Loading document...
The site represents the curtilage of an existing garage building which lies on the eastern side of Mill Street, overlooking Hope Street. The garage is set back from the main road be a yard which is 4.8m deep. The existing garage is a shallow pitched structure which timber finish to the walls.
The site lies within an area designated as Residential on the Castletown Local Plan and the draft Area Plan. The site also lies within Castletown’s Conservation Area.
A previous application, PA 07/0545 was submitted but withdrawn before a decision was taken. This application proposed the demolition of the garage and the erection of a dwelling in its place. This generated a number of objections from residents of Mill and Hope Streets in terms of the overlooking and dominant impact of the proposed property on the Hope Street properties and the impact on the streetscene of Mill Street and the direct impact on the two properties on each side of the site.
A subsequent application was submitted - PA 07/1620 for the replacement of the garage with a dwelling and this was refused at appeal for the reasons that the mass of the proposed building would be too large for the streetscene, an exceptionally narrow frontage, the parked car would intrude into the road space in front of the dwelling, the projection further to the rear than number 32 and the massing of the dwelling beside number 30, Mill Street would be detrimental to the amenities of both of these properties and the outlook for the properties opposite would be adversely affected due to the appearance of the property. The Inspector however concluded that there would not be an adverse impact on the rear of the properties in Hope Street and an adverse impact on 15, Mill Street only in terms of the unacceptable appearance of the property.
Now proposed is an amended scheme which attempts to overcome the reasons for refusal given in respect of the previous scheme. The scheme now proposes the two storey dwelling which is lower in ridge height than the properties on each side and which has no parking on site, removing the reason for refusal which relates to protruding vehicles or the appearance of the dwelling. The dwelling is still narrow but not so much so that it would be out of keeping with other properties in the streetscene - for example, numbers 15, 17, 19, 21, 23 and 40 are all as wide or narrower than the proposed frontage of 5m. The two storey part of the dwelling no longer projects beyond the rear building line of numbers 30 and 32 and the rear extension is single storey and projects no further out to the rear than does the existing rear annex at the rear of number 32.
Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division indicate that they do not oppose the application subject to the imposition of a condition which requires that one off street parking space is provided – none is proposed in the application, They also require visibility splays of 2m by 12m although as there is no parking space, no visibility is proposed or required.
The owner of 30 Mill Street expresses disappointment that another application has been submitted and suggest that there will be disruption from the demolition of the garage and there is no parking which will result in more on-street parking in a congested area.
Department of Transport Drainage Division raise no objection subject to the inclusion of a condition requiring connection to the main sewer and no discharge of surface water to the main sewer. The application states that the property will be connected to the main foul sewer and that surface water will be connected to the existing surface water system. As such the conditions suggested by the Department of Transport Drainage Division are not necessary.
The owners of 32, Mill Street indicate that they do not wish their property to be used for scaffolding and the boundary wall to remain intact during and after construction. They also suggest that the property would be out of keeping with the streetscene as it is narrower than its neighbours and not providing car parking will result in an increase in car parking in the area and parking spaces further afield are unlikely to be used in bad weather.
The owner of 15, Mill Street objects to the application on the basis of the absence of on site parking and that they would lose light and privacy from the proposed development.
The amendment of the proposal from that which was refused under PA 07/1620 has resulted in a reduction in the scope of the objections and the concerns which have been raised in this latest application relate to the appearance of the property due to its narrow frontage and the lack of parking on site. There is no objection from any other residents of Mill Street other than those immediately on each side of the property and no objections on the basis of overlooking or loss of amenity.
The property will be narrower than its immediate neighbours. However, Mill Street comprises a mixture of properties of varying heights and widths and the width of dwelling now proposed is not dissimilar to others in the streetsce ne albeit they are semi-detached or terraced. The reduction in the height of the building brings the proportions more in line with other properties in the street. The proposed chimney is similar in proportions to other chimneys in the streetsce ne but unacceptable narrow in terms of traditionally proportioned chimney stacks. This should be increased in width to 2m to replicate the appropriate proportions.
The absence of on-site parking will remove objections relating to the protrusion of vehicles into the street although does raise a concern in itself in terms of whether the existing network can accommodate the development satisfactorily. The Strategic Plan provides advice on the provision of car parking in new developments at Appendix Seven and states:
"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 applicant has included information which confirms that a car parking pass has been granted for space number 32 in the Department of Transport Harbours Division Claddaghs car park until 31st May, 2009. As the permits are issued annually, there is no assurance that this space will be sought or provided thereafter. The Claddaghs car park is situated adjacent to Qualtrough's Timber Yard and is just over two minutes' walk away from the site.
It is demonstrated in the previous application what the visual impact of including on site car parking could have on the appearance of the property and difficulties in providing visibility for drivers of vehicles emerging from the site and actually fully accommodating vehicles within the site. Those properties which have parking provided have so in the form of space alongside or close to their dwellings rather than garaging or enclosed space within the site. In this way, the application has its parking 2 minutes' walk away if parking spaces are required. The site is very close to the town centre and vehicular access along Mill Street is limited by the width of the street and the incidence of parked vehicles. As such, it is considered that paragraphs a and d of the policy stated above are satisfied and that a reduced standard may be considered in this instance and that the proposal will remove a building of poor appearance from the Conservation Area and it has been demonstrated that car parking is close enough away so as not to result in the increase in parking in Mill Street to the detriment of other users of this roadway.
It is also considered that the proposal will enhance the appearance of the Conservation Area as required by Environment Policy 35 and Planning Policy Statement 1/01.
The loss of privacy and light to the properties across the road were considered in the previous application and were not accepted by the appeal inspector as reasons to refuse the proposal. This scheme is now smaller than that previously proposed.
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 occupants of 15, 30 and 32, Mill Street are immediately alongside or opposite the application site and as such should be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 30.01.2009
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 demolition of an existing garage and erection of a dwelling as shown in drawings K182/P/10-01E and -10-02B both received on 17th December, 2008.
C 3. All windows must be sliding sash, regardless of material and installed as shown in the approved drawings.
C 4. The width of the chimney stack must be increased to 2m to replicate the proportions of traditional chimneys.
I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular No 31/07 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer)
Decision Made : Permitted Date : 16.2.09
Signed: S D M O U N A T Senior Planning Officer Dianning Committee
Signed: S D M O U N A T Senior Planning Officer Dianning Committee
31 January 2009 08/02307/B Page 5 of 5
31 January 2009 08/02307/B Page 5 of 5
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
