Loading document...
This application relates to a site accessed from Patrick Street to the side of Heathfield House, known as Heathfield Yard.
The retrospective proposal is for the erection of four lock up private storage units within the yard. The units are 2.7 m wide x 5m long with up and over doors with a frame opening of 2.135m x 2.135m
There have been two letters of objection.
Tynwald Woodcrafts who occupy the building on the frontage of the yard are concerned as to whether the units are to be used for storage due to the fact the front opening resembles garages and
wishes to know whether the reasons for refusal have changed and is concerned about weatherproofing between the garages and his property.
Mr. and Mrs. Allen of 56 Patrick Street as owners of adjoining property and owners of access to the site say that the retrospective application to convert one long narrow storage unit into 4 storage units happened after the enforcement officer was involved in the site. They are concerned as to why garage doors are being fitted to 'storage units' and say that flyers distributed by the owner offer garages for rent and rentable open space parking for cars, trailers, boats etc. They consider the size of the doors is an issue as is the traffic entering and leaving into Patrick Street which was expressed as a safety concern in the refusal (PA 03/01453/B). On the right the units were and always have been small lock up garages and they have no objection to the works to refurbish them. Directly facing these units were three medium sized workshops at the time of the previous application which it was stated were to be refurbished with new roofs but these have been rebuilt with internal walls, front doors and new roofs to create seven single lock up garages which have been used for storage and vehicular parking. They state that the yard is marked out using white discs for off street parking. They do not accept that a soakaway has been provided since the access land which they own now floods after rainfall which it did not previously.
The yard has been used for a mixture of storage /garage purposes for some time. A previous application (PA 03/01453/B) for refurbishment of the existing 15 garages and erection of five additional garages was refused on 19th December 2003 and refused at review on 17th February 2004. The reason for refusal was 'By virtue of the number of garages proposed and the restricted visibility available to vehicle drivers exiting the site onto Patrick Street, it is judged that the proposed development would be contrary to the interests of road safety.'
Planning permission was not required for the refurbishment of the 7 garages on the south of the site since this was maintenance of existing garages. The applicant has now put in an application for four lock-up private storage units on the west side of the yard which are partly built. A further planning application has been requested for the other eight garages/lock up storage units on the north side which replaced three workshops (PA 05/1273).
The current application is for four lock up private storage units. The Department of Transport considers there will be no adverse traffic impact. The use of the units as storage would be likely to require fewer trips for access, than a gargage which could be used on a daily basis. The use for storage could be restricted by condition.
Whilst there is no objection to this application, the Planning Committee may wish to defer a decision pending the receipt of a planning application for the other garages/storage units to consider the site as a whole.
Viv Messenger prepared the above report. Having looked at PA 03/1453 I can see little difference between the two proposals and find it difficult to see how Viv recommends approval on this basis. DoT no longer object (they did to PA 03/1453).
Despite its use, the site is within a Residential Area on the 1990 Peel Local Plan and as such the existing uses represent non-conforming uses. Erection of further units will intensify this although the application is likely to say that the site will be used for garaging only. The access has not changed and as such I see no reason to change the reason for refusal given previously regarding the limited visibility afforded to drivers of vehicles emerging onto Patrick Street.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 14.06.2005
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1. The site lies within an area of Residential use and access to the site affords limited visibility to drivers of vehicles emerging onto Patrick Street. As such, the erection of further units will intensity this use, contrary to the interests of road safety.
The proposal is similar to that proposed and refused under PA 03/1453.
Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
