Inspector's Report

Report by Mrs Jennifer Vyse DipTP, MRTPI, DipPBM Following an Inquiry into a Planning Appeal Held on 19 May 2025 Site Inspection carried out on 19 May 2025

Appeal Ref: AP25/0002 Application Number: 23/01066/B Address: Leyton, Victoria Road, Douglas IM2 6AQ

The appeal is made by Mark Pearce of J M Project Management Ltd against the failure of DEFA Planning to give notice on an application for planning permission for the construction of two new houses to replace existing single house.

Preliminary Matters

• 1. Subsequent to submission of the planning application in September 2023, Leyton was included on the list of registered buildings. An appeal against refusal of an application to de-register it was unsuccessful. Consequently, the proposal now involves demolition of a registered building. Whilst such works require separate Registered Building Consent,1 no such application has been submitted. That does not, however, negate consideration of current planning application. Simply put, in the event that this appeal was to succeed and planning permission granted, that would not alter the need for separate consent to be obtained for demolition of the registered building, the application for which would be considered on its own merits.
• 2. On clarifying the plans at the start of the Inquiry, it became clear that they contain a number of anomalies. For instance, Plots 1 and 2 as shown on the General Layout Plan (Dwg No 23/103/PL01) are handed when compared to the plot numbering on the Proposed Site Plan (Dwg No 23/103/PL01). It was confirmed, in this regard, that the site plan is correct and that the Plot Nos for the elevations and floor plans shown on Dwg No 23/103/PL01 should be re-labelled accordingly.
• 3. The first and second floor plans for Plot 1 on Dwg No 23/103/PL01 (as relabelled) are also incorrectly labelled and need swapping round. On the same plan, the compass bearing titles for each of the elevations for Plot 1 (as re-labelled) is incorrect - what is titled ‘side north elevation’ is actually the ‘front east elevation’; ‘rear west elevation’ should be ‘side north elevation’; ‘side south elevation’ should be ‘rear west elevation’; and ‘front east elevation’ should be ‘side south elevation’. For both Plots, the side utility door at ground floor shown on the floor plans needs adding to the respective elevations.
• 4. It was also confirmed that the garages shown on Dwg No 23/103/PL01 are for illustrative purposes only. They do not form part of the development for which planning permission is sought.
• 5. Some of the objectors at application stage refer to the absence of a site notice. Whether or not that is the case, as evidenced by the number of representations received, local residents were clearly aware of the application and were able to submit their comments. In any event, this

• 1 Town and Country Planning Act 1999 Part 3 Section 15 (1) (a) and Section 15 (2)

appeal provides for full consideration of all points of view, both for and against the proposed development.

• 6. At the Inquiry, the appellant suggested that if approval was not forthcoming, then a split decision should be considered, allowing for the erection of just one house adjacent to the retained Leyton. However, that would materially alter the nature of the development proposed, requiring an assessment of the impact on the heritage significance of Leyton as a consequence of development within its setting. That issue does not arise in relation to the scheme as proposed, since the registered building would be removed. Such development would also have different implications for the character and appearance of the area. Moreover, those who may have an interest in the outcome of such an application would be denied the opportunity to make their comments known. I confirmed, in this regard, that a split decision would not be an option in this instance. Any proposal for such an arrangement would need to be the subject of a separate application, which would be considered by DEFA Planning in the first instance.

RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016)

• 7. Among other things, Strategic Policy 3 seeks to protect or enhance the individual character of the Island’s towns by having regard to the use of local materials and character in the design of new development.
• 8. Strategic Policy 4 seeks to protect the fabric of Registered Buildings and the nature conservation value of urban sites.
• 9. Strategic Policy 5 requires that new development be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island.
• 10. General Policy 2 b) requires that new development should respect the site and its surroundings in terms of form and design. Part c) requires that development should not affect adversely the character of the surrounding area. Part d) seeks to protect wildlife or locally important habitats. Part j) requires that new development can be provided with all necessary services. Part k) requires that development should not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land.
• 11. Environment Policy 4 seeks to resist development that would adversely affect ecological interests. Environment Policy 30 sets out a general presumption against the demolition of registered buildings. In considering such proposals, it lists four matters to which regard should be had: the condition of the building; the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance; the adequacy of efforts made to retain it; and the merits of alternative proposals for the site.
• 12. Environment Policy 42 requires that new development be designed to take account of the particular character and identity of the immediate locality.

Area Plan for the East (2020)

• 13. Urban Environment Proposal 3 requires that development should make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness, having regard to the nature of the proposal and the context of the surrounding area.

• 14. Urban Environment Proposal 4 is supportive of development that helps secure a future for built heritage assets, especially those identified as being at the greatest risk of loss or decay.

Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man (PPS1)

• 15. Policy RB/6 sets out a general presumption against the demolition of Registered Buildings. It confirms that consent for demolition should not be expected simply because redevelopment is economically more attractive than repair and re-use. When considering a proposal for demolition, in addition to the RB/3 criteria, the following considerations also need addressing, namely: the elements that make up its special interest; the condition of the building; the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use; and the merits of any alternative proposals for the site.
• 16. Policy RB/3 sets out criteria that are to be applied to the consideration of registered building applications. These include a building’s importance, architectural and historic interest and rarity, particular physical features and its setting and contribution to the street scene.

PLANNING HISTORY

• 17. PA 20/00293/A – approval in principle was granted for an area of land to the south of Leyton. All matters other than access were reserved for future consideration. As no Reserved Matters application was submitted in time, that permission has now lapsed.
• 18. PA 21/01468/B – permission refused for the erection of six houses on land to the south of Leyton. The subsequent appeal was dismissed (AP22/0040).
• 19. PA 21/01504/B – permission refused for the erection of a single dwelling adjacent to Leyton. The subsequent appeal was dismissed (AP22/0043).
• 20. PA 23/00942/B – permission refused for the erection of four houses on land to the south of Leyton. The subsequent appeal was allowed (AP24/0045).
• 21. Leyton was added to the list of Registered Buildings in 2024. Application No 24/90001/S1 for de-registration was refused in June 2024. The subsequent appeal (AP24/0021) was dismissed.

DESCRIPTION

• 22. The appeal site comprises Leyton, a detached house of Arts and Crafts design dating from around 1896/7 and its curtilage, together with an area of land to the south, between Leyton and Sunnyside Cottage, on the western side of Victoria Road. It lies opposite to, but outwith, the Little Switzerland Conservation Area.

• 23. This part of Victoria Road is predominantly residential, with properties varying in age, design and density, although closely spaced dwellings fronting onto the road are not uncommon. The northern end of Victoria Road is characterised by mature trees and hedges along its roadside edge.

• 24. Leyton is set back from the road, sitting to one side of its plot with an extensive side garden. To the north, larger well-spaced houses and apartment buildings occupy ample plots of a verdant nature. Opposite is Lucerne Court, a development of large houses on generous plots, but which very much turn their back to Victoria Road, contributing little to the character of this part of the street.
• 25. To the south is a large area of land which was occupied by a World War II air raid shelter. That has recently been demolished and the site cleared. Whilst the front part of that adjacent land is included in the red line boundary for the current application, it is in separate ownership. It is simply included to facilitate the provision of services and visibility splay for the appeal site, with the appellant having rights over that land for this purpose. No development is proposed on that part of the adjacent land. However, the rear part of that site benefits from a recent planning permission for the erection of four detached dwellings, access to which would be taken from Victoria Road, though the front part of the site (PA 23/00942/B).
• 26. To the west, behind Leyton, is St Georges AFC, which includes banks of mature trees along its southern boundary, which form part of Registered Tree Area RA0555, linking through to trees on the old air raid shelter site.
• 27. It is proposed to demolish the existing property, Leyton, and erect two, three-storey five-bedroom detached dwellings on the site, together with associated parking and turning areas to the front. As noted above, whilst the red line application site boundary includes adjacent land to the south, that is simply to facilitate the provision of services and a visibility splay. No development is proposed on that land.
• 28. The new dwellings, which are of the same, albeit handed, design, would each have footprint of some 130sqm and a ridge height of around 9.6m, some 5.2m to eaves. Each front elevations comprises two gables, one of which has a first floor balcony with metal balustrades above a projecting bay to the ground floor living room. The second floor accommodation would be contained within the roof space, with roof lights to the front and rear. The dwellings would be finished in red facing brick and Ashlar Lined render, with a natural slate roof and UPVC windows.
• 29. Although detached garaging is shown on the submitted plans, as confirmed earlier, they are shown for illustrative purposes only and do not form part of the current proposal. Even so, each property would have on-site parking for at least three vehicles, served via a single, shared vehicular access off Victoria Road, in the same position as the existing access. The approval for development of the adjacent land included permission to reduce the height of the existing stone wall across that site and the frontage of Leyton, to secure appropriate visibility splays.

THE CASE FOR THE APPELLANT The material points are:

• 30. The identity of the area in terms of buildings and landscape character was largely defined by a second world war air raid shelter on neighbouring land

• to the south. That has now been demolished and the site cleared, with planning permission having been recently secured for the erection of four houses (PA 23/00942/B) on the land, together with removal of a number of trees along the boundary of that site with Victoria Road.
• 31. The Little Switzerland Conservation Area is to the south-east, on the opposite side of Victoria Road. No part of the appeal site touches the Conservation Area, which is primarily made up of semi-detached properties set back around 6 metres or so from the pavement.
• 32. Leyton sits to the north of its site, in contrast to other dwellings on the western side of Victoria Road, such as West Hill and Sea Court, which both occupy a central position on their respective plots. On plan, Leyton appears to nestle to one side, giving the impression that the position was deliberate to allow another house to be constructed on the site.
• 33. It is proposed to demolish the existing property. Prior to its recent registration, it had not been included on the provisional list of recommended buildings for registration investigated by the Department’s Conservation Officer. It was not identified in the Area Plan as being of special local interest, nor was it identified by local special interest groups as having special significance. Despite the Authority considering numerous applications over the years, and approving large extensions that detract from its significance, the building had never previously been recommended for registration. It was hastily added to the list following submission of this application, which included replacement of the dilapidated property with new buildings of a similar style.
• 34. More worthy examples of Arts and Crafts architecture locally have been identified and included on the register for decades, with only 14 properties registered in Douglas over the last 20 years, despite numerous other Arts and Crafts properties within the wider context surviving to the present day. The threshold of special architectural or historical interest for inclusion on the register is relatively high. The Register Entry Summary for Leyton fails to fulfil the statutory criteria of identifying its special architectural or historical interest, with no articulated genuine unique quality relevant to the character of the Island’s built heritage to justify the statutory protection afforded by registration.
• 35. The primary aspect of Leyton qualifying for registration would be the property’s architectural style, having once been a pleasantly designed (but not unique) example of the Arts and Crafts movement. The architectural features mentioned in the entry, such as the twin-gabled front elevation, half Ballanard brick half-timbered elevation, ground floor bays and oriel windows at first floor, are not a particularly uncommon feature in buildings of this period. There are examples of similar registered and unregistered Arts and Crafts style buildings locally. The entry does not identify any unique features or architectural innovation that is not found elsewhere within the wider context, and there is not sufficiently consistent architectural language within the building for it to be considered as an eminent example of late Victorian Arts and Crafts.
• 36. Despite the building’s pleasant historic design, it has undergone significant alterations over the years, resulting in the Authority acknowledging the loss

• of ‘architectural significance as it is not an intact example of its type’. The loss of historical fabric is a relevant factor when considering special interest. The remaining historic fabric has been subject to extensive damage from vandalism and deterioration externally and internally, and will inevitably require widespread replacement to make the property habitable, resulting in an even greater loss of historic fabric. Whatever architectural significance the building is considered to have once had, is significantly diminished by substantial prior loss of original fabric and that which would be required to facilitate repair works. It is estimated that it would only be possible to retain/repair approximately 50% of the remaining historic fabric.
• 37. The existing dwelling would be replaced by two detached dwellings, with a density of 5.25 houses per acre (13 houses per hectare). This is lower than the surrounding area and with greater space separation than other developments of a similar nature. Density within the Little Switzerland Conservation Area is 7.5 houses to the acre.
• 38. The proposed designs have a double gable frontage and a forward projecting bay, with extensive use of red brick. The designs are very much in keeping with the style of houses on Lucerne Court opposite and pay homage, to some degree, to the existing house Leyton, with double gable frontages and the use of red brick. They are also of much the same style and appearance as those recently approved on the adjoining land to the south.
• 39. The new dwellings would be served via a joint access from Victoria Road. The existing access lacks adequate sightlines and is dangerous. Access arrangements to Victoria Road have been resolved with approval of development on the neighbouring site, enabling a reduction in the height of the front stone wall to afford adequate sight lines in both directions.
• 40. This appeal has been brought due to non-determination of the application, which centred round the removal of the existing house Leyton. No other significant objections have been raised to warrant refusal of this application.

THE CASE FOR DEFA PLANNING The material points are:

• 41. The proposal raises no concerns in terms of parking and highway safety. Likewise, potential impacts on trees and potential flood risk are considered acceptable. The primary concern relates to the loss of the registered building. Leyton was added to the list of registered buildings in February

1. It is clearly a significant heritage asset that is worthy of retention, a view reinforced by dismissal of the appeal against the Authority’s refusal to de-register the building (PA 24/90001/S1). The Inspector in that case concluded that “The readily identifiable special architectural and historic interest of this 1896/7 Arts and Crafts style dwelling overrides its present dilapidated state, justifying its continued inclusion on the protected buildings register.”

• 42. Both Environment Policy 30 of the Strategic Plan and policy RB/6 of PPS1 set out a presumption against the demolition of registered buildings. It has not been clearly demonstrated that the registered building could not be retained and improved to suit modern living standards, with no structural reports or

• viability assessments having been provided to justify removal of the building as the best and only option.
• 43. The loss of the registered building would be contrary to Section 16 (3) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999), which requires that decision makers have special regard to the desirability of preserving any registered building or its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. It would also conflict with Strategic Policies 4 and 5 and General Policy 2a) and b) of the Strategic Plan. Moreover, the loss of a contributor to the Island’s local character and distinctiveness also conflicts with Urban Environment Proposal 3 of the Area Plan for the East (APE) and fails to secure a future for built heritage assets, contrary to Urban Environment Proposal 4 of the APE.
• 44. Other concerns relate to the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area. Whilst the proposed dwellings may be perceived to reflect features of Leyton, the attempt to mimic lacks the authenticity and historic significance of the high quality materials and meticulous craftsmanship of the registered building they would replace. They capture only the superficial elements of a historical style without comprehending the underlying principles of design, proportion, and detailing that inform the design of Leyton. The resulting pastiche appears contrived and unconvincing and the dwellings would not sit well in their context.
• 45. Replacing a well-designed, historic, registered Arts and Crafts building with two ‘mimic’ dwellings represents a significant loss in terms of architectural integrity, authenticity, and design innovation. It would diminish the streetscape and disrupt historical context, offering no genuine improvement over the existing dwelling, with consequent harm to the established character and appearance of the area, bringing the scheme into conflict with Environment Policy 42 and General Policy 2b) and c) of the Strategic Plan.
• 46. The front balconies are positioned to avoid direct overlooking of the two new curtilages. However, the balcony on Plot 2 would overlook a large part of the adjacent land to the south, potentially prejudicing use or development of that land in the future, contrary to General Policy 2k).
• 47. Demolition of the existing dwelling to facilitate the development proposed has the potential to result in adverse impacts on biodiversity, particularly as the windows have been left open for long periods, and due to the site’s proximity to mature woodland areas within the adjacent registered tree area. The appeal site is also located less than 200m from Summer Hill Glen broadleaved woodland and Wildlife Site which has multiple bat records, and is around 250m from a watercourse. No ecological information has been provided to address these matters. The scheme conflicts therefore, with the principles promoted by General Policy 2d) of the Strategic Plan, which seeks to protect ecological interests.
• 48. Concerns in relation to impact on trees have been overtaken by the approval for four dwellings on the adjacent land to the south (PA 23/00942/B).
• 49. The proposed drainage details (Dwg No 23/103/PL02) indicate discharge into the existing drainage system on site. However, Manx Utilities require attenuation or soakaways on completion of successful percolation tests for any new development, as they do not allow for the discharge of surface

• water into the combined or foul system. The appellant provides no information as to how surface water would be independently managed. There remain inherent concerns in this regard.
• 50. Had DEFA Planning determined this application, permission would have been refused for the reasons set out at Annex C below.

THE CASE FOR THE VICTORIAN SOCIETY The material points are:

• 51. Our principal objection to this application relates to the demolition of Leyton, which is far more important to our architectural heritage than is perhaps appreciated. We note the appellant’s comments on the condition of the property, which others dispute as being well over-stated. That would appear to be the case.
• 52. The property has a ground floor of Ballanard brickwork with sliding sash windows. The first floor is half-timbered and has two oriel bay windows which, along with other first floor windows are casement windows, essentially ruling out Baillie Scott as the architect. This is, nevertheless, a competent and well-executed design.
• 53. It has a lower rear section with two smaller bedrooms, which have dormer windows with flat roofs in a manner used by Bailie Scott. Leyton is unique amongst all the Little Switzerland houses, being the only one to have a full first floor entirely in half-timbering. It was the first of the ‘smaller’ houses to be built and is the only one not to be designed by Baillie Scott or Armitage Ridley. Its demolition should not be permitted.

THE CASE FOR MS NEWTON The material points are:

• 54. Leyton is a very attractive detached, late Victorian Arts and Crafts style property set in its own mature grounds. It has recently been added to the list of registered buildings. A subsequent appeal against registration was unsuccessful. There is no obvious reason and no structural reason given as to why its demolition is required.
• 55. Notwithstanding the recent grant of permission for the erection of four dwellings on land to the south, Leyton follows a pattern of development and street scene that is prevalent along this part of Victoria Road. The height, width and form of the proposed dwellings is a departure from the established character and appearance of the area.
• 56. The density of development and the proximity of the houses is similar to an earlier application for an additional dwelling in the grounds of Leyton, which was refused (PA21/01504/B). In that scheme, Leyton itself was to be retained, with the appellant advising the Inspector in that case that it was his intention to undertake further work on the property, including removal of some of the unsightly extensions. He also confirmed that at the time (November 2022) refurbishment of the property was underway, including demolition of parts of the house, to sort out problems with dry and wet rot. All of the forgoing indicates that until the past year, the appellant considered that Leyton was respected for its architecture and setting, with

• refurbishment planned. Since then, doors and windows have been left open, which may have amounted to constructive deterioration of the property.
• 57. The rear extensions do not impact on the principal appearance of the front and side of the property, and are removable. Whilst the porch is also an addition, it is in character with the original house. The changes to windows have, crucially, not altered the shape of the original openings or pattern of fenestration. It is a totally invalid excuse to now claim that any delay in dealing with the application for one house in its grounds prevented any work being undertaken on Leyton itself. This claim in effect amounts to constructive neglect in order to justify demolition. It should be refuted.
• 58. This application for two houses involves using the same access as at present albeit, with lowering of the boundary wall height. However no details are given about the trees in the grounds, including those fronting Victoria Road and therefore there is concern over their future.
• 59. The potential for loss of biodiversity on site would adversely affect the site character, with a detrimental impact on its amenity value of mature landscape quality and nature conservation value. The loss of mature garden habitat also has the potential to adversely impact a variety of biodiversity such as feeding, sheltering and breeding birds, feeding and commuting bats, and invertebrates.

WRITTEN APPEAL REPRESENTATIONS

• 60. Holly Bank, Little Switzerland – Objects. This is a beautiful registered Building with considerable architectural heritage. It contributes to the Arts and Crafts architecture of the entire Island and the recent appeal against deregistration has been refused. The owners should be under instruction to remedy the neglect suffered by the property over recent years. This superb building should be saved.2

REPRESENTATIONS AT APPLICATION STAGE

• 61. DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team - Significant amounts of vegetation would be lost, with no ecological mitigation apart from one rowan tree. More detailed information is required showing what vegetation is to be removed. Should trees need to be removed, or works take place close to them, then tree surveys will also be required, as are soft landscaping plans. An assessment for roosting bats and nesting birds is required, with a report detailing the findings of that assessment to be submitted prior to demolition.
• 62. DoI Highways – no objection subject to conditions.
• 63. DoI Flood Risk – the Flood Risk Assessment should be conditioned as part of any approval.
• 64. Manx Utilities Drainage - once a building has been demolished, it stops communicating with the public sewer, with any new buildings being regarded as a new connection. MU do not allow any surface water into the combined or foul system, which will require attenuation or soakaways (on completion of successful percolation tests).

• 2 I have included the occupiers comments made at application stage.

• 65. DEFA Forestry – Object to the removal of five registered trees, all of which are a category B. The proposal would result in the loss of some 50% of the current tree canopy the site. This canopy cover is particularly valuable in this urban setting. Details of tree protection have not been provided. Conditions suggested in the event that permission is granted.
• 66. Douglas Borough Council - no objection.
• 67. Ten local residents wrote in objecting to the proposal. As set out in the officer’s appeal statement, comments can be summarised as:

• • architectural significance of Leyton to the area;
• • historical importance of the existing dwelling;
• • Leyton is an example of the Arts and Crafts movement of late Victorian era, many of which were designed by renowned architect of the day M H Baillie Scott;
• • the house and the style of the property has connections to artists such as Charlies Rennie Mackintosh and William Morris;
• • the building has been allowed to depreciate intentionally;
• • adverse impact on character of locality;
• • two houses at the site will further exacerbate traffic issues along Victoria Road;
• • the proposal does not address all the reasons for refusal of PA 21/01504/B;
• • non-display of site notice.

INSPECTOR’S ASSESSMENT

• 68. Based on the Authority’s putative reasons for refusal (Annex B below), and as refined by the respective discussion at the Inquiry, I consider that the main issues in this case relate to:

• • whether there is sufficient justification for demolition of the registered building, having regard to its special interest;
• • the effect of the development proposed on the character and appearance of the area;
• • its effect on ecology and biodiversity;
• • whether the scheme would materially prejudice potential future development on adjacent land to the south; and
• • whether the site can be drained adequately.

Demolition of the Registered Building

• 69. The special interest of the building was assessed in the recent appeal against the Authority’s refusal of the application for de-registration, which I dealt with. I found that the building has intrinsic architectural merit that is particularly evident in the visual quality of the front elevation, with sufficient of the original fabric and design remaining when the building is considered as a whole, to give it special architectural interest. Even in its poor state of repair, I concluded that it survives as a good example of the Island’s cultural history, forming part of the late Victorian and Edwardian Arts and Crafts designed expansion of Douglas.

• 70. No detailed surveys by a conservation/heritage specialist to assess the full extent of the damage referred to by the appellant nor, importantly, any evidence as to how much could be sympathetically repaired and/or retained, was before that Inquiry. Such surveys would have approached the task with a view to securing the conservation/preservation of the building as a first option and would have assessed necessary remedial works. My report also noted that despite the appellant’s case that refurbishment was unviable, no financial viability analysis was provided.

• 71. Whilst the instant appeal was accompanied by a heritage statement (Mr Bailey), it majors on why the building should not have been registered in the first place and why it should be de-registered. It does not provide the necessarily detailed, specialist survey information outlined above that might support the appellant’s case that repair and refurbishment of the building is wholly unrealistic.
• 72. Neither has any detailed financial viability analysis been provided. During the Inquiry, the appellant did advise that the property had cost the company some £826,277 to date.3 Based on advice from Building Control and the author of the de-registration report that accompanied the appeal, it was also maintained that refurbishment would be likely to cost somewhere in the region of £625,000 (based on a figure of £2,500 per square metre) giving a total cost for the property of around £1.45 million, making the scheme unviable. However, absent any detailed evidence in relation to those costings, including any specialist assessment as to exactly what works might be required, those figures cannot be sense checked.
• 73. I recognise that it is an ongoing battle to keep the building safe from vandalism. Even so, little seems to have been done to protect the property from ongoing weather damage. I recognise that metal plates have been introduced beneath the lintols to some of the ground floor windows, with replacement brick headers above, as pointed out to me during the site visit. However, whilst presumably not original, that work is clearly of some age, blending well with the historic fabric to the extent that it hadn’t been noticed until recently.

• 74. All told, there is insufficient substantiated evidence at this time to overcome the presumption against demolition of this registered building. Demolition would therefore conflict with Strategic Policy 4 and Environment Policy 30 of the Strategic Plan, Urban Environment Proposal 4 of the Area Plan for the East and policy RB/6 of PPS1.

• 75. Other criteria referred to in the policies relating to the demolition of registered buildings relate to the merits of any alternative proposals for the site. I deal with that in the following section of this Report.

Character and Appearance

• 76. In essence, the position of DEFA Planning is that even were demolition of the registered building found to be justified, the proposed redevelopment

• 3 Oral evidence of Mr Pearce at the Inquiry: cost of purchase - £650,000; interest compounded over 3 years at 7% pa - £146,277; planning work and reports, repairs and security - £30,000.

scheme is of insufficient quality and would have an unacceptable impact on the established character and appearance of the area.

• 77. Whilst the appeal site is close to the Little Switzerland Conservation Area, the houses would be sufficiently removed from the boundary as to avoid any adverse impact, being separated by their set back from the road and the width of Victoria Road itself. Neither would the density of development appear excessive in its context. I am also mindful, that although it would be reduced in height (pursuant to the approval for four houses on the adjacent land to the south – PA 23/00942/B), the stone boundary walling along site frontage at the edge of the carriageway here would be retained.
• 78. The trees on the site (which includes land adjacent to the south) clearly make a positive contribution to the character and amenity of the area. At the time of the application for the dwellings on the adjacent land, two registered Lime trees on the frontage had already been removed for safety reasons. It was held that the loss of a further three registered Limes on the frontage to achieve the required access and visibility splays whilst regrettable, would be offset by substantial replacement planting, rejuvenating the diminished tree canopy and enhancing the character and appearance of the site. No further trees would be lost as a direct consequence of the development the subject of the instant appeal. All told therefore, I find no harm in terms of any adverse impact in these regards on the character or appearance of the nearby Conservation Area.
• 79. I do however, share the concerns of the planning officers and others in relation to the design of the dwellings proposed. Whilst the design may reflect the style of the four dwellings recently approved on the adjacent land, those dwellings were not approved as a replacement for a registered building in the Arts and Crafts tradition, a building that even in its current poor state continues to make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. It seems to me that the prospective loss of Leyton must be considered in the light of the merits of the buildings that would replace it.
• 80. The Arts and Crafts movement provided the opportunity for skilled craftspersons to show off their trade. To my mind, the dwellings proposed, whilst ostensibly drawing on the design of Leyton, fail to convey any of the quality and finesse of the existing building. For instance, the multiplemullioned first-floor oriel windows within the front gables at Leyton would have been an example of that skill.4 Whilst each of the dwellings proposed has a pair of gables to the front elevation, the proposed windows and doors would be upvc, of standard design, sitting flush with the front wall. The distinctive first floor to Leyton is effectively jettied across the width of the frontage, visually supported by the two canted brick bays beneath. All these features combine with the use of half-timbering at first-floor level to create a lively, highly textured front elevation. The houses proposed have none of that personality, character or articulation. Moreover, a distinctive characteristic of all the traditional houses within the Conservation Area, and

• 4 I recognise that one has been replaced in upvc but the other, whilst rotten, provides an indication of what have been there originally.

others further north up Victoria Road, are their multiple chimneys – the dwellings proposed have none.

• 81. I am not suggesting that the new dwellings should mimic, or be a pastiche of Leyton, far from it. However, there is increasing emphasis on good design, which is a key aspect of sustainable development. Well-designed new development should be influenced by an appreciation and understanding of vernacular local character, including existing built form and local architectural precedents, the elements of a place that make it distinctive and other features of the context that are particular to the area. In my view, the proposed design lacks the authenticity and historic significance of the registered building, failing to reinforce or promote local distinctiveness within the street scene. That brings it in to conflict with Strategic Policies 3 and 5, Environment Policy 42 and General Policy 2b) and c) of the Strategic Plan, which seek to protect such interests.

Ecology and Biodiversity

• 82. Notwithstanding the initial concerns of the Ecosystems Policy Team and the related putative reason for refusal, it was a matter of agreement at the Inquiry that any concerns in relation to ecology and biodiversity could be addressed by conditions, or were covered by other legislation. I have no reason to disagree. I find no conflict with Strategic Policy 4, Environment Policy 4 and General Policy 2 d) in this regard, which policies seek to protect such interests.

Adjacent Land to the South

• 83. DEFA Planning was initially concerned that overlooking from the balcony area to the front to the proposed dwelling on Plot 2 would prejudice potential future development there. However, as confirmed at the Inquiry, the balcony would be some 10m away from the shared boundary at its closest point, with any views being oblique at worst.5 On that basis the objection was not pursued at the Inquiry. I am content that the distance of the proposed balcony from the adjacent land would not have the potential to prejudice development on that land. There would be no conflict in this regard, with General Policy 2 k) of the Strategic Plan, which seeks to resist such development.

Drainage

• 84. It was a matter of agreement at the Inquiry that this is can properly be left to be dealt with by conditions. I have no reason to disagree and find no conflict with General Policy 2 j) in this regard.

Other Matters

• 85. Ms Newton raised concerns about light to the ground-floor, side-facing dining room and kitchen windows to each of the dwellings proposed. However, future occupiers would have the choice of whether or not to buy a property where light to those rooms may be compromised. In any event, there was no suggestion that living conditions for future occupiers would be

• 5 Not 5m as set out in the Authority’s statement – the confusion arose due to the anomalies on the plans.

unacceptable in this regard. Importantly, the development would have no impact on light to any windows in existing properties.

• 86. Other concerns raised relate to highway safety. As mentioned earlier, it is proposed that both dwellings would be served via a single, shared access in roughly the same position as the existing access. Currently, that access is very dangerous, with no meaningful visibility on exit in either direction. The permission for development of the adjacent land to the south included approval to fell the remining Lime trees on the frontage and to reduce the height of the stone boundary wall that runs along the entire length of the frontage, to 1 metre. Not only do those works provide the necessary access visibility for that scheme, but they also facilitate the provision of the necessary visibility splays in relation to the access the subject of the instant appeal. DoI Highways confirm in this regard, that the proposed arrangement is satisfactory and raise no objections. I have no reason to take a different view.
• 87. One of the putative reasons for refusal related to the absence of any details for garages. As noted elsewhere, they are shown on the layout plan for illustrative purposes only. Should the appeal succeed and the development go ahead, planning permission would be required for the erection of garaging on the site. Any such application would be for the consideration of DEFA Planning in the first instance.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

• 88. The existing building on the site, Leyton, has intrinsic architectural merit that is particularly evident in the visual quality of the front elevation, which gives the building much of its special architectural interest. Even in its current poor state of repair, it survives as a good example of the Island’s cultural history, forming part of the late Victorian and Edwardian Arts and Crafts designed expansion of Douglas.

• 89. The appellant’s view is that notwithstanding its registered status, it is in such poor condition that it is beyond economic repair/restoration. Its demolition is proposed, with replacement by two new dwellings. However, no evidence in the form, for instance, of surveys undertaken by a conservation/heritage specialist are before me. Such surveys would approach the task with a view to securing the conservation/preservation of the building as a first option and would assess necessary remedial works. Neither is there any detailed financial viability appraisal costing the works that might be identified by the surveys. In essence, there is no substantiated evidence on the part of the appellant to overcome the presumption against demolition of the registered building as set out in the relevant policies.
• 90. Even had the case for demolition been made, the design of the dwellings proposed is not of sufficiently high quality or architectural interest as to be an acceptable replacement, with consequential harm to the established character and appearance of the area.
• 91. To be weighed against those harms are the benefits associated with the provision of two new family dwellings in a sustainable location at a time of pressing need. However, given the small scale of the development, that can only attract limited positive weight. It was also suggested that the scheme

• would ‘clean up’ the site. The site is unsightly currently, with the security fencing and boarded windows etc detracting from the character and appearance of the area. However, the dwelling itself, although falling into disrepair, still makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. I am not persuaded, in this regard, that ‘cleaning up’ the site can carry more than minimal positive weight.
• 92. A further asserted benefit was reference to the proposed development not turning its back to the street, like Lucerne Court opposite. However that would be an absence of harm, as opposed to a positive benefit.
• 93. Also prayed in aid is the financial benefit to the appellant were the appeal to succeed, given the ongoing costs associated with the property. However, that is a private matter and carries no positive weight.
• 94. In the overall planning balance, and taking all other matters into consideration, including the fact that in its current state, the appeal site might be considered as a visual detractor, I consider that the benefits do not outweigh the significant harms that I have identified. Even had I concurred with the appellant that the condition of the registered building is so poor that it cannot be retained, my recommendation would still be the same, given the shortcomings of the redevelopment scheme in design terms.
• 95. For the reasons set out above, I therefore conclude on balance that the appeal should not succeed and that planning permission be refused.

Reason for the Recommendation: Notwithstanding its general condition, sufficient justification for demolition of the registered building has not been demonstrated. Moreover, the design of the proposed replacement dwellings is not of sufficient quality as to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area. There would be conflict in these regards, with Strategic Policies 3, 4 and 5, General Policy 2 b) and c) and Environment Policies 30 and 42 of the Strategic Plan, Urban Environment Proposals 3 and 4 of the Area Plan for the East and policy RB/6 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01.

• 96.Should the Minister disagree and be minded to allow the appeal and grant planning permission, recommended conditions are set out at Annex B below. They reflect the related discussion at the Inquiry.

Jennifer A Vyse

Independent Inspector

13 June 2025

• ANNEX A FOR THE APPELLANT (J M Project Management Limited): Mark Pearce M P Associates Limited John Lovelady M P Associates Limited Darren Bailey Director, Architecture 1B

FOR DEFA PLANNING: Abigail Morgan Principal Planner with the Authority Paul Visigah Senior Planning Officer with the Authority FOR THE VICTORIAN SOCIETY: Peter Kelly MBE, CP, RBV Caseworker OTHERS: Pat Newton Local resident

• ANNEX B Schedule of Recommended Conditions COMMENCEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
• C1. The development hereby approved shall begin before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision. 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.

• C2. Prior to the commencement of any works of demolition and site clearance, a Level Two record of Leyton shall be made in accordance with the guidance set out in Historic England's 'Understanding Historic Buildings: A guide to good recording practice' and submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. Reason: To ensure that matters of historic and architectural importance associated with the building/site are properly recorded and available for public view.
• C3. No development shall commence, including any works of demolition and removal of materials, until a schedule of building materials and items to be salvaged for re-use, details of the means of removing them from the existing building and details of their incorporation either into the approved scheme of redevelopment, or for re-use elsewhere on the Island, has been submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to ensure that the scheme makes best use of existing building materials pursuant to Strategic Policy 1(a) of the Strategic Plan.
• C4. No development shall commence until samples of the red facing brick to be used in the construction of the external facing of the buildings hereby approved have been provided on site and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. The approved facing brick shall be kept on site for reference until the development is completed. Development shall be carried out using the approved brick, which shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
• C5. No development shall commence until samples of all roofing materials to be used have been provided on site and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. The approved roofing materials shall be kept on site for reference until the development is completed. Development shall be carried out using the approved materials, which shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.
• C6. Notwithstanding the details shown on Dwg No 23/103/PL02, details of the surface water drainage system, which shall include the use of soakaways on completion of successful percolation tests, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning prior to the commencement of

• development. No dwelling shall be occupied until the approved surface water drainage system has been implemented. The surface water drainage system shall be permanently retained thereafter in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: In order to ensure that the site is adequately drained and to prevent the risk of flooding.
• C7. Prior to the commencement of development, plans showing details of existing and proposed ground levels in relation to the site and adjoining land to the north and south, and finished floor levels in relation to the site, the adjacent dwelling to the north and the approved dwellings to the south, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

• C8. No development shall take place, including works of demolition, site clearance or preparatory work, until a tree protection scheme and appropriate working methods (an arboricultural method statement) have been submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. Tree protection measures shall be shown on a layout plan accompanied by descriptive text and shall include, but are not limited to:

• a) The location of the trees to be protected, their root protection areas and canopy spreads (as defined in BS 5837: 2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction);

• b) The position and construction of protective fencing around the retained trees (in accordance with BS 5837: 2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction);

• c) The extent and type of ground protection, and any additional measures required to safeguard vulnerable trees and their root protection areas; and

• d) An arboricultural method statement to demonstrate that operations can be carried out with minimal risk of adverse impact on trees to be retained.

All documents shall be prepared in accordance with British Standards BS3998:2010 Tree work – Recommendations and BS5837:2012 (Trees in relation to Design, Demolition and Construction –Recommendations).

Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. No alterations or variations to the approved tree protection scheme or working methods shall be made without prior written consent of the Department. Reason: In order to protect retained trees throughout the construction process the interest of visual amenity.

DEVELOPMENT ABOVE SLAB LEVEL C9. Prior commencement of any development above slab level, details of bat and bird bricks (suitable for swifts) to be incorporated into the north and west facades of the dwellings hereby approved, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. No dwelling shall be occupied until the bat and bird bricks have been installed in accordance with the approved details. The approved measures shall be retained thereafter. Reason: In the interest of biodiversity.

Pre-Occupation Conditions

• C10. The dwellings hereby approved shall not be occupied until the access, visibility splays, vehicular and pedestrian access and all parking and turning areas, have been provided and surfaced in accordance with the details shown on Drawing No. 23/103/PL02. Once provided, all access, parking and turning areas shall thereafter be permanently retained as such. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
• C11. The dwellings hereby approved shall not be occupied until the Flood Mitigation measures referred to in paragraphs 4.2 and 4.4.1 of the Site Hydrology and Flood Risk Statement prepared by BB Consulting Civil and Structural Engineers (dated 19 October 2023) have been implemented in accordance with details that shall previously have been submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. Once implemented, the measures shall be retained thereafter. Reason: To ensure that development of the site does not increase the risk of flooding.
• C12. The dwellings hereby approved shall not be occupied until the first

6m of the access shown on Drawing no. 23/103/PL02 has been finished in a bound surface. The access shall thereafter be permanently retained as such. Reason: in the interests of highway safety.

POST-OCCUPANCY CONDITIONS

• C13. No external lighting, including security lighting, shall be installed on the site other than in accordance with details that have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to minimise impact on wildlife.
• C14. The second floor side facing windows within the side (south) elevation to Plot 1 and the side (north) elevation to Plot 2, shown on Drawing No. 23/103/PL01, shall be glazed with obscure glass to Pilkington Level 5 or equivalent and permanently retained as such.6 Reason: In order to protect the privacy of adjoining occupiers.

------------------------------------End of Schedule------------------------------

Annex C

6 The references to compass points in this condition relate to the amended titling as referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 of my Report.

DEFA Planning Putative Reasons for Refusal

• 1. The scheme fails the statutory tests of Section 16 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 as the development would fail to preserve the building and the features of special architectural and historic interest which it possesses.
• 2. Overall, it is judged that the proposed demolition of the existing registered Arts and Crafts style dwelling ‘Leyton’, and its replacement with two new dwellings, while attempting to mimic the style, would fail to protect or enhance the fabric and setting of the Registered Building, and would be detrimental to the character and significance of the heritage asset. This would contravene Environment Policies 30 and 32, and Strategic Policy 4(a) of the Strategic Plan 2016, and RB/6 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01.
• 3. The proposed replacement dwellings, whilst superficially resembling elements of the Arts and Crafts style dwelling on site, would fail to authentically replicate the inherent quality, craftsmanship, and detailing of the existing registered building, and as such represents a loss of genuine historic fabric and architectural character. The mimicry proposed would lack the authenticity and patina of the original building, resulting in a contrived and ultimately superficial representation of the style. The inherent value of the original building, rooted in its history, materials, and craftsmanship, cannot be replicated in the new dwellings, however stylistically similar. Therefore, the proposals are considered to be at variance with the provisions of Strategic Policy 4 and General Policy 2 (c).
• 4. The proposal fails to demonstrate that the replacement dwellings represent a genuine improvement in design terms. The mere replication of some stylistic elements does not constitute an enhancement as required by Strategic Policy 5. The proposed development offers no innovation in design, nor does it make a positive contribution to the street scene beyond superficial imitation of existing features. The loss of the original building’s unique character and contribution to the area’s heritage is not outweighed by the proposed replacement, which offers neither comparable architectural merit nor demonstrable public benefit, such that the scheme would also be contrary the provisions of Environment Policy 39.
• 5. The demolition the Registered Building is unacceptable, as the application does not demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been made to preserve the building, nor has sufficient justification been provided for its total loss. As such, the unnecessary loss of the building would fail to preserve the building, its setting and features of special architectural and historic interest and is contrary to SP4, GP2, EP 30, 31 and 32 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, RB/3, RB/6 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man.
• 6. The inclusion of the first floor balconies on the front elevation of the proposed development at Plot 2, by virtue of its elevated height and proximity to the low boundary wall which separates both curtilages,

• holds the potential to result in a sterilisation of the immediate neighbouring site (which is only situated 5m from the edge of the balcony) and would prejudice the potential re-development of part of this site which is zoned for residential development, contrary to General Policy 2(k) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
• 7. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that surface water can be adequately drained from this site, in a safe, convenient, and environmentally acceptable manner, without creating in adverse impacts on the site and immediate vicinity, and therefore the proposal is contrary to General Policy 2 and Paragraph 11.8.1 of the IOMSP.
• 8. Insufficient information has been provided to support that the proposed development would not impact on the ecology of the site, or result in detrimental impacts on the conservation value of the adjacent site, and as such the development is considered to be contrary to Environment Policy 4, Strategic Policy 4(b), and General Policy 2 (d) of the Strategic Plan.
• 9. The application is refused due to non-compliance with permitted development limits and insufficient information regarding the visual impact of the proposed garages. The proposed garages exceed the permitted development floor area limit of 36 square meters (being approximately 49sqm, individually), necessitating planning permission. Additionally, the application lacks essential details about the height, form, design, external appearance, and material finishing for the proposed garages. This absence of information prevents the Department from adequately assessing the potential impact of the garages on the character and appearance of the site and area. Consequently, the proposal cannot be properly evaluated for compliance with GP 2 (b, c, g, k, n), EP 42, and STP 3 (b) of the Strategic Plan.

---------------------------------------