Inspector's Report

Report on a Planning Appeal - Written Representations Case By Mrs Jennifer Vyse DipTP, MRTPI, DipPBM Site Inspection carried out on 25 October 2024 ____________________________________________________

Appeal Ref: AP24/0035 Planning Application: 24/00199/B Address: Shipdesign House, East Quay, Ramsey IM8 1BA

The appeal is made by Kenneth Devaney against the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for conversion of this former ground-floor restaurant and first-floor function room into four apartments and roof alterations for the creation of a second-floor terrace for existing apartment.

Procedural Matters

• 1. The appellant is unhappy about a lack of communication from the Authority during its processing of the application, suggesting that had its concerns in relation to apartment 4 been known in advance, they could have been addressed. However, this is not a matter for me as part of this appeal.
• 2. The grounds of appeal also refer to the possibility a small extension to the kitchen/dining/living area to apartment 4 to provide harbour views, suggesting that this could be conditioned in any approval. However, no details of such were included in the application. I am required to make a recommendation based on the plans that were before the Authority when it determined the application. To do otherwise could prejudice the interests of others who would be denied the opportunity to comment. Any such proposal would need to be the subject of a separate application, which would be considered by the Planning Authority in the first instance.
• 3. Although the flood related reason for refusal refers to the absence of cellar plans, cellar plans are before me.

DESCRIPTION

• 4. Shipdesine House (formerly the Harbour Bistro) is a prominent building comprising three floors of accommodation plus a cellar, located at the junction of East Quay and Mona Street, within Ramsey Conservation Area. The site forms part of the built-up frontage next to the harbour at East Quay, on the northern edge of the town centre.
• 5. It is proposed to convert the currently vacant property (last in use as a restaurant with a function room above) to residential accommodation. Two x two-bed apartments would be created on the ground floor. At first floor, two x one-bed apartments would be created, plus an outdoor terrace serving apartment 4, together with remodelling of an existing two-bed apartment. On the top floor, a further existing two-bed apartment would also be remodelled, with a store room to be demolished to create a new roof terrace. The cellar plans submitted do not include any residential accommodation at that level. The plans on which my recommendation is based are listed at Annex A below.

RELEVANT POLICY AND GUIDANCE Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016

• 6. Strategic Policy 1 requires that development should make the best use of resources by optimising the use of redundant, unused buildings.
• 7. In areas at potential risk of flooding, Environment Policy 10 requires that planning applications be accompanied by a flood risk assessment, together with details of any proposed mitigation measures. General Policy 2(l) resists development that would be at unreasonable risk of flooding.
• 8. General Policy 2(g) seeks to protect the living conditions of local residents, whilst Housing Policy 17(b) seeks to ensure that converted flats have a pleasant, clear outlook, particularly from the principal rooms.

Draft Area Plan for the North and West

• 9. This is an emerging Plan. Whilst it has been through Examination, it is still some way off adoption and its policies could still be modified. It therefore attracts little if any weight in determination of this appeal. That said, I note that it records the town centre of Ramsey as being vulnerable to flood risk, particularly along East Quay. It also refers to under-investment in quayside buildings having resulted in vacant properties and under-occupied urban sites that mar the public face of Ramsey.

THE CASE FOR THE APPELLANT The material points are: Flood Risk

• 10. The appeal site is located on the quayside adjoining Ramsey Harbour and lies within a High Risk Tidal Flood Zone. However, numerous applications with sleeping accommodation on the ground floor have been approved in Ramsey within the same Flood Zone, including Britannia Hotel, Waterloo Road1 (5.375m AOD FFGL2) and 3 Collins Lane (4.705m AOD FFGL).3 The existing floor level of Shipdesine House is 4.9m AOD FFGL, above the level of the approved Collins Lane scheme.
• 11. Paragraph 6.13 of the officer’s report for Shipdesine House refers to the FMRD consultation response in relation to an application for development at 3 West Quay, Ramsey (which is located some 60 metres to the west of the appeal site)4 indicating that the response referred to an OS datum of approximately 5.13m. The same paragraph then refers to an application for development in front of the Bay View Hotel in Port St Mary,5 where the FRMD recommended that the finished ground floor level be set at 0.60m above the level of the predicted 1 in 200 year flood event plus an allowance for climate change, with the officer stating that here, this would be a level of 5.13m

• 1 PA23/00066/B Change of use of public house to 10 apartments. Resolved to approved subject to a S13 Agreement relating to affordable housing. Decision not yet issued.
• 2 Finished Floor Ground Level
• 3 PA23/00421/B Conversion of commercial remises to a dwellinghouse. Approved September 2024.
• 4 PA23/00832/B Conversion of ground and first floors to create two additional apartments. Split decision on appeal, with ground floor accommodation refused in part on flooding grounds (October 2024).
• 5 PA21/00547/B Erection of a detached dwelling. Approved May 2021.

AOD, plus 0.6m freeboard, resulting in a minimum ground floor level of 5.73m AOD.

• 12. The report then says that it is not clear whether the present ground floor level of Shipdesine House meets or exceeds that. However, a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) was submitted with the application. A more complex analysis, including levels and mitigation measures was also submitted but that doesn't seem to have been acknowledged in the officer’s report, or by the FRMD,6 as no further comments from its original response were noted on the consultees comments.
• 13. Paragraph 6.16 of the officer’s report for the West Quay scheme sets out that the risk of flooding was not to other properties, but would be contained within a building that already exists. It confirms a risk of flooding in that case to a finished GFL of 5.14m, in excess of the 5.13m required by FRMD as referred to above, and exceeding the 4.79m AD02 referred to by the FRMD for the Port St Mary scheme, by 0.35m.
• 14. Whilst the present ground floor level does not meet the 5.73m AOD level referred to in the Port St Mary scheme, neither do the Britannia Hotel or Collins Lane schemes. As such, the 5.73m figure appears to be a nonregulated, non-statutory height.
• 15. At 4.9m AOD, the finished floor level of the existing building is 0.60m above the Ramsey Quay Wall Crest Level of 4.3m AOD. The height of a bed at ground floor would be 5.35m AOD and the height of the proposed demountable flood defence systems at access points would be at 6.00m AOD. These levels would exceed the highest recorded flood levels of around 4.6 – 4.7m AOD (in the winter of 2013/2014).
• 16. Although the FRMD is generally opposed to sleeping accommodation on the ground floor in a flood zone, there is currently no policy preventing that. Whilst the site is in an area of tidal flooding, these trends are easily predicted (unlike fluvial floods), and there are warning systems for tidal flooding which can give up to two days' notice before a flood.
• 17. Communal areas and apartments on the upper floors would provide a safe refuge for residents in any flood event that overwhelms the proposed defence systems. The ground floor apartments have two potential egress locations, as well as access to the first floor landing from the staircase at the rear of the building. Additional flood resilience measures are also proposed. The combination of resistance and resilience measures will be sufficient to reduce the risk to both residents and the emergency services in a flooding event. Designs for flood defence measures along the quayside in Ramsey were completed after the winter floods of 2013/14 and a further scheme is currently being developed.
• 18. In the Britannia Hotel scheme, the officer found that the development would re-use an existing unoccupied building of architectural interest, in a prominent location in the town centre within the Conservation Area. It would also create ten new residential units in a sustainable location in terms of access to travel and everyday services and facilities, with no significant

• 6 DoI Flood Risk Management Division

adverse impacts upon private or public amenities. Much the same can be said of this appeal scheme.

• 19. Although the FRMD did object to this application, it also suggested conditions if permission was granted, including the need for fixed flood gates and flood resilient vent bricks. Our more detailed flood risk assessment confirms that the suggested measures will be put in place. .

Living Conditions

• 20. The views out from apartment 4 would not be unacceptable, providing clear unobstructed southerly views over the adjacent yards of the commercial building and up to the mountains, with high levels of daylight. Although the bathroom window would face directly onto a gable wall, it would be obscure glazed, so would not be affected. One of the bedroom windows is partially obscured by the gable, but the second window, where the bed would be positioned, has clear southerly views out over the adjacent alleyway and up to the mountains.
• 21. How can this provide an unacceptable degree of overlooking, observation and loss of privacy to occupants of neighbouring commercial properties when these are existing windows and also windows in the existing apartments? There are established existing windows to the two existing apartments already in the building, adjacent to the proposed enlarged window to apartment 4.
• 22. Although there would be no window directly serving the proposed kitchen to apartment 4, this is acceptable provided there is an opening window that provides 20% ventilation to the combined kitchen/dining and living area, as required by Building Regulations.

Other Matters

• 23. The case officer took no issue with the changes proposed on visual grounds in terms of any impact on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, welcoming removal of the unsightly kitchen ventilation system.
• 24. Highways raised no objections in terms of any impact on highway safety, network functionality or parking provision and neither the Town Commissioners nor DEFA Fisheries raise any objection. Bin and cycle storage facilities are shown on the submitted plans and can be secured by planning condition, as can the swift box measures required by the DEFA Ecosystems team.
• 25. The two apartments in the function room at first floor level could be completed under permitted development rights.
• 26. The proposal would ensure that the site is not left undeveloped/unoccupied, which will prevent the building falling into complete disrepair. The scheme would bring life back in to this part of the Harbour, and provide activity and natural surveillance/security.
• 27. This is the only viable option available to enable retention of the existing building. We have looked at options for re-using the existing building and the potential for two or three town houses, but unfortunately the internal layout does not work to enable us to do this. We could demolish and apply

for three/four new town houses, or six apartments, with a design sympathetic to the existing building. As new build, the design would not be compromised by any existing structure and all sleeping accommodation could be above ground floor level. The building and site have more value as a vacant plot of land.

THE CASE FOR THE PLANNING AUTHORITY The material points are: Flood Risk

• 28. Although the proposal would not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere, it would introduce a more vulnerable use, namely two apartments, including sleeping accommodation, at ground floor level. Whilst the FRMD suggests conditions in the event that the permission was to be granted, it makes clear that it is unable to support an application for sleeping accommodation on the ground floor in an area like this, at high risk of flooding.
• 29. Neither the appellant nor the FRMD have advised of any figures as they relate to the Douglas 02 datum for this case. In relation to an application for a development at 3 West Quay,7 FRMD advised that the OS datum was approximately 5.13m. The applicant advises that finished floor level figures for the ground floor of Shipdesine House would be 385 mm above the top of the harbour wall.
• 30. In respect of a site in Port St Mary,8 FRMD recommended that the finished ground floor level be set at 600mm above the 1 in 200 plus climate change flood level. Here, this would be to a level of 5.13m AOD plus 600mm, providing a minimum ground floor level of 5.73m AOD. It is not clear from the submitted details whether the present ground floor level of Shipdesine House meets or exceeds that.
• 31. The FRMD consultation response includes a photograph from February 2022 showing a fire appliance standing in floodwater to the front of Shipdesine House. Moreover, the case officer’s site photograph, from March 2024, shows a very high water level in Ramsey Harbour in front of the site. In addition, one of the third party representations refers to the poor state of repair and continual ingress of water and damp, which resulted in continual mould problems at the property, going on to comment that the building suffered significant flooding in 2014, with the cellar filling with water.
• 32. Notwithstanding the conditions suggested by FRMD, the fact that the site has previously flooded, and given the proposed introduction of sleeping accommodation at ground floor level in a High Risk Flood Zone next to Ramsey Harbour, means that the proposal is unacceptable in respect of the personal safety of future occupiers. This is contrary to the provisions of General Policy 2 (l), and, Environment Policy 10 in the Strategic Plan.

Living Conditions

• 7 PA23/00832/B
• 8 PA21/00547/B

• 33. Living conditions for future occupiers of proposed new apartments 1, 2 and 3 would be acceptable in terms of daylight and outlook. However, the kitchen and bedroom windows to apartment 4 on the first floor face east,9 away from the harbour, looking directly onto a gable wall a few feet away. The terrace would look directly at the side wall of the neighbouring structures at the rear of the Royal Hotel and rear yards at Nos. 12 and 14 Market Place East.
• 34. The patio doors to the terrace and bedroom and bathroom windows are the only windows that would serve apartment 4. The relationship of this apartment with the adjoining structures and their proximity to each other would result in undue harm arising from an unacceptably poor outlook and low level of amenity for future occupiers. As such, the development would be unacceptable and would fail to accord with the provisions of General Policy 2 and Housing Policy 17 of the Strategic Plan.
• 35. Moreover, the proposed addition of the terrace/windows to apartment 4 would provide an outlook over neighbouring properties back yards located immediately to the south. This would result in an unacceptable degree of overlooking, observation and loss of privacy to occupants of these neighbouring properties. This brings the development into conflict with the Strategic Plan policies referred to above.

Other Matters

• 36. Separate secure bin and cycle storage areas are proposed as part of the ground floor layout. This is acceptable in the context of the town centre location, close to shops and facilities. There are also public car parks nearby and time limited, on-street disc parking in the locality. In addition, bus stops and the Tram Station (seasonal) are within easy walking distance of the site. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in this regard and accords with the provisions of General Policy 2 and Transport Policies 4 and 7 of the Strategic Plan 2016.
• 37. The proposal involves external alterations to the building in the form of alterations to the external elevations including removal of a number of windows; removal of first floor flue extractor equipment; replacement of a first floor window with a pair of patio doors and creation of balcony terrace to serve apartment 4, with 1.10m high screen railings; replacement of a first floor window with a fire escape door and the installation of a metal and concrete staircase behind the existing boundary wall; and enlargement of one window down to ground floor level.
• 38. Overall, it is considered that these changes are acceptable on visual grounds and would not detract from the existing appearance and character of the property in this visually prominent corner location directly opposite the harbour, with no harm to the character and appearance of the Ramsey Conservation Area. This accords with the provisions of General Policy 2 b), c) and e) and Environment Policy 35 of the Strategic Plan.

OTHER REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED

• 39. DoI Highways: no objection subject to a condition securing cycle storage.

• 9 INSPECTOR’S NOTE: Although the officer’s report and reason for refusal 2 refer to the windows and terrace as east facing, in fact they are south facing. The outlook is as described.

• 40. DoI Flood Risk Management: This area regularly floods. Object due to the provision of sleeping accommodation on the ground floor. If approval is granted, conditions securing fixed flood gates and flood resilient vent bricks, together with a flood evacuation plan should be imposed.
• 41. DEFA Fisheries: no objection.
• 42. DEFA Ecosystems: Swift nest site loss can mostly be attributed to inappropriate building renovation. Given the close proximity of the largest known colony of swifts on the Island, a Schedule 1 species of highest conservation concern, an ecological assessment for breeding swifts should be undertaken prior to determination of this application.
• 43. Ramsey Town Commissioners: no objection.
• 44. Other letters of representation: object on the following grounds:

•  insufficient parking in an area already facing parking scarcity;
•  the building was vacated not because it was not financially viable, but due to the poor state of repair and continual ingress of water and damp;
•  contrary to statements in the FRA, the building suffered significant flooding in 2014, with the cellar filling with water.

ASSESSMENT BY INSPECTOR

• 45. The main issues in this case relate to:

•  the risk to future occupiers of apartments 1 and 2 from flooding;
•  whether future occupiers of apartment 4 would be provided with acceptable living conditions in terms of outlook; and
•  the effect of the development proposed (apartment 4) on the living conditions of neighbouring residents in terms of their privacy.

• 46. The appeal site lies within the Ramsey Conservation Area. Although not a reason for refusal I am mindful of the statutory duty placed on decision makers by Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999, which requires that special attention be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of Conservation Areas.

Flood Risk

• 47. The appeal site lies immediately adjacent to the harbour, in an area identified as being at high risk of tidal flooding on the National Flood Map. The risk is also highlighted in the emerging Draft Area Plan. Much of the immediate town centre surroundings of the appeal site also lie within the high flood risk zone. It is clear from the photographic and anecdotal evidence before me that this area has flooded/has come close to being flooded in the past. As noted by the Inspector who dealt with the appeal for the West Quay site referred to by the parties, the Government’s intention to build a flood barrier to protect the town confirms that the risk of flooding is actual.10 At the present time, however, that protection is not in place.

• 10 AP24/0007 Paragraph 41 of the Inspector’s Report

• 48. No issue is taken with the proposed accommodation on the upper floors in terms of flood risk. However, the scheme also includes the creation of two residential apartments on the ground floor of the appeal building, including sleeping accommodation.
• 49. In relation to flood risk, residential accommodation is classed as ‘more vulnerable’. The FRMD makes it very clear that it cannot support proposals for sleeping accommodation on the ground floor in areas that flood regularly. That has been a consistent message in its comments in relation to the other developments referred to by the parties, notwithstanding that in the overall planning balance, the Planning Authority went on, in two instances, to approve those applications (Britannia Hotel and Collins Lane). In the Port St Mary case, the FRMD did not object because no sleeping accommodation was proposed at ground floor level. At West Quay, permission was refused in part on the grounds of flood risk in relation to the provision of sleeping accommodation on the ground floor. The subsequent appeal resulted in a split decision, whereby the accommodation on the upper floor was approved, but the ground floor accommodation was refused, partly on the basis of flood risk.
• 50. The only FRA I have seen in relation to the instant appeal makes just one mention of levels, setting out that the finished floor level of Shipdesine House is 0.385m above the top of the harbour wall. Although the appellant refers to a more detailed FRA, one is not before me, and does not appear to have been before the planning officer or the FRMD either. I have proceeded though, on the basis that the figures referred in the appellant’s statement of case reflect that later document and I have taken them in to account.
• 51. The appellant advises that the crest of the harbour wall at Ramsey is at 4.3m AOD. On the basis of the FRA that is before me, that would give a ground floor level for Shipdesine House of 4.685m AOD.11 However, elsewhere in the appellant’s Statement of Case, it states that the finished floor level of the existing building is 0.60m above the wall, referring to an existing floor level of 4.9m AOD.
• 52. The FRMD consultation response for West Quay (December 2023) confirms the height of a 1 in 200 year plus climate change flood event as 5.64mD02 for Ramsey. It also recommends a 0.30m freeboard above that, equating to a level of 5.94mD02.12 The reference at paragraph 6.13 of the officer’s report for Shipdesine House to a figure of approximately 5.13m at West Quay, appears to be referring to an OS datum level mentioned in the FRA for that case. However, the FRMD comments for West Quay specifically advise that the floor level figures need to be accurate to the D02 datum. I am mindful, in this regard, that there is roughly 0.5m difference between the D02 flood level and the AOD level here.
• 53. The various figures cited in the parties cases mix AOD levels with the new datum for the Isle of Man, referred to as Douglas 02 (D02). The D02 datum is specific to the Island. This is of particular importance as the difference from the old datum is not constant across the Island. The only levels referred to which use the D02 datum, relate to West Quay and Port St Mary,

• 11 4.3m + 0.385m
• 12 The officer’s report refers to a freeboard requirement of 0.60m, but that is not what the FRMD required in their comments, notwithstanding that a freeboard of 0.6m was required at Port St Mary.

the West Quay figures being the most relevant in my view, given its proximity to the current appeal site.

• 54. There is no information before me as to how the floor levels at Shipdesine House relate to the D02 datum. Even based on the AOD levels provided, at 4.9mAOD the ground floor falls below the 5.13mAOD for Ramsey referred to at West Quay, which situation is exacerbated if a 0.30m freeboard allowance is added (5.43mAOD) in line with industry guidance and/or if the 4.685m floor level is correct.
• 55. In support of the proposal, the appellant advises that a bed at the property would be at 5.35mAOD, which would be above the 5.13mAOD flood level. However, it cannot be right, nor indeed safe, to seek to rely on one’s bed as a means of protection from the risks of flooding. In any event, it would still be below the 5.43mAOD level (taking into account a 0.30m freeboard).
• 56. The appellant suggests that occupiers of the ground floor apartments could, in the event of a flood, relocate to communal areas and apartments on the upper floors. However, access to the upper floors would require that occupiers exit the building and make their way through the flood waters around to the separate entrances to the upper floors and assumes that they would have a key to gain access. The only ‘communal’ space shown on the plans is the stairwell itself and a small corridor from which access to the upper apartments would be taken. Moreover, even if residents of the upper floors were at home at the time, it cannot be assumed that they would be willing to provide refuge for an unspecified period.
• 57. Tidal flood events can develop rapidly, dependent on weather conditions. I recognise that flood forecasting is improving, but it is not infallible and it would be imprudent to rely on it as a means of ensuring the safety of future residents.
• 58. In the event that permission was to be granted, the FRMD suggests conditions to secure installation of fixed flood gates and flood resilient vent bricks, advising that demountable barriers get lost over time and in HMOs the knowledge to fit them is not passed from occupant to occupant. It also suggests that a flood evacuation plan is produced and displayed in a prominent place.
• 59. Whilst the appellant confirms that 1.10m high demountable flood defence systems (6.00mAOD) would be installed at access points, they aren’t the same as the fixed flood gates recommended by the FRMD. It is also confirmed that a flood plan and flood door/barrier maintenance and deployment plan would be produced, together with the use of various flood resilience measures such as a non-return valve for the underground drainage system, raised electrical sockets and switches, tiled floors and skirtings, solid wood or steel for internal doors etc.
• 60. I recognise that flood gates at the entrance points to the property could give some protection. However, the development would provide for a total of eight bedspaces (four double bedrooms) on the ground floor of a property at high risk of flooding. There could be any number of reasons why a person sleeping in those apartments might be unaware of an impending flood, or be physically incapable of installing the demountable defences suggested by the appellant. They could, for instance, be frail, disabled or vulnerable. There is

• also an issue about long-term storage of demountable barriers, as well as requiring a means of ensuring that changing residents over the years know where they are and how and when to deploy them.
• 61. In any event, whilst the FRMD suggested conditions to secure certain measures, that is only in the event that permission was granted. The comments start off by objecting to the principle of sleeping accommodation on the ground floor in a regularly flooded area. If the flood defence measures referred to could satisfactorily overcome the risk of flooding, then I would have expected the comments to read something along the lines of ‘no objections subject to conditions’. The inference I take from the wording that is used, is that the suggested measures would not provide adequate or satisfactory protection.
• 62. There is also the lack of clarity as to the ground floor level of Shipdesine House and the relationship of the old AOD levels with the more recent D02 datum. Based on the information before me, I have no way of knowing whether the difference between the 1 in 200 year plus climate change flood event level and the ground floor level at Shipdesine House would be better or worse than as set out above if it related to D02 datum. It is also unclear to me as to why a freeboard of only 0.30m is recommended here, whereas at Port St Mary, a freeboard of 0.6m was sought.
• 63. That said, on my understanding of the information that is before me, the inevitable conclusion from all of the forgoing is that future residents of the ground floor units would, in all likelihood, be placed at unreasonable risk of harm in a major flooding event, bringing the development into conflict with the terms of Environment Policy 10 and General Policy 2(l) of the Strategic Plan.

Living Conditions

• 64. The Authority’s concerns relate to apartment 4. Although the officer’s report and reason for refusal 2 refer to the windows and terrace as east facing, in fact they are south facing. The bedroom to the apartment would have two windows. One looks directly onto the end wall of a two storey building, roughly 2.5m away. The other has views down a narrow service alley that is lined by two-storey buildings to either side, with a corrugated clad building at the end with views above of the ten storey King’s Court flats. There is no meaningful view of anything beyond that.13
• 65. Whilst the related reason for refusal refers to outlook from the bathroom window, it would be obscure glazed. As such, I find no harm in this regard. There is also reference to the kitchen, which forms part of an open plan living/dining/ kitchen space not being served by a direct window. I am mindful, in this regard, of the appellant’s comments, which are not disputed, that there is no requirement in the Building Regulations for such, provided that there is an opening window that provides 20% ventilation to the space. Nothing in the evidence before me suggests that that would not be achieved. Again, I find no harm in terms of outlook, which is the specific concern raised by the reason for refusal.

• 13 See for example, photo 3 in the appellant’s statement of case.

• 66. The existing window to what would be the lounge/dining area to apartment 4 would be altered to accommodate a pair of sliding patio doors leading onto a small roof terrace (roughly 1.5m x 3.5m) that would be enclosed by 1.1m high railings. Views to the south from the window and terrace include the rear of the two storey building referred to above and the rear of other two storey buildings including the Royal George Hotel, and their rear extensions, again with the King’s Court flats in the distance beyond. The mountains can just be glimpsed in the far distance, through a narrow gap to the side of the distant flats.14 From the terrace, views to the southwest are of the rear of the hotel and No 14 East Quay, together with views down into its small sitting out area at the rear.15
• 67. All told, I found the views from the windows to apartment 4 to be bleak and uninspiring. They would not, in my opinion, provide anywhere close to the clear and pleasant outlook required by Housing Policy 17(b). As a consequence, future occupiers of apartment 4 would not be provided with acceptable living conditions in terms of their outlook. Moreover, the direct views from the lounge window and terrace down into the small sitting out area at the rear of No 14 East Quay, just some 5m away would materially compromise the privacy of users. There would be conflict in this regard with General Policy 2(g) which seeks to protect such interests.

Other Matters

• 68. The appeal site lies within the Ramsey Conservation Area. I have no reason in this regard to take a different view from that of the planning officer, that the external alterations associated with the development would be acceptable on visual grounds, with no harm to the established character and appearance of this Conservation Area, which derives largely from its association with the harbour. There would be a small improvement as a consequence of the removal of the unsightly fume extraction flue, although that could be removed at any time.
• 69. Like the Britannia Hotel scheme, the development proposed here would bring a currently vacant building of some architectural interest in a prominent town centre location, back into good use, halting its physical decline. It would also provide a total of six apartments (four new apartments plus refurbishment of two existing apartments) in a sustainable location with ready access to everyday services and facilities and public transport links. That is a consideration that attracts moderate positive weight
• 70. The appellant also advises that he has looked at re-casting the building as three town houses but that the internal layout did not facilitate that, and at the possibility of redeveloping the site and proceeding with a new build scheme. He advises that none of the options considered were viable, although no evidence is produced to substantiate those conclusions. I am mindful that any new build scheme could readily accommodate all sleeping accommodation above ground floor level, as the layout would not be constrained by the existing building form.

• 14 Ibid photo 1
• 15 Ibid photo 2 although that doesn’t show the view down into the sitting out area.

Overall Conclusion And Recommendation

• 71. I have found that future residents of the ground floor units would be placed at unreasonable risk of harm in a flooding event, bringing the development in to conflict with the terms of Environment Policy 10 and General Policy 2(l) of the Strategic Plan. I fully appreciate that none of the policies specifically prevent the provision of ground floor sleeping accommodation in areas that are at risk of flooding. I am mindful though, that paragraph 7.12.1 of the Strategic Plan confirms that it seeks to guide development away from areas at risk of flooding and that where development is permitted in an area at risk of flooding, for special or exceptional reasons, then appropriate flood protection and mitigation measures must be taken to safeguard life and property. Whilst there are some benefits associated with the proposed development, as set out above, they do not equate, in my view, to the special or exceptional reasons referred to in the Strategic Plan which might justify the introduction of sleeping accommodation at ground floor level in an area at high risk of flooding.
• 72. In addition, the very poor living conditions in terms of outlook for future residents of apartment 4, and the impact on the living conditions of nearby residents in terms of their privacy as a consequence of overlooking from that same apartment, bring the scheme into conflict with Housing Policy 17(b) and General Policy 2(g) of the Strategic Plan. In coming to a view on this, I am also aware that, among other things, the environmental strategic objectives of the Strategic Plan encourage high quality development throughout the Island, with the Department wishing to promote good design in new development. The development proposed does not represent good design.
• 73. To be weighed against those harms are the benefits associated with bringing this vacant accommodation back into beneficial use in a prominent and sustainable location within the Ramsey Conservation Area. This is a matter to which I attach moderate weight. In the overall planning balance, however, that benefit does not outweigh the identified harms.
• 74. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, and having considered all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. If the Minister agrees, this would have the effect of upholding the Authority’s decision to refuse permission.

Reason: The provision of sleeping accommodation at ground floor level in this area of high flood risk would place future occupiers of the two ground floor apartments at unreasonable risk of harm in a flooding event, bringing the development in to conflict with the terms of Environment Policy 10 and General Policy 2(l) of the Strategic. In addition, the very poor living conditions in terms of outlook for future residents of apartment 4, and the impact on the living conditions of nearby residents in terms of their privacy as a consequence of overlooking from that same apartment, bring the scheme into conflict with Housing Policy 17(b) and General Policy 2(g) of the Strategic Plan. Those harms are not outweighed by other considerations.

• 75. Should the Minister come to a different view and grant planning permission, suggested conditions, and the reasons for them, are attached at Annex B below.
• 76. One of the suggested conditions requires that details of secure cycle and bin storage be submitted. However, these are clearly shown on the proposed ground floor plan (No KD-09) so no separate condition is required in this regard. I agree though, that a condition requiring that those facilities be made available for occupiers prior to first occupation, and that they be retained thereafter, is necessary.

Jennifer A Vyse

Independent Inspector

21 November 2024

ANNEX AList of drawings on which my recommendation is based

Location Plan	KD-01
Site plan	KD-02
Existing ground floor plan	KD-03
Existing first floor plan	KD-04
Existing second floor plan	KD-05
Existing roof plan	KD-06
Existing elevations (west and north)	KD-07
Existing elevations (east and south)	KD-08
Proposed ground floor plan	KD-09
Proposed first floor plan	KD-10
Proposed second floor plan	KD-11
Proposed roof plan	KD-12
Proposed elevations (west and north)	KD-13A
Proposed elevations (east and south)	KD-14
Existing and proposed cellar plan	KD-15

• ANNEX B Schedule of recommended conditions
• C1. The development hereby approved shall begin before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision. 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.

• C2. The bin and cycle storage area shown on Plan No KD-09 (Proposed Ground Floor Plan) shall be provided prior to first occupation of any part of the development hereby approved and shall be kept available for its intended purpose thereafter. Reason: In order to protect the character and amenities of the area and environmental sustainability.
• C3. Prior to the commencement of development, details shall be submitted to and approved by the Department detailing flood resistance and resilience measures for Apartments 1 and 2 hereby approved. The details to be submitted shall include all electric sockets positioned at least 450mm above the floor level; all external doors to have built in flood protection properties; flood resilient vent bricks; and a flood evacuation plan, including arrangements for its display in a prominent place in each ground floor apartment. Neither apartment shall be occupied until the approved measures are in place, which measures shall be retained thereafter, including display of the flood evacuation plan. Reason: In order to mitigate as far as possible, the effects of flooding on the property and its occupants.
• C4. Prior to first occupation of any of the apartments hereby approved, at least four swift nest bricks shall have been incorporated into the northern, side elevation of the building in accordance with details that shall previously have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The swift boxes shall be retained thereafter. Reason: In order to mitigate potential harm to a protected species.

------------------------End of Schedule-------------------------