Loading document...
Application No.: 09/01295/B Applicant: Mr Len Chatel Proposal: Erection of two dwellings with integral garages and associated visitor parking (Re advertised due to amended plans received) Site Address: Land In Front Of Bay View Hotel Between Shore Road Underway And High Street Port St. Mary Isle Of Man ### Considerations Case Officer: Miss S E Corlett Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee ### Written Representations ### Consultations {{table:485314}} Consultee: Highways Division Notes: Objection. 16.12.09 - defer - land ownership of the proposed visitor parking bay is required in deed format. Consultee: Port St Mary Commissioners Notes: objection. 23.12.09 - objection - see lengthy correspondence. Consultee: Mr B J Boyle Notes: Comments received
This application is recommended to be considered by the planning committee due to the number of local objections and the objection of the local authority and the application is recommended for approval.
The site represents a piece of undeveloped land which lies between Bay View Road, opposite the Bay View Hotel, and Shore Road between the garden of remembrance/War Memorial and Willow Cottage.
The site has a frontage to Bay View Road of 32 m and a depth of 18 m . To the immediate north of the site is a set of public steps giving access from Shore Road Underway to Bay View Road. The site has vegetation on it at present including a large elm tree which is plotted on the proposed site plan.
The site lies within an area designated on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as Existing Predominantly Residential Use. The draft Port St. Mary Area Plan proposed the designation of the site as Public Open Space which stretched across the whole of the space between the rear of Beacon View and 30, High Street to the public steps to the north of the application site. The draft Southern Area Plan which was published on 23rd October, 2009 reiterates this, identifying both the garden of remembrance and the application site as Public Open Space.
Whilst part of this is Public Open Space in the form of the garden of remembrance, the remainder is private land, not presently in public ownership or accessible to the public, including this site and the rear gardens of Boolavur, 30, High Street and Bay Cliff. This is clearly inaccurate as there is no specific proposal in the draft Written Statement to support the change of use.
Planning permission was sought and refused for the principle of the erection of a two bedroomed dwelling on the site under PA 87/0277. The reasons for refusal are unknown as the microfiche of the file is missing from the system. Planning permission was more recently submitted for the erection of three dwellings on the site with access from Bay View Road and was refused for the following reasons: "R 1. Whilst the site lies within an area designated as Predominantly Residential on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 and therefore there should be a presumption in favour of residential development in accordance with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan, in this case, the proposal would not respect the scale, form or landscaping of the buildings around the site as the building stretches from Bay View Road to Shore Road with an incongruous access and parking area alongside Bay View Road and a very tall frontage immediately alongside Shore Road, neither of which is sympathetic to the form of development in the vicinity. As such the proposal would not accord with General Policy 2b or 2c.
The proposed building by virtue of its height in relation to Bay View Road would obscure and adversely affect public views of the sea contrary to General Policy 2e and obscure public views of the harbour contrary to the interests of public amenity and the charm and character of Port St. Mary.
The provisions for car parking are inadequate in terms of numbers of spaces and it has not been demonstrated that the lack of sufficient parking would not result in an adverse impact on car parking within the vicinity, as required by Appendix Seven sub paragraph d of the Strategic Plan. In any case, the parking spaces are not sufficiently spaced to enable a full sized vehicle to be able to manoeuvre in and out within the site, exacerbating the deficiency in the number of spaces referred to above. Furthermore, insofar as it may be determined from the drawings, the provisions for access do not include satisfactory visibility for drivers of vehicles emerging from the site as the parking area and access are below the level of the road and the inclusion of the boundary wall will obscure drivers' visibility. The proposal therefore fails to comply with General Policy 2 h and 2 i .
The proposal contains no information about either the stability of the site or measures to be taken to ensure that the site can withstand the proposed works without compromising the stability of the cliff face onto which the building is to be constructed. As such the proposal fails to accord with General Policy 21 and Environment Policy 28.
R 5. There is insufficient information included within the application for the Committee to be able to be satisfied that surface water from the site may be disposed of in an acceptable manner.
This latest application proposes the development of two dwellings and seeks to address the reasons for refusal given above.
Amended plans have been submitted to address concerns regarding flooding and also to provide additional contextual information about the building and how it will appear in the landscape.
The access is no longer from Bay View Road and the existing walling and beer garden are to remain undisturbed. The building is lower than previously by between 2.5 m and 3 m and slightly ( 0.6 m ) wider, accommodates two rather than three units and in terms of appearance takes its lead from the new dwelling at Rock Cottage rather than the older traditional cottages between the site and Rock Cottage to the north.
The building is symmetrical with two timber boarded gables at each end which project from the remainder of the frontage by 300 mm and the central section is to be finished in rough cast render. The windows are to be vertically proportioned and framed in timber. The rear is a flat, featureless elevation which will not be seen other perhaps from the memorial garden to the south, with two dormers in the rear roof pitch, similar to those visible from Bay View Road at Willow Cottage alongside. Two trees - a prunus and a smaller tree to the north are to be removed: the elm at the northern end of the site is to be retained. The ground floor will accommodate a garage space for each unit and an en-suite bedroom with stairs to the first floor where there will be another en-suite bedroom and living room dining room, bathroom and kitchen. In the roofspace there is to be a third en-suite bedroom and roof storage space.
Across Shore Road there is to be parking provided in the form of a tarmacadam parking area which will accommodate three vehicles annotated for visitors. This area is presently covered in beach shingle and is used for vehicular parking.
The previous application generated objections from 28 private individuals, Port St. Mary Commissioners, Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division. Manx National Heritage raised no objections by made comments regarding the height of the roof and the amenities of those using the memorial garden. They suggested that the area of archaeological interest, commented on by others, is further north than this site.
In respect of this application there are objections from or on behalf of local residents at: Sea View Cottage, Shore Road Olly's, The High Street Beacon View, High Street 9, The Quay 30, High Street, The Beaches, Gansey Point, Avoca, Bay View Road,
2, Daisy Bank, Boolavur, Bay View Road, 3, Carrick Mews, Ivydene, Thie Killey, Queens Road, Sheallagh Mean, 2, Willow Terrace, Willow Cottage, Creg Cottage, The Howe
These objectors raise a number of concerns including the instability of the site and risk of collapse of the bank, the scale and design of the buildings, additional traffic along Shore Road which cannot satisfactorily accommodate additional vehicles, inadequate car parking provided, the loss of valuable green space and the loss of the trees and potentially the elm which will be very close to the proposed building and excavation works. Some local residents have also experienced considerable periods of disturbance whilst other works have been undertaken along Shore Road.
Port St. Mary Commissioners object to the application on the basis of the principle of the development of the site, risk of flooding, instability of the land, inadequate parking and express concern that soakaways introduced to dispose of surface water from the site will not be effective.
Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division object to the application on the basis that the carriageway is of insufficient width to allow a vehicle to exit the garage. They also comment that the garage door should open into the property not out onto the carriageway. Following the submission of further plans, the Highways and Traffic Division indicate that they require confirmation of the ownership of the highway which is to be used for parking.
The Commissioners also act on behalf of the Department of Transport Drainage Division as the Drainage Authority for this area and recommend conditions including the requirement for percolation tests to ensure that soakaways will be effective as there are no known surface water sewers in the area.
Two residents of Maughold warn of rising sea levels and hope that material excavated from the site could be re-used elsewhere.
Hon Phil Gawne MHK writes in support of local residents who have expressed concern at the stability of the site and the potential danger of inappropriate development of unstable land
Although the draft Area Plan has been subject to public consultation, it is yet to be amended following consideration of any comments received and has not been subject to any form of public inquiry. There is also some doubt about the accuracy of the proposed change in designation of the site in the draft Area Plan (see Planning Status above). Consequently, the provisions of the extant, albeit aged, Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 should be accepted as the prevailing land use document and this designates the site as Existing Predominantly Residential which reflects the nature of development and use in the area surrounding the site.
Within such areas there is usually a presumption in favour of development and General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan states that: "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: a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the space around them;
c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; i) does not have an adverse effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; j)can be provided with all necessary services; k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; I) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
In this case there is no design brief for the site (2a). The environmental surrounding the site comprises a variety of dwellings in terms of height, style, finish. The proposed dwellings take their lead from new properties to the north and it is considered that they would not be out of keeping with the surroundings. Whilst a small number of trees and some vegetation are to be removed as part of the proposed development, this is not protected and the site could be cleared without the need for permission from any authority. In the previous application it was considered that the loss of the site was not objectionable on the basis of the loss of habitat despite objections from local residents to this effect. (2b, 2c, 2d, 2f).
The development has been lowered and would no longer obscure a public view of the sea from Bay View Road. (2e)
The development will not directly adversely affect the amenities of local residents in that it follows the line of built development along Shore Road. Whilst the view of the site will change, there is no over-riding importance of the site for ecological or other value which would justify refusing the principle of developing this land for residential purposes, bearing in mind that the area is designated as Residential on the extant plan. Similarly, it is considered that the development will not adversely affect public amenities
The development will provide sufficient car parking and amenity space and has a good outlook (2h). There is no indication from the highway authority that the proposal is deficient (2i) nor is there any indication that the development cannot be satisfactorily serviced (2j) nor will it prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan (2k);
The site does lie within an area where there may be a risk of flooding and the applicant has consulted the Drainage Authority who would recommend that the building is raised in level to accommodate this. However, this would compromise the inclusion of vehicular access and would result in the building being higher than proposed and thus fit less well into the streetscene. The risk of flooding is not to other properties but contained within the building and the applicant has indicated that he is prepared to accept this risk of flooding which would be to the ground floor garage, hall and one bedroom (21); There is no indication that the proposal does not take account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them or that regard has not been had to best practice in reducing energy consumption which would also be taken into account in the application for approval under the Building Regulations.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
