Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90164/C
Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90164/C Applicant : Mr Wai Man Ho Proposal : Additional use of residential dwelling as tourist accommodation (Class 3.6) Site Address : Avondale House - Flat 1 9 - 10 Palace Terrace Queens Promenade Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 4NE
Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 20.03.2025
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 approval relate to the documents, statement, location plan, site plan, floor plan, which have all been received on 13th February 2025. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: Douglas Borough Council - No objection Department of Infrastructure - No objection
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given the Right to Appeal as they have submitted an objection that meets the specified criteria: Flat 4, Avondale House, 9-10 Palace Terrace, Queens Promenade, Douglas Flat 6, Avondale House, 9-10 Palace Terrace, Queens Promenade, Douglas Flat 8, Avondale House, 9-10 Palace Terrace, Queens Promenade, Douglas Flat 9, Avondale House, 9-10 Palace Terrace, Queens Promenade, Douglas
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90164/C
Page 2 of 7
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: 111 Cronk Liauyr, Douglas 9 Scott Close, King Edward Road, Onchan Beresford House Management Limited, 13B The Village Walk, Onchan Donore, The Crofts, Castletown 3 Carnane Lane, Ballakilley, Port St Mary
Objection identifies land that is owned or occupied by the objector that would be impacted on, but such land is not within 20 metres of the site (and no Environmental Impact Assessment is required) (A10(2)(b)).
Officer’s Report
THE PLANNING APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE GIVEN THE LEVEL OF OBJECTION FROM THE PUBLIC, CONTRARY TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING OFFICER
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is Avondale House, 9 Palace Terrace, Queens Promenade, Douglas, an apartment building located on the northwest of Queens Promenade, close to its junction with Palace View Terrace. Avondale House abuts other apartment buildings on both sides, which gives the impression of a terraced building. There are parking spaces at the rear of the building, which are accessible through an access lane to the northeast.
1.2 Avondale House has two apartments on each floor. Apartment 1 is located on the first floor of Avondale House.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal is for the additional use of Apartment 1, Avondale House, as tourist accommodation.
3.0 Planning History 3.1 There is no previous application considered materially relevant to this application.
4.0 Planning Policy Site Specific 4.1 The site is within an area designated as Mixed Use in the Area Plan for the East.
4.2 The Written Statement of the Area Plan (9.11.2) states: "Development types within areas of mixed use generally comprise a variety of different but compatible uses. Appropriate new uses may include a mix of shops and some services (financial and professional), food and drink, office and light industry, research and development, tourist and residential uses, and other uses such as clinics or health centres, childcare or education, community facilities, and places of assembly and leisure."
4.3 The site is within an area with a high risk for tidal flooding in the DoI Flood Risk Viewer.
Strategic Policy 4.4 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application: o Strategic Policy 5 o General Policy 2 (b), (g), (h), (i), (m), (n) o Environment Policy 10, 13 o Environment Policy 32, 33
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90164/C
Page 3 of 7
o Transport Policy 7 o Appendix 7.6 o Business Policy 13 - Permission will generally be given for using private residential properties as tourist accommodation, providing that it can be demonstrated that such use would not compromise the amenities of neighbouring residents.
PPS and NPD 4.5 No relevant Planning Policy Statement or National Policy Directive applies to this application.
5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Strategy and Guidance 5.1 There is no strategy or guidance materially relevant to this application.
6.0 REPRESENTATION This section is a summary. The original texts of the consultations and comments received are available on the Planning Application Search on the government website. 6.1 Douglas Borough Council does not object to this application (03.03.2025).
6.2 DoI Highway Services has no objection to this application (17.02.2025). The comment states there is no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as the proposed use would have a similar or less parking demand to the existing use.
6.3 Two neighbouring properties were notified. Ten comments have been received from the public (26.02.2025 - 07.03.2025). The comments are from the Owners and Occupiers of: o Flat 4, Avondale House, 9-10 Palace Terrace, Queens Promenade, Douglas o Flat 6, Avondale House, 9-10 Palace Terrace, Queens Promenade, Douglas o Flat 8, Avondale House, 9-10 Palace Terrace, Queens Promenade, Douglas o Flat 9, Avondale House, 9-10 Palace Terrace, Queens Promenade, Douglas o 111 Cronk Liauyr, Douglas o 9 Scott Close, King Edward Road, Onchan o Beresford House Management Limited, 13B The Village Walk, Onchan o o Donore, The Crofts, Castletown o 3 Carnane Lane, Ballakilley, Port St Mary
6.4 The material planning considerations raised by the comments are: o land use character of the area o loss of houses o noise o parking o privacy o refuse management o security of tenants
6.5 The non-material planning considerations raised by the comments and during the advertising period are: o setting a precedent o lease and covenant o fire safety o apartment management o value of the property o insurance coverage o competition o market situation
7.0 ASSESSMENT Elements of Assessment
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90164/C
Page 4 of 7
7.1 The key considerations in determining the application are its principle, its impact on the character of the area, parking provision, and the amenities of the neighbours.
Principle of the Change of Use 7.2 The Area Plan states that tourist and residential use is appropriate for such an area.
7.3 The public comments show a particular concern regarding the loss of houses. First, short- term residential use is still residential. Next, the application is for additional use of the flat as a tourist accommodation, meaning the flat use is still available. Lastly, a purposely built flat within an apartment building, unless undergoing drastic alteration, will always be fit for habitation. In addition, Housing Policy 18 is primarily concerned with the physical destruction of existing housing units (when such action is controlled by planning). Therefore, the proposal does not warrant the loss of housing and Housing Policy 18 does not apply to this application.
Character of the Area 7.4 Douglas Promenade, including the Queens Promenade, where the application building is located, has mixed land use, such as apartment and tourist accommodation. The proposal does not affect the existing diverse mixed land use and, therefore, does not change the character of the area.
Neighbouring Amenities 7.5 Assessing how an individual would behave as a tourist or a resident is difficult. As a tourist, a person may be out often, have late nights, and be disruptive on return. In the meantime, both tourists and permanent residents have incentives for organising gatherings, which can easily be carried out till late at night. In general terms, however, most people behave well and raise no concerns. Therefore, this change of use is unlikely to impact the neighbouring properties' living conditions significantly.
7.6 Based on paragraph 7.6, there is also no evidence that tourists' impact on privacy, refuse generation, and security is significant enough for a recommendation of refusal.
Parking 7.7 When the flats are occupied by one group of tourists, their parking demand and behaviour are considered the same as a typical household. There has been no increase in parking standards, and the current parking provision is considered acceptable.
7.8 There is no objection from highway services. Therefore, the impact on parking is considered to be acceptable.
Non-material consideration 7.9 Each application is assessed with its merit so there is no such thing as a precedent. In the meantime, Additional use of existing residential apartment as tourist accommodation at Flat 9, Beresford House, 11 - 12 Palace Terrace, Queens Promenade, Douglas, was APPROVED under PA 15/01143/C. 7.10 Contracts, covenants and leases are civil matters and, therefore, not controlled by planning. It is worth noting that a planning decision parallels and does not override such agreements.
7.11 Fire safety is regulated by other authorities and is not regulated by planning.
7.12 Management of apartment buildings is a civil matter, as probably included in section 7.8 and is therefore not controlled by planning.
7.13 The impact of developments on the value of properties is a civil matter and, therefore, not controlled by planning.
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90164/C
Page 5 of 7
7.14 Insurance coverage is regulated by other authorities and is also a civil matter and, therefore, not controlled by planning.
7.15 An argument can easily be made, and has been made by comments, that tourists are less accountable for their behaviour due to their short stay. While some people will not doubt prove this, it is always the responsibility of the owner of the flat to maintain a neighbourly environment, and it is still the tourist's responsibility to respect and follow the local laws, such as the Noise Act 2006. These are regulated by other authorities and, therefore, not a material planning consideration.
7.16 The provision of tourist accommodation is controlled by the market and is therefore not controlled by planning.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposal is not considered to have an unacceptable impact on amenities or highway safety. Therefore, it is considered to comply with General Policy 2, Business Policy 13 and Transport Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan and is recommended for an approval.
9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 9.1 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).
9.2 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.
9.3 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.
9.4 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.
9.5 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 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:...14.04.2025
Signed : P SHEN. Presenting Officer
==== PAGE 6 ====
25/90164/C
Page 6 of 7
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.
==== PAGE 7 ====
25/90164/C
Page 7 of 7
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 14.04.2025
Application No. :
25/90164/C Applicant : Mr Wai Man Ho Proposal : Additional use of residential dwelling as tourist accommodation (Class 3.6) Site Address : Avondale House - Flat 1 9 - 10 Palace Terrace Queens Promenade Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 4NE
Planning Officer Peiran Shen Reporting Officer As above
Addendum to the Officer’s Report
The Planning Committee, in the meeting on 14th April 2025, overturned the Case Officer's recommendation for approval on the basis that "the proposal would compromise the amenities of neighbouring residents, with particular regard to noise and security. They considered the proposal failing to comply with General Policy 2 (g) (m) and Business Policy 13 of the Strategic Plan."
They also raised about the further loss of residential unit to tourism within Douglas.
Reason for Refusal
R 1. The proposal would compromise the amenities of neighbouring residents, with particular regard to noise and security. It is considered that the proposal therefore fails to comply with General Policy 2 (g) (m) and Business Policy 13 of the Strategic Plan.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal