12 July 2005 · Planning Committee on review
Office Store & Premises, Marina Lane, Port Erin, Isle Of Man, IM9 6lb
The proposal is a resubmission for three three-bedroom terraced houses with integral garages and additional front parking spaces, replacing a former commercial showroom and store on a site zoned residential in Port Erin.
Click a button above to find applications similar to this one.
See how this application compares to similar ones — policies, conditions, and outcomes side by side.
The Planning Committee considered the proposal against the previous refusal of PA 04/0224/B, where the Inspector dismissed an appeal due to the building's height, scale and site coverage adversely imp…
Approved
Support redevelopment; concerns of rear neighbours do not apply opposite; parking better than prior commercial use
In favour
Department of Transport Highways Division objected due to inadequate off-street parking obstructing the footway; Port Erin Commissioners requested deferral without substantive comment; local residents were divided with Eagle Mews residents and D.A.
Key concern: inadequate off street parking obstructing the footway
Department of Transport Highways Division
ObjectionThere is inadequate off street parking to serve the needs of the development. The parking spaces shown along the frontage obstruct the footway.; The short coming of this application could be overcome by constructing two properties with two off street parking spaces for each property incorporated behind the proposed footway
Department of Transport Highways Division
ObjectionWhen constructing new residential developments the developer must ensure the proposed properties are served by adequate highway infrastructure.
Port Erin Commissioners
No CommentI shall be obliged if you will defer consideration of the following planning applications as the Commissioners will not be in a position to consider the same until the 14th June, 2005.
J R Clague on behalf of Eagle Mews Residents
SupportWe would support the notion of a planning condition being that obscured glass be used and that this condition should be enforceable.; As the inspector concluded (AP2350 para 22) "There would be a positive benefit in redeveloping the site for residential purposes".
Conditions requested: obscured glass be used and that this condition should be enforceable
W.R. and R.C. Stewart, Bay View House, Victoria Square
ObjectionIt is too close to us and remains too high. It will cut off our light at the rear of our house.; Later, it may be seen as a license for an element of a slum in Marina Lane.
Hugh & Teresa Maddrell, Sefton, Victoria Square
ObjectionThe frosted glass could be changed at any time after they have been sold, also, these windows when open would still invade our privacy.
D.A. Dance
Supportthe impact on the outlook and light might well be improved with the set-back (yard area) of the proposed new town houses from the north boundary line thus allowing more light on to the south walls of the Victoria Square properties.
D.A. Dance
Supportthis latest proposal looks like to will enhance the domestic neighbourhood for all concerned.
Planning permission for erection of three terraced three-storey dwellings with ground floor parking to replace the existing commercial Erin Supplies building was refused by the Planning Committee due to excessive size, height, impact on streetscape, privacy, light and inadequate parking. The appellant argued the scheme addressed previous appeal concerns with reduced footprint and height, no privacy loss via obscure glass and roof lights, positive streetscape effect and willingness to fund shared surface parking scheme. The inspector found the development would harm streetscape through incongruous three-storey scale and design contrasting modest Victorian housing, cause significant loss of light, poor outlook and dominance to rear Victoria Square properties despite privacy mitigations, and poor parking design impacting street scene, though highway safety could be conditioned. Principle of residential redevelopment accepted but form unacceptable. Appeal dismissed, upholding refusal.
Precedent Value
Even amended schemes addressing prior refusal reasons may fail if scale/height remains excessive for local character; applicants must ensure designs match adjoining building heights and provide high-quality rear elevations for close rear neighbours. Parking form critical in constrained sites.
Inspector: David G Hollis
