An application to convert a guesthouse into flats has been refused - because the proposal did not include any affordable housing.

Richard Copisarow applied for planning consent to convert Erin House in Athol Park, Port Erin, into eight apartments (23/00958/B).

He maintained that the rules on providing affordable housing did not apply as the premises already had two apartments so that in practice only six new ones were being created.

But the planning committee insisted there were eight and so this triggered a £28,000 commuted sum in lieu of providing affordable homes - a figure which the applicant said he could not afford to pay.

The planning officer had recommended refusal and the planning committee unanimously voted to go with that recommendation at its meeting on Monday.

The detached four-storey Victorian property with castellated parapets is situated on the corner of St George's Crescent and close to Athol Park Glen.

Mr Copisarow’s proposals would have seen the layout of all the floors totally altered to create eight new apartments.

These would comprise four small two-bedroom apartments on the ground, first, second, and third floors and three large two-bedroom apartments on the ground, first and second floors as well as a three-bedroom maisonette that would occupy the third floor and attic space.

It was put to the applicant that the commuted sum worked out at only £3,500 per flat.

But Mr Copisarow replied: ‘I can’t pay that, I’m sorry.’

Planning officer Paul Visigah said the existing flats would have to be actively in use to be counted.

Port Erin Commissioners had supported the application. But a number of neighbours on St George’s Crescent, Athol Avenue and Athol Place objected, citing Insufficient off-road parking. Other neighbours were in support, stating that the scheme would breathe new life into the area.

Planning committee member Matthew Warren said it would have been better to have four impressive flats rather than trying to ‘shoehorn’ more in.

The applicant replied that he had tried to reduce the number of units but in terms of viability it just didn’t work. ‘Most people wouldn’t touch this,’ he said.

He argued the property had formerly being used as a nursing home and there had been staff living quarters included. Committee chairman Rob Callister said he would like to see the site developed but ‘our hands are tied’.

Committee member Adele Betteridge said would rather see the site developed than flattened but she had a problem about the lack of affordable housing.

Fellow member Peter Wihteway said it would be better to refuse the application so that if the applicant wanted to challenge the decision he could appeal - an option not available to him if the application was approved but the commuted sum was included as a condition.