DEC Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Application No.: 23/00703/C Applicant: Drummond Holdings Proposal: Additional use of residential property (class 3.3) as tourist accommodation (class 3.6) Site Address: Onyx House Shore Road Underway Port St Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5DX Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 01.11.2023

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason.

There is no demonstrable harm arising from the application on the living conditions of neighbouring properties and there to be no new or increased parking demands or highway safety issues expected. There are no physical works proposed and so there is no visual impact on the streetscene or surrounding area, and it would be unreasonable to refuse on grounds of flood risk given the already established residential use of the property. The application accords with Business Policy 13, Environment Policies 13 and 23, General Policy 2 and Community Policies 7 and 11 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the following information: Location Plan dated 16.06.2023 First floor plan reference 10322/23/12A and dated 19.07.23 submitted on 27.10.23 Ground floor plan reference 10322/23/11A and dated 19.07.23 submitted on 27.10.23 Additional statement dated 26.10.23 and submitted on 27.10.23. Email from the agent and attachment inc. drawings and statement dated 24.07.2023.

Interested Person Status

Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:

• o DOI Flood Risk Management - concern for flood risk

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):

• o Columcille, 8 High Street, Port St Mary - as they are within 20m and refer to relevant issues in line with the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status.

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):

• o Flat 1, Harbourside Apartments, Shore Road, Underway, Port St Mary - although raising relevant issues they are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site is the curtilage of an existing terraced dwelling 'Onyx House', Shore Road, The Underway, Port St Mary. The dwelling sits on the western side of the road facing over the road and harbour. Plans submitted and planning history for the site indicate sleeping accommodation on ground floor and living space and a bedroom at first floor. There is off road car parking to the front. - 1.2 The site does not relate to a Registered Building but neighbours registered building Old Sail Loft next door. The site is within Port St Mary Proposed Conservation Area.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Approval is sought for the additional use of the property as tourist accommodation.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The dwelling has been subject to a number of previous applications, approval for the dwelling was given in 2011 under 11/01433/B. This was approved with two off road car parking spaces. More recently and fundamental to the assessment of this application is 23/00964/LAW which was approved for the erection of an extension to the front of the property. This extension resulting in the reduction to the car parking of the 2014 application.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area of Port St Mary recognised as Mixed Use on the Area Plan for the South 2013. The dwelling is not indicated to be at any risk of surface water, but appears to sit right on the cusp of the high tidal flood risk zone along the harbour edge. In terms of paragraphs and policies within the Strategic Plan, Paragraph 9.5.8 and Business Policy 13 set out a general presumption in support of private dwellings as tourist accommodation provided it does not compromise the amenity of the neighbours, Environment Policy 23 also addresses changes to neighbouring amenity as a result of development. The general design standards set out in GP2 and the Residential Design Guide

• 2021 shall also be taken into consideration along with Environment Policy 13, Community Policies 7 and 11 in respect of flood risk, minimising criminal activity and reducing spread of fire.
• 4.2 Paragraphs 6.6.1, 6.6.2 and 6.6.3 of the APS2013 seek a vitality and viability of the South through having a mix and range of uses in Mixed Use areas to benefit local community and attract visitors including tourism.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only. - 5.1 Port St Mary Commissioners - no objection (07/07/2023). - 5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - Do not oppose (26/06/2023) - no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and /or parking. Reference is made to a wall being lowered as per annotation but this stems back to the planning history of the house from 2010 and 2011. The application before us now does not propose any physical works. - 5.3 Department of Infrastructure Flood Risk Management - objection (26/06/2023 and 14/07/2023) - the property is in a tidal flood zone, and FRM will not support sleeping accommodation on ground floor or basement levels in flood zones especially when intended for tourist purposes. They suggest a condition stating 'no sleeping accommodation on ground/basement floor'. They also request datum levels to be able to make formal comment. - 5.4 The owners of Columcille, 8 High Street, Port St Mary - objection (28/06/2023) - They state that the site is below their dwelling and any change of use should include a requirement to avoid noise and nuisance from the change of use which could result if there are high numbers of residents/visitors. Smoke and noise tends to impact the higher properties and should be carefully controlled. - 5.5 The owners of Flat 1, Harbourside Apartments - objection (20/07/2023) - they raise concerns in the impact of parking in the area as a result of the proposal and reduced parking or congesting impacting the area. They also raise question about the need for another tourist unit given the number already available in the surrounding area.

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The application seeks approval for the additional use of a residential property to tourist accommodation which is generally to be supported so long as it does not compromise neighbouring amenity. Although there is generally a view in favour of using domestic properties as tourist accommodation, there can be times whereby this is opposed. There have been a small number of refusals given to applications looking to gain the same permission; the use of flats for tourist accommodation could potentially have a damaging effect on the amenities of others through the comings and goings of tourists in comparison to permanent residents, although most are granted approval there has been an instance of one refusal - PA 04/00194/C. - 6.2 In the case of properties like this which are within the settlement and in the town centre there is already a degree of activity in the area and it may be difficult to discriminate the behaviours between a tourist and a permanent resident or to differentiate the comings and goings of each minded that it may be no more apparent than those already living in the property and those in the nearby area. It may be that as a tourist, a person may be out a lot of the time, but may also have a greater number of late nights and be disruptive on return. On the other hand, permanent residents may be at home more, and could be more likely to invite friends or family over for dinner or parties that may be noisy. In general the majority of people

• tend to behave well and raise no concerns, although there will always be a percentage that may not behave. But overall the additional use for tourism is not considered to result in any unacceptable amenity impacts beyond the existing dwelling to cause impact on the neighbours, and minded that the public highway and any noise and smells from users of that highway would be unchanged as a result of the application.
• 6.3 Concern was raised in relation to the erection of an extension to the property which impacted the parking area approved under the original 2014 application. This extension reducing off road parking from 2 spaces to 1 and there was no planning approval in place for these works. As a result of the concerns raised the applicant sought to regularise these works. A separate Certificate of Lawfulness was submitted for the extension and this was assessed and considered under 23/00964/LAW and approved.
• 6.4 Subsequently new and updated information for this application was submitted in relation to floor plans and a supporting statement in which the agent provide responses to representations made on the application too.
• 6.5 The application content coupled with the approval of the Cert. of Law now indicates the property having one available off road parking space. Whether the property is to be occupied by its existing permanent resident or by a tourist the existing parking arrangement and the demand for on street parking is expected to remain unchanged, and so no new or increased highway issues are to be expected. It should also be noted that there are bus stops located in the nearby area, car parks are located a short walk away and that subject to parking restrictions there is some on-street parking nearby which could already be used by current occupants and could also be used by any anticipated tourists. Other Matters (fire, criminal activity and flood risk)
• 6.6 The additional use as tourist use is not expected to result in any changes beyond current occupation in terms of criminal activity nor increase the likelihood of flood risk or spread of fire to the dwelling beyond the existing arrangement, and so the proposal is considered acceptable in these respects.
• 6.7 DOI FRM raise issues in respect of flooding and that there should be no bedroom accommodation at ground floor. The existing dwelling was approved in 2011 and the arrangement with bedroom spaces on the ground floor has not changed since this approval. Flood maps show this site on the cusp of the high tidal flood area. Additional documents provided by the applicant indicate that the dwelling sits a little higher than the road and higher than the harbour shingle.
• 6.8 It's clear that the property is already approved for full residential use with bedrooms at ground floor. Whether for permanent, short term or tourist use, any potential flood risk is to remain so it would be somewhat unreasonable to now demand for no bedrooms at ground floor.
• 6.9 The levels of the site and property will help to limit any potential flood impact but do not completely erase the possibility especially given the position right next to the harbour side where tidal levels coupled with bad weather could result in overtopping. As permanent residents this might be familiar territory whereas for tourists they may not be so familiar with possible risks. The applicant has indicated that as part of the management of the tourist facility they would provide information outlining what to do in any such events.

7.0 CONCLUSION - 7.1 For the reasons set out above the proposal is considered to be acceptable and to comply with the relevant polices of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and there is no demonstrable harm arising from the application. The living conditions of the neighbouring properties are not to be made worse as a result of the proposal nor is there to be any new or

• increased parking demands or highway safety issues expected. There are no physical works proposed and so there is to be no impact on the streetscene or surrounding area, and the site levels help to mitigate any flood risk but in any case it would be unreasonable to refuse in this case given the already established residential use of the property and with bedrooms downstairs.
• 7.2 The application accords with Business Policy 13, Environment Policies 13 and 23, General Policy 2 and Community Policies 7 and 11 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
• (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
• (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
• (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

8.2 The decision maker must determine:

• o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
• o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status

Decision Made : Permitted Date : 07.11.2023 Determining officer

Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management

Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.