**Document:** Officer Report 23 June 2006 **Application:** 06/00330/B — Refurbishments and alterations to form five executive apartments **Decision:** Refused **Decision Date:** 2006-07-10 **Parish:** Rushen **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/80197-rushen-marine-house/documents/1464415 --- # Officer Report 23 June 2006 **Application No.:** 06/00330/B **Applicant:** Mr D Newton **Proposal:** Refurbishments and alterations to form five executive apartments **Site Address:** Marine House, Falcon Hill, Port Erin, Isle Of Man, IM9 6HG ### Considerations ### Written Representations ### Consultations [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] ## Officer's Report ### The Site The site represents a three storey building situated on the corner of Strand Road and the public footpath which links Strand Road to Station Road past the Falcon's Nest Hotel. The building has a shop at ground floor level and two floors of living accommodation above. ### Planning Status And Relevant Policies The site lies within an area of Mixed use on the Port Erin Local Plan adopted by Tynwald in 1990. ### Planning History Planning permission was granted for the replacement of the existing first and second floor windows under PA 06/0028. change of use from a shop to a photographic studio was approved under IDO 42838 and alterations to the shopfront approved under IDO 43826. ### The Proposal The application proposes the conversion of the building to 5 apartments. The existing building is described as "containing 3 no. bedsits and a three bedroom flat". No parking is available and none is to be provided. The applicant points out that there is roadside parking along both sides of Strand Road and Shore Road. Four of the apartments would be self contained on a single floor and one is split over two floors. Four of the apartments are single bedroomed and one has two bedrooms. External alterations include lowering the height of the chimney stacks, bricking up windows on the side and rear elevations, re-roofing the porches and bays and installation of external lighting on the side and rear elevations. There will be a new pedestrian access on the rear elevation giving access to apartment 3 and the stairs to apartments 4 and 5, replacing an existing outbuilding door which faces south west. One new window is to be introduced on the rear elevation replacing the existing larger opening. ### Assessment The existing use is described as 3 bedsits and one three bedroomed flats. There is no planning history of the property ever having been approved for flats or bedsits. I have written to the applicant's agent asking for clarification of the status of the flats/bedsits and to address the concerns which have been raised by the occupants of Condor House regarding overlooking of and privacy for their property. The applicant's agent has now responded by way of letter dated 19th May, 2006. In this he explains that the applicant has no record of planning permission for the flats. He has contacted the former owner of the building (who also provided information for one of the objectors) confirming that the property was in 1972 two retail units, an office and single flat above with 2 flats on the top floor. In 1974 the upper floors were converted to 4 holiday flats which later become long-lease bedsits with 6 bedrooms between them. In 1980 the top floor was converted back into a large 3 bedroomed flat and the remaining bedsits were used for storage. The applicant's agent confirms that the application was prepared on the basis of what was believed to be the case in respect of the internal layout of the building. They also suggest that the proposal accords with the findings they have on the demand for rental accommodation in the area. They acknowledge that there will be an increase in the demand for parking over and above the present use and suggest that they have discussed the principle of ground floor garaging and this was not accepted due to the resultant visual impact. They suggest that there is adequate roadside parking available in the area. There is parking available on the lower promenade which is not immediately alongside the premises but within easy walking distance. They note that neither Port Erin Commissioners nor the Department of Transport have opposed the application on these grounds (I suspect that the Department of Transport have based their recommendation on the statement regarding the existing/previous use). They suggest that they do intend to remove the obscured glazing from the windows in the northern elevation but that if this appears to be a problem, they will retain the obscured glass. I would suggest that this should be retained. They also suggest that they are reducing the number of windows in this elevation (see paragraph 6 above). I still cannot find any reference to the replacement of this window in the drawings. There have been other proposals in the area for the creation of apartments and flats where there is no or little parking provided on site: 1) PAs 00/2111 and 05/1914 for the Bay Hotel, 2) 97/0580 proposed the conversion of the retirement home at Side Strand, Strand Street to three flats and 3) PA 01/0921 proposed the conversion of the dwelling over Trader Jack's to three apartments. The property next door to the application site was converted from three flats to two under PA 00/1546 (4). PA 01/1511 (5) was refused for the conversion of three properties to nine flats on Bay View Road and was refused on the grounds of inadequate parking provision. The principle of the use of the upper floors as apartments is clearly acceptable as the adjacent property already has two apartments with no parking and the former retirement home almost opposite the site (Side Strand House) has four flats with no parking. The critical issues therefor are whether the number of flats now proposed is excessive and will generate an unreasonable amount of parking and whether the impact of these additional occupants and the works associated with the conversion adversely affect the amenities of other residential property surrounding the site to the extent that the application should be refused. The proposed apartments are not large, despite being referred to as "executive" with conjoined kitchen and living accommodation. It would appear to be feasible to retain the existing layout with respect to the staircases and retain one three bedroomed flat on each floor thus minimising the extent of internal works and new entrances from the rear. This would be likely to significantly reduce the amount of parking if it is assumed that each one bedroomed apartment would generate at least one vehicle whereas two three bedroomed apartments are likely to generate a need for perhaps two parking spaces each and potentially fewer visitors. In a worse case scenario, were the three bedroomed flats to be occupied by individuals sharing there may be more traffic generated. The applicant himself has now submitted further information in the form of a letter dated 7th June, 2006 and accompanying letters from local estate agents and the former owner of the application property. He stresses that as he visits the premises on a regular basis, he is familiar with the provisions of the area for car parking and the amount of parking which is required on a general day to day basis. He does not believe that the proposed use will generate a demand for parking which will create a nuisance for neighbours or visitors to the area. He also draws attention to the other applications for the creation of flats referred to above. The information from the estate agents indicates that there is a demand for rented apartments but neither of the letters indicates that there is more of a demand for smaller units or that there may be difficulty finding tenants for three bedroomed units. In fact the letter from Chrystals indicates that they presently manage such accommodation within Port Erin. Whilst I am sympathetic to the applicant's desire to undertake this form of development and the need to invest in this building which is prominent in the streetscene and clearly in need of some maintenance and renovation works, on balance I would conclude that the proposal would create so many apartments as could cause an adverse impact on the neighbourhood through the need for parking spaces which cannot be provided on site. This recommendation is without prejudice to a further proposal for the conversion of the building to two three bedroomed apartments, one on each floor. If the application is approved, I would recommend the imposition of the following conditions: 1. This permission relates to the conversion of the existing building to five apartments as shown in drawings reference 0509/01, -02 and -04 all received on 23rd February, 2006. 2. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice. 3. The glazing which presently exists in the rear (northern) elevation must be retained (that is where there is presently obscured glazing, this may not be replaced with clear glazing) without planning permission. 1N. For a change in the water supply to a premises (domestic or commercial) the applicant should contact the Isle of Man Water Authority Byelaws Inspector (Michael Karran), telephone 695957. 2N. For connections to Flats and Apartments the following apply - "Water Supply to Flats and Apartments - Regulations", and if applicable a "Form Of Undertaking In Respect Of Supply Pipes" will be required. Copies of these documents can be obtained from the IoMWA or alternatively by contacting the IoMWA Byelaws Inspector (Les Quayle on telephone 695957). 3N. PRIOR to the commencement of any works the applicant is advised to consult the Chief Fire Officer to ensure that adequate fire precautions are taken. 4N. The applicant is encouraged to make provision for disabled persons in accordance with the recommendations of the Disability Access Officer whose views are attached. ### Party Status Port Erin Commissioners and Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division are statutory authorities and as such should be afforded party status in this instance. The occupants of Rockview, Condor House and the Ice Cream Parlour are close enough to be directly affected by the proposal in terms of car parking, their main cause for concern and as such should be afforded party status in this case. The resident of Port Soderick is not directly affected by the proposal and should not be afforded party status in this instance. Disability Access Officer, Isle of Man Water Authority, Fire Prevention Officer all represent statutory authorities and should be afforded party status in this instance. ### Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 23.06.2006 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal - : Notes attached to refusals N 1. Whilst the renovation and use of the building is encouraged, the proposal would create so many apartments as could cause an adverse impact on the neighbourhood through the need for parking spaces which cannot be provided on site. This recommendation is without prejudice to a further proposal for the conversion of the building to two three bedroomed apartments, one on each floor. I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular Nos 44/05 (Delegation of Functions to Director of Planning and Building Control) and 47/05 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer) Decision Made : Permitted Date : 26/6/06 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/80197-rushen-marine-house/documents/1464415*