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 Molly's, 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 twenty seven residential apartments. Twenty six of the apartments are proposed to be sheltered housing apartments with the remaining apartment forming a warden's apartments. 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:
a) two identical two storey buildings, that each accommodates four apartments, located on the northern section of the application site. These two buildings are stepped in an attempt to take account of the changes in levels across the application site; b) one two storey building, that accommodates six apartments, located on the south eastern section of the application site. This building has underground basement car parking beneath it; and
c) one three storey building, that accommodates thirteen apartments and communal facilities including a social room, located on the western section of the application site.
The overall proposed development is served by forty car parking spaces, which is divided into twenty three spaces at ground level and seventeen spaces within the underground basement car park.
The application site has been the subject of one previous planning application that I consider material to the assessment of this current planning application:
Planning application 06/00057/B sought approval for the erection of four apartment blocks on the application site to provide 30 private sheltered housing apartments with wardens and ancillary accommodation and associated parking. This previous planning application was considered and refused by the Planning Committee on the 27th April 2006, with the refusal decision notice issued on the 4th May 2006. The stated reason for refusal of this previous planning application was:
"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;
c) the distance between the rear elevations of the proposed two storey buildings and the existing dwellings within the Marine View Close is insufficient to adequately protect the residential amenity of those existing dwellings and the residential amenity of the proposed apartments.
As such the proposed development is contrary to the provisions of policy O/RES/P/19 of Planning Circular 1/2000."
Onchan District Commissioners recommend that the planning application be approved.
The Department of Transport Highways Division do not oppose the planning application.
The Department of Local Government and the Environment Estates and Housing Section confirms that they have had discussions with the applicant regarding the provision of affordable housing within the proposed development. It is their belief that a minimum of six of the two bedroom apartments should be made available for public sector housing rental.
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.
There are a number of representations from members of the public objecting to the planning application. After reading these various representations and I 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 polices 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 assessing the development proposed by the planning application I would suggest that it is necessary to examine the principle of the development of the site and
the specifics of the proposed development. The assessment of the principle of the development is against the policy within the Onchan Local Plan and the accompanying Written Statement. The assessment of the specifics of the proposed development has to be based on an examination of the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area. Given the recent previous planning application it is clearly sensible to have regard to the report and conclusion of planning application 06/00057/B. The assessment of this proposed development against the previous planning application has implications at a principle level and at a specific level. Clearly there are recurring elements that are common to both planning applications and, as such, there are certain elements on which my professional view remains unchanged.
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 61 residential units to the hectare (25 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 55 residential units to the hectare (23 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. The scale, density and layout of the proposed development has been reduced down from that proposed by previous planning application 06/00057/B. Looking at the proposal purely in terms of the footprints of the four proposed buildings I am satisfied that the buildings are of an appropriate size and scale that fits in with the character of the surrounding area. The planning application submission includes a number of drawings that demonstrate the sectional relationship of the proposed development with
the existing property that surround the application site. From these it can be seen that an amalgamation of position, orientation, distance and levels combine to create a suitable relationship between the proposed development and the existing property that surround the application site.
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.
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.
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 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, there is a level of tree coverage along the boundary of the application site and that the buildings are either appropriately set back from the boundary or are set down from the existing adjacent development. My previous concerns regarding the largest of the buildings within previous planning application 06/00057/B have been addressed by a reduction in its scale and height, as well as its repositioning. Due to their positioning, orientation and differences in level I am also satisfied that the two building that each contain four apartments will sit appropriately with the existing residential development. Based on my site visits I am satisfied that the proposed development will not unduly affect the private and residential amenity of the existing residential properties that surround the application site. As such I am content that the proposed development is in accordance with policy O/RES/P/19 of the Written Statement.
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.
My assessment of these aspects clearly overlaps with a number of areas of concerns that have been raised by the objectors. The two remaining issues that have been raised
by objectors but have not been addressed by my assessment are 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.
After assessment of the relevant planning policy, consideration of the specifics of the proposal and the implications of the previous planning application I am satisfied that the proposal is an appropriate form of development for the application site. Accordingly, I recommend that the planning application be approved. As part of the conditions of approval I believe that, in line with Tynwald’s policy on affordable housing, it is appropriate to condition the provision of a minimum of six apartments within the development as being made available for public sector housing rental.
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 not be afforded interested party status:
Decision Recommended by the Director of Planning and Building Control: Permitted
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 approval relates to drawing no.s K090/P/10-01, K090/P/10-03, K090/P/10-05, K090/P/10-07, K090/P/10-08, K090/P/10-09, K090/P/10-10, K090/P/12-01, K090/P/12-02, K090/P/12-03 and K090/P/12-04 date stamped the 8th June 2006.
C 3.
Prior to the commencement of any works on site, there must be concluded between the applicant/developer and the Department of Local Government and the Environment a formal agreement whereby a minimum of six units within the development will be made available to the aforementioned Department as affordable housing units in accordance with the House Purchase Assistance Scheme 2004.
N 1.
The applicant/developer is recommended to contact the Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service to discuss the provision of appropriate fire precaution measures and the implications of the Fire Precautions (Flats) Regulations 1996.
N 2.
The applicant/developer is recommended to contact the Isle of Man Water Authority to discuss the provision or change of any water supply.
N 3.
The applicant/developer is recommended to contact the Manx Electricity Authority to discuss the provision or change of any electrical supply.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
