Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
23/00704/C Page 1 of 4
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 23/00704/C Applicant : Mrs Fatma Ceyda Gibson Proposal : Additional use of residential property (class 3.3) as tourist accommodation (class 3.6) Site Address : Bay Cliff 32 High Street Port St Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5DW
Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level :
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 28.07.2023 __
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. The proposal is not considered to result in any new or increased parking demand compared to the permanent residential use and is considered to have acceptable highway impact, and there are no amenity impacts on the neighbours expected and visual impact is to remain unchanged as there are no external works proposed. The dwelling itself is not at any flood risk. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in line with General Policy 2 (b, c, g, h and i), Environment Policies 13 and 23, Business Policy 13 and Community Policies 7 and 11.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the following information all date received 13/06/2023:
==== PAGE 2 ====
23/00704/C Page 2 of 4
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
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 Leeside, High Street whilst they make reference to general parking matters, they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is the curtilage of an existing terraced dwelling 'Bay Cliff', 32 High Street, Port St Mary. The dwelling sits on the hill and above Shore Road. It has a split level layout with accommodation spread over 4 floors. Its front elevation faces the junction with Park Road and its rear elevation facing towards the harbour.
1.2 The site does not relate to a Registered Building but is within Port St Mary Proposed Conservation Area.
1.3 Part of the red line indicates land on the other side of Shore Road being connected to the main dwelling, this is on an area of shingle forming part of the harbour side and is within an area of high tidal flood risk.
1.4 There is no off road parking for the existing dwelling.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Approval is sought for the additional use of the property as tourist accommodation.
2.2 There are no physical works proposed to the outside.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The dwelling has been subject to a number of previous applications for extension and alterations although none are considered to be material to this 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. Whilst part of the red line covers shingle area in the harbour as covered in 1.3, the dwelling itself sits outside of the high tidal flood risk zone and is not at any surface water risk. 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.
==== PAGE 3 ====
23/00704/C Page 3 of 4
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.
5.3 Department of Infrastructure Flood Risk Management - no comments received as of 28/07/2023.
5.4 The owners of Leeside, High Street, Port St Mary - Comments (26/06/2023) - They state that there are parking restrictions in the High Street and there are already more vehicles than parking spaces and as a result cars are often left on double yellow lines, and they raise question as to how this would work for holiday makers.
5.5 The applicant provided a response to the objection dated 19.07.2023 stating that the change of use application will result in a decrease of permanent residents who currently have a full parking permit and tourists visiting will be limited to only 2 hours which they feel will actually improve the situation for other residents.
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.
6.3 The existing property is not indicated to have any available off road parking. A neighbouring property has raised concern that on-street parking is already limited. In this instance whether the property is to be occupied by its existing permanent resident or by a tourist the demand for on street parking is expected to remain the same, and this would not change the already challenging parking situation in Port St Mary. The neighbour also has concerns persons parking on double yellow lines but its felt that this would be a parking control issue and outside the remit of planning.
==== PAGE 4 ====
23/00704/C Page 4 of 4
6.4 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 which is already used by current occupants and could be used by any anticipated tourists.
6.5 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.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 For these reasons the proposal is considered 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 dwelling itself is outside of the flood risk zones. 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 Acting 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 : 03.08.2023
Determining officer Signed : A MORGAN Abigail Morgan
Acting 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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal