DEC Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Application No.: 22/01239/C Applicant: Mrs Anna Farrimond Proposal: Additional use of a Residential Apartment with a single garage to provide tourist living accommodation Site Address: Flat 2 Derby Court 42 The Promenade Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1BG Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 01.12.2022

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

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The application accords with paragraph 9.5.8, Business Policy 13, Environment Policy 23, General Policy 2 and Community Policies 7 and 11 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the following documents all date received 03/10/2022:

• o 7290 - 000 Location Plan
• o 7290 - 001 Site Plan
• o 7290 - 002 Existing Plan Layout
• o 7290 - 003 Proposed Plan Layout
• o 7290 - 004 Photographs _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status

Additional Persons

None _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report SITE

1.1 The application site relates to Apartment 2, Derby Court, a ground floor apartment within a detached three storey building located on the northern side of The Promenade, Castletown. To the east of the site is James Road. PROPOSAL - 2.1 Approval is sought for the additional use of the property as tourist accommodation.

2.2 The apartment comprises two en-suite bedrooms, kitchen and lounge and an outside patio area. There is a single garage belonging to the apartment within a detached garage block to the rear of the building.

2.2 There are no physical works proposed to the outside. PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 There has been another application approved for the use of Flat 1 as additional tourist accommodation which was approved under 15/01196/C. PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area recognised as residential on the Area Plan for the South 2013. The site sits just outside of the high tidal flood risk area but close to an area of low surface water risk. In terms of paragraphs and policies within the Strategic Plan, Paragraph 9.5.8 and Business Policy 13 set out a general presumption in support of private dwellings as tourist accommodation provided it does not compromise the amenity of the neighbours, Environment Policy 23 also addresses changes to neighbouring amenity as a result of development. The general design standards set out in GP2 and the Residential Design Guide 2021 shall also be taken into consideration along with Environment Policy 13, Community Policies 7 and 11 in respect of flood risk, minimising criminal activity and reducing spread of fire.

REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.

5.1 Castletown Commissions - no comments received as of 01/12/2022.

5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - Do not oppose (19/10/2022). - 5.3 No comments received from DOI Flood Risk or neighbouring properties.

ASSESSMENT

6.1 The application seeks approval for the additional use of a residential property to tourist accommodation which is generally to be supported so long as it does not compromise neighbouring amenity. Although there is generally a view in favour of using domestic properties as tourist accommodation, there can be times whereby this is opposed. There have been a small number of refusals given to applications looking to gain the same permission; the use of flats for tourist accommodation could potentially have a damaging effect on the amenities of others through the comings and goings of tourists in comparison to permanent residents, although most are granted approval there has been an instance of one refusal - PA 04/00194/C.

6.2 In the case of properties like this which are within the settlement and close to the town centre there is already a degree of activity in the area and it may be difficult to discriminate the behaviours between a tourist and a permanent resident or to differentiate the comings and goings of each minded that it may be no more apparent than those already living in the property and those in the nearby area, also taking into consideration that No1 is already

• approved for additional use for tourism use too. It may be that as a tourist, a person may be out a lot of the time, but may also have a greater number of late nights and be disruptive on return. On the other hand, permanent residents may be at home more, and could be more likely to invite friends or family over for dinner or parties that may be noisy. In general the majority of people tend to behave well and raise no concerns, although there will always be a percentage that may not behave.
• 6.3 The existing property is indicated to have a single garage available for off road parking just as the existing. It is unlikely that there will be any new or increased demands on parking between the existing residential use or as a result of the proposed tourist use. There are bus stops located in the nearby area and on-street parking nearby which could be used by the current occupants or by any anticipated tourists.
• 6.4 It is noted that although the nature of the use might be different from permanent residential accommodation, the use of the site for private rental accommodation would not require planning approval and could result in frequent and continual turnover of residents, and therefore It is considered the use of the existing residential dwelling as tourist accommodation would have a similar impact, whether it is used for tourist or permanent residential use and therefore is not considered to have a significant adverse impact upon the living conditions of the neighbouring properties.
• 6.5 The additional use as tourist use would not result in any changes beyond current occupation in terms of criminal activity nor increase the likely hood of flood risk or spread of fire beyond the existing arrangement, and so the proposal is considered acceptable in these respects.

CONCLUSION

7.1 For these reasons the proposal is considered to comply with the relevant polices of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and there is no demonstrable harm arising from the application. The living conditions of the neighbouring properties are not to be made worse as a result of the proposal and as there are no physical works proposed there is to be no impact on the streetscene or surrounding area. The application accords with Business Policy 13, Environment Policy 23, General Policy 2 and Community Policies 7 and 11 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
• (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
• (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
• (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material. 8.2 The decision maker must determine:

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

I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.

Decision Made : Permitted Date: 02.12.2022 Determining officer Signed : J SINGLETON Jason Singleton Principal Planner

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