**Document:** Officer Report 10/01351/B **Application:** 10/01351/B — Conversion of boarding house to four apartments **Decision:** Refused **Decision Date:** 2010-11-01 **Parish:** Rushen **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/37019-rushen-lincluden-conversion-dwelling/documents/1180435 --- # Officer Report 10/01351/B **Application No.:** 10/01351/B **Applicant:** Mr Chris Heginbotham **Proposal:** Conversion of boarding house to four apartments **Site Address:** Lincluden Glenview Terrace Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6HA Considerations Case Officer: Miss S E Corlett **Photo Taken:** 30.09.2010 **Site Visit:** 30.09.2010 **Expected Decision Level:** Senior Planning Officer Written Representations 10 Glenview Terrace Port Erin Isle Of Man Objects to the proposal Consultations Consultee: Manx Electricity Authority Notes: Comments received Consultee: Highways Division Notes: Do not oppose has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications. Consultee: Port Erin Commissioners Notes: Oppose ## Officer's Report THE SITE The site is the curtilage of an existing property - Lincluden, which sits on the northern side of Athol Park in Port Erin. The property is a semi-detached property which has three storeys of accommodation and two small rear single storey outlets. To the rear of the property is a new apartment complex accommodating four floors of accommodation and associated with the Falcon's Nest Hotel separated from the site by a wall and rear path serving the properties in Glen View to the west of the application site. The lane is narrow and used for bin storage and rear access. A number of the Glen View properties back right up to the lane and a couple have windows in the walling onto the lane. Currently the building is used as a boarding house. PLANNING STATUS 15 October 2010 10/01351/B Page 1 of 4 The site lies within an area designated on the Port Erin Local Plan and draft Southern Area Plan which was published on 23rd October, 2009 as Residential. ## Planning History Planning permission has been sought for the conversion of the property to three self contained apartments - PA 89/1880 and for the erection of advertising - PA 97/0614 - both approved. ### The Proposal Proposed now is the conversion of the building from a boarding house to four apartments. Currently, the boarding house arrangement accommodates ten bedrooms, spread across all of the floors, and a lounge and kitchen on the ground floor and bathrooms on the first and second floors. Proposed is the creation of four flats within the building and the removal of the rear annexes and their replacement with a flat roofed annex which will accommodate two bedrooms. The ground floor as extended will accommodate two apartments and the first and second floors one apartment each. Each unit will have one bedroom although the units on the first and second floors accommodate a study which is likely to function as a second bedroom. The proposal involves the demolition of the rear annexes and their replacement by a flat roofed annex which looks as if it occupies all of the rear of the property. There is no indication where the bin storage for units three and four will be as there is no rear space left to store such items. Also, the ground floor rear bedrooms have windows which look as if they will be right on the rear boundary and may open out onto the rear lane. This provides no privacy for the occupants of these bedrooms and the obvious remedy for all of the above concerns is not to have the rear annex, to provide rear storage space and to have only one unit on the ground floor. There are proposed four spaces for four apartments where two of the apartments have a study, which in real terms are likely to be used as a second bedroom, which would take the required parking above what would be required per bedroom. The Strategic Plan makes some provision for flexibility in the application of standards but only where development "is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality". There is no information in the application to demonstrate that this is the case. Externally, the changes to the building are the replacement of the rear sliding sash windows with casements and the rebuilding of the rear annex as described above. In addition, at the front of the site, car parking is to be provided in the form of three spaces to the left of the front steps in place of two existing spaces, and a further space on the right hand side of the steps. ### Representations Highways and Traffic Division indicate that they do not oppose the application. The owner of 10, Glen View Terrace, immediately alongside indicate that the proposals are overambitious and that the provision of four parking spaces on site is unlikely to be achieved in practice. They also express concern about the length of time which works may take to complete and the absence of a fire escape which they consider would be required. They also feel that there is no further need for apartments in Port Erin. The MEA request consultation regarding the provision of electricity supplies which is not a material planning consideration. Port Erin Commissioners indicate that they oppose the application on the grounds the proposed development is over intensive, of poor design and there is insuffient parking on the site. ### Assessment The proposal should be considered in respect of Housing Policy 17 which states: "The conversion of buildings into flats will generally be permitted in residential areas provided that: 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." Also, Appendix Seven sets out parking standards and recommends that in the case of apartments, one space per single bedroom unit and two spaces for two bedrooms or more be provided. This standard may be relaxed where development is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality. In this case there is space for bin storage, limited amenity space and it is unlikely that there is sufficient space for outside clothes drying. Car parking is provided in the form of four spaces for two single bedroomed units and two two bedroomed units (whilst only one bedroom is shown, the upper floor flats contain a study which could be used as a second bedroom and in floor area, each flat could accommodate up to 3 persons as permanent residents under the Housing (Flats) Regulations 1982 and as such it is reasonable to count the study as a second bedroom) resulting in six bedrooms and only four spaces being provided. No information has been provided to indicate how this deficiency in parking would not detrimentally affect the locality. Whilst the rear bedrooms of the ground floor flats are not principal rooms, the only windows provided are right alongside the rear lane which may be used by the other residents of Glen View, particularly Olive Mount/number 10 and as such, it is considered that these rooms do not have adequate amenity in terms of privacy and possibly ventilation if the windows were to open outward. If the building were converted to three apartments - one per floor - with the proposed rear outlet omitted, the requirement for parking spaces would still be six, but the likely demand for spaces would be reduced (it is more likely that one two bedroomed apartment would result in the demand for only one parking space than would two one bedroomed apartments) and the ground floor apartment would have much improved amenity and privacy and there may be sufficient space for clothes-drying in accordance with the Policy. As such, it is considered that the proposal represents an over-development of the site resulting in an insufficiency of parking spaces and inadequate privacy and amenities for the occupants of the ground floor flats. The applicant's agent has offered to relocate the rear window in one of the ground floor apartments to the side, but this would effectively be alongside the bin store and the other apartment window would still be directly alongside the rear lane. ## Party Status The local authority is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status. The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance. The owner of 10, Glen View Terrace is immediately adjacent to the application site and as such should be afforded party status in this instance. The Manx Electricity Authority raise issues which are not material planning considerations and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance. ## Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 15.10.2010 ### Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal ### C : Conditions for approval
N : Notes attached to conditions
R : Reasons for refusal
0 : Notes attached to refusals R 1 . The proposal represents an over-development of the site resulting in an insufficiency of parking spaces and inadequate privacy and amenities for the occupants of the ground floor flats. Whilst the relocation of the rear window in one of the ground floor apartments to the side would partly overcome some of this issue, this would effectively be alongside the bin store and the other apartment window would still be directly alongside the rear lane. As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to Housing Policy 17. I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Senior Planning Officer. Decision Made : Refused Date : 251010 Signed : Senior Planning Officer --- *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/37019-rushen-lincluden-conversion-dwelling/documents/1180435*