DEC Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Application No.: 23/00352/B Applicant: Victoria Street Properties Ltd Proposal: Installation of a pitched roof and creation of additional flat to the rear. Site Address: 67 Strand Street Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 2EN Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken: 12.09.2024 Site Visit: 12.09.2024 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: _________________________________________________________________ R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons Reasons for Refusal - R 1. By reason of the proposed floor area, increased height of the upwards extension and the proposed roof arrangement the proposal is considered to result in any overall massing of the building that has an overbearing and dominating visual impact adversely affecting the character and appearance of the streetscene and which does not positively contribute to the environment either visually nor sustainably through any reduced energy use and is considered contrary to Strategic Policy 5, General Policy 2 (b, c, g) and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and contrary to Sections 6.4 and 6.5 of The Area Plan for the East 2020. - R 2. The inclusion of new high level windows on the side elevation may result in a sterilisation of the immediate adjoining sites and prejudice their potential re-development as part of Market Street comprehensive treatment area contrary to section 13.8 of The Area Plan for the East 2020, the aims of the Central Douglas Master Plan 2014 and to General Policy 2(k) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status

Additional Persons

None _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE A THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site relates to 67 Strand Street, Douglas, a mid-terrace building located part way along Strand Street, between its junctions with Howard Street and Granville Street and has a rear elevation joining with Market Street. The ground floor facing Strand Street is used as retail whilst upper floors provide 4 existing flats (approved under 17/01250/B).

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The proposed is the upwards extension to provide an additional floor and flat at the rear, the proposed extension is to have a pitched roof finish with a setback gable end facing Market Street providing a high level terrace to the new flat. - 2.2 Works to the existing pitched roof will see it increased and three new roof lights installed. Drawings also appear to show the entire rear structure being finished in a painted render throughout although no material finishes are provided on the plans. New windows are proposed to upper floors along each side gable.

- 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 The site has been subject to a number of previous applications dating back to the early 90's for alterations to create additional office floor space, 90/00303/B was approved after drawing revisions removed the proposed 3rd floor office extension and 91/01431/B for an additional 3rd floor was withdrawn. There have also been a number of shop frontage applications with most recent being approved under PA 19/00261/B and signage approved under 19/00852/D. Conversion of the upper floors from office to four residential units was approved under 17/01250/B. - 4.0 PLANNING POLICY

4.1 The site is within an area designated within the following zones:

• o Mixed Use - Strand Street
• o Comprehensive Treatment Area (CTA) Zone 2

4.2 The site itself is:

• not within a Conservation Area o not at any recognised flood risk

4.3 Relevant policy from Isle of Man Strategic Policy 2016:

• o Strategic Policies, 1, 2, 3, 5 and 10 - make efficient use of sites, development directed to town centres, maintain individual character of areas and be of a good design making positive contribution and utilise existing infrastructure.
• o Strategic Policies 11 and 12 - Island housing needs and under used space above commercial premises subject to design (8.13).
• o Spatial Policies 1 and 5 - direct development to town centres
• o General Policy 2 - general standards towards acceptable development.
• o Environment Policy 23 - adverse impact on existing neighbours.
• o Environment policy 42 - take account of immediate locality in design.
• o Housing Policy 17 - conversion criteria for creating flats
• o Transport Policy 7 and Appendix 7 - parking in accordance with standards.
• o Community Policy 7, 10 and 11 state that the design of new development must, as far as is reasonable and practicable, pay due regards to existing best practise such as to prevent criminal and anti-social behaviour and outbreak and spread of fire. In addition, development should also provide proper access for fire-fighting vehicles and adequate supplies of water for fire-fighting purposes.
• o Infrastructure Policy 5 - methods to conserve the Island's water resources.
• o Paragraph 9.4.5 - residential above retail can help secure vitality of areas

4.4 Relevant policy from TAPE

• o Section 13.8 - Comprehensive Treatment Area 2 - Market Street
• o CTA Proposal 2 - retail and ancillary uses appropriate and any development carried out in accordance with improvement scheme pedestrian and vehicular.
• o Section 9.10.5 - Mixed Use Area 3 Strand Street - more residential uses would benefit the area
• o Mixed Use Proposal 3 - residential use will be accepted at first floor or above.
• o Section 6.4 - extensions to respond sensitively to and enhance local context.
• o Sections 6.5, 6.5.4 and Urban Environment Proposal 1 - general support to upper floor residential use so long as does not conflict other strategic policies
• o Section 6.5 - Principles of Good design

4.5 Other material considerations o Central Douglas Master Plan 2014.

REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.

5.1 Douglas Borough Council - no objection (17/11/2023) - the development must no prohibit the refuse bins from being stored within the curtilage between refuse collection days.

5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - Do not Oppose (05/04/2023 and 06/11/2023) - no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and /or parking. The Applicant is advised that Highway Licences may be necessary for any equipment and materials to be placed within the highway for the duration of the proposed works.

5.3 No comments received from any neighbouring properties. - 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The building comprises two key parts the traditional pitched roof element providing a retail unit fronting Strand Street, and at the rear, a large non-traditional three storey flat roof structure. As part of the application the keys tests are principle, parking and highway impact, visual impact (size, massing, design and finish), neighbouring amenity impact, sustainability impact.

Principle

6.2 It's clear that policies within both the Strategic Plan and TAPE both encourage making best use of existing sites particularly those within existing town centres and that the inclusion of upper floor residential use can help to ensure security and vitality of these town areas outside of the normal 9-5 working patterns and this mix of uses can positively impact both day time and night time economy in those areas. The Central Douglas Masterplan 2014 also sees 'increasing the residential population" as a key driver. Parking Impact

6.3 The proposal to increase the number of flats in this building by 1 would have a resulting increase in parking demand associated with it, but this would not be so far beyond the existing 4 flat occupation rate and parking situation already as to warrant a significant concern in this case also minded that there is a relaxation to parking standards for properties in town centre locations and in close walking distance to bus stops and services which this site is. DOI Highway Services have also indicated that they do not oppose and there will be no significant negative impact on highway safety. The proposed building works would not compromise Market Street as a key freight access route either given the works are contained within existing building parameters and do not overhang or encroach the highway.

• Visual Impact (size and massing)
• 6.4 Previous applications dating back to the 90's sought upward extension to the building but these applications were either amended to remove the upwards extension or withdrawn. Comments on these applications shared concerns in the lack of parking provided and the increase of office floor space. As part of one application the agent stated that the additional floor would stay within the general roof line of the area with Markwell Housing being 5 stories tall and Strand Shopping Centre, Well Road House and Wellington House all being very similar in height and appearance to what was proposed.
• 6.5 During this application process, concerns were been expressed for the initial design resulting in a considerable upwards massing increase to the building which would be overbearing in its own right, overbearing on its immediate neighbours, and out of character of and dominating in the streetscene when travelling along Market Street. The roof design also not respecting the traditional features of that part of the building facing Strand Street. The agent and applicant sought to make changes to the scheme to try and overcome some of these issues.
• 6.6 Revised drawings were received. The height uplift and overall pitched roof design was to remain unchanged but now the scheme having a slightly stepped back design layout from Market Street so as to incorporate a balcony terrace area. This stepped back design helps to some degree to reduce the overall massing compared to the initial submission by chopping off some of the bulk nearest the Market Street end, however there still remains a considerable amount of massing to the proposal and this upwards extension, coupled with the height and overall arrangement of the roof (part of which does not respect the traditional qualities of the older building fronting Strand Street) is still expected that the proposal will have a considerable overbearing and dominating impact unacceptably at odds with the streetscene. Visual Impact (design and finish)
• 6.7 The Central Douglas Masterplan 2014 (CDM2014) contains advice on key challenges to be addressed and that development should be of innovative, contemporary, high quality and timeless design and ensuring the unique and varied heritage is celebrated in ensuring Douglas is seen as a world class distinctive Capital. The Area Plan for the East 2020 (TAPE2020) includes a list of principles of good design at section 6.6 which reinforces Strategic Planning policies in the need for development to make a positive contribution to the environment. Detailed design proposals should respond positively to local context and character, taking into account scale, form, layout, materials, colouring, fenestration and architectural detailing, as well as physical features including topography, pattern of streets, street scene and density of development.
• 6.8 TAPE 2020 provides the following for Market Street area "The street currently has the function and appearance of a service road which is considered to have a negative impact on this area of the town. With imagination, this impact could be reversed and the street could become more appealing to shoppers and visitors alike. The completion of a new hotel in this location will be beneficial and the investment this represents should be capitalised upon. The Central Douglas Masterplan recognises that the area could provide further retail opportunities and increased floorspace. Re-development could enable improved links between Strand Street and Upper Douglas which would assist with footfall."
• 6.9 In respect of the design and finish, drawings provided have not specified any material finishes, but it appears from drawing design that the entire red brick walling would be rendered over and tile hung cladding removed. It is accepted that there is a mix of palette of materials in this area and render would not be uncommon. It could be argued that the upkeep, rendering over and renovation of the building offers has a more current day contemporary approach compared to the older brick and 'mansard' tile hang, however this would not be high quality innovative and it might be that this single uniform render approach coupled with the increased

massing impact exacerbates the dominating and overbearingness of the buildings appearance within the streetscene and drawing negative attention to it rather than positive.

Amenity Impact

6.10 The addition of 1 flat would not result in any significant increase or unacceptable traffic or personnel movements above and beyond the existing 4 flats to warrant any issues in its own right and minded that this is in a town centre location and given the already established level of people moving in and out of the area and building. The amenity space available to the proposed new flat in its own right would not be so far removed from the existing flats in fact it would have its own external terrace area which is more than any of the existing flats. - 6.11 In terms of the physical layout the proposal has sought to include side elevation windows which has helped to 'break up' some of the massing of each side elevation to some extent, however by introducing new windows where currently there are none introduces new potential for overlooking and privacy impacts or can stifle development of neighbouring sites. In this case immediate neighbouring properties are understood to be commercial properties whereby there would be no privacy or overlooking impacts per-se, but minded of the 'masterplan' proposals and aims set out in both CDM2014 and TAPE 2020 both which encourage the redevelopment of this area that the installation of these windows could sterilise development of both immediate neighbouring sites. Sustainability Impact - 6.12 The application is not provided with any information on sustainability and there has been no inclusion of renewable energy systems within the scheme.

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 Whilst the proposal for another upper floor flat would meet those policies supporting more residential uses in this town centre area and would make use of an existing town centre site contributing to the overall vitality of the area and with no highway safety issues, these matters are not considered to outweigh the negative visual impacts expected of the proposal. By reason of the proposed floor area and increased height of the upwards extension coupled with the proposed roof arrangement the proposal is considered to result in any overall massing of the building that has an overbearing and dominating impact on the existing building adversely affecting the character and appearance of the streetscene and which does not positively contribute to the environment visually nor sustainably through its energy use. The proposal including the new high level side elevation windows may be seen to serialise the immediate adjoining sites which could be considered to undermine the aims of CDM 2014 and TAPE 2020 which seek future re-development of Market Street.

7.2 The application by reason of its unacceptable visual impact is considered contrary to Strategic Policy 5, General policy 2 (b, c, g), Environment Policy 23 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and contrary to Sections 6.4 and 6.5 of The Area Plan for the East 2020, and by reason of the proposed side elevation windows is considered to impact the potential re-development of its immediate neighbours along Market Street contrary to section 13.8 of The Area Plan for the East 2020, the aims of the Central Douglas Master Plan 2014 and to General Policy 2(k) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. - 8.0 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 above who should be given Interested Person Status

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

Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date: 11.03.2024

Signed : L KINRADE 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.