94/00529/BRefused

4 November 1994 · Planning Committee

Construction of 60 apartments in five phases with associated parking, former Picadilly Hotel site and 1-6 Athol Terrace, Queens Promenade, Douglas.

Piccadilly Court, Queens Promenade, Douglas, Isle Of Man, IM2 4ns

Received19 Jul 1994

Validated19 Jul 1994

Decided4 Nov 1994

4 months

Received19 Jul 1994

Validated19 Jul 1994

Decided4 Nov 1994

4 months

Why was this refused?

insufficient submitted information (drawings, access, refuse, phasing, fire safety)
poor design lacking character
incompatibility with surrounding lower buildings
failure to reflect promenade's architectural styles
heritage concerns over demolitions
inadequate parking provision

The application sought permission to build 60 apartments across five phases, including parking, on a prominent site along Douglas's Queens Promenade, involving the former Piccadilly Hotel and properties 1-6 Athol Terrace.

Refusal Reasons

✗There is insufficient information contained within the submitted application to enable the Committee to make a proper assessment; in particular: (a) the elevational drawings do not show the built context of the proposed development, and are not of a scale which permits adequate representation of the detailing; (b) there is insufficient detail with regard to the arrangements for access and provision of suitable and sufficient refuse storage areas; (c) there are no details of phasing; (d) there are no details of (i) fire precautions; (ii) alternative means of escape from upper floors; and (iii) the separation between the parking area and the upper floors.
✗In any case, the design of the building is poor: the form and height are constant, displaying little interest or character, and failing to acknowledge the lower buildings to the north and south.

Documents (14)

Officer Report Decision Notice Application Form

Find Similar Applications

Click a button above to find applications similar to this one.

⚖️

Compare this application

See how this application compares to similar ones — policies, conditions, and outcomes side by side.

Search for an application to compare with

Decision & Reasoning

Refused4 November 1994

The Planning Committee refused the application because there was insufficient information to make a proper assessment, specifically noting that elevational drawings lacked built context and appropriat…

Public Comments (4)

SupportDepartment of Highways, Ports and Properties (DHPP)(statutory consultee)

APPROVED - observations relate only to highway matters

ObjectionManx National Heritage(statutory consultee)

ObjectionDouglas Corporation Technical Services(statutory consultee)

ObjectionFire Officer(statutory consultee)

Consultation Responses

Three consultees objected due to heritage concerns, inadequate parking and design issues, and fire safety deficiencies, while Highways approved the application.

Key concern: fire safety and means of escape deficiencies

Manx National Heritage

Objection

My Trust is concerned that the drawings submitted with this application contain insufficient information on which to reach an informed decision.; The Trust is in any case against the unwarranted demolition of structures forming the Victorian façade of Douglas Promenade.

Douglas Corporation Technical Services

Objection

Douglas Corporation wishes to object to the above application on the following grounds:-

Highways

No Objection

APPROVED

Fire Officer

Objection

Strongly object to this application on the grounds of fire safety in particular the means of escape in case of fire from all areas within the building.

View on map →

People

W Vannan

Case Officer

J G Kelly Homes Ltd

Applicant

Key Information

Reference: 94/00529/B
Decision: Refused
Date: 4 November 1994
Parish: Douglas
Year: 1994
Type: Full Planning Application
Category: Mixed / Use
Scale: major

Property Details

Property Type: mixed
Proposal Type: new build
Context: urban
Heritage: area of special character

Property Planning History (6)

24/00705/BApproved2024

Replace wooden fence between two stone walls with a stone wall (retrospective)

15/01303/DApproved2016

Erection of signage to front elevation

94/00969/BRefused1994

Construction of 48 apartments in four phases with associated car-parking former Picadilly Hotel site and 1-6 Athol Terrace Queens Promenade Douglas.

94/00529/BRefused1994Viewing

Construction of 60 apartments in five phases with associated parking, former Picadilly Hotel site and 1-6 Athol Terrace, Queens Promenade, Douglas.

91/01572/ARefused1991

9 Athol Terrace, Queens Promenade, Douglas. - Approval in principle for construction of multi-storey residential block with associated facilities, 1 - 9 Athol Terrace, Queens Promenade, Douglas.

90/01572/CApproved1990

Temporary change of use from disused hotel to provide archive/document storage accommodation, Concorde Hotel, Central Promenade, Douglas.

Source & Provenance

Official reference: 94/00529/B
Source authority: Isle of Man Government Planning & Building Control
Source system: Legacy IDOX planning platform
Official record URL: No stable public per-record URL
First indexed: 21 Feb 2026, 14:50
Last synced: 6 Mar 2026, 10:30
Licence: Isle of Man Open Government Licence

Why was this refused?

insufficient submitted information (drawings, access, refuse, phasing, fire safety)

poor design lacking character

incompatibility with surrounding lower buildings

failure to reflect promenade's architectural styles

heritage concerns over demolitions

inadequate parking provision

Refusal Reasons

✗There is insufficient information contained within the submitted application to enable the Committee to make a proper assessment; in particular: (a) the elevational drawings do not show the built context of the proposed development, and are not of a scale which permits adequate representation of the detailing; (b) there is insufficient detail with regard to the arrangements for access and provision of suitable and sufficient refuse storage areas; (c) there are no details of phasing; (d) there are no details of (i) fire precautions; (ii) alternative means of escape from upper floors; and (iii) the separation between the parking area and the upper floors.
✗In any case, the design of the building is poor: the form and height are constant, displaying little interest or character, and failing to acknowledge the lower buildings to the north and south.

Consultation Responses

Three consultees objected due to heritage concerns, inadequate parking and design issues, and fire safety deficiencies, while Highways approved the application.

Key concern: fire safety and means of escape deficiencies

Manx National Heritage

Objection

Douglas Corporation Technical Services

Objection

Douglas Corporation wishes to object to the above application on the following grounds:-

Highways

No Objection

APPROVED

Fire Officer

Objection

Strongly object to this application on the grounds of fire safety in particular the means of escape in case of fire from all areas within the building.