Plans to redevelop the former Waterfall Hotel at Glen Maye have been refused by planners.

Jim Limited submitted an application in November 2017 to demolish the pub, which closed in 2014, and replace it with four terraced houses.

A number of amendments were later submitted following concerns raised by neighbouring residents and the local authority both about the design of the homes and the loss of the site as a pub and restaurant.

Now, planners have refused the application (17/01189/B), saying: ’It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the planning committee that the premises are not commercially viable or could not be made so.’

Patrick Commissioners were among those to object to the application, saying in December: ’The Commissioners have concerns that, should this application be allowed, it would send out the wrong message to owners of other similar that they might make more money destroying a local amenity and replacing it with residential accommodation than if they worked hard at developing the business.’

Following its March meeting, Patrick Commissioners submitted that the amended design - which included removing plans for driveways and integral garages - was ’an improvement’ but maintained that the building was ’capable of bringing back into use’.

It added that if they saw ’persuasive evidence’ the business was not viable it would ’likely look less unfavourably’ on a proposal to convert the property to two cottages.

In the additional documents from the applicant, submitted in March, it was stated: ’The applicant has tried very hard to make the Waterfall Hotel work and currently has a large sum of money invested in the site, some £200,000 being trading losses over the years.

’The applicant has not just bought the site and instantly proposing to develop.’

It continues: ’The aim from gaining planning permission is to recover the cost the applicant has within the site to enable them to expand other existing operations in the Isle of Man which will increase jobs and overall island economy.’

It includes the accounts for 2013-2015.

The amended plans respond to the Commissioners’ claim about the state of the building, saying: ’Multiple public comments have been made regarding the existing [building] and that it should be renovated and kept.

’To confirm, the existing is in a bad state of decay and this is getting worse.’

It adds the condition of the building was the reason why they ’struggled greatly to get public liability insurance for the building renewed’.

It states: ’No insurance company on the island would insure the building.’

â?¢ What do you think about the planning committee’s decision?

Email your view to [email protected]