Loading document...
The site represents the curtilage of Arbory Court, an existing building (albeit presently in the process of being demolished) situated on the northern side of Arbory Street and accessed via a right of way to a service yard in front of the existing buildings. The existing buildings comprise an old stone building and a more recent rendered building.
The site lies within an area designated on the Castletown Local Plan of 1991 as Mixed Use as it is on the draft Castletown Area Plan of 2001. Both plans contain policies which encourage the creation of a shopping mall between Malew and Arbory Streets and in this respect, development proposals have
been permitted for the creation of a mixed housing/retail development between 16 and 26 Arbory Street and 17 and 19 Malew Street (PA 05/01539/B).
In addition to the above scheme, which did not include this site, planning permission has recently been granted for the demolition of some of the buildings on site and their replacement with a new building which ties in with the approved development to the south (PA 06/02208). One of the conditions of that permission was that a wall must be built to close off vehicular access across the right of way to the building from Arbory Street following submissions from the owner of 30, Arbory Street.
The owner of 30 Arbory Street indicates that he has no objection to the proposed use of the site as a bin store but does have concerns about the use of the right of way past his property to get to the bin store as this may result in rubbish or bins being left on the drive or in front of the gates which could block his access. Bin wagons cannot get to the site as the arch at the front of the access is too low. Further correspondence has been received from this party, following correspondence received from the applicant. The owner of 30 Arbory Street suggests that there can be no assurance that those emptying the bins do not come past 30 Arbory Street as he understands that the facility has been offered to others outside of the scheme site. He suggests a condition to require that the right of way past his property is not used for access, however, if there is a door there, it would be impracticable to enforce such a condition. He also points out that he owns an elder tree which overhangs the site which is neither shown on the drawings nor acknowledged in the application form. If the tree overhangs another person's property however, I assume that the person whose property the tree overhangs would have the right to trim the tree back to their property boundary and as such could make way for the wall which is to be built on this boundary.
Fire Prevention Officer suggests that the applicant discusses the application with him regarding all aspects of fire precautions.
Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division has concerns over the proposal on the basis that there is no turning facility within the site for vehicles collecting the refuse to turn and the width of Arbory Street is inadequate to accommodate refuse vehicles without adversely affecting pedestrian safety.
I have made the applicant aware of the points raised by the neighbour and they have responded by way of a letter dated 12th July, 2007. In this they clarify that number 16 has been demolished and that originally they had intended to have the bin store in number 26, Arbory Street but there have arisen problems with electrical supply so the applicant is now re-considering the location for the bin store. They accept that it is difficult to find a location for the bin store which will not affect something and in designing a concrete roof for the store, there is unlikely to be a nuisance from noise from the proposed facility. They also explain that in order to deal with the refuse from the development as a whole, compaction is necessary and the applicant will engage the services of private contractor for collection. Recycling will also be introduced to deal with glass, paper, tin and aluminium. The applicant will control all comings and goings with respect to the amount of traffic and the type of vehicles. The applicant has also extended to Castletown Commissioners the offer for all the refuse from the Arbory Street and Malew Street shops to be dealt with in this facility.
The proposal has no adverse visual impact either as viewed from the public thoroughfare (Arbory Street) or from within the redevelopment scheme. As the applicant has explained, the nature of the construction of the facility is likely to reduce or remove any opportunity for noise nuisance. The occurrence of people leaving rubbish outside the gates is unlikely as most of those contributing refuse will come to the bin store from inside the site not via Arbory Street. The collections to be undertaken will be from Arbory Street but clearly by private arrangement with the applicant. If there is an issue regarding the right to pass over the lane, this is clearly a civil matter between the parties.
Whilst there is no turning facility on the site, one must ask how the approved bin store would have worked in respect of vehicular traffic as this had no vehicular access at all and would have been relying on collections from Arbory Street. However, refuse vehicles would not have to have driven up a narrow lane/drive to get to the bins in that case and would not have need to have turned.
It must also be remembered that when Arbory Court was still in place (it has all but been demolished at the time of writing) pedestrian access was possible to and from the building with presumably no restriction on movements past 30 Arbory Street. The proposed facility will restrict traffic to only that associated with the operation of the refuse service yard rather than all of the comings and goings on the site as was previously the case. Whilst this is more than would be the case with the previous application, PA 06/2208 which involved the construction of a wall, which appeared to be acceptable to all parties at the time of the decision, which would have completely restricted access; this does not reflect the existing/previous situation where there was no such restriction.
Whilst I can understand the disappointment of the occupant of 30, Arbory Street regarding what now appears to be traffic coming and going along the right of way, I do not consider that there will be a detrimental impact either on public amenity or on the amenities of the occupants of number 30 or any other adjoining property so as to warrant refusal of the application, bearing in mind the status quo and potential other uses of this site in conjunction with or separate from the larger development site and bearing in mind its situation in the town centre.
The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
The occupant of number 30, Arbory Street is immediately adjacent to the property and as such should be afforded party status in this instance.
Fire Prevention Officer raises issues regarding fire safety which in this case is not a planning matter and as such the Fire Prevention Officer should not be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 18.07.2007
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
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 creation of a service yard and bin store as shown in drawings 2007/003/001 and -/002 both received on 17th May, 2007.
N 1.
PRIOR to the commencement of any works the applicant is advised to consult the Chief Fire Officer to ensure that adequate fire precautions are taken.
Decision Made : ...
Committee Meeting Date : ...
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown