Loading document...
Application No.: 05/01842/B Applicant: Mr J Bell Proposal: Amendment to approved conversion of former guest houses to six apartments (04/02298B) to include an additional studio apartment and management office on lower ground floor Site Address: 7 - 8 Palace Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 4LW ### Considerations Case Officer: Mr C Balmer Expected Decision Level: Committee Decision ### Written Representations J Bell ### Consultations Consulttee: Highways Division Notes: no adverse traffic impacts Consulttee: Douglas Corporation Notes: no objection Consulttee: Chief Fire Officer Notes: applicant to consult with Fire Safety Department as proposal falls within the scope of the Fire Precautions (flats) Regulations 1996. Consulttee: IOM Water Authority Notes: see note 1 and 4 Consulttee: Disability Access Officer Notes: see comments ### Policy
The application proposes amendments to a previous approved application (04/02298/B) for a conversion of a former guest house to six apartments to include an additional studio apartment and management office on lower ground floor at 7-8 Place Road, Douglas, which is a part of a row of large 4 storey terraced properties outside of the Promenades Conservation Area.
There is a valid Application in Principle for conversion to six flats. (PA 04/00066/A approved 22nd March 2004). There was an objection at that time from the Department of Transport because no proposals for the parking of vehicles arising out of the use of the apartments were included, in an area where on-street parking is at a premium. The approval in principle for two years was subject to conditions that the approval was for the conversion of the existing fabric into six flats, each of which must have a front outlook and comply in all respects with the Housing (flats) regulations 1982.
A full application (PA 04/01520/B) was submitted for the conversion to six flats and an owner's apartment and manager's office which was refused on 12th October 2004. The reason for refusal was that the proposed development would result in an increase in the demand for parking space; no on-site space is proposed (or, indeed practical), and further on-street parking would add to the existing congestion in the immediate area.
Another application was submitted for the conversion of a former guest house into six apartments (04/02298/B) which was approved on the 2nd February 2005, even though the Department of Transport objected to the proposal.
This application is almost identical to the previous refused application 04/01520/B, the difference being the proposed studio apartment was called the owners apartment. That application was refused on the grounds of the increase of on-street parking.
The Douglas Corporation and Department of Transport have both considered the application and neither have objected to the application. We have received no private written representation objecting to the proposals.
There have been applications for the conversion of the existing guest houses in the area (4 Empire Terrace 04/01892/B & 12 Empire Terrace 04/01618/A) which have been refused due to the increased amounts of on-street parking provisions, however they have had their decisions overturned at appeal.
The proposal again would seem to be unacceptable due to the proposed use would generate a demand for parking spaces; on-site parking is neither proposed nor practical, whilst further on-street parking would exacerbate existing congestion, to the detriment of road safety and the convenience of existing residents. The application also has the added concern of the loss of the two stores to the residents of the six apartments, would be a loss of a residential amenity. My recommendation is therefore for a refusal.
Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 16.11.2005 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. The proposed use would generate a demand for on-street parking spaces; on-site parking is neither proposed nor practical, whilst further on-street parking would exacerbate existing congestion, to the detriment of road safety and the convenience of existing residents.
R 2. The loss of the two stores to the residents of the six apartments, would be a loss of a residential amenity.
Decision Made : Refuse Committee Meeting Date : 24/11/08 CB
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
