Loading document...
Application No.: 07/01930/B Case Officer : Mr Ian Brooks #### Consultations #### Representations {{table:185224}} ### Planning Applicant: Braeside Developments Ltd Proposal: Demolition of existing building and erection of an apartment block to provide eight apartments with associated car parking Site Address: Cliff Lodge 1 - 4 Switzerland Road Douglas Isle of Man IM2 4NG **
The application site comprises of the curtilage of Cliff Lodge which is located on the north-western side of Switzerland Road. The site consists of the residential property and a cliff face, which has extensive vegetation. To the north east of the application site is the residential property of No.1 Switzerland Terrace and to the south west is the Edelweiss Hotel. To the rear of the application site, in an elevated position, is the public highway of Switzerland Road. The application site is located within an area
zoned as Tourism/Residential within the Douglas Local Plan. The application site is also within the Douglas Promenades Conservation Area.
This application is proposing to demolish the existing two storey building and erect a 6 storey apartment block onto the site. The building will accommodate 8 apartments. 7 of the apartments will have 2 bedrooms; while the other remaining apartment will have 3 bedrooms. 11 on-site car parking spaces will be provided. The building will be 16.5m in width and will be between 15.8m and 17.1 m in depth to the cliff face. The building will be between 17.6m and 16.1m in height. The overall finish of the building will either be a white or cream coloured smooth render.
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 35, 39 and 42, Housing Policies 5 and 6, Transport Policies 1, 4 and 7.
Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic 2007 states that "Within a Conservation Area, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development."
Environment Policy 39 states that "The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area."
Environment Policy 42 states that "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans"
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."
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."
Housing Policy 6 states "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."
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."
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."
Within Planning Policy Statement 1/01 – Policy and Guidance Notes of the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application: CA/2 and CA/6
The following previous application is considered relevant in the consideration of this application:
06/02176/A - Approval in principle for the erection of a block of nine apartments and associated parking – application deemed withdrawn on 15.06.2007
Highways Division of the Department of Transport do not object to the application subject to the imposition of conditions relating to the car parking allocation for the apartments.
Douglas Corporation has requested a deferment of the application until the Public Works Committee have considered them on 21st November 2007. No further comments have been received.
Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment has commented that the development is of poor design and impinges on the old cliff line. There are also concerned with regard to litter.
Standard comments have been received from the Drainage Services Manager of Douglas Corporation, Isle of Man Water Authority and the Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service.
The occupier of Seacliffe, Port Soderick is not sure that Housing Policy 17 is fully satisfied or General Policy 2 b, c, g, h & n. The design/appearance is not sympathetic to other buildings close by – even the present building has no real architectural merit.
The occupier of 1 Marathon Terrace Queens Promenade does not object to the principle of redeveloping the site but does have concerns about the details of the application in particular the overdevelopment of the site, the parking layout and the closeness of the building to the rock face.
The owner of Edelweiss Hotel, Queens Promenade has objected to the application in particular: the development will block light from all the adjoining windows; the development will cause rockfall down the cliff face; the lane will be blocked putting businesses at risk and local/international tourists at risk; the development will cause parking problems in the area; the proposal will impact on the business and other neighbouring businesses.
The Environmental Health Directorate of the Department of Local Government and the Environment has commented that the proposed flats must comply with the requirements of the Housing (Flats) Regulations 1982 and be registered thereafter under the same regulations.
Estates and Housing Directorate of the Department of Local Government and the Environment have considered the provision of affordable housing and considers that 2 units should be provided as affordable housing.
The assessment of this application can be split into two distinctive elements. These are;
Firstly, 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."
Therefore, the application should be assessed against similar criteria to that as set out in Policy RB/6 of PPS1/01. It is useful to understand what criteria are used in Policy RB/6. The policy sets out the following considerations:
"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."
The agents have stated that demolition is required for the following reasons: 1) Rockfall occurred in summer of 2005 causing severe damage, 2) Environmental Health served a closing order on the buildings due to rock fall, 3) Existing dwelling and flats are inhabitable, 4) Structural movements occurred causing cracking and external walls [sic], 5) Existing retaining walls are bulging and require rebuilding, 6) Extensive wet rot has been found throughout the building and 7) Infestation of woodworm in the floor joists.
The agents have not submitted any structural reports to substantiate their reasons for demolishing the existing building; furthermore, they have not carried out any proper assessment to justify the demolition of the building in relation to the Conservation Area Policies in Planning Policy Statement 1/01. It is therefore considered that the loss of the building is premature and furthermore, its loss would adversely affect the character and appearance of the proposed Conservation Area.
The second part of the assessment is whether the proposed building would either preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. A modern design of building does not necessarily harm the conservation area just because it does not replicate appropriate period details or style. It does not have to look like or be indistinguishable from its surroundings to be acceptable; it stands to be judged as a piece of modern design within its context and, it should respect buildings of value that it is to be seen next to as well as the wider context.
Whilst the style of architecture and design may be subjective, the scheme has to be considered in the context of whether it preserves or enhances the Conservation Area. The design of the building is modern in its appearance; however, the overall design is not overly inspiring and does not sit comfortably within the context of the surrounding buildings. The existing building on the site has windows at Ground Floor Level offering a residential feel which is continued in Switzerland Terrace. The Conservation Officer considers the use of the garaging to the Ground Floor adds a negative element to the streetscape, which does not add to the visual amenities of the locality.
This application is proposing to erect a taller building than what currently exists and seeks to infill the site, which is immediately bounded by the Edelweiss Hotel and No.1 Switzerland Road. The proposed building will project 1.2m above the ridge line of the Edelweiss Hotel and 1.4m above the ridge line of No.1 Switzerland Terrace. The proposed building is too tall in respect of the surrounding building and would be out of keeping. Overall, the building would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
In respect of the general amenity for the residents of the proposed apartment, there are no specific amenity standards set out in the current policy for apartments. However, Housing Policy 17 of the Strategic Plan, which refers to the conversion of buildings into flats, provides useful guidance in what standards should be applied. The flats should have adequate space for clothes-drying, refuse storage, general amenity,
and, if practical car parking. The flats should have a pleasant, clear outlook, particularly from the principal room(s) of the flat.
The apartments would seem to comply with the standard as all the apartments have a number of windows which provide natural light and a clear outlook. The development will be providing refuse storage and car parking. It is therefore considered that the proposed apartments would provide a satisfactory residential environment for the future occupiers of the development.
Housing Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 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 of affordable housing. This policy will apply to development of 8 dwellings or more."
The Estates and Housing Directorate have indicated that "...due consideration to the land availability and demand for both first time buyer and public sector housing in the Douglas Area, the applicant proposes 8no. apartments and therefore a provision of 2 units (8 x 25%) should be provided as affordable housing. Such properties should comply with the Department Guide to Public Sector Housing Standards Document."
The Estates and Housing Directorate anticipates that the affordable housing element will be utilised for first time buyer housing to be sold in accordance with the House Purchase Assistance Scheme 2007 and would recommend that the developer discusses the provision with their Directorate before proceeding further with the proposals beyond the next stage.
It is considered that the applicant should enter into a legal agreement with the Department prior to the granting of any planning permission so as to ensure that two of the apartments will be set-aside for affordable housing in line with the Housing Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan.
The car parking standards set out in Appendix 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 requires that 1 space is provided for 1 bedroom apartments and 2 spaces for 2 or more spaces; however, these standards may be relaxed where the development (a) would secure the re-use of a Registered Building or building of architectural or historic interest; or (b) would result in the preservation of a sensitive streetscape; or (c) is otherwise of benefit to the character of a Conservation Area; or (d) is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus rout and it can be demonstrated a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality.
All the apartments are over 2 or more bedrooms and therefore the car parking requirement for this development would be 16 spaces. The application is proposing to provide 11 spaces and would not accord with the parking requirement of the Strategic Plan. On the other hand, the site is a town centre location where the provision for car parking within developments will be limited. It is considered that the reduced car parking provision would help to promote sustainable transport objectives.
It should be noted that the Highway Division of the Department of Transport do not oppose the application subject to condition relating to: 1) Apartments 7 and 8 are allocated two tandem car parking spaces and 2) All the other apartments are allocated at least one parking space per apartment.
In respect of the impact on the Edelweiss Hotel, the application site is set north east of the hotel. The application site is marginally higher than the Edelweiss Hotel. The proposed building will be set back approximately 2.5m from the front elevation of the Edelweiss Hotel. It should be noted that there are a number of windows on the side elevation of the hotel that face towards the application site. These windows either serve as secondary source of light to the hotel rooms or non-habitable spaces. It is considered the proposal will not cause any significant degree of overshadowing and loss of light to the hotel.
In respect of the impact on the residential property of No.1 Switzerland Terrace, the application site is set to the south west of No.1 Switzerland Terrace. The proposed building will be approximately 5.6m lower that ground floor level of No.1 Switzerland Terrace and will project 4.7m in front of the building line of No.1 Switzerland Terrace. The building will also project 1.4m above the ridge of No.1 Switzerland Terrace. It should be noted there are a number of windows on the side elevation of the main dwellinghouse which serve habitable spaces. The proposed building will be set 4.7m away from the side elevation of No.1 at its nearest point. A number of the windows provide a secondary source of light to the habitable rooms; however, due to the close proximity of the building to the side elevation of No.1 Switzerland Terrace, the proposal will result in overshadowing, would be overbearing and be a visual intrusion to the occupiers of No.1 Switzerland Terrace.
The content of the application has been considered against Policy CA/2 SPECIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS and POLICY CA/4 PROPOSALS FOR PRESERVATION AND ENHANCEMENT of Conservation Areas as set out within Planning Policy Statement 1/01, Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man.
The Douglas Promenade Conservation Area came into being on the 9th August, 2002.
The existing building is a two storey, rendered block with twin gables on the corner and sash windows to the first floor. The building has a date stone of 1911, indicating a fairly recent build. There would appear to be a later addition running up the road with 'landscape' format of windows. This later part of the existing building is unremarkable, aesthetically at least. The gable verge detailing and detailing over the first floor windows is in keeping with the character of the surrounding buildings.
The application is proposing a six storey rendered building, set on a plinth containing garaging and garage doors. The elevations step back to follow the boundary onto Switzerland Terrace terminating in a cylindrical tower on the corner of the building. This format could be said to be emanating from the Edelweiss Hotel adjacent to the site.
The test is whether the proposal preserves or enhances the Conservation Area. It does not in my opinion preserve the Conservation Area as it removes an existing building. Whilst the style of architecture and design may be subjective, we have to consider whether this scheme enhances the Conservation Area. The existing building on the site has windows at Ground Floor Level offering a residential feel which is continued in Switzerland Terrace. The use of the garaging to the Ground Floor adds a negative element in the streetscape. I have concerns that the additional height of this building seeks to 'in fill' the site which is immediately bounded by the Edelweiss, a much taller building. The Lodge affects the transition in scale between the large Promenade facing Hotels and the more domestic scale to the rear. Perhaps a building that in terms of its scale perhaps three storeys instead of six, would be more appropriate?
It is recommended that the application be refused for the above reasons.
The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
Whilst the Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service, Isle of Man Water Authority and the Manx Electricity Authority represents a statutory authority, the points raised in correspondence relate to Building Control matters and not planning and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
Estates and Housing Directorate and the Environment Health section are part of the Department of Local Government and the Environment and should not be afforded separate party status in this instance.
Mr Jessop of Seacliffe, Old Castletown Road, Port Soderick, given his distance from the application site is not granted Interested Party Status under the provisions of Planning Circular 1/06.
In summary, it is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, accord with the requirements of Planning Circular 1/06 and are therefore, afforded interested party status:
Accordingly the following parties are not afforded interested party status:
Decision Recommended by the Director of Planning and Building Control: Refused
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1. The demolition of the building within the Douglas Promenades Conservation Area would be contrary to Policy CA/6 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 and Environment Policies 35 and 39 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that no proper assessment has been carried out and submitted to assess the merits/justification for the demolition
of the building. It is therefore considered that the demolition of the building would be premature and would adversely affect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
R 2. The proposed development would be contrary to General Policy 2, Environment Policies 35 and 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 by reason of its height, design, massing and external appearance and will introduce a prominent and incongruous structure that will be out of keeping with the locality and would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, to the detriment of the visual amenities of the locality.
R 3. The proposed development would be contrary to General Policy 2 and Housing Policy 6 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 by reason of its height, design, massing, siting and close proximity to No.1 Switzerland Terrace in that it will result in overshadowing, loss of light, would be overbearing and a visual intrusion to the occupiers of No.1 Switzerland Terrace.
Handwritten note (bottom left):
> that roof > inclusion of ground floor per parking > not sympathetic to CA or pedestrian > domestic attack > tower then bolt
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown