Refusal Notice 01/01273/B Reasons
Reasons For Refusal
Application Ref No: 01/01273/B
- Whilst the size and height of the buildings have been reduced from those of the previous application - PA01/0058, the Committee is of the opinion that the development comprises too many apartments and that this results in a development which is dominated by buildings and car parking, with buildings which are overly tall, where units C and D come too close to the site boundary (the public footpath). Building B is considered inappropriately large compared with adjacent property.
- Notwithstanding the above, no details have been given as to the proposed means of drainage of the site (Onchan Commissioners have advised that the existing system cannot accommodate a further 30 units).
- Insufficient details have been given to demonstrate that the proposed means of access is safe or satisfactory in terms of gradient and visibility.
- No details have been included of the enhancement and reinforcement of the public footpath running along the edge of the site as required by the Onchan Local Plan.
- No details have been given of the proposed floor levels so as to demonstrate that
(a) internal drives and car parks are of an acceptable gradient.
(b) the proposed units will not adversely affect the amenities of adjacent property and the footpath.
- NOTE This decision was made by the Planning Committee constituted in accordance with Paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 of the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982.
Town and Country Planning Acts, 1934 - 1991
Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982
Atelier 2 33 Upper Parliament Street Liverpool L8 7LA
In pursuance of powers granted under the above Acts and Order the Department of Local Government and the Environment does hereby REFUSE the application made by you on behalf of:
Far End Development Ltd
Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling and creation of four two storey blocks, housing 30 apartments at: Land Adjacent To And Including Far End King Edward Road Onchan
which was considered on 25 January 2002, for the reasons set out in the attached schedule.
Date of Issue: 31 January, 2002
Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas Isle of Man
Secretary Planning Committee
Note 1: The decision contained in this notice does not become final until:-
- the time for requesting an appeal in relation to any decision at review has expired; or
- any appeal has been completed.
Note 2: Rights of appeal against the decision of the planning committee are attached.
Note 3: An appeal may be requested within a period of 21 days.
Reasons For Refusal
Application Ref No: 01/01273/B On Review
- The proposed development would be contrary to The Onchan Local Plan, in which the site (excluding the curtilage of "Far End") is zoned for residential development in the form of 3 dwellings rather than the very large number of dwellings now proposed.
- The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the appearance of the site as viewed in the coastal landscape and from the coastal footpath and King Edward Road; in particular, the buildings would be inappropriately tall and massive, and the extensive areas of paved space and parked vehicles would be completely out of keeping on a coastal headland of considerable scenic quality.
- The proposed development would have an adverse and unreasonable impact on the amenities of nearby dwellings by virtue of the size and siting of the buildings and the external activity on the site, particularly in relation to the arrival, parking, and departure of motor cars.
- The foul drainage system into which the development would drain has insufficient capacity to deal with the flows which would arise from as many as 30 dwellings.
- There is insufficient information within the application with regard to
(a) the vehicular access to the site from King Edward Road, particularly in respect of gradient and visibility; (b) the levels and gradients of driveways and parking areas within the site; and (c) the treatment and enhancement of the coastal footpath (as required by the Onchan Local Plan).
- NOTE This review has been considered by the Planning Committee on written evidence. Any additional submissions not previously circulated to interested parties are enclosed herewith.