Loading document...
Application No.: 18/00891/CON Applicant: Westminster Associates Limited Proposal: Registered Building consent for the demolition of derelict hotel/guesthouse, construction of new infill building containing basement offices and 9 residential apartments (in association with application 18/00890/B) Site Address: Marina Hotel 47 Loch Promenade Douglas Isle of Man IM1 2LZ Photo Taken: 07.11.2018 Site Visit: 07.11.2018 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 16.11.2018
Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions C 1. The works hereby granted registered building consent shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this consent.
Reason: To comply with paragraph 2(2)(a) of schedule 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented registered building consents.
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
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 6(4):
The owner/occupier of 33 Ballaquark, Douglas 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; and as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy.
The owner/occupier of Baycliffe, Tower Road, Spaldrick, Port Erin (own the neighbouring property Nr 46 Loch Promenade) as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy.
THE APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS, INCLUDING THAT IT COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND THERE IS AN OBJECTION FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY, BUT IT IS RECOMMENDED FOR AN APPROVAL.
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site represents the curtilage of Marina Hotel, 37 Loch Promenade, Douglas. The site is situated to the western side of the highway. The building is a six storey (including basement level and accommodation within roof space) traditional mid terrace property with a single three storey bay widows running from basement level to the 2nd floor level. The roof of the property has been altered a number of years ago with the installation of a Mansard roof and a flat roof over the entirety of the building both to enabling accommodation within the roof space. - 1.2 The building retains the decorative detailing around the doors and windows which can be found along all the properties within the same terrace, including timber sliding sash windows.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks Registered Building consent for the demolition of derelict hotel/guesthouse, construction of new infill building containing basement offices and 9 residential apartments (in association with application 18/00890/B). - 2.2 The proposed works would result in an almost identical previous planning approval (16/01163/B) for the conversion of existing hotel/guest house to provide nine apartments and office accommodation. The applicant has explained since the approval and regular structural inspections it is the applicants view and that of the Structural Engineer that it is not feasible to undertake the previous approval due to the following reasons:
"On review of the conversion proposals, the Structural Feasibility Report, the condition of the existing building generally, its location, restricted rear access and the extent, nature, process and procedures required to undertake a conversion of all floors and a six storey rear extension to achieve a complete structure to meet current building standards with no compromises would be extremely difficult given all of the deficiencies found in the existing structure."
2.3 Accordingly, the application would result in the entire demolition of the existing building and rebuilt in very similar form, scale and footprint. - 2.4 The main differences include:
2.5 The proposed building would accommodate office use located to the basement area, whilst the ground, first, second and third floors would each have two, one bedroom apartments on each level, with a single, two bedroom apartment at fourth floor (within roof space). All apartments would have views from their lounge/dining areas via the windows to the front elevation and therefore would afforded sea views. All units, including the office use, would share the main entrance to the front elevation and a rear access to the rear lane where a bin store and cycle parking can be found. Access to all floors is provided via a staircase as well as a lift. - 2.6 No parking is provided within the application site.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 There have been a number of planning applications associated with the property and the following are considered relevant in the determination of this application: - 3.2 Conversion of existing hotel/guest house to provide nine apartments and office accommodation (Decision dependent on a legal agreement) - 16/01163/B - APPROVED - 3.3 Approval in principle for change of use to apartments, health club and caretakers flat 94/01841/A - APPROVED - 3.4 Approval in principle for change of use from hotel to health club, bistro, offices, and caretakers flat - 94/01352/A - REFUSED - 3.5 Approval in principle for demolition of existing hotel and erection of 12 residential apartments - 91/00754/A - APPROVED - 3.6 Internal alterations and additions to provide en-suite bathrooms - 85/01114/B - APPROVED
4.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES - 4.1 The application site is within an area designated as "Predominantly Tourism" under the Douglas Local Plan Order 1998. The site is within a Conservation Area. - 4.2 Under the Draft Area Plan for the East the site is designated as being within "Mixed Use Area 2". The Plan states:
"This area is characterised by tourist uses in the form of hotels, guest houses, food and drink uses, the seafront promenade and its associated gardens.
Town Centre - Mixed Use Proposal 2 states: "There will be a presumption in favour of retention, expansion and improvement of hotels and guest houses and ancillary food and drink uses. Proposals to enhance the public domain will be supported. Development which conflicts with these uses will generally not be supported."
4.3 The following policies in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 are considered relevant: - 4.4 Strategic Policy 1 states: "Development should make the best use of resources by:
4.5 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."
4.6 Within Section 7.32 - Demolition in Conservation Areas of the IOMSP, the following text is all relevant and informs Environment Policy 39 (below):
"7.32.1 Under Section 19 of the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act, Conservation Area designation introduces control over the demolition of most buildings within Conservation Areas...
4.7 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." - 4.8 Conservation Areas of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 (Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man):
"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:-
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 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."
4.9 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:
5.0 CONSULTATIONS - 5.1 DOI Highway Services does not oppose this application (25.09.2018). - 5.2 Douglas Borough Council has objected (on 27.09.18) to the application on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the building could not be retained. - 5.3 The owner/occupier of 33 Ballaquark, Douglas (01.09.2018) comments that given this building is Registered how will demolition retain the importance to heritage; if it is demolished there is no point Registering any buildings or even keeping such a register. - 5.4 The owner/occupier of Baycliffe, Tower Road, Spaldrick, Port Erin (25.09.2018) comments that they own the neighbouring property Nr 46 Loch Promenade next door; they have an interest in
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The following issues are relevant in the determination of this application; (a) potential impact of the works to the conservation area; and (b) principle of demolition. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE WORKS TO THE CONSERVATION AREA - 6.2 When considering any application within a 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 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (adopted June 2016). This policy 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. - 6.3 The existing facade of the building is original and retains the majority of the existing decorative features. The existing building includes timber sliding sash windows (albeit, these where accepted to be replaced with uPVC sliding sash windows under the last application). Arguably the existing Mansard roof to the fourth floor with four square roof light windows within the front roof plane of the Mansard roof is one of the most adverse and incongruous features within the street scene and the Conservation Area. - 6.4 As outline in Section 2.4 of this report, once the works are completed there will not be significant difference between what was approved under the last application to convert/alter the existing building and this current application to replace the building. Arguably, with the additional bay windows this could be an improvement over the last approval, giving an overall more balance appearance to the overall street scene. - 6.5 The main benefit would be the removal of the existing Mansard roof which as before is supported by the Planning Directorate. Its removal and replacement with the proposed glass curtain wall, set back, will be a vast enhancement to the Conservation Area. It should be noted (as before as well) that it would be unlikely the Planning Directorate would support the new proposed roof scheme on other properties within the Terrace; however, given the existing situation it is considered on this site to be an improvement. - 6.6 The proposed glass curtain wall will sit in line with the existing front wall of the two chimney breasts which sit at each end of the property. This will in turn significantly reduce the roof mass over the existing Mansard roof which currently projects forward of the chimney breasts. The proposal would also reinstate the three arched heads above the fourth floor windows which again will be an enhancement to the Conservation Area and individual building. - 6.7 The glazed frameless balustrade set behind the arched heads will be apparent, as will the new glazed curtain wall from the Promenade. However, the frameless glazing will not draw the eye in the way that the mansard roof does and will certainly reduce the roof mass. Accordingly, it is considered the works to the roof would be an enhancement to the individual property, the street scene and the Conservation Area. - 6.8 The comments from Douglas Borough Council are acknowledged and the principles are not necessary disagreed with. There is an argument to be made that given the applicants are replacing the whole building, that the new application should be considered completely afresh and therefore the comments made within Section 6.7 should apply i.e. not allowing and type of dormer/roof accommodation. However, the current policies are worded so the test is would the works preserve
6.12 In terms of the conditions of the building, the applicant has explained since the approval of application 16/01163/B and regular structural inspections (full detailed report within application) it is the applicants view from the comments made that it is not feasible to undertake the previous approval. - 6.13 The Structural report (dated July 2017) indicates that; "Currently the building is considered unsafe to access all areas due to the condition of the structure currently remaining:-
In light of the above sever defects, decay and the removal of structural elements the inspection of all floor area was not undertaken and was restarted according to what was considered safe."
6.14 Following these comments the applicant comments that:
"On review of the conversion proposals, the Structural Feasibility Report, the condition of the existing building generally, its location, restricted rear access and the extent, nature, process and procedures required to undertake a conversion of all floors and a six storey rear extension to achieve a complete structure to meet current building standards with no compromises would be extremely difficult given all of the deficiencies found in the existing structure."
6.16 Following the submission, the Registered Buildings Officer considered the information included in the application and made the following comments to the initial submission:
"The Marina Hotel is situated within the Promenades Conservation Area and is a typical boarding house of the late 19th and early 20th century which forms the overriding character of the Douglas sea front and character of the Conservation Area.
The proposals are for the demolition of the existing structure and replacement with a new building. Whilst I have no objection to the overall ambitions of the proposals and raise no objection to the proposed loss of the unsympathetic dormer and its replacement with the proposed design, I do however object to the total loss of the historic hotel building.
I consider the application fails to address the necessary legislation and policy requirements as stated above and fails to make a clear and convincing justification as to why the development could not take place with at least partial retention of the hotel building. The boarding houses of the promenade are the defining character of the conservation area; those that have been replaced lack the quality of detail and appearance of the original buildings in their replacements. There is a general presumption in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area, which despite its current condition, this building does. The application fails to address the necessary tests to justify demolition, as outlined in RB/6 and CA/6.
At this stage I cannot support the application and recommend the scheme is revised to retain the existing historic structure."
6.17 Following these comments, the applicant was provided the opportunity to respond. They commented that
"Within the previous application 16/01163/B the removal and replacement of the front elevation windows was included.
The removal and replacement of the internal plasterwork to the front elevation wall to all floors was included.
The replacement of all lintels over windows and the front entrance door was included. The hacking off and replacement of all defective render and mouldings to the front elevation was included.
This would have then left an unstable stone/masonry wall of dubious build with no foundation, which may have required partial if not full removal and rebuilding owing to deficient mortar due to water ingress from the defective external render.
The new application addressees the issue of this front elevation wall by removing it, casting new reinforced foundations, constructing an insulated cavity wall with proprietary concrete sills, lintels, dpc's, etc. with a new waterproof render finish and replacement mouldings, masonry painted to match the existing, all in keeping with the visual aspect of the property and no different than the external elevation specification / products used on the Villa Marina, or the Old House of Keys in Castletown when both were last refurbished.
Discussion and advice was taken from the Planning Officer prior to proceeding with the current application in respect of all external aspects of the building and a new bay construction (width to suit the building dimensions) to the right hand side of the front elevation has been incorporated as a result of these discussions as the Planning Officer recommended this inclusion would complement the existing left hand side bay, with the building being a double fronted property.
The existing rear masonry wall of the building is in poor condition structurally in respect of failed lintels and deteriorated external render. The existing rear outlet is of sub-standard construction and has decayed roof timbers, floor timbers, lintels, etc.
The internal soft strip of the building after approval of application 16/01163/B, to remove deteriorated wall and ceiling plaster and mechanical and electrical services identified sub-standard floor joists, uneven in level, with decayed ends, excessive notches and holes, with evidence of woodworm, wet and dry rot infestations. These require to be removed and be replaced in their entirety.
Existing stud wall timbers which support the existing floors are constructed to Victorian standards, with evidence of woodworm, wet and dry rot infestations. These require to be removed and be replaced in their entirety. Existing timber lintels over windows and doors have be found to have decayed and have been affected by woodworm, wet and dry rot infestations. These require to be removed and be replaced in their entirety if the front façade wall was to be retained.
Dry rot spores have infected the masonry walls, primarily the front and rear stone walls. The walls will require to be drilled, injected and spray treated.
Basement walls will require to be underpinned and tanked, in particular the front façade wall if it is to be retained.
Summary The aim of the application is to provide residential accommodation with basement offices which will be a significant improvement over a derelict building and to replicate exactly the existing rendered façade of a typical Douglas boarding house of the late 19th / early 20th century to be in keeping with the overriding character of the Conservation Area of Loch Promenade in Douglas.
The quality of detail and appearance of the new front rendered façade will be finished to match the existing in every respect in relation to original mouldings to all levels and surrounds to windows on each floor and the front entrance door.
Detailed measurements and samples of all existing mouldings will be taken so ensure replacements match, so that the replacement façade retains the defining character of the original boarding house.
The proposed development is a considerable, personally funded investment by the applicant and will, in conjunction with the proposed Douglas Promenade Regeneration Scheme vastly improve the streetscape façade of the properties on Loch Promenade, between Granville Street and Senna Slip.
The Clients intent is to demolish and rebuild as a complete scheme so that the site is not left vacant to detract from the streetscape and for this to progress immediately all approvals are received with the intention to have the replacement structure in place by TT 2019.
If the application for demolition and rebuild, the building is likely to deteriorate further until such time as any subsequent application may be approved to provide the 9 No. Apartments and basement offices this scheme will provide, which is likely now be after the Douglas Promenade Regeneration Scheme in 3-4 years' time, rather than prior to/in tandem with it, which would not be
acceptable in terms of time delay or in continuity of working to commence any major redevelopment after a major proposed regeneration scheme has been completed."
6.18 In response to these comments the Registered Building Officer commented: "Whilst I acknowledge the building is in a poor visual state and in need of repair and the overall intention of the proposals would result in an improvement to the appearance of the conservation, I do have to make it clear that the additional information provided shows a lack of understanding regarding historic buildings and does not take fully into consideration the significance of these 19th century properties which form the basis of this conservation area. I am sure it is far cheaper to demolish and rebuild and this is essentially the crux of the issue. I do not consider the structural feasibility statement submitted to make clear justification that the building is not capable of being reused. It would have been useful to seek the view of a conservation accredited structural engineer to ascertain if the building is capable of retention. My fear is it is all too easy to demolish a building because it is Victorian or "old". The policies around the demolition of buildings in conservation areas are clear. Whilst I reiterate my acknowledgement of the building's current negative visual impact, I do still however consider the building makes positive contribution to the conservation area by the virtue of it being an original boarding house. I am disappointed that a lack of effort has been made to retain and incorporate the original structure (or parts or it) or make a clearer and more robust justification for its loss. I am concerned this sets an all too easy precedent for the loss of the original boarding houses which like all of the island's historic buildings are a finite resource, that once lost are gone for good."
6.18 Clearly the Registered Building Officer does not believe the application sufficiently or adequate deals with the issue of the condition of the building. Accordingly, when considering this application there is question whether the "condition" of the building is in such a poor state of repair that requires its demolition and that the conversion of the building cannot be undertaken. THE COST OF REPAIRING AND MAINTAINING - 6.19 No figures have been provided in terms of this respect. The applicant comments that; "Whilst regular inspections and limited remedial works have been undertaken over the last few years to maintain the integrity of the external fabric of the building, its exposed location has cause its Fabric, especially the rear roof section and external fire escape to deteriorate, to the extent that the rear roof and floor structures below are in an unstable condition.
Due to the poor condition of the remainder of the internal fabric of the property, a soft strip has been undertaken internally to isolate the electrical, plumbing and heating installations, together with the removal of celling and wall plaster to identify the condition of the existing masonry walls, existing floor joists, lintels over structural openings etc."
6.20 Policy RB/6 Demolition this states; "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". In this case, the Department has no evidence to demonstrate the applicant has "deliberately neglected in the hope of obtaining consent for demolition". Certainly, for a number of years the applicant wished to retain and convert the existing building, hence the planning permission in 2016 for such works. Accordingly, it was only when these works commenced and structural surveys where undertaken that the issue outlined in the applicants structural report have result in the applicant in reassessing the building. - 6.21 Furthermore, part of the assessment of Policy RB/6 and paragraph 7.32.2, in relation to this issue, also requires than not only do costs and repairing and maintaining it is important to balance the cost and maintenance against its importance and potential income from its continued use. In relation to the buildings importance, arguable with its mansard roof design is character and quality has been significantly impacted upon. In relation to the income from its continued use, the building has not been used as a hotel for many years and the applicant hasn't provided any information to demonstrate that there have been any proactive measure to use the building as a hotel; albeit has permission for it to be used for residential and an office use under the previous application. It is
"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."
6.24 Again the applicant has sought to retain the building and convert it as approved under the last planning application. However, given the advice received by the Structural Engineer he has submitted this current application. THE MERITS OF ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS FOR THE SITE - 6.25 In terms of final point the merits of alternative proposals for the site paragraph 7.32.2 and Policy RB/6 comment that; "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". - 6.26 This is not a Registered Building, but, it could be argued that given that the existing building is arguably one of the worst examples of inappropriate alterations (mansard roof) within the entire street screen/terrace and that there are clear benefits of the replacement building as outline within this report earlier; it could be considered the proposal would be a "very exceptional cases" bring clear benefits for the community (improvement to the character and quality of the Conservation Area/terrace) - 6.27 In conclusion to the principle of the demolition of the building, there are still questions outstanding in relation to some of matters. Accordingly, a refusal could be made on the grounds identified. - 6.28 There is also an argument that while there are four key considerations (par 7.32.2 of the IOMSP), the text before these four points states; "In addition, consideration will be given to; …". Accordingly, it could be argued that in certain cases one or more of the considerations could potentially have greater weight. In some circumstances if could be determined that the "merits of alternative proposals for the site" i.e. a new building is of such high quality that this could override the other three points. In this case, it could be argued that given the building is in such poor condition, and as there does not appear to be any other alternatives other than its demolition; then the "the condition of the building" overrides all other considerations in this case. Essentially, the considerations potentially have different weight depending on the site specific case; i.e. each application is judged on its own merits, and what is acceptable for one site may not be acceptable for another. - 6.29 The application is very finely balanced; however, while there are still questions in relation to some of the four tests outlined in 7.32.2 and Policy RB/6 and any approval would be a departure
from the Development Plan; it is concluded that given the very poor architectural form of the building given the Mansards roof additional in the past and given the proposal would once completed be an enhancement to the Conservation Area, the site and the overall terrace the site sits within, it is considered in this case that it is a "very exceptional cases" and therefore it is recommended the application is acceptable from this perspective.
7.0 CONCLUSION - 7.1 For the reasons outlined above it is considered that the planning application is in accordance with the relevant planning policies outlined within this report and the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and it is therefore recommended that the planning application be approved.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Registered Buildings) Regulations 2013, the following are automatically interested persons:
8.2 In addition to those above, the Regulation 9(3) requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application. - 8.3 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 it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date: 26.11.2018 Signed : C Balmer Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report and reasons were required . YES/NO See below PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 26.11.2018
Application No. : 18/00891/CON Applicant : Westminster Associates Limited Proposal : Registered Building consent for the demolition of derelict
hotel/guesthouse, construction of new infill building containing basement offices and 9 residential apartments (in association with application 18/00890/B)
47 Loch Promenade Douglas Isle of Man IM1 2LZ Principal Planner Mr Chris Balmer Reporting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer’s Report
At the meeting held on the 26th November 2018, the Committee, with the exception of Mr Cubbon, rejected the recommendation of the case officer, and the application was refused. The Chairman proposed that the application be refused under Environmental Policy 35 and Environmental Policy 39. The Registered Buildings Officer mentioned that the proposal was also contrary to Policy RB/6 and CA/6 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man. The motion was seconded, and with the exception of Mr Cubbon the Members voted in favour of the proposed reasons for refusal.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown