Loading document...
The site represents the curtilage of an existing dwelling situated on the Promenade, together with land to the rear, wrapping around the site of recently approved apartments which front onto James Road (PA 04/2037). The site includes the existing dwellings at 45, The Promenade and sits alongside number 44 which is on the corner of The Promenade and James Road.
The site sits within an area designated on the 1991 Castletown Local Plan as Predominantly Residential and as Residential on the 2001 draft Castletown Area Plan.
There have been no planning applications submitted in respect of this site. Planning permission was granted for the conversion of number 44 to three apartments (PA 03/1031).
Proposed here is the erection of a building in the space between number 44 and 45. The building will be of a height which steps up from that of number 45 to 44 and with the window detailing and ornamentation of number 44. The building will be three storied, extending as far back as does number 44 and with two garage spaces at the ground floor of the rear of the building. Access to these spaces will be via James Road using the side lane alongside the parking spaces serving the apartments (PA 04/2037).
There is a comment that the application lacks a flood risk assessment. However I do not see quite how the development will increase the chances of flooding and other than flooding from a high tide, which will affect a large number of other existing properties along the Promenade, I do not consider that the site is at a high risk of flooding to warrant the requirement for a flood risk assessment.
The site is an infill one, between and in front of properties also owned by the applicant. The site lies within an area designated for residential use and I can see no adverse impact from the proposed works on any of the properties round about the site. The new building is attractive and will fill in a gap in an otherwise built-up frontage.
The Department of Transport objects on the grounds of the removal of parking spaces for number 45 and fails to provide adequate turning for this property is pertinent although it would appear from the drawings that the proposal will not affect the parking and there is no turning facilities available at present due to the presence of walling around the rear yard. The applicant has now discussed this with the Department of Transport who now withdraw their objection (9/11/06).
There are objections from owners of neighbouring property on the basis that this represents over-development or over-intensive development of the site which would result in a parking demand which cannot be met on site. It is also pointed out that the site was to be reserved for parking in association with the new apartments off James Road and that any deficiency in parking will lead to overspill onto the Promenade to the detriment of residents particularly when adding occupation of the other existing and new buildings in the vicinity.
The applicant is the same as that for the James Road apartments. The site for that development is being changed by this proposal insofar as it is to be reduced at the rear but retaining some rear space including some planted areas. The access to the rear of the proposed building will cut across this area. If implemented as permitted the apartment development would cut off number 45 from the rear lane and remove parking opportunities for this property. The scheme proposes to add parking spaces in alongside the apartments to serve 44 the Promenade and access to the rear of the site, which was to be along the side of the site is no longer required and access to the rear of the application site is now via the lane.
I am satisfied that there will be no loss of parking as a result of the proposal. In fact there will be more parking for number 44 and adequate parking to serve the new residential unit. There is
significant visual improvement from the introduction of a well-designed property in the existing gap in the frontage and as such I would recommend that the application is permitted.
The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
Whilst Isle of Man Water Authority and Fire Prevention Officer represent statutory authorities, the points raised in correspondence relate to service supplies and Building Control matters and not planning and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
The resident of Port Soderick is not directly affected by the proposal and should not be afforded party status in this case.
Number 48, the Promenade is not adjacent to the site and whilst the occupants of this property may use the lane which will also serve the proposed development I do not feel that this justifies affording party status to this objector.
The occupant of number 46, however is next door but one to the proposal and their rear yard adjoins the access to the rear of the application property. As such I would recommend that they are afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 10.11.2006
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 erection of a new dwelling together with the provision of car parking and access all as shown in drawings reference K077/P/10-01 and -02 both received on 26th May, 2006.
C 3. The windows to be installed in the property must be as shown in the approved drawings and not replaced without the prior permission of the Planning Authority by way of a new planning permission.
N 1.
For single connections to a water main (i.e. a single dwelling) the applicant should contact Isle of Man Water Authority Customer Services, telephone 695949.
N 2.
The Chief Fire Officer recommends the installation of mains wired interconnected domestic smoke detection.
I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular Nos 44/05 (Delegation of Functions to Director of Planning and Building Control) and 47/05 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer)
Decision Made : Permitted Date : 13/11/06
Signed : M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
