Officer Report

Application No.: 24/00786/B Applicant: Mr Richard Copisarow Proposal: Conversion, including alteration and extensions, of former hotel to nine apartments with bicycle and bin storage Site Address: Marina Hotel 47 Loch Promenade Douglas Isle Of Man Planning Officer: Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken: 05.09.2024 Site Visit: 05.09.2024 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 18.08.2025 _________________________________________________________________

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• 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 front elevation windows shall be installed in full accordance with 'DWG 2023-164-014 PROPOSED WINDOW & DOOR SCHEDULE' and retained as such thereafter. For the avoidance of doubt windows Type 3 through to Type 12 shall all be installed in sliding sash as detailed and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: in the interest of visual amenity and to align with Planning Circular 1/98, and Environment Policy 35 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016

• C 3. The front elevation front door shall be installed in full accordance with details shown on 'Drg 2023-164-015 Main Door Detail' and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: in the interest of visual amenity and Environment Policy 35 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016

• C 4. The external finish of the rear elevations of the building shall be finished in white or other colour first submitted to and approved in writing by the department, and shall be retained thereafter. Reason: in the interest of both visual and neighbouring amenity at the rear of the building.

• C 5. Bicycle parking shall be provided prior to the occupation of the first apartment and shall be provided in full accordance with the details shown on 'DWG 2023-164-009 PROPOSED UPPER & LOWER GROUND FL PLAN' and bike rack specification brochures and retained available for cycle parking at all times. Reason: in the interest of highway safety and promoting sustainable travel.
• C 6. Refuse storage shall be provided prior to the occupation of the first apartment and shall be provided in full accordance with the details shown on 'DWG 2023-164-009 PROPOSED UPPER & LOWER GROUND FL PLAN' and retained unobstructed and available for refuse and bin storage at all times.

Reason: in the interest of providing suitable bin storage for the proposal and amenity of the area.

• C 7. There shall be no demolition of any part of building except for those parts indicated to be demolished on DWG No. 2023-164-007 DEMOLITION SCHEDULE - FLOOR PLANS.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and in ensuring the primary frontage of the building is retained (with exception to the box dormer) in the interest of character and appearance of the Promenade Conservation Area, and also taking into account retention and regeneration of the original building is a considerable factor weighing in favour of the application and one of the exceptional reasons why the affordable housing commuted sum has been waivered in this case.

• C 8. The front elevation of the building shall be finished in full accordance with 'DWG 2023164-012 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS & SECTIONS' within 12 months of the final apartment being first occupied and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: to ensure the front elevation works and detailing are carried out in accordance with the plans and noting the visual contribution to the Conservation Area and also taking into account retention and regeneration of the original building is a considerable factor weighing in favour of the application and one of the exceptional reasons why the affordable housing commuted sum has been waivered in this case.

N 1. It would be in the applicants best interest to ensure that all escape routes including those at the rear are installed and kept permanently clear of obstruction to ensure suitable means of escape from the building in the event of emergency.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason.

The proposal regenerates a long-vacant and dilapidated promenade building, reusing its existing fabric, preserving the historic frontage, and enhancing the Conservation Area (Strategic Policy 1 & 2, Environment Policy 35 & 43, Area Plan 6.9.2). Physical works relating to its new windows, detailing, and roof form are visually acceptable, and all work towards restoring a building in a prominent promenade position (Area Plan 2.4, 3.4.9, 9.5). The sustainable location encourages sustainable travel and efficient use of infrastructure and the proposal provides adequate provision for refuse, fire safety, flood risk, and neighbouring amenity (General Policy 2, Community Policy 11, Strategic Policy 10, Transport Policy 1 & 7, and Area Plan for the East Transport Proposals 1 & 2).

Although the scheme results in the loss of a guesthouse (Area Plan Tourism Proposal 1 and Mixed Use Proposal 2), the proposed new residential use is considered acceptable in this case being compatible with surrounding uses and ensuring the long empty building is brought back into some use to secure its longevity (Area Plan 9.10.3 and 9.11). The development contributes to housing supply (Housing Policy 1, 4, Strategic Policy 11) and, in this exceptional case, a

commuted sum in lieu of affordable housing is to be waivered given the viability evidence provided being unviable, noting the low sum being sought and the significant regeneration benefits expected in this specific case.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the following information:

• o COMMUTED SUM & VIABILITY STATEMENT - date published online 30 May 2025
• o DWG 2023-164-018 PROPOSED BASEMENT ESCAPE ROUTE PLAN
• o DWG 2023-164-014 PROPOSED WINDOW & DOOR SCHEDULE
• o DWG 2023-164-013 PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK
• o DWG 2023-164-012 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS & SECTIONS
• o DWG 2023-164-011 PROPOSED 3RD & 4TH FL PLANS
• o DWG 2023-164-009 PROPOSED UPPER & LOWER GROUND FL PLAN
• o DWG 2023-164-002 REV 01 SITE PLAN
• o DRAWING LIST
• o DWG 2023-164-001 REV 01 LOCATION PLAN

• - All date published online 02 May 2025

• o VIABILITY APPRAISAL date published online 09 May 2025 o TRANSPORTATION STATEMENT DEC 2024 - date published online 06 JAN 2025
• o BIKE STORAGE POTENTIAL LAYOUTS 14 NOV 24 o BIKE RACK SPECIFICATION 14 NOV 24 o BIKE RACK MANUFACTURING STANDARD 14 NOV 24

• - All date published online 18 Nov 2024

• Drg 2023-164-003 Existing Basement and Ground Floor Plan o Drg 2023-164-006 Existing Elevations o 2023-164 Gross Internal Area Comparison o Drg 2023-164-007 Demolition Floor Plans o Drg 2023-164-004 Existing First and Second Floor Plans o Drg 2023-164-010 Proposed First Floor and Second Floor Plans o Drg 2023-164-005 Existing Third and Fourth Floor Plans o Planning Statement provided by Sarah Corlett Town Planning Consultancy o Drg 2023-164-008 Demolition Elevations o Drg 2023-164-015 Main Door Detail o Drg 2023-164-016 Raised Lettering Details o Cover Letter o Flood Risk Assessment provided by Curtains

• - All date published online 12 Jul 2024 _________________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status

It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status as they are 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):

• - DOI Public Estates and Housing
• - DOI Flood Management Division _________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSAL IS FOR MORE THAN 8 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN RESPECT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION.

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application relates to 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 run of bay windows running from basement level through to 2nd floor level. The roof of the property has been altered a number of years ago with the installation of a large full width mansard style flat roof box dormer providing additional accommodation within the roof space. - 1.2 The building retains most of its decorative detailing around the windows and doors and with string courses and cornice details to the bay. The primary front facing windows are all timber sliding sash and the front door retains its original fan light framing although the front door does not appear original.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks full approval for the conversion of existing hotel/guest house to provide nine apartments. - 2.2 In relation to external works, the application includes:

• o Removal of the existing box dormer and its replacement with a new top floor dormer arrangement with setback glass curtain wall and with small glazed balcony area in front.
• o re-instatement of the original render finished arched heads above the third floor windows.
• o Replacement sliding sash windows throughout front elevation
• o Re-instatement of mouldings and cornicing details
• o Replacement timber front door and entrance
• o Demolition of rear outrigger and replacement with new and including a new lift shaft and rear stairwell
• o Installation of bike racks and bin store at rear
• o New casement windows throughout rear elevation including escape windows at basement level

2.3 There are to be the following apartments across the floors:

• o Four x 1 bedroom apartments (all between 41.8sq m - 47.6sq m)
• o Four x 2 bedroom apartments (three between 54.9 - 57.7sq m and one at 110sq m)
• o One x 3 bedroom apartment (112.2sq m)

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 There have been a number of planning applications associated with the property. Those most recently submitted between 2016 and 2019 are considered most relevant in the determination of this application:

• o 19/00816/B and 19/00817/CON - Partial demolition of derelict hotel/guesthouse, reconstruction of building (retaining front façade wall) to provide containing basement commercial and 9 residential apartments - WITHDRAWN
• o 18/00890/B and 18/00891/CON -Demolition of derelict hotel/guesthouse, construction
• of new infill building containing basement offices and 9 residential apartments (in association with registered building application - REFUSED
• o 16/01163/B - Conversion of existing hotel/guest house to provide nine apartments and
• office accommodation (Decision dependent on a legal agreement) - APPROVED

• o 94/01841/A - Approval in principle for change of use to apartments, health club and caretakers flat - APPROVED
• o 94/01352/A - Approval in principle for change of use from hotel to health club, bistro,
• offices, and caretakers flat - REFUSED
• o 91/00754/A - Approval in principle for demolition of existing hotel and erection of 12 residential apartments - APPROVED
• o 85/01114/B - Internal alterations and additions to provide en-suite bathrooms APPROVED

4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 Site Specific

• i. Within 'Mixed use proposal area 2 - Promenade'
• ii. Within Douglas Promenade Conservation Area
• iii. Within Douglas Town Centre Boundary
• iv. Recognised as being at low risk of tidal water flooding
• v. Joins with 'mixed use proposal area 3 - Strand Street'

4.2 Relevant policies of Area Plan for the East 2020

• i. Section 2.4 - refers to "The Island Spatial Strategy for Douglas and the East" and highlights focus for continued regeneration within Douglas, particularly around the Promenades and creating further housing, employment, retail and leisure opportunities.
• ii. Paragraph 3.4.9 - Promenade development to improve front face of douglas and to draw together the Vision for the East.
• iii. Section 6.5 Ensuring Efficient Use of Land and Buildings
• iv. 6.5.1 - The density of development should be in keeping with the character of the local area.
• v. 6.5.3 - subdivision of buildings for residential use general supported so long as other Strategic Policies are complied in respect of design and amenity
• vi. 6.5.4 - encourages reintroduction of people living in town centre to create a more vibrant environment
• vii. Urban Environment Proposal 1 - subdivision of buildings (particularly in the case of older and underused buildings) for residential use in centre supported provided they do not conflict with other strategic policies or proposals in the Plan.
• viii. Section 6.6 - refers to the principles of good design and the need to make a positive contribution.
• ix. Section 6.7 - relates to Public Realm - this promotes safer communities through sensitive development following the secured by design principles including environmental quality, surveillance, access, open space and lighting.
• x. Urban Environment Proposal 2 - enhance areas of public realm
• xi. 6.8.3 - sets out flexibility in modern design
• xii. Urban Environment Proposal 3 - Development proposals must make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.
• xiii. 6.9.2 - there is value in retaining best examples of built heritage for future generations and benefits include increasing the sense of wellbeing and improved quality of life, and contributing to a rich and vibrant built heritage. Supporting the continued use and retention of these buildings is favoured to avoid demolition or decay.
• xiv. Urban Environment Proposal 4 - 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.
• xv. Section 9 - need to ensure viability, vitality and vibrancy of town centres and refers to aligning policies of the Strategic Plan (StP9 and BP's 5, 9 and 10).
• xvi. Section 9.4 - recognises the principles of sustainable development and the centres being used for a mix of retail, office, food and drink, tourism, cultural and residential development, and all should be designed to minimise the need for car travel.

• xvii. Section 9.5 - Area Plan desired outcomes and highlights the promotion of use of vacant sites, promotes the implementation of the Douglas Master Plan and promotes town centre as a residential area (especially on upper floors) to encourage evening activity.
• xviii. 9.10.3 Mixed Use Area 2 - The Promenade 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.
• xix. Town Centre - Mixed Use Proposal 2 - presumption in favour of retention, expansion and improvement of hotels and guest houses and ancillary food and drink uses.
• xx. Section 9.11 Development in areas of 'mixed use'
• xxi. 9.11.1 There are a number of areas of 'mixed use' outside of Douglas town centre. Some are identified by a site number on the Maps and others are not, for instance Village Walk in Onchan does not have a site number.
• xxii. 9.11.2 Development types within areas of mixed use generally comprise a variety of different but compatible uses. Uses which are not compatible with residential development will generally not be supported within the areas of mixed use.
• xxiii. Transport Proposals 1 and 2 seeks to promote active travel and integrated networks
• xxiv. 10.2.2 Douglas provides most of the accommodation facilities, including restaurants and hotels, as well as other tourism-related businesses and services. Douglas Promenade and roads leading to it still retain a number of hotels and guest houses. It is important that these hotel facilities are retained and proposals to refurbish and upgrade them supported. The general aim must be to provide a variety of accommodation in line with strategic policy.
• xxv. Tourism Proposal 1 - There is a recognised need for the renewal of the Island's hotel offer through investment in existing stock and some new hotel provision. Planning applications for the conversion of hotels in the eastern area to other uses will not normally be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that the premises do not provide a sufficient standard of accommodation and upgrading the facility would not be feasible.
• xxvi. Tourism Proposal 3 - The Promenade walkway will be retained principally for recreation and tourist purposes and open space. In the case of planning applications being made in the Douglas area which cannot provide the required level of 'on-site open space', contributions in the form of commuted sums will be sought which may be used to support improvements to the Promenade walkway and its environs.
• xxvii. Section 12 Residential - Government's general housing policy priority is to "have affordable and accessible housing which meets our social and economic needs"
• xxviii. 12.13 Affordable Housing with reference to Housing Policy 5 of the IOMSP.

4.3 Relevant policies of Strategic Plan.

• o Strategic Policy 1 - promotes reuse of sites and buildings, efficient use of sites and proposals being located to utilise existing infrastructure
• o Strategic Policy 2 - promote development within existing settlements
• o Strategic Policy 3 - seeks to protect or enhance the character of settlements
• o Strategic Policy 5 - new development (including individual buildings) should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment (and in some cases a Design Statement will be required)
• o Strategic Policy 10 - promotes an integrated transport network to minimise car journeys and encourage walking and public transport
• o Strategic Policy 11 - sets out the housing target (5,100 net additional from 2011 to 2026)
• o Spatial Policy 1 - Douglas to remain the main employment and services centre for the Island.
• o General Policy 2 - General development standards
• o Environment Policy 22 - protect amenities in terms of noise, smells and light
• o Paragraph 7.25.3 - protection of architectural and historic building stock
• o Environment Policy 34 - use of traditional materials
• o Environment Policy 35 - preserve or enhance Conservation Areas
• o Environment Policy 42 - New development designed to take account of the particular character and identity

• o Environment Policy 43 - supports proposals which seek to regenerate run-down urban and rural areas.
• o Housing Policy 1 - sets out the overall housing target
• o Housing Policy 4 - sets out the approach to delivering new houses, with an emphasis on this being within existing settlements
• o 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."
• o Housing Policy 17- provides guidance on conversion of buildings into flats
• o Recreation Policy 3 - public open space to be provided for 10+ residential units
• o Transport Policy 1 - make best use of existing infrastructure
• o Transport Policy 7 - parking standards which can be relaxed in certain circumstances eg. Town centre and close to public transport links
• o Community Policy 7 - designing out crime
• o Community Policy 11 - prevention of outbreak and spread of fire
• o Infrastructure Policy 5 - water conservation and management measures
• o Energy Policy 5 - Energy Impact Assessment (over 5 dwellings/100 sqm commercial development)

4.4 Reference any relevant PPS or NPD o PPS 1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man.

5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS - 5.1 Legislation

• o 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.
• o 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.
• o 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".

5.2 Policy/Strategy/Guidance

• o Manual for Manx Roads - Sections parking, cycling
• o Active Travel Strategy
• o Operation Policy - S13 Agreements
• o Planning Circular 1/98
• o Residential Design Guide - Sections on architectural details, extensions and neighbour impact

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only. - 6.1 Douglas Borough Council - in support (16/09/2024) they indicate that their support is conditional on the following basis:

• o Flood risk - they feel all flood related issues should be resolved to the satisfaction of the DOI prior to the granting of any approval
• o Cycle provision - Although the Council is disappointed that the applicant has been unable to fully comply with the guidance within the Manual for Manx Roads relating to the number of bicycle storage spaces that may normally be required for a development of this size, this shortfall has been balanced against the benefits of bringing back into use a dilapidated

unused building within the Promenade Conservation Area and that the creation of nine apartments outweighs any shortfall in bicycle storage

6.2 DOI Highway Services - do not oppose (08/01/2025) . Highway Services accepts the lack of dedicated parking due to site constraints and the sustainable, central location with good public transport access in the centre of Douglas. Cycle storage has been increased to 11 spaces—one per apartment plus two extra—which, while below the standard per bedroom, is the maximum feasible on-site. Access via the rear lane is accepted, with security addressed through lockable units and proposed CCTV. No significant road safety or network issues are identified. - 6.3 DOI Public Estates and Housing (DOI PubEst))- provided updated comments dated 03/07/2025 along with a copy of an external report on the viability by Bell Burton Associates (BBA) who are an external cost consultant. The memorandum from DOI PubEst contains the following (as summarised):

• o Who BBA are and their engagement for the process
• o Outline of applicants viability statement indicated margins less than 6%
• o Reference to Operation Policy on Section 13 Agreements including reference to 5.4 of that documents which relates to 'Unviable Development'
• o Information around commuted sums and how they are calculated based on 'on the market' comparables
• o Allowances and their application only if the finishes are provided
• o History of communications between DOI PubEst and the applicant
• o Summary outlining that overall BBA's independent assessment supports the applicant's view that the refurbishment of the former Marina Hotel is financially unviable, with a profit margin below the minimum 6% set by policy. This low margin justifies considering a relaxation
• of the Commuted Sum requirement. Other broader planning factors—including environmental and neighbourhood considerations and the risk of construction halting if financial challenging to the applicant —should be factored into any assessment.

6.4 DOI Flood Risk Management - Do not oppose subject to conditions (27/05/2025) the site is in a flood risk area where wave overtopping and still water can overwhelm sewers ability to attenuate ponded water in an extreme weather event. While they believe there should be no sleeping accommodation in the basement area, if it is to be approved, the additional means of escape to ensure adequate egress from the basement other that the stairs should be provided by condition. All services should be fed from above.

6.2 The following were consulted but no comments received at the time of writing the report 30/05/2025: o DEFA Registered Building Officer o Manx National Heritage - 7.0 ASSESSMENT

7.1 The application seeks approval for the conversion of an existing run down guest house along Douglas Promenade into 9 apartments. As part of the application the key considerations are:

• i. Principle of Conversion into flats
• ii. Visual impact - on existing building and Conservation Area
• iii. Amenity Impact
• iv. Highway Impact
• v. Flood risk impact
• vi. Affordable Housing Provision
• vii. Open Space Provision
• viii. Any other matters
• ix. Summary and Balance

7.2 i) Principle of Conversion into Flats

• 7.2.1 Mixed Use Area 2 is recognised for its character being a promenade of hotels and guest houses. Town Centre Mixed Use Proposal 2 in the Area Plan for the East (TAPE) sets out a presumption in favour of retention, expansion and improvement of hotels and guest houses and development which conflicts with these uses will generally not be supported. Tourism Proposal 1 of TAPE recognises the need for the renewal of the Island's hotel offer through investment in existing stock and some new hotel provision. Planning applications for the conversion of hotels in the eastern area to other uses will not normally be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that the premises do not provide a sufficient standard of accommodation and upgrading the facility would not be feasible. In the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 (IOMSP) Environment Policy 43 states that proposals which seek to regenerate run-down urban and rural areas will generally be supported, normally to be in line with regeneration strategies and will encourage the re-use of sound built fabric, rather than its demolition.
• 7.2.2 The proposal seeks to covert and existing hotel into 9 new flats and essentially this would go against those policies seeking to retain hotels and guest houses along the promenade. However, the building has not been used as a hotel nor for any tourist accommodation for in excess of 20 years, and its vacancy and underuse has resulted in its run down and dilapidated state unfit for any standard of accommodation. At present the buildings run down appearance and its ugly mansard roof sets it significantly apart from its neighbours, and is a notable and recognised eyesore along this part of the promenade. While it has not been demonstrated that the building could not be brought back into hotel or guest house use and this weighs against the proposal to some degree. In this specific case, mindful of the length of time which this building has been empty and its dilapidated state currently having adverse impact on the wider promenade conservation area and streetscene, that having the building brought back into any kind of use, including residential, would help regenerate the building and its appearance. The proposal also seeks to regenerate the existing building using the existing fabric, and this positively weighs in favour of the proposal and helping to preserve its historic frontage.
• 7.2.3 The principle of conversion into flats is accepted in this specific case.

7.3 ii) Visual Impact - on existing building and on Conservation Area

• 7.3.1 Works are sought across the front and rear. The most noticeable will be those across the frontage which will be addressed in full in the following paragraphs. In terms of the works at the rear, this is not an elevation readily visible from public view. Whilst there will be some changes in the replacement of the rear outrigger, and general upgrading works the overall appearance is to be typical of the rear of buildings along the promenade and not resulting in any adverse visual harm.
• 7.3.2 New windows and doors are proposed across the front elevation, along with decorative detailing and re-rendering throughout all of which will bring about a much improved visual appearance to the front elevation. A condition in respect of the front elevation windows and front door to be installed in accordance with the details provided is appropriate to align with PC 1/98, and EP35.
• 7.3.3 The proposal seeks to re-instate the peaks and eyebrows above the third floor windows and this helps to positively reinstate the original appearance of the building prior to its mansard box dormer roof extension. This finish to the top floor windows marries with those buildings either side and all along the promenade.
• 7.3.4 In order to significantly enhance the appearance of the building the proposal would have removed the roof mansard box dormer altogether and returned the building to its original pitched roof arrangement like all the remaining promenade buildings. However, in this instance the proposal weeks to remove the mansard and have it replaced with a setback glazed fronted alternative which creates a small balcony area in front. The proposed roof works would have a

• contemporary appearance and this would sit at odds with and negatively impact the character and appearance of the original historic frontage, but this would be no worse than the current situation of the solid bulk of the box dormer.
• 7.3.5 It could be argued that a glazed approach to the roof structure may help it to appear more light weight compared to the existing, and the reformation of the third floor windows and the strong building eaves line and the set back position of the new structure helps to lessen its overall prominence compared with the box heavy dormer.
• 7.3.6 Overall the proposed works are considered to be visually acceptable and generally resulting in an overall visual improvement compared to the existing run down structure. The reinstating of the third floor window tops results in an enhancement to the building eaves/roof line and new sliding sash windows, timber front door and building detailing will present a visual improvement to the overall façade. The new modern glazed roofing works could be seen to have an adverse visual impact on the original character and appearance of the building and detracting from the historic character and appearance of the wider promenade Conservation Area, however the proposals would be no worse than the existing dark coloured bulky mansard roof. The proposals are considered to both preserve and enhance the overall character and appearance of the building and the wider Conservation Area in line with Strategic Policy 4 and Environment Policy 35 of the IOMSP, and meeting with Section 18 of The Act 1999.

7.4 iii) Amenity Impact

• 7.4.1 The most notable changes will be to the overall use of the building and the works to the rear.
• 7.4.2 In terms of the former, the proposal will result in an increase of use of the building which may bring about more activity at the site and in turn having more impact on the amenity of the neighbours compared to the currently vacant situation. However given the town centre location where there is already a degree of activity and movement the proposal is not expected to result in any unacceptable amenity impact in this regard.
• 7.4.3 In terms of works at the rear, the replacement outrigger is bigger covering over the full rear elevation. The back lane along here is made up of a mixture of outriggers of different heights, lengths and depths. The outrigger will not look out of place visually.
• 7.4.4 The start of the lane is narrow and more confined, but half way down the lane 'opens up' as a result of lower level properties along Strand Street and the lower heights of rear outriggers of some of the properties along the prom. These lower levels create a feeling of openness and a more 'light and airy' nature in this part to the benefit of windows looking outwards here.
• 7.4.5 The proposal to make bigger the rear outrigger of Marina Hotel will be noticeable to the immediate neighbouring property of the rear lane and which likely provides a better outlook and daylight quality to windows at the rear.
• 7.4.6 No. 48 Cubbon House already has a tall outrigger on the rear which will be unaffected as a result of the proposed works. On the adjacent southern side No. 47 sits closer to the open area in the rear lane. The extended outrigger to Marina House will bring this closer to their rear elevation and will be noticeable to general outlook. The proposal removes side elevation windows and so an improvement compared to the existing situation containing a number of windows. The existing rear of Marina House is dark in colour and creates a more enclosed feeling at this part of the lane. The new proposed extension will have a blank elevation closer to No. 47 but minded of the openness in this area and the existing outrigger, it is not considered to be of a size, scale and projection which results in an unacceptable or adverse as to warrant a significant concern in terms of overbearingness. The re-rendering and painting in

white would also create a brighter appearance and outlook compared to the existing grey and this could be considered by condition.

7.5 iv) Highway Impact

• 7.5.1 The original building operated as a hotel without any off-street parking. The proposal to convert to 9 apartments with a total of 15 bedrooms would require 14 car parking spaces as per appendix 7 of the IOMSP. The proposal remains without any off street parking and so falls short of the requirements. However the IOMSP does allow a reduction to standards where; the proposal secures re-use of a building of architectural or historic interest, preserves a sensitive streetscape, is of benefit to the character of a Conservation Area, is within reasonable distance of a bus route or can be demonstrated it will not result in unacceptable on street parking.
• 7.5.2 DOI Highways have provided formal comments on the application stating the "site is situated centrally within Douglas, in close proximity to multiple businesses, shops, services and amenities. The transport statement and accessibility audit has identified that there is good provision of alternative transport options such as bus services, cycle routes and primary pedestrian walking routes. Due to the sustainable location of the site, Highways accept the principle of development without dedicated vehicle parking."
• 7.5.3 Highways have acknowledged that cycle provision at 11 spaces also falls short of the one space per bedroom requirement, but on the basis that some lower level apartments may keep bikes in their own homes given the fewer steps to navigate, so a reduction has been accepted in this specific case.
• 7.5.4 On the above basis DOI Highways have accepted that the proposal raises "no significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues" and they have no objections. No conditions are proposed by DOI, however minded of the above assessment relying on some bicycle parking a condition to ensure its provision is necessary.

7.6 v) Flood risk impact

• 7.6.1 Comments from DOI FRM highlight the flood risk in this area, and that living accommodation should be avoided at basement level with suitable conditions preventing such applied, along with condition for the need for all services to be fed from above and that there is adequate egress from the basement other than the stairs.
• 7.6.2 The applicant provided an updated basement plan which sought to include additional escape from two rear windows. The proposal retains sleeping arrangement at basement level.
• 7.6.3 On one hand the proposal increases flood risk to proposed basement level occupants, however if the building was to remain as a hotel guest accommodation could be provided at this level without the need to come before planning. It would perhaps be unreasonable to refuse the application on this basis alone. It would be in the applicant's best interest to install the additional means of escape and a note in this respect could be added to the application.

7.7 vi) Affordable Housing Provision

• 7.7.1 There has been significant discussions and comments made in respect of affordable housing, and the viability statement by the applicant.
• 7.7.2 The proposal is for 9 new apartments. Housing Policy 5 of IOMSP requires developments of more than 8 units to provide 25% affordable housing. 25% of 9 units = 2.25 units.
• 7.7.3 The IOMSP states "to secure an adequate provision of affordable housing, it is appropriate to require that any area of land identified for housing purposes should include a contribution towards the provision of affordable housing" and "that approximately 25% of new housing provision should take the form of affordable housing. In assessing the appropriate

percentage in each instance, the Department will have regard to the fact that the figure is a target over the Plan Period as a whole; to evidence of local housing need; to the nature of the land and viability of the scheme; and to the nature of existing adjacent housing. The 25% provision will be monitored and reviewed as part of any review of the Strategic Plan." The IOMSP has not been updated since 2016 and the affordable housing figure remains as 25%.

Comments from DOI Public Estate

• 7.7.4 DOI Public Estates (DOI PubEst) make clear there is need for affordable homes in the East with 157 persons on the Department's First-time Buyers Register, 68 of which are on the Active Buyer List intending to purchase a home within the next 12-24 months. It is clear there is need for affordable homes in the east.
• 7.7.5 DOI PubEst have further stated that the proposed apartments are not close to their Design Guide size standard for 2Bed affordable apartments being approx. 5-8sq m too small, and obtaining a National Housing Building Council (NHBC) warranty would be difficult for units which are part of a refurbishment scheme. NHBC offers protection for new homeowners in case of any structural issues or defects in workmanship, materials, or design. DOI PubEst indicate that it is possible to get NHBC for refurbishment schemes but such comes at notable cost to the developer. Without such NHBC warranty in place DOI PubEst feel it would be unfair to put such a burden on any first time buyer should anything go wrong with the refurbishment scheme. In addition, mixed apartments blocks like this can also come with unknown management fees, adding further burden to a first time buyer. The preferred affordable housing accommodation is typically individual units not relying on shared spaces (detached/semi/terraced properties) which are NHBC. As part of earlier memorandum submissions DOI PubEst indicated that they do not want physical affordable units provided on site, and instead, a commuted sum to be provided in lieu of the 2.25 units. DOI Public Estate Commuted Sum Calculation
• 7.7.6 As part of such refurbishment/conversion proposals to create new residential units, the commuted sum is calculated by taking a number of comparable units (selected based on their proximity and similarity to the units proposed) from open market sales data, and calculating their average selling price per square meter of floor space. The sub-market selling price for a two-bed apartment (63sq m) is then deducted from this average to work out the difference per sq m between them (see spreadsheet provided as part of DOI PubEst comments). In this instance the difference in selling price is = £81.88 per sq m. This is then multiplied by 63sq m (the standard size of an affordable two-bed unit) to calculate the required commuted sum = £11606.49. £81.88 x 63 = 5158.44 per unit X 2.25 = £11606.49
• 7.7.7 In summary if, two units were sold to first time buyers they would be £150,000 each. If two units were sold on the open market they would have an estimated value of £155,158 each. The anticipated uplift between the two prices is to be paid as the commuted sum, and with the additional 0.25% from sale of a third on the open market. Applicants Viability Appraisal in response to Commuted Sum Calculation
• 7.7.8 Their document presents a two-part argument in response to affordable housing commuted sum requested by DOI PubEST. Firstly, they put forward a case for a deduction to the commuted sum should be given to the standards of £5,200 per unit which covers standard affordable housing furnishing exclusions eg. Carpets, appliances and blinds, and has been applied in a similar instances for PA 23/00958/B and they feel that failure to apply this credit is inconsistent and unfair. Secondly, they argue that if credit is not applied, then Housing Policy

• 5 should not be enforced due to the unviable margins of the proposed scheme, where even a 10% contingency or overhead would push the project into loss-making territory. Alongside this unviability, they feel there is other notable material considerations that should be taken into consideration including recognition of the long-vacant, deteriorating building which is in a prominent promenade location in a Conservation Area, and such renovation would improve the

visual character of the area, provide 9 much needed housing units and avoid further structural degradation or collapse.

• 7.7.8 They ultimately feel that any refusal of the application or reducing its financial feasibility by adding the commuted sum may increases the risk of permanent loss of the building in what is a sensitive conservation area where regeneration is regeneration is preferred.
• 7.7.9 Attached to the viability statement was a speculative buildings costs by KTS Building Group Ltd. This setting out the total cost of works being £1,871.585.00.
• 7.7.10 The applicants viability conclusion states that consideration should either be given to the £5,200 credit per apartment for fixtures and fittings (£11,700 for 2.25 units), or waiving viability given the risks inherent in their viability statement. BBA Independent Quantity Surveying Report
• 7.7.11 DOI PubEst engaged BBA to carrying out an external costs evaluation and analysis of the submitted Viability Statement. The BBA report contains comparative figures and their report has been summarised as follows:

• o The applicant anticipates £2.3 million from apartment sales, but BBA considers this
• optimistic compared with provided market sales data. The stated property sale price is £325,000, on which BBA cannot professionally comment, but projected margins of 4-5% suggest that sale price may be negotiable to improve returns.
• o Two calculation errors understate costs by £14,060, making the corrected total £1,885,645, which reduces projected margins.
• o BBA's independent cost assessment estimates £1,835,605—close to the applicant's corrected figure—though based on assumptions due to limited design details. Differences include:
• o Higher preliminaries in BBA's assessment
• o No VAT reclaim assumed (5% domestic rate applies
• o Some items in applicant's breakdown not shown on plans, and vice versa
• o No asbestos removal allowance
• o Higher demolition costs expected due to restricted access
• o 7.5% contingency included by BBA for design/construction risks
• o At £1,885,645, construction costs equate to about £2,619/m² for the 720 m² buildingthese are high, but reasonable given refurbishment complexity, site constraints, and logistics.

• 7.7.12 BBA's considered opinion is that subject to their observations and assumptions "the Applicants assessment of a sub-economic return of 4 - 5% is not an unreasonable one and is considerably less than say a 15% return that a developer could reasonably expect for such an undertaking and investment….It should be noted however that the Applicants submission is based upon assumptions, an estimate of cost based upon outline design rather than a fixed price tender based upon detailed design drawings, a selling price for the existing building which it is understood to have not yet been agreed, VAT applicability to be confirmed - all of which are variable and which may increase or decrease projected margins and are outwith the control of Government and at the Applicants risk. The Applicant provides a calculation applying a commuted sum of £11,602.00, which is a fairly nominal figure, and given the scale of the proposed development does not significantly reduce (approximately 12% reduction) the projected margins". DOI Public Estates - Final Memorandum
• 7.7.13 This memorandum (3.07.2025) summarises DOIPubEst final view. Bell Burton's review of KTS's cost estimates generally supports the applicant's argument that, although the project's Gross Development Value is higher than its Development Costs, the profit margin is under 5%—below the 6% minimum set in the Operational Policy. This suggests the refurbishment of the former Marina Hotel may be financially unviable. If this financial shortfall is considered a valid reason to relax the Commuted Sum requirement, it is backed by both the KTS study and

Bell Burton's cost check. Under Clause 5.4 of the Operational Policy, other factors—such as alignment with the Development Plan, affordable housing provision, and environmental or community benefits—can also influence the decision. However, there is a risk that financial strain could cause the project to stall before completion, so all these factors need to be weighed when deciding on the application

Affordable Housing Summary and Conclusion

• 7.7.14 DOI indicates need for affordable housing. This proposal is required to provide 2.25 units based on 25% rule in Housing Policy 5. The units proposed are not suitable and so a commuted sum is sought = £11,606.49 (DOI Memorandum April 2025).
• 7.7.15 Information between the applicants Viability Statement and external consultant's report indicates that while there are some differences in the workings out, the overall anticipated build cost figures are not that far removed (£1,835,605 and £1,885,645). The GDV is outlined by the applicant to be £2,300,000. The property purchase price of £325,000 is considered reasonable by DOI. The applicants' assessment indicates a return to the developer between 4 -

5% (with or without commuted sum factored in).

• 7.7.16 Operation Policy on S13 agreements indicates that "Emerging UK guidance suggests 620% of Gross Development Value is a suitable return for housing built for sale, depending on the type of scheme and the level of risk". With anticipated returns between 4-5% they're at the lower end of the return margins and below the lower level 6% referred to in the operation policy being unviable.

7.8 vii) Open Space Provision

7.8.1 Recreation Policy 3 sets outs that where appropriate new development should include landscaped amenity areas as part of the design, and for any new residential developments of 10 of more units must provide open space. This proposal is for the conversion of an existing building which does not have any existing landscape area as part of its design and as part of its conversion constraints of the site mean it has little or no scope to include this as part of the new design. The proposal also if for the creation of 9 apartments and so not required to provide any recreational and amenity space. In terms of open space the proposal does not undermine Recreation Policy 3 and is acceptable in this instance.

7.9 viii) Any other matters

7.9.1 Bin storage has been provided to the rear of the building and is accessible just as other bins are from within the back lane. The bin storage is acceptable in this case and a condition to ensure its provision without obstruction to the rear escape routes could be added for the avoidance of doubt.

7.10 ix) Summary and Balance

• 7.10.1 Re-using the existing built fabric rather than demolishing it weighs significantly in favour of the application, in accordance with Strategic Policy 1, Strategic Policy 2 and Environment Policy 43. The scheme regenerates a long-vacant promenade building, preserving its historic frontage and enhancing the wider Conservation Area (Environment Policy 35, Area Plan 6.9.2). Improvements to the buildings windows, detailing and overall appearance will help restore a dilapidated building in a prominent part of the Douglas centre, consistent with the Island Spatial Strategy and Area Plan vision for the Promenade (Area Plan 2.4, 3.4.9, 9.5).
• 7.10.2 The proposal is designed to enhance the building's contribution to the streetscape, consistent with Strategic Policy 3, Strategic Policy 5, Area Plan 6.6-6.8 and Urban Environment Proposals 2 & 3. The works respect seafront character, with roof changes no more harmful than the existing dormer.
• 7.10.3 The scheme does result in the loss of a guesthouse, which conflicts with Tourism Proposal 1 of the Area Plan. However, given the prolonged vacancy and run-down condition of

• the property, and recognising the retention and refurbishment of the original fabric, it is considered that a residential use would be an acceptable alternative and would remain compatible with surrounding promenade uses and contributing to wider regeneration objectives (Area Plan 9.10.3, 9.11, Mixed Use Proposal 2).
• 7.10.4 The conversion contributes to housing supply in line with Housing Policy 1, Housing Policy 4, Strategic Policy 11 and Area Plan 6.5.3-6.5.4. While Housing Policy 5 normally requires affordable housing provision, DOI have sought a commuted sum in lieu of its provision. Viability evidence indicates low-end margin returns for the developer and in these exceptional circumstances, balancing housing policy with the heritage and regeneration benefits of the scheme, a flexibility is justified, and an exception to Housing Policy 5 affordable housing provision justified. It is recommended that the commuted sum be waivered in this specific situation being justified as unviable, noting the low £11,606.49 sum being sought and factoring in the wider regeneration benefits of the proposal in this promenade conservation area location.
• 7.10.5 The site's central location supports sustainable travel, consistent with Strategic Policy 10, Transport Policy 1, Transport Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan and Area Plan Transport Proposals 1 & 2. The scheme makes efficient use of existing infrastructure and reduces reliance on private car travel. Refuse storage, fire and flood safety and amenity standards have been addressed in accordance with General Policy 2 and Community Policy 11.

8.0 CONCLUSION - 8.1 The proposal regenerates a long-vacant and dilapidated promenade building, reusing its existing fabric, preserving the historic frontage, and enhancing the Conservation Area (Strategic Policy 1 & 2, Environment Policy 35 & 43, Area Plan 6.9.2). Physical works relating to its new windows, detailing, and roof form are visually acceptable, and all work towards restoring a building in a prominent promenade position (Area Plan 2.4, 3.4.9, 9.5). The sustainable location encourages sustainable travel and efficient use of infrastructure and the proposal provides adequate provision for refuse, fire safety, flood risk, and neighbouring amenity (General Policy 2, Community Policy 11, Strategic Policy 10, Transport Policy 1 & 7, and Area Plan for the East Transport Proposals 1 & 2). - 8.2 Although the scheme results in the loss of a guesthouse (Area Plan Tourism Proposal 1 and Mixed Use Proposal 2), the proposed new residential use is considered acceptable in this case being compatible with surrounding uses and ensuring the long empty building is brought back into some use to secure its longevity (Area Plan 9.10.3 and 9.11). The development contributes to housing supply (Housing Policy 1, 4, Strategic Policy 11) and, in this exceptional case, a commuted sum in lieu of affordable housing is to be waivered given the viability evidence provided being unviable, noting the low sum being sought and the significant regeneration benefits expected. - 8.3 Consideration has been given to the possibility of seeking commuted sum funds in the eventuality that the sale of apartments goes beyond the anticipated £2.3 million as indicated in the applicant's viability statement. However, that figure was considered to be optimistic (both by the external consultant and based on DOI market sales) so in factoring that optimistic figure in this case, and taking into consideration the weight given to the overall upgrading of the dilapidated promenade building and the scale of the project to be undertaken that the clawback of funds is not considered necessary in this case.

- 9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 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.

8.2 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

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 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 and/or rights to appeal.

Decision Made: Permitted Date: 26.08.2025 Signed : Miss Lucy Kinrade Presenting Officer

Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.

Planning Committee Decision 26.08.2025

Application No. : 24/00786/B Applicant : Mr Richard Copisarow Proposal : Conversion, including alteration and extensions, of former hotel to nine apartments with bicycle and bin storage Site Address : Marina Hotel 47 Loch Promenade Douglas Isle Of Man Presenting Officer : Lucy Kinrade Addendum to the Officer’s Report

In light of the comments from DOI FRM the case officer sought to update their recommendation to change Note 1 into Condition 9 and amended it's worded to reflect the need for the basement level escape routes to be provided in full accordance with the plans prior to its first occupation and maintained free from obstruction thereafter. Members agreed this updated recommendation.

Condition 9: Prior to first occupation of the basement accommodation hereby approved, the escape routes shall be provided in full accordance with those details shown on drawing no's 2023-164-09 and 2023-164-018 (date published 02 May 2025) and retained permanently clear and free of obstruction thereafter.

Reason: In the interest of amenity and to ensure provision of means of escape in the event of emergency including any fire and flood event. _____________________________________________________________________________