Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90131/C Page 1 of 4
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90131/C Applicant : Jing Wen Proposal : Additional use of ground floor flat to be included as part of HMO approved under 24/00931/LAW Site Address : Ainsdale 2 Empire Terrace Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 4LE
Senior Planning Officer: Jason Singleton Photo Taken : Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 01.04.2025 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. 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. __
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: DoI Highways - No Objection
It is recommended that the following organisations should be given the Right to Appeal on the basis that they have submitted a relevant objection: Douglas City Council - objection __
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 sits amongst a collection of guesthouses and is currently used as a HMO.
1.2 The property is currently used as a HMO for up to 16 people in 15 rooms. The ground floor is not included in the sub-division of space for a HMO and is used separate to the rest of the accommodation arrangement.
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90131/C Page 2 of 4
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks a change of use of the ground floor area to incorporate this as part of the HMO providing two bedrooms in lieu of staff rooms that would use a shared kitchen dining area with the rest of the HMO, and increasing the accommodation to 18 people in 17 rooms.
2.2 There are no external alterations to the fabric of the building only internal reconfiguration of space.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The application site is located within an area designated as 'Mixed use' and within the settlement boundary of Douglas on the Area Plan for the East 2020 (Map 4 Douglas).
3.3 The site sites within a Conservation Area for Douglas Promenades, there are no registered trees on site nor is it within an area of flood risk. It is appropriate to consider the following planning policies from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016;
General Policy 2 - (b,c,g) - General development considerations Housing Policy 17 - conversion of buildings into flats Environment Policy 35 - Development within Conservation areas
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 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)".
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS (in brief - full reps can be read online) Statutory Consultations 5.1 Douglas City Council (24/02/25) comment at length to object; "The application contains a floor plan showing 2 x staffrooms, a store area an office and a resident's dining area. Although the staff rooms may currently be in use as living accommodation, we have no record of these ever being registered as flats. It has also been brought to our attention that the rooms do not have an outlook and have a very limited amount of natural light and ventilation".
5.2 Highways Services - Do not object (30/01/25)
Public Representations 5.3 None.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 It is noted from the plans submitted for the CLU, all those rooms on the upper floors are bedrooms (some with bathrooms, some without) with some form of window serving each room. The ground floor is the only space where there is a kitchen and dining / living area available to residents. The two staff rooms and store rooms are biased to the rear and are internal spaces.
6.2 The proposed to convert those two rooms to the ground floor are shown on the submitted plans with "ensuite" facilities and labelled staff rooms. The comments from Douglas Town Council allude to the validity of this and confirms there is no registration or lawful use of the ground floor as a flat. This in itself also raises concerns over the proposals as to the validity of the submitted information and alleges the staff rooms are currently being used as living accommodation, for which there is no record of such.
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90131/C Page 3 of 4
6.3 From a planning policy narrative, the guidance of Housing Policy 17(b) requires the conversions of buildings to flats to have a clear outlook, adequate amenity space and car parking where practical. Here the use of the two staff rooms as bedrooms would be internal rooms. Their positioning in the building biased towards the rear of the building and being a mid-terrace presents no opportunity to install any windows.
6.4 As such the proposal as it stands (if approved) would see two bedrooms with no natural light, no natural ventilation and in turn no outlook. This would be unacceptable from a living standards perspective and could not be supported in planning terms and would be contrary to HP17 and General Policy 2.
6.5 The nature of the proposals would have no detrimental impact upon the neighbouring amenity or that of the conservation area as the scope of works are contained to the internal of the building and limited to the ground floor.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 For the above reasons, it is concluded that the planning application would create two units of inadequate accommodation which would be contrary to General Policy 2 and Housing Policy 17b and is recommended for refusal.
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 the Head of Development Management 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 : 03.04.2025
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90131/C Page 4 of 4
Determining Officer
Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
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