Inspector's Report

Report On An Appeal By Mr Wayne Dinham Against Refusal Of Planning Approval For Alterations And Extension Of Building To Create 4 Apartments At 108 Castlemona Avenue, Douglas, Isle Of Man

1. I held an inquiry into this appeal on 5 December 2013 following a site visit on 2 December. I made another site visit on the evening of 5 December. The following persons appeared at the inquiry:

For the Appellant: Mr G Clarke For the Planning Authority: Mr E Baker Mr K Almond (Dol Highways Division)

The Appeal Site And The Proposed Development

1. The site comprises a traditional town house on the south east side of Castlemona Avenue. It is of 3-storey height at the front and 4-storey height at the rear. There are 3 adjacent town houses in the same terrace to the north east. The Spectrum apartment building is adjacent to the south west. There is a wide alley to the rear, from which a narrow alley runs alongside the Spectrum building to The Promenade. It is proposed to erect a 3-storey flat-roofed rear extension and to convert the premises into two 2-bedroom and two 1-bedroom apartments. The timber windows would be replaced with uPVC sash windows, a rear roof light would be inserted and a new 1.8m rear boundary wall would be built.

The Case For The Appellant

The main points are:

1. The full history of the site is not known but it includes use as tourist accommodation and as 6 bedsits and an owner’s flat. The property was last used as a 7-bedroom facility for workers and a site office by the Dandara Group while building the Spectrum apartments. At that time the resident workers had vehicles and parked in the vicinity. There is evidence of previous use as a boarding house as the bedroom doors have numbers. Dandara had difficulties selling the property due to its blighting by Spectrum and subsidence and water ingress caused by that development. The appellant bought it in a poor state in order to provide 2 units of semi-sheltered accommodation for his 2 disabled sons and 2 more units to assist with financing. Those units would be offered to the Department of Social Services as semi-sheltered units for adults with similar difficulties to those of the appellant’s sons. Negotiations with this Department had not been concluded. The additional units would also help provide some income to assist the appellant’s sons in having an independent existence. His sons will not be able to drive. One is unlikely to be able to work and the other will always be in low paid work. The easy, level access makes the property ideal for the proposed units, with good access to the town centre, to shops, services and public transport. There is dual pedestrian access including to The Promenade. None of the units would ever be sold commercially. A condition to that end would be acceptable.

1. Approved and historical applications for conversions/refurbishments in the area have set precedents and show that the Department’s policy has been to encourage apartments/flats. (Examples are given in para. 3.5 of the appellant’s statement). There has been unequal treatment of this proposal relative to others in the area. The extension would allow for reconfiguration of accommodation and new and improved facilities. It would replace the rear courtyard which has been blighted by the Spectrum development.

1. The proposal would enhance the quality of life for residents of Castlemona Avenue given that:

• the level of occupancy of the building would be reduced relative to its past occupancy;
• occupiers of the existing bedsits would be temporary, with no affinity for the area;

• traffic density and potential parking problems would be reduced by the lower occupancy levels, and because none of the potential occupants of the apartments would be likely to ever drive;
• the building would be restored to blend in with and enhance the street scene;
• the long established multiple occupancy of the building is indisputable and can continue.

1. The proposal accords with the area's residential zoning. The Planning Officer recommended approval. The proposal accords with the primary strategic aim of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan ("the Strategic Plan") to raise the quality of the built environment through effective town planning. It would accord with the Strategic objective by promoting the re-use of derelict sites, reducing the need to travel by being within walking distance of town and on bus routes, and by providing housing of an acceptable standard and appropriate nature in a suitable location to meet community needs. The proposal also complies with the following elements of the Strategic Plan:

• Strategic Policy 1 - that development should make best use of resources;
• Strategic Policy 10 - that development should be located and designed so as to meet a more integrated transport network;
• Strategic Policy 12 - which indicates that favourable consideration will generally be given to proposals for improving the quality and condition of the housing stock and for the creation of flats by conversion of redundant boarding houses;
• Environment Policy 43 - under which proposals which seek to regenerate run-down urban and rural areas will generally be supported;
• Housing Policy 4 - in its quest to provide affordable housing;
• Paragraph 8.12 - providing a general presumption in favour of extensions where there would be no adverse impact on adjacent property or the surrounding area - this proposal would make a positive visual contribution to the area;
• Housing Policy 17 - which states that conversion of buildings into flats will generally be permitted in residential areas, subject to provisos;
• Appendix 7 Parking Standards para. A.7.1 - which indicates that reducing parking requirements for new residential development will be considered having regard to the location relative to public transport, employment and public amenities, the size of the dwelling, any occupancy restrictions, and the impact on the character and appearance of the area - it also highlights that in the case of proposals to create dwellings by conversions, the need to find a use for redundant buildings in sound condition will generally outweigh the drawback of any shortfall in parking provision.

1. The appellant would provide on-site parking spaces, but that is not physically possible. In any event, measured against the Strategic Plan parking standards the proposal would be beneficial. It would result in a lower theoretical demand for parking. The proposed use would require 6 spaces; whereas the 6 bedsits and the owner's flat would require 8. As the proposal is for a conversion rather than a new development, the argument surrounding parking is irrelevant. The parking requirement would in practice be lower due to the intended occupants not being drivers. If as an alternative the property were to be occupied by a family, there could be as many as 4 or 5 cars owned and used by such a household.
2. The appellant's survey between 4 and 18 November 2013 showed that sufficient parking is available within and 125 m of the site for public use, both short term or on longer term residents' permits. It is also relevant that residents' permits are believed to have been issued to residents of the Spectrum building, which has on-site parking provision, and that the owners of that building have rented spaces to other people. Those factors have put pressure on the whole parking system in the area.
3. The application is supported by the neighbours at 110 Castlemona Avenue. The appeal should be allowed and the decision to refuse planning approval should be overturned.

The Case For The Planning Authority

The main points are:

1. Although the appellant has claimed that this was originally a 7 -bedroom boarding house, and was then used over the last 10 years as 7 -bedsitting rooms and a site office by building contractors, there is no planning history. No certificate of lawfulness of use or development has been issued. The building's layout is indicative of previous use as a shared house rather than as bedsits. The proposal accords with the zoning in the Douglas Local Plan 1998 as a predominantly residential area. General Policy 2, Housing Policies 4 and 17, Transport Policy 7 and the parking standards in Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan are relevant. The principle of the development is acceptable having regard to the zoning.
2. The amenities of residents of the Spectrum apartments would not be affected, as a blank elevation of that building faces the site. The impact on 110 Castlemona Avenue would not be excessively harmful as the 2nd floor window in that property closest to the proposed extension serves a landing/staircase not a habitable room, and the ground and 1st floor windows of that property are affected by an existing "outcrop extension" and the proposed extension would not have a significantly greater impact on those windows. Although the proposed extension would be quite towering as seen from the rear yard of No. 110 , that yard is small and functional and does not provide recreational space.
3. No. 1 Castle Terrace to the rear is a vacant hotel. It has planning approval to refurbish and upgrade to create an "apart hotel", with occupation limited to tourists for stays of up to 4 weeks duration. Having regard to that form of occupation, potential overlooking from the proposed extension is a less sensitive issue. Although there would only be 6.4 m between the facing elevations, which is less than would normally be required, neither the impact of the appeal proposal on the amenity of 1 Castle Terrace, nor the impact of that property on the proposed apartments by overlooking, would be such as to warrant refusal of the scheme. A relevant factor is that future occupiers of the proposed apartments would be aware of the close proximity of the windows of 1 Castle Terrace before deciding to take up occupation.
4. There are no objections to the proposal in terms of its impact on the area's character and appearance.
5. The Planning Committee disagreed with the Officer recommendation to approve the proposal. The following factors are pertinent to the Planning Authority's objection, which relates to parking:

• the site is in a high density residential area;
• parking for properties on Castlemona Avenue is restricted - the Douglas parking study of September 2012 shows that there is no spare parking capacity on this road or in the most relevant other roads (Empress Drive, Mona Drive, Palace Road and Castle Drive);
• Castlemona Avenue is narrow with on-street parking allowed only on the north side;
• there are 361 issued parking permits for the disc zone including this road -72 are for properties in Castlemona Avenue, where there are only 50 kerb -side spaces of which 4 are reserved;
• there is no off-street parking on the appeal site or on the surrounding sites;
• under-provision of parking results in congestion and frustration for local residents;
• parking elsewhere impacts on capacity in other locations such as The Promenade, interrupts traffic flow and makes Douglas a less attractive destination;
• the proposal would have unacceptable parking consequences, especially in the evenings when long term parking by residents occurs;
• there are entertainment uses locally which also have parking demands during the evening.

1. It is not accepted that there has been unequal treatment of proposals. Some approvals for flats have been granted, for example where these replaced hotels so that the need for parking spaces under the

standards was reduced. Those circumstances do not apply to the appeal case. As the proposal would add to the existing problem of parking demand outstripping supply, the appeal should be dismissed. It does not accord with the parking standards in Transport Policy 7 and Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan, which would require 6 off-street spaces. Even if allowance is given for the apparent previous use as a shared house, 4 extra off-street spaces would be required. Although the building has been used as a 7 -bedroom shared house, the enhanced accommodation of the 4 apartments would be likely to increase car ownership, which could be doubled. Very little if any weight should be given to the intention that 2 of the units would be occupied by the appellant's sons. It would be impossible to guarantee who would occupy them, and it would be inappropriate to attach an occupancy condition to this permanent conversion. There is no medical or other evidence to support the appellant's case that his sons would be unable to drive. The proposal does not include any cycle storage area to offset the need for car parking. There is no space for such storage. Although the site is within walking distance of the town centre and public transport, parking demand would still be created. The proposal also fails to accord with criteria (b) and (i) of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan, and criteria (a) of Housing Policy 17.

Other Representations

1. At application stage, the Director of Highways recommended refusal as no off-street parking spaces were proposed in what is a heavily congested area, whilst the Strategic Plan would require 6 such spaces. Douglas Borough Council had no objections. Mr C Robertshaw MHK opposed the proposal on grounds of inadequate parking provision in a constrained area for parking, and stated that quality of life in the area would be further undermined. John \& Diane Batty ( 110 Castlemona Avenue) did not object. They supported the principle of the erection of a 3 -storey extension at the rear linking to their property.

Inspector'S Assessment And Conclusions

1. The main issue concerns the adequacy of parking provision in the vicinity to cater for the proposed development, and the effect the scheme would have on parking congestion in the area.
2. There would be no parking provision on the appeal site. The extension would fill most of the rear yard. Even if that yard was not built on, it would not be possible to utilise it for parking because the rear alley is too constrained to allow access to be achieved. Consequently, any parking demands associated with the proposed apartments would have to be accommodated in on-street parking spaces.
3. Based on a survey on his behalf the appellant claimed that sufficient parking spaces were available in the vicinity, but there are limited details available about the survey method and so about the robustness of its results. Importantly, the submitted details show that the survey times were 0815 and 1800 hours on the dates covered. No data has been provided relating to later hours when the peak parking demand from local residents is likely to arise. As a result, little weight should be attached to this survey. The evidence presented by the Highways Division from the Douglas parking study paints a different picture. It was stated that the accumulation survey indicating maximum peak demand revealed occupancy levels for available parking spaces which are indicative of full utilisation. It is unfortunate that only verbal evidence derived from the parking study could be presented, as it was stated the study is still awaiting formal Ministerial approval. That limits the weight that should be attached to that evidence. However, my own observations on the evening of 5 December were also indicative of a lack of spare capacity for on-street parking. At the time of my visit there was only 1 free parking space on the north side of Castlemona Avenue where parking is permitted, and there were also several cars parked on the footway on the south side of the road in positions which would probably have constituted illegal parking.
4. Having regard to the matters detailed above, I have come to the view that parking provision in the area is not adequate to cater for any additional parking demands that might be created by the proposed

development. It is therefore necessary to proceed to consider whether any such additional demands would be created. The appellant has claimed that this would not be the case for 2 main reasons.

1. The first is his contention that the parking demand assessed under the relevant parking standards would be less than the demand calculated on an equivalent basis for the existing use of the property. This contention relies on the appellant's view that the property can be used as 6 bedsitting rooms and an owner's flat without the need for planning approval. There is no substantial evidence to support that view. The fact that there may be numbers on the doors within the building is not definitive evidence. No application has been made for a certificate of lawfulness of use and development, and no such certificate has been issued. In these circumstances it has not been established that 6 bedsitting rooms and a flat is the lawful use, and so it cannot be deduced that the lawful use would lead to a demand for 8 parking spaces. There is no substantial evidence to justify a conclusion that the proposal would reduce the theoretical demand for parking based on the standards in the Strategic Plan from 8 spaces to 6 . In the absence of any evidence of substance to show that the property can be used for any other use, it is realistic to consider the relative parking demands that would arise if the property were to be used as a single dwelling as compared to the demands if the appeal scheme is approved. On that basis, the parking needs of the property would be increased from 2 spaces to 6 spaces if the appeal is allowed.
2. The second main reason concerns the contention that the intended occupiers of the apartments would be unable to drive or unlikely to do so. The appellant's intention is to provide 2 apartments for his 2 disabled sons, who are said to be unable to drive, and to create 2 units of accommodation for persons with similar disabilities, who would also be unable to drive. However, no medical evidence has been submitted to support this aspect of the appellant's case, and there is nothing inherent in the scheme that would ensure that non-drivers would occupy the units. No negotiations have been concluded with the Department of Social Services regarding the occupancy of the 2 units intended to be offered to nonmembers of the appellant's family. Particularly in the case of the 2 bedroom units, occupation could potentially be by more than one person per unit, and some of those occupiers might well be able to drive and to own cars. I concur with the Planning Authority that it would not be reasonable to limit occupation to particular categories of people by planning condition, particularly as the proposal includes substantial extension and conversion works likely to involve significant costs, and no way of defining the relevant categories of people has been put forward in the appellant's evidence. If it were considered appropriate to restrict occupation, it would be more reasonable, effective and enforceable for the appellant to offer a suitably worded legal agreement. No such agreement has been put forward.
3. Bringing these matters together, I have come to the view that it is not possible through the determination of this appeal to ensure that the apartments would be occupied by persons who do not drive or have use of a car. As the apartments could well be occupied by car owners and users, it is my conclusion that the proposal in its current form would be likely to seriously exacerbate existing parking congestion in the area. Having observed that parking is already taking place in unsafe positions, any such increase in parking congestion would be likely to harm the safety of other road users, as well as to impact adversely on the living conditions of local residents who already apparently struggle to find parking spaces close to their homes. The inadequacy of parking provision to serve the development brings it into conflict with part (h) of General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan. Contrary to the appellant's suggestion to the contrary, these policies relating to parking do apply in this case as the proposal falls within the definition of development.
4. I have taken account of all other matters raised but I have found nothing of sufficient weight as to override the harm I have identified with respect to the main issue. On the available evidence I have not found any of the other developments cited by the appellant as having been approved to be directly

comparable to the appeal scheme. I have concluded that the appeal should be dismissed. If it should be decided that the appeal is to be allowed contrary to my recommendation, the conditions suggested in the covering letter to the Planning Authority's statement should be attached as being reasonable and necessary requirements.

Recommendation

1. I recommend that the appeal be dismissed, with the effect that the Planning Authority's decision to refuse planning approval be upheld.

Stephen Amos MA(Cantab) MCD MRTPI Independent Inspector