Officer Report 16 January 2012

{{table:15255}} Case Officer: Mr Ian Brooks Photo Taken: Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee

Officer's Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE APPLICATION HAS RECEIVED 5 OR MORE OBJECTION FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

The Site

1. The application site is apartment 47 within the Majestic Apartments development, located off King Edward Road, Onchan. The application site is in an area zoned as "Mixed Use", in particular with an annotation of "Residential or Offices or Tourism", within the Onchan Local Plan 2000.

Proposed Development

1. The application seeks permission for an additional use of residential apartment as tourist accommodation.

Planning Status And Relevant Policies

1. Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application: General Policy 2 and Business Policy 13

1. Business Policy 13 states that "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."

1. In addition to this, the relevant planning policy from the Onchan Local Plan 2000 is O/TRT/P/3

1. Policy O/TRT/P/3 states that "The provision of tourist accommodation may be permitted within the study area where this is either:

• In built-up areas where this will not cause nuisance or disturbance to adjacent residents or
• In rural areas where the development will not result in an adverse impact in terms of the visual impact, traffic, noise or demands upon existing infrastructure. Where tourist accommodation is to be provided in addition to an existing or proposed permanent residential use, adequate additional car parking will be required in proportion to the amount of additional tourist bedspaces to be provided."

Planning History

1. There are no previous planning application considered material in the assessment of the application:

Representations

1. Onchan District Commissioners recommend that the application be approved.

1. Highways Division do not oppose as it has no adverse traffic management, parking or road safety implications.

1. The occupiers of Apartment 44 of Majestic Apartments have objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) Noise nuisance. 2) Overlook and loss of privacy and 3) Security codes for the development would need to be issued to holiday maker, which will means many more people would be aware of how to access the building thus make their security more vulnerable. 4) There is already a shortage of parking at busy periods and this will add extra pressure.

1. The occupiers of No.6 Majestic Apartments have objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) Intrusion of privacy, 2) increased disturbance from people coming and going, 3) allowing the change of use could result in increased insurance and maintenance fees.

1. The occupier of No.33 Majestic Apartments has objected to the application on the following grounds: Security, Insurance and owners privacy must all be taken into account.

1. The occupier of No.30 Majestic Apartments has objected to the application on the following grounds: The proposal would breach a clause within the lease of the property and no approval has been given by the Lessor or the Management Company.

1. The occupier of No.78 Majestic Apartments has objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) The proposal will compromise security of the development with codes being distributed widely, 2) Actions of users of the property may contravene the terms of the lease and may cause noise or other nuisance to the other occupiers, 3) Increased parking pressures. 4) The property is a studio with no private outside space other than a miniscule balcony and not suited for use as temporary holiday accommodation.

1. The occupiers of No.8 Majestic Apartments have objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) Permission has not been given by the Management Company to allow the use of the apartment for Holiday Accommodation, 2) Holiday residents would not be aware of the covenants of the lease and therefore would contravene them, 3) The apartments are private residential dwellings and not a 'Butlins' holiday camp, 4) Security codes would have to be given to every holiday maker leaving security seriously affected.

1. The occupier of No.28 Majestic Apartment, who is also the owner of No's 21, 23 and 60 Majestic Apartments, has objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) The use as holiday accommodation would breach the head lease, 2) The proposal would seriously affect the value of their property. 3) Security codes would have to be given to every holiday maker leaving security seriously affected, 4) Concerned that the landlord would not make holiday residents fully aware of the responsibilities under the covenants of the lease.

1. The Majestic Management Limited have objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) The use as holiday accommodation would breach the lease, 2) Security codes would have to be given to every holiday maker leaving security seriously affected, 3) Concerned the owner would not ensure that her tenants/holidaymakers complied with covenants of the lease, 4) noise nuisance. 5) The Management Company are responsible for the insurance of the buildings of the Estate. The use may affect this insurance. The insurance of household contents taken out by individual owners, may be prejudiced if numerous persons have knowledge of the means of access. 6) If one apartment is allowed to be used in this way, a precedent would be created with the possible risk that the Estate

would degenerate into a holiday village thus reducing the value of the apartments, and ultimately reflected in a reduction in the rateable value.

1. The occupiers of No.14 Majestic Apartments, who own No'46 and 49 Majestic Apartments have objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) Security codes would have to be given to every holiday maker leaving security seriously affected, 2) increased noise, 3) Concerned the apartment will not be used in accordance with Fire Regulations. 4) The use as holiday accommodation would breach the lease, 5) They ask what will happen when someone turns up with a dog, which is contrary to the lease.

1. The occupiers of No. 24 Majestic Apartments have objected to the application on the grounds of general unsuitability for this class of development. In addition it would constitute a breach of the covenant of the lease.

1. The occupier 67 Majestic Apartments, who are also owners of No.16 Majestic Apartments, have objected to the application on the following grounds, 1) the proposal will materially affect the values of adjacent properties. 2) the proposal could result in insurance being denied or increased premiums, 3) Management Company approval is required for the use. 4) The rules and regulations of the estate would be impossible to enforce against tourist occupiers.

1. The occupiers of 87 Majestic Apartments, as owners of No.48 Majestic Apartments, have objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) Security codes would have to be given to every holiday maker leaving security and private being at risk.

1. The Occupiers of Yew Tree House, South Drive, Dorking, as owners of No.50 Majestic Apartments, has objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) the proposal would diminish the status of the apartments as prestigious group of apartments. 2) Prospective tenants are vetted and have references so should problems arise there is some comeback. It would appear unlikely that careful scrutiny of holiday tenants would be considered.

1. Standard comments have been received from the Environmental Health Officer of the Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture

Assessment

1. The area within which the application site is located is identified as being mixed use within the Onchan Local Plan. The proposed additional use of the apartment as tourist accommodation would not remove entirely the residential use of the units and as such the loss of a residential unit would be partial and would have a negligible impact upon the housing stock available for permanent residential use.

1. The application does not propose periods for residential use and tourist use. As such it is appropriate to base this assessment on the assumption that the majority of the year the apartment would be used for tourist accommodation, in other words, the worst case scenario of a high turnover of tourists using the apartment over the majority of the year.

1. The apartment is located on level 2 of Block of apartment within the Majestic Apartments development. Each block of apartments has a separate entrance serviced by a communal area. The proposed use may generate additional noise and nuisance from people who are on holiday and therefore are in a 'holiday frame of mind'. However, this is not necessarily so. The apartment is a studio flat and consequently could not be let to large groups. This would reduce the likelihood of excessive noise occurring. As such it is considered the use of the apartment for tourist use would not be too different from a residential use. It is judged that there would be limited impact upon neighbouring properties resulting from the proposed additional use. The site is within Onchan and is well located for tourists wishing to visit the Douglas and stay close to local amenities. It is judged that the proposal would accord with Business Policy 13 set out above.

Other Matters

1. Many of the objectors have commented about the security codes for the development would need to be issued to holiday maker, which will mean many more people would be aware of how to access the building thus make their security more vulnerable. The issuing of security codes is more of a management issue than a planning issue. The Planning Authority therefore attaches little weight to this issue in the determination of the application.

1. Issues regarding increased insurance and maintenance fees are not material considerations in planning terms and therefore no weight is attached to them in the determination of the application.

1. A number of objectors have commented that the proposed use would breach a clause of the lease of the property. This matter is a civil matter, which can be controlled by the Management Company. Therefore, in planning terms, it is not a material consideration. The Planning Authority therefore attaches no weight to this issue in the determination of the application.

1. A number of the objectors are concerned that holiday maker, who are not aware of the terms of the lease, will contravene the terms of the lease. This again not a planning matter. It is a civil matter for the management company to control. The Planning Authority therefore attaches no weight to this issue in the determination of the application.

1. The proposal would seriously affect the value of their property. This is not a material consideration and the Planning Authority therefore attaches no weight to this issue in the determination of the application.

Recommendation

1. It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions in the attached schedule.

Party Status

1. The local authority is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.

1. The Highways Division is part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part of. As such, the Highways Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.

1. The Environmental Health Officer of the Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture have commented on non-planning matters and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.

1. The Majestic Management Company has interest in the site as it is the management company for the development, and therefore should be afforded party status.

1. The occupier of no.14 Majestic Apartments, as owners of No. 46 and 49 Majestic Apartment, should be afforded party status as No.46 adjoins the application site.

1. The occupiers of No.44 Majestic Apartments have commented on planning matters and are potentially located within the same block as the application site. It is considered they should be afforded party status in this instance.

1. The occupiers of 87 Majestic Apartments, as owners of No.48 Majestic Apartments, should be afforded party status as No.48 adjoins the application site.

1. The Occupiers of Yew Tree House, South Drive, Dorking, as owners of No.50 Majestic Apartments, are potentially located within the same block as the application site; however, they have not commented on planning matter and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.

1. The occupiers of No's 6, 8, 16, 24, 28, 30, 33 and 78 Majestic Apartments have objected on planning and/or non planning matters. They are not located within the same block as the application site and therefore do not have sufficient interest in the site.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Permitted

Date of Recommendation: 09.01.2012

---

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: Notes attached to refusals

C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

C 2. This permission relates to the additional use of Apartments 47 as tourist accommodation as shown in drawing numbers P1, P2 and P3 date stamped 2nd December 2011.

---

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005

Decision Made: ... Committee Meeting Date: ...

Signed: ... Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate

YES/NO