Loading document...
Matthew Corcoran Riversdale House, The Hope St Johns IM4 3AS
Chief Secretary Planning Appeals Office Government Office DOUGLAS IM1 3PN
Application No: 07/00197/B Applicant: Mr ML Corcoran Proposal: Approval to discharge condition one of 05/00665/R to retain containers
(fig a.) Plan of the application site, including the containers.
THE SITE Correction of description of site "area know as Heathfield Yard which consists of a large two storey building..." (fig b.) The building referred to belongs to Mr and Mrs Allen and is not part of the application site.
PLANNING STATUS Whilst Heathfield Yard is adjacent to the boundary of the conservation area, it is not actually within the conservation area. The containers and indeed, the whole application site is cannot not be seen from the conservation area.
REPRESENTATIONS Mr and Mrs Allen - with regard to Mr & Mrs Allen's objection, no reason for their objection has been stated. The reason for refusal of the application is concerning manoeuvrability of vehicles within the yard, as Mr and Mrs Allen do not rent a garage and have no reason to be in the yard, I cannot see what interest they have in this application.
Mrs Tatchell - of 60 Patrick Street who has objected rents a garage within the site and objects on the basis that she cannot use her garage for the purpose intended, due to the location of the containers.
I was surprised by her objection as she has never voiced any concerns regarding manoeuvrability to my self. If I had been aware of this I would have offered her an alternative garage.
Mrs Tatchell has rented her garage from a period before the containers were present on the site, however, from the beginning of her contract, she has used her garage solely for storing domestic and household items. I have observed the contents of the garage on several occasions during her tenancy, whilst carrying out essential maintenance/safety inspections. Also I have assisted her builder to move furniture to and from the garage, and observed that it was stacked to capacity with household items. This, again, was before the containers were present
on site. So even prior to the installation of the containers, she did not use the garage for the intended purpose of parking her vehicle.
Since the containers have been present I have observed that she has manoeuvred and parked her vehicle directly in front of her garage door, demonstrating that, after completing this manoeuvre successfully and with no apparent difficulty or complaint to myself, if she intended parking in her garage she would, simply, only have to open the garage door and drive the rest of the way in, to complete the manoeuvre of parking in her garage.
(fig c.) photograph of my own vehicle parked in the same position in order to demonstrate the way in which Mrs Tatchell has been parking her vehicle on a regular basis.
(fig d.) Letter from former tenant Dr C.V. Hollins, confirming where Mrs Tatchell’s vehicle was parked.
Therefore, Mrs Tatchell has rented a garage since before the containers were on site and has chosen to use the garage for storage purposes, choosing to park her vehicle on the road or in front of the garage, she has never used her garage for its intended purpose either before or after the installation of the containers. Furthermore, given that she is capable of parking in front of her garage, I feel that if she was minded to do so, she could easily park inside her garage.
Referring to a copy of the enclosed lease (fig e.) which all the tenants have signed, it says that parking of vehicles or working on vehicles in the yard is not permitted. All of the tenants apart from Mrs Tatchell observe this condition. On several occasions I have had to ask Mrs Tatchell to refrain from parking her vehicle in front of her garage. Also she has allowed friends or associates of hers to park and repair motorcycles in the yard which I have also asked her not to do. Mrs Tatchell is the only tenant I have ever had to speak to about such matters.
On a recent visit to the site by myself and a photographer, in order to take photographs for this application. Mrs Tatchall called the police to the site and reported me for parking my vehicle in front of her garage, which I had done so in order to take the photographs. This was a most embarrassing situation for me as I was forced to explain my actions to the police in front of my colleague.
I cannot help but feel that Mrs Tatchell’s objection to the proposal is not based on any genuine issues concerning vehicular manoeuvrability, but is malicious and devised to cause me maximum inconvenience, in fact, parking her vehicle in front of her garage displays that she is capable of manoeuvring her vehicle into her garage should she choose to do so.
I enclose a letter of support signed by the tenants. (fig f.) You will notice that only two out of the eighteen tenants have not signed. One being Mrs Tatchell, for obvious reasons; the other being Mr Slater who I believe is involved with the Planning Board and, therefore, I did not feel it was fair to ask him to sign as there may be a conflict of interest. However, please note that he has made no objection to this application.
I would like to highlight two new residential developments located close to my property:-
(figs: g, h, I, j, k)
Wharfside Quay is a newly developed four story block of eleven apartments carried out by McArds.
The car park for this building is located on the ground floor, with the entrance on Station road and the exit on to Lake lane. The front doors of households are directly opposite this exit, at a distance of only 3 to 3.50mts. This is a public highway which is too narrow to have any foot paths and is a densely populated residential area. Also, the development is located next the Creek Inn and very close to the harbour side which is probably the busiest part of Peel with regards to pedestrian and vehicular traffic. In this case, an area of 3 to 3.5m is considered a sufficient amount of space to manoeuvre a vehicle out of the exit.
The area available for manoeuvring vehicles on the application site exceeds that of the Wharfside Quay development, as the space available directly in front of the garage doors at its narrowest point is 6m and its widest 7m. Also the entire area is contained within a private yard well away from pedestrians, traffic, public highways or homes and is used solely by the tenants of the units.
When comparing these two sites, it appears that my application site has substantially more room to manoeuvre in front of the doorways of each unit, and that the use of the site is far less intensive than the residential, traffic and pedestrian use of Lake lane and the Wharfside Quay apartment block.
Mariner's Wharf consists of 24 apartments and 3 retail outlets and is currently under construction.
The car park and garage area highlighted in red (fig l) is now complete and open for public viewing. I have visited the site and measured the distance between the opposing garage doors, which at 6.20 meters, I believe, falls within regulation. Also notice garage No 24, the doorway to this garage opens directly onto St Peter's Lane which is only 4.3 metes wide.
The area between the containers and the garages at my application site is substantially greater than that of the above site. Also, the use of my application site is far less intensive than that of the Mariner's Wharf development.
(figs: m, n, o,)
Also enclosed Architects report on the application site (fig. p)
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
