Owner of Wensleydale Athol Avenue Appeal Statement
Review of Planning Application: Comments and Concerns
Dear Mr Johnstone,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application. While I concur with the planning committee's decision, I wish to reaffirm my broad support for the redevelopment of this site. However, I must express concerns that the current proposal represents an over-intensive development. Given the scale of this project, it is appropriate that affordable housing should be included as part of the scheme.
Port Erin is experiencing a significant loss of its traditional affordable housing stock, largely due to the ongoing conversion into tourism units. If a developer seeks to benefit from a more intensive form of development, it is imperative that provisions are made to address the needs of the local community, which is increasingly being priced out by speculative ventures.
The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 is clear on this issue. Section 8.6, specifically Housing Policy 5, states:
"In granting planning permission on land previously zoned for residential development or now considered suitable for residential development, or in predominantly residential areas, the Department will normally require that (at least) 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing (or a commuted sum be paid as an equivalent contribution to affordable housing elsewhere on the Island). This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more."
Although the existing site includes a residential unit, the proposed scheme fundamentally changes this, and it is evident that the application for 8 new dwellings should be considered in the context of the overall redevelopment. Therefore, the affordable housing requirement should apply.
Regarding the viability report submitted by the applicant, I believe it has been tailored to achieve a predetermined outcome, rather than providing an accurate reflection of the situation. Many objections from local residents stem from concerns about overdevelopment. There has been little consideration of the potential viability of a less intensive, higher-end development that may better align with the character of the area.
The claimed planning benefits and contributions of this scheme remain speculative. While there is general support for the redevelopment of Erin House, it is crucial that such support is not granted at any cost. The applicant's approach appears to be driven primarily by maximizing financial returns rather than contributing meaningfully to the local community. A reassessment of their viability report, perhaps with consideration of tourism units—which often require less parking—might yield a more balanced outcome.
Lastly, I wish to reiterate my concerns regarding the parking studies. They do not seem to accurately reflect the true demands for on-street parking, particularly during peak periods such as weekends and evenings. The applicant’s initial parking study included free parking spaces on Athol Avenue, most of which are private and not part of the public domain. After this was highlighted, the study was amended, excluding Athol Avenue and only including local public highways. However, due to the lack of available parking on local highways during peak times, Athol Avenue is often used for parking illegally. Vehicles have been left there for significant periods, and the police, DOI, and Manx Utilities have been informed. I have not seen evidence that the highways authority has adequately assessed these periods of peak demand, which is crucial for understanding the full impact of the proposed development on local infrastructure and not simply a site visit during working hours.
In summary, while I support the principle of redevelopment, I believe the current proposal requires further consideration to ensure that it delivers genuine benefits to the community and aligns with planning policies.
