Officer Report PA 10/01443/B

PA 01/2447 - approval in principle for erection of dwelling with integral garage - refused on appeal (see attached) PA 07/0044 - removal of soil/rubble and creation of a level surface - permitted on appeal (see attached). PA 10/0829 - erection of a dwelling - withdrawn The application for the principle of a dwelling on this site highlighted the criteria required to be considered in relation to the development to the site: a) the proximity of the Registered Building and the need for "complementary development that will not detract from its architectural interest and historic character"; b) the scale of the development must be in keeping with the streetscape and respect the Old Sail Loft; c) development must not intrude unduly into the views of the principal elevation of the Old Sail Loft and it must not eclipse the outlook from the windows of habitable rooms in the Registered Building d) the proximity to the rear wall and side windows of existing adjacent property present potential problems with the outlook from the application property and e) the need for the excavation of the site to accommodate the existing site levels. Also of relevance to the application is PA 09/1295 for the development of two dwellings further to the north of the application site, which was considered recently at appeal (see attached). The conclusions in that case are referred to later in this report. ## The Proposal Now proposed is the erection of a dwelling on the site. The design is modern, with two storeys of accommodation which come up to half way up the second storey of the Old Sail Loft and over a metre below the ground level at the rear of the properties to the west. The building is to be constructed 2 m from the base of the wall between the site and the High Street properties. The building has the appearance of two glass cubes, one on top of the other with the inclusion of a balcony on the upper level which is cantilevered out over the front of the lower section. The building is flat roofed with a sedum roof. The style of building is simple, with few but crisp lines, large expanses of glazing including the balcony balustrading and is quite distinct from the Old Sail Loft, retaining its traditional and prominent contribution to the streetscene. The ground floor level incorporates two parking spaces in a tandem arrangement with three bedrooms, hall and small rear garden. On the first floor there is to be a kitchen, lounge, dining area and snug with access onto the roof. The building will be 4.3 m from the side of the Old Sail Loft. The floor level is said to be above the level of a 1 in 200 year flood as discussed with the Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority. Amended plans have been submitted, responding to objections relating to the definition of the site and the extent of site ownership. ### Representations The owner of 9, The Quay objects to the application on the basis that the new building should be finished in stone and a more traditional design. This party expresses concern at the efficacy of the sedum roof, suggesting it will become a swimming pool due to the characteristic of most sedum roof of accommodating plants suitable for hot, dry conditions. Such a roof would require access for maintenance. They suggest that the atrium will not provide sufficient light due to being open only on the northern side of the roof and the property will be naturally dark and that vehicles are not likely to be parked within the site but on Shore Road, causing congestion. There is no space for planting. Highways and Traffic Division initially commented that the property encroaches onto the highway. Following the submission of further plans, the Highways and Traffic Division raise no objection. Port St. Mary Commissioners acting as the drainage authority request that conditions are attached to any approval requiring that the property is connected to the main foul sewer and that no surface water should be discharged to the main foul sewer. The application states that the property will be connected to the main foul sewer for both. As such there is no requirement for a condition relating to the disposal of foul sewage but the means of disposing of the surface water should be clarified as the drainage authority indicate that there are no surface water sewers into which the development could be connected. The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority indicate that they have no objection subject to the property being built to a level 5.2 m above the Douglas 02 datum to prevent a risk of flooding. The plans show that the property has a ground floor level of 5.208 in relation to Douglas 02. The owner of 25, Rhenwyllan Close express concern that the size and appearance of the proposed dwelling are inappropriate for the site and particularly as the proposed building is alongside a Registered Building. There are other flat roofed dwellings in the village - The Point and on Beach Road, neither of which has "bedded in" to their surroundings. The owner of St. Mary's House on the High Street objects to the application on the basis that no reference is made to the 2002 application for the principle of development of the site which was refused, and that the site definition is incorrect. She also considers that the size of the proposed building is inappropriate and it would appear "uncomfortable and inharmonious" in its surroundings. Despite the amended plans, the new plans still show walling which is not in the same position as that of the walling which was demolished and the parking area is very cramped. If vehicles are parked on Shore Road this would increase congestion on what is a narrow road. The owner of Columcille, 8, High Street suggests that he has a considerable interest in the application as his property overlooks the application site. He expresses concern at the accuracy of the site definition which may result in the loss of publicly owned land. Shore Road is low lying and liable to flooding and the amended plans show parking very close to the road and windows also close to the road resulting in limited privacy for the occupants. The rear wall needs to be protected from damage as it is old and structurally supports the houses behind. Access to the wall will be limited by the new building and the development is generally too large for the site. The owner of Sheallagh Mean on Willow Terrace objects to the application expresses concern at the modernity of the proposed dwelling within a proposed Conservation Area, and the proposed building projects beyond the existing. She also expresses concern at the width of The Underway and traffic problems which may ensue from the proposed development. Port St. Mary Commissioners acting as the local authority object to the appearance and design of the dwelling and note that the balcony and parking extend onto land which is not owned by the applicant. They also express concern at the lack of structural information with the application, considering that the site will be excavated at the rear. Following the submission of amended plans, the Commissioners are still of the view that the boundary is not shown in the correct place. The applicant would suggest in response to this that his boundary is shown within the boundary described by the Commissioners. The Manx Electricity Authority request a condition relating to the supply of electricity to the site. This is not a material planning concern and should not be referred to in the planning notice. The owner of Willow Cottage objects to the modern appearance of the property, and suggests that the property would hide the Old Sail Loft which is a Registered Building. He advises that the site was previously an area where the public could sit and enjoy the view of the harbour. The owner of 6, High Street expresses concern that the development would result in additional traffic which would be inappropriate for Shore Road, the design is inappropriate and the development encroaches onto the highway. The owners of Avoca object to the application on the basis that the design of the property is out of keeping with what is an historic fishing village, the proposal encroaches onto the highway. They accept that the amended plans address the last point. The owners of Athol Lodge in Fistard consider the dwelling to be "one of the most tasteless and inappropriate proposed developments" they have ever seen alongside a Registered Building and recommend refusal. The owner of Flat 8, the Point Apartments considers the proposal to be a "great improvement" to the area and would demonstrate that the village is open to new ideas. The owner of Thie ny Marrey, Shore Road objects to the application on the basis that the proposed wall is not in the same position as the original boundary wall, despite the plans being amended, and the design is out of keeping with the area. ## Assessment The decision in respect of PA 09/1295 makes a number of observations which are relevant in the consideration of this latest application. The Inspector notes that "the buildings along Shore Road are a mixture of ages, styles and heights, including traditional cottages, conversions of old building [sic] such as the Old Sail Loft and modern dwellings with integral garages. In this context, the design of the proposed houses would not be out of keeping with other buildings and would not be visually incongruous in the streetscene" (paragraph 27). Those properties were very different from the modern approach adopted here, the proposed dwellings having pitched roofs and vertically proportioned features although they came in for local criticism regarding the design and appearance. The important aspect of this, however, is the context, both in terms of the mixture of house and building types along Shore Road. In addition, the application site has the additional feature, arguably a constraint, of having the Old Sail Loft right alongside and the houses on the High Street overlooking the site immediately to the rear. In this respect, there is a variety of approaches which may have been adopted in the design - a traditional approach of mimicking the stonework and profile of the Old Sail Loft may have been used, although the height restriction from the High Street properties would have constrained the proportions of the building, quite possibly resulting in an unsympathetic impact on the streetscene and the Registered Building. Another approach, one supported by the Conservation Officer is to respond to the height and shape constraints of the site by designing a unique building for the site whose appearance clearly responds to these constraints and whose appearance preserves the character of the adjoining buildings by presenting something quite different. The proposed building is lower than The Old Sail Loft, thus preserving and reinforcing its dominance and the use of painted render and crisp lines will draw attention to the darker, softer appearance and character of the stonework on the Old Sail Loft. It is, however, fully accepted that the proposed dwelling is very different from all of the other properties along Shore Road and in this respect could be considered to fall foul of GP 2b and 2c, and EP 42. In terms of impact on neighbours, the property has been designed to be of a height that it will not adversely affect the outlook from the High Street properties to the rear and there are no windows in the sides which look towards Keggen or The Old Sail Loft. The site lies within a built up area where the proximity of other properties together with the difference in height between Shore Road and the High Street and as such, the privacy afforded to individual properties is perhaps less than may be expected elsewhere in a less densely developed area. This should be borne in mind when assessing this application. The proposal provides two parking spaces within the curtilage as required by the Strategic Plan (Appendix Seven). The spaces are shown in a tandem arrangement which would necessitate one of the parked vehicles being moved before both spaces could be vacated but there are no policies which require spaces to be side by side. Also, the application is recommended for approval by the highway authority. Whilst concern has been raised by some in respect of the structural stability of the site, this is generally not a material planning concern as it is something which is considered as part of the Building Regulation application. The Inspector commenting on PA 09/1295 states: "...control over the design and implementation of the engineering works would properly fall under the building regulations authority, which evidently has powers to make variations if they become appropriate during the construction process...but I agree with the planning authority's view that it is not for the planning authority, or by extension an inspector or Minister deciding a planning appeal, to arbitrate between two engineers on matters covered by building regulations" (paragraph 33). He goes on in his next paragraph "The need to comply with building regulations would provide the "appropriate precautions" referred to in Environment Policy 28 of the Strategic Plan." Also, the issue of surface water has also been raised by objectors, insofar as there are no surface water sewers in the vicinity and surface water may not be connected to the main foul sewer. The applicant has clarified that they have not undertaken any tests for the suitability of the ground for the disposal of surface water but that the grassed roof will reduce the amount of surface water run off from the site and they will also consider the use of grey water recycling which will further reduce the amount of water to be disposed of from the site. The Inspector commenting on PA 09/1295 states "Very limited information is put forward in the application about surface water drainage arrangements, and it appears unlikely that a soakaway would work effectively on the site, because of the probability that rock is close to the surface. This is a matter which could suitably be left to the control of building regulations. If no satisfactory arrangements can be devised, any planning approval could not be implemented" (paragraph 35).

Conservation Officer'S Report:

As the proposal site is immediately adjacent to The Old Sail Loft, a Registered Building (RB203), it is necessary to consider the impact of these proposals on the setting of the Registered Building Policy RB/3 GENERAL CRITERIA APPLIED IN CONSIDERING REGISTERED BUILDING APPLICATIONS of Conservation Areas as set out within Planning Policy Statement 1/01- Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man which states: "The importance of the building, its intrinsic architectural and historic interest and rarity, relative to the island as a whole and within the local context;

The building's setting and its contribution to the local scene, which may be very important." The boundary of the Registration is around the footprint of the two adjoining buildings and does not include the site of these proposals. This site is separated from the Registered Building by an accessway to the garage, itself not part of the Registration. The proposed is located on the site immediately to the north of the Registered Building and fronts onto Shore Road Underway and the inner harbour.

This scheme is the result of a number of discussions with the applicants and designs for a dwelling on the site. At the time The Old Sail Loft was added to the Protected Buildings Register, the proposal site was an elevated green space bounded by a random rubble stone wall. The applicants applied and received approval (at Appeal) for the removal of what was deemed to be 'fill' or 'ballast' from the site, which has resulted in the reduction of the levels to that comparable with the quayside.

The skyline, which is the rear of the properties onto the High Street is predominantly painted render properties with gable end chimney stacks and slated, pitched roofs. A number of properties to the rear of this site have flat roofed dormers and terraces. In many ways, this site forms a change point

in material usage and massing forms on the Shore Road Underway from the stone-faced vernacular of the former sail lofts warehouses and stores, to the modern rendered, flat-roofed stores and a 1940s/50s detached dwelling. In addition to this, it is notable that there are various public footpaths, accesses and gaps either side of the buildings (the previously mentioned stone boundary to the north of the application site). These points of the area's character are important in the deliberation of the proposal's setting as it could be considered to offer opportunities for an alternative architectural approach.

Indeed, these site constraints can be seen to have driven the design approach. The flat roof massing lessens the impact of the building on the neighbouring properties to the rear and the sedum finish to the roof alludes to the former elevated green space next to the Registered Building all be it, at a higher level as proposed. The gap between the proposed and the Registered Building provides sufficient 'breathing space' to the longitudinal elevation of the Old Sail Loft and thereby lessens its impact. The rebuilding of the northern boundary onto the public footpath in random rubble stone maintains the historic links with the site and its immediate surroundings.

Given the depth of the site and the inability to gain natural light from the either side elevation of the building, the insertion of a top lit 'atrium' into the centre of the plan, the large glazed areas to the front elevation in tandem with the ordering of uses within the plan, result in a dwelling that should be filled with light whilst not impacting on the privacy of its neighbours.

This use of large areas of glazing, a major part of the design language of the proposed, also points to the way in which the building is to be utilised. This is only too evident in the various glazing patterns to the rear of the houses fronting onto the High Street, undoubtedly employed to maximise views out to sea. In contrast, the former warehouses, workshops and sail lofts in the vicinity only needed light necessary to their historic function rather than for views. In addition, the construction techniques, material usage (random rubble stone with slate or timber lintols over openings) and the relatively expensive glass resulted in these historic built forms.

The resultant design of these proposals is unashamedly modern. This will doubtless result in concerns over its design language which is wholly subjective, but in terms of addressing the constraints of this site, this approach is considered to be successful. A more traditional approach in terms of massing (the use of pitched roof) and materials might result in a confused design which is neither modern, nor traditional and in my opinion, likely to be less successful. In terms of the setting of the Registered Building, this scheme is designed to be distinctly different to and therefore contrast with, the Registered Building. The quality of the design and materials used, are not considered to have a detrimental impact on the character and setting of the Registered Building.

In summary, it is considered that the application complies with the requirements of the Strategic Plan and is recommended for approval.

Party Status

The local authority is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.

The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority are a statutory authority and should be afforded party status in this instance

The following properties are either alongside the site or have their access from Shore Road and thus would be affected by the proposal and their owners should be afforded party status in this instance:

St. Mary's House on the High Street Columcille, 8, High Street Sheallagh Mean on Willow Terrace Willow Cottage

6, High Street Thie ny Marrey, Shore Road

The following properties are not sufficiently close to have their owners directly affected by the proposed development and as such should not be afforded

9, The Quay 25, Rhenwyllan Close Avoca, Bay View Road Athol Lodge in Fistard Flat 8, The Point Apartments

The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.

The Manx Electricity Authority raises issues which are not material planning considerations and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 15.12.2010 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals

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 erection of a dwelling and associated parking as shown in drawings 10322/10B, 10322/11C, 10322/12C, 10322/13D, 10322/14D, 10322/15C, 10322/16B and 10322/17A all received on 9th November, 2010.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Authority in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005

Decision Made : ______________________________

Authority Meeting Date : ______________________________

Signed : ..... 2000000000000 Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Authority an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate YES/NO