Loading document...
Application No.: 15/00763/C Applicant: Judith Sian Tattersall Proposal: Additional use of residential apartment as tourist accommodation Site Address: Apartment 34 Piccadilly Court Queens Promenade Douglas Isle of Man IM2 4NS Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 22.07.2015 Site Visit: 22.07.2015 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE PROMENADE IN RESPECT OF SIMILAR PROPOSALS
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is apartment 34 within Piccadilly Court, a two-bedroom dwelling that has both front and rear aspects within a six-storey, purpose-built apartment block sited on the north western side of Douglas Promenade. - 1.2 In addition to the two bedrooms, number 34 accommodates 1 bathroom, 1 kitchen and 1 lounge.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The planning application seeks approval for the additional use of the residential apartment as tourist accommodation. - 2.2 Although there is no dedicated parking space for the apartment, there are two large areas of hardstanding for the parking of cars to the rear, and these areas are tied directly to Piccadilly Court. - 2.3 No external changes are proposed.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The application site sits adjacent to an area of Mixed Use Tourism and Residential under the Douglas Local Plan, which has no accompanying Written Statement. The site is also within the Douglas Promenades Conservation Area. - 3.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains three policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.
3.3 General Policy 2 states (in part): "Development which is in accordance with the landuse zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality." - 3.4 Environment Policy 35 states: "Within Conservation Areas, the department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development." - 3.5 Business Policy 13, which is probably key to the proposal's assessment, states: "Permission will generally be given for the use of private residential properties as tourist accommodation providing that it can be demonstrated that such use would not compromise the amenities of neighbouring residents."
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, only one of which is considered specifically relevant to the assessment of this current planning application. - 4.2 PA13/00850/C sought approval for an identical proposal to that now under consideration. Five objections were received from residents of the apartment building and a sixth from the management company. This application was considered by the Planning Committee and approved in accordance with officer recommendation. - 4.3 A number of other apartment blocks have been the subject of similar applications, most of which have been approved. However, of direct material relevance is a refusal issued to PA 14/01089/C, which was an application seeking additional use of Flat 43 within Empress Apartments. - 4.4 That application was recommended for approval despite objections from 9 residents within Empress Apartments, along with a petition signed by 16 residents, and the recommendation was accepted by the Planning Committee. However, that decision was appealed, and the appointed Inspector recommended that the appeal be allowed (having the effect of refusing the application). The Minister agreed, and the application was refused for the following reasons:
4.5 The key issue in the Inspector's report is that of demonstrable harm. She noted that there had been no letters in support of the proposal, and also that the weight of feeling against the proposal seemed to relate as much to the "safe, tranquil and well-ordered living environment that Empress Apartments provides," which is "a fragile situation, and one that could easily be disrupted by incidents of anti-social behaviour". - 4.6 The Inspector appears to have been persuaded that there was a clear element of community feeling within Empress Apartments. This, along with the level of concern
"Reason: A 2-year trial period would provide useful evidence about the effect, if any, that the approved change of use has had on living conditions at Empress Apartments."
"Reason: To assist in the assessment of the effect, if any, that the approved change of use has had on living conditions at Empress Apartments."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 There are no representations on file at the time of writing.
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The planning application does not propose any external alterations or modifications and therefore the primary issue is the impact of the proposal on the residential amenity of the local residents of neighbouring apartments and the impact of the use on the wider Conservation Area. - 6.2 In view of the Inspector's assessment of the proposal at Empress Apartments, it is reasonable to consider that the acceptability of the current proposal will turn on the level of concern raised. - 6.3 It is difficult to assess how an individual person would behave whether they be a tourist or permanent resident. As a tourist, a person may be out a lot of the time, but may also have greater late nights and be disruptive on return. On the other hand, permanent residents may be at home more of the time, but be more likely to invite friends or family over for dinner or parties that may be noisy. In general terms, however, the majority of people tend to behave well and raise no concerns, although there will always be a percentage that might not, whether they are a permanent resident or otherwise.
6.3 It is perhaps worth noting the type and age group who visit the Island. 2013 research undertaken by the Department of Economic Development indicated that 75% of all tourist are aged 45 or over, with only 18% being between 25 and 44. The Department of Economic Development has also identified the existing tourist markets, which are listed below:
6.4 All that being said, the location of Piccadilly Court is different to that of a residential unit within a quiet close or gated community - and certainly different to the location of Empress Apartments. Piccadilly Court is located directly on Queens Promenade next to a public house in an area of mixed tourist, business and residential use and therefore noise disturbances will not be uncommon. With apartment blocks, a different standard of residential amenity is expected to that of semi-detached or detached properties, and generally less privacy and more interaction with neighbours through the use of shared corridors and spaces is to be expected. Moreover, with a high density of people living in one area, working patterns are likely to be varied, including night shifts, and which may result in comings and goings late at night and/or early hours of the morning. - 6.5 In view of the limited concern raised with respect to the proposal, it is considered that there is no demonstrable harm arising from the proposal and the application is therefore recommended for approval.
7.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 11.08.2015 Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
This approval relates to the floor plan parking arrangements drawing and elevation all received on 8th July, 2015.
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 : Approved Committee Meeting Date: 24.08.2015 Signed :Miss J Chance Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph). Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
