Loading document...
Page 14 of 15
Proposed Conversion / Extension
of
The Former O'Kells Falcon Brewery
Glen Falcon Street, Douglas
into
‘O’Kells Falcon Brewery’ Apartments & Town House Planning Statement.
Prior to the submission of this planning application, the applicant carried out a public presentation and consultation meeting at the Promenade Suite of the Villa Marina, which took place on Monday 22nd May 2006 at 7:45pm, to which over 80 local residents and businesses were invited.
At this meeting, a presentation of the application proposals took place, which was followed by a question and answer session to allow residents to explore the proposals, and for queries to be answered. Following the presentation, a number of residents remained to look more closely at the drawings and computer model, including the resident of No.1 Glen Falcon Terrace. Specific queries were answered, and the applicant's architect handed out business cards with full contact details, so that if residents had any further queries, or wished to review the drawings further or suggest changes, then they were welcome to do so.
It was made clear to all who attended the presentation that this was an opportunity to have an input into the scheme prior to the submission of an application. If there were specific concerns or requirements for amendments, then the applicant would be prepared where possible to incorporate these within the application drawings. This included design changes and additions such as screening of terraces etc.
At the meeting, some concerns regarding the level of parking, and angle of egress from the secure car park were raised. As a result, the applicant's architect adjusted the angle of the egress from the secure car park, and retained the car parking area to the front of the property to provide a further 5 visitor's spaces, taking the total to 24 spaces thus providing 2 spaces per dwelling rather than the 1.5 spaces per dwelling recommended by the DoT Highways Engineer. This is a clear indication that the applicant has listened to the comments of the local residents and amended the scheme to be more acceptable to them.
Following the date of the presentation, no further approach was made either to the applicant or the applicant's architect by any local resident or business. After allowing over a month from the date of the public meeting and presentation, the applicant submitted the application. The applicant is somewhat disappointed that having gone to the trouble of consulting the local residents, and giving them the opportunity to influence the scope, content and design of the proposals, that they feel it more appropriate to object to the proposals after the application, than to give input into the shaping of the proposals prior to the application.
From the correspondence received by the department, the applicant notes that whilst there are a number of objections, it is clearly the same letter that has been copied and submitted by 19 individuals. It is also clear that this has been orchestrated by one individual, all 19 letters having been received by the Planning department on the same day. It is also clear that the content of the letter is exactly the same, and relates to the concerns of one individual property, namely No.9 Falcon Street.
The applicant would have thought that if the other 18 properties had strong views about the development, they would have gone to the trouble of submitting their own views in relation to the application.
Taking the objections raised in the 'Circular' letter, the applicant would make the following comments;
The present building has 18 openings facing No.9 Falcon Street over four levels of accommodation. The proposal has 17 openings over four levels, with three of these openings at low level shielded by the enclosing boundary wall. The windows closest to No.9 Falcon Terrace have high sill levels at 1650mm above internal floor level, and therefore residents of the proposal would not look directly into the property of No.9. In addition, the higher level apartment is set back by approx. 1.3m from the position of the wall of the existing building, and the roof of the apartment below, finishes 1600mm above the terrace level, thereby preventing a view down towards the properties on the opposite side of Falcon Street.
The applicant would also suggest that No.9 Falcon Street is already overlooked by the other properties on the same side of Falcon Street as the proposal, and therefore the overlooking of the property is already compromised.
The vehicular exit from the secure parking area of the proposal is provided via an adjustment of the position of an existing vehicular access point for the O'Kells Falcon Brewery building. The existing footpath crossing point will be adjusted accordingly, and in addition will be upgraded to include proper drop kerbs, and tactile warning paving suitable for use by the disabled.
Whilst the applicant sympathises with the parking situation for the residents of Falcon Street, many of the issues described are not as a result of the application, nor would they be exacerbated by them, as the parking provision within the proposal is 2 spaces per dwelling, which is 0.5 spaces per dwelling in excess of the parking requirement determined for the development by the DoT Highways Engineer. These spaces are all located off-street, within the boundaries of the proposal site. The vehicular access and egress points are all currently controlled by double yellow lines, and this would continue. It should also be noted that at the point of egress, Falcon Street is a controlled one way street for Vehicular Traffic and as such, provides safer egress for any such development.
Turning to the letter from Mr Halsal and Ms Pearson, the applicant would make the following observations;
Loss of Light or Overshadowing.
The applicant would respectfully ask the Committee to review the Sun Path Models contained within Appendix A of this document. These are based on the computer modelling package used to generate the 3D visualisations contained within the application. This package is also capable of inputting the longitude and latitude of a site, and generating accurate sun-path shadow diagrams for existing and proposed schemes. We have therefore modelled the existing warehouse building to provide a comparison of sun-path diagrams for the existing and proposed building.
In carrying out the sun-path shadow models, we have indicated a Mid-Winter and a Mid-Summer condition to provide comparison. We have also included a screen shot for the existing and proposed on the same sheet to allow direct comparison, and have carried this out for 9:00am, 12:00 noon and 3:00pm. No.1 Glen Falcon Terrace has been identified with the figure 1 on its roof.
As can be seen from the sun-path shadow models, the sun-path of the proposal is only marginally different from that cast by the existing building. The primary impact of the proposal is actually the extended shadows on the roof of No.1 Glen Falcon Terrace, but the proposal has no detrimental impact on the shadowing of the rear of the property, over and above that which is already cast by the existing building.
In addition to the Mid- Winter and Mid-Summer shadow models, we have also included two further models, which identify the effect of over-shadowing from the existing building and the proposal. From these models it can be seen that the sun-path shadow of the existing building leaves the rear elevation of No.1 Glen Falcon Terrace at between 2:00pm and 2:15pm. It can be seen from the sun-path model, that this is also the case with the proposal, which therefore indicates the proposal has no impact on the light levels experienced by the occupants of No.1 Glen Falcon Terrace.
The windows of the proposal which face onto the space to the rear of No.1 Glen Falcon Terrace are all high level windows. As can clearly be seen by reference to Section B-B on drawing No. K076/P/11-10, the cell levels of these windows prevent direct overlooking of the neighbouring properties, which are also at an oblique angle to the proposal. Should the Committee feel it necessary, the applicant would be prepared to consider the installation of acid etched glazing to these windows, so that any visible view out of these windows would totally be prevented, whilst still allowing a secondary source of natural light into these apartments, indeed, the applicant would have proposed such an option to Mr Halsall, had he raised the issue prior to the application.
Mr Halsall makes the statement that the proposal is several stories higher than the roof line of his property. This is a total exaggeration of the proposal, as can clearly be seen from Elevation 2 on drawing No. K076/P/12-10 and Elevation 3 of drawing No. K076/P/12-11, where the roof of the highest part of the new proposal is over 830mm below the ridge of the roof of the adjacent Registered building, and the roof of the Murray's Rd elevation is 940mm below the ridgeline of Mr Halsall's property.
The applicant believes that if the sun-path is little affected by the proposal, then the TV reception of No.1 Glen Falcon Terrace will be little affected, particularly as the main TV transmission mast for the Douglas area is located to the South/South-West of the property, and is therefore not obscured by the proposal.
The parking provision within the proposal is 33% greater than that recommended by the DoT-Highways Engineer in pre-application consultation, and as such the applicant does not believe that there will be an over-spill impact on the surrounding area.
The materials used within the extension to the rear of the registered building includes Manx Stone, rendered masonry, cedar timber boarding, turn coated aluminium which has the appearance of weathered lead, aluminium glazing and red clay cladding panels which are similar to those used on the House of Key refurbishment project, and which has an appearance similar to red sandstone. The applicant therefore believes that the materials utilised within the proposal are not at odds with both the area, or the registered building, particularly as a number of these materials are already present.
The applicant believes that there will be less noise and nuisance from the proposed use of the building for residential purposes, than that which currently exists with the use of the building as an off-licence, both from the point of view of smaller vehicular traffic, and the removal of the attraction of some undesirable elements to drink alcohol which has been purchased within the off-licence within the surrounding garden areas.
The applicant is aware that the consumption of alcohol within the surrounding garden areas has been a continuous problem for some time, and the off-licence may also have contributed to the congregation of some under-age drinking within this and the Broadway area. The proposal would remove this particular problem within the area.
The architectural approach to the Scheme was to refurbish and reinstate the former O'Kells Falcon Brewery whilst providing a use which ensures the long term future of the Registered building, which has suffered badly from its previous use and a general lack of investment. The Falcon Brewery has fine elevations to its North, East and South facing sides, but these have suffered from a lack of repair and successive alteration and amendment. To the rear of the Registered building, the existing warehouse and four storey storage block are poor, both architecturally and in their condition and contribute little to the surrounding area or the Registered building.
In determining the architectural approach to the redevelopment of the rear of the Registered building, the applicant's architect did not want to produce a pastiche of the Victorian architecture of the main brewery building. In recent years, the Island has seen a large number of developments of this kind which are generally characterised by simplified render detailing and the use of applied GRP mouldings to give an impression of detail, without the level, complexity or richness of detail of the buildings which they are trying to imitate. The adjacent Glen Falcon Terrace dwellings on Murrays Road are a prime example of this form of development, where a new terrace of three storey town houses have recently been created which have little of the quality and detailing of the three storey Victorian buildings on the opposite side of Murrays Road. In the Applicants opinion, these developments do little to positively contribute to the areas in which they are situated, but rather seek to be innocuous and non-contentious, but as a result create a bland and characterless environment. To carry out such a building type as a back drop to the Registered building, would in the applicant's architects opinion be sacreligious, the Registered brewery building having a high level of detail and presence within its setting. The proposal therefore seeks to contrast with this Registered building and provide a backdrop, thereby enhancing the perception of the architectural quality of the building.
The applicant's architect believes that this approach is not detrimental either to the Registered Falcon Brewery building or to the surrounding area, but is rather a positive contribution to the area in the enhancement of the Brewery building by the demolition and
removal of the poor quality warehouse and storage building to the rear and its replacement with a bright and modern structure, which has been carefully designed to step away from the Falcon Brewery building with a glazed linked section and with the mass of the proposal determined by the adjacent structures. In this way the Murrays Road elevation is in fact only 800mm higher than the current apex of the existing warehouse building and follows the existing warehouse accommodation building line, whilst the four storey element relates to the location and size of the former four storey storage building but with a shallow curved roof rather than a flat roof. The accommodation running on to the Falcon Street elevation is stepped down to two storeys at the Falcon Street frontage, to relate directly to the two storey high dwellings on the opposite side of Falcon Street. It should be noted that the buildings immediately opposite the proposal on Murrays Road are higher than the roof line of the proposal, and similarly the roof level of the existing Victorian terrace on the opposite side of Falcon Street are also higher than that which is contained within the proposal thus clearly demonstrating that the proposal is not out of scale with its surroundings but has been carefully designed to fit within these parameters.
Whilst the applicant's architect acknowledges that architectural style can be considered to be subjective, there should be a place for more modern architecture on the Island. The contrasting of modern architectural approaches within and surrounding historic, Registered or Listed buildings is an approach which has been carried out for many years, and which has proved successful both in saving and retaining historic structures, and in regenerating areas. Examples of such treatment are numerous throughout the United Kingdom and Europe. Within the Island there are also existing samples of such an approach, including the refurbishment and remodelling of the Dickinson, Cruickshank offices in a modern elevational style immediately next to the registered section of the Dickinson, Cruickshank offices, and more recently the refurbishment and extension of the House of Keys and Government offices.
The original O'Kells Falcon Brewery was constructed in Victorian times, a period of fast economic and technological growth which resulted in an explosion of development on the Isle of Man in common with the U.K. Such development was carried out in a style and scale that took full advantage of the new technologies available at that time, which included the new techniques for manufacture of plate glass, for wrought and cast iron work and a rediscovery of concrete. The use of these materials allowed larger buildings than were previously achievable and resulted in the three, four and five storey terraced houses which are common on the Promenade and other areas within Douglas. The Victorian era saw many pioneering advancements, and the Island in common with England took advantage of these new possibilities, building promenades, piers, railways, theatres, ball rooms and mass housing, all in an architectural style and variety which differed greatly from the vernacular architecture which existed beforehand. This rich diversity is now, quite rightly, subject to conservation to preserve it for the future. However, whilst preserving elements of the past, we need also to accommodate the future.
Today, we have a range of materials and technologies available to us, which allow us to explore new possibilities and forms in architecture and the way we live. Our Victorian forebears would not have hesitated to embrace such technologies, to produce new and varied forms of buildings.
The applicant would therefore ask the committee to consider the above, that the only approach to the architectural treatment of the redevelopment of a Registered building is not just a wilful pastiche of the prevailing surrounding architecture, but that a modern and confident expression of our age is also valid. Should we fail to acknowledge the age in which we live. Future generations will have nothing to assess our society by, as architecture is a primary expression of any civilisation. The constant resorting to historical pastiche does nothing but symbolise that the society has lost its confidence in its future.
The Isle of Man Government is currently identifying a brand for the Island under the banner of 'Freedom to Flourish', any such promotion must surely include the freedom of individuals, organisations and businesses to express their confidence in the future of the Island. Any such future must surely include architectural freedom to acknowledge the technologies of the twenty first century, which are part of everyday life, and which future generations wish to see within their built environment.
Accordingly we would ask the Planning Committee to give great consideration to the proposal, and not dismiss it on the grounds of modern aesthetics to the rear extension. We believe that we have proved within this document that consideration has been given to the maintenance of privacy to adjoining residents, both in making strenuous efforts to engage with those individuals prior to the submission of an application, and in the formulation of the design to remove as many possible areas of overlooking and overshadowing. The sun-path diagrams show that the proposal has little or no impact from that currently caused by the existing building, and the applicant is more than happy to provide obscure glazing to the windows within the Westerly elevation, and additional screening to the balcony areas at this location to remove any possible overlooking into the adjacent properties, should it be felt necessary.
In conclusion, the applicant believes that this scheme provides a positive contribution to the existing urban fabric, whilst ensuring the long term future of the existing O'Kells Falcon Brewery building.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown