Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
17/01320/B Page 1 of 10
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 17/01320/B Applicant : Mr Dennis Rodgers Proposal : Demolition of existing building and replacement with mixed use development including restaurant/cafe/bar, 6 apartments on the upper floors, rooftop garden, and associated parking/refuse facilities Site Address : 22-23 North Quay Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 4LE
Case Officer : Mr Jason Singleton Photo Taken : 17.01.2018 Site Visit : 17.01.2018 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 16.03.2018 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposal by way of its layout, scale, form and design would have a significant deleterious impact on the character and quality of the streetscene and is considered to be contrary to General policy 2 (b); (c) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 .
R 2. The proposed design of the front façade would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance within Conservation Area within which it is located and is therefore contrary to Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
R 3. The application site is identified as being within a flood risk area and there is no flood risk assessment put forward or mitigating design measurers to protect occupants of the building or the building itself to address the concerns of flood risk, it is therefore contrary to EP10 and GP2(l).
R 4. In the absence of any evidence for consideration to override the general presumption to retain building in this conservation area, the proposal would be considered contrary to EP39 and PP 1/01 as there is no justification to warrant an exception for demolition.
R 5. The design of the proposal in relation to the access to the residential apartments does not take account of personal safety or security and so is considered contrary to Strategic Plan policy GP2(m).
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
==== PAGE 2 ====
17/01320/B Page 2 of 10
It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions and they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are mentioned in Article 6(4):
Those of;
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is the curtilage of No.22-23 North Quay Douglas, which is a pair of part-three- and part-five-storey buildings that until recently was used as a shop at ground floor with a five-bedroom dwelling above, along with a three-storey warehouse storage element. To the Quayside, the building presents a three-storey frontage, with its basement being invisible although glass bricks do hint at the presence of a subterranean level. Its appearance is relatively non-descript Victorian property with painted render frontages, two windows wide and ground floor shops with access doors besides. There is a garage to the rear, which fronts onto Queen Street behind.
1.2 The building as a whole looks a little tired but certainly appears to be structurally sound. The building is sandwiched between two taller buildings (one storey higher) and has an appearance where it is currently read as a matching pair on the front façade with a entrance door and fan light above with a deep heighted window and low cil level, presumably for the display or goods inside for what was once a shop. Above the ground floor string course are an array of window in symmetry, size and design across both floors. The window and door heights featured at ground floor level accord with those within the immediate vicinity.
1.3 The buildings in the area are in a mixture of uses, to include offices, residential, cafes and restaurants.
1.4 The site is defined as being within the North Quay Conservation Area since 2000 (but no Appraisal Document accompanies that designation). Queen Street to the rear of the site is not within the conservation area. It is mainly the Quayside and those buildings that front onto the road are protected.
1.5 Visiting the Quayside area, it was noted the application site is typical of those areas within Douglas that have been heavily "Victorianised" over the years. What is prominent is the regularity of portrait style windows punched at regular intervals in symmetry within the individuality of each building. The materials used are generally smooth, painted render with portrait orientated windows 'punched' through the masonry above ground floors which reflect their former shop/merchant use. The ratio of fenestration to wall is almost a third window to the surrounding masonry, i.e. the masonry is predominant as a finish. More notably are the building's ridgelines which run parallel to the quayside, but the skyline steps up and down in a random fashion, reflecting the varying heights of the buildings in the locality.
1.6 To the rear of the site on Queen Street, is characterised by a lane way which serves car parking and access to the rear of the properties along the Quayside and access to commercial parking over 4 floors, above this are the rear elevation of the flats which are accessed from Lord Street.
==== PAGE 3 ====
17/01320/B Page 3 of 10
1.7 The wider context of this part of the quayside is mixed, with building heights and architectural detailing not uniform. The adjacent building to the north, (the tallest in this part of the quayside) was approved in circa '88/'89 and could appear dated. It adds little value to the character of the surrounding quayside, with the ground to first floor step back; its mixture of stone and render and the projecting bay possibly echoing quayside warehousing. The buildings immediately adjacent and to the south are quite high Victorian design and synonymous with a merchant's dwelling from that era on the quayside. The floor to floor heights would be larger than those of the buildings on the proposal site, a facet of the building's status. On the whole the architectural approach in these three buildings is very diverse.
Restaurant / café/ bar
(80.9sqm) Ground floor- Restaurant / café/ bar
(80.9sqm) First
Residential (x 2 per floor)
(139sqm) Second - Residential (x 2 per floor)
Residential (duplex) (x 2 per floor) (101sqm) Fourth - Residential (duplex)(x 2 per floor)
(85.6sqm) Roof
Flat roof garden
(123sqm)
2.2 The proposal would see the creation of 6 apartments ranging from one to two bedrooms, from 48sqm 102sqm across two floors. The design includes, 3 vehicle parking bays to the rear, 3 bike racks and bin provisions for the mixed uses.
2.3 The front elevation would be finished with Manx stone cladding to the first two floors of the front elevation, with patio doors on the ground floor with provision for signage above. The first floor would see four equally sized and spaced, top hinged casement windows in aluminium. The remaining upper floors are alike in appearance with patio doors opening onto a recessed balcony. The façade on the second and third floor are cedar timber cladding and the fourth floor smooth painted render in a dark grey colour. The flat roofed garden area would have a stainless steel handrail and tensile wire to the front and rear.
PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application;
14/01243/B - Conversion of existing shop, dwelling and warehouse to offices. Approved. It would appear when reviewing the existing layout of this proposal and the existing layout of this 2017 application, the 2014 permission has not been implemented.
PLANNING STATUS 4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within Douglas Local Plan 1998 which zones the site and immediate surroundings as being mixed use.
4.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this application;
4.3 General Policy 2 (GP2) (in part): Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
==== PAGE 4 ====
17/01320/B Page 4 of 10
(c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them
4.4 Environment Policy 35: "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 the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development."
4.5 Environment Policy 39: The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.
The text preceding EP39 offers guidance that is considered helpful in the assessment of this application, in part... "When considering proposals which will result in demolition of a building in a Conservation Area, attention will be paid to the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the relevant building and the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the Conservation Area as a whole. In addition, consideration will be given to: o the condition of the building; o the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the issue derived from its continued use (based on consistent long-term assumptions); o the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use; o the merits of alternative proposals for the site".
4.6 Environment Policy 10: Where development is proposed on any site where in the opinion of the Department of Local Government and the Environment there is a potential risk of flooding, a flood risk assessment and details of proposed mitigation measures must accompany any application for planning permission. The requirements for a flood risk assessment are set out in Appendix 4.
4.7 Transport Policy 7: The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. As set out in Appendix 7.
OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.8 Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Policy CA/6 States; "Any building which is located within a conservation area...may not be demolished without the consent of 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... 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."
4.9 Therefore, the application should be assessed against similar criteria to that as set out in Policy RB/6 of PPS1/01. The policy sets out the following considerations:
4.10 Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Policy RB/6 States;
==== PAGE 5 ====
17/01320/B Page 5 of 10
a. "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;"
b. "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."
c. "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."
4.11 Central Douglas Master plan refers to the area as 'quayside' and broadly supports the promotion of further leisure (restaurants and bars) uses for future land use and development. Where it notes; "The north Quay can continue to evolve with increased activity, building on the current offer which demonstrates a commitment to high quality dining within Douglas" (Qs3; page 39).
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Douglas Borough Council supports the application (17/01/18) although do not provide any detail or reasons.
5.2 Highways Services have commented and confirm they do not object (18/01/18) "The proposed site plan drawing number P10-02 shows three parking spaces are to be provided as part of the development proposals together with cycle parking for 6 cycles. While this falls short of vehicular parking requirements, paragraph A.7.1 of Appendix 7, Parking Standards of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan allows for a relaxation of parking standards "in the case of town centre and previously developed sites". This particular site is in a very central location close to public transport, employment and public amenities including the 312 space Shaws Brow public car park. Taking this into account and given the relatively small scale of the proposed development, it is considered that this development would not have a significant detrimental impact on street parking in the surrounding area. Therefore, Highway Services does not oppose this.
5.3 Manx Utilities (MU) have commented (15/01/18) to confirm the site is with a tidal flooding zone and recommends flood resilient measurers are introduced. They have pointed out that each apartment (if successful) will be required to connect to the drainage system and a connection fee will be required.
5.4 The Manx Victorian Society have commented (07/03/17) to object to the design and finish of the proposal, in particular the front elevation, and objects to the appearance as it is neither traditional nor does it preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area. They would prefer the building to resemble some of the warehouse buildings that have been
==== PAGE 6 ====
17/01320/B Page 6 of 10
lost over the years and finished in natural local stone. They consider the accommodation on the upper floor can be achieved by altering the design to the front elevation to; recess the doors to each floor set beneath a cathead containing a small balcony, the upper floors could be partially within the roof. The ramp to the front could be negated if the floor levels were to be altered to create a level access.
5.5 The Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society commented (16/03/18) to objects on the content of the applications and the design merits of the scheme and consider the proposal not appropriate development for the this area.
5.6 Occupants of No.24 North Quay have commented (22/01/18) who broadly support the proposal but are concerned with the raised seating area and the potential impact upon their property, specifically their board room which is adjacent to the application site and could be disruptive.
ASSESMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application which is with the North Quay Conservation Area;
(i) broad principle of the proposal; (Douglas Local Plan and Central Douglas Masterplan) (ii) acceptability of the demolition of the building; (EP39) (PP 1/01) (iii) the merits of alternative proposals for the site; (EP39) (PP 1/01)
(iv) visual impact on the proposal; (GP2 (b) & (c) & EP35) (v) personal safety and security; (GP2(m) (vi) impact in terms of highway safety and parking provision; (GP 2 (h) & TP7) and (vii) Potential risk of flooding (EP10 & GP(l)).
(i) Broad principle of development; 6.2 The application site is located within an urban area designated for mixed use on the Douglas Plan and the proposed mixed use is further supported by the Central Douglas Masterplan which promotes further leisure (restaurants and bars) uses on North Quay. The principle of using the upper floors as residential and the ground floor for food and drink use would be acceptable and unobjectionable.
6.3 The conformity to the land use designation leads us onto GP2, to ensure that future development is appropriate for the surroundings and does not have any adverse effect. Any proposal is further scrutinised with being in a Conservation area and EP35 will have an impact on the design, particularly the front façade as this is what forms part of the Conservation area and helps protect against inappropriate development. The demolition of the existing building will initially be assessed against EP39 (and its preceding text) which seeks for the general presumption of retaining buildings which contribute to the streetscene. Which is further assessed against planning policy 1/01 where through cross referencing to RB6, demolition of a building in a conservations area is assessed as if it were a registered building.
(ii) acceptability of the demolition of the building; 6.4 There is a presumption against the demolition of an unregistered building within a Conservation areas and due consideration needs to be given to the justification of the visual importance of the existing building within the streetscene and what value this adds to the conservation area. Whilst the building does not feature any architectural merit, it remains relatively simple and non-offensive in its appearance, but is traditional, possibly original when reviewing the archived photos and as noted in the first chapter of this report.
6.5 The department must be satisfied that demolition is almost a last resort and substantial evidence is put forward to override the presumption against to conform to EP39. Within Planning Policy 1/01 and RB6 there are three topics that offer guidance for consideration which
==== PAGE 7 ====
17/01320/B Page 7 of 10
is further echoed within the preceding text of EP39. It is to be noted, under Section 19(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999, states that a building in a conservation area may not be demolished without consent from the Department in accordance with sections 15 and 16. These sections make it clear that consent must be under Part 3 of the Act, i.e. is a separate consent to Planning Approval.
6.6 Therefore, the current planning application could be expected to be accompanied by a separate application for Registered Building Consent. However, no such application has been submitted and within this planning application, no information (structural survey, viability assessment, development appraisals) has been submitted for consideration that would seek to address the general presumption for retaining the building. As such it is considered that the demolition of the building has not justified as required by EP39 and PP 1/01.
(iii) the merits of alternative proposals for the site; 6.7 Should overriding information be acceptable to set aside the general presumption against demolition, consideration should also be given to the mertis of alternative proposals for the site It is mainly the front facades that shape the character of the streetscene and those special features that contribute to the character and quality that are protected against inappropriate development. The rear elevations are generally not readily visible from the public highway and in most cases do not contribute to the character of the streetscene that is sought to be protected.
6.8 The application site presents a challenging problem in that there are various constraints. In its context, the building is sandwiched between two very large and contrasting designed and finished buildings, which appear very dominant on the streetscene. There isn't an overriding defined character of detailing, or uniform finishes in the streetscene. The site presents an opportunity for a quality designed facade to be forthcoming that fits within the context of the area and ties into the existing vernacular which is deemed to preserve or enhance.
6.9 The design approach for this site could be viewed as having a subordinate height and a plain appearance so as not to detract from these two buildings which flank the site. Traditionally the buildings would have been warehouses and a design that takes influence from this could be acceptable. Such buildings were known for their regularity of windows, verticality of massing and ornate horizontal string courses on the front façade, segregating the retail on the ground floor and accommodation above, and with detailed stonework.
6.10 The broad principle of the development has been considered above, therefore the merits of the scheme will depend on visual impact and the functionality of the proposal (in terms of personal safety, highways and flooding) - these points are considered below.
(iv) visual impact on the proposal; 6.11 From a design perspective, the proposed building is not trying to mimic or replicate the architecture of the existing buildings which are to be demolished. The ground floor would utilise large areas of glass with bi-folding doors to serve the restaurant frontage, a similar approach to this has previously been approved and utilised in the redevelopment of The Douglas Hotel and the adjacent former Farmer's Arms. The apartments at first floor utilise the 'two by two' portrait format windows as seen on the existing buildings on the site. This ground and first floor are flush with the remainder of the quayside and finished in random rubble stonework which takes its cue from the stone of the former Newsons warehouse building and the building adjoining the site to the immediate north.
6.12 At the ground floor, the use of larger openings are acceptable and are becoming more prevalent along the quay, which have been encouraging as a night time destination for the use of food and drink. The design of shop fronts here include a (dwarf wall) underneath large element of glazing and are delineated from the upper floors with an ornate string course. The
==== PAGE 8 ====
17/01320/B Page 8 of 10
inclusion of a ramp to access the restaurant would not be considered appropriate and have no evidence before me to justify the increase in height of the threshold, when the vast majority of properties along the streetscene have a level access or at least one small step. The inclusion of a ramp and handrails to the front of the building could be eliminated from the design, if the ground floor level was lowered resulting in a level access.
6.13 Above first floor on the second, third and fourth floors, the building steps back creating balconies for the apartments above. This step back is similar to its immediate neighbour as it gains height. This design attribute could be seen to lessen its visual impact when viewed from the north quayside at least. This aspect twinned with large proportions of glass in bi fold doors which are set back from the leading edge of the balconies by 2.0m would introduce a new design element to the streetscene. These larger panes of glazing would during the daytime, appear black and perhaps solid when looking up at them, but at night time they will be internally lit and take on a very different character which could be considered inappropriate for its context. From the south quay, it would be 'read' at odds in the context of those buildings about it given the inclusion of the balconies and patio doors serving the residential aspects which detracts away from the quayside's predominant character, where there are no balconies nor patio doors on the upper levels.
6.14 The roofline of that section of the Quay is not uniform and steps up and down in a relatively random fashion; however, there is a trend for the ridge line to be decreasing in height from west to east. The proposal would appear to be a storey taller compared to its neighbouring buildings, where there should be a pitched tiled roof and would now appear at odds with the remaining streetscene, especially as it features a flat roof.
6.15 Considering the proposed finishes, the site adjoins a relatively modern building that utilises a materials palette found around the quayside (random rubble stonework on the Newsons building and painted smooth render elsewhere), although the use of timber 'Cedar' cladding is not a feature that is noticeable in the streetscene.
6.16 It is important to consider policies EP35 and GP2 (b) & (c) and the comments received from the 'Isle of Man Victorian Society' and the 'The Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society '. Whilst some elements of the design may be considered appropriate for a mixed use proposal on a greenfield site (although see the sections below), it must be assessed whether it either preserves or enhances within the context of this Conservation Area. On that basis the proposal is not considered to either be a traditional design that reflects the surrounding buildings, nor an outstanding contemporary design which is tailored to its setting and would enhance the Conservation Area. The proposal features design attributes that results in an appearance that neither preserves or enhances the character of the conservation area and so is considered to be contrary to EP35 and GP2 (b) & (c)
(v) personal safety and security 6.17 The ground floor layout indicates the apartments are accessed from the rear lane of Queen Street. The area here is a through road which is a rather than a dark unkept rear lane which serves the rears of those properties on the Quayside and gives access to the multi storey car parks. The proposed access arrangement for the apartments is not supported and in this instance, access should be off the Quay where it is well lit and in the proximity of the general public which offers some psychological sense of safety to the occupants approaching their apartments. The ground floor plan is deep and relatively narrow. The proposed layout of the ground floor and the depth of the plan makes gaining access to the apartments from the front very difficult in its current format and could likely compromise the plan as there would need to be a corridor effectively linking the 'front door' to the vertical circulation to it best location, i.e. in the middle of the plan. This would in turn, impinge on the available floor space for the restaurant on the ground floor. Therefore the proposal is considered contrary to policy GP2(m).
==== PAGE 9 ====
17/01320/B Page 9 of 10
(vi) impact in terms of highway safety and parking provision; 6.18 The applicants have indicated on the drawings they will provide 3 parking spaces at the rear of the building. In principle, this would not accord with the number of spaces required under the parking standards listed in Appendix 7 of Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. For 6 apartments (3x 1bed & 3x 2bed) the provision would equate to a provision of 9 spaces. A relaxation of the standards is noted where the property is located within a conservation area, and is sustainable to public transport.
6.19 Paragraph 11.5.3 of the Strategic Plan states that; "The long term target is to reduce the level of car parking required for town centre developments and seek to develop more sustainable staff and visitor transport plans including improved public transport, staff buses, shared and pooled cars, cycling and walking".
6.20 The limited provision of three parking spaces within the development would not accord with the policies in the Strategic Plan. However, the site is located within a town centre location and it would assist in meeting the long term target of reducing the level of car parking in town centre developments. It is further noted Highways Services do not object and "consider the development would not have a significant detrimental impact on the street parking in the surrounding area". In summary the proposal would accord with GP2 (h) and the relaxation of parking standards in TP7.
(vii) Potential risk of flooding; 6.21 MU have confirmed the application site is within a tidal flood zone. The use of the basement for members of the public for restaurant seating and the cooking and storage facilities for the restaurant are a concern, knowing the area can flood. The use for the basement level is not accompanied with any supporting information in accordance with the guidance in EP10 that would give comfort to the Department that this is a safe proposal. Whilst modern methods of construction can mitigate against flooding and the inclusion of appropriate flood defences can all aid to protect buildings from flood damage to help to reduce the risk. As there is no evidence or flood risk assessment put forward within the application to address these concerns of flood risk, this aspect would be contrary to EP10 and GP2(l).
CONCLUSION
7.1 The principle of the proposal is in accordance with the land-use designation and broad aspirations of the Central Douglas Masterplan. The impact on highway safety and the level of parking provision are also considered acceptable.
7.2 However, the loss of the existing building has not been justified and it is not considered that the replacement building would enhance or preserve the Conservation Area. Furthermore, the proposal does not address issues of personal security and it has not been demonstrated that the building would not be at an unacceptable risk of flooding.
7.3 More weight is place on the latter issues, in particular the impact on the Conservation Area, and so the application is recommended for refusal.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
==== PAGE 10 ====
17/01320/B Page 10 of 10
8.2 The decision-maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.
__
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Refused Date : 19.03.2018 Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal