Loading document...
constrain any possible redevelopment or improvement by enclosing the shops with a functional 3 storey structure. - The area is predominately office use, they state while they have no objection in principle of using sites to their full potential, where it is warranted, of including uses which are not in accordance with a land use zoning, any such “non-conforming” uses must not conflict with existing uses in the vicinity. In this instance the inclusion of 5 apartments within the scheme as a non-conforming use has not been justified, and the inclusion of balconies and windows in the north eastern corner of the main building will lead to potential conflict between residents and adjacent commercial uses. - Heritage Homes also consider that the proposed flat roofed dormers will be an incongruous and visually displeasing element in the Finch Road frontage, and will be at odds with the appearance of the many registered buildings along Finch Road and those of the adjacent Conservation Area. In response to the letter of objection from Heritage Homes, the applicants Architects Roger Hofler Architects have responded with a letter stating that they believe that Heritage Homes should have clearly stated their connection with it’s parent company (Dandara Commercial Ltd), as there has been discussions with their client and Dandara with a view of Dandara to purchase the site. The applicant recognises that Dandara / Heritage Homes are entitled to lodge observations as prescribed in the Planning Act, they are of the opinion that the comments made in their submission should be considered in the context of this organisation’s particular interest in the potential purchase of this site. We have received a letter from a Mr Andrew Jessop who has no objection to the principle, however has concerns of the aesthetics being something of a mish mash and with the vehicle access to the site. We have received a letter from the owner of 40a Finch Road a Mrs K E Hotchkiss, who does not object, but has concerns regarding the disturbance the demolition and re construction will have on her property in the form of noise, access and adverse customer throughput. ### Assessment / Recommendation When considering the appearance of the proposal, and particular the front elevation, the surrounding area and street scene must be taken into account. the majority of properties within the area are three storey buildings (late Georgian / Victorian period), which includes the properties along Finch Road and Christian Road. There are a number of Registered Buildings along Finch Road and Christian Road is within Windsor Road Conservation Area. The property proposed to be demolished is neither a Registered Building nor is it within a Conservation Area, however its appearance is still a matter of importance to the area being in a prominent location and therefore any proposal should retain a similar design to be in keeping with the area. This proposal although retaining the aspect of a three storey building would change the appearance significantly along Finch Road with the introduction of two flat roof dormer windows within the roof space and the ground floor glazed entrance. Along Finch Road there are properties which have dormer windows however these are small pitched roofed dormers which are more attractive and in keeping with the existing properties along Finch Road. There are a number of shops along the Finch Road next door and adjacent to the property (27, 29, 31, 33, 35-37, 40a and 40b), which have glazed front elevations, it could therefore be argued that the introduction of the proposed glazed front entrance would be appropriate, however I do not believe this is the case as none of the shops are within similar three storey properties and therefore the inclusion of a glazed entrance would be out of keeping with the character of the street scene. An additional concern is the size and massing of the rear projection of the proposed building and car park. The rear projection of the building would be approximately 8 metres further than the existing rear wall elevation, almost doubling the length of the existing building, which would also be constructed on the boundary which is shared with 36 Finch Road. Adding weight to this concern is that the building is a flat roof structure above the existing eaves level of the neighbouring properties along Finch Road which would cause a rather overbearing effect and an adverse visual impact to the area and the existing properties. The proposed car park whilst having no adverse impact to the neighbouring properties along Finch Road, due to the slope, it would however have a significant impact to the public highway Well Road Hill which provides an access from Finch Road down to Market Street. At present there is a 2.5 metre high stone wall which would be demolished to make way for the car park wall, which in places would cause an elevation of 11 metres in height running along the Well Road Hill which would cause an overbearing effect to the users of the public highway. It should also be noted that, immediately north of the site, on the corner of Finch Road and Well Road Hill, there are low grade buildings unworthy of their prominent site within the town centre. Redevelopment of these buildings, which would be of benefit to the town, is likely to be move difficult and less successful if the current proposal proceeds. The application would also cause concerns with the Department of Transport Highways Division, who have objected on the grounds that, the visibility splays from the proposed access is inadequate to serve the needs of the development. In conclusion the proposals is an over intensive use of the site which would adversely affect the visual appearance and be out of keeping with the existing street scene, cause an overbearing affects to the surrounding area and would no provide an adequate vehicular access to serve the development. For these reasons the proposal would be inappropriate in these locations and therefore my recommendation is for a refusal. I consider that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status: - IOM Water Authority - Disability Access Officer - Highways Division - Douglas Corporation - Drainage Division - Chief Fire Officer - Lichfield Properties Ltd, 34 Finch Road - Heritage Homes - Mrs K E Hotchkiss, 40a Finch Road The S.P.M.C. & E and Mr Jessop do not have sufficient interest to be accorded party status. ### Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1. The proposed development would constitute over-development of the site, producing a building which in massing, site coverage and heights are considerably larger than that which occupies the site at present. In particular the rear flat roofed projection of the building.
R 2. The three storey garage development, due to it size, design, massing and height along the public highway (Well Road Hill) would make an overbearing and unattractive impact to the detriment to the users of the public highway.
R 3. The design of the building does not accord with the prevailing architecture and general appearance of buildings fronting and in the vicinity of Finch Road. This is due to the flat roof dormers and the ground floor front glazed entrance, which result in a development which would be visually out of keeping with the street scene.
R 4. The visibility splays from the proposed access are inadequate to serve the needs of the development.
R 5. The proposed development would prejudice redevelopment of the low-grade buildings immediately north of the site, such development would be of positive value to the appearance and dignity of this prominent corner.
Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown