**Document:** APL Planning Statement **Application:** 22/00171/B — Additional use of eight self-contained tourist accommodation units (class 3.6) as residential apartments (class 3.4), erection of front and rear balconies, and alterations to windows to form doors **Decision:** Permitted **Decision Date:** 2024-06-06 **Parish:** Rushen **Document Type:** report / planning_statement **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/54302-rushen-falcons-nest-apartments-erection-windows/documents/1098821 --- # APL Planning Statement TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE) ORDER 2019 2018-4.2.1 V1.3 FEBRUARY 2022 ### Planning Statement APPLICATION REFERENCE: TBC PROPOSAL: ADDITIONAL USE OF EIGHT SELF-CONTAINED TOURIST ACCOMMODATION UNITS (CLASS 3.6) AS RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS (CLASS 3.4), ERECTION OF FRONT AND REAR BALCONIES, AND ENLARGEMENT OF RESPECTIVE WINDOWS TO FORM DOORS. ADDRESS: FALCONS NEST APARTMENTS, STRAND ROAD PORT ERIN, ISLE OF MAN IM9 6HB AUTHOR: EUAN P. H. CRAINE, B.Arch, M.Arch, ADPPA, ARB, RIBA HAVEN HOMES LIMITED THE OLD CHAPEL 32-34 MALEW STREET CASTLETOWN ISLE OF MAN IM9 1AF PHONE 01624 835222 EMAIL HAVEN@HAVEN.IM WEB WWW.HAVEN.IM #### Contents - 0.0 Introduction 2 - 1.0 The Site 3 - 2.0 The Surrounding Context 3 - 3.0 Planning History 3 - 4.0 The Proposal 4 - 5.0 Flooding and Drainage 5 - 6.0 Environmental Impact 5 - 7.0 Access and Parking 6 - 8.0.0 Planning Policy 6 - 8.1.0 General Provisions 6 - 8.2.0 Residential Use 7 - 8.3.0 Tourism Use 8 - 8.4.0 Neighbouring Uses and Amenity 9 - 9.0 Summary 10 ##### Appendices: - A Schedule of Drawings and Supporting Documentation - B Schedule of Relevant Case Precedents for Tourism Use - C Schedule of Relevant Case Precedents for Balconies - 0.0 INTRODUCTION - 0.1 This Statement has been prepared by Haven Homes Limited (the Agent) on behalf of B.E.T. Phoenix Limited (the Applicant) and is intended to be read and considered together with all associated submissions in the application bundle. - 0.2 The Application is made for full consent for the Proposal (pursuant to the Act1, DPO2, UCO3, IMSP4, and APS5) without prejudice to any existing statutory consents, licences or other provisions in respect of the land (whether contained wholly or partly within the Site) or any concurrent applications for statutory consent in relation to either the land or the Proposal. - 0.3 The Proposal is as described in this Statement and as represented in the drawings scheduled at Appendix A. It may be summarised as the additional use of eight self-contained tourist accommodation units (Class 3.6) as residential apartments (Class 3.4), the erection of front and rear balconies, and the enlargement of the corresponding windows to form doors. - 0.4 The Site is as delineated edged red on the Location Plan and Site Plan. The Applicant is the owner of the Site, save for that part of the Site extending to include the means of highway access (in accordance with the Planning Authority’s acquired non-statutory convention, notwithstanding consent for such access having previously been granted). - 1 Town and Country Planning Act 1999 - 2 Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 - 3 Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2012 and its Written Statement (as amended). - 4 Town and Country Planning (Isle of Man Strategic Plan) Order 2016 and its Written Statement - 5 Town and Country Planning (Area Planfor the South) Order 2012 and its Written Statement (as amended). - 1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The Site consists of an existing single block of eight units as represented on the appended drawings. - 1.2 The building is four storeys tall, the two respective units on each floor being separated from one another either partially (1st, 2nd and 3rd floors) or entirely (ground floor) by a communal circulation space, incorporating an entrance corridor, stairwell and lift. - 1.3 The entrance corridor is accessed from an adjacent car park to the west, whereas the principal habitable spaces are to the east elevation, overlooking a landscaped playground. Windows to the west elevation serve bedrooms (two to each unit). Windows to the north and south elevations serve bathrooms and kitchens. - 2.0 THE SURROUNDING CONTEXT - 2.1 The Site lies within the settlement boundaries of Port Erin. - 2.2 The Site is bound:— n) to the north by buildings comprising the Isle of Man Steam Railway Museum, with Port Erin Railway Station and the Station Road highway beyond; e) to the east by a children’s park and playground with Athol Park Glen beyond; s) to the south by Glen View Terrace (comprising residential properties); and w) to the west by a privately-owned car park (serving the Site in part) with the Strand Road highway and Falcon’s Nest Hotel beyond. #### 3.0 Planning History A number of applications have been submitted concerning the Site. ###### 3.1 P.A. 04/00870/A was approved in July 2004 for:—“Approval in principle for a residential developmentof six dwellings with parking and garages.” The approval was granted subject to three conditions. Condition 3 states:— “The parking spaces shall be allocated such that each dwelling has a minimum of two parking spaces per unit.” ###### 3.2 P.A. 07/02362/B was approved in April 2008 for:-“Erection of a block of eight [residential]apartments with car parking and landscaping andimprovement to remaining car park for hotel use.” The application was not made by way of a reserved matters application in respect of P.A. 04/00870/A (and sought two additional residential units in any event). - 3.3 P.A. 09/02082/C was approved in March 2010 for:“Change of use of eight existing residential apartments to self contained tourist accommodation units.” The approval was granted subject to four conditions. Condition 3 states:— “The units may be used only as tourist accommodation where tourism is defined as set out below in accordance with the provisions of the Strategic Plan and for clarification may not be occupied as a person’s main place of residence. Tourism has been defined by the Tourism Society as “the temporary short term movement of people to destinations outside the places where they normally live and work and their activities during their stay at these destinations” and it covers a very wide range of activities and types of development. This may include travel and visits for business, professional and domestic purposes as well as for holidays and recreation.” - 4.0 THE PROPOSAL - 4.1 a) The Application seeks express consent for the additional use of the existing self-contained tourism units as residential apartments (as defined at UCO Schedule §12, Class 3.4) allowing the use class for which the structure was originally granted. - b) The Application also seeks express consent for the erection of balconies to the front and rear of the structure at 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors, together with the door openings required to access each of the balconies. - c) The Proposal has the effect of varying Condition 3 of P.A. 09/02082/C. Such a variation may be effected by way of an application for full approval. Such an application may additionally seek consent for separate works, upon which the granting of a use class may (or may not) be dependent. The two elements of the Proposal described at §4.1(a) and §4.1(b) of this Statement are capable of being assessed separately and independently as they are clearly not dependent upon one another. - d) The existing structure may reasonably be taken as having been originally designed for residential use under §12(2) of the Act (P.A. 07/02362/B). - 4.2 The effects on the leisure and tourism industries as a result of recent global events (and the associated restrictions on movement) cannot be overstated; it is generally accepted that recovery to the sector will take some time. These factors, together with a tourism industry that was already characterised as waning in Port Erin (as referred to in the APS), have resulted in a reduced level of occupation of, and activity at, the Site. - 4.3 It is considered that the re-introduction of residential use of the Site (for which purpose it was originally designed) will ensure that the Site is used efficiently, to the best of its potential and, in turn, for the economic benefit of Port Erin and the Island as a whole — all in alignment with the objectives of APS and IMSP. - 4.4 Although the units are proximate to Athol Park and Port Erin Beach, the units do not have the benefit of any external space of their own, which would prove invaluable in any future events requiring residents to stay at home or tourists to isolate, as seen in recent lockdowns. The proposed balconies would augment the usability of the existing structure with external amenity. - 4.5 The relevent RDG6 sections have been considered with regards to intervisibility and visual impact. - a) It is proposed that the balconies be supported by a relatively minimalist structural design to defer to the bright, fair-faced masonry blockwork of the existing structure. - b) The balustrades will be glazed to allow the existing blockwork façade to be seen. A number of existing window sills will be lowered to form glazed door accesses which, together with the glass balustrades, will maximise daylight admittance. - c) It is considered that the externally projecting floors of the balconies will have the effect of reducing visibility into the units at an oblique angle and, conversely, restricting views towards any neighbouring properties from the habitable space of the units (that is, where there exists a difference in level between one and the other). - d) Where there would otherwise be a risk of intervisibility between the units, or to neighbouring properties outside of the Site, obscured glass panels will be used as required (in particular to the southern ends of some of the balconies). - 5.0 FLOODING AND DRAINAGE - 5.1 It is considered that the Proposal will have no effect on either the flood risk or drainage requirements of the Site (or its environs), there being no external building or engineering operations proposed that would increase the quantity of intercepted rainfall (given the hard landscaping that currently exists around the building). The balconies will direct rainwater to the existing gulleys and surface water drainage infrastructure. - 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - 6.1 It is considered that the Proposal will have no effect on either the biodiversity or ecology of the Site (or its environs), there being no external building or engineering operations proposed that would encroach into any area of soft landscaping or protected habitats. - 6.2 The Proposal will result in the increased use of an existing structure (and its embodied energy), thereby representing a sustainable approach to development through re-use. - 6 Residential Design Guide 2021 (non-legislative public document) - 7.0 ACCESS AND PARKING - 7.1 No change is proposed to either the vehicular or pedestrian means of access. - 7.2 P.A. 04/00870/A required that two parking spaces be provided for each of the apartments. P.A. 07/02362/B was not made by way of a reserved matters application and the parking requirements previously imposed were not carried forward. Nevertheless, current parking requirements are set out at IMSP Appendix 7, which states:— “Apartments: 1 space for 1 bedroom; 2 spaces for 2 or more bedrooms” - 7.3 In accordance with current parking requirements, sixteen of the existing car parking spaces will be available for the use of the units, without reliance on the applicable relaxations available to the Applicant. Nevertheless, it is open to the Planning Authority to invoke a relevant relaxation given the particular location of the Site and proximate transport infrastructure. It is noted that the Site is not within, nor in the vicinity of, a designated Conservation Area. - 7.4 It is considered that full occupation of the Site, regardless as to residential or tourism use, can not equate to any net increase in pedestrian or vehicular traffic than previously considered under the Act, particularly as both uses were expressly approved at the Site under previous applications. - 8.0.0 PLANNING POLICY - 8.1.0 — GENERAL PROVISIONS — - 8.1.1 Pursuant to §2(2)(a) of the Act, IMSP §1.3.1 states:“A strategic plan comprises a written statement formulating the Department’s general policies in respect of the development and other use of land in the Island, together with a reasoned justification of those policies and such diagrams, illustrations, or other explanatory matter as the Department thinks fit.” - 8.1.2 IMSP §1.7.2 states (with our emphasis):“The Aim, Objectives, Policies and Spatial Strategy must be looked at as a whole. They are intended to inter-relate and should not be read in isolation.[…]” - 8.1.3 IMSP §1.4.4 states:“In the case of any inconsistency between the provisions of the Strategic Plan and the provisions of an Area Plan, whichever came into force later will prevail.” The IMSP was adopted in 2016 and therefore prevails in the case of any inconsistency with the APS. - 8.2.0 — RESIDENTIAL USE — - 8.2.1 GP27 states:“Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:[…] (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief;[…]” No Development Brief exists for the Site; criterion GP2(a) is not applicable to the Proposal. - 8.2.2 GP38 states:“Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan […]” HP49 states:“New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages […]” The superseded 1990 Port Erin Local Plan designated the Site as “Residential”. APS Map 7 shows the Site located within the settlement boundary of Port Erin in an area now designated “Mixed Use”. Previous applications have already established the acceptability of residential use on the Site under policies that remain in effect. The Proposal aligns with the current landuse designation of the Site; the Proposal complies with both GP3 and HP4. - 8.2.3 StrP110 states:“Development should make the best use of resources by: - (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and reusing scarce indigenous building materials; - (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards; and - (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services.” It is considered that the Site currently comprises an under-used building that has greater potential capable of being realised by the Proposal, with the additional benefit of being located close to existing infrastructure, facilities and services. - 7 General Policy 2 at IMSP §6.2 - 8 General Policy 3 at IMSP §6.3 - 9 Housing Policy 4 at IMSP §8.5.5 - 10 Strategic Policy 1 at IMSP §4.2.1 - 8.2.4 HP511 states:“In granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas the Department will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more.” - a) The Site is designated as Mixed Use on APS Map 7. There is no Development Brief contrary to Map 7 (or at all) that would allow the Site to be construed as being designated Predominantly Residential (or anything other than Mixed Use). The Site is, for the most part, surrounded by areas designated as Mixed Use, Railway, and Public Open Space, and can not therefore be said to lie in a predominantly residential area (if such meaning in IMSP is to be treated as distinct from that expressed in APS). - b) It is established that there is no requirement for the provision of affordable housing at this particular location. Moreover, the development already exists (it can not be characterised as being newly-built) and preceded the current Affordable Housing Standards (published by the Department of Infrastructure in 2016). Furthermore, the Planning Authority stated in assessing P.A. 09/02082/C that both residential and tourism uses are acceptable and that the provision of affordable housing is not a prerequisite to approval in such circumstances:— “[…] there is no legislation or planning policy which states that affordable housing will take precedence over any other form of land use in an area where that alternative form of use would otherwise be acceptable. In this case, it is considered that both uses are equally acceptable.[…]” - c) HP5 is not applicable to the Proposal. The residential use of the Site is established under policy that remains in effect and remains consistent with the Site’s current land-use designation. - 8.3.0 — TOURISM USE — - 8.3.1 BP1312 states:“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.” Both tourism and residential uses have previously had consent at the Site under the Act and it is therefore established that each are capable of being accommodated. - 8.3.2 APS §3.6.2 states (in reference to Port Erin):“Given the reduction in the demand for tourism accommodation in the Village many of the former hotels have been converted or redeveloped, however, Port Erin still attracts a number of visitors; many of which arrive by steam train.[…]” It is therefore acknowledged that the tourism sector has reduced (even before events that recently transpired). Nevertheless, it would be prudent to retain the existing use (Class 3.6) in addition to the proposed (Class 3.4) to enable diversity of use. - 11 Housing Policy 5 at IMSP §8.6.3 - 12 Strategic Policy 8 at IMSP §4.4.4 - 8.4.0 — NEIGHBOURING USES AND AMENITY — - 8.4.1 GP213 states:— “Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:[…] - (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; - (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;[…]” - a) Applications for tourism use of residential properties are more commonly sought than residential use of tourism properties. - b) The transient occupation that occurs when a dwelling is used for tourism purposes has been known to raise the concerns of neighbours as to potential nuisances, particularly evening noise levels. - c) Residential use at the Site will clearly reduce the potential for such impact that would otherwise be experienced were the Site used solely for tourism. Indeed, such is the apparent conclusion reached by the Planning Authority in the relatively rare occasion that residential use is sought as additional to an existing tourism use (cf. appx. B). - d) Regarding the proposed balconies, as previously discussed at §4.5, these have been designed to minimise their visual intrusion, to eliminate the possibility of intervisibility, to respect the architectural expression of the existing building, and to add important amenity to the respective units without subtracting amenity from any other property or the public realm. Although each case is assessed on its own merits, the relevant principles are well established and tested (cf. appx. C). - 13 General Policy 2 at IMSP §6. #### 9.0 Summary - 9.1 The Proposal will increase the occupation and efficient use of the Site — an existing building. - 9.2 The parking requirements of the Proposal have been strictly adhered to, without recourse to applicable relaxations. The Proposal will provide adequate amenity in and of itself, as is considered necessary to support and properly accommodate both the existing and proposed uses of the Site. - 9.3 The Proposal will provide additional amenity to units within the Site (regardless as to use class), and incorporate considerations in order to avoid affecting surrounding amenity. - 9.4 There will be no effect on the drainage or ecology of the site. - 9.5 It is considered that full occupation of the Site (regardless as to use class) will not equate in any higher pedestrian or vehicular traffic than already considered under the Act (particularly as both uses were previously approved at the Site). - 9.6 It is considered that the Proposal complies with the planning policies identified in this Statement and it is established that the separate elements contained in the Application are not dependent upon one another. Where, in the view of the Department or statutory consultees, there exists any matter that may impede the approval of an application, it is the public duty of the Department to advise the applicant or their agent, so that such matters may be addressed prior to the determination of the application. - 9.7 Whilst the local tourism and leisure industries embark upon a road to recovery following the emergency measures of recent times, it is expected that the Proposal will make a positive and significant contribution to the local economy. ## Appendix — A SCHEDULE OF DRAWINGS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION #### Appendix A Schedule of drawings submitted in support of the Application #### Author Reference Rev. Drawing Title - Haven Homes 2018-100.00 A Location Plan - Haven Homes 2018-100.01 A Site Plan as Existing - Haven Homes 2018-100.10 A Plans and Elevations as Existing - Haven Homes 2018-100.11 A Plans and Elevations as Proposed ## Appendix — B SCHEDULE OF RELEVANT CASE PRECEDENTS FOR TOURISM USE ###### 15/00830/C Additional use of tourist accommodation as residential accommodation23 Rhenwyllan Close, Port St. Mary IM9 5NJ In assessing the application, the Planning Authority considered the planning history of the site:“The planning history of the site indicates that the application building was originally a residential property. The additional use of the tourist accommodation to residential would essentially re-establish the original use of the building, albeit with additional tourist use, wherein a large amount of residential properties around the Island operate as.[…]“ The Planning Authority considered that the principle established in IMSP, regarding the acceptability of additional tourism use of residential properties, was a material consideration when considering the reverse situation:— “It is also important to acknowledge that the Strategic Plan makes it clear that the use of private residential properties for tourist accommodation will generally be acceptable provided that it would not compromise the amenities of neighbouring properties, albeit this application is for the reverse.“ It was also concluded that residential use would be less intrusive than tourism use:“Tourist movements can be very different to that of those residing in a dwelling, and being on holiday can often relax one’s way of life. In some cases, tourists may be returning to the property late at night or during the early hours in the morning on a more frequent basis than permanent occupants […]. As such, the proposal is not considered to cause any significant harm to the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties through any more noise and disturbance than what most likely occurs at present.“ ###### 16/01015/C Additional use of tourist accommodation as residential accommodationBeaconsfield Barn, Richmond Hill, Douglas IM4 1JG As no external changes were proposed, the main considerations concerned any potential effect on neighbouring amenity. Of relevance to the current application is the following extract (notwithstanding the interchange of the existing and proposed uses, an apparent mistake):— “[…] that it is a building already in existence and is currently used as residential use and has previously been utilised for tourist use that it is considered the property is suitable for both uses at any time” The report goes on to make the same observation in relation to the Strategic Plan as the above extract of 15/00830/C (verbatim). ###### 16/01052/C Additional use of tourist cottage as residential Harry’s Cottage, Old Smokehouse Yard, Factory Lane, Peel IM5 1NA It was determined that the proposal accorded with the land use designation under the relevant area plan and was therefore acceptable. Furthermore, the case officer noted applicable relaxations to parking provision, notwithstanding the possibility for two bedrooms within the proposal. - 18/00122/C Additional use of tourist accommodation as residential accommodation Langness Cottage & Barrule Cottage Lower Ballachrink, Ballamodha Straight, Ballasalla IM9 3ES It was determined that the proposal was acceptable because the appearance of the building would not change and that there would be little or no resultant change in terms of traffic. Moreover it was noted that, had the original application (under which consent for the original building conversion was granted) sought residential use, it would have been successful. It should therefore be noted that the original application granting the development of the Site (P.A. 07/02362/B) did, in fact, expressly grant residential use. ## Appendix — C SCHEDULE OF RELEVANT CASE PRECEDENTS FOR BALCONIES ###### 14/01378/B Erection of raised timber decking to rear elevation 41 - 43 Malew Street, Castletown, IM9 1AE It was determined that the raised external floor area, being located next to a car park and yard, would have no adverse impact on neighbouring amenity, nothwithstanding the site’s situation within a conservation area:— “Raised decking areas can often result in adverse impacts upon neighbouring properties most notably through overlooking and loss of privacy. In this case, the application site has no immediate neighbouring dwellings with gardens. The yard to the south serves both the application dwelling and No. 39 Malew Street; the yard always having to be kept clear to allow access into the garages. To the north of the application site is a car park. As such, the raised timber decking area would not harm any private residential amenity.“ ###### 18/01051/B Raising of existing retaining wall, creation of two additional retaining walls […]Hillside Saint, Marys Road, Port Erin, IM9 6JJ The application sought retrospective approval for works to create raised levels to a rear garden. Given an amendment to remove the uppermost level that would otherwise have significantly contributed to overlooking, it was concluded (notwithstanding that the remainder of the proposal also resulted in increased overlooking) that given the distance between the platforms and the neighbouring, any resultant overlooking would be immaterial. ###### 19/00670/B […] balcony to front dormer […]Sunnyhill, Croit E Quill Road, Laxey IM4 7JJ Having initially assessed the effect of a balcony to be significant enough to warrant refusal, the Planning Authority’s decision was successfully appealed. The independent inspector concluded:— “A degree of overlooking of private gardens is to be expected in urban areas such as this, and the garden of ‘Higher Heights’ can already be seen from the existing dormer window in the appeal premises. I do not consider that the occupants of ‘Higher Heights’ would suffer an additional loss of privacy in their garden sufficient to justify the refusal of planning approval.“ ###### 19/01271/B Replacement of existing front and rear balconies with extended balconiesCameron Court, Fort Island Road, Derbyhaven IM9 1TZ The fundamental issues identified by the Planning Authority were determined to be:“whether the proposed changes will adversely affect the appearance of the property and whether there would be any adverse impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent property, particularly Shearwater, immediately to the south, having regard to the assessment criteria given in the RDG.“ The Planning Authority concluded in their assessment:“The dwelling has a modern character which will not be adversely affected by the changes proposed. They could arguably make the property more attractive and give it a slightly more contemporary feel. The enlargement of the rear balcony could have the potential of impacting on the privacy of those in Shearwater, however, due to the position of that property further back on the site, the balcony should not look directly into that property and the views are unlikely to be significantly different to what is currently experienced.“ --- *Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).* *Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/54302-rushen-falcons-nest-apartments-erection-windows/documents/1098821*