**Document:** 08/01395/B Officer Report **Application:** 08/01395/B — Alterations and conversion from two to three apartments **Decision:** Permitted **Decision Date:** 2008-09-05 **Parish:** Rushen **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/85904-rushen-the-beachcomber-conversion/documents/1236008 --- # 08/01395/B Officer Report **Application No.:** ** 08/01395/B ** **Applicant:** ** Mr P Joynes ** **Proposal:** ** Alterations and conversion from two to three apartments ** **Site Address:** ** The Beachcomber Shore Road Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6HL ### Considerations **Case Officer:** Miss S E Corlett ** **Photo Taken:** ** ______________________________ ** **Site Visit:** ** ______________________________ ** **Expected Decision Level:** ** Delegation ### Written Representations ### Consultations **Consultee:** Chief Environmental Health Officer **Notes:** See comments **Consultee:** Highways Division **Notes:** Objection **Consultee:** Port Erin Commissioners **Notes:** No objections ### Officer's Report #### The Site The site represents the curtilage of the Beachcomber - a two-storey structure which has an amusement arcade on the ground floor and two flats above, on the southern end of Shore Road between the Bay Hotel and the Herdman Institute - two attractive and interesting landmark buildings in this part of the village. The application building is more modest by comparison, more modern and less interesting. It is a basic, flat-roofed, rendered structure which from the rear appears as a single-storey structure, being built into the bank to the rear. #### Planning Status The site lies within an area designated on the Port Erin Local Plan of 1990 as Tourism/Residential. The Written Statement contains policies which recommend no changes to the traffic system without the full support of the highway authority and the local authority and the contemplation of a cantilevered walkway between the Herdman Institute and Bay Hotel buildings to avoid traffic and pedestrian conflict at this point on Shore Road. Both the local plan and the Strategic Plan, whose policies on parking standards supersede those in the local plan, state that provision of 1.5 or 2 spaces respectively should be provided per new residential unit although flexibility may be applied in the case of redevelopment proposals and village centre locations. The Strategic Plan adds the proviso "it 3 September 2008 08/01395/B Page 1 of 4 can be demonstrated that a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on-street parking in the locality" (Appendix 7, A.7.6. d). ## Planning History Various applications have been submitted for alterations to the facility which are not relevant to the consideration of this application. An application was submitted for the extension to increase living accommodation under PA 90/1270 and was permitted on appeal. The concern expressed related to the visual impact of the proposed extension on a building of poor form. The extension proposed an additional living room on the first floor. The creation of a first floor flat was permitted on review under PA 00/1828. This appears to have subdivided the upper floor into two self contained residential units and whilst the Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division raised concerns about the lack of parking, the application was permitted, the planning officer noting that parking was available off-site along the Promenade. Permission was granted for the principle of the demolition of the building and its redevelopment to form residential purposes (PA 05/0150). Permission was granted for extensions to the ground floor with balcony above for external seating in association with the ground floor catering facilities under PA 06/1949. In the assessment of this application, the officer's report included the following: "Whilst there is an objection from the occupant of Herdman House, to the west of the site, on the basis of increased nuisance from an extended premises and the lack of parking, this facility is one the majority of whose patrons are unlikely to come to the premises by car and the extension is unlikely to generate so many more customers as would justify refusal of the application for these reasons. The public house (The Bay) has been extensively renovated and tourist accommodation created above generating more traffic with no additional car parking provision. There is no objection from the Department of Transport regarding traffic or parking." ### The Proposal Now proposed is the subdivision of the upper floor living accommodation to form three self-contained flats in place of the existing two. The existing flats are a two bedroomed flat and a single bedroomed flat. The proposed flats will all be single bed and will have floor areas of and 47 sq m respectively, all of which comply with the Housing (Flats) Regulations 1982 and could each accommodate a maximum of two persons. Previously, flat 1 was 65 sq. m accommodating up to 3 permanent residents and flat 2 could accommodate up to 5 persons in its 84 sq. m of area (although only having two bedrooms which could suggest a lower actual level of occupancy). External alterations include only the installation of a new rear door onto the walkway from the new central flat, in place of an existing longer window on the rear elevation. ### Representations Environmental Health Inspector recommend that the flats should be registered under the Housing (Flats) Regulations 1982. As this refers to separate legislation it is not a matter for inclusion on the planning decision notice. Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division object to the application on the basis that the local plans states that 1.5 parking spaces should be provided, which are not provided on site. ### Assessment The property lies within an area designated as Tourism/Residential and the proposed use complies with that designation. The use itself does not change from the existing. There are no specific local plan policies with which the proposal conflicts - the parking requirement cannot be met on site but the parking policy states that in village centre locations car parking requirements will be determined with regard to specific cases and on the basis of bed spaces and population generated. In this case the number of flats will be increased from two to three and the number of bedspaces shown in the application does not change. The floor areas could result in a maximum occupancy in accordance with the Housing Flats Regulations 1982 of 6 persons in the case of the proposed scheme and up to 5 persons in flat 2 (although the layout would suggest that the actual occupancy would have been perhaps 4 persons in the two bedrooms shown) and 3 persons in the case of flat 1 (although the inclusion of only one bedroom would suggest that the occupancy may be only 2 persons, although there are two kitchens shown in the existing layout). As such, the occupancy levels are likely to be very similar to the existing situation albeit that there will be three households rather than two, however arguable single bed units could be more likely to result in occupants not owning a car compared with larger households which may include children and where a car is a more important acquisition. It is recommended that there is so little difference between the schemes that the change in the parking requirement arising from the proposed change in layout is not sufficient to warrant refusal of the application. The Strategic Plan sets out parking standards at Appendix Seven and changes the approach to calculating the requirement by including a reference to the number of bedrooms. In the case of the existing layout there would be a requirement for three spaces and with the proposed it would be the same - whilst the number of flats is increasing the number of bedrooms in the case of one of the apartments has decreased, resulting in no change in the number of bedrooms. Whilst there was concern expressed by the Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division to the creation of the second flat in 2000 the approval was not challenged. In the light of all of the above, it is considered that there is insufficient evidence that there will be a change in the amount of vehicles generated by the proposed new layout which would justify refusal of this application. ## **PARTY STATUS** The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status. Environmental Health Inspector raise issues relating to legislation which is not material to the planning process and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance. **Recommendation** **Recommended Decision:** Permitted **Date of Recommendation:** 03.09.2008 **Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal** - C : Conditions for approval - N : Notes attached to conditions - R : Reasons for refusal - O : Notes attached to refusals ## **C 1.** The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice. ## **C 2.** This permission relates to the conversion of the upper floor from two flats to three single bedroom apartments as shown in drawing reference 1397/01 received on 17th July, 2008. 3 September 2008 08/01395/B Page 3 of 4 I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular No 44/05 (Delegation of Functions to Director of Planning and Building Control) Decision Made : Permitted Date : Signed : M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control --- *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/85904-rushen-the-beachcomber-conversion/documents/1236008*