Planning Officer Assessment

Infrastructure planning and building control bun-troggalys - plannal as gurnell troggal Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2SF email: [email protected] Tel: (01624) 685906 Fax: (01624) 686443 Director of Planning & Building Control M.I. McCauley, M.R.T.P.I. 2nd July, 2010 Please reply to Miss Sarah Corlett, BSc (Hons), MRTPI Dear Mr. Goldsmith, re: PAs 10/0781 and 0784 – conversion of warehouse and garage to single dwelling or office, Loch Road/Lime Street, Port St. Mary I refer to the above application which was due to be considered yesterday. I have consulted the Conservation Officer on both applications and we have received a number of views on both proposals and I would seek some further information before a decision is taken on these applications. There is concern both within the planning office and from Port St. Mary Commissioners that the plans are not properly prepared and are not accurate or capable of being implemented. Furthermore, particularly in the case of the residential application, they do not show the building being used to its full potential and thus the plans do not demonstrate that the proposal is acceptable. The building is a distinctive one which is in a prominent position and it has been recognised in the draft Area Plan for the South as one which merits consideration for Registration. The building also lies within an area which is identified as a potential Conservation Area. For these reasons the detailing of how the conversions will be implemented is very important. The building presently has a number of windows which are blocked off. There are no proposed elevations and the proposed plans do not make it clear whether these windows are to be re-opened or are to remain blocked up. The application is one for a change of use only and this means that there can be no building or engineering operations undertaken as part of the proposals. It is not clear whether the windows as are in the premises at present, are suitable for the proposed new uses or that the new uses would necessitate replacement or modification of the windows – for example the opening style – which would itself be unsympathetic to the character of the building and therefore unlikely to be acceptable. Department of Infrastructure Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2SF The parking provision on both applications is not clear: the application for residential use shows some form of walling within the ground floor which would inhibit vehicular access and thus prevent parking at this level, despite spaces being shown on the ground floor plan. It is not clear what this roughly square area is. Even if this space were not blocked off, it is not clear how access to and egress from both of the parking spaces is possible if both spaces are in use. In respect of the parking spaces to the side of the main building, as shown on the residential scheme, it is not clear how vehicles would manoeuvre within the site to enter and exit the site in a forward gear or if this is not possible, whether visibility is available for vehicles to enter or exit in reverse without endangering road safety and what the implications of what the provision of appropriate visibility may be. In the case of the office proposal, there are four spaces shown on the ground floor within the main building and I cannot see how it is possible to gain access to all of these spaces if all or some of the other spaces are being used. The Commissioners have enquired whether there are pillars in the ground floor of the building and if so, they are not shown and will further inhibit access to the parking spaces. In terms of the upper floors, in neither application does the layout include the retention of the lifting apparatus which was in situ when I visited the building last year. This is an intrinsic part of the interest of the building and should be retained and incorporated in the layout if possible (which th Conservation Officer and I believe it could be). The residential layout appears to be rather peculiar in that each of the first and second floor bedrooms have en-suite facilities and yet there is a family bathroom on the top floor alongside the dining room, kitchen and lounge. There is a number of bathrooms included and no information about either the drainage for these facilities or the pipework - potentially external - which would be necessary to facilitate this. It is likely that the residential use of the property as a single dwelling could be made to work with another look at the internal layout, attention to the items listed above and clarification of the parking provision. Office use of the building should be accompanied by an on-site provision of nine spaces. It is not at all clear to me that anywhere near that amount of parking could be provided on site and as such, information should be provided to demonstrate how the under-provision of car parking will not adversely affect the area. I would be grateful if you could consider the above points and advise me of your comments in due course. Yours sincerely, Miss Sarah Corlett Planning Officer Cc Port St. Mary Commissioners, Town Hall, Port St. Mary Mrs. A. Georgeson, Highways and Traffic Division, Department of Infrastructure, Sea Terminal, Douglas Mr. P. M. Platt, 9, The Quay, Port St. Mary IM9 5EA Misses H. and P. Kinvig, 9, Lime Street, Port St. Mary IM9 5ED