Loading document...
Officer’s Report
The site represents the curtilage of the Saffron Indian Restaurant (formerly the Chablis Cellar) situated on the corner of Bank and Hope Streets within the Conservation Area and within an area of Mixed Use on the adopted Castletown Local Plan. Part of the site (that which will provide the car parking) is within a wider area designated as Residential.
Previously, (PA 04/1046) the site has been the subject of an application for development in the form of conversion of the restaurant to an apartment and the erection of an attached town house and block of 6 apartments with parking. This was refused at appeal as the Inspector felt that the town house would be an unsatisfactory form of development which would provide its occupants with poor living conditions and adversely affect the amenities of neighbouring residents. He goes on to find fault with the relationship of the new apartments with the town house and to express concern over the amount of parking which fell short of that recommended in the Castletown Plan (9 spaces for 8 dwellings) and arranged in a tight and awkward layout with possible reversing of vehicles onto Hope Street where there is limited visibility.
The applicant has now tried to address these objections and is proposing a scheme which omits the new town house and converts the restaurant to a residential unit (1 bedrooms) and erection of an extension to the existing building which will accommodate 6 apartments (a total of 12 bedrooms). This results in a total of 9 apartments (there are two in the property as existing) with ten parking spaces which are arranged in a broadly similar fashion to that proposed in PA 04/1046. These spaces are tight with only 3 of the spaces having 6m directly in front in which to manoeuvre out, some spaces having as little as 4m.
The extension is an attractive building and complements the existing building which appears truncated in the streetsceene.
We have received objections from:
The Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment who think the proposal represents over-development,
2, Malew Street which objects to the application on the grounds of lack of parking, loss of view of the tree, the loss of the restaurant,
17, Bank Street which expresses concern at the potential damage and inconvenience through the building works, additional traffic generated by the proposed extension, change of views of the trees, loss of the restaurant, cramped parking arrangements,
Castletown Commissioners who object on the basis that the proposal represents over-development, the loss of spaciousness and the loss of the commercial use to the property (see PAs 02/2053 for conversion of existing offices into 3 self-contained apartments - permitted and 04/00876 - change of use from shop and first floor from retail to residential - permitted on appeal),
22, Hope Street who express concern at the potential for 20 apartments (I am unsure as to how this conclusion is reached), loss of the restaurant, parking problems, inadequate road network, pedestrian safety, potential for flooding, capacity of the drainage system to accommodate the additional sewage,
44, Malew Street which is concerned at over-development, intrusion into the properties alongside, inadequate car parking, more noise, the removal of the boundary wall to Hope Street and the effect of the development on existing trees,
14, Hope Street which expresses concern at over-intensive development, car parking, traffic congestion, pollution, refuse storage provision, cumulative effect of development proposals (including PA 05/01750),
7, Hope Street which is concerned at public opposition which should be accepted and the application refused, over-intensive development and not providing the type of accommodation needed by the town,
16, Hope Street which expresses objection to the scheme on the grounds of car parking, traffic, loss of character in the townscape, the loss of the restaurant, the cumulative effect of other developments (including 05/1750),
a resident of Port Soderick in Braddan who supports the application and notes that there are other opportunities for restaurant provision elsewhere in the town,
Fire Prevention Officer who recommends discussion (SN0002), Disability Access Officer who recommends provision for disabled persons, Environmental Health Inspector who recommends compliance with the 1982 Regs, Isle of Man Water Authority who recommend the attachment of notes 1 and 4 (SN 22 and 25),
a late response from 40, Malew Street which is concerned with what they see as an unfeasible parking arrangement and suggest that should the application be approved then some form of barrier would prevent unauthorised entry to the parking area. They are also concerned at their loss of view an consequent loss of property value, neither of which is a material planning consideration, and a late response from 48, Malew Street which welcomes the retention of the existing tree, the reduction in windows but remains concerned at the unfeasible parking arrangement (this is the same letter as for 40, Malew Street and signed by the same person).
The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division have now objected to the application on the basis that the parking spaces are outside of the site and too small to be easily usable.
The applicant has now revised the scheme in the form of SC792/P/100/R which shows reorganisation of the parking spaces reducing the overall number to 7 but making them usable without encroaching onto other people's property. This appears to be acceptable to me. Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division have now confirmed that this is acceptable provided that a condition is attached to require that the entrance is widened to 4.1m to accommodate two-way flow and an additional parking space should be accommodated in the rear yard area. The first requirement will require an amendment to the scheme and a reduction in the footprint of the building, albeit only
marginally on one side although I am not sure whether this should be required as a condition as it was not given as a reason for refusal in the previous application.
The second requirement will result in a loss of amenity space and the introduction of vehicles very close to ground floor windows, possibly vehicles which are not associated with the windows next to which the vehicles will be parked. As such I would not support the inclusion of this as a condition.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 12.01.2006
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2. This permission relates to the alterations and extensions shown in drawings SC792/P/100/R/A received on 1st December, 2005, the location plan and plans reference SC792/P/10-02 and -03, SC792/P/101/R and -102R all received on 14th September, 2005.
C 3. The external finishes of the extension must match those of the existing building in all respects.
C 4. All windows must be timber-framed sliding sashes to match those in the existing building. Such windows may not be replaced or altered without planning permission.
N 1. The applicant is encouraged to reconsider the northern end of the development, such that two way traffic may be able to pass within the site without encroaching onto property outside the defined site.
N 2. PRIOR to the commencement of any works the applicant is advised to consult the Chief Fire Officer to ensure that adequate fire precautions are taken.
N 3. The applicant/developer is recommended to consult with the Housing Inspectorate with regard to compliance with the Housing (Flats) Regulations.
N 4. For connections to Flats and Apartments the following apply - "Water Supply to Flats and Apartments - Regulations", and if applicable a "Form Of Undertaking In Respect Of Supply Pipes" will be required.
Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
