Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90712/C
Page 1 of 9
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90712/C Applicant : Jing Wen Proposal : Change of use of ground floor to house of multiple occupation Site Address : Ainsdale 2 Empire Terrace Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 4LE
Principal Planning Officer: Belinda Fettis Photo Taken :
Site Visit : 10.09.2025 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 07.10.2025 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal
R 1. The proposal for four new bedrooms on the ground floor of no.2 Empire Terrace fails to accord with General Policy 2(h) in providing satisfactory amenity standards for the four bedrooms and; fails to accord with Housing Policy 17(b) in respect of the ground floor front bedrooms and Housing Policy 17(a) and (b) in respect of the ground floor rear bedrooms, therefore the proposal does not accord with the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 2. The proposal for the ground floor bedroom adjacent the boiler room fails to meet the Housing (Standards) Regulations 2017.
__
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:
o Highways Services - comment did not object and the application is refused. o Douglas City Council - comment did not object and the application is refused.
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given the Right to Appeal because: o Landlords, Ravenswood, 12 Mona Drive, Douglas - objection submitted within 20m of the application site.
__
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90712/C
Page 2 of 9
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the curtilage of a mid-terrace, 4 story building with projecting bay windows. The property is elevated from the road and separated from the road by steps and an outside patio area with shrubs. A service lane exists at the rear.
1.2 The building is operated as a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) having recently acquired a Lawful Use Certificate for 15 rooms to accommodate up to 16 people. The ground floor area is excluded and is shown as being two ensuite staff rooms, store room, kitchen, office and manager/dining area.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks a 'Change of use of ground floor to house of multiple occupation'. This is to incorporate the ground floor within the rest of the building as a HMO. The proposal would create 4 new bedrooms on the ground floor, 2 at the rear with ensuite, 2 using an existing bathroom on the first floor.
2.2 In support of the proposal plans, a statement and updated covering letter have been submitted.
2.3 The ground floor is already divided providing a separate room for bicycle storage from the entrance hallway, separate door to the kitchen dining living room off which there is a corridor leading to two ensuite 'staff rooms'.
2.4 The proposal is to construct a corridor from the entrance hallway with access to the kitchen dining area. The living area would be divided in two to create 2 bedrooms accessed from the new corridor. The occupants of these rooms would use bathroom facilities on the first floor.
2.5 All occupants would share the kitchen dining area.
2.6 Rooms measured electronically from the existing and proposed plan therefore approximate and where provided, taken from plan.
2.7 Rear bathroom (2.4sqm) / bedroom (7.41sqm) next to boiler room: 1.17m x 2m (2.4sqm) / 3.9m x 1.9m (7.41sqm)
2.8 Rear bathroom (3.6sqm) / bedroom (10.3sqm) next to kitchen: 1.2m x 3m (3.6sqm) / 2.5m x 3m + 1.2m x 1.9m (10.3sqm)
2.9 Kitchen: 14sqm
2.10 Existing dining / living room: 38.27sqm 8x 4.5 = (36) +1.3 x 1.4 (1.82) + 0.7 x 1.3/2 = 0.45
2.11 Proposed dining room: 29.6sqm (stated)
2.12 Proposed front bedroom (1) 9.9sqm (stated)
2.13 Proposed front bedroom (2) 13.1sqm (stated)
2.14 There are no external alterations to the fabric of the building only internal reconfiguration of space.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90712/C
Page 3 of 9
3.1 Site Specific 3.1.1 The site is located within an area designated as 'Mixed use' on the Area Plan for the East 2020 (Map 4 Douglas) and within the Conservation Area for Douglas Promenade.
3.1.2 The site is not constrained by registered buildings, trees or flood risk
3.2 Strategic Policy 3.2.1 Although there are no Policies within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 specifically related to Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMO) the following Policies are consider relevant to all development and this type of development.
3.2.2 General Policy 2 - (b,c,g) - Development according with the land use zoning is generally permitted provided it meets the relevant criteria (a) to (n) of which (b), (c) and (g) are considered most relevant to this application. (b) respects the site and surroundings (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself
3.2.3 Housing Policy 17 (paragraphs 8.13.1-8.13.3) - conversion of buildings into flats is generally permitted in residential areas and considered to be appropriate use of some of the substantial buildings originally designed as single dwellings or holiday accommodation. Some have little or no outside space but the importance of outside space is noted and demolition of rear 'outlets' to facility adequate areas for the drying of clothes, improving air circulation and light into the building and outlook are in some instances considered appropriate. The Policy criteria are as follows; (a) adequate space can be provided for clothes-drying, refuse storage, general amenity, and, if practical, car-parking; (b) the flats created will have a pleasant clear outlook, particularly from the principal rooms and; (c) if possible, this involves the creation of parking on site or as part of an overall traffic management strategy for the area.
3.2.4 Environment Policy 35 - Development within Conservation areas is permitted provided it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area. Special features contributing to the character and quality of the Area will be protected against inappropriate development.
4.0 OTHER RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) (TCPA 1999) states, "(4) Where any area is for the time being a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in the area, of any powers under this Act".
4.2 Planning Policy Statement 1/01 (Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man) - Policy CA/2, (Conservation Areas); "When considering proposals for the possible development of any land or buildings which fall within the conservation area, the impact of such proposals upon the special character of the area, will be a material consideration when assessing the application."
4.3 Isle of Man Objective Assessment of Housing Need 2024 (May 2024)
4.4 Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011, Housing (Definition of Flat or House in Multiple Occupation) Order 2013, (6) 'House or flat in multiple occupation' (1) For the purposes of the Act, a house or flat is in "multiple occupation" if it is occupied by more than one household and at least one of those households - (a) occupies accommodation which shares, or lacks, basic amenities; or
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90712/C
Page 4 of 9
(b) occupies its accommodation as its only or main residence. This is subject to the following qualification. (2) Premises which are exempt from registration under regulation 7 of the Registration Regulations do not constitute a house or flat in multiple occupation.
4.5 Housing (Registration) Regulations 2013, 4(4) Any person intending to use or to permit to be used any premises forming a flat or a house in multiple occupation must apply to the registration authority for registration of those premises. 4(5) provides the particulars.
4.6 Housing (Standards) Regulations 2017: provides minimum standards for the size of habitable rooms such as bedrooms and shared facilities such as communal bathrooms and kitchens.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 25/90131/C - Additional use of ground floor flat to be included as part of HMO approved under 24/00931/LAW. Refused. Reason: The application is considered significantly contrary to General Policy 2, Housing Policy 17 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan as the conversion fails to provide a clear and pleasant outlook from the two ground floor internal rooms.
5.2 24/00931/LAW - Certificate of Lawfulness for use as a HMO with 15 rooms and additional ground floor flat. Agreed with condition; "There is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Ainsdale, 2 Empire Terrace, Douglas has been used as a HMO of 15 rooms for up to 16 people, not including the ground floor flat, for a period exceeding 10 years and as such, the Department may not issue an enforcement notice due to the provisions of Town and Country Planning Act 1999 Schedule 4 Part 1 paragraph 3(a)".
5.3 09/01480/B - change of use of existing restaurant into a resident dining area and installation of roof lights. Permitted.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS (in brief - full reps can be read online) 6.1 Local Authority 6.1.1 Douglas City Council - (08.08.2025) commented regarding the bicycle storage and raised concerns that the existing storage room could accommodate sufficient bicycles per person and that it would not be lost as part of the proposed additional bedrooms.
6.2 Statutory Consultations 6.2.1 Highways Services - Do not object (12.08.2025) due to the location the proposal would have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking therefore parking relaxations can apply, subject to cycle parking being conditioned to be implemented before first occupation and retained thereafter.
6.2.2 Environmental Health - (28.08.2025) commented that the ground floor rear rooms proposed as bedrooms had previously been staff rooms. There are no dimensions on the plan for the bedrooms or living areas. The minimum for a single occupancy bedroom is 8.5m squared. Kitchen facilities are not listed. Every habitable room must be provided with sufficient direct natural light, adequate ventilation, heating, thermal and sound insulation. None of the information is provided. Until the registration process of the existing unregistered HMO is complete (ongoing since 2023) we cannot state how many tenants the proposed HMO including the ground floor can be registered for, therefore we cannot comment upon whether the required facilities will be achieved. In the event that the application is approved it is requested that a condition be attached requiring completion of a Certificate of Registration for the whole HMO prior to residents being allowed on the ground floor.
6.2.3 Although consulted in August no comments have been received from the following consultees, Waste Management, Manx National Heritage, Manx Utilities, and Registered Buildings.
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90712/C
Page 5 of 9
6.4 Public Representations 6.4.1 owners / occupants of 12 Mona Drive (to the rear of the site) - object: o Increased occupancy should not be allowed until the existing occupancy problems are resolved and meets relevant standards which it presently does not. o Refuse is not managed but is left to pile up outside attracting rats and flies. o The tenants in our building have complained about the smell and unsightly mess and this has been reported to Douglas City Council.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The principal of the proposal is acceptable due to the location. The main considerations for this proposal are considered to be whether the proposal would harm the character of the building and or the Conservation Area, can be accommodated within the building and whether the proposal would cause harm to residential amenity of existing and future occupants of the building and neighbours.
7.2 Character within the Conservation Area 7.3 Residential amenity 7.4 Meeting Housing Standards and Policy 7.5 Planning balance
7.2 Character of the building in the Conservation Area 7.2.1 The proposal relates to internal works therefore there are limited impacts upon the character of the building within the streetscene and none considered to adversely harm the Conservation Area. However consideration should be given to the division of the bay window. No details are submitted as to the method of division where the new wall would meet the existing bay window.
7.2.2 The bay window is an integral part of the character of the front of the building. Although the proposal does not include a replacement window or any part thereof, by virtue of the proposal to divide the room, it is clear that the development would result in an insulated wall abutting the window. In this instance the wall would meet the glass and because the wall has to be of a depth to meet noise and fire regulations it would be noticeable.
7.2.3 During the site visit the applicant was asked how the division was to be dealt with but this detail had yet to be concluded. As a result it is not possible to assess whether the proposal would or would not harm the character of the building. The detail has not been explored further because other elements of the proposal are considered unacceptable.
7.2.4 Having regard to Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) without the specific detail pertaining to how the division wall will interact with the window it is not possible to assess the actual harm.
7.3 Residential amenity 7.3.1 On face value the proposal to add four bedrooms to the building, four additional people, is unlikely to cause adverse harm to external adjoining or adjacent residents when considered in the context of the uses in the locality. However the issue regarding waste is noted and has been reported to Douglas City Council. In terms of material planning consideration, overall the use as a HMO means that there are already significant comings and goings from the building and the comparable increase is considered slight. That said, and with the HMO being unregistered, it is unclear what occurs in the 16th bedroom when lawful use has been agreed for 15 rooms housing 16 people. The increase to 19 rooms without proper management of the waste and internal shared living spaces could lead to unneighbourly activity. As a result of the unregistered HMO activity it is difficult to comprehensively assess what the actual increased activity level could be. When the HMO is registered the applicant will be in a better position to detail potential impacts.
==== PAGE 6 ====
25/90712/C
Page 6 of 9
7.3.2 In respect of the proposed front two bedrooms, these would have natural light and the ability to open a window. Given that the only outside space for occupants is on the patio area outside the bay window, there would be limitations to the opening of the windows for these bedrooms, leaving them at risk of noise disturbance. There are no bathrooms on the ground floor and the occupants of these rooms would have to move through the corridor to the communal kitchen dining area and the main entrance hallway to go upstairs to a communal bathroom; This has potential to be harmful to the well-being of those occupants and potentially 'allow' unneighbourly activity and therefore considered harmful to the residential amenity of those occupants.
7.3.3 In respect of the rear bedrooms, no ventilation in the bathroom and a roof light that can only be opened during dry weather is considered unsatisfactory provision of ventilation. Turning to outlook, when looking through the roof light the visual is of the wall of the building containing other windows and some sky. The perception is one of overlooking and there are no blinds or other method of screening and no identified possibilities given the height from the ground. Likewise the lack of ability to block out light could harm sleep patterns. In addition concerns are raised that there would be potential for objects to come through the roof lights from the windows above or generally falling from the structure. The only route to the external yard, and the waste storage, is shown on the ground floor plan under 24/00931/LAW and the ground floor plan submitted for this application by walking passed the rear bedrooms. It is considered that this would generate a significant amount footfall traffic that could cause harm to the residential amenity for the occupants of those two bedrooms.
7.3.4 In addition, neighbours have raised concerns regarding the existing management of waste at the site. An increased number of persons without resolution to this problem could exacerbate the present problem. Therefore it is considered that the proposal as is would cause harm to neighbouring residential amenity.
7.3.5 Turning to the communal living areas that are considered to exclude the shared bathrooms and bicycle store, the external patio at the front of the building and the communal kitchen dining living room area are the only communal areas. It has been noted that although shown on plan as communal kitchen dining living area, at the time of the site visit only the kitchen was a usable space. The proposal is to reduce the communal area to the kitchen dining area. irrespective of whether this meets housing standards, in terms of amenity for itself, the reduction is considered harmful to the existing occupants and future occupants' amenity and well-being. No details are provided of areas for the drying areas for wet clothes and the present communal space does perhaps offer that space without occupying a bedroom.
7.3.6 To conclude, it is considered that this proposal would, by virtue of the reduced communal dining / living area cause harm to the amenity of existing and future occupants of the site. The proposed bedrooms towards the rear, between the kitchen and the boiler room, alongside the corridor to the waste storage, lacks adequate ventilation and natural daylight. This proposal would adversely affect the general well-being of existing and future occupants of the site. Consequently the proposal fails to provide satisfactory amenity standards in itself and therefore does not accord with Policies GP2(h) and HP17(a).
7.3.7 Bicycle storage provision 7.3.7.1 General Policy 2(h) and Housing Policy 17(c) require provision of adequate parking that can give way to provision of bicycle storage in central locations such as this site.
7.3.7.2 On the ground floor plan provided under 24/00931/LAW there is an office that is shown in this application as being the bicycle storage room.
==== PAGE 7 ====
25/90712/C
Page 7 of 9
7.3.7.3 Highways have raised no concerns due to the location and accessibility to local amenities. However they and Douglas City Council have stated a requirement that adequate secure bicycle storage is provided.
7.3.7.4 During the site visit it was observed that the door to the bicycle store was coded and bicycles could be hung and padlocked if desired within the storage room. There are no proposed changes to the existing bicycle storage room.
7.3.7.5 Douglas City Council queried whether the bicycle storage area could accommodate sufficient bicycles for the number of proposed residents although they did not say how many that should be and nor does the application clarify. This matter has not been explored further because the application is not acceptable for other reasons and this alone would not be a reason for refusal due to the location of the property.
7.4 Meeting Housing Standards and Policy 7.4.1 It is noted from the floor plan submitted for the Certificate of Lawful Use (CLU) (24/00931/LAW) that all rooms on the upper floors are bedrooms (some with ensuite bathrooms, some sharing communal bathrooms). Within the four storey building the ground floor is the only communal space providing a kitchen dining living area available to residents. The two 'staff rooms' and a store room /boiler room are internal spaces towards the rear of the building accessed from the communal kitchen.
7.4.2 The recently refused application (25/90131/C) made reference to the apparent fact that the two staff rooms on the ground floor do not have permission and have not been registered to be used as living accommodation. They are however fitted as two double rooms with ensuite facilities. The ground floor plan provided under 24/00931/LAW shows two staff rooms with ensuite facilities and there is a circled 's' in the room as there is in the 16 bedrooms shown. It was concluded and the decision issued for the lawful development that 15 rooms with a maximum of 16 people and the 'flat' - ground floor staff rooms - excluded from that approval. As such the rooms have not been assessed as habitable accommodation.
7.4.3 Housing Policy 17 requires the conversions of buildings to flats to have a clear outlook, adequate amenity space and car parking where practical. The two staff rooms converted to bedrooms are considered internal rooms. Due to the location within the building there is no opportunity to install a window. Roof lights are shown in each of these rooms but none in the bathroom.
7.4.4 Roof lights are problematic for two reasons; (1) they cannot be opened during inclement weather such as rain and, (2) they are not readily or easily accessible to be opened, the only possible way through use of a special stick with a hook that is not some might find difficult to operate. In addition it is not considered acceptable to only be able to open the window when the weather is dry and only in the roof. The result is that these rooms for the purpose of a bedroom do not have adequate ventilation and no ventilation is shown for the bathrooms which is also unacceptable.
7.4.5 Consequently the proposal does not meet the requirements of Housing Policy 17 (a) and (b) or (c) however (c) discretion and pragmatism means that because of the location the proposal does not have to meet (c). In respect of HP17(a) from the details submitted it appears that the occupants of the proposed rooms would have no access to areas for clothes drying. In respect of HP17(b) the proposed rooms to the rear of the ground floor would not have a pleasant clear outlook. The rooms at the front would accord with HP17(b).
7.4.6 Turning to minimum stands, the minimum size of rooms and communal areas are provided in the Housing (Standards) Regulations 2017, Schedule 1 provides the size of rooms relating to the number of people, single or double occupancy. This assessment assumes that the rooms proposed are for single occupancy. Schedule 1 does not state whether ensuites are
==== PAGE 8 ====
25/90712/C
Page 8 of 9
included in the calculations but it is assumed they are not. Therefore this assessment takes account of the bedroom size excluding the ensuite.
7.4.7 For single occupancy the minimum size of a bedroom is 8.5sqm. Therefore the rear bedroom next to the boiler room does not meet the minimum standard.
7.4.8 Bedrooms must be no more than two floors from a bathroom that is shared between no more than six occupants (Schedule 1, Part 2, 6(4)). The front two bedrooms meet the standard because the nearest bathroom is one floor above and shared by no more than six occupants.
7.4.9 Communal rooms that contain a kitchen must be a minimum of 18sqm as such the proposal still meets that minimum criteria (Schedule 1, Part 1).
7.4.10 The floor plan submitted with the certificate of lawful development shows 16 bedrooms over the three floors and one kitchen dining room area on the ground floor. Schedule 1, Part 2, 6(5)) that states, 'There must be provided a suitably located kitchen and lounge for the use of all of the occupants, no more than two floors away from each bedroom. Consequently as a whole the site appears contrary to the standards. However this assessment is based solely on this application and the proposed rooms are within two floors of the communal area and so on this application, the proposal would accord with S1, P2 5(5).
7.5 Planning Balance 7.5.1 Parts of this proposal have been initiated and or completed, at least the bedroom adjacent to the kitchen. As identified in the 'Objective Assessment of Housing Need 2024 (May 2024) there is a need for rental housing, the need is projected to increase and particularly for single persons. This application would provide for 4 rooms with shared facilities within an existing HMO. However Environmental Health have confirmed that this is an unregistered HMO and concerns have been raised regarding standards of habitation and shared facilities and the management of waste. Therefore, although the principal of provision is acceptable this proposal is not acceptable.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 Although the applicant applied for use of the ground floor 'flat' under a Lawful Development Certificate, this was not agreed therefore planning approval has not been granted for these rooms as a flat within the HMO but has been specifically excluded from the HMO LAW decision (24/00931/LAW).
8.1.2 Environmental Health have requested a condition of prior occupation for the registration of the whole building as a HMO would not result in rooms that meet the habitable criteria and there is no obvious method that the two rear rooms could meet the criteria, therefore the proposed condition would not be relevant.
8.1.3 In respect of harm to the character of the building and its place in the Conservation Area, Environment Policy 35, it is likely that the proposal would cause some harm however whether that would be sufficient to warrant refusal under s(18) of the TCPA 1999 cannot be assessed because the details are not yet available. Therefore this element does not form part of the refusal.
8.1.4 The size of the bedroom adjacent the boiler room does not meet the minimum standard.
8.1.5 It is considered that the well-being of occupants of the front bedrooms could be compromised by the necessity to walk through the main entrance hall to go to the bathroom.
==== PAGE 9 ====
25/90712/C
Page 9 of 9
8.1.6 It is considered that the well-being of occupants of the rear bedrooms could be compromised by the necessity for others to walk passed their rooms to access waste storage; And as such this could harm their residential amenity.
8.1.7 Overall it is considered that the proposal does not provide adequate general amenity for the occupants of the proposed bedrooms. 8.2 The application is recommended for refusal for the reasons concluded below; 8.2.1 The proposal fails to accord with General Policy 2(h) in providing satisfactory amenity standards for the four proposed bedrooms. 8.2.2 In respect of the ground floor rear bedrooms the proposal fails to accord with Housing Policy 17 (a) and (b). 8.2.3 In respect of the ground floor front bedrooms the proposal fails to accord with Housing Policy 17 (b).
8.0 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.
8.5 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 the Right to Appeal. __ 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 : Refused Date: 07.10.2025
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