Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/90949/C Page 1 of 4
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 24/90949/C Applicant : Mr And Mrs Heather And Stuart Blackley Proposal : Additional use of guest room as bed and breakfast accommodation Site Address : Greenbank 11 Tynwald Road Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1JZ
Planning Officer: Vanessa Porter Photo Taken :
Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 16.09.2024 __
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. Overall, the proposal is unlikely to impact neighbouring amenity above and beyond what is currently in place within the streetscene and as such it is deemed that the proposal complies with Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Act (1999) and Environment Policy 35, General Policy 2, Strategic Policy 8, Environment Policy 22, Business Policies 11 and 13 and Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This decision relates to the following plans and drawings, date stamped received on 15th August 2024; o Covering Letter o Location Plan o Drawing No. 1092-12 __
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/90949/C Page 2 of 4
DOI Highways - no objection Port Erin Commissioners - no comments __
Officer’s Report APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is within the curtilage of "Greenbank" which is a two storey dwelling situated within it's own grounds to the North East of Tynwald Road, Peel. The specific site within the grounds is the first floor of the modern detached garage which lies to the North West of the site. The ground floor is a garage with the first floor being ancillary accommodation.
1.2 There is a suitable amount of off-road parking space provided within the grounds of the dwelling.
PROPOSAL 2.1 The current planning application seeks approval for the additional use of the first floor of the garage as tourist accommodation.
2.2 There are no physical works proposed.
PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There is one previous application which is relevant in the assessment of this application, PA21/00189/B which was for, "Construction of First floor extension over garage and erection of garden shed, which was Permitted with the following condition, "The new accommodation above the garage may be used only as living accommodation ancillary to that in the main house, Greenbank as defined in the approved plans and may not be let or sold off separately. Reason: the proposal is not to create a self-contained unit of accommodation and has not been assessed as such."
PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as "Residential" on the Peel Local Plan 1989 and is situated within a Conservation Area. The property is not situated within a Flood Risk Zone.
4.2 Given the nature of the of the land designation and the property being within a Conservation Area, Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) is the most relevant in the assessment of this application. Followed by paragraph 7.29.2 and Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, which set out development in Conservation Areas will only be permitted where they preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area.
4.3 With regards to the proposed tourist use of the property, the following Strategic Policies are relevant, General Policy 2, Strategic Policy 8, Environment Policy 22, Business Policies 11 and 13 and Transport Policy 7 from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 which set out the general standards towards acceptable development, the acceptability of tourist development provided it does not adversely affect the surrounding area, that neighbouring amenity is not compromised and that there is the recommended amount of parking space available.
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 The following representations can be found in full online;
5.2 Highway Services have considered the proposal and state, "After reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as there is enough hardstanding on-site for parking of visitors and residents." (27.09.24)
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/90949/C Page 3 of 4
5.3 No comments have been received from Peel Commissioners at the time of writing this report. (16.09.24)
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this application are;
6.2 SECTION 18(4) TEST - APPEARANCE 6.2.1 The property is situated within a Conservation Area, as such it is necessary to test the application under section 18(4) of the Town and Country Act (1999), see section 4.2 of this report, on whether the works preserve or enhance the Conservation Area.
6.3.2 When looking at the appearance of the Conservation Area and whether the proposal would impact this, it is noted that the proposed additional change of use does not include any external alterations. With this in mind and noting that the additional use of tourist should not alter the Conservation Area as a whole, the proposal will pass this part of the Section 18(4) test by preserving the Conservation Area.
6.3 SECTION 18(4) TEST - CHARACTER 6.3.1 Turning towards the character of the Conservation Area and whether the works would impact this, tourist accommodation is used in almost the same manner as residential use, with the likelihood that there would not be a change on the overall character of Tynwald Road. As such the proposal would should not impact the character of the Conservation Area and the proposal will pass this part of the Section 18(4) test by preserving the Conservation Area.
6.4 NEIGHBOURING AMENITY 6.4.1 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.
6.4.2 Business Policy 13 indicates 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.
6.4.3 The existing property would be used as a residential property, of which the additional use of this application will enable the owners to part-rent the property for tourist accommodation. The dwelling itself is situated within a residential use and located close to the main village, as such the site would be subject to a certain level of noise disturbance by dint of its location.
6.4.4 It is considered therefore that the use of the existing ancillary accommodation above the garage as tourist accommodation would have a similar impact, whether it is used for tourist or ancillary residential use and therefore would not have a significant impact upon the living conditions of the neighbouring properties.
6.5 HIGHWAY SERVICES 6.5.1 The property supplies enough off street parking within the grounds, as such the additional use of the ancillary accommodation above the garage as tourist, would not impact the parking within the immediate area enough to warrant refusal.
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/90949/C Page 4 of 4
6.5.2 The additional use as tourist use would not result in any changes beyond current occupation in terms of an increase in water usage, criminal activity nor increase the likely hood of spread of fire beyond the existing arrangement, and so the proposal is considered acceptable in these respects.
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 and there is to be no impact on the designated Conservation Area, As such the application is recommended for approval.
RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 8.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).
8.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to: o applicant (in all cases); o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.
8.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10.
8.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required): o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant); o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area; o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and o in the case of a petition, a single representative. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner 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 and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made : Permitted
Date: 25.09.2024
Determining Officer Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Principal Planner
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal