Loading document...
Application No.: 21/00703/C Applicant: Kerresforth Ltd Proposal: Change of use of domestic garages to individual garage units Site Address: The Elms Lezayre Road Ramsey Isle Of Man Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 27.07.2021 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. It is considered the proposal would result in the loss of parking associated and directly connected with The Elms apartment block, which already has a under provision in parking, while also introducing potential significant conflicts to the residential amenities of The Elms contrary to General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 7 of the IOMSP 2016.
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
None _____________________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
1.0 SITE - 1.1 The application site comprises The Elms, Lezayre Road, Ramsey which is a large detached apartment building (20 apartments - 16 two beds and 4 single beds) located to the northern side of Lezayre Road. To the north of the main building there is a car park (24 parking spaces) and a detached garage block (8 spaces). Vehicular access is from the northern gated access which enters onto Bircham Avenue Close.
2.0 PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for the change of use of domestic garages to individual garage units. The applicants explain that the reason for the application is given the 24 parking spaces have never been used to capacity in the 17 years the apartments have been occupied.
Therefore they consider that the garages are not needed by the residents of the apartments and therefore should be allowed to be able to sell the garages or let individually and separately for the wider community. They advise existing residents of the apartments may have the opportunity to owing or leasing them.
3.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES - 3.1 The Ramsey Local Plan designates the application site as being predominately residential. The site is not within a Conservation Area. Due to the zoning of the site and the proposed works the following policy is relevant in the determination of the application:- - 3.2 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:
3.3 Transport Policy 7 states: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. The current standards are set out in Appendix 7."
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 The site has been the subject of a number of previous applications; however only the following are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application: - 4.2 Erection of a block of twenty apartments to replace demolished former dwelling 03/00345/B - APPROVED
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Highway Services (received on 24.04.2019) make the following comments: " The site is accessible and well connected.
There is an existing pedestrian and separate vehicular gated accesses served from Bircham Avenue Close where there is a feature to signify a change in road type and speed reduction. The vehicular access is of adequate width for two-way movements associated with residential usage where car based traffic predominates.
There are 32 parking spaces on site to serve 20 flats of which three are for disabled used eight are for garages. This is below the current IOM strategic plan minimum strategic plan parking standards without relaxations applying of a total of 36 based on one space per one bedroomed units (4) and two spaces for two plus bedroomed units (32 (16 x2)). Due to the location and context within close proximity of bus routes and other town centre shops and facilities a relaxation could apply say to one space per unit equivalent to 20 spaces.
The proposal indicates a repurposing of the garages to provide garaging for non-residents of the Elms to gain greater utilisation of the space available. The reduction in the number of parking spaces would retain a total of 24 car parking spaces and would meet the total derived on relaxation of the car parking standard.
From the submission, it is understood that the existing car parking is underutilised, with the garage block having never been used and there is space always within the surface level areas suggesting that there is no shortfall and there would be no deficiency on the garage block. This would indicate a strong likelihood that the retained parking supply would more than meet the future parking demand.
The proposal indicates that the level of movements is likely to be commensurate with a typical residential usage of two trips per day. Whilst this level of movement is accepted for the specified purpose, there is no guarantee that this would be and remain the case. It is recognised from experience, that the general storage for bicycles, motorbikes, small boats, etc. in similar facilities has few trips associated. Typically, these are daily or of less frequent occurrence from once a month to a few times a week. Non-residential more industrial type uses are likely to have an increase in usage to between three and five times a day, i.e. 15-40 trips per day. The latter would represent a material increase in vehicle movements in traffic movements. Any such commercialisation could require wider access should large vans occur and where there is no space to provide. Additionally, theses would be passing through residential streets to reach and leave the site. Pedestrian movements could increase too and potentially bringing tensions with drivers and between residents and non-residents. An appropriate planning condition restricting use would minimise the risk.
Associated would be matters relating to amenity, and health and safety etc. Additional noise could arise from usage, doors and gates opening and closing, etc. Security issues could occur from gates having to be regularly opened and closed and eventually being left open. There could be potential safety hazards from doors that have not been used for almost 20 years, type of contents stored therein and use of open areas of land for storage which could obstruct pedestrian and vehicle movement and cause negative impacts on visual appearance. Again restrictive planning conditions could apply.
Demand for parking demand and its supply are expected to remain acceptable. The proposal raises potential concerns over the level of control for storage of equipment and materials and increase in the use of the facility which is likely to be significant should more industrial type storage arise. Planning condition (s) restricting use after development is considered to be an appropriate way forward.
Recommendation: DNOC"
5.2 Ramsey Commissioners have no objections (14.07.2021).
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The principle issues is whether the loss of the 8 garages would unacceptable reduce parking associated with the apartment building and second what potential impacts may occur to amenities of the apartments.
6.2 Firstly the existing block of apartments requires having a total of 36 parking spaces associated with the development in order to comply with Transport Policy 7 (TP7). Currently the site has 32 car parking spaces, therefore already has a shortfall and the proposal would fail TP7. It is noted when the application was approved the IOMSP was not adopted, however, clearly the site was approved on the standards of that time. However, this application must be considered against current standards. - 6.3 The applicants explain the site is in a sustainable area, which is a reasonable view, being close to public transport and a few minutes' walk from Ramsey Town Centre. - 6.4 The applicants indicate that the garage and 24 parking spaces have never been required; albeit no evidence to support this view is provided, with the exception of aerial photograph over a number of years; albeit the aerial photograph is generally taken during working hours (morning/afternoon periods), so parked vehicles are less likely to be at the site during these times. - 6.5 Perhaps at this stage it is worth considering the potential of the occupants of The Elms. While the applicants presume the use of the garages will be used for "storage and/or leisure related activities such as sailing, motor bikes or older cars" if the garages are sold as proposed, the applicants will have no control of the usage. The IOM has a number of garages blocks which are not connected to individual dwellings (1960s/70s estates). Accordingly, conflicts often occur between the owners of the garage and the neighbours/close by residential properties; as person/s use them for commercial storage/business, store old cars/motorbikes but then undertake repairs etc. to them, causing noise impacts and general disturbances. Accordingly, it is considered approval of this application will result in significant conflicts in the future and therefore should be refused. - 6.6 Conditions can be attached while restrict commercial use; albeit it is very difficult to enforce and also restrict the precise uses allowed. For example the use of the garage to store a vehicle, if that person then is repairing a vehicle whether it is commercial or not, the noise levels are likely to be the same. Repairing a car is repairing a car, no matter who does it.
7.0 CONCLUSION - 7.1 Overall, it is considered the proposal would result in the loss of parking associated and directly connected with The Elms apartment block, which already has a under provision in parking, while also introducing potential significant conflicts to the residential amenities of The Elms contrary to General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 7 of the IOMSP 2016. It is therefore recommended that the application be refused.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
8.2 The decision maker must determine:
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date: 09.08.2021
Signed : C BALMER Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
