Loading document...
The planning application seeks approval for the erection of six dwellings on a site at the end of Laxey Promenade. The proposed dwellings, which comprise of a row a five terraced and one detached dwellings, replace some almost derelict buildings.
There are a number of objections to the planning application. Laxey Village Commissioners consider the proposed development to be overdevelopment, the design to be out of keeping, the traffic arrangements to be unacceptable, that sea defences have not been properly considered and that only a development of similar scale to the existing would be acceptable. These concerns have basically been echoed by a number of public third parties. SPMCE have no objections to the planning application, considering the design to be quite nice. The DoT Highways Division consider there to be no adverse traffic impacts arising from the proposed development.
This current planning application was deferred pending the outcome of an appeal against the refusal of a previous planning, 04/2573/B, which sought approval the erection of six dwellings on the site. The scale of the development proposed by the current planning application is less than that proposed by the previous planning application. The appeal decision into the previous planning application was issued on the 25th October 2005, with the Minister agreeing with the recommendations of the appointed Planning Inspector and confirming the Planning Committee’s decision to refuse planning approval, albeit with an additional reason for refusal. I have discussed the contents of the appeal decision with the applicant’s agent, Glenn Kinrade, who agreed that its implications meant that the current planning application could only be refused. Based on the findings of the appointed Planning Inspector into the previous planning application I have to conclude that the development proposed by this current planning application is unacceptable on the grounds of the scale of development and the vehicular access arrangements. Accordingly, I recommend that the planning application be refused.
Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 14.11.2005
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal
R 1.
Whilst it is recognised that the development proposed by this planning application attempts to address the reasons for refusal of a previous planning application, 04/02573/B, the Planning Committee concludes that the differences between that previous proposal and this current proposal are not substantially different enough to overcome the previous reasons for refusal. As such the development proposed by this planning application is unacceptable on the grounds that:
a) The proposed development would represent over-development of the site, producing a building which in massing, site coverage and height is considerably larger than that which occupies the site at present. Furthermore, the design of building starkly contrasts to the prevailing architecture and general appearance of buildings fronting and in the vicinity of the Promenade, resulting in a development which would be visually out of keeping with its environment and the special character of the Conservation Area. Whilst the Planning Committee would not seek to preserve the existing building, which is not attractive and is in poor condition, its replacement with the new building as proposed would not enhance the appearance of the Conservation Area as is required by the 1991 Town and Country Planning Act and as such would be contrary to be policy CA/2 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01; and
b) The proposed vehicular access, turning and manoeuvring areas available within the site would be insufficient to ensure that the number of vehicles likely to be attracted to the site would avoid significant traffic congestion and dangers to pedestrians using this part of the Promenade.
Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
