Officer Planning Report

Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:5842}} Case Officer : Mr Ian Brooks Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation

Officer's Report

The Site

1. The application site represents the curtilage a former warehouse building located on Lake Road and a three storey block of flats within 8 Bridge Road and the residential property of No.6 Bridge Road. To the south of the site, is a residential complex with restaurant to the Quayside elevation. No.8 Bridge Road contains 3 flats. The site is located within an area zoned for mixed use, particularly Town Centre, within the Douglas Local Plan. The site is also within a Conservation Area.

Proposed Development

1. The application is seeking planning permission to demolish the existing buildings on the site and to erect a 6 storey building containing 12 flats. The height of the building will be approximately 22m to the ridge. The width of the building will be between 20m – 21m. The depth of the building will be 24m. The building will be finished with sand/cement smooth render, black Trespa cladding and facing brick to match Market Hall.

Planning Status And Relevant Policies

1. Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application: Strategic Policy 4, General Policy 2, Environment Policies 10, 13, 35 and 39, Housing Policies 5 and 6, Transport Policies 4 and 7, Business Policies 9 and 10, Recreation Policy 3

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

1. Environment Policy 39 states that "The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area."

1. Housing Policy 5 states that "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"

1. Housing Policy 6 states that "Development of land which is zoned for residential development must be undertaken in accordance with the brief in the relevant area plan, or, in the absence of a

brief in accordance with the criteria in paragraph 6.2 of this Plan. Briefs will encourage good and innovative design, and will not be needlessly prescriptive."

1. Transport Policy 4 states that "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan."

1. Transport Policy 7 states that "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards."

1. Business Policy 9 states that "The Department will support new retail provision in existing retail areas at a scale appropriate to the existing area and which will not have an adverse effect on adjacent retail areas. Major retail development proposals will require to be supported by a Retail Impact Assessment."

1. Business Policy 10 states that "Retail development will be permitted only in established town and village centres, with the exception of neighbourhood shops in large residential areas and those instances identified in Business Policy 5"

1. Recreation Policy 3 states that "Where appropriate, new development should include the provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design. New residential development of ten or more dwellings must make provision for residential and amenity space in accordance with the standards specified in Appendix 6 to the Plan."

1. Section 18 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 states that "Where any area is for the time being a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing it character or appearance in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in the area, of any powers under this Act."

Planning History

1. The following previous applications are considered relevant in the consideration of this application:

Warehouse site and No.1 Lake Road 08/01852/B – Demolition of existing stone warehouse and erection of a block of four apartments with ground floor parking and amendments to the mansard roof on the adjacent residential/office building – split decision at appeal

a) Erection of 5 storey building containing 4 flats and ground floor parking, plus off site parking – refused b) Retention of building at 1 Lake Road – approved

Warehouse site 04/00956/B - Alterations and conversion of disused warehouse/shop to office accommodation (Resubmission) – granted 16.07.2004

02/02250/B - Alterations and conversion of existing warehouse/shop to office accommodation

No.6 Bridge Road 09/00909/F – Demolition of outbuildings to rear elevation – refused on 19th January 2010

09/00911/CON – Registered Building Consent for the demolition of outbuildings to rear elevation – refused on 19th January 2010

Representations

1. Douglas Corporation has no objection to the application.

1. Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure have made the following comments:

"Following receipt of amended plans:

The development requires a visibility splay of 2m x 18m at the car park exit onto Lake Road. It was agreed that due to the configuration of the exit the visibility splay could be provided through a grate in the wall, even with this facility it is not possible to achieve 18m visibility to the near side edge of carriageway. 18m visibility is the stopping site distance for vehicles travelling at 20mph. It will not be possible for vehicles exiting the car park to see oncoming vehicles on Lake Road without edging out into the carriageway. Lake Road is effectively a cul de sac with the only vehicles using this section of the road accessing the car park or servicing the retail unit and the restaurant; it is also to be used as an emergency access if Bank's Circus is blocked. Lake Road is also part of the cycle network and as such is likely to have a higher than normal percentage of cyclists who will not be as visible as cars to emerging vehicles. It is important that the car park can be accessed and exited safely in all situations therefore the reduced visibility is not acceptable.

The applicant has provided acceptable justification for the reduced car parking standard.

The Traffic Appraisal also considers the impact of the additional traffic on the existing network. The contention that this traffic will be negligible when compared to existing flows on Lake Road and Bank's Circus is accepted.

The application is recommended for refusal on the grounds that adequate visibility cannot be achieved contrary to General Policy 2 sub paragraphs (h) & (i) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

1. Perfectnow Ltd (owners of 28 and 29 Quay West have objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) overlooking. 2) overdevelopment of the site. 3) reservations regarding additional traffic onto Lake Road

1. Architectural Liaison Officer of the Isle of Man Constabulary has made the following comments: "The car park is access from Lake Road. It is not clear from examination of the drawings as to whether the entrance to the car park will be gated to prevent unauthorised access (pedestrian or vehicular). Whilst the site is located immediately adjacent to the larger West Quay development, this section of Lake Road is relatively quiet and therefore there will be negligible natural or passive surveillance of the entrance (and/ or the said car parking area). The car park is easily access from Lake Road and I am concerned that if the entrance is left insecure, it will create opportunities for criminal and/or anti-social behaviour within what should be a secure area of the building.

I would therefore strongly recommend that consideration be given to the installation of some form of gating to prevent unauthorised access and thus minimise the site's potential vulnerability to associated crime and/or disorder."

1. The occupier of 82 Birchill Crescent, as Owner of garage adjoining the Railway Hotel, has objected to the application on the grounds that it is overlooking their property and would restrict any development or reinstatement of the original building on the site.

1. The occupier of 9 Fort William, Douglas has objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) The development is inconsistent with and exceeds the scale of other buildings in the North Quay Conservation Area. 2) It is also inconsistent with the adjacent three storey "The Railway" public house and office building, and the three storey Customs House building on the opposite side of the junction. 3) The photomontage shows an incongruous relationship between the proposed development and "The Railway" building. 4) The development is architecturally a weak copy of the recent Quay West development, which is not within the Conservation Area. 5) The development will overshadow "The Railway"buildings and would further block the vista over the roofs of the existing

buildings towards the greenery of the hillside and trees on the Castletown Road. 6) The development is an over intensive use of the land. 7) The building would severely damage the overall appearance of the Inner Harbour as well as overshadowing it from the afternoon sun

The objector has made comments regarding the demolition of the building; however, these comments relate to the Registered Building Consent application.

1. Community Planning Service of 33 Ballaquark has made the following comments: "In my opinion the demolition of No.8 with its horrible Mansard roof is desirable but the demolition of No.6 (presumably the registered building) should not be acceptable. It is an attractive building which enhances the Harbour area. What is the point in placing a building on the Register for protection if demolition is to be allowed? I fail to see how demolition will protect the appearance and integrity of the building.

Surely at least the facade can be preserved, as has been done elsewhere on North Quay and the old cinema on Central Promenade.

I think the overall scale of the proposed building overwhelms the Railway Hotel and makes the streetscape look completely unbalanced."

1. The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority have made the following comments on the flood risk appraisal:

"The Authority considers that the flood risk appraisal submitted does not consider the fluvial flood risk in enough detail. The task 1 flood maps are indicative and are there to identify properties at risk from flooding. To establish the full extent of fluvial flooding on this site a detail flood risk assessment is required this would include undertaking hydraulic modelling of the site. Other developments in the area having used a dynamic model have predicted fluvial flood levels at around 6.7 metres Douglas 02. The Authority would therefore recommend that the developer undertakes a detailed flood risk assessment for the site.

We would also recommend that all levels referred to our to Douglas 02 datum as there was inconsistency between the report and the drawings."

1. The Housing Division of the Department of Social Care have made the following comments:

"Having given due consideration to land availability and demand for both first time buyer and public sector housing in the Douglas area, the application proposes a total of 12 no. Properties and therefore a provision of 3 units (12 x 25%) should be provided as affordable housing. I note, however, that the design and specification of these proposals might not lend itself to use as affordable housing on site and that consideration may be given to provision elsewhere by means of a commuted sum.

I am concerned that the development would displace the existing 6 no. public sector apartments on the site which would result in a nett loss of affordable housing provision. The applicant suggests he has an option to purchase in this application form, but my enquiries of Douglas Corporation, who own the public sector housing properties, have been unable to uncover such arrangement.

I would recommend that if approval is to be granted for this application then it should be conditional upon a Section 13 agreement for the provision of the affordable housing contribution and the applicant would be advised to contact this Department to discuss such provision."

1. Standard Comments have been received from the Drainage Department of Douglas Borough Council, Manx Electricity Authority and the Environmental Health Officer of the Department of Local Government and Environment, Food and Agriculture.

Assessment

1. Procedural Matter – Section 19 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 deals with the control of demolition in conservation areas. This imposes a requirement for consent for the demolition of non-registered buildings in conservation areas that is comparable to the control that exists over the demolition of registered buildings. It should be noted that a separate application for Registered Building Consent has been submitted to the Planning Authority for consideration alongside this application.

1. The assessment of this application can be split into two distinct elements. These are:

a. the acceptability of demolishing a building within a Conservation Area and its impact within the context of the Conservation Area; and b. the acceptability of the replacement building within the context of the Conservation Area.

1. First, it is important to consider Environment Policy 39 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 which states that "The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area." Policy CA/6 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 (PPS 1/01) provides further guidance in how to assess this application. The policy states "Any building which is located within a conservation area and which is not an exception as provided above may not be demolished without the consent of the Department. In practice, a planning application for consent to demolish must be lodged with the Department. When considering an application for demolition of a building in a conservation area, the general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area. Similar criteria will be applied as those outlined in RB/6 above, when assessing the application to demolish the building, but in less clear cut cases, for example, where a building could be said to detract from the special character of the area, it will be essential for the Department to be able to consider the merits of any proposed development when determining whether consent should be given for the demolition of an unregistered building in a conservation area. Account will be taken of the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the building for which demolition is proposed, in particular of the wider effects of the demolition on the building's surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole."

1. Therefore, the application should be assessed against criteria similar to those as set out in Policy RB/6 of PPS1/01. These are as follows:

i. "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 assessments 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;"

ii. "The adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use. An applicant must show that real effort has 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."

iii. "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."

1. In respect of the No.1 Lake Road (the warehouse building), the structural condition of the building has previously been assessed in an earlier planning application (08/01852/B). The Department's structural engineer considered the building, at the time, could be saved, repaired and brought back into use but at some great cost; however, having brought them back into use, the structural engineers did not believe the building would be suitable for conversion to apartments and could only be used as a warehouse, storage or as a workshop.

1. It was agreed that its structural condition is now so poor that it would be unduly costly and probably impracticable to retain it.

1. In relationship to the No.8 Bridge Road, this is a modern-looking building of three-storey height including a mansards roof. The building sits uncomfortably alongside two older buildings. The building does not make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. It is considered the demolition of the building would be acceptable as long as there is an acceptable replacement building.

1. In respect of Bridge House, No.6 Bridge Road, the agents have submitted a structural survey of the house and the outbuildings to the rear. The overall conclusions of the report are:

"All of the outhouses are in a general state of disrepair. This report only focuses on the key elements influencing the strategic choice between retention and replacement of the different elements of the property.

What appears to be indisputable about the site is the past and continuing settlement. Whilst underpinning individual elements is theoretically possible, I believe that the whole development, including this site requires an integrated foundation structure. This is likely to be of the form of a stiffened raft or possibly piles. The final decision would be based on a full detailed soil investigation.

The basic Manx stone (and occasionally brick) walls are of poor quality and have little inherent value.

In conclusion, the buildings are severely dilapidated and any attempt to refurbish would require the approach and finance of an historic restoration. This is no structural benefit or value in retaining any portion of the building, and any aesthetic issues would be best met by the designer of the new development and the planning process."

1. The agents have recommended:

"That the existing buildings are demolished and the new development built to comply with modern construction standards.

That any aesthetic issues are incorporated within the new design, this may particularly relevant for the front facade of Bridge House."

1. The Department's retained Structural Engineer concluded:

"Bridge house is in a conservation area and I therefore believe that there is a presumption against demolition unless it can be justified. This site, together with the Corporation flats next door and the warehouse in Lake Road, are intended to form a development for new apartments. There has, apparently, already been acceptance for demolition of the warehouse and talks are on-going about the fate of the Corporation flats.

I am in receipt of a structural survey report from Mr A J Bell which describes the condition of Bridge House and its outbuildings. The conclusions of the report are that the buildings could be retained but at considerable expense for foundation strengthening and repairs. The recommendation of the report is that the buildings should be demolished and rebuilt on a like for like basis, if that was required, which complied with modern construction standards.

I cannot find fault with the factual statements of the report. There is no doubt that the buildings have moved and are probably still moving, probably because the foundations are sitting on the yellow, silty gravels which are subject to tidal movement here.

The main building, Bridge House, could be kept but would need foundation strengthening / underpinning to make it compatible with the newer construction and to isolate it from the effects of tidal groundwater. This would be neither cheap nor easy working in tidal waters but nevertheless there are techniques which could enable it to be done. If Bridge House is kept it will also require extensive tying of walls to walls and floors to walls, as well as stitching of cracks. Again, there are techniques to achieve this but they are not easy to do in Manx Stone.

The outbuildings / additions in the middle of the site do not have any particular merit in my opinion and could easily be replicated if you wished this.

The rear building does not seem to be in too bad a condition. There is evidence of movement which one assumes is still on-going. The same arguments apply here as with Bridge House. It could be kept, repaired and brought back into use but I question its suitability for use as an apartment if the area around it is redeveloped in a multi storey scheme.

To sum up I believe that all the buildings could be saved, repaired and brought back into use but at great cost. In the same vein the façade of Bridge House could be retained, but again there would be great cost in the temporary works, foundation strengthening, repairs and integration of the façade into the main development. I do not consider that the outbuildings / additions in the middle of the site would enhance the development, nor do I consider that the rear building would be in keeping with a high rise development."

1. In summary, the structural engineer considers the building can be saved, repaired and brought back into use but at some great cost; however, based on this information, it is considered the demolition of Bridge House and its outbuildings would be acceptable as long as there is an acceptable replacement development on the site, which is assessed below.

1. The second part of the assessment concerns the acceptability of the proposed replacement development. The proposed fenestration and external appearance of the building is essentially trying to copy the style of the adjacent building (Quay West), which is located outside the Conservation Area. The height of the building would be 11.5m taller than No.1a Lake Road, 8.9m taller than The Railway Hotel building and 15m taller than the tyre garage on Banks Circus. The proposed detailing for the south elevation of the building is relatively poor and bland for a Conservation Area. The application is proposing to install open mesh panels and galvanised steel grilles into the ground floor of the building. The southern elevation is unattractive and does nothing to enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

1. In respect of the views to the views of the rear of the building from the eastern car park of Tesco and the public highway of Lake Road, the proposed building looks unimaginative compared to the Quay West.

1. The proposed development would be out of scale with the neighbouring buildings of Lake Road, The Railway public house and Tyre Garage. It is considered the proposal would look of out of character within the street scene. The proposal certainly does not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality.