Loading document...
The application site comprises of the curtilage of what was formerly The Warehouse Grill on Harbour Road in Onchan. The site, which is also referred to as Mollies, the Follies Cabaret Restaurant or the Howstrake Hotel, measures 0.44 of a hectare (1.08 acres) in area on the Uniform database mapping system.
The topography of the application site slopes downwards from a survey height of 67.00 metres at the north eastern corner to a survey height of 61.50 metres at the south western corner of the site. Existing residential dwellings in Kirkway and Furman Close are generally set below the level of the application site. Existing residential dwellings in Marine View Close are generally set at the same height or above the level of the application site. The application site contains a number of existing large, mature trees and some existing planting around its boundaries.
The proposed development comprises of the erection of four detached buildings on the application site that provide thirty one residential apartments. Thirty of the apartments are proposed to be sheltered housing apartments with the remaining apartment forming a warden's apartment. The accommodation is designed with disability access and provision in mind. The application describes the housing being primarily intended for over 50's but also being available for those with mobility problems or disabilities.
The apartments are split between four separate proposed buildings, which can be summarised as:
The overall proposed development is served by forty six car parking spaces, which is divided into twenty seven spaces at ground level and nineteen spaces within the underground basement car park.
Whilst the buildings that formerly occupied the application site were subject to a number of previous planning applications there are no previous planning applications that I consider to be relevant to the assessment of this current planning application.
Onchan District Commissioners recommend that the planning application be approved subject to the imposition of condition. The suggested condition relates to the reduction in size or relocation of the sub-station so as to lessen its impact on adjacent properties. They also request that perculation tests are undertaken to test the adequacy of soakaways.
The Department of Transport Highways Division do not oppose the planning application subject to the imposition of three conditions. Those suggested conditions relate to the width of an entrance, the operation of the underground parking and the allocation of parking spaces.
The Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service make no specific comment on the merits of the planning application but advises that the development falls within the scope of the Fire Precautions (Flats) Regulations 1996 and recommend that the provision of fire safety precautions are discussed with them.
The Isle of Man Water Authority make no specific comment on the merits of the planning application but request that an informative note be attached to any approval decision notice.
The Manx Electricity Authority make no specific comment on the merits of the planning application but request that informative notes be attached to any approval decision notice.
The Disability Access Office make no specific comment on the merits of the planning application but recommend that the needs of disabled access are taken into account.
The Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and the Environment advise that whilst they do not object to the principle they have concerns regarding the detail of the proposal.
There are a number of representations from members of the public objecting to the planning application. I have read these various representations and would summarise the objections as concern regarding:
The relevant local plan documents in terms of the assessment of the planning application are the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Onchan Local Plan) Order 2000 and the accompanying Written Statement that is set out by Planning Circular 1/2000. For the purposes of this report I will refer to these documents by their more commonly known names as the Onchan Local Plan and the Written Statement.
Under the Onchan Local Plan the application site is designated as an area of tourist accommodation and leisure.
There are no policies within the Written Statement that I consider to specifically relate to the application site. However, there are two policies within the Written Statement (O/RES/P/19 and O/RES/P/20) that could be considered relevant to the assessment of the planning application.
In respect of the residential development of parts other than those specifically designated policy O/RES/P/19 states that:
"The erection of new residential properties may be permitted within areas designated for residential use where these would fit in with the density, massing, design and character of existing adjacent dwellings."
In respect of car parking provision for new residential development policy O/RES/P/20 states that: "Except where required otherwise by the Local Plan, car parking standards of at least three spaces per dwelling which may include a garage will be applied to all new residential development within the Local Plan area. Permission will not generally be forthcoming for extensions or conversions which result in a loss of parking space behind the building line."
In terms of the principle of the residential development of the application site I would suggest that the main assessment is against the policy within the Onchan Local Plan and accompanying Written Statement. As already highlighted the application site is designated as an area of tourist accommodation and leisure under the plan and there are no specific references to the use of the application site within the Written Statement. It is my understanding that the designation is a direct reflection of the use of the site at the time of the publication of the Onchan Local Plan and that at that time there were no representations made regarding the potential future redevelopment of the site. I believe that the previous use and operation was considered a nuisance by some local residents and could have been viewed as a bad neighbour within the area. As the site is now cleared and no longer has any restaurant or public house operating from it any such nuisance has obviously ceased. Given that the surrounding area is an established residential area I cannot see any good reason why residential development of the application site should, or indeed could successfully, be resisted. The residential development of the application site represents the use of a "brownfield" site within an urban location, something which in principle should be supported. This view reflects the pre-application advice that I previously gave to the applicant.
I therefore believe that the principle of residential development of the application site is acceptable and that the acceptability of this planning application is dependant on an assessment against the specifics of the proposed development. Such assessment has to be made against policy O/RES/P/19 and O/RES/P/20 of the Written Statement and material planning considerations. I would suggest that the material considerations can be categorised into the following areas:
Based on my measurements of the size of the application site the density of the proposed development equates to 70 residential units to the hectare (29 residential units to the acre). Based on the applicant's assertion that the application site measures 0.49 of a hectare (1.20 acres) the density equates to 63 residential units to the hectare (26 residential units to the acre). Whilst this level of density is relatively high and comparatively greater than the density of the surrounding area I do not consider this to be in itself reason for refusal. It is my view that the proper assessment is an examination of how the development relates to the application site and the surrounding area. Looking at the proposal purely in terms of the footprints of the four proposed buildings I am satisfied that the three smaller buildings are of an appropriate size and scale that fits in with the character of the surrounding area. As can be seen by comparison with the site location plan the largest building has a similar sized and positioned footprint to that of the building that previously occupied the application site. However, given that the use of the site is changing and that there are consequential changes in layout I do have concerns about the impact of this particular building in respect of the amenity of existing surrounding properties. I raised this potential concern as part of my pre-application advice and highlighted that I would have to partially reserve my position on this issue until I had undertaken a site visit.
I consider there to be some degree of crossover between the assessment of the density of proposed development and the design of the proposed development. Specifically, the issue of layout is directly related to the density of the proposed development and in this instance results in a significant
amount of hard surfacing throughout the application site, which means that the actual amount of landscaping within the remaining area is quite limited. There is a uniformity of design throughout the appearance of the four buildings and whilst I accept that architecture is a largely a matter of personal opinion I consider the proposed development to be designed to a high standard. As I believe it is reasonable to say that there is no particular overriding architectural style within the surrounding area I therefore consider the design to be acceptable. I do have some concerns regarding the overall height and scale of the largest of the proposed buildings. These concerns expanded upon later within this report.
In respect of the access arrangements, the impact of traffic generation and the car parking provision I would rely on the fact that the Department of Transport Highways Division has advised that the proposed development has no adverse traffic impacts. Whilst the provision of forty six car parking spaces does not comply with policy O/RES/P/20 I am satisfied that the nature of the proposed development is sufficiently different for the proposal to be judged on its own merit. It is reasonable to surmise that the occupants of sheltered accommodation are potentially likely to have lower levels of car ownership.
I have no evidence to suggest that the sewage and drainage arrangements for the application site and proposed development will not work, nor am I aware of any pre-existing problems within the area. The specifics of sewage and drainage arrangements design would be a matter for any subsequent building regulations application.
In terms of the assessment of the impact on public amenity I would suggest that the main consideration is the appearance of the proposed development from and along its boundary on Harbour Road. In this respect I am satisfied that the development will fit in acceptably within the area and appear acceptable from public viewpoints. As regards light pollution in terms of public amenity I cannot see how the development will be significantly different to the existing situation within the surrounding area and do not consider the issue of light pollution to be unduly problematic.
The issue of the impact of the proposed development on private amenity brings together a number of the issues already mentioned within this report. As already alluded to I am satisfied that the relationship of the three smaller proposed buildings with the adjacent properties is basically acceptable as the apartments are set out to have their principal outlook towards the centre of the application site and there is a level of tree coverage along the boundary of the application site. However, I do have concerns about the larger proposed building and its effect on the residential amenity of the adjacent properties. These concerns primarily arise from the overall height of the proposed building, the use of balcony areas, proximity to the boundary and the orientation of the apartments within the building in comparison to the position and level of the existing adjacent properties. Having visited a number of the adjacent properties I have concluded that due to its position, its proximity to the boundary, its overall height and the differences in levels the proposed three storey building will have an unacceptably overbearing impact, to the detriment of their private and residential amenity. Furthermore, due to its position, its proximity to the boundary, its overall height, the differences in levels, the use of balcony areas and the orientation of the apartments within the building I have also concluded that the three storey building will unacceptably affect their privacy, also to the detriment of their private and residential amenity. I believe this to be contrary to the provisions of policy O/RES/P/19 of the Written Statement. In coming to this opinion I have recognised that the proposed three storey building steps back as its height increases and concluded that screen planting would not adequately address the concerns. As mentioned earlier I highlighted this potential concern as part of my pre-application advice and highlighted that I would have to partially reserve my position on this issue until I had undertaken a site visit.
With regards to other concerns raised by objectors that are connected to an impact on private amenity I believe that none of these are sufficient to form reason for refusal. It is my opinion that the position of the proposed buildings is unlikely to cause a loss of light to a level that could be deemed unacceptable, that whilst the effect on satellite television reception is a material consideration I do
not attach sufficient weight to it to be reason for refusal and that the position of the sub-station could be addressed by amendment to the application or a condition of any approval.
My assessment of these aspects clearly overlaps with a number of areas of concerns that have been raised by the objectors. The three remaining issues that have been raised by objectors but have not been addressed by my assessment are the impact of construction traffic, the loss of an existing view and the effect of the development on property values. I have to advise that these three issues are not material planning consideration in terms of the assessment of a planning application and therefore cannot be reason for refusal.
Whilst I accept the principle of development I consider the impact of the proposed development, and specifically the three storey building, on the amenity of the adjacent surrounding properties is unacceptable. I therefore recommend that the planning application be refused.
I consider that the following parties that made representations to the planning application meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
I consider that the following parties that made representations to the planning application do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 19.04.2006
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1.
The development proposed by the planning application is deemed unacceptable by reason that:
a) the position, proximity to the site boundary, overall height of the proposed three storey building and differences in ground levels combine to result in an unacceptably overbearing impact on the existing adjacent dwellings to the detriment of their private and residential amenity; b) the position, proximity to the site boundary, overall height, the use of balcony areas and the orientation of the apartments of the proposed three storey building and differences in ground levels combine to result in an unacceptably adverse effect on the privacy of the existing adjacent dwellings to the detriment of their private and residential amenity.
As such the proposed development is contrary to the provisions of policy O/RES/P/19 of Planning Circular 1/2000.
Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
