and their vehicles will be maintained to Rowany Villas and Ocean Castle Drive for the duration of the construction period. Finally, the applicant is happy to provide a 24 hour emergency contact telephone number and to have regular contact and liaison with neighbours during the project. The principal issues are as follows: the loss of the building the height, massing and design of the new building and the impact of the undertaking of the development. Whilst there is some interest in the existing building, it is not such to warrant Registration nor Conservation Area status and whilst it is different in appearance to the former Imperial Hotel and the Port Erin Royal, it is considered not to be of any greater architectural or historic value to warrant opposing its demolition. The applicant's comments in respect of the retention of the building or the facade are relevant and it is accepted that the layout and particularly the ceiling heights and floor levels and the step within the building will render the conversion of the building difficult and the resultant apartments contrived and compromised. It is also relevant that the existing building occupies almost all of the site with no opportunity for car parking. The proposed scheme not only provides car parking for the occupants of the building in compliance with the standards in the Strategic Plan but also provides open space and a significantly more open outlook for the existing properties in Ocean Castle Drive and Rowany Villas. As such, it is considered that there is no objection to the demolition of the building. The building will be higher than the existing but its impact will for most not be as illustrated in the elevations as the pitched roof is unlikely to be visible other than from the breakwater and in the vicinity of the former biological station. The building steps down from the height of the new Imperial apartments and there is then a greater step down to the Port Erin Royal Hotel and Wilson House which have permission in principle for replacement. Despite being close to the spectacular views across the bay, the residential properties to the rear of the promenade hotel buildings are not orientated to look towards this view which is largely not available due to the large mass of the buildings fronting onto the promenade. As such there is no private outlook or view which should be protected. Whilst the occupants of 1, Rowany Drive suggest that they will lose a view only recently provided from the re-development of the Imperial Hotel, they are a block away from the application site and as such, not considered to be directly affected by the proposal. It is considered that the very much reduced area of the building must be included in any assessment of the impact of the increased height and this also must be considered in the context of the promenade streetscene and how the buildings should step downhill to reflect the natural topography. Whilst it is suggested that the proposed building is identical to the new Imperial apartments building, there are significant differences - the building proposed here has two symmetrical end "tower" features which include significant areas of glazing unlike the building to the north. The building has a hipped roof which is set back further than that of its neighbour and the new building has a central balcony feature which is not found on the building to the north. There needs to be some continuation between the buildings whilst at the same time making each component building on the promenade distinctive enough to have its own character and interest. It is considered that the height, size and design of the replacement building is acceptable for all these reasons. The undertaking of a development is not generally something which is considered to be a material planning consideration. However, it can be something which can be the subject of planning conditions in the form of the requirement for a method statement for construction. As the development takes place on only half of the site, there is an area to the rear which could accommodate the materials, vehicles and temporary accommodation required during construction. The applicant has described how they intend to keep Rowany Villas and Ocean Castle Drive free from obstruction during construction. As the application proposes only seven units, there is no requirement for any affordable housing in compliance with Housing Policy 5. It should be clear however that should an application be submitted in the future for development of the garden area, that the units will be considered, for the purposes of the calculation of affordable units, as over and above the seven proposed in this application. ## Party Status 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 , Rowany Terrace and of 4 , Rowany Villas are within the same cul de sac as the side of the site and as such should be afforded party status in this instance. The owners of Charnwood House, 1, Rowany Drive, 5, Erin Court, Hon Mr. Gawne MHK are not directly affected by the development and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance. Disability Access Officer, Manx Electricity Authority and Environmental Health Inspector raise issues which are not material planning considerations and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: Notes attached to refusals

C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

C 2. This permission relates to the erection of a replacement building accommodating seven apartments, as shown and described in drawings B101, B102, B103, B104, B105, B106, B107, B108 and 01, D263-LS-01 all received on 5th June, 2009 and B109 and the construction method statement received on 11th August, 2009.

C 3. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the dwellings, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

N 1. Whilst the application proposes only seven residential units and therefore does not require the provision of affordable units in accordance with Housing Policy 5, if at any time additional units are proposed either through the subdivision of the approved units, or the construction of further units within the site, the cumulative amount of units will be considered, over and above what is hereby approved and if the total number of units on the site exceeds 7, affordable housing will be required in accordance with Housing Policy 5.

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

3 September 2009 09/00982/B Page 8 of 8