DEC Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Application No.: 22/00149/GB Applicant: Kelman Ltd Proposal: Demolition of No's 22, 23 ,25, 26, 27 and 28 North Quay, conversion of No. 24 North Quay and redevelopment to provide ten apartments and three bar/restaurant units (use class 3) (in association with 22/00148/CON) Site Address: 22 - 28 North Quay Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 4LE Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken: 23.03.2022 Site Visit: 23.03.2022 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 13.09.2022 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. The demolition the registered building 27-28 North Quay is unacceptable as the application does not demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been made to preserve the building nor provided sufficient justification for its total loss. As such, the unnecessary loss of the building would fail to preserve the building, its setting and features of special architectural and historic interest and is contrary to SP4, GP2, EP 30, 31 and 32 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, RB/3, RB/6 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man, Area Plan for the East 2020; and Our Island Plan 2022. - R 2. The loss of the registered building situated within the North Quay Conservation Area is unacceptable as the application has failed to demonstrate reasonable effort has been made to retain the structures or provide sufficient justification for their loss and would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the North Quay Conservation Area and is contrary to SP4, GP2, EP35 and 39 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, CA/2, CA/6 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man, Area Plan for the East 2020; and Our Island Plan 2022. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status

Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:

Isle of Man Fire & Rescue Service

It is recommended that the following persons should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):

2 Tennis Road, Douglas 2 Glen View, South Cape, Laxey Manx Taxpayers' Alliance of Merchants House, 24 North Quay, Douglas; The Isle of Man Building Conservation Forum (Legislative Buildings, Douglas); Marlene M. Maska MLC (Legislative Buildings, Douglas); The Old Barn, Phildraw Road, Ballasalla

• 9 Fort William, Douglas Flat 1, Chandler House, 1, Ridgeway Street, Douglas The Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society

• as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy; are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy; as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy.

Manx Taxpayers' Alliance as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

THIS PLANNING APPLICATIONS IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & BUILDING CONTROL

- 1.0 THE APPLICATION SITES

• 1.0.1 The application site comprises of Nr's 22, 23 ,25, 26, 27 and 28 North Quay which form part of a row of properties of various styles along the northern side of North Quay with Queen Street running along the northern boundaries (rear) of the properties. Nr 28 is located on a corner plot with North Quay and Queens Street junction. The Saddle Public House, multi storey car parks run to the north of the application properties on the opposite side of Queens Street. The site is within North Quay Conservation Area and Nrs 27 & 28 North Quay are Registered Buildings.
• 1.0.2 The site is very close to the Lord Street bus Station and within walking distance of Douglas Town centre facilities. There are a number of other public and private car parks within the area. Queen Street has very limited formal footpath provision, whilst North quay is substantially pedestrianized, with some limited vehicle lay-by type parking for loading and disabled drivers. Queen Street provides access to a number of car parks and 'The Saddle' public house is located at the Eastern end at its junction with North Quay.

• 1.0.3 As mention the application properties vary in style, height, scales, form, finishes and overall design. Accordingly the below comment son each of the properties individually; Nrs 22 - 23
• 1.0.4 The applicant has indicated that the existing No. 22-23 property consists of a traditional three & half-storey plus basement building facing North Quay, constructed of rendered Manx stone walls under pitched slated roof. To the rear is a later two-storey addition which houses a garage and rooms above, together with a three-storey rendered and pitched sate roofed former storage building. The site has a footprint of 188 square metres. The applicant has noted that the application site is currently accessed via Queen Street to the rear and North Quay to the front (both having one-way direction of travel for vehicles). The application site currently has a garage and a storage building. The former is difficult to access safely and the latter has only pedestrian access. The building dates to the 19th century probably mid. The buildings can be seen in historic photos of the quay, the building makes a positive contribution to the character of the conservation area being traditional quayside buildings in their original context. Nr 24 (Merchant House)
• 1.0.5 The applicants have indicated that this is an office building over three full floors of accommodation with the roof space served by rooflights. There are four parking spaces at the rear at ground floor level underneath the upper floors. It is a fairly imposing building of three storeys, and with a well-proportioned frontage attractively decorated with consistent render detailing around windows and doors, at eaves level and in the form of prominent pilasters. Nos 25 - 26
• 1.0.6 The applicants have indicated that the existing No. 25 property consists of a traditional four-storey building facing North Quay, constructed of rendered Manx stone walls under a pitched slated roof. To the rear is a number of single-storey additions which house a portion of sales floor, together with outbuilding stores, and which are constructed of Manx stone and brick under pitched slated roofs. The applicants have indicated that the existing No. 26 property is a vacant site formed from the remnants of a former traditional four-storey building facing North Quay, but which had suffered a fire in the early part of the 20th Century, and which was substantially demolished in the 1960's. The North Quay elevation had been enclosed using a profiled asbestos cement agricultural sheet, and the roof has been created using profiled metal sheeting. The rear elevation is a mix of Manx stone and concrete blockwork. This section of the building was formerly used as a parking and delivery bay for the former 'Newsons' warehouse/shop. The applicants have indicated that the combined site for No. 25-26 has a footprint of 128.41 square metres.
• 1.0.7 The applicants have indicated that the application site is currently accessed via Queen Street to the rear and North Quay to the front (both having one-way direction of travel for vehicles). No.25 is a shop with dwelling above. No.26 was a delivery bay and limited parking for the adjacent retail unit. The latter is difficult to access safely as entry was from North Quay and then exit via Queen Street which has very limited visibility. The building dates to the 19th century probably mid. The site also contains a vacant site which once was an identical building to the one still standing and probably constructed at the same time. The surviving building can be seen in historic photos of the quay, the building makes a positive contribution to the character of the conservation area being a traditional quayside building. The site is adjacent to the registered building the former Newsons' warehouse. Nrs 27 - 28
• 1.0.8 The applicants have indicated that the existing Nr 27 property consists of a traditional four-Storey warehouse building facing both North Quay and Queen Street to the rear, and is constructed of Manx stone walls under a pitched slated roof. Further they comment that Nr 28 consists of a traditional two-storey building (with small cellar), which is currently accessed via No.27. The building is constructed of rendered and painted Manx stone walls under a pitched

• slate roof, and forms the corner of the junction of North Quay with Queen Street. The existing building has undergone significant alteration to its openings in the past. The applicants have indicated that the application site is currently accessed via pedestrian access from North Quay. The former retail use used the adjacent No. 26 for loading/parking.
• 1.0.9 The applicants have indicated that the combined site for No27-28 has a footprint of 168 square metres.
• 1.0.10 The Registered Buildings Officer has commented that Newsons Warehouse, no 27-28 North Quay is a registered building dating back to the late 18th century; they are important survivors illustrating the development of Douglas' quayside and emerging industry of trade. They are good examples of the island's vernacular architecture particularly in an area that was substantially cleared in the 1930's. As historic quayside buildings they provide the character and context to the conservation area.

- 2.0 PROPOSAL

• 2.0.1 The application seeks approval for the demolition of No's 22, 23 ,25, 26, 27 and 28 North Quay, conversion of No. 24 North Quay and redevelopment to provide ten apartments and three bar/restaurant units (use class 3) (in association with 22/00148/CON). Accordingly, only Nr 24 (Merchant House) would be retained. Nrs 22 & 23
• 2.0.2 The proposal which would replace Nrs 22 & 23 would be a four storey building which includes accommodation within the roof space and roof terrace set behind a glazed balustrade. This building would have a flat roof. The building would be finished in painted render. From the front elevation (facing North Quay) the proposal would be approximately 13.8m in height and to the rear 15m. This building currently has a height of 12.6m to the front elevation and 13.2m to the rear elevation. The rear elevation of this section of the building and which is opposite the rear of the multi storey car park would change significantly, from a low level three storey building with cat slide roof, to a full four storey property. Nr 24
• 2.0.3 The property Nr 24 (Merchant House) would be retained and externally would not be altered in the main, with the exception of an external ramp to the access onto North Quay. The rear elevation would be altered, with the current under croft parking being replaced with accommodation. Eves details would also be altered. Nrs 25 - 26
• 2.0.4 The buildings in question would be demolished and replaced with a new four story buildings. The property replacing Nr 25 would have a similar design to the proposals on Nrs 22 & 23, having a traditional three storey elevation facing North Quay, with an additional storey within a flat roofed element which has a roof terrace in front, set behind a glazed balustrade. The new building replacing Nr 26 would differ in style and appearance again being three and half storeys, being finished in stone and dormers within the roof space. This aspect is also taller than Nr 25. This aspect of the proposal would continue through to the adjacent development on Nr 27.
• 2.0.5 Currently, Nr 25 has a height of approximately 13m to the front and rear elevations. The new proposal (Nr 25) would have a height of 13.7m to the front elevation and 15m to the rear elevation. The building on Nr 26 has a height of approximately 10.8m to front and rear elevations. The new proposal would have a height of approximately 15m to the front and rear elevations. Nrs 27 - 28
• 2.0.6 The existing buildings on site are the Registered Buildings known as the former Newsons building. The proposal would be to completely demolish these and replaced with a new four storey building in the main, but which steps down to three, two and single storeys to

• the corner section of Nr 28. Currently, Nr 27 (main warehouse stone building) has a height of approximately 13m to the front and rear elevations whereas Nr 28 has a height of approximately 7.3m to the front and rear elevations. The ground floor of the new proposals would accommodate 3 bars/restaurants. While the upper levels in the main would accommodate 5 residential apartments.
• 2.0.7 The four storey building is proposed to be finished in the main with a stone finish to the front elevation, render to the rear elevations and dark coloured roof covering.
• 2.0.8 No details of any commercial flues are included in this application (the Department would likely have concern of any extraction flues to the rear of the building being proposed in the future) , albeit it is noted the applicants comments that the internal layouts shown are indicative as future tenants will have their own particular requirements but they have been provided therefore as indicative layouts to demonstrate that all the usual required accommodation can be accommodated and that refuse management for each unit is possible.
• 2.0.9 It should be noted that no details are included on the plans which indicated what materials for the external walls, roof finishes, and door or window finishes. Further the proposal shows each property has a similar ramp access with glazed balustrading. However, this appears to fall outside the red line and therefore is not a matter which can be considered. A further application would be need to address the ramps.
• 2.0.10 In terms of the concept of the proposals and the overall design the applicants comment; "4.1 Having established the only viable building to be retained on the site is number 24 North Quay we took the view that it is this 'anchor' building that should provide the starting point for the redevelopment design solution

4.2 Using this principle we designed the buildings on either side of Merchants House to terminate at a roof terrace at third floor thus limiting their visual impact from a street view to the balustrade upstands that would be visible. In addition, these buildings although traditional in form and fenestration are more modern in appearance to provide a contrast to no. 24. Their flat roofed and fully glazed fenestration at third floor level add to this contrast and the variety to the ridge lines to enable the flat roof portions to be significantly lower than Merchants House. - 4.3 Merchants House has therefore been allowed to dominate its immediate neighbours and stand out between them. - 4.4 In considering nos. 25-28 North Quay we believed that some elements of the existing warehouse should be retained including the traditional former lifting tower used for hoisting goods up and inward via a lifting beam at the head. We have re translated this feature as a glass tower spanning between upper floor apartments which further serves to place emphasis on the apartment's entry position below. To take the current buildings references further we have proposed that the proposed building be stone faced rather than rendered and the third floor dormered to hold the eaves line no higher than Merchant's House. - 4.5 As the existing buildings 27/28 step from three to two story at the corner with a change in material (stone to render) we have interpreted this form in another more modern way by stepping the apartment terraces downward in three steps. Again, as the buildings proposed either side of Merchants House, this part of the building is traditionally rendered but it has modern glass and steel balustrades and window materials to enable a contrast with the more traditional stone building created adjacent."

• 2.1.1 The following points are noted from the applicant's Design and Access Statement in support of the application; "Physical Context

• 6.1.1 The North Quay and Quayside area is one of Douglas key urban attributes along with its two-mile promenade. The development of the marina has kick started a number of quayside developments such as Quay West and a major apartment block of 38 units on 31- 39 south quay currently under construction. In addition, the area has benefitted from the semi pedestrianisation of the north quay with bars and restaurants enjoying outdoor seating areas that previously would have been unavailable before this initiative.
• 6.1.2 This development will bring a section of the North Quay currently empty and unused back to life by the provision of active frontages and residential occupation.
• 6.1.3 In addition the proposed mix of retention and sympathetic redevelopment will produce a scheme which positively contributes to the architecture of the North Quay Conservation Area and enhances it. 6.2 Social Context

• 6.2.1 The Isle of Man has continued to grow in recent years thanks to the influx of financial and digitally based businesses that have taken advantage of its offshore status. These companies have had to import staff from the UK and further afield to utilize the necessary skill sets of certain individuals required by their business. The Island can be easily 'sold' to such people by its beautiful environment and countryside, however it's indoor leisure offer has been harder to sell by comparison with the facilities generally available to UK residents. The number of indoor leisure offers are however growing, and the provision of three modern bar and restaurant facilities proposed within this application can only reinforce that growth. These units are also more likely to attract restaurant chains who will be more receptive to long leases if purpose-built premises are being offered. The benefits to the local community and the local area also apply, where the North Quay as a night out destination will become even more attractive.
• 6.2.2 Many town centres struggle with upper floor use as retail and leisure offers are the primary driver in these locations and people are unwilling to live in an apartment without outlook in an urban environment. The North Quay has the advantage of an attractive outlook over a marina in a south facing direction and consequently the provision of ten apartments of this quality within this environment will provide no difficulty with sales. The residential use then provides a balance of occupation with leisure units ensuring the development remains consistently vibrant 24/7. The provision of large quality apartments where people want to live close to their workplace will not only benefit local people but those referenced in 5.2.1 above who are looking to come to Island to live and work.
• 6.3 Economic Context

• 6.3.1 Three purpose-built retail units will generate employment opportunities for at least 30 40 people locally and the business and individuals will all pay taxes. The provision of these facilities will also generate spending for local people and tourists. Some years ago, the IOM Government began an initiative to use the North Quay as the TT 'Hub' for Douglas to spread the leisure and entertainment offer further than the promenade. This initiative failed because it was premature, as not enough outlets and variety of outlets existed to provide a draw. This development will help grow the area as a destination and help enable an attractive tourist promotion of the quayside.
• 6.3.2 The investment for this development is significant and the construction industry is one of the largest sectors of the Isle of Man economy. It is a difficult site to develop and there are easier sites to develop on green fields and suburban environments. Willingness to develop this site should therefore be regarded as an opportunity not only to boost the construction

economy but to provide Douglas with an economic generator in both the short and longer terms."

- 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

• 3.0.1 The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the determination of this application;

• 3.0.2 Registered buildings consent for the demolition of the Registered Buildings No's 27 - 28 North Quay and Demolition of No's 22, 23, 25 and 26 North Quay which are buildings within a Conservation Area - 28 North Quay - 22/00148/CON - PENDING CONSIDERATION

• 3.0.3 Registered Building Consent for refurbishment and conversion of existing building to form cafe bar/restaurant at ground and first floor, with business hub/club on upper floors above - RB 289 (in connection with application 18/01333/GB) - Former Newsons Warehouse, 27-28 North Quay - 18/01334/CON - APPROVED
• 3.0.4 Refurbishment and conversion of existing building to form Cafe Bar/Restaurant at ground and first floor, with business hub/club on upper floors above (RB 289 - in connection with RB application 18/01334/CON) - Former Newsons Warehouse, 27-28 North Quay -

- 18/01333/GB - APPROVED

• 3.0.5 Registered Building Consent for the demolition elements of PA 18/01331/B - 25-26 North Quay - 18/01332/CON - APPROVED
• 3.0.6 Demolition of existing buildings and erection of building incorporating dining and support facilities for a restaurant/bar at ground floor level, and 6 apartments on the floors above (in connection with RB application 18/01332/CON) - 25-26 North Quay - 18/01331/B APPROVED
• 3.0.7 Registered Building Consent for the demolition elements of PA 18/01329/B - 22-23 North Quay - 18/01330/CON - APPROVED
• 3.0.8 Demolition of part of existing building to rear, conversion of remaining building, erection of new build element to rear of site, all to form cafe/bar/restaurant at ground and basement levels and 6 apartments on floors above (in connection with RB application 18/01330/CON) - 22-23 North Quay - 18/01329/B - APPROVED
• 3.0.9 Demolition of existing building and replacement with mixed use development including restaurant/cafe/bar, 6 apartments on the upper floors, rooftop garden, and associated parking/refuse facilities - 22-23 North Quay - 17/01320/B - REFUSED on the following grounds; "R1. The proposal by way of its layout, scale, form and design would have a significant deleterious impact on the character and quality of the streetscene and is considered to be contrary to General policy 2 (b); (c) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 .

• R2. The proposed design of the front façade would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance within Conservation Area within which it is located and is therefore contrary to Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
• R3. The application site is identified as being within a flood risk area and there is no flood risk assessment put forward or mitigating design measurers to protect occupants of the building or the building itself to address the concerns of flood risk, it is therefore contrary to EP10 and GP2(l).
• R4. In the absence of any evidence for consideration to override the general presumption to retain building in this conservation area, the proposal would be considered contrary to EP39 and PP 1/01 as there is no justification to warrant an exception for demolition.
• R5. The design of the proposal in relation to the access to the residential apartments does not take account of personal safety or security and so is considered contrary to Strategic Plan policy GP2(m)".

• 3.0.10 Conversion of existing shop, dwelling and warehouse to offices - 22 - 23 North Quay 14/01243/B - APPROVED
• 3.0.11 Alterations and extension to office - The Merchants House, 24 North Quay -

- 00/02205/B - APPROVED

• 3.0.12 Alterations and refurbishment to create office accommodation and gallery - The Merchants House, 24 North Quay - 97/00783/B - APPROVED
• 3.0.13 Approval in principle to demolition of existing and erection of new shop/offices - The Merchants House, 24 North Quay - 90/01498/A - REFUSED at APPEAL

- 4.0 KEY DOCUMENTS

4.1 Material Considerations Town and County Planning Act 1999

• 4.1.1 Section 10(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act states: "In dealing with an application for planning approval… the Department shall have regard to -

• (a) The provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application,
• (b) Any relevant statement of planning policy under section 3;
• (c) Such other considerations as may be specified for the purpose of this subsection in a development order or a development procedure order, so far as material to the application; and
• (d) All other material considerations."

• 4.1.2 Section 143 of the Equality Act (2017) places a duty on public bodies to promote equality, eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations.
• 4.1.3 Section 68 of the Flood Risk Management Act (2013) indicates that any published Flood Risk Management Plan and the extent to which the proposed development creates an additional flood risk are material considerations.
• 4.1.4 Section 16(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) states, "In considering —

• (a) whether to grant planning approval for development which affects a registered building or its setting, or (b) whether to grant registered building consent for any works, the relevant Department shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses".

• 4.1.5 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".

• 4.1.2 In light of (a) above, it is considered that two key documents are:

• o The Area Plan for the East (2020); and
• o The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016).

• 4.1.3 These documents are considered in more detail in 4.2 and 4.3 below.
• 4.1.4 The following documents are also considered to be relevant:

• o Our Island Plan 2022 - "Our economic success is of course dependent on many factors, and recent experiences with COVID have served to highlight both the strengths and weaknesses in our economic performance. It was right to embark on the significant project that is now underway to put together the complete picture of our economic make up and identify the policy levers we might choose to use for future success. As that picture develops,

• we outline our determination to build a diverse economy with strong foundations that provides
• opportunity and progress for people."

• o Manual for Manx Roads - "The Manual for Manx Roads (MfMR) is published by the Isle
• of Man Government's Department of Infrastructure. Our aims are:
• o to ensure the highway network enhances accessibility to goods and services and encourage a diversity of transport modes
• o to ensure the highway network provides for safe interactions between transport modes
• o to maintain a safe, inclusive and serviceable highway network"
• o Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Conservation Of The Historic Environment Of The Isle Of Man- POLICY CA/2 SPECIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS When considering proposals for the possible development of any land or buildings which fall within the conservation area, the impact of such proposals upon the special character of the area, will be a material consideration when assessing the application. Where a development is proposed for land which, although not within the boundaries of the conservation area, would affect its context or setting, or views into or out of the area; such issues should be given special consideration where the character or appearance of a conservation area may be affected.
• o The principles of the Residential Design Guidance 2021 which sets out a number of general development standards which are a material consideration.
• o The site is within an area identified as high tidal flood risk.
• o The site is within the North Quay Conservation Area. No.27-28 is included on the List
• of Registered Buildings (No.289).

• 4.1.5 All the documents are available on the government website.
• 4.2 The Area Plan for the East (adopted 2020)

• 4.2.1 The site is within an area designated as "Mixed Use Proposal Area - Quayside" by the Area Plan for the East.
• 4.2.2 The Area Plan for the East Written Statement states; "Mixed Use Area 7 - The Quayside The Quayside area has undergone regeneration on its northern side which has enhanced the area as a destination for people visiting restaurants and bars. On its southern side, industrial uses in older warehouse type buildings predominate. Redevelopment of the southern side to complement the quayside as a whole is to be encouraged. The Quays are also strategic freight corridors and maintaining access for commercial vehicles, including HGV's, must be considered in any proposed development. Due to the former industrial uses of South Quay, significant site preparation including decontamination may be required.

Town Centre - Mixed Use Proposal 7 There will be a presumption in favour of food and drink and other leisure-type uses on North Quay. There will be a presumption in favour of the comprehensive re-development of the southern side of the quay, including the potential re-positioning of the highway of South Quay between Old Castletown Road and Fort Anne Road, for new uses in the following categories: o Tourism o Offices o Food and Drink o Leisure o Reception and function venues o Business hubs/shareservice offices o Residential uses at first floor level and above."

• 4.2.3 Paragraph 6.8 of The Area Plan for the East Written Statement states; "The historic built environment

Local character and key features within the built environment, such as Registered Buildings and other heritage assets play a significant role in promoting economic and social prosperity by

providing attractive living and working conditions. In addition, they provide economic opportunities through tourism, leisure and recreational uses. It is therefore essential that local character is safeguarded, particularly those features which fundamentally define the historic built environment in the East. Particularly:

• o the buildings and structures associated with the roles of Douglas and Laxey as historic seaside resorts;
• o the harbours of Douglas and Laxey;
• o the historic infrastructure of the Steam Railway, Electric Tramway and Horse Trams; and
• o the historic grain of Douglas and Laxey old towns, including their street layouts, town yards, plot sizes and landscape settings. The significance of Manx heritage assets in the built environment is increased by their relative scarcity. Registered Buildings and Conservation Areas which might not necessarily achieve such status in the United Kingdom have gained a higher status in the Isle of Man where their contribution to national identity and the Island's story is highly valued. Existing and new development can exist side by side, even with some visual differences presented by old and new building styles. New development should not seek to mimic existing development but be of its own time. Such innovation is crucial and with good precedent: some
• of the Island's best architectural examples emerged from the building design competitions of the Edwardian era."

• 4.2.4 Urban Environment Proposal 3 states; "Development proposals must make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. Traditional or contemporary approaches may be appropriate, depending upon the nature of the proposal and the context of the surrounding area."

• 4.2.4 Paragraph 6.9 of The Area Plan for the East Written Statement states; "Creative Re-use As stated in the Strategic Plan, Paragraph 7.25: 'Conservation of the built environment and archaeological features should be viewed as an asset to be promoted and not as a constraint to be overcome'.

It is recognised that retaining the best examples of built heritage for future generations benefits the resident population by celebrating its unique national identity and increasing the sense of wellbeing and improved quality of life brought about by beautiful surroundings. The value of mid and late-20th Century architecture should not be ignored as the best examples of these periods contribute to a rich and vibrant built heritage. Supporting the continued use and retention of these buildings requires a pragmatic and dynamic understanding of different potential uses. A proposed use which retains a building of heritage value, but requires modification to that building, is superior to a proposal which leads only to demolition or decay of that building."

• 4.2.5 Urban Environment Proposal 4 states; "Proposals which help to secure a future for built heritage assets, especially those identified as being at the greatest risk of loss or decay, will be supported."
• 4.2.6 Paragraph 6.3 of The Area Plan for the East Written Statement states; "Area Plan Objectives;

• iv. To identify and celebrate the historic urban environment so that it retains an active and productive role in contemporary life."

4.2.7 Paragraph 6.4 of The Area Plan for the East Written Statement states; "Area Plan Desired Outcomes

• v. There will be greater recognition of the contribution the East's historic value to the local and visitor economy and to the quality of life on the Island.
• vi. The long term future of valuable heritage assets will be assured by creative reuse."

• 4.2.8 Transport Proposal 1 states; "Development proposals must take into account the Active Travel Strategy and any specific actions set out in the Active Travel Action Plan."

4.3 Isle of Man Strategic Plan (adopted 2016)

• 4.3.1 In light of the above, it is considered the policies from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (adopted 2016) set out below are relevant in the determination of this application.
• 4.3.2 The Strategic Plan takes its lead from the Government aims which include the pursuit of manageable and sustainable growth based on a diversified economy which is intended to raise the standard of living of the people of the Island and to provide the resources to sustain and develop public services. It also includes the protection and improvement of the quality of the environment such that it continues to be an asset for future generations.
• 4.3.3 The Strategic Aim is: "To plan for the efficient and effective provision of services and infrastructure and to direct and control development and the use of land to meet the community's needs, having particular regard to the principles of sustainability whilst at the same time preserving, protecting, and improving the quality of the environment, having particular regard to our uniquely Manx natural, wildlife, cultural and built heritage."
• 4.3.4 The Strategic Aim is noted but not considered directly further, as the relevant aspects are unpacked by the relevant detailed policies which are identified below.
• 4.3.5 Strategic Policy 1 states: "Development should make the best use of resources by:

• (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and underused land and buildings, and reusing scarce indigenous building materials;
• (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards; and
• (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services."

• 4.3.6 Strategic Policy 2 states: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions (2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3."
• 4.3.7 Strategic Policy 3 states: "Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by:

• (a) avoiding coalescence and maintaining adequate physical separation between settlements; and
• (b) having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character."

• 4.3.8 Strategic Policy 4 states: "Proposals for development must:

• (a) Protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments, Registered Buildings (1), Conservation Areas (2), buildings and structures within National Heritage Areas and sites of archaeological interest;
• (b) protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations; and

• (c) not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance."

• 4.3.9 Strategic Policy 5 states: "New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies."

• 4.3.10 Strategic Policy 9 states: "All new retail development (excepting neighbourhood shops and those instances identified in Business Policy 5) and all new office development (excepting corporate headquarters suitable for a business park(1) location) must be sited within the town and village centres on land zoned for these purposes in Area Plans, whilst taking into consideration Business Policies 7 and 8."
• 4.3.11 Strategic Policy 10 states: "New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to:

• (a) minimise journeys, especially by private car;
• (b) make best use of public transport;
• (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and
• (d) encourage pedestrian movement"

• 4.3.12 Spatial Policy 1 states: "The Douglas urban area will remain the main employment and services centre for the Island."
• 4.3.13 General Policy 2 states: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:

• (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief;
• (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
• (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;
• (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;
• (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
• (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
• (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
• (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
• (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;
• (j) can be provided with all necessary services;
• (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan;
• (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding;
• (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
• (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

• 4.3.14 General Policy 4 states: "Where appropriate the Department will enter into Agreements under section 13 of the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act which may:

• (a) restrict the use of land;
• (b) require land to be used in a particular way;
• (c) restrict the operations which may be carried out in, on, under or over land;
• (d) require operations or activities to be carried out in, on, under or over land or;
• (e) require payments to be made to the Department either in a single sum or periodically, in particular as commuted sums for open space or parking provision, or other social or cultural provision, including public art, which is necessary and directly associated with the development proposed."

• 4.3.15 Environment Policy 4 states: "Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect:

• (a) species and habitats of international importance: (i) protected species of international importance or their habitats; or (ii) proposed or designated Ramsar and Emerald Sites or other internationally important sites.
• (b) species and habitats of national importance: (i) protected species of national importance or their habitats; (ii) proposed or designated National Nature Reserves, or Areas of Special Scientific Interest; or (iii) Marine Nature Reserves; or (iv) National Trust Land.
• (c) species and habitats of local importance such as Wildlife Sites, local nature reserves, priority habitats or species identified in any Manx Biodiversity Action Plan which do not already benefit from statutory protection, Areas of Special Protection and Bird Sanctuaries and landscape features of importance to wild flora and fauna by reason of their continuous nature or function

• as a corridor between habitats. Some areas to which this policy applies are identified as Areas of Ecological Importance or Interest on extant Local or Area Plans, but others, whose importance was not evident at the time of the adoption of the relevant Local or Area Plan, are not, particularly where that plan has been in place for many years. In these circumstances, the Department will seek site specific advice from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry if development proposals are brought forward."

• 4.3.16 Environment Policy 5: In exceptional circumstances where development is allowed which could adversely affect a site recognised under Environmental Policy 4, conditions will be imposed and/or Planning Agreements sought to: (a) minimise disturbance; (b) conserve and manage its ecological interest as far as possible; and (c) where damage is unavoidable, provide new or replacement habitats so that the loss to the total ecological resource is mitigated.
• 4.3.17 Environment Policy 10 states: "Where development is proposed on any site where in the opinion of the Department of Local Government and the Environment there is a potential risk of flooding, a flood risk assessment and details of proposed mitigation measures must accompany any application for planning permission. The requirements for a flood risk assessment are set out in Appendix 4."
• 4.3.18 Environment Policy 13 states: "Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted."
• 4.3.19 Environment Policy 30 states: "There will be a general presumption against demolition of a Registered Building. In considering proposals for demolition or proposed works which would result in substantial demolition of a Registered Building, consideration will be given to:

• o the condition of the building; o the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the value derived from its continued use (based on consistent long-term assumptions);

• the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use; and o the merits of alternative proposals for the site."

• 4.3.20 Environment Policy 35 states: "Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development."
• 4.3.21 Paragraph 7.32.2 states; "The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. When considering proposals which will result in demolition of a building in a Conservation Area, attention will be paid to the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the relevant building and the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the Conservation Area as a whole. In addition, consideration will be given to:

• o the condition of the building;
• o the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the issue derived from its continued use (based on consistent long-term assumptions);

• o the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use;
• o the merits of alternative proposals for the site."

• 4.3.22 Environment Policy 39 states: "The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area."
• 4.3.23 Environment Policy 42 states: "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans."
• 4.3.24 Environment Policy 43 states: "The Department will generally support proposals which seek to regenerate run-down urban and rural areas. Such proposals will normally be set in the context of regeneration strategies identified in the associated Area Plans. The Department will encourage the re-use of sound built fabric, rather than its demolition."
• 4.3.25 Housing Policy 1 states: "The housing needs of the Island will be met by making provision for sufficient development opportunities to enable 5,100 additional dwellings (net of demolitions), and including those created by conversion, to be built over the Plan period 2011 to 2026."
• 4.3.26 Housing Policy 4 states: "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(1) of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances:

• (a) essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10;
• (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and
• (c) the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14."

• 4.3.27 Housing Policy 5 states: "In granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas the Department will normally require that

• 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more."

• 4.3.28 Business Policy 1 states: "The growth of employment opportunities throughout the Island will be encouraged provided that development proposals accord with the policies of this Plan."
• 4.3.29 Recreation Policy 3 states: "Where appropriate, new development should include the provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design. New residential development of ten or more dwellings must make provision for recreational and amenity space in accordance with the standards specified in Appendix 6 to the Plan."
• 4.3.30 Recreation Policy 4 states: "Open Space must be provided on site or conveniently close to the development which it is intended to serve, and should be easily accessible by foot and public transport."
• 4.3.31 Transport Policy 1 states, "New development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes".

• 4.3.32 Transport Policy 4 states, "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan."
• 4.3.33 Transport Policy 6 states: "In the design of new development and transport facilities the needs of pedestrians will be given similar weight to the needs of other road users."
• 4.3.34 Transport Policy 7 states: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. The current standards are set out in Appendix 7."
• 4.3.35 Community Policy 11: The design and use of all new buildings and of extensions to existing buildings must, as far as is reasonable and practicable, pay due regard to best practice such as to prevent the outbreak and spread of fire.
• 4.3.36 Energy Policy 5 states: "The Department will prepare a Planning Policy Statement on Energy Efficiency. Pending the preparation and adoption of that PPS the Department will require proposals for more than 5 dwellings or 100 square metres of other development to be accompanied be an Energy Impact Assessment."
• 4.3.37 General Policy 1 states: "The determination of matters under Part 2 (Development Control) and Part 3 (Special Controls) of the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan and all other material considerations."

4.4 Planning Policy Statement 1/01 Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man includes policies in relation to the following.

• o General criteria for registered building applications (PPS1-RB3)
• o Proposals for change of use of registered buildings (PPS1-RB4)
• o Alteration of Registered Buildings (PPS1-RB5)
• o A presumption against the Demolition of Registered Buildings (PPS1-RB6)
• o Recording of Buildings prior to Demolition (PPS1-RB7)
• o Access for persons with disabilities (PPS1-RB8)
• o Giving Special Consideration to Conservation Areas (PPS1-CA/2)
• o Presumption against the demolition of buildings within Conservation Areas (PPS1-CA/6)

4.5 Net Zero Emissions by 2050

4.5.1 In July 2020, the Isle of Man Government published their Action Plan for Achieving Net Zero Emissions by 2050 - Phase 1 Progress Report & Delivery Strategy Post COVID-19 Pandemic (Version 2). The document provides an update on the progress of the Isle of Man Government Phase 1 Climate Action Plan, which was supported unanimously in January 2020, taking into account the positive impact that the lockdown as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic has had on sustainable travel habits, predominantly related to an increase in the number of people working from home. The document sets out a number of transport related actions for delivery to progress towards Net Zero by 2050, including the provision of cycle racks in public buildings, electric public service vehicles, hybrid buses, mobile working, promoting the use of public transport and active travel and developing an all-Island electric vehicle charging network. The implementation of this TP will assist the Island with progressing towards the Isle of Man Government's Net Zero emissions targets.

4.6 IoM Government's Active Travel Strategy (2018 - 2021)

• 4.6.1 The Isle of Man Government's Active Travel Strategy was published in May 2018 and sets out the strategy to increase the number of people using more active modes of travel on a regular basis, i.e. walking and cycling. The aim of the strategy is to put in place a series of mechanisms which will help facilitate more active travel, achieving a modal shift away from motorised transport.

4.7 Climate Change Bill 2020

4.7.1 Climate Change Bill has received Royal assent, albeit it is not yet in force and therefore has little planning weight; although it does give a clear direction of travel. If this had been in force the application would need to undertake the following; "(a) demonstrate that the application has been made having regard to the following climate change policies —

• (i) the maximisation of carbon sequestration;
• (ii) the minimising of greenhouse gas emissions;
• (iii) the maintenance and restoration of ecosystems;
• (iv) biodiversity net gain;
• (v) the need for sustainable drainage systems; and
• (vi) the provision of active travel infrastructure; or

• (b) explain why consideration of one or more of those polices is not practicable in relation to the proposed development."

• 4.7.2 As mentioned, as it is not yet in force the application is not required to. However, while the application is perhaps silent on the "carbon sequestration" the submission does appear to cover the other points raised by the Bill. Further, the recently approved Residential Design Guide 2021 does include "Sustainable Construction" section which does include a number of aspects including, construction materials, building design and climate change resilience. While this design guide relates to residential development, it is considered it is still useful to consider and show the direction of travel of the Department/IOM Government. It also included the following; "2.5.4 As well as complying with relevant Legislation (Wildlife Act 1990) proposals should aim to:

• o protect and enhance the existing biodiversity on site through the retention and protection of existing wildlife features (as a priority);
• o compensating against their loss where retention is not possible (as a last resort); and
• o by providing enhancement measures.

• 2.5.5 The outcome should be to achieve an overall net gain in biodiversity. Consideration should be given to the following points.

• o Retention and protection of important habitats for wildlife such as mature trees, hedges, sod banks, ponds & semi-natural habitats.
• o Protection of features from the impacts of artificial lighting.
• o Retention and protection of bat roosts or bird nest sites within buildings (e.g. designing roof space to retain bat roosts or swift nest sites).
• o Where reasonable and proportionate, providing alternative wildlife features as compensation, should retention of existing features not be possible (e.g. creation of a new sod bank or the erection of integrated bat and bird bricks).
• o Providing additional opportunities for wildlife on site via the creation of natural or artificial features (e.g. creation of ponds, provision of bat or bird boxes, choosing landscaping plants that are good for insects)."

4.8 Our Island Plan 2022 states; "Our strategic objectives translate into multiple actions across Government to make the vision to a reality. Fundamental measures and metrics have yet to be developed and our plans for these are discussed in more detail throughout the document. Fundamentally however, there are critical issues that we must respond to and therefore we will: …Tackle the housing crisis by ensuring everyone has a suitable and affordable place to call home and our housing stock meets the needs of our population now and into the future…"

• 4.8.1 And

"Our vision for building great communities is one where everyone has a suitable and affordable place to call home and our housing stock meets the needs of our population now and into the future."

• 4.8.2 "Establish a Housing and Communities Board to bring together and focus policy and actions across Government on housing for all. This will include legislative, financial and practical interventions as appropriate as a priority for our Island, so that public and private sector housing is accessible, secure and affordable. This will be informed by a debate on housing to take place at January 2022 Tynwald sitting."

• 4.8.3 Further the Our Island Plan 2022 states; "Ensure new developments align with our sustainability goals, existing homes can become more environmentally friendly and Conservation Areas are protected and enhanced". This is to ensure; "To ensure that planning is able to support high level strategic commitments for housing, economic growth, regeneration and protection and enhancement of our built heritage."
• 5.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES Full comments can be viewed via the online planning website.

5.1 Local Authority

• 5.1.1 Douglas Borough Council made the following final comments (16.05.2022); "Following consideration of the planning applications listed above by the Council's Environmental Services Committee at a meeting held on the 16/05/22, I can advise that after careful consideration of the proposed development the Committee unanimously resolved to support both applications."

5.2 Government Departments

• 5.2.1 DOI Highway Services made the following comments;

21.02.2022 "There is insufficient detail provided to allow highways to make an assessment of this proposal. There was no pre-application contact made on this proposal on highway matters despite Planning requesting such. A transport statement is necessary which should include an accessibility audit, safety assessment and details of servicing. Bicycle parking is necessary at one space per bedroom for the proposed apartments and provision for staff for the retail units based on the sqm gfa. The layout of the bicycle parking should be shown for the proposed uses. Ramps are shown within the adopted highway and would require agreement of Highway Services for installation. Further details are necessary of the formation. Manual for Manx Roads provides more information on highway and transport related requirements. Highway Agreements and licences will be necessary for demolition and construction after grant of any planning consent . Recommendation: Additional information"

11.03.2022 "Highways Development Control notes the revised description notified on 10 March 2022 and has no further comments to add to those made on 21 February 2022."

• 5.2.2 Additional information was provided by the applicants in response to Highway Services initial comments. Following this information Highway Services confirmed they considered the information was sufficient.

• 5.3.1 The DEFA Registered Buildings Officer has provided comments which are informed by the application submission but also by a "planning submission - structural document review"

• prepared by Mann Williams Consulting Civil and Structural Engineers, whom were engaged by the Department to considered the proposal in terms of the structural condition of the buildings forming part of this application. This document review has been prepared by Jon Avent, a CARE Accredited Conservation Engineer, member of the IHBC, advisor to the National Trust on their Specialist Advisor Panel and with over 30 years experience in the inspection and appraisal of historic and listed buildings. The findings of this report will be noted later in this report.
• 5.3.2 The DEFA Registered Buildings Officer objects to the application on the following grounds (28.07.2022); "Recommendation Refuse on heritage impact

Scope of comments These comments relate to the demolition of a registered building and other buildings located within a conservation area and the redevelopment of the site.

Statutory and Policy context TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999 S16 Registered buildings: supplementary provisions

• (3) In considering —

• (a) whether to grant planning approval for development which affects a registered building or its setting, or
• (b) whether to grant registered building consent for any works,

the relevant Department shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. S18 Designation of conservation areas

• (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 National policy: THE ISLE OF MAN STRATEGIC PLAN 2016

Strategic Policy 4: Proposals for development must: (a) Protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments, Registered Buildings(1), Conservation Areas(2), buildings and structures within National Heritage Areas and sites of archaeological interest;

• Environment Policy 30: There will be a general presumption against demolition of a Registered Building. In considering proposals for demolition or proposed works which would result in substantial demolition of a Registered Building, consideration will be given to:

• o The condition of the building;
• o The cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the value derived from its continued use (based on consistent long-term assumptions);
• o The adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use; and the merits of alternative proposals for the site.

• Environment Policy 31: There will be a presumption against the removal of any Registered Building from the Register.

• Environment Policy 32: Extensions or alterations to a Registered Building which would affect detrimentally its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest will not be permitted.

Environment Policy 35: Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development.

Environment Policy 37: As a general policy, advertisements within Conservation Areas will be permitted only if:

• i) the proposal preserves or enhances the Conservation Area;
• ii) the signage is in a style appropriate to the character of the area;
• iii) traditional materials and finishes are used and glossy and highly reflective materials are excluded from proposals; and
• iv) internally illuminated box fascia and projecting box signs are excluded from the proposals. Environment Policy 39: The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

Planning Policy Statements:

• 1/01 Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man

POLICY RB/3 General criteria applied in considering registered building applications The issues that are generally relevant to the consideration of all registered building applications are:-

• o The importance of the building, its intrinsic architectural and historic interest and rarity, relative to the Island as a whole and within the local context;
• o The particular physical features of the building (which may include its design, plan, materials or location) which justify its inclusion in the register; descriptions annexed to the entry in the register may draw attention to features of particular interest or value, but they are not exhaustive and other features of importance, (e.g. Interiors, murals, hidden fireplaces) may come to light after the building's entry in the register;
• o The building's setting and its contribution to the local scene, which may be very important, e.g. Where it forms an element in a group, park, garden or other townscape or landscape, or where it shares particular architectural forms or details with other buildings nearby (including
• other registered buildings).

• POLICY RB/6 DEMOLITION There will be a general presumption against demolition and consent for the demolition of a registered building should not be expected simply because redevelopment is economically more attractive than repair and re-use of an historic building; or because the building was acquired

• at a price that reflected the potential for redevelopment, rather than the condition and constraints of the existing historic building. Where proposed works would result in the total or substantial demolition of a registered building, an applicant, in addition to the general criteria set out in RB/3 above, should be able to demonstrate that the following considerations have been addressed:-

• o The condition of the building, the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and to the value derived from its continued use. Any such assessment should be based on consistent and long term assumptions. Less favourable levels of rents and yields

• cannot automatically be assumed for historic buildings and returns may, in fact, be more favourable given the publicly acknowledged status of the building. Furthermore, historic buildings may offer proven performance, physical attractiveness and functional spaces that in an age of rapid change may outlast the short-lived and inflexible technical specifications that have sometimes shaped new developments. Any assessment should take into account possible tax allowances and exemptions. In rare cases where it is clear that a building has been deliberately neglected in the hope of obtaining consent for demolition, less weight should be given to the costs of repair;
• o The adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use. An applicant must show that real efforts have been made, without success, to continue the present use, or to find new uses for the building. This may include the offer of the unrestricted freehold of the building on the open market at a realistic price reflecting the building's condition.
• o The merits of alternative proposals for the site. Subjective claims for the architectural merits
• of a replacement building should not justify the demolition of a registered building. There may be very exceptional cases where the proposed works would bring substantial benefits for the community; these would have to be weighed against preservation. Even here, it will often be feasible to incorporate registered buildings within new development, and this option should be carefully considered. The challenge presented by retaining registered buildings can be a stimulus to imaginative new designs to accommodate them.

• POLICY RB/7 RECORDING OF BUILDINGS In the event of the granting of registered building consent to alter, extend or demolish a registered building, written notice of a proposal to carry out the approved works must be given to the Department of Local Government and the Environment and Manx National Heritage and for a period of at least one month following the service of such notice, reasonable access to the building must be made available for the purposes of recording the same, prior to the commencement of the approved works. Hidden features of interest are sometimes revealed during works of alteration, especially in older or larger buildings: chimney pieces, fireplaces, early windows and doors, panelling, early earth-based construction or other features may come to light. If there is any likelihood that hidden features may be revealed, conditions may be attached to an approval to ensure their retention or proper recording and may require exploratory opening up work to be carried out prior to considering the full content of an application for registered building consent. An applicant may also be required to pay wholly or in part for the cost of recording the building.

POLICY CA/2 SPECIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS When considering proposals for the possible development of any land or buildings which fall within the conservation area, the impact of such proposals upon the special character of the area, will be a material consideration when assessing the application. Where a development is proposed for land which, although not within the boundaries of the conservation area, would affect its context or setting, or views into or out of the area; such issues should be given special consideration where the character or appearance of a conservation area may be affected.

POLICY CA/6 DEMOLITION Any building which is located within a conservation area and which is not an exception as provided above, may not be demolished without the consent of the Department. In practice, a planning application for consent to demolish must be lodged with the Department. When considering an application for demolition of a building in a conservation area, the general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area. Similar criteria will be applied as those outlined in RB/6 above, when assessing the application to demolish the building, but in less clear cut cases, for example, where a building could be said to detract from the special

character of the area, it will be essential for the Department to be able to consider the merits of any proposed new development when determining whether consent should be given for the demolition of an unregistered building in a conservation area. Account will be taken of the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the building for which demolition is proposed, and in particular of the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole.

Report detail The former Newson's Warehouse, no 27-28 North Quay is a registered building dating back to the late 18th century when the quay was developed from lands in the ownership of the Nunnery estate. No 27 was constructed as a warehouse and has been used for that purpose for most of its life and remains mostly unaltered. No 28 would appear to have been constructed possibly as a house put quickly to use as a public house up until 1913 after which time it was used by a chandler prior to being used as part of the Newson's shop. They are important survivors illustrating the development of Douglas' quayside and emerging industry of trade. They are good examples of the island's vernacular urban quayside architecture particularly in an area that was cleared in the late 19th century then again in the 1930's. The buildings now represent the only surviving warehouse and the oldest buildings on the entire quay, they are unique and a surviving remnant of older Douglas that predates the City's 19th Century tourism boom expansion and extensive clearing and re-development of the 1930's.

The application site also includes other buildings that are within the North Quay Conservation Area, 22, 23, 24 Merchants House, 25, 26 (gap site). These non-registered buildings all date from the 19th century the grandest being Merchants House. No 26 the gap site once housed a similar building to No 25 and appears to have been partly destroyed by fire in the early 20th Century and demolished by the 1960's. All the buildings can be seen in historic photos attached to this report. As historic quayside buildings they provide the character and context to the conservation area, they show how, as the quay developed, plots were devised and sold off, this provides the rhythm and townscape pattern which has previously suffered from the loss of buildings along the quay.

All the buildings affected by this application make a positive contribution to the Conservation Area's character and appearance.

The proposals seek the total loss of all the historic buildings and their replacement with new development with the exception of Merchants House no 24 which will still result in a substantial amount of alteration particularly to the rear of the property.

As the application affects a registered building it is a statutory requirement for the decision

• maker to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building, its setting and any features of special interest S16 of The Act must be taken into account by the Department when making its decision.

Also as the application affects a conservation area, the statutory requirement to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area S18 of The Act must be taken into account by the Department when making its decision.

Loss of 27-28 the registered building The proposals seek the demolition of the registered building, the application has included numerous structural reports in relation to the registered building all by different companies. The owner produced a report in Nov 2021 stating the building was in an imminent state of collapse. This information was provided to the Department prior to the submission of the current proposals. The Department sought the views of Mann Williams Consulting, a conservation accredited structural engineering firm experienced in dealing with historic buildings. Their view on the registered building's structural condition disagrees with the view

of the owner's Engineer, given the volume of structural reports submitted by the applicant, the Department sought a review of all the submitted reports by Mann Williams. The review of the submitted information is attached to my comments. In summary the view of the Department's experts is that;

• o Following an extensive review of documents submitted as part of the current planning application it is concluded that there has been no substantive or quantified evidence presented by the building owner or their appointed advisors that the building is either on the point of imminent collapse or that any case for demolition of the protected structure exists.
• o No case for demolition has been set out despite giving the applicants advisors ample
• opportunity to identify specific evidence to support their claim of imminent collapse.
• o Having visited the building and carried out a visual inspection, and with the benefit of
• over 30 years of historic building inspection including numerous similar structures, it is my professional opinion that the building is not in imminent danger of collapse and is capable of repair and renovation.

It is clear therefore that the advice sought by the Department from an experienced structural engineer is that the building is not in a state of collapse and is capable of repair.

EP30 of the Strategic Plan and RB/6 of PPS1/01 are quite clear that there is a presumption against the demolition of registered buildings. Both Policies outline considerations which can be summarised as;

• o The condition of the building;

The applicant has stated that the building is in imminent state of collapse as of Nov 2021, which given the time and winter weather that has passed would appear to weaken this statement. The Department's own expert Structural Engineer disputes this and considers the building is capable of repair. The applicants submitted a report from 2018 by the Morton Partnership that formed part of the application submission approved for the conversion of the building 18/01333/GB and 18/01330/CON also supports this view. All subsequent reports discuss the poor condition of the building, having been in its current ownership since 2016 there is no evidence to suggest that any meaningful repair or maintenance has occurred to the property nor any of the recommendations from the earliest report having been undertaken. This is further supported by the loss of the historic roof covering to No28 in 2020 which has not been reinstated. All evidence within the existing reports points to a decline in the buildings condition. As the application fails to demonstrate that any meaningful repair or maintenance has been undertaken by the owner since 2016 any argument for the loss of the building due to its condition must be mindful of this evidence.

• o The cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the value derived from its continued use (based on consistent long-term assumptions);

The application fails to address this point and has provided no information or evidence to satisfy this point.

• o The adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use; and the merits of alternative proposals for the site.

The application fails to provide any information to show that any effort has been made to incorporate the registered building into the wider development. To the contrary given the language used when discussing the registration of the building within the planning statement it

is clear that no attempt has been to retain the building when developing these proposals, this is in in direct contrast to the extant approvals 18/01333/GB and 18/01330/CON.

Loss of 22, 23 and 25 As previously stated all the structures date to the 19th Century and form part of the historic quayside townscape by virtue of their scale, massing and survival they make a positive contribution to the character of the Conservation area. The scheme proposes their total loss. EP39 of the Strategic Plan and CA/6 of PPS1/01 state there is a presumption in favour of retaining buildings that make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. No 22-23 were in part retained by extant approvals 18/01329/B and 18/01330/CON, however the current application fails to demonstrate that any attempt has be made to try to work with the existing structures nor has it demonstrated this is not possible in terms of fabric or economic viability. No evidence has been submitted to show that any meaningful repair or maintenance has been undertaken during their current ownership with the minimum of at least try to prevent any further decline in their condition.

While the extant approvals 18/01331/B and 18/01332/CON permitted the loss of No 25, the loss of the building was considered justifiable because of overall heritage benefits of the entire scheme which included the repair and reuse of the registered building. The current proposals have made no attempt to do so and therefore without the benefits and justifications of the extant approvals.

The proposed replacement buildings

While I consider the overall scale of the replacement buildings to be generally respectful of the character of the conservation area there is still an overall increase in massing which lacks any justification. I consider that improvements could be made to the massing and detailing of the buildings, The replacement building for 22-23 reads as one, where the historic rhythm was two, across the entire new elevation the uniformity of fenestration results in a too homogenous appearance that lacks character, the fenestrations particularly in the buildings either side of merchants house are too large and there should be variation in the positioning to better reflect individual properties to provide character and break up the proposed massing. The detailing of the "replacement" warehouse reads as inauthentic, the use of half dormer detail is lacking any context or local distinctiveness and is not found outside of domestic settings on the island. The replacement for No28 results in a building far larger in scale and massing than the historic structure, the stepping down terracing and creation of outside balcony space lacks the character that the diminutive corner building provides. The rear elevation is concerning due to the entire rear elevation reading as one monolithic block, little regard has been paid to trying to break up this massing to respect the character that these rear lanes typically have, whilst this can be understood to have less value than principle elevations, they still are part of the conservation area which should be preserved or enhanced. These comments however do not endorse or encourage the proposals in their current form.

Conclusion

Based on the information submitted I object the proposals on heritage grounds, as they will result in the loss of a registered building, the oldest building on the quay the last remaining historic quayside warehouse and the loss of other historic quayside buildings. The loss of these buildings would be to the detriment of the conservation area where no clear and convincing justification has been made. It is disappointing that no attempt has been made to incorporate more of this historic fabric into the development proposals. There are multiple examples of constructive conservation, re-using and adapting historic buildings as part of placemaking and creating local distinctiveness being at the heart of development schemes and it is disappointing the benefits of this type of development are not being seen or encouraged across the island. The proposals in my view fail to preserve the registered building the loss of which would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area and are contrary to

polices GP4, EP30, 35 and 39 of the Strategic Plan, policies RB/6, CA/2 and CA/6 of PPS1/01 and I therefore object on heritage grounds to these applications."

• 5.4.1 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Officer (04.03.2022) makes the following summarised comments; "Most of the buildings proposed for renovation or demolition are traditional Manx buildings with slate roofs, in a poor state of repair. The photos included in the Morton Partnership report shows that there are numerous potential entry points for bats including slipped slates, holes under and around the guttering, holes in the stonework, holes under the ridge tiles etc. The buildings are also located next to a river corridor in an area with multiple bat records, of numerous species, within a 1km radius. All features which increase the likelihood of bats being present.

The Bat Conservation Trust Bat Survey Guidelines 2016 (3rd Edition) recommend that bat surveys are undertaken prior to the conversation, modification or demolition of any building located immediately adjacent to water and pre-1914 buildings with slate roofs, regardless of location.

Therefore the Ecosystem Policy Team request that a preliminary assessment for bats, to determine the suitability of these properties to hold roosting bats, is undertaken prior to determination of this application. If the preliminary assessment identifies the properties as suitable or if evidence of bats is found, then further bat surveys will be required and a report detailing the findings and appropriate mitigation measures to ensure their protection during and after development, should be submitted to Planning for written approval prior to determination of this application.

The initial assessment and surveys must be undertaken by a suitably qualified ecological consultancy and following best practise, as detailed in the Bat Conservation Trusts Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists - Good Practice Guidelines (3rd Edition 2016).

Preliminary assessments for bats can be undertaken at any time throughout the year. However, if emergence/re-entry surveys to confirm roost presence are required then there are seasonal requirements.

Bat surveys are required to identify the species of bat utilising the property, their abundance and whether they are breeding and this will determine the mitigation required.

The dilapidated state of the building including broken windows and holes under the guttering also mean that the building has potential for nesting birds and therefore we recommend that an assessment for nesting birds is undertaken and a report detailing the findings submitted to Planning for written approval prior to determination of this application (this could be done at the same time as the bat assessment). If nesting birds or evidence of nesting birds are found then appropriate mitigation measures to ensure their protection during and after development, will need to be secured. Even if current evidence is not found, because of the suitability the building will need to be checked over by an ecologist and any entry points blocked prior to the demolition elements taking place.

The presence of bats and birds will not prevent the building from being redeveloped, or areas demolished, but provision must be shown for their ongoing protection.

We request that the survey reports are submitted prior to determination in line with best practise, which is referred to in Section 9.2.4 of the British Standard Biodiversity - Code of Best Practise for Planning and Development (BS 42020:2013). Which states: The presence or absence of protected species, and the extent to which they could be affected by the proposed development, should be established before planning permission is granted; otherwise all material considerations might not have been considered in making the decision. The use of

planning conditions to secure ecological surveys after planning permission has been granted should therefore only be applied in exceptional circumstances, such as where original survey work will need to be repeated because the survey data might be out of date before commencement of development, etc."

And "Additionally, because of the suitability of the property, and as mitigation for the loss of bird nesting space, the Ecosystem Policy Team request that a condition is secured on approval for multiple integrated swift nest boxes to be installed high up in the north face of the buildings. Plans should be provided to Planning for written approval showing the type of box and their location. The works should then be undertaken as per these details."

• 5.5.1 DOI Flood Risk management Division comment (20.06.2022); "Whilst the Flood Risk Management Department has no objections to this application we would like to point out that the development is in area that is subject to regular tidal flooding." And

"Suggest a planning condition that the ground & basement floors cannot be changed to residential accommodation as it would be a flood risk"

• 5.6.1 The former Minister of Enterprise comments (23.06.2022); "I write in connection with the above applications, in my capacity as Minister of the Department for Enterprise.

The Department for Enterprise has a direct interest in positively supporting economic development, inward investment, regeneration and currently the development of additional living accommodation within town centres and it is with those interests that the Department

• makes comment.

I am aware that the application is currently in abeyance pending ongoing matters relating to part of the site which is subject to registered building status. However, the Department wishes to place on record its support from an economic viewpoint for development of this nature in what is a prime location for leisure, hospitality and residential development and its concerns as to the loss of investment should the development not proceed.

In summary the Department understands: o An initial planning application was submitted and approved - retaining 27/28 North Quay; 2 o Subsequently the Applicant has commissioned two separate specialist structural surveys, both of which cast doubt on any ability to retain / restore elements structurally, and commercially; o Revised applications (as outlined above) have been submitted, which have the unanimous support from Douglas Borough Council, for the demolition and replacement of the buildings; o DEFA has served notice on the Applicant to undertake remedial works and this is currently pending a court hearing on appeal; o Meanwhile the planning application is not being brought forward for consideration as far as the Department is led to believe from the Applicant.

The proposed development as submitted would represent a significant circa £8m investment in the continued regeneration of lower Douglas and the provision of additional leisure / hospitality facilities will contribute further to the development of a 'cluster' along North Quay which builds on the existing offer in the area and will enhance the perception of Lower Douglas in terms of both the daytime and night-time economy.

The proposals also address another priority for Government in terms of the redevelopment of brownfield, or redundant, sites to deliver a mix of commercial and residential development for the benefit of residents and the broader economy.

The Department does not have expertise in respect of the registered building issues, and makes no comment on this aspect other than to note the conflicting views of the expert reports prepared whereby two appear to support the view of the owner of the site that the buildings at 27/28 North Quay are beyond repair and remediation and one report commissioned by DEFA disputes this.

Taking that aside, the Department is concerned that even if such works were feasible, future use of the buildings could be so limited that any future development would potentially be commercially unviable, particularly given the nature of working with Manx Stone and the absence of on-Island capacity to work with such materials.

The Department has had sight of the high level commercial viability assessment by the owners of the site, including full build costs and consider that the margin is at the lower end of what would reasonably be expected as a return on investment based on demolition and rebuild.

Clearly, if retention of existing structures is required, including extensive remediation works (if even possible), then the development may not prove viable, a view shared by the Applicants structural engineers in their separate reports, and the site could therefore likely remain in a state of dereliction and underuse for the foreseeable future.

The Department has had sight of the Applicant's specialist advisors response to the DEFA survey but has not been given sight of any response from DEFA. It is also of note that a previous application for partial demolition of registered buildings on the site, and refurbishment of the whole site was supported. Whilst the Department is not qualified to comment on the historical importance of No's 27/28, the Department would support the notion that there is a clear net economic gain overall if the whole site can be redeveloped in a manner which is sympathetic to the original design, even if it is not viable to retain the existing structures.

The Department has been asked by the Applicant to provide a view on the current planning application and provide support to request that the application be brought to a determination

• at the earliest opportunity.

Noting the economic benefits that would arise from such a proposed investment, regeneration and provision of new hospitality and residential facilities on the site, the Department wishes to confirm its support for the application as proposed, on economic grounds noting: o The proposals for an £8m privately funded regeneration of the area; o The provision for new restaurants and new apartments in line with existing economic desires to continue to develop North Quay as a vibrant leisure and residential offering; o The concerns highlighted in two structural reports over the technical ability to retain 27/28, and the difficulty in finding local contractors prepared to develop a safe statement of works in support of such; o The concerns highlighted in both reports surrounding commercial viability of trying to retain 27/28, supported by the Applicants own commercial appraisal being at the lower end of commercial viability ranges on a new build basis; o The full support of other key stakeholders including Douglas Borough Council who unanimously supported the Application and wish to see the development

• as submitted proceed.

Furthermore the Department is concerned that continuing delays in bringing these matters to determination risks the loss of significant investment in the regeneration of a prime brownfield site in Douglas, with the likelihood of the site remaining dormant for many years.

Whilst the Department is not qualified to comment on the current enforcement action in respect of the registered buildings, it would suggest that the economic value of the opportunity is such that the application should be brought forward for determination at the earliest possible opportunity, as the planning process may ultimately determine that the demolition and

replacement with sympathetic regeneration is a suitable application given the broader economic and strategic outcomes in the proposals proposed.

The Department considers that the proposals are fully in line with both the Department's and broader Government's objectives to support and facilitate brownfield development which delivers attractive economic and social benefit.

As such, the Department would urge for the planning application to be determined, and wishes to place on record its support for the application, ahead of waiting for the result of ongoing legal challenge to avoid the risk of losing a significant investment in our capital City."

• 5.7.1 DOI Public Estates & Housing Division make the following comments (07.08.2022); "We refer to the aforementioned planning application, and we can confirm that we have looked

• at the detail of the application and have considered the provision of a 25% Affordable Housing requirement.

Current data drawn from Housing Division records for Douglas indicates that there are 203 persons on the general public sector waiting list for affordable housing to rent in the area.

There are 151 persons on the First-time Buyers Register seeking to purchase a first home in the east of the Island, including Douglas. Of this total number of applicants, 49 are on the Active Purchaser List who are seeking to purchase a home within the next 12-18 months. This figure is not indicative of likely final purchases as the ability to progress to completion would depend upon personal circumstances and mortgage ability at point of allocation.

The department would request that consideration be given by the Planning Committee to include a requirement, in respect of any approval granted for this site, for the applicant to enter into a Section 13 Agreement with the Department to provide either affordable housing, based upon the usual calculation of 25% of the number of units approved within the application, or an equivalent Commuted Sum."

• 5.7.2 01.09.2022 "…We wouldn't accept affordable units on this site as the design of the units in terms of areas etc. does not accord with the Design Guide, therefore we have calculated the Commuted Sum, which is £134,928.67."
• 5.8.1 Manx National Heritage has objected to the application (04.04.2022); "I write on behalf of Manx National Heritage ('MNH'), whose statutory responsibilities pertaining to the protection of the cultural and natural heritage of the Isle of Man are defined under the terms of the Manx Museum and National Trust Act.

We note the revised description of the proposed works and our submission takes this into account.

Historical Significance These applications propose the demolition and replacement of all but one of the buildings currently comprising a frontage of 55m on North Quay in Douglas. These buildings lie at the very heart of the North Quay conservation area and arguably make one of the most significant and characterful contributions of all to the quality of the area, with their mix of forms and heights, and their obvious age.

In particular, we would like to draw attention to the warehouse at No 27, which is one of an increasingly rare type of structure once common in the older quarters of the Island's ports. These buildings have a distinctive form, height and orientation (usually gable-on to the quayside), with rare examples lying parallel to the quay: No 27 is an example of the latter.

With the recent loss of the Farmers' Combine building in Ramsey (33 West Quay), the former Newson's warehouse is one of only three such buildings to enjoy protected status, and the only one to survive in something like its historical form (the others being The Granary in Castletown, RB 48, and 26 West Quay Ramsey, RB 139). A survey undertaken by MNH whilst opposing the de-registering of the Farmers' Combine demonstrated that almost all other, non-registered, warehouses have been significantly altered and are not of sufficient quality to merit protection except by inclusion within a conservation area. By this measure alone, the continued protection and preservation of No 27 from demolition is clearly merited.

Structural Issues We are aware of the various engineer's assessments of the buildings presently standing on the application site. We are not qualified structural engineers. However, we note the conclusions of the Morton Partnership report (see Section 5 of the 2018 report) suggesting a series of localised repairs and interventions to Nos 25, 26, 27 and 28. We also note the long experience of this specialist consulting practice in the assessment of historic buildings, and their longstanding familiarity with the Isle of Man and its built heritage; indeed, we have made use of their services in the preservation and maintenance of several historic structures and monuments in our own care. We also note that this report was prepared for an architectural practice previously retained to investigate the redevelopment of this site.

We also note the conclusions of the Mann Williams report commissioned by DEFA in response to the applicant's report commissioned from Structura. The Mann Williams report, while noting the need for some local repair, clearly and systematically dismisses the conclusions of the Curtins and Structura reports relating to supposed active movement and instability in the structure of No 27. We particularly note that there might have been cause for concern in the accuracy of the Morton report due to the time elapsed between its preparation and that of the Curtins and Structura reports, but that such doubts are rebutted by the observations and conclusions of the Mann Williams report. We would also like to observe that such concerns need never have been considered in the first place had the owner of the properties shown overt sign of maintaining the buildings in good order during the time that has elapsed between the various reports: instead it is obvious - and disappointing - that there have been no interventions to address the observations noted in the Morton report, despite this have been prepared on behalf of the owner.

We note that several of the reports also draw attention to the condition of No 28; we would comment, however, that the removal some significant time ago of its historical roof covering and temporary replacement with roof-felt and battens can scarcely have helped its condition. We would suggest once again that this does not demonstrate an appropriate level of care for a protected building.

Design We are disappointed in the designs put forward for the replacement of Nos 22, 23, 25-28 North Quay. These fall significantly short of the quality required to mitigate the loss of so much visual interest and character at the heart of the North Quay conservation area. In particular, the regularising of floor levels and fenestration results in quite inappropriate and bland uniformity across the whole of this 55m frontage. The size and proportions of much of the proposed fenestration makes no attempt to acknowledge the character and variety that is currently visible in the existing buildings, and the almost-square shape of those in the building replacing Nos 22 and 23, and similar examples in No 27, are particularly incongruous and illchosen.

Conclusion In summary, having read the available structural reports, we wish to place on record our objection to the demolition of the warehouse No 27, and the adjacent building No 28, the protected status of which requires a more caring approach to their maintenance and a much more imaginative and sympathetic approach to their retention and re-use. We would also wish

to record our disappointment at the quality of the design of the proposed replacement buildings, which in our view is not an adequate substitute for the loss of character, interest and cultural heritage inherent in the existing structures on the site.

Should the Planning Committee decide to approve this scheme, we would recommend that, as a minimum, a detailed measured and photographic record should be made of the buildings prior to their demolition. In making this recommendation we would however wish to place on record our professional view that this would hardly mitigate the loss of so much heritage from the core of the conservation area.

We trust that the above comments are of help to the Committee in making its decision." The IOM Fire and Rescue Service make the following comments (13.09.2022); "o The third floor apartment does not comply with the Fire Precautions (Houses in Multiple Occupation and Flats) Regulations 2016 due to both the master bedroom and bedroom 2 being inner rooms.

• o I cannot determine how the basement stores area is accessed as there is no corresponding staircase on the ground floor.
• o The rear exits from the units on the ground floor all egress via bin stores; means of escape must be clear of obstruction."

5.9 Other Organisations

• 5.9.1 The Chair of the Isle of Man Building Conservation Forum (BCF) - Marlene M Maska MLC writes (Terms of Reference included in letter) object to the application which can be summarised as (09.03.2022); it is rare for the Forum to make submissions on individual applications; however, it is considered that in this matter, the gravity of the impact upon our historic built heritage, if the application is successful, is of such order that we feel compelled to make a submission at this time for your consideration; Nr 27 & 28 North Quay (Newson's) were entered onto the Protected Buildings Register on 13th April 2018, partly on the recommendation of BCF; it is noted that it is the responsibility of the owner of a Registered Building to ensure that it is maintained in a state of good repair; unfortunately, although several Structural Engineers have provided reports on the condition of the buildings since 2018, some of which have included recommendations for repairs to protect them from further water ingress including suggesting other works to retain their structural integrity, it appears very little has been done in this regard; it could be interpreted , by some, as "constructive neglect"; Nr 27 is unique and last surviving Warehouse on the North Quay frontage; BCF would argue that the rear the example of a surviving building, the more important it becomes, Nr28 also falls within this category; There are many examples, including some on out own Island, there Registered Buildings have been re-purposed and been given a new lease of life through change of use and sensitive repair whilst respecting their importance; There is an extant approval for the retention and incorporation of the Registered Buildings into a redevelopment in the immediate locality; we would therefore contend that there is no justifiable reason for the current proposal to demolish these Registered Buildings to be approved, such proposal flies in the face of approved and adopted Conservation and Registered Building Policy; Although the current proposal is being promoted as one which 'honours local heritage' we would aver quiet to the contrary, namely the destruction of two Registered Buildings is totally outside the sport of honouring local heritage and should not be permitted; We refer to the widely accepted term 'Embodied Carbon' i.e. the Carbon Footprint embodied in the materials and built fabric already existing in the Registered Buildings; we would submit it is accordingly unacceptable when we are in a Climate Change Emergency, to destroy historic buildings - over 230 years old and the last survival in this area, or even across the entire Island, to be relegated to a landfill hole in the grounds; We would support an appropriate re-use of the Registered Building as outlined above and in line with the extant Approval.
• 5.9.2 09.09.2022

• Additional comments are made rising concerns that should the Planning Committee, in early course, grant (inter alia) approval for the demolition of the building, this would 'set the tone' of the attitude relevant to the Registered Building and the subject matter of the Repairs Notice itself, due to be considered on 10th and 11th November 2022. This might be difficult to ignore and might be deemed to be prejudicial in terms of matters before the Court but related to a decision which is already being considered or determined, in the public domain; Whilst it might be said that if Planning Approval is granted, as a Statutory Consultee, MNH may Appeal the decision; my past experience, during my nine-plus years as the Isle of Man's first Building Conservation Officer, is that in such similar difficult cases, buildings are put increasingly and dangerously 'AT RISK' when their uncertain future is being determined; and in the absence of opportunity and /or willingness to engage in the best interests of retaining/re-purposing the Registered Building and in the wider context of the Island's Built Heritage; and demolition of a Registered Building should be seen as a last resort, and only once all other options have been explored: I am very concerned that there may be an embedded determination by some parties, to make this building disappear!
• 5.10.1 The Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society object to the application which can be summarised as (25.03.2022); The Society helped in undertaking the research on Nos 25-28 North Quay which led to the Registration of Nos 27 and 28 North Quay; s greatly concerned at the reasons given for the proposed demolition of them and the structure that is proposed to replace them and other premises on North Quay; The Society notes that the applicant Kelman Ltd who is owner of the buildings has sought to demote the architectural and historic building importance of Nos 27 and 28 in particular. This is despite the fact that as owner of the buildings since 2016 and during 2017, when initial public consultation was undertaken with regard to potential registration of the buildings, following their entry on 13th April 2018 into the register on account of their "special architectural or historic interest", Kelman Ltd did not seek to challenge the registration; The Operational Policy on the Principles of Selection for the Registration of Buildings in to the Protected Buildings Register states that In applying the statutory criteria and considerations, as set out above, the Department will also consider the following principles (interalia): Age and rarity. The older a building is, and the fewer the surviving examples of its kind, the more likely it is to have special interest and before 1800, all buildings that contain a significant proportion of their original fabric are likely to be registered; This is not referred to by the applicant; In terms of the condition of the building, this is not a criterion that is taken into account when Registering the building; While it was noted that condition might not be particularly good, in respect of Nos 27 and 28 the Society fully supported the planning applications PA18/01333/GB & 18/01334/CON or refurbishment and conversion; This applied to the retention of the front parts of Nos 22, 23 as well as all of the Registered Buildings; The Society notes that while the current applicant Kelman Limited was the owner at the time he was not applicant and did not comment on the application. Significantly, Kelman Ltd did not challenge the veracity of the report on the condition of the buildings submitted as part of the above application; . It would appear that following the Morton report in 2018, the applicant / owner has not had a condition survey undertaken until March 2021. This suggests that despite knowing the condition of the building the applicant / owner did not see the need to undertake any repairs; We therefore consider that demolition of the Registered Buildings Nos 27 and 28 and of all of Nos 22 and 23 are not justified on the basis of condition; In terms of cost of repairing and maintaining in relation to its importance the previously approved and extant applications for the redevelopment incorporating bar, restaurant and 6 apartments, as above, a financial appraisal was made to justify the proposal; No consideration has been given in the current application to cost of alternative solutions or to cost in relation to the importance of the retention of the buildings vs importation of construction materials. No statement with regard to carbon release or the sustainability of the development has been made; We therefore considers it is unacceptable given the overall scale of the development that no equivalent financial appraisal to that previously submitted has been made in support of the current application let alone one that takes into account the National importance of No 27; With regard to the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use, the Society is not aware of any efforts by the owner / applicant to maintain the buildings so

that they could be used; this despite the fact that the need for repairs for Nos 27 and 28 in particular had been clearly identified as part of the earlier planning consent; In 2019 it was noted that the roof of No 28 was being stripped off; We would therefore consider that no effort has been made to maintain the Registered Buildings in particular and possibly the others in use. Moreover given that there is extant approval for the refurbishment of the buildings this lack of action represents 'constructive demolition'; With regard to the merits of alternative proposals for the site the Society notes that the applicant states that a "major upgrade" is planned for the locality including the Registered Buildings; What is proposed seeks to replace a mix of architectural height with a degree of uniformity thus losing much of the colour and character of the locality, particularly when seen as a whole, from South Quay; For No27, instead of a 3 / 4 storey gable-ended 3-4 bay warehouse with an uneven distribution of openings, the proposal is for 4 storey building increased in height from the original with a hipped roof with extensive overhangs, incorporating 5 half-dormers in the roof instead of only the structure for the former hoist above third floor level, a regular distribution of windows and a large glazed frontage for the ground floor; No 28 instead of a very modest corner building with tapering pitched roof, the proposal is for a series of flat roof terraces with glazed barriers and a standard non conservation related glazed frontage and signage onto both North Quay and Queen Street; These bear no resemblance to the characterful buildings or vernacular style that they propose to replace. The previous extant consents for renovation of No 27 did not perceive the existing ceiling heights of the upper floors to be a problem in the conversion; At ground floor level the dominant 'windowscape' has no place in the heritage / character of the North Quay Conservation Area. Both rely on the use of much of the pavement for outside seating area; The proposals would not sit comfortably in the Street scape of North Quay and are therefore in themselves contrary to Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 General Policy 2 b, c, and g; All the replacement buildings except that on the corner are to be raised to the height of Merchant's House No 26 eaves level; and Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society therefore consider that while there is no objection to the proposed use (except of the amount of pavement use) in the application, the extent of demolition proposed is not justified by the architecture of the proposal which fails to match the varied character and former use of the existing particularly its Registered Buildings.

The occupier (tenants - Manx Taxpayers' Alliance) of Merchants House, 24 North Quay write to support the scheme which can be summarised as (02.03.2022); the surrounding buildings are substantially dilapidated and empty buildings in desperate need of replacement; this proposal is an excellent development because it will substantially improve a section of the North Quay; area has a great potential and proposed development appears to offer opportunities to improve local business activity, provide a number if environmentally sensitive and low carbon apartments and to do all of this in a manner which is sensitive and respectful of the culture heritage of area.

5.11 Other Comments

• 5.11.1 The owner/occupier of 2 Tennis Road, Douglas writes to support the scheme which can be summarised as (18.02.2022); while the Newson's building is interesting it is in their view beyond saving and is now a derelict eyesore.
• 5.11.2 The owner/occupier of 2 Glen View, South Cape, Laxey writes to object to the scheme which can be summarised as (13.08.2022); This application site is at the heart of Douglas North Quay Conservation Area designated in 1990 and arguably contains the oldest extant buildings within it. The latter have subsequently been Registered "by reason of its special architectural and historic interest."; Registration which was not challenged was at a time when the building was in the same ownership as present; Subsequently a scheme to renovate the building along with redevelopment and refurbishment of others nearby was given consent PA

• 18/01334/CON & 18/01333GB; It is of significance that the renovation / refurbishment of Nos

• 27 - 28 (Newsons) was linked in terms of planning consent with the simultaneous consent of PA18/01329/B and 18/01330/CON) for 22-23 North Quay and PA18/01331/B and

18/01332/CON for 25 -26 North Quay. The reason for this was that from a financial point of view the development of the latter properties was stated to be necessary to support the relatively high cost of the repair, renovation and conversion of the Registered Buildings; It is also of significance that No 24 which appears to have been in a different ownership was not part of any of the above proposals. Nevertheless the potential developer, different from the current owner / developer, considered that a financially viable scheme could be undertaken; By way of contrast the current scheme includes No 24 and therefore enables the developer to make proposals which tie this building into the whole scheme and make it more financially profitable. Despite this however the developer says it is essential now to additionally demolish all the buildings apart from No 24 and including the Nos 27 - 28 , the Registered Buildings, to achieve economic success of the scheme as a whole; This in only two years since the previous scheme was approved on 11 March 2019; The application merely seeks to prove how it supports the business policy aspect of the Strategic Plan. This is not a requirement / justification under either planning policy or planning law for demolition of Registered Buildings; No financial study has been submitted to justify the current proposals; No apparent repairs have been undertaken particularly on the Registered Buildings and no reason given for this; No assessment has been undertaken as to the merits of alternative proposals for the site has been undertaken. With the exception of No 24 the whole emphasis is on the fact that wholesale demolition and redevelopment must be undertaken; The wording of Environment Policy 30 in relation to potential demolition of Registered Buildings does not state that only some criteria may be considered. All should be looked at; The application therefore does not comply with either Environment Policy 30 or Environment Policy 39; It is noted that the Department of Enterprise consider this site most of which has been deliberately left empty should be considered as 'brownfield ' and again, in its terms seemingly, equated to a greenfield site in an urban area ie only usable as a cleared site; This is in total contradiction to Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 Strategic Policies 1(a), 3(b), 4(a), and 5; It is noted that in the Appendix to the above Tynwald report, this North Quay site is not listed as a site that has been identified by the Planning Policy Division as a brownfield site despite the Registered buildings in this application being unoccupied at the time. In effect Department of Enterprise seem to be supporting / encouraging constructive neglect leading to demolition of Heritage buildings in the Island; Numbers 27 and 28 North Quay are highly valuable assets both in their vernacular appearance and their representation of the historic values and uses of the quay. Inevitably their vernacular architecture is not highly decorated; it is functional. This does not diminish their importance; the other buildings in this application while not deemed through Registration designation to be so important all add to the character of the Conservation Area; and the proposed design promotes increased scale, and dominance, and increased glazing all at the expense of the surviving character of the North Quay Conservation Area. This is not good sustainable practice.

• 5.11.3 The owner/occupier of The Old Barn, Phildraw Road, Ballasalla writes to support the scheme which can be summarised as (27.07.2022); It had become a derelict eyesore and is clearly a less than functional building for the needs of current times and location; Whilst I can appreciate a desire to preserve historic buildings, in this case, my view is that there is a justified need to improve the attractiveness of the harbour for improved tourism attractions or local residents leisure needs and or even residential or better business use; The harbour can do so much more to become an attractive hub for locals and visitors to boost our economy and this is a golden opportunity not to be missed; and I encourage you to show flexibility over the registered status of the old building and allow change of use and larger footprint.
• 5.11.4 The owner/occupier of 9 Fort William, Douglas writes to object to the scheme which can be summarised as (20.08.2022); We are residents of Douglas Harbour and any planning application relating to Douglas Harbour, especially one impacting the North Quay Conservation Area, has an impact on us, on our property, and on our enjoyment of our environment and community; Former Newsons Trading Building (Nos 27 - 28) is Registered Building No 289 (Registered 13 April 2018) and is located in the Douglas North Quay Conservation Area; Registration is the highest level of protection and is evidence of its "special architectural or historic interest"; Furthermore, by virtue of its location together with Nos 22, 23, 24, 25, and

• 26 in a conservation area, the Cabinet Office has determined these properties lie in an area "of special architectural and historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance"; Contary to EP 30, 31 & 35 of the IOMSP; Both the Registered Building Officer (DEFA) and the Inspector of Ancient Monuments (MNH) oppose these applications; The Honorary Secretary on behalf of the Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society similarly objects. To avoid duplication, suffice it for us to state that we concur fully with their assessment and conclusions in all respects; Additionally, ownership of a registered building brings with it obligations to safeguard its structure and "to ensure it is maintained in a good state of repair". The current owner of this building has manifestly failed to do so having left Nos 27 & 28 derelict for several years and additionally stripped the slates from the roof of No

• 28 in an apparent effort to hasten its deterioration; It appears that the first engaged structural engineers, Morton Partnership, and more recently Mann Williams engaged independently by DEFA consider the buildings as structurally sound though badly neglected by the owner. Those engaged more recently by the owner: Curtins and Structura opine the building as structurally unsound. Both cannot be correct; We have no experience of Mann Williams, but we have engaged Morton Partnership in relation to our own 19th Century home overlooking Douglas Harbour similarly constructed of Manx stone. As arguably the most experienced and respected heritage structural engineering consultancy in Britain we would be inclined to accept their assessment of the structural state of the buildings; Since 2016 the Isle of Man has been designated a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve of which "sustainability" is a key element; respected and innovative London property developer, Jacob Loftus - CEO of General Projects, wrote recently in connection with the public inquiry to demolish and rebuild a major landmark building in London: "It is clear now, given the extent of the climate emergency, that retrofit must be the default for our industry, and demolition a last resort unless very considerable benefits can be created to justify it." If the Isle of Man is committed to sustainability and decarbonisation this must be taken into consideration in all planning and construction decisions; A financial viability report for PA 22/00148/CON and PA 22/0149/GB should be requested before presentation to the Planning Committee to help ensure the North Quay Conservation Area does not also become blighted by failed development and these applications fail utterly on planning, heritage, and design grounds, as well as on environmental and sustainability grounds and should therefore be refused.

• 5.11.5 The owner/occupier of Flat 1, Chandler House, 1, Ridgeway Street, Douglas objects to the application which can be summarised as (09.09.2022); My reasons for concern are there is very limited parking in the area as it stands and to build a new development incorporating up to possibly 10 apartments without parking spaces as well as staff and customer parking for the bar and restaurant seems badly thought out and will no doubt encourage parking on the pedestrian/ cyclist shared space that runs all along North Quay as often happens in the evenings as it is.

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 Main Issues

• o Statutory test (Town and County Planning Act 1999);
• o Principle of Development (Local Plan land use allocation, MUP7, UEP3 & 4 from the Area Plan for East Written Statement and StP 1, 2, 9 & 11, SP1, GP 1 & 2, HP1, EP43, BP1, 9 & 10
• of the IOMSP);
• o Potential impact upon the visual amenities of the street scenes (StP5, GP2, EP 42 & 43 & UEP 2& 3);
• o Impact upon the Conservation Area/Registered Building (StP4, EP30, EP34, EP35, EP39, EP42, EP43 and Planning Policy Statements: 1/01 & UEP3 and Our Island Plan 2022);
• o Affordable housing provision (GP4, HP1, HP 4, HP 5 & Our Island Plan 2022);
• o Impact on Neighbouring Residential Properties (GP2(g));
• o Traffic Impacts / parking provision (StP10, GP2, TP 1, 4, 6, 7 & 8 and TP1 from Area Plan for East; Active Travel; Climate Change; Net Zero 2050);
• o Open Space provision (GP4 & RP3);
• o Potential impacts upon ecology (EP4, EP5 & GP2);

• o Potential impacts upon trees (EP3);
• o Energy/Climate Change (EP5);
• o Drainage/Flooding (GP2, EP13); and
• o Fire provisions (CP10 & CP11).

6.1 Statutory test

• 6.1.1 Firstly, given the proposals involves the demolition of Registered Buildings and nonregistered building which are all within a Conservation Area, the first consideration is the statutory tests, which have significant material planning consideration which are outlined within the Town and County Planning Act 1999.

• 6.1.2 Section 16 (3) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) requires decision makers to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses in assessing works which may affect registered building or its settings.

• 6.1.3 In relation to the Registered Building (Nr 27 & 28 North Quay) this was added to the register in 2018 for the following reasons; "ARCHITECTURAL INTEREST AND/OR AESTHETIC QUALITY The premises are vernacular, made up of a typical 18th/19th Century quayside warehouse with a smaller building attached, of a shape that reflected the street layout. They have an attractiveness and individuality that adds to the character of the conservation area. The rear of the buildings are less important.

HISTORICAL INTEREST The premises are important in reflecting the history of the Island and Douglas' growth as a port town." GROUP VALUE The building forms part of North Quay Conservation Area and is an integral part of the street scene. RARITY It is thought to be the last remaining warehouse building in this part of Douglas

SUMMARY STATEMENT: WHY IS THIS BUILDING IMPORTANT? There is a particular rarity to the premises in both its history and design that makes it worthy of registration and it is considered to be of important to the character and appearance of the conservation area."

• 6.1.4 As outlined above and from comment's received from the Principal Registered Building Officer, Manx National Heritage and from various historical interest groups; it is clear the existing Registered Building has significant heritage assets being the last warehouse building in the area (quayside) reflecting the history of the area and Douglas as a port town. The statutory test requires the decision maker to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses in assessing works which may affect registered building or its settings.
• 6.1.5 When considering this aspect given the application is proposing to demolish the Registered Building, there will be a total loss of the building and therefore the impact will have a total loss of significance to the special architectural and historic interest of the registered building. Accordingly, the proposal would fail Section 16 (3) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) and a refusal can be made on this ground.

• 6.1.7 Further as the site is within North Quay Conservation Area as outlined, Section 18 (4) requires decision makers to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation area in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in the area, of any powers under this Act.
• 6.1.8 There is no Conservation Appraisal for the North Quay Conservation Area (not unusual for older designations, this conservation area was adopted in 1990); however, the Principal Register Building Officer comments that; "The North Quay Conservation Area is an historic quayside it is of historic and architectural interest as a 18th century quayside that developed from plots that were divided and sold off from the Nunnery Estate, The Quay's development was key to the development of Douglas in becoming a prominent town and becoming capital of the Island. The quay is also a surviving remnant of historic Douglas that predates the 19th tourism boom most of which has been lost due to extensive urban clearance in the late 19th and early 20th centuries."
• 6.1.9 The reasoning why the building was registered highlights that the registered building has an attractiveness and individuality that adds to the character of the conservation area and the building forms part of North Quay Conservation Area and is an integral part of the street scene. Accordingly, the registered building is considered an important part of the character of the conservation area.
• 6.1.10 Again, given the proposal would result in the total demolition of the registered building and results in a total loss of the building this would have a substantial harm to the character and appearance and history of conservation area and would neither preserve or enhance it. Accordingly, the proposal would fail Section 18 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act

(1999) and a refusal can be made on this ground.

• 6.1.11 Given the application fails the statutory test of Section 16 (3) and Section 18 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) which have significant planning weight, the application/s can be refused on these grounds, without any further consideration of the application. However, in order the completeness the following planning policy considerations have also been considered.

6.2 Principle of Development

• 6.2.1 The site is within an area designated as "Mixed Use Proposal Area - Quayside" under the Area Plan for the East 2020. The proposed scheme is for a mix of restaurant/bar use and residential, the main amount of the created and converted floor space being for residential use. The applicants comment; "4.6 In its general plan arrangement, the building has two entrances to access eight apartments and two penthouses. These apartments are of generous size (1,000 - 1,460sq. ft) with the two penthouses even larger (2050 sq. ft - 3055 sq. ft), and their outlook to the quayside marina is maximised as far as possible.

4.7 At ground level three bar/restaurant units have been created. These vary in size between 1,560 sq. ft and 2,850 sq. ft in size and although they use some of the ground floor area of Merchant's House, externally the appearance of no. 24 is unchanged."

• 6.2.2 Mixed Use Proposal 7 comments that; "There will be a presumption in favour of food and drink and other leisure-type uses on North Quay." The Area Plan isn't entirely clear if this seeks these leisure use to be accommodated through the building i.e. upper floors as well as ground level. If it does, then this proposal would be contrary to this. It is noted that Mixed Use Proposal 7 in terms of the South Quay it does specifically mention;"…Residential uses at first floor level and above.". The Plan does also mention the use of upper floors within other areas of Mixed Use Area within the Town Centre. However, if the Area Plan is seeking the North Quay to be used for leisure purposes (i.e. bars/clubs/restaurants etc); the introduction of residential uses in this area will likely be impacted by such leisure's use, which operate during

• anti-social hours and will more likely to raise issues such as general disturbances and noise issues to the residents.
• 6.2.3 Accordingly; while the proposed uses could be considered contrary due to the wording of the Mixed Use Proposal 7; it is considered on balance that the use of the upper floors for residential purposes to be acceptable.

6.3 Potential impact upon the visual amenities of the street scenes

6.3.1 Arguably this is one of the main issues with the proposal given its size and prominent location. The separate but related issue of the potential impact upon the adjacent Conservation Area/nearby Registered Building will be dealt with later in this report. This section therefore focuses on the general appearance of the building within the street scenes and not the Conservation Area/Registered Building elements, purely if those aspects are acceptable would the proposed design, form, scale, finish and overall design be acceptable on this site.

• 6.3.2 There are considered to be a number of potential locations where the development would be apparent from public views, the following being considered to be the main primary views of the proposed development/site:

• o North Quay with views of the front elevation and eastern corner aspect of the development;
• o South Quay Views, namely the front elevation of the building;
• o Queen Street, namely the rear elevation of the building;
• o Fort Anne Road, namely the front elevation and corner aspect of the development;
• o Bridge Road, namely the front elevation of the building;

6.4 North Quay

• 6.4.1 Views from North Quay are arguably one of the most important and the aspect that the majority of persons visiting/passing the site will see of the proposal.

6.5 South Quay

• 6.4.2 Views of the building will be restricted from the east by the curvature of the Quay and the existing buildings along the Quayside. The building only becomes apparent when passing Ridgeway Street where the open space in front the neighbouring building (former Power Station) opens up and the corner aspect (eastern elevations) of the building become apparent, namely the steps terraces up to the gable elevation (east) of the proposed four storey building.

• 6.4.3 Currently the pitched roofed two storey element, in painted white render (Nr 28) will clearly alter in apparent with the introduction of the three stepped terraces, which include glazed balustrades and large glazed patio doors will be the main features public visible from this vantage point.
• 6.4.4 As one approaches the site and views the site directly from the front of the proposed building, the full extent of the proposal will be apparent. The exception of this is the upper flat roofed elements of Nr 22/23 and 25 with perhaps only the front glazed balustrading along the front elevation (roof level) being apparent.
• 6.4.5 Further to the west of the site along North Quay again views will be apparent; albeit more angled views though the full extent of the front elevations will be seen. The proposal would also be read in context of the other properties along North Quay which are clearly made up of various styles, finishes, scale and heights of buildings.

• 6.5.1 Again views from South Quay play an important consideration albeit from a slightly further afield from the North Quay views, being on the opposite side of the quayside.

• 6.5.2 From South Quay, namely adjacent to the Swing Bridge, the site/proposal would be initially be screened given the curvature of the road and existing built development on the South Quay. However, as you travel further west the proposed eastern elevation and angled views of the front elevation of the building are apparent. These views become clearer and closer as you travel in a westerly direction and cross the road about at the junction of South Quay and Fort Anne Road. From these rooms the full extent of the building is apparent including all the roofed elements, including the flat roofs of the buildings replacing Nr 22/23 and 25. These views remain until traveling further westerly where the proposal would be screened from sight due to the Douglas Bay Yacht Clubhouse which is located on the Tounge.

6.6 Queen Street

• 6.6.1 Given the narrowness of Queen Street and the curve in the road, coupled with existing built development, the full extent of the rear elevation would not be especially apparent in full. The proposal does include to increase the mass and scale of development as indicated within the proposal section of this report and will increase the overbearing impact when travelling along Queen Street; albeit, not to an extent which is significantly greater than already exists, given existing built development on the site and neighbouring properties.

6.7 Fort Anne Road

• 6.7.1 The proposal would be apparent from limited places from Fort Anne Road, namely from the rear of the former Trafalgar Public House to Nr 1 Fort Anne Road. Views from this location are elevated of the site and from a distance, having similar views as those identified on South Quay, being mainly angled views of the corner section of the development and views of the font elevation. It should be noted that these views of the site would be screened should the approved development (18/01342/B) at 31-39 South Quay (which appears to have started, but then ceased) are undertaken.

6.8 Bridge Road

• 6.8.1 Views of the site from bridge Road are to the west of the site and more distant and angled; albeit the majority of the front elevation of the proposal is apparent and seen in context with the building along North Quay.

6.9 Overall conclusion

• 6.9.1 Firstly, it needs to be made clear that this section of the report will only consider the merits of the proposal in terms of the scale, forms, finishes, and overall design in the context of the Conservation Area and various street scenes identified previously. It will not consider the issues relating to the demolition of the registered buildings and demolition of the buildings within a Conservation Area as this will be considered later in this report.

• 6.9.2 It is noted the comments of the Registered Building Officer who raises some concern in the overall massing and detailing of the building. They also raise concern that; "the replacement building for 22-23 reads as one, where the historic rhythm was two, across the entire new elevation the uniformity of fenestration results in a too homogenous appearance that lacks character, the fenestrations particularly in the buildings either side of merchants house are too large and there should be variation in the positioning to better reflect individual properties to provide character and break up the proposed massing."
• 6.9.3 And "The detailing of the "replacement" warehouse reads as inauthentic, the use of half dormer detail is lacking any context or local distinctiveness and is not found outside of domestic settings on the island. The replacement for No28 results in a building far larger in scale and massing than the historic structure, the stepping down terracing and creation of outside balcony space lacks the character that the diminutive corner building provides."
• 6.9.4 And

• "The rear elevation is concerning due to the entire rear elevation reading as one monolithic block, little regard has been paid to trying to break up this massing to respect the character that these rear lanes typically have, whilst this can be understood to have less value than principle elevations, they still are part of the conservation area which should be preserved or enhanced."
• 6.9.5 Concluding; "These comments however do not endorse or encourage the proposals in their current form."
• 6.9.6 When considering the proposal General Policy 2 (b, c &g) needs to be addressed to ensure any development respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; and does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality.
• 6.9.7 In terms of the massing, scale and form of the proposal overall; it is considered the proposal is acceptable. A concerns remains that given the floor levels throughout the entire site being the same; this results in a more uniformed appearance given windows levels are at the same height. This currently does not exists and this and conjunction of the former uses of each building differing, has resulted in a more un-uniformed appearance of the buildings all appearing individually, albeit part of a terrace. In certain locations a more uniformed approach is preferred, but along the North Quay this uniformity plays an important feature to the character and appearance.
• 6.9.8 The applicants have tried to replicate this element of individuality; in terms of use of materials and some different fenestration and the stepped roof design of the replacement buildings at Nrs 22/23 and 25 by use of a flat roof structure, set back from the front elevation of the building. This in part does work; but does not replicate the existing character and appearance of the existing properties as well. For example the introduction of the dormer windows to the main stone building, again are not found in warehouse styled buildings, which the proposed building is trying to replicate in appearance (i.e. Newson's building). The architectural used appears a mis-match of styles trying to give a nod to the traditional styles of the existing buildings; although trying to squeeze as much accommodation as possible into the building. This results in elements which are not traditional, including the proposed roof design of the main stone building proposed which has a crown roof (appears as pitched but has a flat roof in the centre of roof plane) to provide accommodation in the roof space albeit not a proper pitched roof, as this would result in a much taller building which would cause concern. This is the same situation as the flat roofed elements/terraces to the proposals at Nrs 22/23 & 25; again with proper pitched roofs in line with the existing would result in the loss of the accommodation at the roof level. However, what results is flat roof for these new buildings, which are not characterises of the quay side.
• 6.9.9 It should be noted the rear elevation of the buildings have little architectural merit or quality, resulting in a significant large mass of continuous built development with no interest. This aspect does not comply with General Policy 2. While it is noted that the current character and quality of Queens Street is not high and the views of this aspect of the development are not likely to be seen in their full extent (possible exception form top level of adjacent multi storey car park); this does not necessary warrant accepting further inappropriate development. While this aspect is perhaps not a reason to refuse the application on its own; it is considered a negative aspect of the proposal.
• 6.9.10 The plans do not include any details of finishes and should the application be approved a condition would need to be attached. Particular aspects which the Department would seek are;

• o Traditional laid Manx stone (re-using existing stone on site);
• o All windows to the front elevation being timber/ aluminium sliding sash;

• o More details of shop fronts in traditional styling;
• o Natural slate roofs;
• o Details of glazed balustrades;
• o Full schedule of finishes for remaining aspects.

• 6.9.11 Overall; the proposal appearance to try to play homage to the original buildings on site including the former Newson's building and in terms of form and massing is successful; however, the uniformed fenestration and floor levels do reduce the interest currently found. Further, while there are aspects of the design which raise some concern; overall it is not an unattractive proposal and taking a holistically approach it is considered the proposal would not adversely impact the visual amenities from the various public views identified in this report previously. If this where a totally blank site, then the approach taken is considered acceptable in terms of the overall context of the site and street scenes; especially in relation to the front elevation and would be appropriate in terms of the visual amenities of the various street scenes indicated and therefore comply with the relevant polices GP2, EP 42 & 43 of the IOMSP and UEP3 of the Area Plan for the East. However, the site isn't a blank site and the potential impacts upon the Conservations Area and the loss of Registered Buildings are a significant and important part of this assessment as they all play an interlinked aspect of the scheme.

6.10 Impacts upon the Conservation Area/Registered Building - Policy consideration

• 6.10.1 As outlined within the proposal section of this report the works would involve the total demolition of Nrs 22, 23, 25, 26 and Nrs 27 - 28 North Quay. The latter Nr 27 & 28 make up the former Newson's building which is a Registered Building. The remainder of the buildings are not, but are within a Conservation Area.

• 6.10.2 Dealing with the loss of the Registered Building first. This is arguable the main issue with the application. As indicated by the Principal Registered Building Officer, as the application affects a registered building it is a statutory requirement for the decision maker to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building, its setting and any features of special interest S16 of The Act must be taken into account by the Department when making its decision.
• 6.10.3 The Our Island Plan 2022 which was recently approved by Tynwald specifically comments on the protection and enhancement of our built heritage stating; "Ensure new developments align with our sustainability goals, existing homes can become more environmentally friendly and Conservation Areas are protected and enhanced". This is to ensure; "To ensure that planning is able to support high level strategic commitments for housing, economic growth, regeneration and protection and enhancement of our built heritage."
• 6.10.4 Further, PPS 1/01 - POLICY RB/6 DEMOLITION and Environment Policy 39 both indicate that the general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. The supportive text (par 7.32.2 of the IOMSP) of EP39 indicates that when considering proposals which will result in demolition of a building in a Conservation Area, attention will be paid to the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the relevant building and the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the Conservation Area as a whole. In addition, consideration will be given to;

• 1) the condition of the building;
• 2) the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the issue derived from its continued use (based on consistent long-term assumptions);
• 3) the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use; and
• 4) the merits of alternative proposals for the site.

• 6.10.5 It is noted the application submission argues firstly that they do not consider the building is worthy of Registration. However, this is not for consideration. The buildings are

and this application will not change that. The applicants/owners had the opportunity to appeal the Registration of the building but did not. So that decision stands. Further no application has been received to remove the building from the Register. Accordingly, this application sole requirement is to determine whether the demolition of the building in accordance with EP39 and other relevant planning policies outlined and Government Aims which seek to protect the build environment and Conservation Areas.

Condition

• 6.11.1 In relation to EP39 policy the first aspect to consider is the condition of the Registered Buildings Nrs 27 & 28. Is should first be noted that when the previously approved scheme in 2019 where considered and approved by the Planning Committee the application included a Structural Surveys report as part of the application from the Morton Partnership who are Consulting Civil & Structural Engineers, Historic Building Specialists. In relation to the Registered Buildings and the proposed conversion of them into a café/bar/restaurant at ground and first floor and with business hub/club on upper floor. They comment and concluded that; "The general proposal is to convert the building historically used as a shop to restaurant and business club. The imposed loading for the proposed use is less than original, therefore the structure is deemed to be able to transfer the proposed load. It is understood that none of the existing column is to be removed. The proposed scope of demolition should not compromise the overall stability and safety of the building."
• 6.11.2 And "27 North Quay

• 5.3.1 We recommend to remove the vegetation and gutter blockages at front and rear eaves. Gutters need to be re-levelled to provide continuous falls to downpipes.

• 5.3.2 Vegetation should be removed at: west and east gable wall including chimneys, rear wall and around the front pitch skylight. Any making good to mortar joints to be in NHL 5 lime mortar.
• 5.3.3 Due to significant erosion of the east gable wall mortar joints we recommend to repoint the complete area with hydraulic lime mortar NHL 5.
• 5.3.4 Rear elevation missing stones should be reinstated to prevent further damage to the masonry.
• 5.3.5 We suggest to replace the failed pattress plate at East end of the rear elevation to match existing.
• 5.3.6 Failed timber lintels should be replaced with like for like as set out in 3.3.2.2 and

• 3.3.2.12. 5.3.7 The missing brace in the roof truss should be replaced.

• 5.3.8 The cracks between the front wall and the party walls should be carefully opened up for inspection. If there is no tie between the two then we recommend that helical reinforcement be inserted to tie the two together and the cracks made good with lime mortar.

5.4 28 North Quay

• 5.4.1 We recommend to remove the vegetation and gutter blockages at eaves. Gutters need

to be re-levelled to provide continuous falls to downpipes.

• 5.4.2 Full roof finishes replacement may be considered due to overall poor condition. We suggest to make good and watertight the roof pitches, ridge and flashing against North Quay No 27 gable wall.
• 5.4.3 We suggest to remove the embedded and rendered over downpipe at rear elevation to prevent external finishes gradual deterioration process.

• 5.4.4 Decayed timbers within the roof should be repaired / replaced.
• 5.4.5 The crack between the front wall and the party wall should be carefully opened up for inspection. If there is no tie between the two then we recommend that helical reinforcement be inserted to tie the two together and the cracks made good with lime mortar."

• 6.11.3 In relation to the current application/s the applicant has employed the services of Curtins Consulting Limited and Structura Consulting Ltd to provide structural advice on the buildings in question. The applicants in support of the demolition of the Registered Buildings state; "2.11 Curtins' report on 27 and 28 is based on a visual inspection of the buildings and it also considers the Morton Partnership report on these buildings which was undertaken on behalf of Kay Associates and dated October 2018. The subsequent Structura Report was undertaken in November 2021 and was more invasive. All reports are contained in the appendices

2.12 The Curtins report concludes that 27 is in a dilapidated condition and exhibits instability with significant adverse structural movement and significant deterioration of the structure. The building is considered not to be a robust structure due to its open plan layout and no internal cross walls, out of plumb and leaning walls and eccentric gravity loading with rotation and an outward bulge of the wall at first floor. Whilst steel rods have been introduced their impact is limited and they simply tie together the front and rear walls and, in some instances, are completely corroded. They suggest that the extent of lean and bulge to the rear wall is such that progressive adverse movement will arise and ultimately render the building unstable and in a dangerous condition. They suggest that it is not possible to predict the rate of future adverse movement and monitoring of the wall should commence and further significant adverse movement will make the building an unsafe structure. They are aware of the Registered status of the building but suggest that the structural works to prevent further adverse movement of the rear wall are unlikely to be successful in the long term and would, if introduced, severely impair the use of the building. The introduction of new internal cross walls or an internal steel braced frame on new foundations to resist horizontal forces from the lean of the wall could be introduced but at the position of the bow, further rotation is likely to arise and such measures will only slow the rate of future adverse movement and would also limit the use of the building. - 2.13 They recommend the demolition of the rear wall which would necessitate a complete shoring and internal support of the site, to retain the remainder of the building but where the retained elements of the building would not be readily usable with less than 2m high ceiling heights and a distorted internal floor structure. It is their opinion that the retention of the remainder of the building and demolition of the rear wall is not viable for a commercial developer. - 2.14 They describe 28 as in a very dilapidated condition and not safe to enter and the internal structure is in a state of collapse with the gable walls showing cracking and distortion and with an outward lean. They suggest that the building has been altered from its original external arrangement with a newer shop front opening which has weakened and overloaded the masonry supporting structure and replacement of some of the original stonework and its replacement with calcium silicate brickwork. In their view, despite the Registered status of the building, considering the extent of the deterioration, state of collapse, non-original layout and weakened structure, the refurbishment of the structure of the building for future is not a viable option for a commercial developer and they would recommend full demolition. - 2.15 They comment that the Morton Partnership report does not make any reference to the significant adverse structural movement to the rear wall, the gable wall or the front wall, floor and truss deflections and the assessment of the condition of the building must make reference to these structural defects. It also fails to make reference to the 6.3m wide shop front

• alteration which has weakened the structure, the non-original layout and materials which in Curtins' opinion, are fundamental to the retention of the building. A photograph is provided of the original frontage with the door and two smaller windows looking out over North Quay.
• 2.16 The Structura Report identifies significant structural movement since the Curtins Report and that both buildings are structurally unstable and in danger of imminent collapse."

• 6.11.4 Further the applicants comment;

• "2.54 As a consequence of this Report which was issued to both Building Control and the Planning Authority, public safety measures were implemented in November 2021 which are still in place. The Planning Department then commissioned their own Structural Report from Conservation Specialists Mann Williams. Their Engineer Mr John Avent spent less than half an hour in his inspection and concluded that No.28 demonstrated structural failure and instability and that the southeast corner be propped and retained pending more permanent repairs. The nature of the permanent repairs is not stated however and nor is there any indication of how they may be carried out. In its present state this building is considered dangerous by Structura and the propping of one corner will not make it safe to carry 'more permanent repairs'. Indeed, the building is so fragile that whilst it is possible to create an internal support structure, the condition of the random stone walling interwoven with timber wallplates that will have to be removed makes it impossible to tie the fabric back to it. The Mann Williams Report is silent on the method and the Structura view is that no safe or effective method is possible.

2.55 As a consequence of the above in December 2021 the applicant commissioned Holland Contracting and Conservation to carry out an assessment of the hazards in in implementing a scheme of repairs. Holland Contracting are a specialist conservation contractor based in the West Midlands and they inspected no. 27 & 28 North Quay on 22nd December 2021. Their Company has over 40 years of experience in building restoration and building relocation. Their approach has enabled the restoration of buildings thought to be beyond repair and consequently the applicant thought it appropriate that they potentially could offer a safe scheme of restoration. Their subsequent Reports issued to the Applicant however stated that the works suggested by Mr Avent could not be carried out safely. Furthermore, they state that the only way to stabilize the north wall of no.28 would be to take it down and rebuild it. Holland contracting also recommend that further monitoring of the building be undertaken to determine if ongoing movement is taking place. Structural monitoring of the building took place in March 2021 and this survey is contained in the appendices. The rear wall in particular has significantly distorted in two directions despite the Patrisse restraints that have previously been applied. This process has continued before after the public safety measures took place in December 2021 and has demonstrated that movement is ongoing.

2.55 Mann Williams further states that structural failure is as a consequence of poor maintenance and neglect. The applicant agrees that the building has had very little if any maintenance for the 20-30 years previous to their recent ownership however many of the structural defects are unrelated to water ingress. For example, the de bonding of cross walls, torsion of the timber trusses and instability of the rear wall. - 2.56 With reference to no.27 Mann Williams acknowledge the separation of south wall and west gable wall and the lack of restraint to the gable wall. They recommend the creation of an internal frame which takes support from floors and columns to enable stabilization of structure and the carrying out of repairs. Structura have re examined the building and produced a response to the Mann Williams Report (attached in appendices) - which effectively concludes that it is an oversimplification of the complex and varied issues which the building has. The risks associated with the suggested repairs are significant and could potentially result in building collapse, or injury to operatives in the process, or both."

• 6.11.5 In response the Department sought independent advice on the structural stability of the building and employed the services of Mann Williams and Jon Avent, a CARE Accredited

• Conservation Engineer, member of the IHBC, advisor to the National Trust on their Specialist Advisor Panel and with over 30 years experience in the inspection and appraisal of historic and listed buildings. Mr Avent undertook a pre-arranged visit to carry out a visual inspection of the building and has considered the number of structural reports have been commissioned previously.
• 6.11.6 The conclusions of Mann Williams states; "4.01 Number 27 and 28 North Quay have suffered from a lack of maintenance in recent years and are in need of care and attention to remedy that situation.

4.02 Number 28 has suffered from poorly implemented historical alterations that have resulted in local failure and instability that requires attention reasonably urgently. It is suggested that the south east corner is propped and restrained to reduce the risk of movement pending more permanent repairs.

4.03 Number 27 is a more substantial building that has areas of local weakness that has resulted from neglect and poor maintenance. The failure to maintain roof finishes has allowed water ingress to the east gable with resulting decay to timber purlin bearings with consequential reduction in restraint to the gable wall. In the temporary/short-term this could be stabilised by the introduction of internal bracing frames at attic level. The robust internal floor structures and internal columns would provide adequate support for this solution. - 4.04 At the intersection of south wall and west gable wall to number 27 there is historical separation, however there has been no evidence presented by Structra Consultants Ltd to identify any progressive movement. It is, however, acknowledged that this local separation has potential to reduce the lateral restraint to the from elevation and it would be sensible to implement stitching repairs which would be relatively easy to install. There are specialist contractors able to carry out this work using proprietary systems such as Cintec Anchoring which is widely used. https://cintec.com/reinforcement-anchoring/buildings-architecture/ - 4.05 Areas of water ingress have locally resulted in isolated timber decay and it is considered essential that the roof finishes are repaired as a matter of urgency to protect the fabric and internal structure from decay. - 4.06 As part of the commission for this inspection and report a meeting held on site with Mr Kerwick of Structura Consulting Ltd on 20th November 2021 sought to provide the opportunity for the building owners appointed consultant to present the actual evidence of recent progressive movement to support what has previously only been their expressed opinions. No evidence was forthcoming or presented by Mr Kerwick of Structra Consulting Ltd at the meeting. - 4.07 In conclusion we would state that no evidence has been identified that would support a case for the demolition of number 27 and 28 North Quay and the building is not in danger of imminent collapse as stated by Structra Consulting Ltd. We would advise that the south east corner of 28 North Quay is provided with temporary support as soon as reasonably possible to provide protection in this locally vulnerable location.. - 4.08 As a protected building it is obligated on the owner to repair and maintain and a significant proportion of the current condition of the building is a result of failure to meet this obligation."

• 6.11.7 No response to the above findings have been made by the applicants.
• 6.11.8 As outlined by Morton Partnership, Mann Williams and highlighted by the Registered Buildings Officer; there appears little or no maintenance of the building in recent years and this is further evident by the removal of the slate roof at Nr 28 and not reinstated; leaving it open

• to elements. There is no evidence provided by the submission that any maintenance has been undertaken or the recommendations of the Morton Partnership in 2018 for repairs works being done. However, it is extremely clear from the findings and conclusions from Mann Williams who are structural experts in the field of historic and listed buildings that the existing Registered Buildings are not in a state of immediate collapses as suggested nor are they in such poor condition they cannot be reused i.e. as has been approved in 2019.
• 6.11.9 Accordingly, the application fails this aspect of the policy. Further, as outlined in section 6.1 of this report Section 16 (3) requires considerable weight the statutory duty required is high priority to desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses taking into account the value of the heritage asset in question. Not all effects are of the same degree, nor are all heritage assets of comparable significance, and the decision maker must assess the actual significance of the asset and the actual effects upon it. As outlined it is considered for the reasons within Section

6.1 the proposal would have a total loss of significance to the special architectural and historic interest of the registered building. Accordingly, the proposal would fail Section 16 (3) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) and a refusal can be made on this ground.

Cost of repairing and maintaining

• 6.12.1 Regarding the second part of the policy, the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the issue derived from its continued use (based on consistent long-term assumptions). As mentioned previously, there does not appear to have been any repairs /remedial works done to the existing buildings. The Mann Williams also comments that no such works have been undertaken in recent times. The applicants have agreed that "…that the building has had very little if any maintenance for the 20-30 years previous to their recent ownership". No viability report has been provided which demonstrates that retention of the building is not viable. To the contrary the previous approved applications did have a viability report and did consider this and considered it was viable to converted the existing Registered Buildings in 2018/19. Accordingly, the proposal therefore fails this aspect of the policy requirement. The adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use
• 6.13.1 The application does not provide any evidence that efforts have been made to retain the buildings in use. No evidence has been provided of any potential advertising the property for rent etc. The extant approval have not been commenced. It fails this aspect of the policy. The merits of alternative proposals for the site
• 6.14.1 As outlined earlier in this report the proposed replacement buildings would not be unattractive feature in the street scenes and would provide bar/restaurants at lower ground level and 10 apartments above. It needs to be considered that the land use designation of the site is Mixed Use - albeit the Area Plan specifically indicates leisure only. Accordingly, as mention previously this proposal may not full comply with the aim of the Area Plan and therefore reduces the "merits". The previously approved scheme had resultant (i.e. leisure uses) at upper floors. This proposal does not.

• 6.14.2 Comments from the Registered Building Officer are also noted in terms of the replacement buildings who comments;

"While I consider the overall scale of the replacement buildings to be generally respectful of the character of the conservation area there is still an overall increase in massing which lacks any justification. I consider that improvements could be made to the massing and detailing of the buildings…"

• 6.14.3 And

• "The detailing of the "replacement" warehouse reads as inauthentic, the use of half dormer detail is lacking any context or local distinctiveness and is not found outside of domestic settings on the island."
• 6.14.4 And "The replacement for No28 results in a building far larger in scale and massing than the historic structure, the stepping down terracing and creation of outside balcony space lacks the character that the diminutive corner building provides…."
• 6.14.5 Accordingly with these comments in mind it is not considered the merits of alternative proposals for the site outweigh the strong presumption against the demolition of the existing building. Further it is noted that with the extant approval which would result in a 112 cover restaurant and bar and residential apartments on the site; it has been demonstrated that the retention of the Registered building and new build elements can be achieved on this site; without the need to demolition the Registered Buildings. Therefore, the proposal is considered to fail this final aspect of the policy.
• 6.14.6 In conclusion it is considered in relation to PPS 1/01 - POLICY RB/6 DEMOLITION and Environment Policy 39 the proposal would be contrary to them.

IMPACT ON CONSERVATION AREA - Demolition of building and new development

• 6.15.1 There are two main elements to consider in terms of the impacts upon the Conservation Area, firstly the demolition of buildings within a Conservation Area and second the potential impact of the whole development upon the character and quality of the Conservation Area. The reasoning why the registered buildings are consider to have significant importance and why the building was registered in 2018 and why the building has a significant impact upon the character and quality of the North Quay Conservation Area are outlined within paragraph 6.1.4 of this report.

• 6.15.2 Regarding the first part the proposal results in the demolition of Nrs 22, 23 and 25 &

1. Please see sections 1.0.4 and 1.0.6 for details of each building. It should be noted the previous approved applications did included Nrs 22 & 23 in the scheme being retained in part, namely the whole of the front façade and part of the rear facade only. It did proposed to demolish 25 & 26, albeit Nr 26 is a cleared site in the original building having been destroyed by fire a number of decades ago and asbestos sheeting installed to front elevation and roller shutter door.

• 6.15.3 In terms of policy Environment Policy 35 indicates that Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development. Environment Policy 39 indicates that there will be general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. Paragraph 7.32.2 of the IOMSP goes into additional detail and outlines that in additional to the above there will also be consideration to:

• o the condition of the building;
• o the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the issue derived from its continued use (based on consistent long-term assumptions);
• o the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use;
• o the merits of alternative proposals for the site.

• 6.15.4 Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man CA/2 and CA/6 also requires consideration; albeit this outlines similar consideration to the polices indicated above. As mention earlier in this report, Section 16(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) also requires that the Department shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

Nrs 22 & 23

• 6.16.1 In relation to Nrs 22 & 23 the Morton Partnership undertook a structural survey of the building as part of the previous approved application which converted and extended these buildings. The conclusion of this report was the buildings where; "Both front and rear elevations appear to be in satisfactory structural condition. There are minor cracks to the render but this is natural for elevations exposed to thermal action.". They recommended a number of repair works and further investigation. However, the applicants of the previous application who commissioner the structural report considered the front and rear external walls being structurally capable of being retained and incorporated into the approved scheme.

• 6.16.2 The current applicants have undertaken their own structural report on these buildings (Curtins) and have raised concern of the findings of Morton Partnership. They have concluded that; "Due to the number of structural defects discovered and the difficulty, or impossibility of correction Curtins concluded that 'due the extent of dilapidation, cellular plan layout of the property and difficulties in providing longevity to the structure we would recommend complete demolition of the properties'.".
• 6.16.3 The applicants also comment that;

"3.2.3 It had been suggested by the earlier Morton Report that both the front and rear elevations appear to be in good structural condition and from this conclusion a scheme of façade retention was proposed by the owner/applicant.

3.2.4 Curtins Report however was more specific in its content and identified that widespread render cracks were visible extending between windows and door heads were exhibiting decay and spalling. The render cracking also suggests the timber window heads within the walls are decaying and it is impossible to prevent this decay or remove these lintels without major structural support works. The friable mortar in these walls will also adversely affect their longterm stability.

• 3.2.5 Significant sagging in the floors was noted by both reports however Curtins Report is again specific in that the existing joists are undersized and would either need replacing or reinforcing.
• 3.2.6 Sagging in the roof structure was also noted which is as a consequence of roof tile replacement being heavier than the original covering.
• 3.2.7 For all these reasons and more listed in their Report we believe Curtins recommendation for complete demolition can be fully justified.
• 3.2.8 In addition, these buildings have been extensively altered over the years. Curtins report notes that the window openings are not original and commercial shopfronts have been added. It is also apparent that these buildings do not contribute significantly to the Conservation Area by comparison to Merchants' House adjacent which obviously does."

• 6.16.4 The structural report also comment on the merits of retaining the front elevation (North Quay) of the building and raises a number of concerns. It indicates that; "…the wall must be laterally restrained with a temporary shoring system extending from basement level. The shoring system adds to complexity in the demolition process. Under the Isle of Man Construction, Design and Management Regulations 2007, Designers must reduce risks, and the introduction of the shoring system and retention of the façade represents increased risk in the demolition process. To our knowledge retention of facades with demolition has rarely been undertaken on the Isle of Man and the skills held by demolition contractors on the island are not suited to retention of a façade. Thereafter to provide longevity to the retained wall / façade, all the timber lintels must be replaced which will result in demolition of approximately 25% of the wall construction to facilitate lintel replacement. Due to the friable

• nature of the mortar, in the wall further damage to the façade will relatively easily arise from any accidental falls of materials during the demolition process. Taking account of the non robust nature of the wall, non original window apertures, extent of reconstruction to replace lintels and introduction of additional risk for demolition, we are of the opinion that 22 and 23 North Quay be demolished in whole including the façade."
• 6.16.5 The Registered Building Officer in response has commented; "No 22-23 were in part retained by extant approvals 18/01329/B and 18/01330/CON, however the current application fails to demonstrate that any attempt has be made to try to work with the existing structures nor has it demonstrated this is not possible in terms of fabric or economic viability. No evidence has been submitted to show that any meaningful repair or maintenance has been undertaken during their current ownership with the minimum of at least try to prevent any further decline in their condition."
• 6.16.6 The existing buildings considering on their own context do not have significant architectural interest and arguably have lost a number of original features; including chimney stacks, original roof altered, perhaps taller roof added (a new roof has been added as noted by structural report), sliding sash windows removed and alterations to the ground floor to create shop windows. Eves decorative details have also been lost to Nr 23. It is also noted that the previous scheme proposed to remove the majority of the building; only leaving the front and sections of the rear façades. It is also noted that to retain the existing front faced will require to remove 25% of the existing facade to make the necessary repairs to the lintels.
• 6.16.7 Accordingly, while it is noted the concerns of the Registered Building Officer, it is considered given the existing properties in question individually are not of high architectural value and have had significant alterations in the past and would result in further loss to repair, it is considered the principle of the loss of these buildings is acceptable.

Nrs 25 & 26

• 6.17.1 Again details of these buildings are within sections 1.0.6 & 1.0.7 of this report. As outlined by the Registered Buildings officer Nr 25 was permitted to be demolished (& 26) as the loss of the building was considered justifiable because of overall heritage benefits of the entire scheme which included the repair and reuse of the registered building. The current proposals have made no attempt to do so and therefore without the benefits and justifications of the extant approvals.

• 6.17.2 It first should be noted that the structure currently occupying Nr 26 is the asbestos sheeting structure which was installed a number of decades ago when the original building was demolished following a fire. There are no objections to the removal of this structure. This currently has a negative visual impact upon the Conservation Area and the adjacent registered buildings. Its removal is a beneficial aspect of the proposal.
• 6.17.3 In relation to Nr 25, again a structural report was undertaken by the Morton Partnership. This did not appear to raise any significant structural issues with the building, only making recommendations for repairs, clearing gutters etc. Again the applicants have since undertaken a further structural report (Curtins) which concluded that Nr 25 is in a very dilapidated condition with the front wall being supported on two steel beams which are severely corroded. The front wall as a consequence is not robust and is unstable. Curtins further recommend its demolition as a temporary shoring system is impractical for a number of reasons. The report also indicated that the Morton report does not mention these steel beams or their condition and concludes very few remedial measures are necessary. These conclusions miss the serious structural issues that this building exhibits and does not address them.
• 6.17.4 The existing building (Nr 25) does have a greater level of architectural interests compared to Nr 22 & 23; albeit again has been altered in the past. The changes include the installation of a large more modern shop window at ground floor level, original windows

removed. Further Nrs 25 and 26 share a party wall, which is understood could not practicably be retained on demolition of 25 North Quay. It is noted that it was previously accepted that these buildings could be demolished, albeit as outlined due to the overall benefits of the scheme.

Impacts upon the Conservation Area

• 6.18.1 Turning to the second issue, this is a main issue to be considered in the assessment of this application, which is the impact of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The Department has a duty to determine whether such proposals are in keeping with not only the individual building, but the special character and quality of the area as a whole. With this in mind it is very relevant to consider Environment Policy 35 which indicates that development within Conservation Areas will only be permitted if they would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development. As mention earlier in this report, Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) also requires that the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance in the exercise.

• 6.18.2 The Registered Buildings officer indicates that; "As previously stated all the structures date to the 19th Century and form part of the historic quayside townscape by virtue of their scale, massing and survival they make a positive contribution to the character of the Conservation area. The scheme proposes their total loss."
• 6.18.3 As outlined within section 6.4, in terms of the general form, scale and design, while there are elements of concerns; overall if the site was a blank site and the proposed scheme was being considered on this basis, then the proposal would likely be considered appropriate. However, that is not the case. The proposal includes the removal of Registered Buildings and non-registered buildings.
• 6.18.4 It is considered the replacement of the Nrs 22 & 23 and 25 & 26 individually is acceptable in principle for the reasons outlined previously, namely the existing buildings are not individually considered to be architecturally of interest given alterations in the past and being rather plain in form and appearance which can be easier to replicate. It is agreed however that they add to the collective historical quayside which forms the character and quality of the Conservation Area. It is considered the replacements of these with the new buildings would still retain this character and therefore could be considered to preserve the Conservation Area. The works on Nr 26 represent an enhancement.
• 6.18.5 However, this is not considered the case for the registered buildings Nrs 27 & 28. Theses buildings play an important part of the quayside and the Conservation Area, being individual and unique buildings in this area. The proposals while not unattractive do not replicate the existing in terms of character and appearance. Accordingly, it cannot be argued that the loss of the registered building can preserve or enhance the Conservation Area and therefore is contrary to EP35 and PPS 1/01 - CA/2.

6.19 Affordable housing provision

• 6.19.1 Housing Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan indicates that the Planning Authority will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more. Given submission proposes 10 dwellings this equates to 2.5 affordable dwellings. A Section 13 Legal Agreement would need to be entered into by the applicant and the Department to ensure the affordable housing is provided. The applicants have proposed a commuted sum payment in lieu of Affordable Housing. Public Estates & Housing Division have confirmed that a figure of £134,928.67 would be required which the applicants have accepted. The proposal therefore complies with Housing Policy 5.

6.20 Impact on neighbouring residential properties - 6.21.1 The only residential property likely to be affected by the development would be the living accommodation for the landlord above the Saddle Inn public house to the rear of the site, opposite the proposed new terraced elements located on the corner of North Quay and Queen Street. The upper floors levels of the Saddle Inn have two level of accommodation and have a total of three windows at each floor. The front elevation of the Saddle Inn would be approximately 4m from the rear elevation of the opposite new built form. It should be noted that this situation exists already, with the eves level of Nr 28 at approximately the same level as the cill level of the first floor windows. The proposed stepped terrace element will likely have a natural impact compared to what current exists given the building at Nr 29 is two stores with a pitched roof, while the new proposal starts as a single storey flat roofed element and steps upwards to ta three storey flat roofed building. Therefore some parts will be lower and others higher compared to the existing situation. Taking the above into account there are no considered any significant adverse overbearing impacts upon out looks to warrant a refusal. - 6.22.2 In terms of light lost the impact is again similar in nature given the suns orientation (east to west), the orientation of the Saddle Inn being northeast of the site and the existing built form which is similar to the proposed. The Saddle Inn will get early to mid-day sun but then will likely lose direct sun light for the remainder of the day. This situation will be unchanged. - 6.23.3 The main concerns relates to overlooking from the proposed first and second floor roof terraces and from the first and second floor windows which serve as secondary windows to the new living areas (two windows at first level and one second at second floor). It is considered all these windows would need to be obscure glazed, given their proximity (approx. 4ms) from the upper windows of the Saddle Inn to prevent any significant overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy. - 6.24.4 Overall, it is considered the proposal would comply with General Policy 2 and the Residential Design Guide 2020.

6.25 Traffic Impacts / parking provision

• 6.25.1 The IOMSP Appendix 7 indicates the relevant parking standards for various developments. In this case the 10 residential units would generate a total requirement of 1 space per one bed unit (1 x 1 = 1) and 2 spaces per two bed unit (9 x 2 = 18) therefore these generate a total requirement of 19 parking spaces. The ground floor bar/restaurants uses the IOMSP fall silence on the parking requirement; albeit for shops (similar uses age/generation) the IOMSP indicates that in town centres there should be "Space for service vehicle use".

• 6.25.2 The proposal does not provide any off-street parking within the site. Currently there are 4/5 off street parking spaces. However, the IOMSP indicates that the parking standards outlined may be relaxed where development:

• (a) would secure the re-use of a Registered Building or a building of architectural or historic interest; or
• (b) would result in the preservation of a sensitive streetscape; or
• (c) is otherwise of benefit to the character of a Conservation Area.
• (d) is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality.

• 6.25.3 The application is not re using a exiting Registered Building given it is proposing to demolition it. Therefore this aspect of the policy does not apply. Arguable because they are demolition one and the majority of the works are new, there should be some provision of parking.

• 6.25.4 A concern with the provision of parking in this situation, can be the visual impact of ground floor parking and creation of accesses to the main elevations which have a detrimental visual impact to the street scene. Further, basement parking in flood areas can cause concern; albeit other development in the area have overcome this aspect.
• 6.25.5 As identified in paragraph 6.7.3 provision of parking can adversely affect the Conservation Area and certainly having car parking at ground floor level on this site, especially to the front elevation would cause concern. However, as existing today there is scope for parking at the rear of the building, but this has not been proposed, instead additional accommodation for the bar/restaurant uses.
• 6.25.6 The final exception (d), this is where the proposal does meet one of the exceptions in that it is with close proximity if existing bus routes (main bus station on Lord Street). In terms of the second aspect of this exception, the applicants have not provided any information to demonstrate a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality i.e. parking survey etc; albeit given the limited amount of on street parking in the vicinity of the site it is unlikely such survey would demonstrate that the proposal would not have any impact to off street parking.
• 6.25.7 The applicants have commented that; "2.32 Car parking is required by the Strategic Plan to be provided (Transport Policy 7) although Appendix Seven explains that "Most shopping facilities in established centres do not have onsite parking provided due to the intensive form of development and their location off the main highway, often in pedestrianized streets" with particular reference to Castletown, Ramsey, Peel and Douglas and goes on to state that it is "impractical" to require on-site parking for either staff or customers in such locations although it must be feasible for retail developments to be serviced. It also states that it is essential that there are sufficient areas of public car parking either in car parks or on street and that adequate controls are in place for these spaces to be available to those who need them.

2.33 The standard expressed for town centre shops is only that space for service vehicle use is provided. The standard for the offices (some of the buildings' current lawful use) is one space for every 50 sq m of floor nett space - generally more than for dwellings where the standard is one space per one bed apartment and two spaces otherwise…".

• 6.25.8 It is also important to consider that the principles of the IOMSP seek for sustainable development and that Transport Policy 1 which seeks that new development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes. The preamble to this policy is paragraph 11.2.3 which states that to meet environmental objectives new development should where possible be located and planned so as to reduce the need for travel and encourage means of travel other than by private car, in particular walking, cycling, and public transport use. It further goes on to state that such sites should be within or contiguous with existing built centres which are well served by public transport and which are within walking or cycling distance of the new development, and this will have the added benefit of strengthening the services, shops, employment opportunities and overall vitality of those centres.
• 6.25.9 Further, within the Area Plan for the East Written Statement Transport Proposal 1 states; "Development proposals must take into account the Active Travel Strategy and any specific actions set out in the Active Travel Action Plan.".
• 6.25.10 The proposal includes a secure bicycle store for 10 bikes (i.e. one per apartment).
• 6.25.11 It is noted that Highway Services have considered the application in detail both from a highway safety point of view, traffic generation and parking provision standpoint.

• 6.25.12 Overall, while the proposal would not provide on-site parking it is considered the uses proposed on this specific site, especially given the number of apartments being fairly low in number, located in the centre of town, close to public transport links and good sustainable links, would all help meet the overarching aims of the IOMSP which seeks to promote sustainable development and travel which seeks to reduce the need for travel and encourage means of travel other than by private car, in particular walking, cycling, and public transport use. The main thrust of the applicants argument in the under provision of the site is the sustainable location of the site. It is therefore considered that the proposal would comply with GP2, TP 1, 4, 6 & 7 and TP1 from Area Plan for East. Further, it is concluded the proposal would comply with the following Government Strategies; Net Zero Emissions by 2050, IoM Government's Active Travel Strategy and the Climate Change Bill 2020 which all seek to reduce car travel for more sustainable means of travel.

6.26 Open Space provision

6.26.1 Recreation Policy 3 indicates that new residential development of ten or more dwellings must make provision for recreational and amenity space in accordance with the standards specified in Appendix 6 to the Plan. A total of 624sqm of Public Open Space (POS) is required by this development. The proposal does not provide any POS on the site. A commuted sum payment in lieu of POS has been £7,560 agreed with the applicants and Douglas Borough Council.

• 6.26.2 Further, Douglas Promenade is within close proximity to the site which has various children's play areas and POS, so it is not considered the lack of such provision on this site would be detrimental to the area as a whole.
• 6.26.3 Accordingly, the proposal would comply with Recreation Policy 3. A Section 13 Agreement will be required to ensure the amount of POS is provided and retained.

6.27 Potential impacts upon ecology

6.27.1 Environment Policy 4 indicates that development will not be permitted which would adversely affect various protected species/habitats etc. Further Environment Policy 5 indicates that where development is allowed which could adversely affect protected species/habitats, conditions will be imposed and/or Planning Agreements sought to mitigate these impacts.

• 6.27.2 The Ecosystem Policy Officer has Sought that given the traditional nature of the building and as that there are numerous potential entry points for bats including slipped slates, holes under and around the guttering, holes in the stonework, holes under the ridge tiles and as the buildings are also located next to a river corridor in an area with multiple bat records, of numerous species, within a 1km radius. Therefore they confirm these are all features which increase the likelihood of bats being present.
• 6.27.3 The officer does seek a preliminary assessment for bats (bat survey) is undertaken prior to determination of this application. It is noted that the officer does indicate that; "The presence of bats and birds will not prevent the building from being redeveloped, or areas demolished, but provision must be shown for their ongoing protection.".
• 6.27.4 It is considered a condition could be attached which undertakes a bat survey prior to the commencement of any development, including demolition. Further as recommend by the Officer a condition could be attached for multiple integrated swift nest boxes to be installed high up in the north face of the buildings.

6.28 Energy/Climate Change

• 6.28.1 Energy Policy 5 indicates that developments of this size will require an "Energy Impact Assessment". This has not been provided by the applicants, nor any comments in relation to reducing in energy consumption, reduce fossil fuels consumption and reduce emissions which

are also matters which Net Zero and the Climate Change Bill seeks. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to EP5.

6.29 Drainage/Flooding

6.29.1 The site is within a High Flood Risk Area (tidal) and Environment Policy 13 indicates that development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or offsite, will not be permitted. The Flood Risk Management Division have no objection to the application subject to ta condition restricting the ground floor uses to non-residential accommodation which is considered appropriate. The finished floor levels of the ground floor is set at a level to mitigate the flood risk. Noting the type of flooding is tidal, which can be predicated significant more so than river flood and with the appropriately worded condition as suggested, the proposal would be acceptable from this respect.

6.30 Fire provisions

• 6.31.1 Building Control will also consider the application in terms of fire related matters and during this process the IOM Fire and Rescue Service will comment further. They have initial raised concerns; albeit matters that more relate to Building Control. Accordingly, without any objection from the IOM Fire and Rescue Service at this stage in relation to relevant planning policy, it is considered the application from a planning perspective is acceptable in this respect.
• 7.0 SECTION 13 LEGAL AGREEMENTS

7.1 Should the application be approved S13 Legal Agreements would be required to be undertaken for commuted sum payment in lieu of Affordable Housing and Public Open Space. For the AFH a fee of £134,928.67 would be sought and £7,560 for the POS. - 8.0 CONCLUSION

• 8.1.1 As outlined in this report the main concern of the application centres on the Registered Building (Nrs 27 & 28) and the proposed demolition of these. EP30 of the Strategic Plan and RB/6 of PPS1/01 are quite clear that there is a presumption against the demolition of registered buildings. The buildings in question are the oldest building on the quay and also the last remaining historic quayside warehouse which therefore makes them unique. It has also not been demonstrated that they could not be retain and converted for similar uses as currently proposed or alternative uses. The loss of these buildings would be to the detriment of the conservation area where no clear and convincing justification has been made. The proposals would fail to preserve the registered building the loss of which would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area and are contrary to polices Section 16 (3) and Section 18 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999), GP4, EP30, 35 and 39 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016; policies RB/6, CA/2 and CA/6 of PPS1/01 and the Our Island Plan 2022. Accordingly, it is consider a refusal on these grounds could be made.

• 8.1.2 If the loss of the Registered Building is accepted and subsequently it must also be accepted that such loss would also not preserve or enhance the Conservation Area; then it is considered the proposed scheme could be considered acceptable in terms of the form, mass, design and finishes (subject to conditions) and would sit appropriately within the street scene and the Quayside.

• 8.1.3 The proposal in terms of parking/highway safety raises not concerns. The site is within a sustainable location and provisions adequate number of secure bicycle spaces within the building for use by the residents of the apartments.
• 8.1.4 In terms of biodiversity it is consider appropriately worded conditions can be worded which seek bat surveys being undertaken before any demolition works and swift boxes being installed.

• 8.1.5 The proposal does not include an Energy Impact Assessment and does not comment on how the new development would reduce energy consumption, reduce fossil fuels consumption and reduce emissions which are also matters which Net Zero and the Climate Change Bill seeks. However, such matters would be considered at a Building Regulation stage and therefore it is not considered a reason to refuse the application.
• 8.1.6 All other matters outlined in this report are considered acceptable.
• 8.1.7 In conclusion while the proposal does comply with the majority of planning polices these are not considered to outweigh the strong policy objection against the demolition of a registered buildings and therefore the proposals would fail to preserve the registered building the loss of which would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. Accordingly, for these reasons it is recommended the application is refused.

- 9.0 CONDITIONS

9.1 Should the Planning Committee approve the application subject to a S13 Legal Agreement, the following conditions are recommended;

• 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.

• C 2. The apartments shall not be occupied until the secure and covered bicycle store have been provided in accordance with the approved plans and details. The secure and covered bicycle store shall be retained at all times thereafter. Reason: To promote sustainable travel in the interests of reducing pollution and congestion.
• C 3. All new windows (exception being retail units and patio doors) shall be painted softwood or aluminium, double hung vertical sliding sashes and shall be retained as such. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory preservation of the Conservation Area.
• C 4. No development shall commence until samples of the traditional laid Manx l stone to be used in the construction of the external facing of the building(s) have been provided on site and approved in writing by the Department. The approved Manx stone shall be kept on site for reference until the development is completed. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
• C 5. No development shall commence until a sample of all roofing materials to be used has been provided on site and approved in writing by the Department. The approved sample(s) shall be kept on site for reference until the development is completed. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
• C 6. No development shall commence until a bat survey has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The bat survey shall identify impacts on bat species together with mitigation, where appropriate, including a timetable for its implementation. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the bats.

• C 7. No development shall commence until details of swift boxes and where they will be located on the buildings has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall no be occupied/operated till the swift boxes have been completed in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter. Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the swifts.
• C 8. The ground floor of the units hereby approved shall not be used as residential accommodation (exceptions main entrance/stair lobby, bin store and cycle store associated with residential apartments). Reason: Due to the site being within a high flood risk and the safety of residents.

Approved Drawing and Plan numbers: This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings reference numbers all received;

• 08.02.2022

10 00 10 01

• 10 02
• 10 03
• 10 04
• 10 05 10 08 10 101

12 01 12 02 12 03

Design and Access Statement prepared by SAVAGE + CHADWICK Chartered Architects dated February 2022 with includes the following appendices;

• A Curtins Consulting Engineers Reports
• B The Morton Partnership's Reports
• C Structura Engineers Report
• D Mann Williams Report
• E Structura Response
• F Holland Contracting Reports
• G JBA Flood study
• H Structural Movement Analysis 27/28 North Quay

- 9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

9.1 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.

9.2 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.

9.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

• I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status. Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date: 26.09.2022

Signed : C BALMER Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

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.