3. |
TCP/01681/N P/01566/02 Parish/Name: Shanklin Registration Date: 30/08/2002 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J.
Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567 Alterations & 1 to 2 storey extension to
existing bungalow to form 6 self-contained holiday units to include terrace
walkway with balustrading on side elevation Fernbank Hotel, 6 Highfield Road, Shanklin,
Isle Of Wight, PO376PP |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Report requested by Local Member as he is not prepared
to agree to the application being dealt with under the delegated procedure.
LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Fernbank Hotel is located on the east side of
Highfield Road just before the 90 degree bend before it joins Westhill
Road. The hotel is essentially a two
storey building set in a substantial site surrounded by residential uses, on
the west side of Highfield Road and properties to the east fronting Pomona Road
and Florence Road. On the north side of
the hotel is another detached building, a bungalow, with a double garage
towards the front adjoining the north boundary which comprises a brick wall and
a dense hedgerow. A detached bungalow
adjoins the site to the north.
The land falls away to the east and to the south. There is a vehicular access with a small
parking area in front of the hotel on either side of its frontage with
Highfield Road.
RELEVANT HISTORY
In May 1986 consent was granted for a first floor
extension to the living unit located on the north side of the hotel to form
five en-suite guest rooms. This
permission was not implemented. In May
1990 a change of use was granted from manager's accommodation to form
additional bedroom accommodation for the hotel. Again, that permission was not implemented.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
Originally submitted as a more ambitious scheme the
revised application now seeks consent for a first floor addition to the
manager's accommodation and a single storey rear extension forming a total of
six holiday units, each comprising two bedroom, lounge/kitchen and bathroom. The single storey element at the rear of the
building projects into lawned amenity area associated with the hotel and has an
overall dimension of 16 metres by 9.3 metres, constructed in masonry under a
pitched roof with a cropped gable, walls finished in smooth render, the roof
being clad in plain tiles. The first
floor extension has overall dimensions of 9.3 metres by 14 metres and the
revisions to the scheme include windows only in the front and rear elevations
and the southern elevation but only two roof lights serving the bathroom of
each of the first floor units although most of the windows in the ground floor
of the existing accommodation are already in situ. A revised plan shows the two car parks containing nine spaces in
the northern side and six spaces in the southern side. The plan also indicates a notional
sub-division of the site between the existing hotel and the holiday units the
subject of this application.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
The site is within the designated development envelope
well outside Shanklin hotel area (Policy T4) and not specifically
allocated. Policy T2 supports proposals
for tourism etc and, if necessary, related coach and car parking will be
approved provided the design, access, parking and landscaping are satisfactory.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Highway Engineer recommends a condition requiring the
retention of the existing car parking at its existing level. But in making such recommendation states
"On street car parking is problematic in this area; if sufficient car
parking is not available at the hotel it may cause problems for local
residents.
On the basis that the hotel has eighteen bedrooms at
present; plus the seven additional holiday units; twenty five car parking
spaces would be ideal; however, as I cannot insist upon a minimum number of car
parking spaces being provided and it is likely that a small percentage of
holiday makers will arrive by public transport or coach, on balance the amount
of car parking proposed is just about acceptable".
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS
Shanklin Town Council - no objection.
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Letters of objection from adjoining occupier to the
north on grounds of loss of privacy, loss of light and overshadowing;
inadequate parking and congestion in Highfield Road; creation of noise and
disturbance; overdevelopment of the site.
Writer comments that, if development is approved, the units should be
limited in the time of year they can be occupied, that they should remain together
as one property with the hotel rather than being offered for sale as a separate
entity.
CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
Relevant Officer has been given the opportunity to
comment but no observations have been received.
EVALUATION
This application seeks consent to add six holiday
units to the hotel by making additions to the manager's living unit and
converting the accommodation to assist in the resultant number.
Determining factors in this instance are considered to
be policy and principle, design, scale and massing of the resultant structure;
matters relating to access and parking and effect on the adjoining property
through possible overlooking and the dominant effect of the increased mass of
the structure.
In terms of policy and principle additional facilities
for accommodation in connection with holiday use at this site is consistent
with Council's policy. The site is
within the development envelope and the accommodation is closely linked with
existing holiday accommodation.
The design, massing and scale of the development is in
keeping with existing development adjoining and similar in mass to that which
was previously approved in 1990. Part
of the scheme, situated behind the existing building is at a lower level and
not visible from anywhere but the adjoining property and then only the roof
plane will be visible due to the screening already in existence.
The site is shown in Zone 2 of the parking
guidelines wherein it is stated that 0%-50% of non-operational provision would
be made. The hotel has 18 bedrooms and
with the 6 holiday units, this would dictate a parking provision of between 0
and 12 spaces. The scheme is shown to
provide 15 spaces. Due to the nature of
the proposed use, ie holiday flats, I do not consider this over-provision to be
inappropriate.
Access is already in existence to both areas but the
level of parking, bearing in mind the amount of accommodation on the site is of
comparably small proportion. However,
consistent with current policy and in line with the Highway Engineer's
observations, it is felt that the level of car parking provided will be
appropriate bearing in mind Governmental policy reducing reliance on the
private car by omitting higher levels of car parking. Whilst it is accepted that there are restricted on-street
facilities for parking, the lack of such a provision on-site will probably put
greater pressure on those facilities but much of the area is double-yellow
lined thus restricting on-street provision.
Following the initial submission, the proposals have
been revised twice. Initially two units
were omitted from the rear section of the extension reducing the extension from
two to a single storey and, secondly, altering the layout of the flats to
provide only two bathroom roof lights to be included on the north side
elevation with the adjoining property.
The reduction in height and the omission of windows will dramatically
reduce the effect on the adjoining property from overlooking and overshadowing
to the extent that I do not consider such objections now to be
sustainable. The extensions and
enlargement of the building will be visible from the adjoining property but
bearing in mind the extensions are on the southern side, when the sun is at its
highest and the fact that the roof planes slope down to the boundary, the
ridges being parallel to the boundary, I do not consider overshadowing to a
degree justifying a refusal of planning permission will occur.
The accommodation is proposed to be for holiday
purposes and therefore, bearing in mind its relationship with the existing
property and interrelationship between units it is felt that it is unsuitable
for permanent residential occupation.
Accordingly it is suggested that any consent granted should be subject
to conditions limiting the occupation to holiday purposes and for a maximum
period of six weeks for any individual residing in them. Parking of one space for each unit should be
provided and maintained for the use of that unit and all of the flats should be
maintained together as one property to assure their use for holiday purposes as
opposed to second homes. I do, however,
consider it necessary to restrict the occupancy of the units with the hotel
which means that the holiday units could not be sold separately from the hotel.
HUMAN RIGHTS
In coming to this recommendation to grant planning
permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8
(Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful
Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on
the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have
been carefully considered. Whilst there
may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be
balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner
proposed. Insofar as there is an
interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the
protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is
proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION
The proposal represents the enlargement of tourist
accommodation in an area of mixed uses attached to an existing hotel. The enlargement at first floor level is
similar to the scale and mass of the extension approved in 1990 and although
the site abuts the side and adjoining to bungalow, that bungalow is unusual in
this part of the street since other properties are of two storeys in
height. The ground floor extension,
situated at the back and at lower level is unlikely to be sufficiently visible
to have any adverse effect and therefore it is felt that the proposals are in
line with tourism policies and policies D1 and D2 of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. Although car parking
is short, approval of developments with lower ratios of parking is in line with
Governmental and UDP policy to reduce reliance on the private car. Approval is felt appropriate and in line
with current policy.
RECOMMENDATION -
APPROVAL (REVISED PLANS)
Conditions/Reasons:
1 |
Time limit - full - A10 |
2 |
Construction of the building hereby permitted shall
not commence until a schedule of all materials and finishes to be used for
the external roofing and walls of the same has been submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Thereafter only such approved materials and finishes shall be used in
carrying out the development. Reason:
To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1
(Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
3 |
The occupation of the flats shall be limited to
holiday use only and they shall not be occupied by any person, a family, or
group of persons, for a period in total exceeding six weeks in any rolling
year without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The use of
the site for all year round residential occupation would conflict with
Policies T1 (Tourism) and T3 (Holiday Accommodation) of the IW Unitary
Development Plan. |
4 |
The holiday flats hereby approved shall not be sold
off or otherwise disposed of on a long-term basis separately from the hotel
but shall be retained in one ownership unless the prior written consent of
the Local Planning Authority is obtained. Reason: The sub-division of the site for individually
owned holiday properties would conflict with the policy of the Local Planning
Authority to retain holiday accommodation for tourists in compliance with
Policy T3 (Holiday Accommodation) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
5 |
Withdrawn PD right for windows/dormers -
R03 |
6 |
The car parking spaces shown on the plan attached to
and forming part of this decision notice shall be retained hereafter for the
use by occupiers and visitors to the development hereby approved. Reason:
To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7
(Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |