Loading document...
The site represents a piece of ground which lies to the rear of Malew Street, served by a narrow lane which runs past the site and ends up at the rear of the Buchan School, passing and serving 77 to 95 (odd numbers only) Malew Street. To the south west is a private road leading to a new property, Donore which gains access, like the application site, from The Crofts.
The site has on it a store building used by the applicant for his small building business. This was previously owned and used by a Mr. Cubbon.
The applicant lives to the rear of the site, at number 85, Malew Street.
The site lies within an area of Predominantly Residential use on the Castletown Plan of 1991. The draft Castletown Area Plan of 2001 designates the area as Residential. The site lies within the Conservation Area.
The site has been the subject of two previous applications: PA 91/0701 - approval in principle for the erection of a new dwellings, 87, Malew Street and PA 91/1929 - construction of new dwelling, 87, Malew Street, permitted on review.
Proposed here is the replacement of the existing shed which is described by the applicant's structural engineers as having passed its useful life and should be replaced.
The application therefore proposes to replace the existing L-shaped building. This is described as dating back to the mid-19th century and constructed in a mixture of concrete and cobbles with a felted roof in a mono-pitch style of construction.
The new building will be the same size and shape as the existing but internally subdivided into a store (as existing) and an office, toilet and utility room. These facilities could in theory be provided in the existing building although its poor condition has probably resulted in less investment in the inside.
The new building will be the same height as the existing and will have a pitched not a mono-pitched roof. The walls will be single brick construction.
There is and will continue to be space in front and to the side of the building for parking vans and vehicles associated with the use of the site.
The issue of "restricted land" has been brought up by the previous owner who has written in.
There are concerns regarding the stability and implications for the boundary wall which is to be demolished. Whilst this is largely a civil matter, the applicant may be able to clarify his understanding of the position prior to any decision being taken. This objector refers to the structural engineer's report but has clearly not seen it although this was submitted with the application. I will write to this objector informing him that this report is available for viewing with the application. They also seek confirmation that there are and will be no roof-lights or windows in the elevation which faces the Malew Street properties: there is none proposed in this application.
I have written to the application and asked for clarification on the matters which have been raised by the third party. However, there appear to be on-going discussions or at least some re-consideration by the applicant who has telephoned me and explained several months ago that he would like the application to be deferred until the legal matters are resolved or until he is ready to submit a further application if necessary.
Whilst legal and civil matters are not normally relevant to the planning process, this application can clearly not go ahead until the matters raised by the objector have been clarified and resolved if required. Any approval of the application may be redundant and also subject to challenge at appeal with little prospect of the work going ahead. As such I recommend that the application is deemed withdrawn under Article 4 (3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, as the information required by letter of 26th June, 2006 and again in September and December 2006 has not been provided.
The representatives of Harbourside Limited state that they own 91/93, Malew Street which is served by the lane which runs past this site: these properties are also immediately behind the application site. As such they should be afforded party status in this instance.
The occupant of The Coach House is relatively close to the application site and clearly has legal interests in the site and as such should be afforded party status in this instance.
The occupant of 16, Farrant's Park would appear to live some distance from the site and as such should not be afforded party status in this case.
Whilst the Fire Prevention Officer and Disability Access Officer represent statutory authorities, the points raised in correspondence relate largely to Building Control matters and not planning and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Deemed withdrawn under legislation
Date of Recommendation: 03.01.2007
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1.
The application is deemed withdrawn under Article 4 (3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, as the information required by letter of 26th June, 2006 and again in September and December 2006 has not been provided.
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)
Signed : ...
M. I. McCauley
Director of Planning and Building Control
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
