Loading document...
Application No.: 15/00120/A Applicant: Port Erin Commissioners Proposal: Approval in principle for the demolition of existing property and store and erection of six dwellings addressing siting Site Address: Car Park, Coastguard Store & Whitestones Maine Road Port Erin Isle Of Man Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 20.02.2015 Site Visit: 20.02.2015 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE LEVEL OF COMMENT ON THE APPLICATION AND PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS IN THE VICINITY
1.1 The site is an area to the south of Maine Road in Port Erin, which accommodates a car park, the coastguard store and a dwelling, Whitestones. The site slopes downward from Maine Road to the south to a rear lane. The site has to its east, a lane, Nelson Street, which is unadopted and where vegetation physically prevents vehicular access from Maine Road to Bay View Road to the south. To the rear of the site are the rear of Arnside and Shieling, residential dwellings which front onto Bay View Road. These properties are 15m from the rear boundary of the site. - 1.2 To the west of the site are 2 two storey dwellings, 1 and 2, Maine Road which are relatively modern properties with pitched roofs and a single storey lean to front annex which abuts the footway. These properties have a small walled front garden and more spacious rear gardens. Their parking is at the rear off the lane. - 1.3 Opposite the site is a row of five newly built town houses built in a modern style with car parking at the front off Main Road. The application for that development involved the making up of the carriageway including the front of the application site. The road surface deteriorates to the east of this (this highway is not adopted). - 1.4 Whitestones is a two storey dashed finish dwelling with single and two storey elements and a slated roof. It has a garage at the lower end which has its access from Nelson Street. The property has a rendered wall along Nelson Street and a higher stone wall to the rear lane. - 1.5 The site is in two parcels - the car park including the coastguard store, which is all owned by Port Erin Commissioners, and Whitestones, which is privately owned.
1.1 The site does not extend into the highway as have other applications in the vicinity of Maine Road and the side roads leading from them although it does include the grass verge on the western side of Nelson Street. The highway in front of the site is partly made up, courtesy of the development of the five town houses across the road (see below). The road to the east of this is in varying degrees of finish.
2.2 The dwellings will be arranged in a single row at the northern end of the site, slightly further back on the site than the adjacent dwellings to the west. Parking will be at the rear off the lane and shown in the plans are five sets of parking areas which are between 5m and
2.3 The proposal will result in the loss of 6 coach parking spaces and 6 standard parking spaces. The applicant describes the use of the car park as infrequent and has become more of a long term parking area for motorhomes and camper vans which the Commissioners would like to discourage. The coastguard store is no longer used for such and the maintenance of the car park is not viable compared with its use. Whitestones is in need of modernisation and is currently being advertised for sale. The applicant envisages that the rear lane and front road will be upgraded as necessary as part of the proposed development although this is not included in the drawings or within the application site. - 2.4 The applicant considers that there is an opportunity to either progress a contemporary scheme like those across the road, or something more traditional like 1 and 2, Maine Road. - 2.5 Following the submission of objections the application has submitted further information, dated 17th April, 2015. They explain that the Commissioners have undertaken a survey over 4 weeks and this revealed that all the parked vehicles had breached the waiting restrictions, all but two were subsequently removed and the two remaining were ticketed for removal. They believe that their survey reveals that the car park is not required for car parking in the area such as to warrant refusal of the current application. They explain that the car park is not intended for long term use and since the removal of the vehicles which were parked in the car park, there has not, in their view been additional parking on Maine Road. They believe that the site is too remote from the village centre and beach to be a useful public car park for these users. They have no objection to the request from Department of Infrastructure Highway Services to provide footpath access as part of the development. - 2.6 In respect of the making up of the roads alongside the site, any future developer will need to acquire the ownership of these areas. They believe that a construction method should be provided for the application for reserved matters indicating how construction traffic will access the site. They indicate that they would not have any objection to having vehicular access directly off Maine Road similar to the new town houses across from the site. They note that the survey was undertaken including the Easter period which could have included visitors and local people on holiday from work but they did not observe any increased usage during that period. - 2.7 They believe that the development will be a satisfactory distance from neighbouring property to prevent any adverse impact from overlooking or overshadowing and even if the scheme were redesigned and the parking were at the front, there could still be 25m between the buildings and those to the rear. If the parking were from the rear then the lane would be upgraded and a passing place introduced alongside the site to avoid congestion at peak times. They believe that the proposal gives new life into an underused site and provides much needed housing within the town centre.
3.1 The site lies within an area designated as Predominantly Residential on the Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013. The site is not within an area of particular interest or protection and importantly, the car park is not identified as such, despite other car parks being specifically identified for this purpose.
3.2 As such there is a presumption in favour of development as set out in General Policy 2 as follows:
"Development which is in accordance with the land use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:
3.3 Car parking is required to be provided at the ratio of 2 spaces per dwelling in accordance with Appendix Seven of the Strategic Plan. - 3.4 Strategic Policy 5 encourages good design: "New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies." - 3.5 Whilst the Strategic Plan also requires provision to be made for public open space and affordable housing (Housing Policy 5 and Recreation Policy 3) this is applicable to developments of 8 and 10 dwellings or more respectively. - 3.6 Transport Policy 4 states: "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan."
4.1 The coastguard store was approved under PAs 86/00867/A and 87/00093/B. Other than this there are no applications which are considered relevant for this application. The town houses across the road were approved under PA 13/00725/B. REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services initially objected to the application (03.03.15). They stated that the car park is currently used by various types of vehicles including a motorhome, a minibus and several cars. These vehicles will need to find alternative parking and this may result in additional parking on the highway. The proposal
does not include a robust justification for removing this public car park. The applicant should provide evidence that this public facility is no longer required and that there will be no impact on on-road parking as a result of its loss. If the application is to be approved then we would be looking to see a footway continuing across Maine Road from the existing footway outside no 2 to the apparent junction with Nelson Street. There would also be benefit to having a footpath included along the eastern edge of the site to provide a pedestrian link from the front to the rear of the dwellings.
5.2 Following the submission of further information including a survey of the vehicles parked on the site, Department of Infrastructure Highway Services have amended their response to not object to the application, stating,
"Further to additional information being received it has been demonstrated that the parking is not being used for its intended use and there is unlikely to be additional on-road parking as a result of the loss of the car park. The submission should be altered to include pedestrian provision along the frontage or this should be included as a condition - see below.
If the application is to be approved then we would be looking to see a footway continuing across Maine Road from the existing footway outside no 2 to the apparent junction with Nelson Street. There would also be benefit to having a footpath included along the eastern edge of the site to provide a pedestrian link from the front to the rear of the dwellings" (16/04/15).
If the application is approved, Department of Infrastructure Highway Services also recommend the following conditions:
Reason: to ensure that the car parking standards of the Strategic Plan are met in the interest of highway safety.
5.2 Port Erin Commissioners recommend that the application is approved (18.02.15). - 5.3 MEA request that the applicant contact them regarding the provision of electricity supplies (13.02.15). This is not a matter for the planning application. - 5.4 The owner of Cavina which lies some 29m to the east of the site supports the application (05.03.15) but would like to request that the developers purchase the portion of Maine Road from the owners and make up the remainder of the road up to the area made up by Heritage Homes when they developed their town houses opposite the site. Also he would like a requirement to be placed on the developers to prevent heavy traffic using the unadopted part of Maine Road as a route to and from the site due to its poor state of repair. He also considers that it would be useful to have footways provided on both Nelson Street and Maine Road and that the Commissioners work with the residents to adopt and pave Maine Road which is used by the public. - 5.5 The owners of the Seafront and Kittiwake Seafront Flats submit a joint objection (received on 06.03.15) on the basis that their businesses rely upon the parking places available within the car park and without it, would struggle. They confirm this objection even following the submission of the additional information, stating that the village needs a comprehensive view, including the consideration of adequate car parking (10.03.15).
5.6 The owner of Westlea which lies some 43m to the east of the site supports the scheme but requests that the project involves the making up of the roads around the site and that construction traffic accesses and leaves the development site from the Promenade end, not Maine Road (06.03.15). - 5.7 The owner of Shieling which lies across the rear lane from the site, considers that the development would overshadow and dominate the rear outlook from their property and there would be inter-visibility between the properties. The noise and disruption from the comings and goings from the properties would adversely affect the amenities of their property. They point out that the lane at the rear becomes boggy in wet weather and this will be exacerbated with the additional traffic resulting from the proposed development. He is also concerned with the impact on the drainage associated with Shieling and he feels that as a tax paying citizen of the village for over 40 years his views and concerns should be taken into consideration (received on 05.03.15). - 5.8 Manx Mews Property Rentals Ltd, formerly Port Erin Hotels Ltd is generally concerned about the loss of parking in the area as the area is busy with visitors and residents alike with many existing residences having no on-site parking at all. She considers that the car park is well used. If the site is to be developed, access should be from the front, not the rear lane and queries whether 5 dwellings may be a more realistic proposition (25.02.15). She considers that the parking spaces shown are too small and some would have insufficient turning space. She notes that 4 of the 5 new properties alongside remain unsold after having been on the market for 10 months. Despite the submission of the further information they remain unconvinced that the car park is not needed, the survey having been undertaken midMarch to mid-April which is long before the tourist season or when walkers are likely to come to this part of the Island. They remain concerned about access to parking for disabled persons, access for deliveries and the refuse collections. If approval is granted then the development should include pedestrian access on both sides of the site. They believe that the barriers which have been erected on 17th April have already caused a negative impact on onroad parking habits in the area (08.05.15). - 5.9 The owners of Belmont on Maine Road, which is next but one along from Nelson Street object to the application (26.03.15). They have lived on Maine Road for over 20 years and in their view the parking situation has got steadily worse. Whilst one of the parking signs has been removed recently there is still a sign on the site which states that parking is restricted to 16 hours in any 24. This car park is used in the summer by visitors and to their knowledge has always been used as a car park and may have been left to the Commissioners with the proviso that the site is used for this purpose. The houses opposite have limited car parking available to them and they consider that the existing car park is badly needed in the area.
6.1 The site is designated for residential use and as such there is no conflict in land use terms between what is proposed and for what the Area Plan describes the area as being suitable. If the site were identified as a car park, as other areas are in the village, the case for preventing its loss for this purpose would be much stronger. Whilst there are concerns from local people about the loss of the car park, the survey, whilst not undertaken in the height of the tourist season, seems to confirm that the car park is not well used. The vehicles parked there during the survey were clearly parked there longer term, for which the car park is not intended or authorised and on the planning officer's site visit there were only four vehicles parked there (two vans, a car and a people carrying van). Google Streetview image shows even fewer vehicles parked here.
6.2 Taking this into account, and also that even if the car park were better used, the local authority has the financial responsibility of the upkeep and maintenance of the area and as such has a responsibility to local rate payers to provide an efficient service. They clearly do
not believe that it is in the interests of the local residents to spend further money on maintaining a car park which they consider is not well used. As such it is not considered that the application should be refused for reasons relating to the loss of the car park facility.
6.3 The application is in principle and the applicant has indicated that they are prepared to leave everything for future approval including whether car parking is at the lane side or off Maine Road. Either is feasible. It is not considered at this stage for it to be necessary to restrict the scheme to one or the other.
6.4 As some development has progressed along Maine Road, the opportunity has been taken to surface the highway. In the case of the new town houses across the road, a condition was attached which required that "The road way and pavement in front of the site must, prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings, be reconstructed and finished as shown in the approved plans." That application, PA 13/00725/B included all of the road and the making up of this section of the highway. As such, that part of the highway which is directly opposite the town houses is already made up. The site does, however, extend 20m or so beyond this to the east although this is not included in the application drawings as being within the ownership or control of the applicant. In order to enhance the amenities of the area it is considered relevant and reasonable to require the making up of the highway of Maine Road which abuts the site as part of any development proposal for this site. - 6.5 In terms of highway safety the visibility at the eastern end of the lane is not subject to the usual tests of safety as there is no approaching traffic from the north. - 6.6 Whilst there are concerns about the impact on neighbouring property, the site is clearly large enough to accommodate new dwellings without encroaching on minimum standards of separation between windows.
7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
7.2 Manx Utilities Authority does not raise material planning issues and as such should not be considered an interested person in this case.
7.3 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.
In this instance, it is recommended that the owners/occupants of the following property have sufficient interest by virtue of their proximity to the site and/or proposed access and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13:
Cavina, Maine Road Kittiwake and Seafront Holiday Flats Belmont, Maine Road
Westlea, Maine Road Shieling, Bay View Road Manx Mews Property Rentals
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation:
12.05.2015
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013.
Reason: To comply with the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013.
Reason: in the interests of the living conditions of those in the new houses and those in the vicinity of the site.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : ……PER…… Committee Meeting Date:…18.05.2015 Signed :…………S CORLETT………….. Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph).
YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown