Applicant Statement of Case

ROSEBERY BUILDINGS : PROSPECT HILL : DOUGLAS P.A. No. 94/0975 : Statement of Case on behalf of The Applicant, Benbrack Ltd. 1.00 History of Site. 1.01 Ellis Brown have been involved with this site for at least ten years, and would outline the Planning History as follows:

1.02 1987 : Approval in Principle granted for a five storey office block, (4 storey and mansard accommodation) after consultation with the Chief Planning Officer, who was at that time Mr. Malcolm Watson. There is no record of any objections to this application.

1.03 1990 : Detailed Planning Approval granted for five storey office block (4 storey and mansard accommodation) after consultation with the Chief Planning Officer. Douglas Corporation objected on the grounds of height and visibility from Nelson Street, but did not pursue the matter to Review or Appeal.

1.04 1994 (June): Detailed Planning Application made on behalf of Bishopscourt Properties Ltd. Application withdrawn in July 1994, due to change of ownership of site.

1.05 1994 (September) : Revised scheme submitted on behalf of new owner. Benbrack Ltd., showing development over yard of Scotts Bistro, after initial agreement with Eldon Hotels Ltd, and discussions with Planning Department. Proposals also included development of No.37 Nelson Street. Withdrawn in October 1994 due to change of attitude of Eldon Hotels Ltd.

1.06 1994 (October) : Application re-submitted in amended form, with development over yard of Scotts Bistro omitted, as requested by Eldon Hotels Limited.

2.00 Supporting Documentation. 2.01 1994 (February) : Planning Brief published. 2.02 1994 (June) : Letter from Director of Planning regarding the possibility of commuting a proportion of the Car Parking requirement. 2.03 1994 (June) : Letter from Director of Planning setting out Planning Department policy regarding site footprint and sightlines.

3.00 Objections by Borough of Douglas Technical Services Department.

3.01 Car Parking Provision: This matter has been dealt with by the letter from the Director of Planning dated 21st June 1994, clearly setting out Planning Department policy regarding the commuting of car spaces.

The contention that "there appears to be no attempt to offset this considerable shortfall in spaces..." is not true. The applicant has a number of sites available for commuted parking within walking distance of the development, but is reluctant to publicise their availability until he is in receipt of a Planning Approval.

Two alternatives to providing commuted parking are available, but both present problems.

The provision of a lower basement level would only increase the parking provision by approximately 11 cars, but the increased excavation could seriously undermine the registered buildings in church Street.

The provision of Car Parking at Ground Floor level would clearly be unacceptable from a civic amenity point of view, and would only increase the parking provision by 11 cars.

3.02 Height Scale and Mass: In the statement by Douglas Corporation these three terms are used simply to reinforce one another, with no real regard to their true meaning.

The height of the proposed building relates closely to the height of the original buildings on the site, in that they were four storeys high, with a roof above. At some period, even the roof space was occupied, as roof lights had been installed, and these can be seen in some of the photographs.

The scale of the proposed building, as imparted by the Architectural details, conforms to the general Architectural scale of the surrounding buildings. Indeed, many of the elements used in the proposed design pay direct homage to the surrounding buildings and the original buildings occupying the site. For example:

a) The ground floor windows are based on the windows of the Public Library, which is part of the Town Hall building. b) The pilasters, string courses and parapets relate to those found on the adjacent Bank building. c) The pediment on the main elevation is taken from the original building on the site (before the mouldings were removed - see photograph.)

d) The dormer windows are a common feature of buildings in lower Douglas. The mass of the proposed building relates closely to the mass of the original buildings, and can be considered as replacing like with like. The size and massing of the proposed building relate to both Approval in Principle and the original Approval in Detail. 3.03 Refuse Storage: There is adequate space for refuse storage in the basement. 4.00 Objection by Eldon Hotels Ltd and Royan Limited.

4.01 The objections raised by Eldon Hotels Ltd and Royan Ltd are substantially the same as those raised by Douglas Corporation, and as such are dealt with in the preceding sections, and in our written submission made at Review.

4.02 We would point out, however that we feel that the "drawing prepared from a photograph in 1974..." is of doubtful value, as it seems to be at odds with the evidence provided by actual photographs showing the relationship between the original Rosebery Buildings and the National Westminster Bank building.

5.00 Conclusion

5.01 The proposed building is appropriate in term of scale, massing and style to the site and its environs. The proposals conform to all the requirements of The Planning Department, as set out in the Planning Brief, and the supporting letters from the director of Planning.

5.02 The proposals follow closely the massing of both the Approval in Principle and detailed Approval, neither of which were taken to Review or Appeal by either of the current appellants. Since the basic parameters of the building and site have not changed since these Approvals were granted, we can see no valid reason for withholding permission for the current scheme.

5.03 We therefore request that The Planning Committee's decision at review should be upheld.