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.