Officer Report

Application No.: 17/00178/B Applicant: Ballabeg Property Limited Proposal: Alterations to facilitate change of use of ground floor retail unit (class 1) to tourist accommodation and first floor apartment from permanent residential to tourist accommodation Site Address: The Stores Main Road Ballabeg Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 4HB Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 21.03.2017 Site Visit: 21.03.2017 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OWING TO THE NATURE OF THE PLANNING HISTORY HERE AND ALSO BECAUSE THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BUT THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE ZONING APPLICABLE TO THE SITE AS ADOPTED ON THE AREA PLAN FOR THE SOUTH 2013.

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the curtilage of an empty building situated on the southern corner of the A7 highway in Ballabeg that provides retail space at the ground floor and a two-bedroom residential apartment on the floor above, which is accessed via an external staircase to the rear of the building. There is also attic space above. This building was built as a replacement to a former shop on the site that was approved just less than ten years ago but not complete until 2010. - 1.2 The building has a somewhat traditional form and massing, along with a stone front elevation. While the ground floor fenestration is somewhat haphazard, this in part reflects the positioning of the shop front window and also the garage space: the windows above are evenly spaced and the pitched roof dormers above similarly so. The rear elevation is, again, rather more haphazard in terms of its window and door positions and sizes, with the rear and side elevations finished in render. - 1.3 In addition to the integral garage, two parking spaces are available at the front of the building (albeit that the use of one of these would render the garage inaccessible), while there is also a small public car park roughly 60m to the west. - 1.4 It is understood that the building has never had tenants, either retail or residential. There does not appear to be a planning condition requiring the occupation of the apartment by anyone associated with the commercial space below.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the conversion of the building into two self-contained tourist units. The first floor would remain 'as is', while the ground floor would be converted into a

• one-bedroom apartment with separate lounge, kitchen and bathroom. The garage would be shared between the two apartments: access to the ground floor apartment would be through the front entrance door while that to the first floor apartment would remain via the external staircase.
• 2.2 At the front elevation, the physical works proposed comprise the replacement of the retail unit's picture window with a pair of windows (apparently sliding sash) and the replacement of the other, smaller ground floor window with an obscure-glazed unit as this would serve the bathroom. To the rear, one new window (again apparently sliding sash) would be installed at the ground floor to serve the proposed bedroom. No alterations are proposed to the side elevations.
• 2.3 A letter on behalf of the owners has been included within the application, which explains that despite enquiries having been received none has apparently represented a serious appetite for another retail unit in the area in the past or medium- to long-term. As the property has lain dormant since its completion the directors of the company have "reluctantly" agreed to look for alternative uses for the property. The letter also identifies that the proposal would comply with the government's stated ambitions of providing high quality tourist accommodation, noting that the site is situated adjacent a main bus route as well as being near to a number of tourist facilities and established settlements with a variety of services, as well as the airport. They believe that the building's location lends itself to use by tourists interested in various outdoor pursuits, as well as railways and heritage tourism opportunities.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The principle of demolishing the previous shop to be replaced by a shop with residential accommodation above was approved under PA 06/00347/A; the reserved matters were approved under PA 08/01266/REM. A subsequent, Detailed application (09/00919/B) sought a different design for the building, but this was refused on grounds related to design (though not making reference to adopted planning policies): the decision was not taken to appeal. - 3.2 It would appear, however, that the building has not been constructed in line with approved drawings. Dormer windows are sited on the rear roof plane, as were even-spaced windows in the front elevation, but these reflect the arrangement on the refused application, while there is a garage door in place that appeared on neither the approved or refused schemes. Other discrepancies include a solid rear staircase (that approved was open and supported by poles), the insertion of a garage door (approved was an open car port), and the size and position of a rear rooflight. - 3.3 However, it would appear that the building in place has been complete for a period longer than the four-year limit during which enforcement action can be considered and, in any case and without prejudice, it is objectively considered that the building in place is of a better design than either the approved or refused schemes.

4.0 OTHER RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 There have been other applications of this kind on the Island in recent years, and invariably these were approved, including at Thie Fuinnee on Queens Road (PA 16/00993/C). Inspectors considering appeals on such proposals have been concerned about how additional comings and goings raise the potential for disturbance to neighbours more than is associated with permanent occupation. Other concerns have related to the view that the higher turnover of occupants would be less likely to result in the occupants getting to know the neighbours, undermining the community spirit of the area. - 4.2 A similar conclusion was reached more recently in respect of a proposal to add tourist use to a residential apartment at the Empress Apartments in Douglas (PA 14/01089). The Inspector recommended the application be refused for the following reasons:

• Reason 1 "Contrary to Business Policy 13 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, the applicants have failed to demonstrate that the use of Apartment 43 as tourist accommodation would not compromise the amenities of neighbouring residents."
• Reason 2 "The short-term letting of Apartment 43 could have an unacceptably adverse effect on living conditions in Empress Apartments, contrary to General Policy 2(g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan."

4.3 The key issue in the Inspector's report is that of demonstrable harm. She noted that there had been no letters in support of the proposal, and also that the weight of feeling against the proposal seemed to relate as much to the "safe, tranquil and well-ordered living environment that Empress Apartments provides," which is "a fragile situation, and one that could easily be disrupted by incidents of anti-social behaviour". - 4.4 The Inspector appears to have been persuaded that there was a clear element of community feeling within Empress Apartments. This, along with the level of concern demonstrated by the residents of the building and a lack of any supporting statement from the applicants, were such as to indicate that the proposal would cause demonstrable harm to the amenity of the residents of the building contrary to Business Policy 13. It is appropriate to conclude that this finding is a key material consideration in the assessment of applications for similar proposals in future, while also remembering the important principle that every application should be treated on its own merits. - 4.5 It is interesting to note that the Inspector recommended a pair of conditions (in addition to the standard condition requiring the use be begun within four years of the approval's issuance) should the Minister have been minded to approve the application:

• Condition 2 "The use hereby approved shall be for a limited period of 2 years from the date of this approval. On or before the expiry of the 2-year period, any future use of Apartment 43 as tourist accommodation shall be discontinued.

"Reason: A 2-year trial period would provide useful evidence about the effect, if any, that the approved change of use has had on living conditions at Empress Apartments."

• Condition 3 "During the 2-year trial period, the owner of Apartment 43 shall keep a written record of the number of days the apartment is used for tourist accommodation, and the duration of each letting period. The written record shall be made available to the Department for inspection at its request.

"Reason: To assist in the assessment of the effect, if any, that the approved change of use has had on living conditions at Empress Apartments."

4.6 In the event, however, the application was refused for the reasons set out by the Inspector.

4.7 More recently, Planning Committee assessed PA 17/00127/C, which sought approval for the additional use of a residential apartment as a tourist unit in Peel. This received a proportionally significant level of objection from owners and occupiers of other apartments within the building, and the Committee approved the application on 20th March 2017 by a margin of four votes to three, but only for an 18-month trial period and with a requirement for the apartment owner to keep a record of visitors staying in the apartment and any comments received during their stay. - 5.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

5.1 The site is zoned as Residential on Map 6 of the Area Plan for the South. (Under the Arbory and East Rushen Plan it was zoned as Retail.) All the land surrounding it to the southwest (and

bordered by the A7 to the north and east) is zoned for Parkland, which is a zoning carried through from the Arbory and East Rushen Plan. The land to the north, northwest and northeast is largely zoned as Residential, along with a zoning for the Community Hall use as well.

5.2 In view of the above, it is considered that General Policy 2, Business Policies 11, 12, 13 & 14 and Transport Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan apply. - 5.3 Of clearest relevance in this case, however, is considered to be Community Policy 4:

"Development (including the change of use of existing premises) which involves the loss of local shops and local public houses, will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that the use is no longer commercially viable, or cannot be made commercially viable."

- 6.0 REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure commented on the application as follows on 17th March 2017:

"The proposal is to change the use of an empty shop unit and flat to tourist accommodation. There is car parking provided on site for 2 vehicles and a garage is provided for motorcycles or pushbikes.

"The existing use as a shop and apartment is likely to have a higher traffic generation than the proposed tourist use.

"Highway Services does not oppose this application."

6.2 Arbory Commissioners commented in comments dated 18th March 2017 that they had no comments to make. - 7.0 ASSESSMENT

7.1 The site's re-zoning to Residential perhaps reflects the difficulties the owners have had in finding a retail enterprise willing to take up the property.

7.2 Although the Strategic Plan establishes a general presumption in favour of proposals such as this, there are occasions where the change in nature and character of a building in the manner proposed can be found to be unacceptable.

7.3 In view of the Inspector's assessment of the proposal at Empress Apartments (Section 4 of this report, above), it is reasonable to consider that the acceptability of the current proposal will turn on the level of concern raised. - 7.4 It is difficult to assess how an individual person would behave whether they be a tourist or permanent resident. As a tourist, a person may be out a lot of the time, but may also have greater late nights and be disruptive on return. On the other hand, permanent residents may be at home more of the time, but be more likely to invite friends or family over for dinner or parties that may be noisy. In general terms, however, the majority of people tend to behave well and raise no concerns, although there will always be a percentage that might not, whether they are a permanent resident or otherwise. - 7.5 In terms of comments received, it is clear that there is no concern regarding the building's use as tourist accommodation. It is therefore concluded that the application complies with Business Policy 13. - 7.6 There must be some concern that the site is not particularly sustainable, and were the site zoned as 'Retail' then it is quite possible that this alone would be sufficient to raise an objection to

• the application. The site's use as retail would fulfil a need slightly wider than Ballabeg itself (people driving home from work needing groceries, for example), and therefore a rural retail use is sometimes better located outside of established retail centres - as is hinted at by the protective wording of Community Policy 4.
• 7.7 While the building is not located within an established centre, it is zoned as Residential. Therefore, the principle of its use for residential and tourism purposes seems to be supported by the development plan, even if Ballabeg does not benefit from a particularly wide variety of services / facilities. The redevelopment of the site for a single residential dwelling would comply with the zoning, even if that seems a little counter-intuitive given the lack of facilities within Ballabeg. However, it is on a main bus route that allows it to be well-connected to both nearby settlements and those further afield. This also means that the site and the surrounding land is subject to a certain level of road noise from what is a fairly well-used highway.
• 7.8 The proposal would also re-use existing and redundant fabric, which, although not a requirement of any applicable policy in this case, is worth bearing in mind because such a requirement is made of buildings in areas not zoned for development, and which are therefore generally rural or otherwise not especially sustainably located. It is concluded that the proposed use is not at such significant odds with Business Policy 11 as to warrant the application's refusal.
• 7.9 It is clearly unfortunate that the building has not found an end-user along the lines originally intended, but equally there has been a building in place here for some time. So, while to recent visitors it will appear somewhat out of place - a new building situated essentially on the edge of a field otherwise devoid of development - to longer term residents it will be appreciated as having a longer history than this. Now that the building is there, it is considered appropriate that some form of use be found for it since it is clear from the application and local knowledge that the building has been for sale for a considerable period at a figure that does not seem unreasonable. Even if there is limited marketing information submitted with the application to establish this, it is concluded that the shop use cannot be judged as being commercially viable. Accordingly, its loss to alternative uses would comply with Community Policy 4.
• 7.10 In view of the acceptable impacts arising from the proposed use as already outlined, it is concluded that the application complies with the relevant policies and is accordingly recommended for approval.

- 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• o The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
• o The Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; and
• o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted

Date of Recommendation: 21.03.2017

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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

The development hereby approved relates to Drawings 1765-01, 1765-02 and 1765-sk01, datestamped as having been received 15th February 2017.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Decision Made : …Permitted.. Committee Meeting Date:…03.04.2017

Signed :………E RILEY……….. Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

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.