Officer Report

Application No.: 17/01189/B Applicant: Jim Limited Proposal: Demolition of existing hotel and erection of four terraced dwellings with associated parking and amenity space Site Address: Waterfall Hotel Shore Road Glen Maye Isle Of Man IM5 3BG Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 06.12.2017 Site Visit: 06.12.2017 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 30.05.2018 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1 It has not been demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Planning Committee that that the premises are not commercially viable or could not be made so: the proposal is therefore in conflict with Community Policy 4.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the owners of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4): Waterfall House 2, 7, Glen Close

It is recommended that the owners of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4): Home Lea Bungalow Hillside The Coach House

• 3. Glen Maye Park Claremount, Port Soderick _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSALS AND THE NUMBER OF OBJECTIONS, INCLUDING ONE FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY

THE SITE

1.1 The site is the curtilage of the existing Waterfall Hotel public house and restaurant which is located in the heart of Glen Maye, to the west of the main road (A27), to the north of a narrow road which passes a number of houses and Ballakerkey Farm before becoming a public footpath which runs through the glen to the beach at Glen Maye. - 1.2 The site has a frontage to the minor road, of 25m and immediately to the east is Glen Close, a cul de sac of seven modern bungalows which skirt around and above the application site. Also included with the application land, defined in blue which indicates land which is owned or controlled by the applicant, is the car park associated with the existing public house. - 1.3 The public house has the appearance of two traditional Manx cottages sitting alongside each other, similar to the adjacent property to the west, Waterfall House. Beyond that, to the west are more dwellings, mostly new but designed with a traditional flavour and with a modern bungalow situated within Ballakerkey Farm being the last residential property on the road before the beach. The property has two traditional chimneys - one in the centre of the ridge and the other on the eastern gable and the other half of the pitch has two modern rooflights in its front pitch. The two halves of the building are at slightly different levels with the eastern part slightly higher than the other. - 1.4 Both the public house and Waterfall House are set back from the road with small front gardens, the public house having low boundary walls enclosing the garden which has seating within it, Waterfall House having no boundary walls and two small palm trees. A lane separates the two buildings. The site wraps around the rear of Waterfall House where there is a two storey structure which is linked to the main building by a single storey open storage area whose roof continues to join the western gable of the main building. The rear of the building backs onto a small rear path beyond which the land slopes upward, with a higher level area closest to the estate road at the rear. The building also forms the boundary of the gardens of Waterfall House and 7, Glen Close. The rear boundary has a number of shrubs which screen the majority of the rear of the building from view. - 1.5 Opposite the public house is a car park which is hard surfaced and bounded by a hedge alongside the road with a small grass paddock with wooden benches and tables, fenced off on the south western side, which is annotated as "beer garden" on the application plans as existing. Outwith the site but alongside the car park is a small unit which has previously been used as a cafe and retail unit. This building has permission under 12/00904/B for redevelopment as tourist accommodation and these works are currently being undertaken. - 1.6 At the time of the site visit (1100hrs on Wednesday 6th December, 2017) the car park accommodated around 10 vehicles, two unattached trailers and three horse boxes. THE PROPOSAL

2.1 Proposed is the demolition of the public house and the erection of a terrace of 4 two storey dwellings in its place. The proposal has been revised following concerns raised both within the Department and by local residents. The scheme now proposes four dwellings without any integral garaging or parking and where parking spaces will be provided in the car parking area opposite (as was suggested by a number of objectors), the design of the properties has been amended to reflect more of the traditional elements of the older properties nearby and the height has been reduced.

2.2 The existing store alongside the existing building and adjoining Waterfall Cottage, which was formerly used as a store associated with the hotel, was initially to be removed and the cleared area used for bin storage, avoiding these items being kept in public view at the front of the buildings. Close boarded fencing up to 1.8m was to be erected around the sides of the area to provide privacy for the occupants of Waterfall Cottage and the area would be designed to eliminate vermin and would be suitably drained. Following concerns raised by both immediate neighbours, the applicant has agreed to remove this element from the scheme and to allow the building to stay in situ but not used for habitable accommodation. - 2.3 The applicant explains that the building is presently vacant and the business was last used three years ago which followed previous unsuccessful attempts to revitalise the business. They are aware of Community Policy 4 and suggest that despite costly attempts by the owner to make the business work, these have been unsuccessful. They also suggest that the catering trade has taken a different route over the past ten years, especially after the most recent recession and drink driving awareness has further affected trade. This means that not as many people are going out to eat and drink and in the case of Glen Maye, people choose Peel as somewhere to go due to the relative ease of access and public transport. Competition from Peel significantly affects Glen Maye which has a relatively small catchment area. Other businesses in the village have closed - the village shop, post office and cafe which has permission to be changed to tourist accommodation. They also refer to the Liverpool Arms and Ballacallin Hotel. - 2.4 The applicant also states that the village is not of a sufficient size to sustain a public bar in high or low season 7 days a week and is not on a well-used thoroughfare so as to generate passing trade. - 2.5 The applicant explains that the building has crept into a bad state of repair and the walls are starting to feel the severe effects of damp. Remedying this would require considerable financial investment. From the applicant's brief inspection, the internal walls, floor and roof construction are not up to current Building Regulation standards if the building were to be converted. Conversion to one dwelling would not be financially viable to cover the costs of the renovation and conversion. If conversion were considered, a rear extension would be required to bring it up to two storeys in height. This work would require disruption to the surroundings and create something that was not as efficient and would have a limited life span. They consider that the existing building has limited architectural interest - asymmetrical chimneys, uPVC framed windows and rooflights and is considered to be an amalgamation of bad design and does not have any intrinsic value in their view. The proposed dwellings would exceed the U values set out in the Building Regulations, would be thermally efficient and could work alongside modern energy systems to completely minimise energy consumption. This could not, in their view, be achieved through a conversion of the existing building. They estimate the cost of conversion to be very similar to new build but with greater maintenance costs. The demolition and rebuild option is considered to be more practical, feasible and efficient for the applicant, the surroundings and potential purchasers. They were unable to obtain public liability insurance for the building from local insurers and the cover they did achieve, from a UK insurer was on the basis that a further renewal was unlikely due to the condition of the building. - 2.6 They make reference to other redevelopments and new developments in the area alterations to the Waterfall Hotel itself, a new dwelling at Creg Ny Shee (2000), two new dwellings at the Falls (2002), a replacement dwelling at Ballakerkey Farm (2002), the replacement of the cafe with tourist accommodation (2013), the erection of a dwelling on the car park (2004). They also refer to an application for apartments on the car park, which was withdrawn before a decision was taken. - 2.7 They assess the character of the area as comprising a mix of modern and traditional properties, individual properties, terraces and estates. The proposed dwellings will be visible

• and have been designed to be aesthetically pleasing, particularly in comparison to some other existing properties.
• 2.8 The proposal meets the requirements of the Strategic Plan in terms of car parking. The adjacent car park is owned by the applicant and is available for additional parking if required. By deed the car park is reserved for patrons of the Waterfall Hotel and users of the national glen. It is their intention to retain and refurbish the car park including landscaping to make it more visually pleasant.
• 2.9 The applicant suggests that there will be no overlooking of existing property due to the level of the property generally below that of existing properties and with no dwellings to the front. No windows have been included in the gables. The nearest properties in Glen Close are 26m away from the proposed dwellings.
• 2.10 Foul drainage will be connected to the existing mains system in the main road and the amount of load will not be more than with the existing use of the building when in operation.
• 2.11 They refer to Housing Policy 14 which they believe is satisfied, even though this policy gives guidance on dwellings which replace existing residential property. They also believe that the proposal complies with General Policy 2, "Strategic Plan 1, 2 and 3" (presumably Strategic Policies 1, 2 and 3) and Community Policy 4.
• 2.12 They describe the beer garden at the far side of the car park as being able to be used by the public as well as the occupants of the dwellings. PLANNING POLICY

3.1 The site is within an area designated on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as Existing Predominantly Residential. As such, there is no objection to the principle of the residential use of the site subject to the general standards of development set out in General Policy 2 below. However, as the proposal involves the loss of a public house, the following policy is also applicable and needs to be satisfied prior to any alternative development being considered.

Community Policy 4: "Development (including the change of use of existing premises) which involves the loss of local shops and local public houses, will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that the use is no longer commercially viable, or cannot be made commercially viable."

General Policy 2: "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:

• (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
• (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;

• (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;
• (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;

• (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
• (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

3.2 The applicant also refers to the following policies:

• Strategic Policy 1: Development should make the best use of resources by:

• (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and underused 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(1) and amenity standards; and
• (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services.

• Strategic Policy 2: New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3.

Sustainable Urban Extensions Involves the planned expansion of a city or town and can contribute to creating more sustainable patterns of development when located in the right place, with well-planned infrastructure including access to a range of facilities, and when developed at appropriate densities.

• Strategic Policy 3: Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by:

• (a) avoiding coalescence and maintaining adequate physical separation between settlements; and
• (b) having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character.

Strategic Policy 10: New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to:

• (a) minimise journeys, especially by private car;
• (b) make best use of public transport;
• (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and
• (d) encourage pedestrian movement.

3.3 Housing Policy 14 is not considered to be relevant as this deals with the replacement of a dwelling with another dwelling and what is proposed here is the replacement of an existing public house/house with multiple dwellings. This policy also applies to development in unzoned areas whereas this site is designated as Predominantly Residential.

PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The application site has been the subject of a number of applications for alterations and signage. PAs 09/02097/B and 09/02098/D for a new, glazed frontage and illuminated signage were both considered at appeal, the extensions and alterations to the building being approved and the signage refused. The inspector makes a number of comments about the site which are relevant to the current application:

"10. As the Parish Commissioners point out, the Waterfall Hotel looks like a terrace of two Manx cottages. Seen from the front, the "stepped" alignment of the windows gives the front elevation a rather quirky appearance but it is an attractive building with some historic character. This quality is not particularly special or outstanding, and the building is not a Registered Building. Nor is the site within a designated conservation area. Nevertheless the Parish Commissioners' concerns about the effects of the proposal are understandable and have some force." He goes on to note again at his paragraph 19 that the property is not within a conservation area and recommends that the scheme is approved, having balanced the objections to the scheme against the application against the applicant's case, which includes the inspector's understanding that as a general principle it is desirable to encourage small businesses which are trying to develop their services in the tourism and leisure sector of the local economy (his paragraph 12).

4.2 The Department has considered a number of applications for the change of use orredevelopment of existing public houses to other uses, including the following:

• i) 11/00665/B sought approval for the redevelopment of the Bridge Inn in Laxey for apartments. This application was refused for the reason that "The proposal represents the loss of a facility that is of benefit to Laxey and the wider community. No evidence has been submitted with the planning application to satisfactorily demonstrate that the existing use is no longer commercially viable, or cannot be made commercially viable. As such, the proposal is contrary to the provisions of Community Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007." A further reason was added that there would be insufficient car parking provided.
• ii) 14/00349/B was approved for the redevelopment of the New Inn in Laxey for four dwellings. This was accepted as there is another public house directly opposite this site and its loss was not considered to be detrimental to the provision of local services.
• iii) 08/01962/B for the conversion of the Cornerhouse public house in Douglas, to offices was approved on similar grounds, that the existing public house was not considered local as it was within a town centre location and also that there are many other public houses in the vicinity.
• iv) 08/00470/B proposed the redevelopment of the Forester's Arms public house in Douglas to offices. No reference was made to Community Policy 4 as the site lay within an area designated as Offices.
• v) 08/01551/C saw approval granted on appeal for the conversion of the Ballacallin Hotel in Dalby to a private dwelling. This application was opposed by a number of local residents, the Commissioners and the Department of Tourism and Leisure, on the basis that the premises offered a facility of great importance to the local community and tourist accommodation which contributed to the local tourist infrastructure. The inspector considered that the hotel was the primary use of the building and that the bar and restaurant were ancillary to that and as such, Community Policy 3 or 4 did not apply. He accepted the experience of the applicant and their assessment that it was no longer viable to operate the premises as a hotel.
• vi) When the Howstrake Hotel in Onchan was considered for redevelopment in the 2000s, the site had already been cleared of its buildings so the issue of the loss of a local facility was not discussed.
• vii) The Liverpool Arms in Onchan/Lonan has recently been announced as closing due to a lack of viability but is understood to have recently re-opened.

REPRESENTATIONS

5.1.1 Patrick Parish Commissioners object to the application. They suggest that the hotel hasbeen closed for two years, not three and the owners sponsored a local event and provided aprice in May 2015. They advise that before it changed hands around ten years ago, thepremises were extremely popular with locals and visitors and it was often difficult to find atable. The owner has not been fortunate with his selection of managers but there has been noreal attempt to regenerate the business, even the proposal to run the business as a bistro,obtained at appeal, has not been pursued and this permission has now lapsed. TheCommissioners understand that the current owners cannot be forced into re-opening thepremises, even if the application is refused but this does not invalidate their opposition to thescheme. They are concerned that should the application be approved it could send out thewrong message to owners of similar property so that they may make more money throughdestroying a local amenity and replacing it with residential accommodation than throughworking hard at developing the business. They believe that there is a growth of touristaccommodation in the area. They believe that the application represents an over-developmentof the site and what is proposed looks more like an urban terrace than something more suited

to a rural village. They particularly dislike the height of the buildings and the ugly garage doors on the front. They do not consider that there is any need for the provision of parking on site. Whilst the plans show four bedrooms, the applicant states that the amenity space is suitable for three persons which is a further demonstration of over-development. The Commissioners believe that the development falls foul of General Policy 2a, b, c, and g (12.12.17).

• 5.1.2 Following the submission of amended plans, the Commissioners acknowledge that the revised scheme is an improvement on the original in visual terms but remain opposed to the

• loss of the public house and express concern that there is no evidence at the attempts the owner has made to market or find a use for the property and whist the interior of the building may well be in poor condition, the outside appears to be sound. They remain opposed to the application and request that if the application is approved, conditions are attached to require the former beer garden to be converted to a children's play area of which there is none in the village and provision is mad within the car park for a coach to turn and park for the benefit of the national glen (13.03.18).

5.2 Highway Services note that the building is currently vacant and is not located within a conservation area or area of coastal value or scenic significance. The existing 45-47 space car park to the front of the proposed site is covered by deeds specifying use solely for patrons of the Waterfall Hotel and visitors to the Glen Maye National Glen. The deed covenant that allows visitors to the National Glen to use the car park will remain in place. Each of the four proposed dwellings will have two car parking spaces and the planning statement states (at section 7.6) that: "Full visibility splays to the new dwellings would be achievable". However, the property is located on a slope and the driveway leading to the dwelling closest to Glen Close has a significant slope. Therefore, it is important that the 1m high close board timber fencing located between dwellings also slopes with the respective driveways so that visibility splays can be maintained. It is considered that the planning application would not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highway network. Therefore, Highway Services does not oppose this application subject to the following condition: 1. Prior to any construction the access shown on drawing no 1732-PL03 dated October 2017 shall be constructed and the visibility splays shall remain unobstructed at a height of 1.05m thereafter (20.12.17). - 5.3 DEFA Senior Biodiversity Officer suggests that given the proximity to the glen where there are known to be bats, a survey for any roosting bats is appropriate prior to the demolition of the building and if any bats or their roosts are found, appropriate measures must be taken. He adds that demolition should take account of the possibility of active bird nests if the site has not been prepared for this issue (15.12.17). Objections from local residents - 5.4.1 The owner of The Coach House, which lies around 190m to the north east, registers their concern about the application. She considers that very little changed in the village since the 1700s until the 21st century. Originally, the village had a blacksmith, butcher, milliner, tailor, cafe, public houses all of which served not only the village but also the tourist industry. The village has lost almost all of its local businesses, despite growing in terms of residential properties - most recently, the local post office and shop have been lost and the last remaining public house/restaurant has closed. The only local facility left is the Methodist Chapel. This has recently been refurbished by the local community from purely a place of worship to a chapel and a church hall. Local events are held here but this is hardly enough to sustain a healthy village atmosphere or to service the needs of the Manx tourist. She believes that the site should be reinstated in some way to encourage tourism. In respect of Strategic Policy 8, ("Tourist development proposals will generally be permitted where they make use of existing built fabric of interest and quality, where they do not affect adversely environmental, agricultural, or highway interests and where they enable enjoyment of our natural and manmade attractions.") the tourist industry isn't what it was but in the summer the Waterfall Hotel car park has been full of motorcyclists and cars which she believes are tourists' but other

• than a walk in the glen, there are no other facilities for the visitors. She believes that the site of the hotel, beer garden and car park are the last areas where the community can be regenerated.
• 5.4.2 She accepts that country pubs are not presently viable and that those in Peel along with its restaurants are doing well but these should not be expected to service a growing community in Glen Maye where people have to drive several miles to visit a cafe or restaurant or even to buy a pint of milk. There is an up and coming cafe/coffee house culture on the Island which is thriving and when the hotel was closed it was never marketed as anything else which could have benefited the village. If the redevelopment takes place as proposed, the site and opportunity will be lost to the village. She considers that some part of the site should be developed into a cafe/local shop, perhaps where the old cafe used to be.
• 5.4.3 She believes that the present building is in a sorry state and has had less traditional and asymmetrical features added and ugly extensions. Something needs to be done and if residential redevelopment is considered the appropriate use for the site, four houses as proposed will look crammed and high, the use of grey aluminium windows is more appropriate to an office development and the amenity of those walking to the glen will be compromised by having to pass a row of parked vehicles and bins. It is not clear from the plans whether the parking spaces will encroach onto the road. The building could be converted back to two dwellings which would be more appropriate. Whilst there has been more modern development in the village, she does not consider that this means that a traditional, old property can automatically be changed into four modern town houses which will have a significant detrimental impact on the character of the village and the street scene. She believes that the development is contrary to General Policy 2b, c, g, i, Community Policy 4 and Strategic Policy 10 (30.11.17).
• 5.4.4 Following the submission of amended plans, the owner of the Coach House does not understand why the premises cannot be rebuilt as is or offered to someone else for sale and operation. She wonders why the proposal is not for 4 two storey terraced cottages which would be more suitable for the site and using the beer garden for a picnic site or playground would go some way towards providing a tourist or local amenity. She suggests that the car park should be designed to provide access for the library van (22.03.18).

• 5.5.1 The owner of 2, Glen Close which is the second house on the right as one enters the cul de sac and directly opposite the site, also registers similar concerns, stating that the Waterfall Hotel has been a magnet for tourists coming to the village for over a hundred years and its once pretty and picturesque front has been the photo on many a postcard or social media page. It has been left to deteriorate over the past two years and she has witnessed it becoming an eyesore. She has seen people queueing because the facility was so busy and well supported. The tenants who previously occupied the upper floors are no longer in occupation. In an age when many people are walking, cycling or motorcycling this application represents a

lost opportunity for the Island. Coaches also stop in the car park for people to walk into the glen of which the applicant may not be aware as they do not live in the village. The site is on the Raad ny Foillan and the only other place where people can stop and rest on this between The Sound and Peel is the Niarbyl Cafe. The owners have not tried the site as a tea room or cafe.

• 5.5.2 She is also concerned that the design of the houses is not appropriate for their location with the majority of houses being stone built and whilst a new estate has been built, this is on the edge of the village and out of the public view. Whilst the occupants may, according to the application, use the beer garden for recreation, this area has previously been turned down for development and is the only area available to any tourists stopping for picnics although this too has been left to overgrow and was the former site of the cafe. This development will close down the welcome to people visiting the glen and the beach and this part of the village. The new buildings will be at a greater density and higher than the existing and the use of materials

• is not appropriate to a village. Those walking past will have to walk past bins and she wonders whether any on site parking is required, given the car park opposite. She wonders whether the drives are usable and whether they encroach onto the road. She too, believes that the existing building could be converted back to two dwellings (06.12.17).
• 5.5.3 Following the submission of the amended plans, the owner of 2, Glen Close remains concerned that the loss of the public house facility and considers it unfair that the village is to lose its public house due to the owner's failings and she suggests that no attempt has been made to run the public house for a few years nor any attempt to sell it or the business to recover costs. She does not know why the building cannot now be insured as surely it was insured at the time when it closed. She has been unable to measure the rooms but suggests that the houses are too small for today's market. The application building is in full view of the passing public and she considers that two dwellings in total of a similar size to what exists would be more appropriate (21.03.18).

• 5.6.1 The owner of 3, Glen Maye Park which lies to the west of the A27, to the north of the site, suggests that the site was last used 2 years ago not over three and the Waterfall Country Inn/Waterfall Hotel sponsored a duck in the corporate race in May 2015 and provide a meal for two as a prize. If this simple fact has been reported incorrectly, how can there be faith in the remainder of the proposal? He worries that without the incentive of the use of the car park to serve the hotel, will it be well maintained which if not, would be to the detriment of those using the glen. The provision of bin storage at the front of the houses will not provide a particularly attractive environment. He queries where there is a demand for four more houses, given the number which are currently for sale. He suggests that the proposed development would create an adverse visual impact (11.12.17).
• 5.7 The owner of Hillside, which sits on the other side of the A27 to the entrance to the glen, feels that the demolition of the hotel would make the end of any attraction the village can offer the tourist or the residents of the surrounding area. What is proposed to replace the building does nothing to aid the tourist industry and given the right management he feels that the premises are still a viable proposition. The site could be used for holiday lets. He objects to the application which he considers is speculative (07.12.17).
• 5.8 The owners of Home Lea Bungalow, which lies around 350m to the south of the site, off the A27 main road, strongly object to the application, considering that the development is proposed through a desire to maximise the value of the site even though they consider that people have been interested in taking over the running of the pub. They advise that the rent was so high than it would not be possible to make the business work. The owner does not live in the village. If the right person was given the chance to bring it back to life, it could work and there are already enough dwellings in the village. The location is a good one which could support an attractive facility for visitors and following a previous attempt for a conservatory which was refused [this was approved at appeal], the property has been left to falter and die (11.12.17 and 08.12.17).

• 5.9.1 The owner of Clarecourt in Port Soderick considers that three storey town houses are not appropriate in this location: as the location is in a glen any redevelopment should be entirely traditional - perhaps two houses similar in elevation to the originals. The garages are particularly damaging to the streetscene and not necessary given the adjacent car park in the same ownership and which could include a private parking area (06.12.17).
• 5.9.2 Following the submission of amended plans, the owner of Clarecourt now supports the application (15.03.18).

• 5.10.1 The owners of Waterfall House, immediately alongside to the west and 7, Glen Close which lies immediately to the rear of Waterfall House and alongside the rear of the application site, write in jointly (received on 30.04.18). They would like to be given the option of

• discussing these matters to find a resolution acceptable to everyone. They consider that the current proposal is ambitious in terms of trying to fit four small houses into such a small site. They describe the access road as single track which may make access for materials and construction vehicles difficult. They consider one parking space per property as being deficient and as a result, vehicles would be parked on the adjacent streets, leading to a more congested area. Whilst the car park is there, its surface is in poor repair and they wonder who will assume responsibility for it once the public house is no longer there.
• 5.10.2 They are concerned at the intentions for the beer garden, for fear that they may provide an attractive spot for late night drinking or tennagers with litter, noise pollution and other activity which comes with similar unregulated areas. They wonder how other facilities such as The Hawthorn, Crosby, Forge and Rushen Abbey manage to remain financially viable and they wonder why the facility could not be made to work as a bed and breakfast or a tea room.
• 5.10.3 They area concerned at the proposed demolition of the store building as it forms part of their properties' support and boundary treatment and the proposed replacement fence will do little to address subsidence and that the new building will overlook their rear gardens and cause intrusion into their privacy. They are concerned at the proposal to store the refuse bins in the area adjacent to their properties which may bring smell and noise nuisance. and they suggest that the bins should be stored at the rear of each of the proposed houses. The owner of Waterfall House was previously advised that the canopy which physically links her property to the public house site, would be removed and it has not, making her mistrustful of the applicant. They confirm that they do not give any permission for work to be done on their boundary walls or the building on their boundary.

ASSESSMENT

6.1 The issues in this case are whether it is acceptable to lose the public house as a local facility having regard to Community Policy 4 and if so, whether the form and appearance of what is proposed to replace it is acceptable; whether the development has any adverse impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent property and finally whether the proposal is adequately provided for in terms of access and parking.

6.2 Loss of the existing building

• 6.2.1 Planning approval would be required for the demolition of the existing buildings as they are attached to Waterfall House and boundary walling associated with it and 7, Glen Close. The building is not otherwise protected or noted for its architectural merit or interest although it is old and a familiar landmark within the village. Despite its modern windows and the western section not having a gable chimney stack, it retains its vernacular character, like Waterfall Cottage but very different from the modern properties in Glen Close. It is not considered that the building is of such quality or interest to warrant refusal of the application on the basis of the loss of the building and the inspector's comments in respect of the building are noted (see paragraph 4.1 above).

6.3 Loss of the public house

• 6.3.1 The Strategic Plan presumes against the loss of public houses and suggests that this should be allowed "only if it can be demonstrated that the use is no longer commercially viable, or cannot be made commercially viable." The applicant has provided financial and anecdotal information to try to demonstrate that it is not and could not be commercially viable but this is not accepted by some local residents who question why it could not be sold or leased to someone who could make it work, possibly as a different, or a variety of different uses.

• 6.3.2 The applicant's case is that the condition of the building requires a considerable financial investment - whether this be through conversion or rebuild and that this could not be recouped from a commercial use. Whether a new building could recoup such a cost is unknown: the applicant does have experience of trying to operate the existing building as a restaurant and public house and this is that it is not commercially viable. This is not dissimilar to the Ballacallin

• Hotel in Dalby, referred to above, although some rural businesses seem able to remain open the Shore Hotel on Bay ny Carrickey, the Hawthorn in German and The Forge in Braddan, formerly the Hop Garden. Many of the latter have had renovations and re-launches over time which have perhaps helped their survival. In Dalby the local church has been rejuvenated to include a range of additional community uses and has recently been the subject of a planning application for use as a hostel.
• 6.3.3 It is relevant that the local shop in the village was converted to a dwelling in 2003 (03/01043/B) and the church hall was more recently approved for redevelopment as a dwelling (10/01455/B). This, along with the choice of the redevelopment of the cafe and retail unit in the car park to tourist accommodation, goes towards supporting the case that the local community is of such a limited size as to support local facilities such as this. Whilst it has been suggested that the building could be used for different purposes - a shop and/or tourist accommodation, this would take some investment that, without some assurance of commercial viability, it is understandable that the applicant is unwilling to undertake, particularly when the village shop closed down some years ago and the only other retail outlet was approved for redevelopment as tourist accommodation. For the above reasons, on balance, it is considered that it has been demonstrated that the premises are no longer viable as a public house and that it would not be realistically possible to make it so.
• 6.4 The form and appearance of the proposed dwellings

6.4.1 The revised scheme proposes a terrace of buildings which is traditional in form and character although with a wider gable than would normally be the case, and reflects the traditional characteristics - the substantial chimneys, vertically proportioned windows and some stonework. The terrace will not replicate the existing or Waterfall Cottage but will certainly be more traditional than the properties in Glen Close or the new building being built across the road in the car park. Given the mix of building types in the area, it is considered that the proposed terrace is acceptable.

6.5 Amenities of the proposed dwellings

6.5.1 The dwellings will have small front gardens but spacious rear gardens with space in the car park for vehicular parking (see later). It is considered that the proposed dwellings will have adequate levels of privacy.

6.6 Impact on neighbouring property

6.6.1 The properties most affected will be Waterfall Cottage and 7, Glen Close which abut the site to the west. Both properties will be most affected by the loss of the food store building. If this building were to be retained then its physical presence would obscure much of the proposed building and reduce the potential for a perception of overlooking from the new dwellings. The retention of the store would also remove the concern about the structural impact on the two adjoining gardens. Clearly, if the store is to be retained, it will be used and this may have an impact on the occupation of Waterfall Cottage and it is important that no approval is implied or granted for the use of this as habitable accommodation.

6.7 Impact on access and parking

• 6.7.1 As the car park is within the ownership of the applicant, there is ample space available to provide eight car parking spaces in accordance with the Strategic Plan and it is most unlikely that vehicles associated with the occupation of the proposed dwellings will be parked on the adjacent roads, given that the car park is directly opposite and already used for parking by people who do not live directly opposite it. It is more likely that the condition of at least some of the car park will be addressed if it is allocated to particular dwellings and if the condition and appearance of the car park is of concern, the local authority have powers under Section 14 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1984 to seek to remedy this: "14 Maintenance of open land

(1) If it appears to a local authority that any garden or vacant or other open land in its district is by virtue of lack of cultivation, the presence of anything on the land, or for any other reason in such a condition as to be detrimental to the amenities of the neighbourhood or that such detriment is likely to occur or recur, the authority may by notice require the owner or the occupier of the land within the time specified in the notice to take such steps as are specified in the notice for abating the detriment, or, as the case may be, to prevent the detriment from occurring or recurring."

CONCLUSION

7.1 The scheme is considered to be in accordance with Strategic Plan policies and is supported. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
• (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material
• (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and
• (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

8.2 The decision-maker must determine:

• * whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
• * whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Decision Made : …Refused.. Committee Meeting Date:…11.06.2018

Signed :…………S CORLETT…………….. Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

SYES/NO See below

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.

Planning Committee Decision 11.06.2018

Application No. : 17/01189/B Applicant : Jim Limited Proposal : Demolition of existing hotel and erection of four terraced dwellings with associated parking and amenity space Site Address : Waterfall Hotel Shore Road Glen Maye Isle Of Man IM5 3BG Presenting Officer : Miss S E Corlett Addendum to the Officer’s Report The Committee refused the application, overturning the officer's recommendation, at its meeting of 11th June, 2018 for the following reason:

It has not been demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Planning Committee that that the premises are not commercially viable or could not be made so: the proposal is therefore in conflict with Community Policy 4.

Reason for Refusal

R 1. It has not been demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Planning Committee that that the premises are not commercially viable or could not be made so: the proposal is therefore in conflict with Community Policy 4.