Loading document...
Application No.: 25/90361/B Applicant: Kirindolam 2 Ltd Proposal: Conversion of existing former nursing home to six townhouses Site Address: Former Saddle Mews Nursing Home Saddle Mews Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 1HY Senior Planning Officer: Mrs Louise Phillips Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 16.07.2025 _________________________________________________________________
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
All hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing by the Department. Any trees or
plants indicated on the approved scheme which, within a period of five years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced during the next planting season with other trees or plants of a species and size to be first approved in writing by the Department. All hard landscape works shall be permanently retained in accordance with the approved scheme.
Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting for the development and in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.
Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for vehicular access, off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.
Notwithstanding the regrettable loss of the nursing home, the site is suitably located for residential development and general housing is needed across the island. The proposed development would make use of a vacant, substantial building and bringing it back into use and making positive external alterations would improve the character and appearance of the area considerably. This significant benefit would not be outweighed by the potential need to prune, or even to lose, one tree outside the site given the extensive tree cover in the vicinty.
The new housing would not be detrimental to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, it would not increase existing flood risk in the area and it would be provided with sufficient offroad parking. Subject to conditions, it would cause no other harm in respect of highway safety. For all these reasons, it would comply with the Development Plan and relevant legislation.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the following drawings:
_________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given the Right to Appeal as they have submitted an objection that meets the specified criteria:
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should NOT be given the Right to Appeal because their objections identify land that is owned or occupied by the
_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE BECAUSE IT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AND THERE ARE MORE THAN FOUR OBJECTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC WHICH RAISE MATERIAL PLANNING ISSUES.
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site is on the north side of Groves Road Douglas. It is occupied by the former Saddle Mews Nursing Home, a three storey, red brick building with a mansard roof. The building is vacant and there is metal fencing all around it, making it look unsightly. - 1.2 The site is bordered to the east by the National Sports Centre (NSC) and to the west and north (rear) by the Saddle Mews Retirement Village. There is a large open green space opposite the site (sports pitches), which itself is surrounded by residential development. - 1.3 There is an existing vehicular access to the front of the building at the eastern side of the site and, while it is outside the ownership of the applicant, there is a right of way over the driveway to the Retirement Village to access the west side and rear of the building.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The proposed development is to convert the existing building into six, four-bedroom town houses, each with a front and rear garden, the latter to include cycle and bin storage and an air source heat pump. - 2.2 Each house would have two parking spaces. The two for the easternmost unit would be reached from the entrance adjacent to the boundary with the NSC, while the others would be accessed from the Retirement Village driveway. The two for the westernmost unit would be
3.0 PLANNING POLICY Site Specific - 3.1 The site is not within a designated Conservation Area. There is a Registered Tree (RT0052) and a Registered Tree Area (RA0704) to the west of the site on the other side of the main access but these would not be affected by the proposed development. There are a number of other large trees within the footpath alongside the eastern boundary of the site, some of which could be affected by the proposal. The site is outside but adjacent to an area at high risk of fluvial flooding. Area Plan for the East 2020 - 3.2 The site is in a "Predominantly Residential Area". - 3.3 Paragraph 12.12.2 notes the need for adequate accommodation for older people, including in specialist facilities like nursing homes. Strategic Plan 2016
Strategic Policy 5 - "New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island..."
services centre for the Island". Spatial Policy 5 - "New development will be located within the defined settlements..." 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:
Environment Policy 13 - "Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted".
Environment Policy 43 - "The Department will generally support proposals which seek to regenerate run-down urban and rural areas. Such proposals will normally be set in the context of regeneration strategies identified in the associated Area Plans. The Department will encourage the re-use of sound built fabric, rather than its demolition".
Housing Policy 4 - "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and Villages…"
Transport Policy 4 - "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan".
Transport Policy 7 - "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards".
Community Policy 11 - "The design and use of all new buildings and of extensions to existing buildings must, as far as is reasonable and practicable, pay due regard to best practice such as to prevent the outbreak and spread of fire".
3.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Legislation - 4.1 Section 68 of the Flood Risk Management Act (2013) indicates that any published Flood Risk Management Plan and the extent to which the proposed development creates an additional flood risk are material considerations. Guidance
4.2 Manual for Manx Roads and Active Travel Strategy. - 4.3 Residential Design Guide.
5.1 16/00946/B for the "conversion and erection of extension to former nursing home to provide thirty four residential apartments" was approved on 15 May 2017, subject to conditions. It is stated that the conservatory has been removed and that drainage has been installed to facilitate the new development. - 5.2 The earlier planning history associated with this specific site relates to its former use as a nursing home for which planning permission was granted in 1987. The surrounding Saddle Mews development was granted permission at around the same time, between 1986 and 1988.
6.1 Highways Services (25/04/25): "No significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking providing the residents can use the Saddle Mews Court access road to parking spaces 3-10 (access road currently not in the red-line boundary) - this should be confirmed by the Applicant. Conditions to attach to permission - boundary wall fronting the highway shall be no more than 1m in height throughout its length (for highway safety purposes) and vehicular access, parking, turning of vehicles, cycle parking and bin storage shown on the approved plans implemented before first occupation of the development and retained thereafter". - 6.2 Forestry, Amenity and Lands (DEFA) (13/05/25): "The proposed development clearly impacts the trees on the adjacent land and they do pose a constraint, and shading will be an issue for residential properties. We would ask for an AIS (including a constraints plan) to BS5837 standard to be supplied before this application is determined so as the full implications can be considered". - 6.3 Douglas Corporation (13/05/25): "Council's Environmental Services Committee to consider the application on 19 May and comments will be provided thereafter". At the time of drafting this report, no further comments have been received. - 6.4 The following organisations were consulted on 25 April 2025 but, at the time of drafting this report, no comments had been received.
Members of the Public
6.5 14 neighbour consultation letters were issued which have resulted in 93 identical letters of objection from residents of the following addresses at Saddle Mews Village adjacent to the west:
6.6 The main points raised are as follows:
7.1 The main issues to be considered in determining this planning application are:
Principle of the Proposed Development
7.2 The Officer's Report associated with the earlier proposal for residential apartments (16/00946/B referenced above) explains that the nursing home closed in 2010 due to changes in the rules for occupation which rendered it not viable. Until the 2016 application, there had been very limited interest in redeveloping the site for any use. The report concluded that while the loss of the nursing home was regrettable, it was a privately run enterprise which was no longer fit for purpose. Taking account of all relevant factors, planning permission was granted and, consequently, the loss of the nursing home has been accepted. While the need to provide specialist accommodation for older people is recognised in the Development Plan, the loss of existing provision is not strictly prohibited. - 7.3 Furthermore, there is a need for general housing across the Island (Strategic Policy 1 and Housing Policy 11) and the site is in a "predominantly residential area" of Douglas, where development for housing is generally supported (Strategic Policy 2 and Spatial Policies 1 & 5). It is close to services, facilities and transport links; and the houses would be provided in a substantial existing building which has now been vacant for 15 years (Strategic Policy 1 and Environment Policy 43).
7.4 Therefore, while the loss of the nursing home remains regrettable, the proposed development is acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with other relevant policies. Character and Appearance - 7.5 As explained above, the existing building on the site is vacant, fenced and starting to look run down. Essentially, however, it looks solidly built and, with its distinctive mansard roof, has a generally agreeable appearance. Whilst quite large, the building fits well with the scale of the adjacent NSC and, being set well away from them and at a lower level, it does not dominate the neighbouring Retirement Village. Overall, it is a building worth preserving in accordance with Strategic Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan. - 7.6 Simply bringing the building back into use and securing proper maintenance would tidy the site up but, in addition, some of the exterior alterations proposed would improve its appearance. The rationalisation of the windows and the reduction in height of the flat roofed annexes would be particularly positive, and the use of the latter as roof terraces would be in keeping with the first floor balconies present on some of the properties in the Retirement Village. The proposed use of render would also reflect the finish of the neighbouring buildings. - 7.7 Limited information on proposed landscaping and boundary treatments has been submitted with the application, but more detail could be sought by condition. The inclusion of a front and rear garden with each unit would likely soften the appearance of the site and, with the exception of the existing access to the east, all hardstanding for parking would be away from the road, to the side and rear of the building. Whilst objectors have suggested that high hedging is needed to screen the site, this is in view of it currently being abandoned and an "eyesore". Once lived in and maintained, this problem should resolve and so it should not be necessary to hide the building. - 7.8 Overall, by bringing an existing building back into use and incorporating some new design features, the proposed development would improve the appearance of the site considerably and so it would accord with Strategic Policy 5 and General Policy 2(b) and (c) of the Strategic Plan. This would be a significant benefit of the scheme. Trees - 7.9 The individually Registered Tree and Registered Tree Area to the west of the site would not be affected by the proposed development. However, there are some trees (possibly three) outside the site but adjacent to the eastern boundary which have been identified by the Tree Officer as posing a constraint. These are behind the rear elevation of the building in the footpath adjacent to the NSC, and they are all large enough for consent to be required for removal. The Tree Officer had requested the submission of an Arboricultural Impact Statement (AIS) but, while the applicant was made aware if this, it is not considered necessary for the following reasons. - 7.10 The trees are all adjacent to the proposed garden of the easternmost unit where grass rather than hardstanding or buildings is shown to be provided. The tree at the very back of the site would be adjacent to a parking space but, while resurfacing might be necessary, some hardstanding is already present. Therefore, the trees are unlikely to be disturbed in any significant way during development, particularly as the proposal involves the conversion of an existing building rather than demolition and rebuilding. On this basis, it would seem sufficient to attach a condition requiring details of tree protection during the works. - 7.11 Having spoken with the Tree Officer, another concern is that there might be pressure from future occupiers of the development to prune the trees within the footpath. Whilst an AIS would provide more detail, the likely effect of the trees upon future living conditions are largely evident from a site visit. The tree closest to the building is quite small and would not affect the outlook from any windows or overhang the garden of the adjacent property. While larger, the
7.19 The site itself is not in an area shown to be at risk of flooding and because the proposal principally involves the conversion of an existing building rather than new development, it would not increase the risk outside the site. The proposed use for general housing would also be less vulnerable to flood risk than was the previous nursing home use. - 7.20 Therefore, the proposed development would not affect flood risk in the area and there would be no conflict with Environment Policy 13 of the Strategic Plan. Parking and Road Safety - 7.21 The proposed houses would each be provided with two off-road parking spaces. This meets the current standards for residential development set out Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan; and the applicant has confirmed that there is a right of way over the Retirement Village access drive to reach the spaces at the rear of the building. - 7.22 Thus Highways Services has raised no concerns about the impact of the development upon parking, highway safety or network functionality provided that conditions to ensure sufficient visibility and provision for vehicles, cycles and refuse is made and retained. Such conditions are recommended above. - 7.23 Residents of Saddle Mews Retirement Village are concerned that visitors to the new houses could use visitor spaces belonging to them. Whilst this is of course possible, given that the parking requirements of the Development Plan would be satisfied, it would not be reasonable to seek to restrict car ownership at the site in order to keep one allocated space for each unit perpetually available for visitors. In time, hopefully visitors will come to use the onstreet parking available in Groves Road. As the front doors would face onto this road, such spaces would not be inconvenient. - 7.24 Therefore, the proposed development would have adequate parking space and would not be otherwise detrimental to road safety. Thus it would comply with Transport Policies 4 and
8.1 Notwithstanding the regrettable loss of the nursing home, the site is suitably located for residential development and general housing is needed across the island. The proposed development would make use of a vacant, substantial building and bringing it back into use and making positive external alterations would improve the character and appearance of the area considerably. This significant benefit would not be outweighed by the potential need to prune, or even to lose, one tree given the extensive tree cover in the vicinity.
8.2 The new housing would not be detrimental to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, it would not increase existing flood risk in the area and it would be provided with sufficient off-road parking. Subject to conditions, it would cause no other harm in respect of highway safety. For all these reasons, it would comply with the Development Plan and relevant legislation, and so is recommended for approval. - 9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE
9.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).
9.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to:
9.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10. - 9.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required):
9.5 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 the Right to Appeal.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made: Permitted Date: 28.07.2025 Signed : Presenting Officer – Mrs Louise Phillips
Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
