Loading document...
The site represents the curtilage of what appears as a block of property - the Brobourne Hotel and Windsor House - which sits on the eastern side of the Promenade between Victoria Square and Marina Lane and with a rear lane running behind the building between the two side roads. The two buildings are in fact, not identical nor form part of a symmetrical or uniform unit - Windsor House sits on the northern side of the site and is a four storey property with three projecting three sided four storey bays and with pitched roofed dormers between. Brobourne Hotel is a three storey building with some attic accommodation with one three storey bay with dormer atop. The buildings are both rendered with string courses and some dentilled cornicing beneath the slated roof and with vertically proportioned sliding sash windows.
The site lies within an area designated on the Port Erin Local Plan of 1990 as Tourism/Residential. Specific reference is also made to this block at paragraph 9.2 which states "Several zones of interest do exist which include buildings which although not necessarily appropriate for registration, do contribute significantly to the character of the Village." The Plan goes on "These zones of interest include...St. Catherine's Terrace and the Promenade" (paragraph 9.3). "THE FOREGOING ZONES OF INTEREST ARE GENERALLY RESIDENTIAL OR TOURIST RELATED AND WHERE IT IS CONSIDERED THAT MAINTENANCE OR REFURBISHMENT MAY BE ENCOURAGED, PARTICULARLY AT THE UPPER LEVELS, MIXED USE WILL BE PERMITTED WHERE APPROPRIATE. MIXED USE WOULD INCLUDE RETAIL, RESIDENTIAL AND USE FOR TOURISM BUT NOT OFFICE USE" (paragraph 9.4) and finally "ALTHOUGH NO CONSERVATION AREA EXISTS IN PORT ERIN IT IS RECOGNISED THAT IN THE ZONES OF INTEREST IN PARTICULAR, SPECIAL ATTENTION SHOULD BE PAID TO ALTERATIONS AND REPLACEMENT BUILDINGS WHICH MIGHT AFFECT THE GENERAL ENVIRONMENT" (paragraph 9.7).
In addition, the following policies from the Strategic Plan are considered relevant:
Environment Policy 42: "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which
contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular are will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans".
Housing Policy 5: "In granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas the department will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more". This policy was adopted by Tynwald resolution in July 2005 ahead of approval of the Strategic Plan in July 2007.
Appendix 7: "New built residential development should be provided with two parking spaces per dwelling, at least one of which should be within the curtilage of the dwelling and behind the front of the dwelling, although the amount and location of parking will vary in respect of development such as terracing, apartments, and sheltered housing. In the case of town centre and previously developed sites, the Department will consider reducing this requirement having regard to: a) the location of the housing relative to public transport, employment and public amenities, b) the size of the dwelling, c) any restriction on the nature of the occupancy (such as sheltered housing) and d) the impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area (paragraph A.7.1). This goes on to recommend that one space is provided for a one bedroomed apartment, 2 spaces for two or more bedrooms but that "These standards may be relaxed where development: a) would secure the re-use of a Registered Building or a building of architectural or historic interest; or b) would result in the preservation of a sensitive streetscape, or c) is otherwise of benefit to the character of a Conservation Area d) is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality" (A.7.6).
The following applications have been submitted in respect of this site:
PA 87/1720 - erection of replacement a new board, Windsor House - permitted PA 87/4521 - alterations to convert newsagent's and kitchen into cafe, newsagent's and Brobourne Hotel - permitted PA 88/0589 - erection of fire escape, Windsor House - permitted PA 89/0798 - construction of new classroom extension, Institute of Hospitality, Windsor House - permitted on appeal PA 89/1303 - internal alterations to upgrade, Brobourne House - permitted PA 91/1740 - formation of new door to laundry, Windsor House - permitted PA 94/0503 - change of use to children's playgroup, Da Vinci's restaurant, Brobourne Hotel - refused PA 99/2332 - installation of uPVC windows, International Hotel School (Brobourne Hotel) - permitted PA 05/1381 - installation of uPVC top opening casement windows - refused
Proposed now is the demolition of the existing buildings on site and their replacement with a new building which will accommodate 14 apartments - twelve 2 bedroom and two 3 bedroomed units and 23 parking spaces - 20 in the basement accessed from a ramp from Marina Lane and three wide spaces on the ground floor accessed from the rear lane.
The new building will have four full storeys with a level of accommodation on the roof finished in zinc or lead cladding and dark grey panels. The building is one single block of a rectangular shape and with three vertical panels with clear glass separating four balconies elements and a central front entrance with cut stone walling either side between 1m and 1.5m on the southern side of the site (Marina Lane). The top of the main part of the building will be 0.4m lower than the ridge of Windsor House and the top of the penthouse apartment will be 1.8m higher.
The Marina Lane elevation has a 3.3m high cut stone wall at ground (pedestrian) level with three high level windows (serving two bedrooms and a living/dining area) and the vehicular entrance to the basement car park. Above this is a square rendered wall with nine roughly square windows and a vertical cladded panelled strip with three windows.
The Victoria Square elevation has a cut stone wall up to 2.6m with two doors serving a refuse store and electricity substation and with a bedroom window.
Fire Prevention Officer recommends compliance with the Fire Precautions (Flats) Regulations 1996.
Environmental Health Inspector recommends compliance with the Housing (Flats) Regulations 1982.
The owner of Crofton House in Ballafesson expresses concern at the loss of the hotel and what he sees as inconsistency in the refusal of a new hotel at the top end of the Promenade and the loss of so many hotels and existing buildings on the Promenade.
The owner of apartment 2 of Erinville Apartments, to the south of the site objects to the loss of the building for historical and architectural reasons.
The owner of 4, Eagle Mews objects to the introduction of an access off Marina Lane.
The owners of Marina House object to the application on the basis that the new building will be higher than the existing and will cause shadow on their building which is immediately to the rear. They also object to the access off Marina Lane and express concern at the potential damage to the surface of the lane and resultant congestion therein. They refer to a covenant (which is not a planning consideration) and what they feel is inadequate parking provision.
Isle of Man Water Authority recommend liaison concerning the provision of water supplies to the development.
The owner of 3B Eagle Towers objects to the introduction of an access off Marina Lane as do the owners of 3, Eagle Mews
The owner of Regent House, to the north of the site objects to the application on the basis of its appearance which he considers is out of keeping with the remainder of the promenade, the loss of the existing building, the inclusion of balconies which will rust and will not be used and the unsociable design with no communal area at the front.
Manx National Heritage recommend that the application is considered carefully as previous development has "followed the cues provided by the historical architectural styles" and wonder if a precedent would be established by the approval of this modern building on this site.
Port Erin Commissioners object to the application on the basis that the massing is considered excessive and the appearance would be out of keeping. They also feel that Victoria Square would be a better point of access for the basement car parking entrance.
The Estates and Housing Directorate recommend that the site is suitable for the provision of affordable housing units in accordance with the Tynwald resolution but that it may be difficult to incorporate affordable units with larger units and that a re-design to incorporate affordable units may be impracticable. They recommend, as an alternative to the provision of the affordable units on site, the provision of alternative units elsewhere "in the area" or the payment of a commuted sum to enable the Department to provide such units "elsewhere in the area".
The owner of 8, Tromode Close objects to the modern style of architecture which he considers would spoil the appearance of the vista of the promenade.
The principal issues in respect of this proposal are as follows:
i) should the existing building(s) be demolished? ii) is the appearance of the new building appropriate to the character and appearance of the promenade? iii) is the parking provision acceptable? iv) is the proposed access to the basement parking safe? v) is the size and massing of the building detrimental to the amenities of those in adjacent properties? vi) is the provision for affordable housing acceptable?
The site is within an area designated on the Local Plan as Tourism/Residential so the principle of the use of the site for residential purposes is acceptable. Indeed, other properties within the same zone have been redeveloped or converted to residential units - for example, Eagle Towers. As such there is no policy objection to the principle of the use of the site for residential purposes.
Should the existing building(s) be demolished?
Despite the reference in the local plan to the site lying within a zone of interest, the property is neither Registered nor within a Conservation Area. As such, the block could be demolished without permission under 6.2.e of the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act. However, specific reference is made to the value of the buildings in this area to the character of the village and the need to consider carefully the impact of any development on the "general environment".
The applicant's agent refers to the area of interest as presenting an unattractive mix of run down outlets at the rear but makes no comment about the frontage which is surely a principal consideration. The applicant's agent also refers to the previous owner who considered the refurbishment for apartments or the continued use as the hotel school and neither was found to be financially viable. He also refers to the "poor condition of the fabric" and suggests that it would be impossible to provide any on site parking in a refurbishment scheme. The existing structure is effectively three buildings and there are different levels throughout the building which renders it unsuitable for conversion. He also refers to settlement cracking and the fact that the buildings are built from different materials and that alteration of the structure(s) would be "dangerous".
Further information has been prepared on behalf of the applicant by McCoy Associates which examines the various zones of interest identified in the local plan but expresses concern that there are no guidelines to advise how developments within these areas are to be considered, quite why the areas have been identified and notes that there have been no Conservation Areas designated within the village. This adds little to the factual comments on the building's condition and the ease with which it could be converted to other uses, as supplied by the applicant.
The Conservation Officer advises that the property is neither Registered, nor does it appear on the proposed list of buildings to be considered for registration, nor is it located within a Conservation Area.
In conclusion, whilst the building sits within an area which is identified as of interest, there are no definitive policies to support retention of the building any more than any other buildings which have been replaced on the Promenade and indeed there are no restrictions on the demolition of the building regardless of this application. As such, I would recommend that the principle of the demolition and replacement of the building is acceptable.
Is the appearance of the new building appropriate to the character and appearance of the promenade?
The building is unashamedly modern in a streets cene which comprises either original buildings or new replacements which have tried with varying success to emulate the original buildings. All of the buildings have pitched slated roofs although that of the Ocean Castle is largely hidden behind itself castellated parapet. The proposed building would have no such roof and a different shape of roof profile.
The streetscene is also characterised by buildings with a vertical emphasis through the inclusion of full height bays and/or vertically proportioned windows. Most of the buildings are white with the exception of the southern part of the block to the north of Bay View Road. The side elevations, particularly the one facing Marina Lane, present a rather pedestrian-unfriendly frontage to the passer-by with what is effectively a blank wall with high level windows.
The Conservation Officer reports as follows: the character of the upper promenade has been altered by the replacement of several of the Victorian blocks with more modern blocks which utilise many of the Victorian design 'cues' mentioned above. In some ways, the modern blocks maintain the Victorian rhythm of the promenade by their use of similar materials, roof lines and the vertical emphasis of their windows. This proposal seeks to demolish the existing block and replace it with a modern block of four storeys plus a penthouse. The proposal is quite different to that it replaces and its neighbours in that it has a more horizontal emphasis with its use of inset balconies and the addition of the flat roof penthouse. The end result in my opinion is a building that appears 'squat', heavy and horizontal in emphasis. Whilst I am comfortable with a more contemporary approach to the replacement of existing buildings, I am unconvinced that this building adds positively to the street-scene.
The Local Plan suggests that 1.5 parking spaces should be allocated per dwelling unit. However, the Strategic Plan, on which more weight should be placed as it represents a more recently adopted policy document (see paragraph 1.4.4 of the Strategic Plan) refers specifically to apartments and recommends one space per one bedroomed unit and two spaces per two or more bedroomed unit. This would result in a requirement for 28 spaces - 5 fewer than are provided. However, the Strategic Plan also makes reference to a relaxation of this standard where the site is "within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality" (A.7.6). In this case the site is very close to the village centre where there is a frequent public transport service and where there is a range of amenities and services. It is also relevant that were the existing building to be retained, as seems to be suggested by at least some of the objectors, there would be little if any opportunity to provide on-street parking spaces. The recent application for the redevelopment of the Imperial Hotel at the top of the promenade provided 20 apartments with between 40 and 48 bedrooms and 23 parking spaces: Eagle Towers to the south of the site proposed 9 apartments and 18 parking spaces.
The recommendation of the Department of Transport is that the proposal is acceptable subject to conditions which require that: 1) a footway is provided along the Marina Lane frontage, car parking spaces are tied to the occupation of the flats and that the car parking shall be allocated on the basis of two spaces for the three bedroomed units and one each for the rest. As there is no objection to the access from the highway Authority, I would conclude that the access to the basement is safe and acceptable.
The existing building has three rear annexes adjacent to the rear lane. The proposed building has a straight elevation but this is set back from the rear lane by 5m more than the existing building. The aerial photograph illustrates the darkening effect which the existing block has on the rear lane (the shadows are due east of the buildings which would suggest that the sun was towards the west when the building will have the greatest impact on the buildings to the east. Considering the existing impact and the fact that the proposed building will be set back from the rear lane by more than is the existing building, I do not consider that the new building will have an adverse impact on the light and outlook from the properties to the east of the site.
There is no provision for or reference to affordable housing in the scheme. However, the applicant has had a number of discussions with the Housing Directorate and with the Planning Officer regarding the requirement for affordable housing to be provided as part of this scheme. The Estates
and Housing Directorate have concluded that the provision of affordable units within this scheme as promoted would be most difficult. They have also confirmed that the Department has no proposals for the provision of affordable housing within Port Erin: neither has the applicant company. As such, the requirement for the provision of the affordable units on site is considered impracticable. It should also be noted that in order to enable the site to accommodate affordable units, it is likely that the number of units would need to be increased, making the differential between the number of units and the number of parking spaces even greater.
The next alternative would be for the applicant to provide affordable units on another site. Whilst the applicant has indicated that they have intentions to submit an application for a development elsewhere in the south of the Island which could accommodate affordable units, this has not yet been submitted or approved and as such it would not be appropriate to rely upon this for the delivery of the 3 units which would be required as a result of this scheme.
The final and last option which would be acceptable in satisfying the requirement for affordable housing would be that the applicant makes a contribution towards the Department's delivery of affordable units and the applicant has indicated in their letter of 20th August, 2007 that they are prepared to do this. This would be dealt with by way of a condition which requires that prior to the commencement of development an agreement, under the provisions of section 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999, must be concluded between the applicant/developer and the Department regarding a financial contribution towards the provision of 3 affordable housing units in lieu of any direct provision on the application site.
The following parties are considered to have sufficient interest to warrant being afforded party status in this instance:
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.
The owner of 4, Eagle Mews, 3B Eagle Towers, Eagle Mews and the owners of Marina House own property which is affected by the proposed access to the basement and as such should be afforded party status in this instance.
Manx National Heritage are a statutory authority who raise issues which are material planning considerations and as such should be afforded party status in this instance.
The following parties should not be afforded party status in this instance:
The Estates and Housing Directorate are part of the Department of Local Government and the Environment and as such should not be afforded independent party status in this instance.
The owner of 8, Tromode Close is some distance from the site and is not directly affected and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
Fire Prevention Officer and Environmental Health Inspector refer to other legislation which is not a material planning consideration.
The owner of Crofton House in Ballafesson is some distance away and although he has a family connection with the site is not directly affected by the proposal and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
The owner of apartment 2 of Erinville Apartments is not immediately adjacent to the site and as such is not directly affected by the proposal and should not be afforded party status in this instance.
Isle of Man Water Authority raises issues which are not material planning considerations and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
The owner of Regent House is not directly alongside the site and as such not directly affected by the proposal and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 21.08.2007
C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: Notes attached to refusals
R 1.
Whilst the principle of the redevelopment of the site for the creation of private apartments, the appearance, form and massing of the building which is proposed is considered to be out of keeping with the streets cene of the promenade and as such would harm the character and appearance of the village as viewed from prominent and important vantage points (for local people and tourists alike) to the south west and from a closer pedestrian perspective imediately around the site, particularly when viewing the side elevations. The proposal would thus not comply with Environment Policy 42 which requires that "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality". The Committee is not satisfied that the proposal has achieved this policy objective.
Decision Made: ... Committee Meeting Date: ...
+ one floor too high. Per Planning Committee 6/9/07 ER
6-9-07
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
