Inspector's Report

Appeal No: AP24/0043 Application No: 23/00958/B _______________________________________________________________

Report on Planning Appeal – Written Representation ________________________________________________________________ Site Inspection undertaken on: 25 November 2024 _____________________________________________________________

Appeal by: Mr Richard Copisarow

Appeal against the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse planning approval for the conversion of existing guest house and apartment to eight apartments with alterations and extensions and new vehicular access at Erin House, Athol Park, Port Erin

---

Introduction

• 1. This report provides a brief description of the appeal site and its surroundings; the proposal which is the subject of the appeal; background information and relevant policy. The cases for the appeal parties are then summarised, fuller details being available for reference in the appeal case documents. My assessment, conclusions and recommendation follow.

Site and surroundings

• 2. Erin House is a substantial four storey property on the corner site at the junction of Athol Park, Athol Park Avenue and St George’s Crescent. It stands opposite Athol Park Glen and, being in a slightly elevated location, it has considerable visual prominence from the immediate surroundings. The property takes access from both Athol Avenue, which runs behind the appeal site, and serves a group of much more modest two storey semi-detached houses and a workshop, and Athol Park Avenue.
• 3. The building itself is particularly distinctive with a four storey round tower topped by decorative castellations. The scale of the building reflects that of the neighbouring, terraced Victorian villas along Athol Park Avenue. The character and appearance of the locality is very much residential.
• 4. Erin House is presently a shadow of its former Victorian glory, in need of some TLC and bringing back into active use, and as a prominent building in the street scene, it partially defines the character of this important location in the Town.

The proposal

• 5. The appeal proposal is essentially for the complete refurbishment/remodelling of Erin House and its sub-division into 8 apartments. At the site visit I saw that the interior of the building had been almost completely stripped out.
• 6. In 1995 planning permission was sought for the conversion of the building from a nursing home to a restaurant and living accommodation. This was refused. Applications in 2004, 2007 and 2008 indicated that Erin House was a private residency, although lodgers may have also been accommodated.

• 7. The reason for refusal1, in this instance, deals solely with the lack of Affordable Housing provision2. The case seems to rotate around the issue that the Strategic Plan 2016 (IMSP), Housing Policy 5 (HP5), requires 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing and the policy should apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more. The point at issue is, notwithstanding the description of proposed development, whether the proposal is for 8 new dwellings. My assessment will firstly consider whether the proposal is for a development of less than 8 dwellings and conclude accordingly. Secondly, the Appellant contends that in the case that it is concluded that the proposal is for 8 new dwellings, the terms of IMSP Policy HP5 would bite, and the scheme is not viable requiring then for the viability of the scheme to be assessed. This will also be considered in the assessment below.
• 8. There is a second issue raised by residents relating to the impact of the scheme on the availability of on-site car parking in the locality. This too will be considered.
• 9. The appeal site also falls within the Port Erin Draft Conservation Area so the impact of the proposal on the character or appearance of the proposed Conservation Area will also be considered.
• 10.No case has been made against any other aspect of the development and these issues are the only ones addressed in the submitted evidence in respect of this appeal. Consequently, I have confined my consideration of this appeal to these specific issues, all other matters in respect of the development being unchallenged.

Relevant policy3

• 11.The appeal site lies within an area designated as predominantly residential on the Area Plan for the South and within the Proposed Port Erin Conservation Area. The planning policies most relevant to the appeal are contained within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
• 12.IMSP Housing Policy 5 seeks to secure 25% of new housing provision as Affordable Housing in developments of 8 dwellings or more.
• 13.IMSP Transport Policy 7 (TP7) requires that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standard4.
• 14.IMSP Environment Policy 35 (EP35) indicates that within conservation areas only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area will be permitted and will ensure that the special features contributing to character and quality are protected against inappropriate development.

Case for the Planning Authority5

• 15.In assessing the principle of the proposed development, it is considered that the site lies within an area designated as Predominantly Residential use on the Area Plan, and within the defined settlement boundary for Port Erin, where the proposed development would be judged to be in conformity with the adjoining uses.

• 1 The only ground on which the Planning Authority is contesting this proposal.
• 2 IMSP Policy HP5.
• 3 Policies of most relevance.
• 4 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan is relied upon for guidance on parking standards to be applied to new development and these standards are applicable across the Island.
• 5 Source Planning Statement of the Planning Authority, Rebuttal, its accompanying documents and the Planning Officer’s report.

• 16. The use of the site for the proposed residential development of 8 Apartments accords with the goals of Strategic Policy 1 and Housing Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. Conservation Area
• 17.The majority of the works proposed to the external elevations of the building would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the site and area (as they would improve the appearance of the building), with some of the works having a neutral impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. As such, it is considered that the proposal would not conflict with the provisions of IMSP Policy EP35, as the proposal will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality of the site and area are not adversely impacted. Car parking
• 18.In terms of parking provisions, it is considered that the proposal would provide six on-site parking allocations for the apartments, which would amount to a shortfall of about 10 parking provisions noting the requirements in Paragraph A.7.6 of the Strategic Plan regarding parking provision for apartments. The new parking provisions, which would be created by the lowering of the boundary wall to the west and creation of new hardstanding areas, also hold the potential to create highway safety concerns as the new parking area to the west would sit next to a steep bend on the road. However, the advice offered by Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highway Services confirms that they do not oppose the application, subject to conditions, which indicates that the scheme as proposed is acceptable from the DOI Highways Perspective.
• 19. Whilst the parking survey support the proposed development, neighbouring residents report there is a lack of parking provision in the area during peak periods in the evenings and weekends. The site visit also showed that parking in the area could be limited on some days and times, although it would be worth noting that the site is close to existing public transport corridors within Port Erin, and the site is also within a 150m walk to the Port Erin Bus and Train Station.
• 20.IMSP Policy HP5 would require two units to be affordable in a development of 8. The appellants have not made provision for any unit of affordable housing which would fail to meet the requirements of Housing Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan. Whilst the appellants have justified their non-provision of affordable housing through the provision of a viability appraisal, it would be vital to note that there is no provision within the Strategic Plan for variations to be allowed for the non-provision of affordable housing, neither is there reference made in any part for exceptions to be allowed should sufficient viability assessments be made to show that affordable housing would make a scheme unviable.
• 21.With regard to the comments that the details of the viability assessment were not considered in the decision for the site. It should be noted that there was nothing within the viability assessment which showed a compelling argument that the provisions of the Strategic Plan should be set aside for the application. In fact, the details provided within the Viability document provided a strong basis for there to be no relaxation of the requirements of Housing Policy 5 for the site, one of which included the calculation and integration of costs for Curtains & Blinds totalling

• £25,000.00. This was included as part of the costs which would make the scheme unviable. Curtains and blinds are usually excluded from viability assessments, as these are not an essential feature that must be included in new dwellings to make them habitable, particularly as these dwellings are not to be rented but sold out to new owners who would usually install their chosen curtains and blinds.
• 22.The required commuted sum to meet the affordable housing requirements for the development would be only about £3,148.40 higher than the £25,000.00 proposed for curtains and blinds, given that the sum is to be £28,148.40. There are gaps within the viability assessment which do not demonstrate that providing affordable housing will make the scheme unachievable.
• 23.Besides, the issue regarding the provision of white goods and soft furnishings (including curtains and carpets) which could be used for the affordable housing contributions, whose pricings were included in the Financial Viability Assessment, was flagged as being the price for the sum commuted by the Planning Committee, with the applicant maintaining that they were not willing to alter their proposal to address the affordable housing requirements. As such, presenting this issue as not being considered provides a distorted picture of the real scenarios regarding the development of this site in relation to affordable housing. As such, it is considered that the scheme as proposed would be at variance with the provisions of housing Policy 5, and the supporting texts.
• 24.The appellants contention that Housing Policy 5 should not be applied as there are currently 2 apartments/units of accommodation in the premises is also noted. However, the plans clearly show that the entire building layout would be altered to create 8 new apartments, which means that affordable housing needs to be provided to account for the 8 new apartments on site. Further to the above, there is no history of approvals for an apartment on site, nor has there been an application for certificate of lawful development for such a change at the site. Besides, even if such apartments existed, the proposal seeks total alteration of the floor area to enable the creation of the 8 new apartments. Conclusion
• 25.Granting the proposals would not have significant adverse impacts upon public or private amenities, or parking and highway safety. However, the lack of affordable housing provision weighs considerably against the proposal such that it would fail to comply with the requirements of Housing Policy 5, as it fails to take cognisance of the increasing difficulties of securing the provision of affordable housing across the Island. The proposal is, therefore, considered to be at variance with the Strategic Plan and the Area Plan for the South, and is recommended for refusal on this basis.

Case for the Appellants6

• 26. The appeal proposal demonstrates a desirable and acceptable development which will regenerate an existing, prominent and interesting building in the heart of an existing settlement, in a sustainable location and which is in accordance with all of the relevant planning policies.

• 6 Source - the Appellant’s Statement of Case and Rebuttal including Financial viability appraisal and timeline of discussions with DOI regarding the assessment of the commuted sum.

• 27. Housing Policy 5 requires developments of 8 or more houses to make a contribution to affordable housing. This is explained in the preceding paragraph, 8.6.3, which explains that “in the current circumstances, the Department considers that approximately 25% of new housing provision should take the form of affordable housing”. It is accepted that this application proposes to create 8 dwellings, but it is material that there is currently an apartment within the property as well as the accommodation on the floors above it. The proposal uses the layout of the existing apartment and so is effectively for the creation of 7 new apartments, “new” being the word used in paragraph 8.6.3.
• 28. The historic use of this building is not abundantly clear from the planning history; it is known that the building has been said to have been used both as a guest house and an old persons’ home (the existing use as described in 95/01069/A) but the only definitive public and most recent statement is that the building was used as “residential” (04/00621/B) and “a private residence” (07/00890/A). The building is described as a detached dwelling in the officer report for 08/00761/B7 and just as “private” in the application form. Despite being referred to as a private dwelling in those applications, the current layout, which is shown in the application form and also in the sales particulars, does not suggest that its most recent use was as a single private dwelling. The Planning Officer refers in a number of places in his report, to the site being “residential” and a “residential curtilage” which we surmise is an acceptance that the property is residential in some shape or form.
• 29. Another important factor is that the Use Classes Order distinguishes between flats, residential homes and private dwellings and the Planning Officer does not state that the property is anything other than a residential property. It also allows for hotels and guest houses to be changed to a private residential without the need for planning permission which the appellant may well have done so, hence it would appear it is classed as residential.
• 30. As such, given that the site has been referred to variously as residential, and if the lawful or existing use were a guest house, it would be possible to change that to a single dwelling without planning approval and thus, the starting point for any calculation of affordable housing requirement should be that the site contains one residential unit.
• 31. Information about the prior use of the premises has been sought from previous occupants. Mr. Caird occupied the property over a period of time. He explains that he occupied a second-floor room along with other tenants with the owners who purchased the premises in 1995, living in the first floor of the older part of the building with all its amenities8. Their daughter lived on the second floor and their son occupied the ground floor apartment. Mr. Caird moved into the ground floor apartment “with its kitchen, living room and bathroom” (understood to be the lower ground floor). He describes a Fire Prohibition Order around 2015, and everyone was required to vacate the premises except the owners who were still living on the first floor.
• 32. Mr. Caird was asked by the owners to move back in shortly afterward, renting a room in what was their family home, along with other tenants. He describes the owners moving into a bungalow around 2019, but Mr. Caird continued living there until 2023 when the property was sold to the current applicant. He describes returning to the premises to retrieve his belongings “because the new owners were

• 7 The Department confirmed the use of the building was private residential.
• 8 In his letter attached to the Appellant’s Statement of Case.

starting to clear everything out and wanted to renovate my apartment and the family’s apartment above mine and to work on the rest of the building”.

• 33. Consequently, it would appear that there were at least two separate living units within the building, which coincides with the sales particulars which describe two sets of kitchens, bathrooms, bedrooms etc. Photographs taken in 2023 on the appellant’s acquisition of the property, which demonstrate this as well as invoices from a removals company which list items which were removed, including four fridges are include in the appellant’s statement of case. As such, the reasonable conclusion is that at the time of acquisition, the premises were used as a private dwelling with rooms rented out and with a separate apartment on the lower ground floor - at least two separate units of accommodation.
• 34. As such, the proposal is to create eight residential units where there is currently at least one, arguably two units. The appeal, therefore, proposes to create six or seven new dwelling units, referring again to the terminology in paragraph 8.6.3.
• 35. The application of Housing Policy 5 should take into account that there is currently at least one residential unit within the site and that the calculation of affordable housing should be based on the number of additional units and whether they constitute eight or more.
• 36. The appellant has provided a financial viability report (titled “Erin House Financials”) which justifies why eight apartments is the appropriate number of units within this building and why fewer units would not work. In addition, it sets out the financial calculations used in projecting the costs of this project and concludes that the figure advised by Department for Infrastructure Housing Directorate, if required to be paid, would result in the scheme being financially unviable.
• 37. The planning officer stated that he did not consider the financial information relevant to the application and had no regard to it in his assessment of the application. He does not say that he rejects any of the conclusions or questions any of the component parts, but that he has had no regard to it at all and made no response to us on it.
• 38. The appellant has provided a Financial viability appraisal as an appendix to the Statement of Case as well as an update with additional construction cost estimates from a second construction company. It also includes the revised commuted sum proposal from the DOI from £28,140 as of 06/08/2024 to £14,457 on 23/09/2024.

Car Parking

• 39. Whilst not raised as an issue by either the planning officer or the Highway Services Division of Department for Infrastructure, some of the residents who live close to the site have expressed concern about the perceived lack of on-site parking spaces and the adverse impact this might have on the local area.
• 40. The proposal will create eight apartments and provides five parking spaces, two of which are tandem spaces. Four of the units may accommodate no more than two persons with the units in the older part of the building capable of accommodating more occupants.
• 41. The property previously accommodated a guest house with 18 bedrooms which were all used up until relatively recently. This use would generate as much, if not more, comings and goings than the 8 apartments.

• 42. The parking spaces shown on Athol Avenue are not publicly available and should not count towards the availability of parking in the area. However, what they do demonstrate is that there is available parking in Athol Avenue so the proposed development should not have any impact on parking space availability for the residents of this cul de sac.
• 43.The Strategic Plan contains a policy which requires that development is in accordance with the Department’s current standards which are set out in Appendix Seven. However, the accommodation of sufficient car parking spaces to meet the standards is subject to discretion, depending upon what is physically possible on site and visually desirable and also taking into account the location of the site in relation to available amenities, employment and public transport.
• 44. This site is situated in the heart of Port Erin, a Service Village which should “provide regeneration and choice of location for housing, employment and services”. Such services and employment minimise the need for significant travel and dependence on the private motor car. The inclusion of covered and secure bicycle storage spaces is reasonable given the sustainable location of the site close to the employment and services available in both Port Erin and Port St. Mary and in our view, mitigates the reduction in parking spaces provided on site.

Conclusion

• 45. The site is a highly sustainable site within minutes’ walking distance of the shops, services and employment in Port Erin and the local public transport network. Port Erin is a Service Centre where there should be a choice of location for housing, employment and services.
• 46.The conversion of this property will satisfy a range of strategic objectives, including the achievement of brownfield redevelopment, the retention of fabric of interest within a proposed Conservation Area and will provide a small number of modest apartments which will be competitively priced against the newer and larger apartments within the village.
• 47. The proposal satisfies all of the relevant planning policies and whilst there is no proposal to provide affordable housing, we would say that this policy should be applied with regard to the merits of the application and noting that the policy should be “generally” applied. It has been demonstrated why this case is not usual in terms of new developments of apartments and furthermore, that not only does the application not propose eight new apartments but also that the amount required by the Department as a commuted sum is inappropriately high and the appellant was not offered the opportunity to consider a more appropriate sum nor to phase the payment of any commuted sum such that some income could be forthcoming before the payment is required.
• 48. The appellant fully supports the general need for more affordable units on the Island but strongly believes that a development which provides fewer than the minimum of 8 new residential units, should not be penalised for or taken as showing a lack of support for more affordable housing. Any commuted sum here will only serve to increase the cost of the renovation, with that cost being passed to prospective tenants and decreasing the affordability of the units.
• 49. It should be clear from the statement by the appellant that the calculation of any affordable housing payment for units created through conversions rather than new build, is more complicated that it might at first have appeared and the sum now being stated as required is significantly lower than first promoted to the Planning

• Committee. We have not seen any statement by the Planning Officer or the Department for Infrastructure to the appeal, but trust that the submission to this appeal will reflect the most recent discussions and conclusions by Department for Infrastructure Housing Division, that any affordable housing commuted sum payment is in the region of £14,500.
• 50. If the Minister is minded not to agree with our position on the principle of affordable housing, the appellant would accept, if he is assured of no further planning delays, that a commuted sum of up to £14,457.28 should be paid but on the understanding that the payment would be required only once the final two units were created/sold/ occupied as was conveyed to him by Department for Infrastructure Housing Directorate after the decision had been made to refuse the application.

Other Parties9 Occupier, Wensleydale, Athol Avenue

• 51. There is broad support for the redevelopment of this site. However, the proposed development represents an over-intensive development and given the scale of the development it is appropriate that affordable housing should be included. Port Erin is experiencing a significant loss of its traditional affordable housing stock, largely due to the ongoing conversion into tourist units. It is imperative that provisions are made to address the needs of the local community, which is increasingly being priced out by speculative ventures.
• 52. IMSP Policy HP5 requires 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing or a commuted sum. This policy applies to developments of 8 dwellings or more.
• 53. The existing site includes a residential unit, but the proposed scheme fundamentally changes this, and it is evident that the application for 8 new dwellings should be considered in the context of the overall development. Therefore, the affordable housing requirement should apply.
• 54. Regarding the submitted viability report, it has been tailored to achieve a predetermined outcome, rather than providing an accurate reflection of the situation. Many objections from local residents stem from concerns about overdevelopment. There has been little consideration of the potential viability of a less intensive, higherend development that may better align with the character of the area.
• 55.The claimed planning benefits and contributions of this scheme remain speculative. While there is general support for the redevelopment of Erin House, it is crucial that such support is not granted at any cost. The appellant’s approach appears to be driven primarily by maximizing financial returns rather than contributing meaningfully to the local community. A reassessment of their viability report, perhaps with consideration of tourism units which often require less parking might yield a more balanced outcome.
• 56. Finally, the parking studies do not seem to accurately reflect the true demands for on-street parking, particularly during peak periods such as weekends and evenings. The appellant’s initial parking study included free parking spaces on Athol Avenue, most of which are private and not part of the public domain. After this was highlighted, the study was amended, excluding Athol Avenue and only including local

• 9 In full at Planning Officer’s report section 5.0.

public highways. However, due to the lack of available parking on local highways during peak times, Athol Avenue is often used for parking illegally. Vehicles have been left there for significant periods, and the police, DOI and Manx Utilities have been informed.

• 57. There has been no evidence that the highways authority has adequately assessed these periods of peak demand, which is crucial for understanding the full impact of the proposed development on local infrastructure and not simply a site visit during working hours.
• 58. To conclude whilst the principle of redevelopment is supported, the current proposal requires further consideration to ensure that it delivers genuine benefits to the community and aligns with planning policies.

Other representations

• 59.The representations received at the application stage, relevant to the main issue being considered in this appeal, are as follows:

•  DOI Highway Services - the proposals continue to be acceptable on parking, access, sustainability and servicing, and as such they continue to not oppose subject to suggested conditions the border on Access, parking layout, bin storage and cycle storage; Access visibility splays; and the parking arrangement with tandem spaces shown on the approved 'proposed site layout' plan.
•  Port Erin Commissioners have no objection.
•  The owners/occupiers of the following properties object to the application: Windways, St Georges Crescent, Port Erin Wensleydale, Athol Avenue, Port Erin Shidda, Athol Avenue, Port Erin Workshop, Athol Place, Port Erin Coan Beg, Athol Avenue, Port Erin 3 Glenview Terrace, Port Erin Inglewood, Athol Avenue, Port Erin They refer to the following reasons:

• o Insufficient off-road parking in the plans to cater for 8 apartments;
• o Whilst the parking availability survey concluded that there were between 53% and 91% vacant parking spaces on St Georges Crescent, the majority of these vacant spaces will be up towards Breagle Glen and not in the lower part of St Georges Crescent closer to Erin House which are regularly fully occupied.
• o There are only about 5 / 6 legal parking spaces on the small, adopted section of Athol Avenue, yet the applicants parking availability study alludes to the fact that there are 17 public parking spaces on Athol Avenue.
• o The majority of Athol Avenue is a private road and should be discounted from any public parking calculations.
• o Increased demand for parking in the area.

• o They note that with the Anchorage Guest house, Restaurant and various self-catering establishments in the area, the summer has been particularly tedious for parking spaces.
• o The proposal constitutes an overdevelopment of the site, considering the existing local parking infrastructure.
• o They note that the applicant asserts that Erin House is an existing guest house, whilst stating that this does not accurately reflect the fact that Erin House has functioned as a residential dwelling for several years. Assessment by the Inspector Impact on the proposed conservation area

• 60. The appeal site lies within a proposed conservation area. Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) states, (4) where any area is for the time being a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in the area, of any powers under this Act. This sets out the approach to be taken in determining planning applications, which includes giving great weight to the asset's conservation when considering the impact of a proposed development on the asset.
• 61. Erin House occupies a prominent and elevated site in the immediate locality and has a particularly strong visual and physical relationship with the substantial terraced houses along Athol Park Avenue, as well as being an important element in the overall character and appearance of this part of Port Erin, centred on Athol Park Gardens. The interrelationship and scale of the buildings, one to another, is a defining factor in the significance of this part of the proposed conservation area.
• 62. The appeal proposal would bring Erin House back into active use akin to the use of the neighbouring terraces and smaller scale homes in the immediate locality. The obvious emptiness and lack of life within the building would be banished reintroducing the provision of comfortable homes for residents of the Island. The exterior of the building would receive some much-needed attention, returning the building to some sense of its past grandeur. In this way the appeal proposal would preserve and enhance the character, appearance and quality of the proposed conservation area. The terms of IMSP Policy EP35 would be met.

Car parking

• 63. Proposed site layout plan 2023-142-012 shows the provision of six on-site car parking spaces, three new spaces being accessed from Athol Avenue, involving the removal of a low side boundary wall, and three existing spaces, two of which are proposed to be arranged in a tandem pattern accessed from Athol Park Avenue.
• 64. There is, in the main, unrestricted on-street parking available in the immediate vicinity, although it should be noted that this does not include the parking along the part of Athol Avenue which serves the semi-detached houses behind Erin House. This on-street parking is private and not available for public use. Initially it was included in the parking survey of the appellant, but this was revised when the availability issues were highlighted. I am clear in my assessment that this private road is not available to be considered as part of the wider resource of on-street parking. I also appreciate the frustration of the residents of these properties that non-residents do park along the private road at times of parking pressure in the

• vicinity. However, the monitoring of any illegal parking on the private road is a matter for those affected residents to pursue.
• 65. The appeal site lies close to the centre of Port Erin with ready access to the services and facilities available in the town. It is also within easy walking distance of the bus and train station which both offer means of transport other than the private car. It is for these reasons that the DOI Highway Services did not oppose the proposal even though the parking standards within the IMSP were not met.
• 66. The IMSP sets out the long-term target is to reduce the level of car parking required in town centre developments and seek to develop more sustainable transport plans10. The Strategic Plan also seeks to locate new housing and employment close to existing public transport facilities and routes, or where public transport facilities are, or can be improved, thereby reducing the need to use private cars and encouraging alternative means of transport. The provision of secure cycle storage in apartments if also a consideration. In this case racking for 8 cycles is proposed.
• 67. Therefore, whilst I do not doubt at times there is competition for on-street parking, in what is a sustainable location close to a public transport hub and within walking distance of amenities, I do not consider that the long-term objective of the IMSP, including Policy TP7, would be undermined.
• 68. Further, taking into account the various uses of the building over time, which I will consider next, the consolidation of the use into eight apartments would likely generate less traffic movements than in previous iterations of the use and would not result in harm to highway safety, nor to road users.

Application of IMSP Policy HP5 – affordable housing

• 69. Whether the terms of IMSP Policy HP5 bite in this case depends on whether it is accepted that the appeal proposal is for eight brand new dwellings (apartments) with an acceptance that Erin House does not include existing established residential units or units to be off-set against the eight apartments mentioned in policy.
• 70. Erin House seems to have had an interesting past referred to by various parties as being used as a guest house, old person’s home, but within the planning history and various documents contained therein, the building is repeatedly referred to as being in residential use. This, however, does not define how many units.
• 71. That said, from the Planning Officer’s report and Statement of Case, it is clear there is an acceptance the use of Erin House is residential. There also seems to be a consensus view that under the terms of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 1994 the change of use from a residential care home or guest house to a private residence may occur without the need for planning permission.
• 72. I also have given considerable weight to the uncontested evidence of a resident of Erin House who lived there almost continuously from 1995 to 2023. He describes how he lived as a lodger, renting a room from the family who occupied the property. This was a common arrangement in larger houses occupied as a family home, but benefiting from an income from those renting extra rooms. The resident explains the family lived across three floors, with different family members occupying different floors, which he describes as ‘apartments’11. The occupier of

• 10 IMSP paragraph 11.5.3.
• 11 See paragraphs 31-32 above.

Wensleydale also acknowledges above12 that the existing site includes a residential unit.

• 73. Those who have lived closest or within Erin House, I consider, to have the most reliable knowledge of the existing use of the premises which, there is no doubt, is residential, but with at least one established residential unit, if not more. It is not necessary to go on to determine how many existing units as with an acceptance of just one this takes the appeal proposal down below the IMSP Policy HP5 threshold of eight new dwellings. In these circumstances I do not consider that the terms of IMSP Policy HP5 are applicable and so there is no requirement to provide an affordable housing commuted sum in this case.
• 74. At my site visit I saw that the interior of the building had been gutted. I am informed such works do not in themselves require planning permission. The Planning Authority contend in some way these works could be seen to extinguish previous uses. I can not agree. Erin House has clearly been used for residential purposes for many years, reflected in past documentation and the memories of residents13. The interior walls still included a patchwork of a variety of domestic wall papers and other wall finishes making it discernible as to the various residential room uses which might have occurred in different parts of the building. The remodelling of the building and alteration of room subdivision does not change the use nor override the acceptance of a residential unit within the house. The floor space remains the same, and the ghosts of the residential uses across the floors still persists.
• 75. However, in the circumstances that the Minister does not agree with my assessment on this point and so considers that IMSP Policy HP5 should be applied, then the effect of the required affordable housing contribution on the viability of the scheme should be considered14.
• 76. Initially the Planning Authority indicated they required some £28,143.36 as a commuted sum. However, since then there has been further negotiations between the appellant and DOI which are set out at page 6 – Section C) of the Appeal Submission from the Applicant, appended to the Appellant’s Statement of Case15. The commuted sum now rests at £14,457.
• 77. Whilst the appellant does not move from his position that the affordable housing commuted sum is not required because the proposal is for less than eight new units, he has indicated that in the instance that the Minister determines that IMSP Policy HP5 is applicable, rather than see the appeal dismissed he would agree to a condition requiring the payment of the sum, only once the final two units are sold or let, a format discussed and accepted by the DOI. I agree this seems sensible as this payment is the only issue outstanding and holding back the development of Erin House. The benefits of bringing the building back into active and upgraded residential use for both the character and appearance of the locality, as well as providing available homes for residents of the Island, convenient to the centre of Port Erin, I consider to be of great weight and a dismissal of this appeal would

• 12 Paragraph 53 above.
• 13 As well as Planning professionals as set out in the appellant’s Statement of Case – Appeal submission from the Applicant

– section A).

• 14 IMSP paragraph 8.6.3.
• 15 These have not been contested by the Planning Authority. As these are agreed matters between the parties I do not consider it necessary to reassessment the viability calculations in the face of agreement.

merely delay the development unnecessarily, harming the strategy for the provision of affordable housing as well as general market homes on the Island.

Conclusion

• 78. Therefore, for the reasons set out above I do not consider the terms of IMSP Policy HP5 bite in this instance, and it is not necessary to provide a contribution towards affordable housing. With that barrier removed to development there is no other policy reason to delay the appeal proposal further and the appeal should be allowed.

Recommendation

• 79. Therefore, I recommend that the appeal be allowed, with the effect that the decision of the Planning Authority be set aside, and planning approval be granted for the conversion of existing guest house and apartment to eight apartments with alterations and extensions and new vehicular access at Erin House, Athol Park, Port Erin subject to compliance with the conditions specified below at Annex A. The conditions are based on those promoted by the Planning Authority in their Statement of Case. The reasons for each condition are set out within the schedule.
• 80. The appellant considered the terms of condition 3 to be onerous, but I do not agree. The two bed units, as larger apartments, are likely to be better suited to two tandem parking spaces, particularly, as their use is very much dependant on co-operation in respect of parking one behind the other.
• 81. The Planning Authority had promoted a condition taking away permitted development rights in respect of extending or enlarging apartments. My understanding is that apartments do not benefit from permitted development rights in this regard and, therefore, the terms of that condition are not necessary.
• 82. Should the Minister agree that an affordable housing contribution is required then an extra condition at Annex B should be included in the Conditions schedule. The condition refers to a scheme for the provision of an agreed contribution towards affordable housing. For the avoidance of doubt the term scheme refers to a S13 legal agreement to define the contribution and secure its payment.

Reasons for Recommendation

• 83. The proposed development accords with the provisions of Strategic Policies 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5; General Policy 2; Housing Policies 4, 5 and 17; Environment Policies 34, 35 and 42 and Transport policies 4 and 7 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

Frances Mahoney MRTPI IHBC

Independent Inspector 9th February 2025

Annex A Schedule of Conditions

• 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 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• 2.The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until all access and parking arrangements, including visibility splays, vehicular and pedestrian areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plan (Drawing No. 2023-142-012). Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than for purposes associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking in the interests of highway safety.

• 3. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, details of the allocation of the tandem parking spaces shown on the approved proposed site layout plan (Drawing No. 2023-142-012) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The tandem parking spaces shall be allocated to the two two-bedroom apartments, and marked out as such on site.

Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than for purposes associated with the allocated apartment and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.

Reason: To ensure there are no conflicts with parking on site, in the interest of highway safety.

• 4. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the secure bicycle storage shown on Drawing No. 2023-142-012 has been provided in accordance with the approved plans. The secure bicycle store shall be retained at all times thereafter.

Reason: To promote sustainable travel in the interests of reducing pollution and congestion.

• 5. Prior to the occupation of any of the eight apartments which forms part of the development hereby approved, the bin storage area shown on Drawing No. 2023142-012 shall be provided in accordance with the approved plan and shall be permanently retained thereafter and solely for the purpose of refuse storage.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and of the amenities of the area.

• 6. No works in connection with the development hereby approved shall commence until details, including the manufacturer's details, specification and colour of all the materials/roof/wall/windows/doors/rainwater goods/hard surfacing to be used in the external finish for the approved development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department.

The development shall not be occupied or brought into use unless the external finish has been applied in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and the visual amenities of the area.

• 7.Notwithstanding the details that have been submitted, the development hereby approved shall not commence until a detailed landscaping scheme has first been submitted to the Department in writing to be agreed.

The scheme shall include a detailed landscaping layout, details of planting including plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities, site levels, as well as a programme for the implementation, completion and subsequent management of the proposed landscaping.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and agreed programme of implementation and shall be retained and maintained as such thereafter.

All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of any unit, whichever is the sooner. Any plants which die or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: In the interests of protecting and enhancing the biodiversity of the environment.

Annex B

1. No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision of an agreed contribution towards affordable housing as part of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall include an agreed schedule for payment which shall be strictly adhered to.

Reason: In the interests of securing the provision of affordable housing across the Island. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the following approved plans and documents: Location Plan 2023-142-001

Site Plan 2023-142-002 Proposed site layout 2023-142-012 - dated 29 January 2024 Proposed elevations 2023-142-13 Scope of building works 2023-142-016 Proposed ground and first floor plans 2023-142-009 Proposed second and third floor plans 2023-142-010 Proposed attic and roof plan 2023-142-011 Views of roof balconies 2023-142-015 Proposed cycle shelter siting and elevations 2023-142-018 Effect of railing styles 2023-142-019