Loading document...
Application No.: 17/00025/C Applicant: Richard Michael Best Proposal: Change of use of ground floor residential unit for additional use as tourist accommodation Site Address: 1 High Street Port St. Mary Isle of Man Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Site Visit: 01.02.2017 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the footprint of a three-storey dwelling located at 1 High Street, Port St. Mary. There is a single apartment on the ground floor (and it is the ground floor alone that is the subject of this application), and it is understood from the planning history that the two floors above are also in residential accommodation - although in what form is unclear. The building is situated immediately west of High Street and immediately north of Athol Street. - 1.2 There is a mixture of commercial and residential uses in the area, although the latter appears to be predominant.
2.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 2.1 The ground floor the subject of this application was converted into the present residential apartment under PA 13/91305/B. There have been other applications submitted for change of use at the property prior to this (and prior to the adoption of the Strategic Plan), but none is considered specifically material to the assessment of the current application.
3.0 THE PROPOSAL - 3.1 The current application seeks approval for the ground floor dwelling to also be used as tourist accommodation. The application is not clear on when or for how often it will be used to this end. The application form does not make reference to the proposed tourist use as being 'additional' to the existing residential use: nevertheless, the application has been advertised as being an additional, rather than replacement, use.
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. The Inspector recommended the application be refused for the following reasons (the Minister agreed):
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 as 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:
"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."
"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."
5.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 5.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South as Mixed Use. As such, there is no issue with the principle of the development, and it is considered that paragraph 9.5.8 and Business Policy 13 of the Strategic Plan apply. - 5.2 Paragraph 9.5.8 states: "The use of existing private residential properties as tourist accommodation may be acceptable if it can be demonstrated that it will not compromise the amenities of any neighbouring residents." - 5.3 Business Policy 13 states in full: "Permission will generally be given for the use of private residential properties as tourist accommodation providing that it can be demonstrated that such use would not compromise the amenities of neighbouring residents." - 5.4 Transport Policy 7 states in full: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards."
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 6.1 Highway Services of the DoI offered no objection to the application in comments received 09.02.2017: "The proposal is to change the use of a residential apartment to tourist use.
"The age of the building precludes any off road parking provision. There is unlikely to be an additional burden placed on on road parking due to the change of use from residential to tourist.
"Highway Services does not oppose this application."
6.2 Port St. Mary Commissioners offered no objection to the application in comments received 26th January 2017.
7.0 ASSESSMENT - 7.1 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. - 7.2 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. - 7.3 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. - 7.4 The dwelling is located fairly centrally within the village, on the main route through its centre. The site is therefore already subject to a certain level of noise disturbance by dint of its location as much as the fact that it also finds itself amongst a mixture of commercial and residential uses. The use of the highway as well as the operations of neighbouring businesses - which include public houses as well as a nearby commercial yard - are likely to bring a certain level of disturbance to nearby residents and any concern raised by the current proposal must be viewed in that context. - 7.5 In terms of comments received, it is clear that there is no concern in respect of the possible occupation of this dwelling by tourists. - 7.6 Although there is no off-street parking, this applies equally to the building's use as a dwelling or as tourist accommodation. The view of Highway Services in this regard seems reasonable.
8.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION - 8.1 It is accordingly concluded that the proposal complies with paragraph 9.5.8 and Business Policy 13 and Transport Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan, and the application is recommended for approval. - 8.2 No condition restricting occupancy periods is needed in this instance. Such conditions are usually required where the building the subject of the application would not make for a satisfactory dwelling, or that no assessment to that end had been carried out. In this case there is clearly no concern on this issue given the approval issued to the building's conversion to residential accommodation in 2013.
9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 10.02.2017 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 Drawing 1646-02 Rev A, date-stamped as having been received 11th January 2017.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Permitted Date: 10.02.2017 Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown