Loading document...
Application No.: 18/00747/C Applicant: COA Properties Ltd Proposal: Change of use of 25 tourist apartments to residential Site Address: Cherry Orchard Apartments Bridson Street Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6AN Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken: 21.08.2019 Site Visit: 16.10.2018 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 11.06.2020 _________________________________________________________________ R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons Reasons for Refusal - R 1. The proposal is contrary to the land use designation of the site and it has not been fully demonstrated that the site is no longer commercially viable or cannot be made commercially viable to sufficiently outweigh Tourism Proposal 1 of the Area Plan for the South 2013. - R 2. The proposal makes no provision for public open space contrary to Recreation Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. _______________________________________________________________
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:
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 6(4):
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE APPLICATION PROPOSAL WILL RESULT IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF MORE THAN 8 RESIDENTIAL UNITS
0.0 PREAMBLE - 0.1 The current application was first presented to the Planning Committee on 27/08/2019 and was recommended for deferral by the case officer to allow the applicant time to resolve a number of highway matters and time for comments to be received from DOI (Estates) regarding affordable housing and to allow time to review the late comments received from DfE (Tourism) which stated that they "reluctantly accept that the current facility is no longer financially viable as a hotel". The required comments and information were received and the application was brought back before the Planning Committee on 16/12/2019. Minutes of the meeting can be viewed online in full but can be summarised as follows: - 0.2 The DOI Highway Service representative indicated that a number of matters within the application required clarification from the applicant in order to reach a firm highways conclusion. Based on the information submitted to date there was insufficient parking for the existing and proposed units (with only one space being offered for each unit rather than 1 space for one bedroom apartments and 1.5 spaces for the two bedroom units), and also a requirement for cycle parking space per unit. The DOI Highway Officer explained that floor areas of bedrooms can often indicate an expected level of use, for example a small box room likely being occupied by a small child thus unlikely to have a car, and in this respect if further information was provided in relation to the floor areas of the apartments a further relaxation to the car parking standards could be considered. - 0.3 The members discussed the highway matters, viability and open space of the proposal. One member discussed the current lack of tourist accommodation in the south and particularly one suitable to accommodate larger groups such as coach parties. It was also noted that there had been other recent planning applications submitted in the south that sought approval for purpose built mixed tourist and residential development.
0.4 The Members indicated that it is for the applicant to demonstrate the lack of viability for a tourism facility and any commercial viability. A legal agreement should be mooted requiring retention of the pool, gym etc. There should also be an attendance at the meeting by a representative of Department for Enterprise as to clarify their comments from a tourism perspective. - 0.5 The Committee unanimously agreed to defer its consideration to allow time for the applicant to gather and provide additional information for the application (viability, highways and open space) and it being provided prior to undertaking a site visit. - 0.6 The applicant provided additional information on 07/04/2020 and this was circulated for 21 days for comment. The information and its content can be viewed in full online but their report has been summarised as follows:
0.7 Updated comments on the new information and application are contained at 5.13 and
5.14 of this report.
0.8 In light of this new information the officer's report has been amended and updated and changes have occurred in paragraphs 2.5, 5.13 and 5.13, 6.20, 6.23 and 6.24, and 7.2.
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site is the Cherry Orchard aparthotel complex in Port Erin. The complex has a ground footprint of around 2065 sq m with accommodation set over three floors with the upper floor being contained within the mansard roof. The property has a principal elevation and entrance facing onto Bridson Street in Port Erin and a smaller frontage facing onto Station Road. - 1.2 The aparthotel complex currently comprises a mix of uses including tourist units, long leasehold residential units, a swimming pool and health club (operated separately) and a bar/retail unit. - 1.3 Surrounding the building and within the site are a number of parking spaces (67) most of which are located towards the rear of the property, although a small number of spaces are accessible from Station Road and towards the southern end of the site.
1.4 The existing aparthotel comprises 57 units. 11 have been previously approved for permanent residential use. 21 have been approved for both tourist and residential use. 25 remain in full tourist use.
2.1 The current application proposes the change of use of 25 tourist units within the building to permanent residential use. The 25 units comprise a mix of both single and two bedroom apartments; 8 one bedroom and 17 two bedroom.
2.2 No other changes or external alterations are proposed to the existing building. - 2.3 The application was presented before the Planning Committee on 27/08/2019. The application was requested for a deferral to allow time for the applicant to provide updated parking information, for updated comments to be received from DOI in relation to the affordable housing memorandum and to allow for site visit by the members. - 2.4 Updated information was received from the agent on 15/10/2019 and re-advertised. The updated car parking plan detailed 57 parking spaces, a further 8 spaces to be reserved (not for use by current proposal), 11 visitor car parking spaces along Bridson Street and 8 spaces omitted most of which were outside of existing apartment windows. - 2.5 The most recent information received dated 07/04/2020 states that 80 car parking spaces will be available to residents, 3 spaces for the retail shop and 3 spaces for the swimming pool.
3.1 Most recently the existing bar within the complex has been approved for its conversion to a retail unit under PA 18/01208/C. Over the years the site as a whole has been the subject of many applications including a number of external alterations such as the installation of seating areas and smoking shelters, and a number of applications for the conversion of some of the existing apartments to residential use. Those applications considered most relevant to the assessment of the current application are:
4.1 The Cherry Orchard in its entirety is designated on the Area Plan for the South 2013 (APS) as Tourism (Hotel) and which is specifically referred to in the accompanying Written Statement for the APS:
4.2 Tourism Proposal 1:
"The following hotels have been identified as important to tourism and must be retained for hotel use: the Castletown Golf Links; the Sefton Express Airport Hotel; the Cherry Orchard; and the Falcon's Nest Hotel. Proposals for redevelopment or re-use will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that hotel use is no longer commercially viable."
4.3 The Area Plan for the South 2013 also includes a number of paragraphs referring to tourism in the South:
4.4 Within the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 there are a number of polices and paragraphs referring to new residential development and requirement for affordable housing and provision of open space and a number of paragraphs and policies also referring to tourism and hotels. Those most relevant in this case are:
"8.7.1 Recent Local Plans and Area Plans have included development briefs guiding the design and layout of land which is zoned for residential use. Such briefs should not needlessly prescribe design, but should indicate site-specific constraints, the need for provision of public facilities or amenities (such as play areas, neighbourhood shops, or land for schooling, open space, or road improvements), and, if appropriate, the maximum or minimum density and the need for the inclusion of an element of affordable housing. Where these briefs state that an optimum density should be achieved this should not be used as an argument for higher density development which has an adverse effect on the residential amenity of adjoining properties or the character of the area."
"The loss of facilities such as neighbourhood shops in towns and or village shops and public houses reduces customer choice and can also necessitate people travelling further to meet their needs. This is a particular problem in rural areas where village shops, post offices and public houses can be central to village life. It would be preferable to retain viable facilities, or those that can be made viable and where a change of use or re-development is proposed developers will be expected to show evidence of attempts to market the property as a business in these areas."
"The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards."
"Apartments 1 space for 1 bedroom; 2 spaces for 2 or more bedrooms… These standards may be relaxed where development:
4.5 In addition to the Area Plan for the South 2013, it is also relevant to consider how the appeal inspector considered the document following its initial draft release in 2009. The plan process (2008 - 2013) including stages of initial scope issue and options in 2008, public consultation, modifications, public inquiry, consideration by Planning Inspector and subsequent modifications, adoption by the Department and approval by Tynwald in early 2013.
PC 118, 119 and 120, Map 3 is amended in response to representation 038. 116 asks how Planning Officers decide whether tourist accommodation is still commercially viable. As with many planning issues, I am sure the Department's Officers gather information from various sources prior to making a decision, including advice from the Department of Economic Development - Tourism Division. The Area Plan cannot define such circumstances as that would be too detailed for a document intended to give advice on land-use matters."
Copies of representations received can be viewed in full on the government's website. This report contains summaries only. These comments have been categorised into three dated periods:
Comments Received Prior to 19/08/2019
5.1 Port Erin Commissioners - OBJECTIONS (dated 15/08/2018, 13/12/2018 and 24/04/2019):
5.2 The Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highway Services - DO NOT OPPOSE (17/08/2018) There would be no changes to the existing site access and parking arrangements as part of the proposals. There should not be a significant increase in site traffic and parking demand as a result of the proposed change of use from tourist to permanent residential use, and therefore no new highway issues should arise from the development. - 5.3 Head of Visit Isle of Man (DfE) provided initial comments (08/11/2018) on the application summarised as:
They confirm on 26.11.18 that the additional information submitted does not change their position.
5.4 DOI Head of Commercial, Public Estates and Housing Division provided two memorandums. The first dated 24/08/2018 clarified the position of the DOI Estates in terms of affordable housing and that consideration be given by the Planning Committee to include a requirement for affordable housing based on the 25% calculation in Housing Policy 5. This provision having to be a commuted sum as the Department does not accept leasehold 33 apartments. The second memorandum dated 28/03/2019 furthered on the first one by stating that following an assessment of the value of the units on the open market that the units in terms of value would be in their own right affordable units and likely sold in the market under the value of those apartments in the Fixed Scheme, and as such the DOI would not recommend that a Commuted Sum be sought. - 5.5 Verbal discussions with Public Estates and the applicant have been carried out since the 28/03/2019 in calculating a Commuted Sum for the affordable units. No updated memorandum had been received prior to the Planning Committee meeting 27/08/2019. - 5.6 Tenant of a Cherry Orchard apartment - In Support (31/10/2018)
5.7 Owner of Wimple Nook, Bradda Road - Comments (30/07/2018) o The application is vague; there is no information as to how the car parking will be configured with only written info stating there will be 120 spaces, with comments stating that parking requirement for current tenants far exceeds their needs means that reliance on current tenants as grounds for stating that parking is sufficient is flawed. Future occupants potentially will require more parking. The density of housing proposed here is not in keeping with the general area which is commercial and residential houses. - 5.8 Representative of 21 Cherry Orchard - OBJECTION (10/09/2018 & 14/11/2018 & 06/08/2019)
5.9 Representative of 20 Cherry Orchard - comments (03/04/2019) o The length of time in determining the application is causing anxiety to residents at cherry orchard with effects on property values as a result of the ongoing nature of the application. Request that the application move forward to a conclusion and decision being taken. Comments received between 19/08/2019 -16/12/2019
5.10 Head of Visit Isle of Man (DfE) - provided comments on 21/08/2019 which were verbally updated to the planning committee on the day of the meeting 27/08/2019. These comments stating that "in considering the application in light of Tourism Proposal 1, we requested a meeting with the applicant where we were provided with financial information which demonstrated that the facility is no longer viable as a hotel. We also had regard to the planning history of the site, which illustrated that the balance of the site use now appears to be residential, and not tourism. Having had regard to this information, we reluctantly accept that the current facility is no longer financially viable as a hotel."
5.11 DOI Highway Services - OBJECTION (22/11/2019) - The amended plan indicates that there would be a total of around 75 on-site car parking spaces (although at least 3 of these spaces would block access to other car parking areas). In addition there are 9 spaces contained within laybys on Bridson Street; these spaces are included within the 'red line' but are also within the adopted highway. These on-street spaces cannot be included in addressing the car parking requirements for residents. There are also existing spaces to be omitted and some reserved, these also need to be deducted from the overall total to determine what parking provision will remain for the proposal. On review of the most recent information and the village centre location it is considered that a relaxation of standard to 1 space per 1 bedroom dwelling and an average of 1.5 spaces per 2 bedroom dwelling would be acceptable. However it is not clear from the information what ratio of apartments are 1 and 2 bed apartments and therefore car parking provision cannot be determined. It is also required that secured covered cycle parking be provided with at least 1 space per dwelling. The application is not acceptable as it's likely that there is a substandard amount of on-site car parking provision. Further information is required to allow a full highway assessment of the proposal. - 5.12 DOI Head of Commercial, Public Estates and Housing Division - provided an updated memorandum on 06/12/2019 stating figures for a commuted sum being provided in the event that any of the 25 units were sold above the affordable housing price, £120,000 for 1 bed and £140,000 for two bed. In the event that any or all units are sold above that price, 25% of the uplift would be given as a commuted sum. Comments received after 16/12/2019 - 5.13 Department of Infrastructure - Do not oppose subject to condition (26/05/2020) -
possible to the facilities open to the general public. Waste storage and collection is to be retained. The extra detail provided now overcomes the highway concerns, allowing no objection to be raised subject to a condition for the provision of bicycle parking.
6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of the current application are:
6.2 The land is current zoned on the Area Plan for the South (APS) 2013 as Tourism (hotel). The plan process for the APS took place between 2008 - 2013, during this time the Cherry Orchard had already been approved for the change of use of 32 of the 57 units to include residential use and was at the time of the Inspectors assessment already occupied by permanent residents and by tourists. The Inspectors inclusion of Cherry Orchard within Tourism Proposal 1 is carefully deliberated, the Inspector's report for the APS supports Tourism Proposal 1 and all the sites selected within it. The Inspector states the necessity of the policy proposal in the retention of adequate hotel facilities in the south of the Island and to support the attractiveness and economic viability of the Island as a whole. Specialist and short break
hotels should be encouraged and redevelopment or re-use of existing tourist accommodation resisted unless they're unviable and viability would be for the Department's Officer's to determine, and based on evidence supplied to them and in gathering advice from the appropriate Tourism Division. Tourism Proposal 1 deliberately safeguards those tourist facilities stated within it including the tourists use at Cherry Orchard.
6.3 Head of Visit Isle of Man (DfE) provided initial comments on the application stating that assessing the economic viability of the proposal was not possible as the application lacked any evidence of viability, and failed to demonstrate how the business had been marketed. DfE stated that the Cherry Orchard accounts for around 16% of the self-catering bed spaces in Port Erin and the South. There would be concern at the loss of the Tourism bed space in Port Erin and the consequential loss of the Tourism land designation of the site going forward.
6.4 Further information was provided by the applicants following which Tourism DfE provided updated comments stating that they accept that the current facility is no longer financially viable as a hotel. - 6.5 Operational Policy on Section 13 Agreements Nov 2018 provides guidance in relation to Section 13 agreements and where applications do not comply with the relevant policy requirements of the Development Plan that the provision of a viability assessment can be helpful. In this specific case Tourism Proposal 1 states that any change of use to the Cherry Orchard needs to demonstrate that the existing use is no longer viable. Therefore the provision of such a viability assessment is crucial in the assessment of the application and must be carried out by a suitably qualified and experienced practitioner. - 6.6 Such viability assessment would demonstrate the financial viability of a development project which is tested by calculating the gross development value (GDV) of the completed development and comparing this to the development costs. If the development costs are higher than the GDV then the development is not viable. In the case of Cherry Orchard the physical development already exists and the viability assessment needs to reflect this scenario. However, the nature of such development is not uncommon, the conversion of guesthouses/townhouses into multiple flats for example. - 6.7 Over the years a number of the units (33) have been approved for residential use and a number of units have been sold on a long term lease basis. It is explained in a number of written documents provided by the applicant that the site has been subject to a 4 year Rent and Rates Tribunal which imposed conditions for the property which were designed to ensure the use of the building for a single purpose only, either all tourist or all residential use. The option was put to the owner/applicant by the Tribunal whether they would be prepared to repurchase the apartments that had been sold, but this was not an affordable option available to them. As a result the tribunal set cost allocations with percentages of heating, management and reception costs were considered and chargeable rates set for residential apartments (for example, tourist units were charged the same communal heat rate as each residential apartment although these tourist units were often unused in winter and tourist occupants out during the day). - 6.8 Various written statements have been provided by the applicant since submission of the application, these statements containing explanatory information on how the status and operation of the has business evolved and how it has been marketed over the years through advertising, package holidays and travel agents, internet bookings and interest groups (coach parties, golfers). A degree of information has also been provided in the running costs of the business and including an estimated statement of affairs as of Nov 2017. However it is noted that this has not been provided by a qualified experienced practitioner contrary to the Operational Policy on S13 Agreements.
6.9 An example of where another planning application has been required to demonstrate viability is appeal AP18/0022 which was lodged against the refusal of a PA 17/01189/B for the demolition of Waterfall Hotel and erection of four terraced dwellings with associated parking and amenity space at Waterfall Hotel, Shore Road, Glen Maye. This appeal was dismissed by the Minister in line with the decision of the Planning Committee and the application refused on the grounds that it had not been demonstrated that the premises are not commercially viable or could not be made so, contrary to Community Policy 4. The Inspector noted in the report that the Waterfall Hotel 'whether by normal wear and tear or neglect, is now in a state of dilapidation, requiring substantial investment in renovation before it could be reopened' - 6.10 The Cherry Orchard building has a long history of association with the tourism industry and has served the community with a facility providing both tourist units, gym and pool facilities and a function room, bar and restaurant. The Inspector in appeal 18/0022 noted that 'some rural businesses appear viable, for example, the Shore Hotel on Bay ny Carrickey, the Hawthorn in German and The Forge in Braddan, formerly the Hop Garden, following some renovation and relaunches'. In the case of the Waterfall the applicant provided financial accounts for several years of operation as their evidence in an attempt to show that the property was not and would remain commercially unviable. The Inspector acknowledged that the applicant had 'genuinely sought a suitable tenant to carry on the current hotel and public house use of the existing building on the appeal site' however furthered this to state that 'it is of concern that the evidence of non-viability put forward by the Appellants, whilst genuinely based on experience and certified accounts, is nonetheless limited to largely anecdotal assertion drawn from enquiries within the known business community of the Isle of Man. Importantly, no professional marketing evidence has been put forward to show that the appeal property has been advertised and promoted in a manner consistent with its apparent potential to attract international tourist interest'. - 6.11 While its appreciated that the current site at Cherry Orchard is not solely a public house and hotel like the Waterfall, a renovation and re-launch of the Cherry Orchard in making the site viable has not been demonstrated, similarly no professional marketing evidence has been provided to demonstrate its advertising or promotion for sale in its entirety on or off the Island. The applicants have indicated that the site is no longer viable specifically to them, and that the directions of the Rents and Rates Commissioners have made it a 'difficult financial position impossible for any hotel operator', however this may be considered a predetermination of the sites future.
iii) Principle of the development Tourism Proposal 1
6.12 DfE have accepted that the current facility is no longer financially viable as a hotel, however, based on the requirements of the Operational Policy on S13 agreements it is not considered that the content or credibility of the information provided is sufficient to justify the permanent loss of the tourism land use designation of the site to outweigh the Inspectors conclusions of Tourism Proposal 1 of the Area Plan for the South 2013.
iv) Housing Policy 5
6.13 This requires developments of 8 dwellings or more being provided with 25% provision of affordable homes. While the applicants have stated that in terms of monetary value the units are to be 'affordable', this does not meet with the specific definition of an affordable home, which is required to be provided directly to the Department or Local Authority and meet with the criteria of the Department's House Purchase Assistant Scheme 2004. This scheme does not allow lease hold units to be considered affordable homes, as each of the 25 proposed units would be leasehold they would fail the required criteria.
6.14 Following discussions with the applicant and DOI Estates an updated memorandum was provided setting out a calculated commuted sum based on the uplift of sales between the affordable unit price and the market sale price, with 25% of the uplift being provided as a commuted sum. - 6.15 The affordable housing requirement in terms of physical units would be the provision of
6.25 affordable units. The commuted sum calculation as set out above would require 25% of any uplift in sales; if no units sell over the affordable housing figures no commuted sum would be paid. If each of the units sold for £5,000 over the affordable housing unit the commuted sum total would be £31,250 (5,000 x 25 / 25%).
6.16 The situation at Cherry Orchard is unique in that the property and units already exist, however the policy states that any new development requires the provision of affordable units, changes of use constitute development and therefore this application is for new residential development. The most recent memorandum sets a commuted sum figure calculation and it is possible that a S13 Agreement could be entered into and therefore this is in itself not a reason for refusal.
v) Recreational Policy 3 (open space Appendix 6)
6.17 This policy states where appropriate new development of 10 or more dwellings must make provision for recreational and amenity space in accordance with the standards of Appendix 6. There are 8 one bed apartments and 17 two bed apartments. The total open space requirement for these 25 units has been calculated as 1472sq m (8x48 = 384 + 17x64= 1088). - 6.18 The important part of the policy is perhaps the opening two words 'where appropriate…'. The development physically is not new, however the proposal for new residential units is a new development. Unlike the development of a new housing estate which generally requires open space (children's play equipment, playing fields etc) being integrated into the overall design, the proposal here being an existing building and within the limitations of the existing village would make the integration of open space within the site impossible. Given that it is not a new development it could be argued that the requirement is not appropriate here. - 6.19 Previous planning applications for the site converting the units to residential pre-date the policies in the Strategic Plan that require affordable homes and open space being provided. To date, there has been no contribution to affordable homes or open space. The quality of life on the Island and the quality of our environment are improved by attractive open space and by facilities for recreation and other community purposes. Perhaps the Cherry Orchard facility was considered to previously offer a degree of community facility and recreation with the pool, gym and restaurant/bar area. However, some of these elements have been lost over recent years and thus no longer offer a contribution to the local community. - 6.20 The applicants most recent information 07/04/2020 states that Recreation Policy 3 was intended for new sites being development and not so much existing buildings and that such an approach has been taken in the conversion of Victorian hotels in Douglas into apartments into open space, there is no reference made to any specific application and thus no further investigation or comment can be made in this respect. However, in this specific case, in light of the findings for the lack of open space and the loss of community facilities over the years, a commuted sum would be considered appropriate in lieu of provision of open space No figures have been provided in this respect and therefore the proposal fails Recreational Policy 3. There is also a lack of uncertainty for the protection of the community facilities that do remain and which could be lost to subsequent applications being made similar to those for the change of use of the function room.
6.21 The local commissioners expressed parking concerns in their initial comments and most recently the DOI have objected stating that the application does not make clear the situation at the site or the total numbers of one and two bed facilities. As such there cannot be a full assessment of the site parking needs. The site also fails to provide any cycle parking. - 6.22 The Highway Officer has indicated a relaxation to the parking standards 1 space for 1 bed and 1.5 spaces for 2 bed. The calculations for the existing and proposed units would therefore be: Proposed 25 units = 33.5 spaces (8 x 1 bed = 8 spaces, 17 x 2 bed = 25.5 spaces) Existing 32 units = 46 spaces (4 x 1 bed = 4 spaces, 28 x 2 bed =42 spaces) Whole site total requirement = 79.5 spaces Plus cycle parking @ 1 per unit. - 6.23 On review of the most recent drawing it is understood that 80 spaces will be available to residents and DOI Highway Services are content with the scheme. Car parking now meets the stardards as above, however as highlighted in the report presented to Planning Committee 16/12/2019, re-instating the spaces in front of the apartment windows would tip the parking availability above the requirement but would result in amenity impacts on the permanent residents of those apartments which vehicles would be parked in front of. On further review of the application, it is understood that these apartments including No.21 are in permanent occupancy already and on looking at aerial photography and Google streetview it appear that vehicles have parked in this area previously. While it is not best practise and it would be for the applicants to ensure fire safety and equality compliance, it is not judged that the parking arrangement as proposed would be so significantly adverse as to warrant a result on amenity grounds alone. - 6.24 In terms of bin storage, the existing site over the years has accommodated a multitude of uses and likely attracted large volumes of people especially during peak seasons and during functions at the building. An increase of bins within the bin storage area would accommodate greater volumes of rubbish; similarly the increased frequency of bin pick-ups would accommodate any increased rubbish volume. In this respect the proposal is considered acceptable. Highway Services accept the proposed scheme subject to the existing bin stores being maintained and bicycle parking being provided.
7.1 The planning history of the site, the tourism land use designation coupled with the circumstances and conclusions of the Rent and Rates Tribunal between the applicant and existing residential users has made the current application very difficult to consider and assess. The applicant has provided additional information in order to resolve the concerns of objectors and the Commissioners regarding parking and amenity, and have also sought to provide viability information in seeking to demonstrate that the tourism use was no longer viable. The applicants have also sought to discuss matters of the Section 13 agreement for an affordable housing commuted sum.
7.2 However, in light of the findings as set out in 6.0 of this report, it is not considered in this instance that viability has been sufficiently demonstrated as to justify the permanent loss of the tourism land use designation of the site contrary to Tourism Proposal 1 of the Area Plan for the South 2013. It is considered that the most recent memorandum from DOI indicates that a S13 agreement could be entered into in addressing affordable housing in line with the requirements of Housing Policy 5, however open space has not been provided nor a commuted sum in lieu of its provision and in this respect the proposal fails Recreational Policy 3. The parking provision and arrangement has now been accepted by DOI Highway Services and in this respect does not contravene Transport Policy 7. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:
8.2 The Planning Committee must determine:
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.
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 : …Refused……….... Committee Meeting Date:…13.07.2020
Signed :…………L KINRADE………….. 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.
Application No. : 18/00747/C Applicant : COA Properties Ltd Proposal : Change of use of 25 tourist apartments to residential Site Address : Cherry Orchard Apartments
Bridson Street Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6AN Planning Officer : Miss Lucy Kinrade Presenting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer’s Report
New representations were verbally updated to the Members and as a result the Interest Person Status (IPS) was updated and recommended as follows, and was accepted and agreed by the Members:
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS It was decided that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:
It was decided 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 6(4):
It was decided 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 6(4):
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown