Loading document...
Application No.: 05/00875/C Applicant: Mr C Woolnough Proposal: Erection of three terraced dwellings with ground floor parking to replace existing Erin Supplies building (Resubmission) Site Address: Office Store & Premises Marina Lane Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6LB ### Considerations Case Officer: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 23.06.2005 Site Visit: 23.06.2005 Expected Decision Level: Committee Decision ### Written Representations W.M J Kewley Esq J R Clague Mr P Linck Mr & Mrs J Hammond Mrs A H Karsa Mr D A Dance Mr R Webber Mr S Whelan Mrs J Venus `The Occupier Hugh _ Teresa Maddrell W.R. & R.C. Stewart ### Consultations Consulttee: Highways Division Notes: Consulttee: Port Erin Commissioners Notes: defer till after 14th June Consulttee: Chief Fire Officer Notes: smoke detectors Consulttee: Port Erin Commissioners Notes: approved
The site represents a parcel of land located on the northern side of Marina Lane within an area designated on the Port Erin Plan as "Residential".
Previously, under PA 04/0224, three terraced dwellings were refused for reasons relating to the size, site coverage and height of the building. Another reason had been given for refusal by the PC, that relating to the provision of only one car parking space to serve the development and whose use would result in vehicles reversing onto or from the highway. This was not accepted as a reason for refusal at appeal by either the Inspector or the Minister.
The new building is a little over a metre lower in height although still 1.5m higher than the existing buildings to the west. The site coverage is the same as previously. The building now sits 300mm back from the building line established by the existing building to the west - previously it was in line. This set back is to allow a vehicle to park at rights angles to the integral garages, making two parking spaces per unit (each has three bedrooms).
The concern expressed previously, regarding the size, height and site coverage, responded to the amenities of those living to the rear (Victoria Square). The Inspector appointed to hear the appeal noted that the redevelopment of the existing building would be a benefit to the appearance of the area. However, he states that the benefit of relocating the rear wall of the new building some 2.1m further from the rear of the Victoria Square properties would be cancelled out by the increase in height. Also, he notes that there is little space (5m) between the existing windows in the VS properties and those in the rear of the new building. There are relatively few windows in the rear of the existing building (and in any case it is not used for permanent residential accommodation).
The rear elevation is still the same distance from the rear of the properties behind. However the building is now lower, the top row of windows has been replaced with roflights and all the windows in the first floor (kitchen and dining room) are to be fitted with frosted glass (although they still open). There is a wall which prevents overlooking between ground floor windows.
Port Erin Commissioners, who objected in the previous case, recommend approval to this application.
Mr. Dance who lives in Eagle Mews, opposite the site, is still in favour of the development, as is M.A. Linck and a letter on behalf of 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8, Eagle Mews.
The owner of "Gleneagles", adjoining the site, is concerned only with the stability of their roof and wall.
Mr. and Mrs. Maddrell who live in "Sefton" to the rear, are still concerned regarding light to their property, possible overlooking through the rooflights, possible changing of the frosted glass in future times, the "marginal" reduction in height and comments made by the previous Inspector.
Mr. and Mrs. Stewart of "Bay View House" also to the rear, share the Maddrells' concerns.
Defer for site visit.
I visited Mr. and Mrs. Maddrell and viewed the site from their property - ground, first and second floors at the rear. Presently the outlook is limited on the ground floor by the existing wall. However, above this only unimpeded sky is visible. From the upper floors the view and light is more significant. The proposed building would certainly affect the outlook from these windows although this in itself is
probably not a sustainable reason for refusal. The affect on light is more significant and the impact on privacy is considerable, even if the windows are fitted with frosted glass. What also struck me, viewing the site both from "Sefton" and from Marina Lane, is how much taller the proposed building would be and the impact which this would have on the streets cene as well as on the properties round about. I am not quite sure how the applicants think a building which is so much taller is justified and the squeezing of the parking provision onto the site, is justified.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 24.06.2005
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1.
The previous application, PA 04/0224 was refused for reasons relating to the height and size of the building. This new application proposes a building of the same footprint but which is 1.3m lower. This is not considered a sufficient reduction in height to satisfy the previous concerns and does not address the concerns regarding the size of the building. The proposal is considered unsatisfactory in respect of:
a) the impact which a building of this height will have on the streetscape, the building being a whole floor higher than the existing building immediately to the west, b) the impact on the outlook, light and privacy on those properties to the north. Whilst the proposal involves the removal of the windows in the upper floor and their replacement by higher level rooflights, and the windows in the first floor are to be fitted with obscured glass, this will not overcome the perception of an invasion of privacy from the rear windows of Sefton" and "Bay View House" and in any case the windows may be opened at any time.
Note: any new building to be erected on this site should be no higher than the existing terrace to the west which is effectively the same height as the existing structure but with a pitched roof over.
R 2.
The parking spaces shown as being provided along the frontage will obstruct the footway to the detriment of road and pedestrian safety.
Decision Made : ...
Committee Meeting Date : ...
1 July 2005 05/00875/C Page 4 of 4
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown