Loading document...
terms of public transport, for housing development. It also encourages a flexible approach to planning and parking standards to achieve this.
2.13 Direct advice on parking provision for development in England and Wales is found in PPG13 (2001), Transport. That advises:
2.14 Although of course PPS6, PPG3 and PPG13 are not directly applicable to the Island, such guidance can often be material and is often referred to. It is a helpful "yardstick" for the approach in the Castletown Local Plan and the Draft Strategic Guidance. It can be seen that the approach of encouraging redevelopment on the application site and applying flexibility in terms of parking are both consistent with prevailing good practice in planning.
3.1 The merits of the proposal are set out fully in the planning application and supporting documentation, in particular the Design Statement. Only the main features are therefore summarised in these submissions.
3.2 The proposals are for a mixed use development on a brownfield site in a town centre. Much of the site has laid derelict for a number of decades.
3.3 The proposed development would add to the vitality and viability of Castletown. The additional retail units would add to the range of shops and services available and reduce the number of trips out of Castletown. This is entirely consistent with the sustainable objectives of the Draft Strategic Plan and the other planning guidance detailed above.
3.4 The retail element is much needed and much in demand. The applicant has already been approached by a significant number of potential operators for the shop units and for the café. The operators of the shop units would be different from those currently in Castletown. Interest for the coffee shop includes a well known UK operator.
3.5 There will therefore be no difficulty in achieving a high quality retail and coffee shop element of the scheme. This would undoubtedly add to the attraction of Castletown both for local residents and for visitors to the Town. The proposals are supported by the Chamber of Commerce.
3.6 The inclusion of the housing element is consistent with the Local Plan, Draft Strategic Plan and good planning practice. It would make a significant contribution to meeting housing requirements in a sustainable location. It would bring more residents into the town, indeed into the heart of the town, which will assist in supporting local shops and services. At the same time it would assist in meeting the important objective in the Draft Strategic Plan, and at the centre of current good planning practice, of making efficient use of previously developed land and taking the pressure off Greenfield (i.e. previously undeveloped) sites.
3.7 In design terms the scheme would also be of high quality, as recognised by many who have commented on the proposals. The proposals are for the regeneration of
the historic town centre and draw on the flavour of the historic town and provide a modern development with an old feel as described in the Design Statement accompanying provided in support of the application.
4.1 The main concern raised by the Objectors relates to car parking and increased traffic flows. Some seek on-site car parking. However, that simply is not feasible. Arbory Street is a no-through Road and is partly pedestrianised. In particular number 16-26 Arbory Street are in the pedestrianised zone. The façade to 17-19 Malew Street must remain in place. Therefore, there is no vehicular access to the site.
4.2 The proposals cannot be blamed for any existing difficulties and for any enforcement problems that the local residents may feel aggrieved by. However, there is evidence that parking restrictions (e.g. in Bank Street and Malew Street which has "No Parking" notices) have been enforced with "No Parking" cones being used. There are no parking restrictions in Arbory Street or the Crofts.
4.3 Although there may be a waiting list for 24 hour car parking, as claimed by one Objector, there is no difficulty in parking in the evenings and at night and during the weekends. In particular there is ample capacity at those times in the Chapel Lane car park (also referred to as St.Marys and the Old Grammar School).
4.4 Some Objectors also refer to the unsuitability of the nearby streets for increased traffic flows. However, on-site parking would actually increase the traffic flows in these streets.
4.5 Those who reside any of the 27 residential units will be aware of the parking situation. No on-site parking schemes are now becoming common in many town centre developments. Indeed many of the Objectors have no-on site parking provision themselves. Hence, the utilisation of existing parking capacity is entirely appropriate and consistent with the policy context detailed above.
4.6 It appears that the only difference between the Planning Committee and the Applicant is precisely how the off-site parking should be provided. The use of Chapel Lane car park will ensure that 27 spaces are available, other than during the Monday to Saturday daytime. For those residents with cars, most will be likely to use them for work during the daytime. Hence, no difficulty is likely to arise in respect of these. For the few that don't, they will need to find parking. However, that situation is entirely normal for many town centre developments, as stated above.
4.7 Hence, the requirement for a legal agreement securing the provision of 27 spaces at all times is unnecessary. Such a requirement is likely to at least significantly delay if not preclude the proposed development proceeding altogether. Since the grant of the Initial Approval the Applicant has carried out a search for possible sites to provide these spaces at all times. It is unlikely that such a site would be identified in the foreseeable future and certainly not one that the Department’s officers would consider appropriate.
4.8 There are a number of other points raised in the Objections and consultation responses that go beyond the Applicant’s review of condition 9. These will be responded to at the Review Hearing if necessary. At this stage the Applicant only makes the following brief points in response:
(a) Although they would wish further details, the Occupants of 31 Arbor Street refer to the proposal as having "an enhanced design quality". The Occupier of 29A Arbor Street refers to the 4 storeys of apartments being out of character for the buildings along Arbor Street. However, that is incorrect as this element is the same height as 20 Arbor Street which was built in around 1800.
(b) SPMC & E's comments, that the proposals are taking away the conservation elements of the scheme, appear to completely overlook the true nature of the proposals which have the support of Castletown Heritage and Manx National Heritage. Paula Farragher's comments on design are also very supportive. She applauds the design philosophy and retention and re-use of as much of the existing buildings and materials as are feasible. She also refers to the scheme as being a good use of the site and a much needed regeneration development.
(c) Emergency vehicle access has been cleared with the relevant authorities. (d) The Drainage Department of the Department of Transport has no objections to the proposals. (e) All the requirements of the Director of Environment, Safety and Health would be met.
4.9 The concerns of the local residents must of course be taken into account. However, it must be remembered that they only represent a small number of the population of
Castletown and others who would benefit from the proposals. In contrast there is very significant support for the proposals.
4.10 The concerns also largely relate to parking considerations. It is believed all these points can be addressed as outlined above. Moreover, sight must not be lost of the fact that town centres are meant to be busy places. Inevitably at times this may lead to some local congestion and some short term parking in busy centres. Few town centres are able to strike an ideal balance. If the balance is struck too far towards "no change", then there is a serious risk of town centres gradually declining and more sites becoming and remaining derelict. That would be in no one's interest and could have very serious implications with loss of businesses, loss of livelihoods, the lowering of morale and people having to travel further for goods and services.
4.11 However, in the case of these proposals with overnight parking provided at Chapel Lane, there is no evidence that they would result in any material worsening of congestion on the roads or the parking areas.
5.1 As detailed above it is critical to appreciate that the proposals are fully in accordance with the Castletown Local Plan. This encourages the speedy development of the site. It facilitates this by encouraging the active involvement of the Castletown Commissioners and flexibility in the parking requirements.
5.2 The Castletown Commissioners are very supportive of the proposals. This support is re-enforced by that of the Chamber of Commerce as well as very many local people. Castletown Heritage and Manx Heritage are also content that the proposals would respect the historical environment.
12
5.3 All other statutory consultees are equally satisfied that the proposals are acceptable. In particular the Department of Transport is satisfied that the proposal to provide evening/overnight parking on a ratio of 1:1 at the Chapel Lane car park would make adequate provision. The planning officers adopt a similar view.
5.4 It therefore respectfully contended that, if the Planning Committee intended that the requirement in condition 9 should be for 27 parking spaces to be available at all times, this requirement is unnecessary. Further, such a requirement is impracticable and would lead to at least significant delay and more likely the abandonment of the proposed scheme, as a site to meet such a requirement to the satisfaction of the Department is unlikely to be identified.
5.5 Such an outcome would frustrate the objectives of the Local Plan with this site being the only one allocated for additional retail and other town centre development. It would also frustrate the achievement of the objectives of the Draft Strategic Plan. It would be the loss of a very significant development opportunity which is undoubtedly and overwhelmingly in the public interest.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
