DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 18/00638/CON Applicant: Hartford Homes Ltd Proposal: Registered Building Consent for the demolition of existing building and construction of two buildings containing a total of 45 apartments and a restaurant, including car parking, landscaping and new sub-station - RB 183 (in connection with application 18/00637/GB) Site Address: Bayqueen Hotel The Promenade Port St. Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5DG Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 17.07.2019 _________________________________________________________________

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.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to drawings 01 and 03 both received on 19th June, 2018. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status

Additional Persons

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties 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):

32, Rhenwyllan Close and Baycliffe 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 APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE DEVELOPMENT IS CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

It should be noted that this application was described and publicised as for the demolition and redevelopment of the site. Registered Building consent may only be sought for demolition or alterations to a Registered Building (RB) and if the RB is demolished, it follows that there is no RB to alter, so RB consent is not required for the redevelopment element of the application as proposed. As such, the description of development should be amended to refer only to the demolition of the RB.

THE SITE

1.1 The site is a piece of land which lies on the northern side of Port St. Mary Promenade between Awin Mooar, a semi-detached two storey house to the south east, 31, 32, 33 and 34, Rhenwyllan Close to the north and the Dolphin Apartments to the west, separated from the site by a public highway which links the Promenade with the rear lane which runs parallel with it. There is also a public footpath which runs between the site and the rear of 32, 33 and 24, Rhenwyllan Close. - 1.2 The site currently accommodates what remains of the former Bay Queen Hotel. This structure is Registered (183). In addition to the building, there is an electricity sub station on the site. - 1.3 The site slopes downward from west to east by 4m over a distance of around 155m. The site's frontage to the Promenade is 135m long and the site's depth is 73m at its longest distance. - 1.4 The existing building comprises the remnants of the former hotel with a more modern part added to the south east. The remains of the former hotel is roughly square - around 24m by 28m, is three storeys high with accommodation facilitated in the roofspace by a mansard style roof with vertical windows projecting out in a dormer style. On the two corners facing west there is a tower on each which provides four full floors of accommodation and further space illuminated by smaller, horizontal windows on the outer faces. The roofs of these towers are formed by slated, square hips (pyramid shape). The corners behind are less pronounced, the one facing the Promenade having a hipped roof running back into the building and the other corner currently having no roof feature, there being no upper walls like the other three sides. The hipped roof sits on top of a new section of the building which was introduced following the approval of an earlier application (see Planning History). PLANNING HISTORY

2.1 The site has been the subject of a number of applications for redevelopment. Alterations were approved under 85/00274/B then permission refused for the principle of the demolition of the hotel and the construction of offices (87/01414/A). Permission was then granted for the principle of the partial demolition of the hotel to provide apartments (88/00281/A). - 2.2 A series of applications have approved the partial demolition of the hotel and redevelopment for apartments: 89/01310/B - 64 apartments

97/01239/A was refused on appeal for the introduction of 8 town houses to the rear of the hotel, for reasons relating to it being a piecemeal approach to the development of the site as a whole and could prejudice the proper redevelopment of the hotel 99/00078/A - for partial redevelopment of the site for 37 units - refused on appeal as the scheme did not include the existing hotel building 99/02149/A - 60 apartments

• 01/01913/GB - revised internal layout and erection of staircase
• 02/00343/REM - reserved matters from 99/02149/A approved at appeal for 2 buildings housing 56 apartments 02/01632/GB - erection of staircase building 05/00419/GB -amendment to roof of approved stairwell (02/01652/GB) (in association with 05/00419/CON),

• 05/01883/GB - replacement and reinstatement of windows and erection of a replacement roof light to rear elevation (In association with 05/01883CON)
• 06/00248/REM - matters of landscaping, bin store, balconies and windows relating to 02/00343/REM

2.3 Most recently, permission was refused for the use of the site as a builder's compound (07/00552/C). The reason for this was as follows:

"The use of part of the site as a building compound, unrelated to the site or works which have approval thereon is totally unacceptable in terms of the resultant appearance of the site, which accommodates a Registered Building and which is overlooked by other residential property and the nature and impact of the type of traffic generated from this use up and down a promenade where tourists are encouraged to stay and where tourists and locals alike may come for recreation and leisure purposes."

2.4 The approval in principle, 99/02149/A for 60 apartments and the subsequent reserved matters application for 56 apartments are the most relevant to the current proposal. The aip was for the part retention of the existing building and redevelopment of the rest for 60 apartments. The inspector considering the reserved matters application, 02/00343/REM noted the difference in number but was not concerned about this. He made the following comments on the proposed new building which continued at the height of the existing building (not the front towers) and contained five full floors of accommodation and a sixth floor penthouse set back from the main edge of the building. A further building was proposed to the rear. The existing hotel building was retained and linked to the new frontage building by way of the stairwell building.

• "49. Development of The Promenade and in the immediate vicinity is already very varied in style and period. The proposed building would add a modern design that in terms of scale, height, massing and general appearance is generally compatible with the adjoining hotel and the Victorian terraces to the west. It is of course, a contrast to the two storey semi-detached houses to the east. However, I agree with the view that this is a landmark site. Furthermore it was formerly occupied by a substantial hotel building."
• "50. The proposed building appears essentially the same height as the main ridge of the adjoining Bay Queen Hotel, a Registered Building. The apartment building is to be linked to the hotel by a rendered staircase tower, recently approved under 02/01632/B. The tower has a pitched roof and is complementary in design to the towers at the western end of the hotel."
• "51. The proposed apartment building makes no attempt to copy the style or detail of the existing hotel building, but rather stands on its own merits. It seems to me that the design stands on its own and is of an appropriate scale and design to stand comfortably alongside the existing Registered Building on this prominent landmark site. I conclude that the proposed apartment building would enhance the streetscene on this part of The Promenade and the visual amenity of the area."

He then makes positive comments about the impact of the building to the rear. He goes on:

53 "I agree with the views of the earlier Inspector that the flank wall of the frontage block of apartments would have some adverse effect on the neighbouring semi-detached houses to the east. However, these dwellings were built adjacent to the former hotel. They are separated from the apartment building by an access drive some 4.8m wide with verges and/or footpaths on each side. The top floor of the apartment building is set back thus reducing the impact of the flank wall to the equivalent of a 5 storey building and in my view, the impact on the houses would not be so severe as to justify refusal."

5.4 He comments positively on the proposed car parking which is at a ratio of 1.5 spaces per apartment and also recommended a condition to prevent the enclosure of the balconies, should their usefulness in an unenclosed condition be questioned, to prevent the appearance of the building being compromised. PLANNING POLICY

3.1 The site is designated on the Area Plan for the South as Proposed Residential. The existing building is Registered. Whilst there is a proposed Conservation Area in Port St. Mary, this excludes the application site and the proposed area continues past the front of the site and in front of the semi-detached properties to the south east and includes those on the other side of the road and the brooghs leading down to the shore. - 3.2 As such, the following Area and Strategic Plan policies are relevant: - 3.3 Area Plan for the South

• 3.3.1 There are references to the site as follows: Description of Port St. Mary

"3.12.1 The Bay Queen Hotel site clearly needs investment, and would provide a welcome opportunity for new residential development in Port St Mary."

"3.14 Summary of the Landscape Character Assessment: …. Part retention of and conversion of the Bay Queen Hotel and the development of the immediate site around it is clearly desirable, and constitutes the principal opportunity for new housing, or other properly assessed uses, in the Village (Site 25). Renovation and re-use of some of the older buildings may provide other opportunities."

• 3.3.2 There is specific reference to the site including a development brief as follows:

4.66 Site 25 Location: The former Bay Queen Hotel and surrounding land, the Promenade, Port St Mary Size of Site: 0.6 ha Previous designation: Area of Predominantly Tourist Accommodation (Existing) Proposed designation: Predominantly Residential (Proposed) Site Assessment Framework (Residential Score): 57/68

• 4.66.1 The former Bay Queen Hotel is located at the north eastern end of the Port St Mary Promenade overlooking the bay. All but the west wing of the redundant Hotel has been demolished and the rest of the site cleared. The building dates back to the 1930's and makes a significant statement as a landmark building on the Promenade. This is recognised by its status

• as a Registered Building (RB 183).

• 4.66.2 There are residential properties to the north west as well as to the east where Back Lane wraps around the south eastern boundary of the site. To the north east there is a large open field known as Rhenwyllan.
• 4.66.3 Planning approval was granted on the Bay Queen site (PA 02/0343) for the erection of two buildings housing 56 apartments. This was the Reserved Matters application which included the refurbishment of the Registered Building on the site and followed on from the original approval granted at Appeal under PA 99/2149. As some works were undertaken on the site, the approval was judged to have been taken up.
• 4.66.4 There have been calls to allow the comprehensive redevelopment of the Bay Queen site by allowing the demolition of the Registered Building element of the site. The building was judged worthy of entry onto the Protected Building's Register due to its historic context, its landmark quality and rarity and aesthetic quality. Given this assessment and for the reason that the presence of the hotel provides a tangible link with the town's historical and sociological development, the Department supports the Registered Building status of the Bay Queen and any further redevelopment schemes should respect this.

4.67 Development Brief 25

• 1. In terms of any development proposals for the Bay Queen site, favourable consideration may be given (subject to a full assessment of the overall design) to a scheme which retains only the 'twin towers' element of the Registered Building. The final design scheme must be prepared in consultation with the Conservation Officer (DoI).
• 2. The provision of affordable housing (in accordance with Housing Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, 2007, or its replacement) shall be applied on any additional units over and above the 56 residential units already approved under PA 02/00343/B which has been taken up.
• 3. Development proposals must retain the pedestrian link (which passes the north western boundary of the site) from Rhenwyllan to the Promenade.
• 3.4 Strategic Plan

• 3.4.1 The following policies within the SP are considered relevant:

Strategic Policy 4: Proposals for development must: (a) Protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments, Registered Buildings, Conservation Areas, 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
• o 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.

3.5 Planning Policy Statement 1/01

• 3.5.1 This is relevant as the application relates to the demolition of an RB.

"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:-

In judging the effect of any proposed alteration or extension to a Registered Building, it is essential to have assessed the elements that make up the special interest of the building in question. They may comprise not only obvious features such as a decorative facade, or an internal staircase or plaster ceiling, but may include the spaces and layout of the building and the archaeological or technological interest of the surviving structure and surfaces. These elements can be just as important in the simple vernacular and functional buildings, as in grander status buildings.

Cumulative changes reflecting the history of use and ownership can themselves present an aspect of the special interest of some buildings, and the merit of some new alterations or additions, especially where they are generated within a secure and committed long-term ownership, are not discounted.

The destruction of historic buildings is in fact very seldom necessary for reasons of good planning: more often it is the result of neglect, or failure to make imaginative efforts to find new uses or incorporate them into new developments.

• 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."

3.6 Draft Conservation Area Appraisal

• 3.6.1 The above sets out the reasons why a Conservation Area is considered appropriate for parts of the village. The application site is referred to as follows:

"Only a section of the Bayqueen Hotel remains. The earlier Victorian guest houses from which it grew were removed in recent years, the remaining portion stands empty and neglected awaiting redevelopment."

"At the present time there are just two registered buildings within the proposed Port St Mary conservation area. These are the remaining section of the Bayqueen Hotel on The Promenade and The Old Sail Loft on Shore Road. The Bayqueen Hotel grew from a number of Victorian guest houses, these were demolished relatively recently. The remaining section of the hotel which includes the ballroom was erected in 1935. The hotel was originally called the Ballaqueeney Hotel, named after the farm owned by the proprietors. Its name was changed as a consequence of a visit by King George VI and Elizabeth the Queen Mother at the end of World War Two. Planning Permission was granted on appeal in 2003 for two apartment buildings housing 56 units, and refurbishment of the remaining wing of the hotel."

"In the area around Queen's Place, there is sufficient open space to allow the eye to look into the village, rather than through it or out of it. From the Junction of Victoria Road and Cronk Road, there is an interesting view over the cottages on Bay View Road to the Bayqueen Hotel."

"There are a number of areas within the proposed conservation area awaiting development or redevelopment that have a negative impact. These include: the former Bayqueen Hotel; a vacant parcel of land to the rear of the Post Office and vacant land between Cronk Road and the car park."

"As noted there are a number of sites within the proposed conservation area requiring redevelopment. These include: land to the rear of the Post Office and the Bayqueen Hotel. These currently detract from the street scene, but redevelopment may not happen quickly due to the current economic environment."

3.7 Operational Policy on Section 13 Agreement

• 3.7.1 The Department issued the above to provide guidance on the preparation of Agreements on matters such as affordable housing including guidance on viability assessments. This, inter

alia, recommends that the cost of the land included in any calculations should be not necessarily the price paid but may include a premium for the land owner (the minimum price that a rational landowners should be willing to sell and taking account of the current use. It also advises that a reasonable return to the developer should be between 6 and 20% of GDV depending upon the level of risk.

THE PROPOSAL

4.1 Proposed is the demolition of the building on site. - 4.2 The application contains information about the structural condition of the existing building, details of façade retention, a Heritage Statement and latterly information to support the demolition, rather than the retention and refurbishment of the RB. - 4.3 Structural condition of the building

• 4.3.1 A firm of Structural Engineers have prepared a report on this. The survey involved the removal of internal and external finishes to reveal concealed structural elements and the fixity between the floors and walls was considered through the removal of floors and ceilings.
• 4.3.2 The façade retention scheme designed is described as "very invasive" which would lead to very little of the existing structure retained with render, windows, internal finishes and architectural features needing to be replaced. In addition, the proposal create a complex methodology to the demolition of the remaining structure which creates added exposure to health and safety risks and hazards. They describe it as not the safest solution to facilitate the re-development of the building. The construction of the building involves the towers' stability tied to the existing floors and abutting masonry and their removal would jeopardise the stability of the towers. As such, temporary support of the towers during the removal and rebuilding of the floors, ceilings and adjacent walling. Each tower would be required to have its own self-supporting façade retention scheme which would involve digging into the ground around the building to establish stability. Kentledge (blocks of iron or concrete to provide ballast) would be required to prevent the overturning of the frame and the existing windows would be required to secure the frame.
• 4.3.3 In addition, the existing round headed windows at ground and first floor are not structurally strong and they are recommended to be removed and the apertures squared.
• 4.3.4 The façade retention would result in invasive work which would retain only the two outer walls of each tower being retained with the other two walls and the front walling joining the two towers being removed.

4.4 Heritage Statement

• 4.4.1 This was prepared by MOSPA Heritage Consultancy Ltd. It describes the history of the area and the building itself and considers the significant of the remaining building. It considers that whilst the external appearance of the west wing has largely been preserved, internally, the only rooms of note are the dining room and reception area which exhibit relevant architectural details and the only other features of interest are two fireplaces in the south range and the staircases in the west range but these are considered minor factors. They advise that when the Victorian terraces that formed the original hotel were demolished, the west wing lost not only its original function but also its historical context. They consider that whilst Art Deco/Italianate buildings may be considered rare on the Island, the building's aesthetic quality is far more open to question, describing it as "a rather clunky building that to a great extent relies upon the impression made by its bulk and siting….the mainstay of the building's aesthetic appeal" being "the twin towers and their décor" and with no evidence that the west wing was the inspiration for the other contemporary structures. What remains gives the impression of a square building rather than the striking conclusion to a larger hotel as was original intended. They report that since Registration in 2001 the building has deteriorated considerably with water ingress causing damage and decay and the copper lights referred to in the Registration

• information having almost completely disappeared and the plasterwork beginning to deteriorate and the wooden floor to rot and the building now stands "in ungainly isolation and contrasts starkly with its surroundings, disfigured by the addition of the south east tower and the visual intention of the architect, lost".
• 4.4.2 The retention of only the towers would result in the considerably alteration of the reception area to the detriment of its historical importance. They consider that having looked at the relatively small number of RBs in the village, compared with many more in other settlements [whilst Castletown is noted as having over 60, it must be accepted that the vast majority of these Registrations were undertaken in the 1980s prior to the introduction of Conservation Areas and many of the Registrations were effected to provide protection which was otherwise unavailable at that time] and the absence of any evidence that the Registration was part of an on-going, systematic process for the village and the timing, their view is that the Registration was a reaction to current events and this merits a further look at why the building was so protected. They also consider that as the west wing of the building concerned was built in 1935, its relatively young age would necessitate the building needing to be "the best example of post 1920 architecture" to comply with PPS 1/01 (Age and Rarity section). They note that the site is excluded from the proposed CA. They do not consider the building to be unique and refer to the Point Hotel in the village. Any landmark quality to the building could be retained through replication or replacement of the building.

4.5 Further information to support demolition rather than retention of the RB

• 4.5.1 Following objections raised by the former Registered Buildings Officer to the demolition of the building, the applicant has provided additional information on 4th July, 2019 to support the proposal, specifically addressing the RBO's requirements for information which demonstrates that:

All opportunities have been explored to retain and re-use the building and that these are not viable Details of the actions that have been taken during the applicant's ownership of the building to keep the RB wind and watertight to prevent further deterioration If demolition if being proposed due to the structure condition of the building, it is expected that this be supported by a structural survey by a conservation accredited structural engineer.

• 4.5.2 In terms of a viability assessment, the applicant has provided costings of a number of different schemes including retention of all existing fabric, retaining just the towers and complete demolition and rebuild. The calculations use a developer return at 15% GDV and have been prepared using a local estate agent and conclude that neither of the first two options would be viable.
• 4.5.3 The estate agent advises that the applicant's development costs are not at significant variance with BCIS published figures for the Island. The applicant has indicated that whilst their inclusion of 15% GDV is higher than the lower ranges in the Operational Policy, they reflect a comparison with returns from other investment which could be obtained from realising the value of the site. There is no evidence that the site has been marketed at a price which would enable the retention of the existing building and a viable redevelopment, the applicant simply noting that "it is unlikely that any Developer would be able to secure development finance for a scheme showing a profit of less than 15% and depressing profit below the expected market level of 15-20% might put delivery at risk".
• 4.5.4 The applicant advises that the previous owner had maintained the building with the original intention of bringing it back into use, but this was not progressed due to the decline in the local market. They confirm that they acquired the site in 2007, just prior to an economic downturn and when part of the ceiling to one of the upper rooms had been partly removed to carry out renovation work and the dining room floor was damaged from a leak in the glazed lantern. There were significant cracks in the render and internal damage from long term water

• ingress. The works undertaken since 2007 appear to be "scaffolding erected in 2010 to allow the elevations to be surveyed and for minor repairs to eh made as a holding exercised whilst design proposal were developed and planning approval sought".
• 4.5.5 They clarify that they are not seeking approval to demolish the building due to its structural condition but because the development options involving the partial or whole retention of the existing building are not viable.
• 4.5.6 They advise that they have received considerable public support for the scheme including from the son of the architect of the west wing and there have also been no objections raised from any local heritage organisations.

4.6 Planning statement

• 4.6.1 The applicant has provided a planning statement which provides information and opinion which supports the application. They describe the existing site as having landmark quality due to the side and scale of the building on the site and the proposal in their view will bring the site back into use. They refer to the current approval which may continue to be implemented, as unattractive, impractical with poorly planned layout and restrictive ceiling heights and does not represent a commercially viable proposal as the apartments would not be attractive to purchasers. They consider a more positive and highway quality development can be delivered on the site.
• 4.6.2 Whilst retailing the towers is possible, they consider that this would prolong the development process and affecting neighbours for over a year, it would prevent the introduction of underground car parking at this point, reducing car parking numbers on the site, and essentially they wonder what would actually be retained that could not be replicated. They consider the proposal to replicate the mass of what was previously approved but in some parts the building would be smaller and better in design terms.
• 4.6.3 They refer to the character of the area being formed by the four storey terraced properties. REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Port St. Mary Commissioners unanimously support the application (19.07.18). - 5.2 The owners of 32, Rhenwyllan Close object to the application on the basis of the impact of the new development rather than making any comment on the demolition of the existing structure (13.07.19). - 5.3 The owner of Baycliffe, Port Erin who is the son of the architect of the 1935 extension, including the two towers and who is also a potential purchaser of one of the proposed apartments, agrees with the RBO's efforts to improve the Island's built environment and to preserve its heritage and distinctive national identity, however he states that in his view the applicant cannot be considered responsible for the dilapidated state of the building as it was in poor condition prior to them purchasing it. He also considers that the existing building is beyond economic repair and he has no issue with the rebuilding of the towers - a view shared by the widow of the later Walter Kelly who was a leading figure in the hotel's history between 1938 and 1965 and that this approach would result in a building which would last longer. They would welcome the proposal (29.03.19). - 5.4 Both the Isle of Man Victorian Society and Manx National Heritage were consulted but neither has made any comment, the IOMVICSOC suggesting that as the building is not Victorian they may not feel it appropriate to comment.

ASSESSMENT

6.1 The issue in this case is whether it is acceptable to demolish the Registered Building.

6.2 DEMOLITION OF THE REGISTERED BUILDING (Strategic Policy 4, Environment Policy 30 and 31, Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - RB/6 and Area Plan for the South Development Brief)

• 6.2.1 It is clear from all of the above policies and proposals, that it is the Department's preference that the existing Registered Building in terms of the two towers, is retained. The approved scheme retains all of the existing building. It is not clear in the APS whether this also involves the retention of the fabric in between the towers. If it does, it is clear from its appearance that this section of the building does not have the interest and detail of the towers alongside and it is not considered that there would be a conservation justification for keeping this part of the building.
• 6.2.2 The information provided by the applicant in respect of how the towers would be retained if this was required in accordance with the Area Plan, is interesting. It is clear that taking into account the requirements for health and safety and more importantly, for the integrity of the remaining structure, these works would be invasive to the structure and in order to undertake the supporting works whilst the rest of the building were removed, that very little of the building would actually remain and BBConsulting drawings 03, 04 and 05 clearly demonstrate this. In terms of retention of the RB, it is therefore questionable that it would be possible to retain the RB to any great or meaningful extent.
• 6.2.3 As such, given that the importance of the building is in part the history and architecture of the western elevation, and partly the landmark significance of this part of the building; bearing in mind that the application seeks to replicate these elements of the building and what little of the original building would actually be retained, it is considered that the demolition of the existing building is acceptable. In further support of this position, it is clear that with the retention of the existing building, it would not be possible to provide as much car parking as would be possible with the demolition and full excavation of the site and in an area where many of the other buildings on the promenade do not have the full complement of car parking that is required by their uses, and the fact that the promenade is a popular destination particularly in the summer months, it is considered very important that any new use on this site can provide enough car parking for its users so that parking does not spill over onto the highway.
• 6.2.4 Whilst it is often the case where the demolition of protected or historically/architecturally important buildings is accepted, that their redevelopment is not required to replicate the original - such as the Majestic Hotel in Onchan - as many consider that replicating something almost seeks to mislead the viewer into thinking that what stands on the site is the original building, in this case, the importance of the building is not just its history (which is relatively modern compared with other buildings on the Register) but its design, appearance and landmark quality, given that it can be seen from literally miles away. As such, the replication of the towers is considered highly desirable in this case and the different treatment of the section between the towers - arguably an enhancement on the existing - is considered appropriate.
• 6.2.5 The applicant provides justification in financial terms for the demolition of the building, suggesting that the retention of the building in any form is not commercially viable. This is considered a less persuasive argument than that based upon the preceding paragraphs on the basis that viability depends upon a number of factors - particularly the purchase price of the property and the expected return - which are fixed from the perspective of the applicant, but not so much so from the position of the Department, as is clear from the guidance provided in the Operational Policy on Section 13 agreements. If someone pays too much for a property, it is not the role of the planning process to accept development which secures a level of financial return on which this is based, if the development would otherwise be unacceptable. If the development which is required to do this is unacceptable then an option would be that the owner sells the site at a loss to someone who could make an acceptable development viable. There is no evidence in this case that the property has been marketed at a price which would enable the retention of the building and its viable redevelopment or use. There is also no

evidence that alternative schemes have been considered with less construction cost and different levels of return. However given the conclusion of paragraphs 6.2.1 - 6.2.4, it is not considered necessary to be persuaded by the financial justification provided.

CONCLUSION

7.1 Whilst the demolition of a Registered Building should not be considered lightly, in this case, it is considered that there is justification for this. In addition, the scheme represents an improvement on the scheme approved in 2002 which may still be completed, if not by the current owner who has indicated that it is neither commercially viable nor aesthetically desirable, then by someone else who considers it worth pursuing. It is noted that there are no objections to the demolition from either Manx National Heritage or any local or other heritage organisations, despite them having been contacted by the Department for their views.

7.2 The application is therefore recommended for approval. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Registered Buildings) Regulations 2013, the following are automatically interested persons:

• (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application;
• (c) Manx National Heritage; and
• (d) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

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 : …Permitted……….... Committee Meeting Date:…29.07.2019

Signed :…………………………………….. 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.