Officer Report

Application No.: 18/00890/B Applicant: Westminster Associates Limited Proposal: Demolition of derelict hotel/guesthouse, construction of new infill building containing basement offices and 9 residential apartments (in association with registered building application 18/00891/CON) Site Address: Marina Hotel 47 Loch Promenade Douglas Isle of Man IM1 2LZ Photo Taken: 07.11.2018 Site Visit: 07.11.2018 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Approve subject to Legal Agreement Date of Recommendation: 16.11.2018 - C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. - C 2. All new windows (except curtain windows) to the front elevation shall be either timber or uPVC, double hung vertical sliding sashes with joinery details to match the originals, where existing, and shall be retained as such. Reason: In the interest of the character and quality of the Conservation Area - C 3. No development shall commence until a schedule of materials and finishes and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the glazing curtain wall window (frames to be dark grey), frameless balustrades, roof finishes of the projecting and overhanging roof (all finished in dark grey) and the render/finish of the sides of the roof terrace area, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details, which shall be permanently retained thereafter. Reason: In the interest in the character and appearance of the area. - C 4. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, a detail plan demonstrating how the refuse store(s) and bin storage shall be provided within the site and the scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and shall be permanently retained thereafter and solely for the purpose of refuse storage and cycle storage. Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and of the amenities of the area and to ensure adequate bin and cycle provision within the site. - C 5. The development shall not commence until such times as plans, elevations and/or sections as appropriate at a scale of 1:20 have been approved in writing by, the Department in respect of: - a) Rainwater goods; - b) String course (required to be identical to existing); - c) Cornices (required to be identical to existing); - d) Front door, to include glazed arched window above; - e) Hood moulds (required to be identical to existing); and - f) Floor finish of external stairs to main entrance. The development shall be carried out in accordance with these details and retained thereafter. Reason: In the interest in the character and appearance of the area. - C 6. No meter boxes or extract duct shall be installed unless in accordance with details which have first been approved in writing by the Department. Reason: To ensure the preservation of the Conservation Area. - C 7. For the avoidance of doubt no permission is hereby given for the removal of either chimney stack. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and the Conservation Area. - C 8. All roof finishes including all elevations of the lift shaft are required to be coloured in a dark grey colour and retained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and the Conservation Area. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that DOI (Housing), as a Government Department, should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations.

It is recommended that the following persons should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):

Manx Utilities The owner/occupier of 33 Ballaquark, Douglas

• As they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy; are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy; and as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy.

The owner/occupier of Baycliffe, Tower Road, Spaldrick, Port Erin (own the neighbouring property Nr 46 Loch Promenade)

They do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy.

Officer’s Report

THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS INCLUDING - THE PROPOSAL IS FOR MORE THAN 8 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, A SECTION 13 AGREEMENT IS REQUIRED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION, IT COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND THERE IS AN OBJECTION FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY, BUT IT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site represents the curtilage of Marina Hotel, 37 Loch Promenade, Douglas. The site is situated to the western side of the highway. The building is a six storey (including basement level and accommodation within roof space) traditional mid terrace property with a single three storey bay widows running from basement level to the 2nd floor level. The roof of the property has been altered a number of years ago with the installation of a Mansard roof and a flat roof over the entirety of the building both to enabling accommodation within the roof space. - 1.2 The building retains the decorative detailing around the doors and windows which can be found along all the properties within the same terrace, including timber sliding sash windows.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks full approval for the demolition of derelict hotel/guesthouse, construction of new infill building containing basement offices and 9 residential apartments (in association with registered building application 18/00891/CON). - 2.2 The proposed works would result in an almost identical previous planning approval (16/01163/B) for the conversion of existing hotel/guest house to provide nine apartments and office accommodation. The applicant has explained since the approval and regular structural inspections it is the applicants view and that of the Structural Engineer that it is not feasible to undertake the previous approval due to the following reasons:

"On review of the conversion proposals, the Structural Feasibility Report, the condition of the existing building generally, its location, restricted rear access and the extent, nature, process and procedures required to undertake a conversion of all floors and a six storey rear extension to achieve a complete structure to meet current building standards with no compromises would be extremely difficult given all of the deficiencies found in the existing structure."

2.3 Accordingly, the application would result in the entire demolition of the existing building and rebuilt in very similar form, scale and footprint. - 2.4 The main differences include:

• a) The existing Mansard roof would be removed and replacement with a glass curtain wall setback between 1.2 and 1.4 metre from the front elevation. These works also include the reinstatement of the original render finished arched heads above the third floor windows. New glazed frameless balustrades would be set behind the re-instated arched heads which provides a small balcony area behind;
• b) Windows to front elevation replaced with uPVC sliding sash windows, which include arched headed windows to the first and second floors to match existing.
• c) Currently the front façade of the property has a 3 storey bay window to the left hand side of the façade and then a central windows/entrance door and then single windows to the right hand side of the façade. Is proposal would replicate this again, albeit introduce a 3 storey bay window to the right hand side of the façade, mirroring the existing bay window currently found.
• d) Works to the rear elevation include the erection of a six storey rear extension which essentially infills the existing rear yard areas, between the existing rear outriggers.

2.5 The proposed building would accommodate office use located to the basement area, whilst the ground, first, second and third floors would each have two, one bedroom apartments on each level, with a single, two bedroom apartment at fourth floor (within roof space). All apartments would have views from their lounge/dining areas via the windows to the front elevation and therefore would afforded sea views. All units, including the office use, would share the main entrance to the front elevation and a rear access to the rear lane where a bin store and cycle parking can be found. Access to all floors is provided via a staircase as well as a lift. - 2.6 No parking is provided within the application site.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 There have been a number of planning applications associated with the property and the following are considered relevant in the determination of this application: - 3.2 Conversion of existing hotel/guest house to provide nine apartments and office accommodation (Decision dependent on a legal agreement) - 16/01163/B - APPROVED - 3.3 Approval in principle for change of use to apartments, health club and caretakers flat 94/01841/A - APPROVED - 3.4 Approval in principle for change of use from hotel to health club, bistro, offices, and caretakers flat - 94/01352/A - REFUSED - 3.5 Approval in principle for demolition of existing hotel and erection of 12 residential apartments - 91/00754/A - APPROVED - 3.6 Internal alterations and additions to provide en-suite bathrooms - 85/01114/B - APPROVED

4.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES - 4.1 The application site is within an area designated as "Predominantly Tourism" under the Douglas Local Plan Order 1998. The site is within a Conservation Area. - 4.2 Under the Draft Area Plan for the East the site is designated as being within "Mixed Use Area 2". The Plan states:

"This area is characterised by tourist uses in the form of hotels, guest houses, food and drink uses, the seafront promenade and its associated gardens.

Town Centre - Mixed Use Proposal 2 states: "There will be a presumption in favour of retention, expansion and improvement of hotels and guest houses and ancillary food and drink uses. Proposals to enhance the public domain will be supported. Development which conflicts with these uses will generally not be supported."

4.3 The following policies in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 are considered relevant: - 4.4 Strategic Policy 1 states: "Development should make the best use of resources by:

• (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials;
• (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space(1) and amenity standards; and
• (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services."

4.5 Environment Policy 35 states: "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."

4.6 Within Section 7.32 - Demolition in Conservation Areas of the IOMSP, the following text is all relevant and informs Environment Policy 39 (below):

"7.32.1 Under Section 19 of the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act, Conservation Area designation introduces control over the demolition of most buildings within Conservation Areas...

• 7.32.2 The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. 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."

4.7 Environment Policy 39 states: "The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area." - 4.8 Conservation Areas of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 (Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man):

"POLICY RB/6 DEMOLITION There will be a general presumption against demolition and consent for the demolition of a registered building should not be expected simply because redevelopment is economically more attractive than repair and re-use of an historic building; or because the building was acquired at a price that reflected the potential for redevelopment, rather than the condition and constraints of the existing historic building. Where proposed works would result in the total or substantial demolition of a registered building, an applicant, in addition to the general criteria set out in RB/3 above, should be able to demonstrate that the following considerations have been addressed:-

• o 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 assessment 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;
• o The adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use. An applicant must show that real efforts have 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.

• o 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

POLICY CA/6 DEMOLITION Any building which is located within a conservation area and which is not an exception as provided above, may not be demolished without the consent of the Department. In practice, a planning application for consent to demolish must be lodged with the Department. When considering an application for demolition of a building in a conservation area, the general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area. Similar criteria will be applied as those outlined in RB/6 above, when assessing the application to demolish the building, but in less clear cut cases, for example, where a building could be said to detract from the special character of the area, it will be essential for the Department to be able to consider the merits of any proposed new 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, and in particular of the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole."

4.9 General Policy 2 states: "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:

• a) Is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief;
• b) Respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
• c) Does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;
• d) Does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;
• e) Does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
• f) Incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
• g) Does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
• 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;
• i) Does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;
• j) Can be provided with all necessary services;
• k) Does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan;
• 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; and
• n) Is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

4.10 Housing Policy 5 states: "In granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas the Department will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more." - 4.11 Transport Policy 4 states: "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian

journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan."

5.0 CONSULTATIONS - 5.1 DOI Highway Services does not oppose this application making the following comments (25.09.2018):

"The proposal would provide approximately 150sqm of office space, 5 no. 1 bedroom apartments and 4 no. 2 bedroom apartments. The parking standards in 'The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016' require the following: o 1 car parking space for a 1 bedroom apartment (1 x 5 flats) = 5 spaces

• o 2 spaces for a 2+ bedroom apartment (2 x 4 flats) = 8 spaces
• o 1 space per 50sqm of town centre office floor space (150/50) = 3 spaces This equates to a total site parking demand of 16 spaces to comply with the parking standards for the development. There is no existing site parking and no room to create such. However, as the site is within the town centre where public car parking is available and there is good access to public transport services this is deemed acceptable.

The 'Manual for Manx Roads' design guide specifies that 1 cycle parking space per apartment should be provided and that cycle parking should also be included for office developments. The proposed plan shows that a covered cycle and refuse store would be provided on the lower ground floor at the rear of the building. It is unknown how many cycles could be stored within it and it is considered unlikely that cyclists would use it as they would probably not wish to store their cycles adjacent to the bins. The proposed cycle parking facility should therefore be amended to be separate from the bin store. This could be secured via a planning condition.

Access to the building would be via Loch Promenade to the upper ground floor at the front, and via the back street to the lower ground floor.

There is currently an approved highway scheme to reconstruct the Promenade in the vicinity of the site and therefore a planning condition is required to ensure that any demolition and reconstruction works on the development site are not undertaken during the period of the highway works. No road closures, contractor parking, etc. could take place during this time. The applicant is advised to contact Highway Services for further information on the phasing of the highway works.

Highway Services does not oppose the application subject to the following planning conditions:

• o A revised plan showing a separate cycle store and refuse store is to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. The cycle parking store is to be retained as such thereafter. Reason: to provide adequate cycle parking facilities to comply with the 'Manual for Manx Roads' design guide.
• o No demolition or construction works on the site can be undertaken during the period of the highway works on the Promenade in the vicinity of the site as determined by Highway Services. Reason: to ensure there is no obstruction to the construction of the highway works in the interest of highway safety and amenity. Recommendation: DNOC"

5.2 Douglas Borough Council has objected (on 27.09.18) to the application on the grounds that the proposal includes a glazed mansard roof to the new building which would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area, and would be inappropriate development and fail EP 35 and 42. Further, they suggested that the new building relationship to the adjoin building was not shown, a member also consider the proposal did not mention GP2(m) as it does not provide for adequate pedestrian or cyclist safety and commented that it was not appropriate for a new building to be built without wheelchair accessibility.

5.3 DOI Housing Division (on 27.08.2018) make the following summarised comments: They have looked at the above application and we have considered the provision of the 25% affordable housing requirement;

Current data drawn from Housing Division records for the Eastern area including Douglas, indicates that there are 260 persons on the general public sector waiting list for affordable housing for rent; there are also 57 persons on the active First-Time Buyers register seeking to purchase a first home in the Eastern Area; at present the Department does not support the sale or letting of apartments first time buyers or public sector tenants where the apartments are leasehold as cost such as ground rents and service charges place additional financial burdens on those least able to afford them; in this case it is recommended that the to enter into a Section 13 Agreement with the Department to provide Commuted Sums in lieu of Affordable Housing. Such Commuted Sums will be placed in the Department's Housing Reserve fund and will be used to provide affordable housing on other qualifying sites.

5.4 Manx Utilities (Drainage) initially sought a deferral (04.10.2018). However, since this they have considered the application further have no objection (16.11.2018). - 5.5 The owner/occupier of 33 Ballaquark, Douglas (01.09.2018) comments that given this building is Registered how will demolition retain the importance to heritage; if it is demolished there is no point Registering any buildings or even keeping such a register. - 5.6 The owner/occupier of Baycliffe, Tower Road, Spaldrick, Port Erin (25.09.2018) comments that they own the neighbouring property Nr 46 Loch Promenade next door; they have an interest in the demolition to ensure that their own building is not damaged and that there is minimum disruption to the tenants living there and also seeks IPS status. - 5.7 The Registered Building Officer has provided detailed comments in relation to this application, which are reflected within the body of the assessment (16.11.18).

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The following issues are relevant in the determination of this application; (a) principle of developing the site for residential/office purposes; (b) potential impact of the works to the conservation area; (c) principle of demolition; (d) potential impact upon highway safety/parking provision (e) provision of affordable housing; and (f) potential amenities for future occupants. PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPING THE SITE FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES - 6.2 As stated earlier in this report, the application site is located within a wider area of land that is designated as predominantly tourist use under the Douglas Local Plan. However, it is noted that permission for residential development has been granted in recent times to a number of properties along the Promenade. Furthermore, the use states 'predominantly' which therefore suggest scope for some uses to be allowed not necessary in line with this land use designation. The test perhaps is whether such uses are appropriate for this site and therefore further site specific impacts as listed above need further consideration to determine whether the proposal would be suitable. It is also noted that an extant approval exists for the conversion of the building for the same use. - 6.3 Consideration should also be given that since the original approval the Draft Area Plan for the East has been published. Mixed Use Proposal 2 states indicates that there will be a presumption in favour of retention, expansion and improvement of hotels and guest houses and ancillary food and drink uses. Accordingly, it could be considered the proposal would be contrary to this policy. However, at this stage the Draft Area Plan for the East has little weight and the existing Douglas Local Plan is the most relevant local plan to considered, which as noted above has similar aims, albeit given the extant approval and planning history of the area, it is considered the uses again are acceptable for this site; It should be noted however, should the Draft Area Plan for the East be approved for the proposed uses; then this will essentially re-set the Departments stance on such applications in the future.

• POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE WORKS TO THE CONSERVATION AREA
• 6.4 When considering any application within a Conservation Area the Department has a duty to determine whether such proposals are in keeping with not only the individual building, but the special character and quality of the area as a whole. With this in mind it is very relevant to consider Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (adopted June 2016). This policy indicates that development within Conservation Areas will only be permitted if they 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.
• 6.5 The existing facade of the building is original and retains the majority of the existing decorative features. The existing building includes timber sliding sash windows (albeit, these where accepted to be replaced with uPVC sliding sash windows under the last application). Arguably the existing Mansard roof to the fourth floor with four square roof light windows within the front roof plane of the Mansard roof is one of the most adverse and incongruous features within the street scene and the Conservation Area.
• 6.6 As outline in Section 2.4 of this report, once the works are completed there will not be significant difference between what was approved under the last application to convert/alter the existing building and this current application to replace the building. Arguably, with the additional bay windows this could be an improvement over the last approval, giving an overall more balance appearance to the overall street scene.
• 6.7 The main benefit would be the removal of the existing Mansard roof which as before is supported by the Planning Directorate. Its removal and replacement with the proposed glass curtain wall, set back, will be a vast enhancement to the Conservation Area. It should be noted (as before as well) that it would be unlikely the Planning Directorate would support the new proposed roof scheme on other properties within the Terrace; however, given the existing situation it is considered on this site to be an improvement.
• 6.8 The proposed glass curtain wall will sit in line with the existing front wall of the two chimney breasts which sit at each end of the property. This will in turn significantly reduce the roof mass over the existing Mansard roof which currently projects forward of the chimney breasts. The proposal would also reinstate the three arched heads above the fourth floor windows which again will be an enhancement to the Conservation Area and individual building.
• 6.9 The glazed frameless balustrade set behind the arched heads will be apparent, as will the new glazed curtain wall from the Promenade. However, the frameless glazing will not draw the eye in the way that the mansard roof does and will certainly reduce the roof mass. Accordingly, it is considered the works to the roof would be an enhancement to the individual property, the street scene and the Conservation Area.
• 6.10 The Comment's from Douglas Borough Council are acknowledged and the broad principles are not necessary disagreed with. There is an argument to be made that given the applicants are replacing the whole building, that the new application should be considered completely afresh and therefore the comments made within Section 6.7 should apply i.e. not allowing and type of dormer/roof accommodation. However, the current policies are worded so the test is would the works preserve or enhance the Conservation Area and in this case it is considered the works would be an enhancement and therefore comply with EP 35.
• 6.11 The rear six storey extensions would essentially form an infill developments between existing outriggers. Accordingly, the proposed works will have no significant impact to the Conservation Area or to neighbouring properties' amenities. The main view of the rear elevation is from the top of Chester Street Car Park. However, the works will not significantly alter the existing appearance of the building or of the entire terrace from this view.

6.12 Overall, whilst the proposal would replace the existing fabric of the building, it is considered the replacement would be appropriate and beneficial to the individual building and terrace/street scene and would enhance the Conservation Area. Accordingly, the external alterations would comply with Environment Policy 35. PRINCIPLE OF DEMOLITION - 6.13 Environment Policy 39 indicates that the general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. The supportive text (par 7.32.2 of the IOMSP) of this policy indicates that 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;

• 1) the condition of the building;
• 2) 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);
• 3) the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use; and
• 4) the merits of alternative proposals for the site.

THE CONDITION

6.14 In terms of the conditions of the building, the applicant has explained since the approval of application 16/01163/B and regular structural inspections (full detailed report within application) it is the applicants view from the comments made that it is not feasible to undertake the previous approval. - 6.15 The Structural report (dated July 2017) indicates that; "Currently the building is considered unsafe to access all areas due to the condition of the structure currently remaining:-

• o Where floor remain with the rear outlet they are in verge of collapsing due to decay.
• o Areas of floor boards throughout the building have been removed , where board remain they are extremely brittle with areas of decay visible.
• o There are quite a number of timber structural beams supporting openings, stairs and floors which have been decayed and have little or no structural integrity remaining.
• o Internal load bearing timber walls have had their ability to resist vertical and lateral loads limited due to the removal of all of the plaster and lathe. These load bearing walls are considered extremely fragile.
• o What remains of the internal load begin stud walls so not align from one floor to another preventing the safe transfer of vertical loads to the lower ground level. this is particularly critical at the second floor where the direction of floor support changes through 90 degrees.
• o The timber stairs lack support, have been damaged and have insufficient secure handrail guarding.
• o Floor joists have been compromised throughout the building by forming holes and notches for the installation of electrical and plumbing installation.

In light of the above sever defects, decay and the removal of structural elements the inspection of all floor area was not undertaken and was restarted according to what was considered safe."

6.16 Following these comments the applicant comments that:

"On review of the conversion proposals, the Structural Feasibility Report, the condition of the existing building generally, its location, restricted rear access and the extent, nature, process and procedures required to undertake a conversion of all floors and a six storey rear extension to achieve a complete structure to meet current building standards with no compromises would be extremely difficult given all of the deficiencies found in the existing structure."

6.17 Following the submission, the Registered Buildings Officer considered the information included in the application and made the following comments to the initial submission:

"The Marina Hotel is situated within the Promenades Conservation Area and is a typical boarding house of the late 19th and early 20th century which forms the overriding character of the Douglas sea front and character of the Conservation Area.

The proposals are for the demolition of the existing structure and replacement with a new building. Whist I have no objection to the overall ambitions of the proposals and raise no objection to the proposed loss of the unsympathetic dormer and its replacement with the proposed design, I do however object to the total loss of the historic hotel building.

I consider the application fails to address the necessary legislation and policy requirements as stated above and fails to make a clear and convincing justification as to why the development could not take place with at least partial retention of the hotel building. The boarding houses of the promenade are the defining character of the conservation area; those that have been replaced lack the quality of detail and appearance of the original buildings in their replacements. There is a general presumption in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area, which despite its current condition, this building does. The application fails to address the necessary tests to justify demolition, as outlined in RB/6 and CA/6.

• At this stage I cannot support the application and recommend the scheme is revised to retain the existing historic structure."

6.18 Following these comments, the applicants where provided the opportunity to responds. They commented that

"Within the previous application 16/01163/B the removal and replacement of the front elevation windows was included.

The removal and replacement of the internal plasterwork to the front elevation wall to all floors was included.

The replacement of all lintels over windows and the front entrance door was included. The hacking off and replacement of all defective render and mouldings to the front elevation was included.

This would have then left an unstable stone/masonry wall of dubious build with no foundation, which may have required partial if not full removal and rebuilding owing to deficient mortar due to water ingress from the defective external render.

The new application addressees the issue of this front elevation wall by removing it, casting new reinforced foundations, constructing an insulated cavity wall with proprietary concrete sills, lintels, dpc's, etc. with a new waterproof render finish and replacement mouldings, masonry painted to match the existing, all in keeping with the visual aspect of the property and no different than the external elevation specification / products used on the Villa Marina, or the Old House of Keys in Castletown when both were last refurbished.

Discussion and advice was taken from the Planning Officer prior to proceeding with the current application in respect of all external aspects of the building and a new bay construction (width to suit the building dimensions) to the right hand side of the front elevation has been incorporated as a result of these discussions as the Planning Officer recommended this inclusion would complement the existing left hand side bay, with the building being a double fronted property.

The existing rear masonry wall of the building is in poor condition structurally in respect of failed lintels and deteriorated external render.

The existing rear outlet is of sub-standard construction and has decayed roof timbers, floor timbers, lintels, etc.

The internal soft strip of the building after approval of application 16/01163/B, to remove deteriorated wall and ceiling plaster and mechanical and electrical services identified sub-standard floor joists, uneven in level, with decayed ends, excessive notches and holes, with evidence of woodworm, wet and dry rot infestations. These require to be removed and be replaced in their entirety.

Existing stud wall timbers which support the existing floors are constructed to Victorian standards, with evidence of woodworm, wet and dry rot infestations. These require to be removed and be replaced in their entirety.

Existing timber lintels over windows and doors have been found to have decayed and have been affected by woodworm, wet and dry rot infestations. These require to be removed and be replaced in their entirety if the front façade wall was to be retained.

Dry rot spores have infected the masonry walls, primarily the front and rear stone walls. The walls will require to be drilled, injected and spray treated.

Basement walls will require to be underpinned and tanked, in particular the front façade wall if it is to be retained.

Summary The aim of the application is to provide residential accommodation with basement offices which will be a significant improvement over a derelict building and to replicate exactly the existing rendered façade of a typical Douglas boarding house of the late 19th / early 20th century to be in keeping with the overriding character of the Conservation Area of Loch Promenade in Douglas.

The quality of detail and appearance of the new front rendered façade will be finished to match the existing in every respect in relation to original mouldings to all levels and surrounds to windows on each floor and the front entrance door.

Detailed measurements and samples of all existing mouldings will be taken so ensure replacements match, so that the replacement façade retains the defining character of the original boarding house.

The proposed development is a considerable, personally funded investment by the applicant and will, in conjunction with the proposed Douglas Promenade Regeneration Scheme vastly improve the streetscape façade of the properties on Loch Promenade, between Granville Street and Senna Slip.

The Clients intent is to demolish and rebuild as a complete scheme so that the site is not left vacant to detract from the streetscape and for this to progress immediately all approvals are received with the intention to have the replacement structure in place by TT 2019.

If the application for demolition and rebuild, the building is likely to deteriorate further until such time as any subsequent application may be approved to provide the 9 No. Apartments and basement offices this scheme will provide, which is likely now be after the Douglas Promenade Regeneration Scheme in 3-4 years' time, rather than prior to/in tandem with it, which would not be acceptable in terms of time delay or in continuity of working to commence any major redevelopment after a major proposed regeneration scheme has been completed."

6.19 In response to these comments the Registered Building Officer commented: "Whilst I acknowledge the building is in a poor visual state and in need of repair and the overall intention of the proposals would result in an improvement to the appearance of the conservation area, I do have to make it clear that the additional information provided shows a lack of

• understanding regarding historic buildings and does not take fully into consideration the significance of these 19th century properties which form the basis of this conservation area. I am sure it is far cheaper to demolish and rebuild and this is essentially the crux of the issue. I do not consider the structural feasibility statement submitted to make clear justification that the building is not capable of being reused. It would have been useful to seek the view of a conservation accredited structural engineer to ascertain if the building is capable of retention. My fear is it is all too easy to demolish a building because it is Victorian or "old". The policies around the demolition of buildings in conservation areas are clear. Whilst I reiterate my acknowledgement of the building's current negative visual impact, I do still however consider the building makes positive contribution to the conservation area by the virtue of it being an original boarding house. I am disappointed that a lack of effort has been made to retain and incorporate the original structure (or parts or it) or make a clearer and more robust justification for its loss. I am concerned this sets an all too easy precedent for the loss of the original boarding houses which like all of the island's historic buildings are a finite resource, that once lost are gone for good."
• 6.20 Clearly the Registered Building Officer does not believe the application sufficiently or adequate deals with the issue of the condition of the building. Accordingly, when considering this application there is question whether the "condition" of the building is in such a poor state of repair that requires its demolition and that the conversion of the building cannot be undertaken. THE COST OF REPAIRING AND MAINTAINING
• 6.21 No figures have been provided in terms of this respect. The applicant comments that; "Whilst regular inspections and limited remedial works have been undertaken over the last few years to maintain the integrity of the external fabric of the building, its exposed location has cause its Fabric, especially the rear roof section and external fire escape to deteriorate, to the extent that the rear roof and floor structures below are in an unstable condition.

Due to the poor condition of the remainder of the internal fabric of the property, a soft strip has been undertaken internally to isolate the electrical, plumbing and heating installations, together with the removal of celling and wall plaster to identify the condition of the existing masonry walls, existing floor joists, lintels over structural openings etc."

6.22 Policy RB/6 Demolition this states; "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". In this case, the Department has no evidence to demonstrate the applicant has "deliberately neglected in the hope of obtaining consent for demolition". Certainly, for a number of years the applicant wished to retain and convert the existing building, hence the planning permission in 2016 for such works. Accordingly, it was only when these works commenced and structural surveys where undertaken that the issue outlined in the applicants structural report have result in the applicant in reassessing the building. - 6.23 Furthermore, part of the assessment of Policy RB/6 and paragraph 7.32.2, in relation to this issue, also requires than not only do costs and repairing and maintaining it is important to balance the cost and maintenance against its importance and potential income from its continued use. In relation to the buildings importance, arguable with its mansard roof design is character and quality has been significantly impacted upon. In relation to the income from its continued use, the building has not been used as a hotel for many years and the applicant hasn't provided any information to demonstrate that there have been any proactive measure to use the building as a hotel; albeit has permission for it to be used for residential and an office use under the previous application. It is also noted that in 1991 AiP (91/00754/A) was granted to demolish the building and replaced with 12 apartments building and in 1994 a AiP for change of use to apartments, health club and caretakers flat was approved. - 6.24 Therefore, it has not clearly been demonstrated that the cost and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the issue derived from its continued use has not be addresses by the application.

• THE ADEQUACY OF EFFORTS MADE TO RETAIN THE BUILDING IN USE
• 6.25 In relation to the third issue of whether "the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use". The building ceased being used as a hotel a number of years ago and has not been used since. Policy RB/6 essentially reiterates what paragraph 7.32.2 seeks, but expands on what type of information the applicant must provide by indicating that;

"An applicant must show that real efforts have 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."

6.26 Again the applicant has sought to retain the building and convert it as approved under the last planning application. However, given the advice received by the Structural Engineer he has submitted this current application. THE MERITS OF ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS FOR THE SITE - 6.27 In terms of final point the merits of alternative proposals for the site paragraph 7.32.2 and Policy RB/6 comment that; "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". - 6.28 This is not a Registered Building, but, it could be argued that given that the existing building is arguably one of the worst examples of inappropriate alterations (mansard roof) within the entire street screen/terrace and that there are clear benefits of the replacement building as outline within this report earlier; it could be considered the proposal would be a "very exceptional cases" bring clear benefits for the community (improvement to the character and quality of the Conservation Area/terrace) - 6.29 In conclusion to the principle of the demolition of the building, there are still questions outstanding in relation to some of matters. Accordingly, a refusal could be made on the grounds identified. - 6.30 There is also an argument that while there are four key considerations (par 7.32.2 of the IOMSP), the text before these four points states; "In addition, consideration will be given to; …". Accordingly, it could be argued that in certain cases one or more of the considerations could potentially have greater weight. In some circumstances if could be determined that the "merits of alternative proposals for the site" i.e. a new building is of such high quality that this could override the other three points. In this case, it could be argued that given the building is in such poor condition, and as there does not appear to be any other alternatives other than its demolition; then the "the condition of the building" overrides all other considerations in this case. Essentially, the considerations potentially have different weight depending on the site specific case; i.e. each application is judged on its own merits, and what is acceptable for one site may not be acceptable for another. - 6.31 The application is very finely balanced; however, while there are still questions in relation to some of the four tests outlined in 7.32.2 and Policy RB/6 and any approval would be a departure from the Development Plan; it is concluded that given the very poor architectural form of the building given the Mansards roof additional in the past and given the proposal would once completed be an enhancement to the Conservation Area, the site and the overall terrace the site sits within, it is considered in this case that it is a "very exceptional cases" and therefore it is recommended the application is acceptable from this perspective. POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON HIGHWAY SAFETY/PARKING PROVISION

6.32 Turning to the impact on highways, the key issue to consider is car parking provision. Being a new development for nine apartments and an office then a total of 11 parking spaces would be required to be provided on site. The proposed cannot provide any spaces within the site, nor did it when the hotel operated as a hotel or when the application approved the previous conversion of the building into the same level of accommodation. For reference the original hotel had a total of 25 bedrooms. Applying the current parking standards a total of 25 spaces would have been required (i.e. one space per guest bedroom). It could be argued the proposed use has the potential for generating less parking requirements than when the building operated as a hotel. - 6.33 However, the Strategic Plan does indicate that the parking standards may be relaxed where development:

• (a) would secure the re-use of a Registered Building or a building of architectural or historic interest; or
• (b) would result in the preservation of a sensitive streetscape; or
• (c) is otherwise of benefit to the character of a Conservation Area.
• (d) is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality.

6.34 The applicants have commented that the building is within walking distance of the main shopping centre and business district on the Island and therefore persons could walk to these facilities for shopping and employment. Furthermore, the site is on a main bus route and close to the main bus station. They also indicate that when the building operated as a hotel, there were a number of staff as well as guests and daily deliveries which would have required parking. - 6.35 The Highway Services have considered the information submitted and have raised no objection to the proposal. - 6.36 Overall, it is therefore concluded that the lack of off street parking provision in this case is acceptable and would not significantly effect on street parking in the locality. - 6.37 In terms of comments in relation to bin/cycle storage area a condition should be attached which demonstrates how the bin and bike storage should be provided. It should be noted it is not possible under the current application for bin and cycles to be stored in separate area as suggested by Highway Services, although the cycle storage could be incorporated within the building. - 6.38 Further, a condition cannot be attached which restricts the demolition or development of the site during the period of the highway works on the Promenade in the vicinity of the site as determined by Highway Services. This is a matter between the applicant and Department of Infrastructure to discuss. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING - 6.39 As stated within Housing Policy 5, there is a general requirement that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing when there are 8 or more dwellings. In this case the proposal is for nine units which equates to 2.25 units. - 6.40 The DOI Housing Division have recommend that a Commuted Sums in lieu of affordable housing is provided, rather than the individual units within the site. The applicant is happy to provide the required commuted sum payment. POTENTIAL AMENITIES FOR FUTURE OCCUPANTS - 6.41 As outlined within Housing Policy 17 each apartment needs to have a "pleasant clear outlook, particularly from the principal rooms". Each apartment in this case would obtain views from the main principle living spaces from the front windows which overlook the Promenade and have sea views. This is considered acceptable in this case. Whilst the floor areas of the apartment

• do not meet the 'preferred standards' of the Housing Division in relation to affordable housing, they are still of an acceptable size and would meet the requirements of Environmental Health.
• 6.42 Each apartment would have access to the bin store and cycle parking provision flats. Overall it is considered the proposal would comply with General Policy 2.

7.0 CONCLUSION - 7.1 For the reasons outlined above it is considered that the planning application is in accordance with the relevant planning policies outlined within this report and the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the Douglas Local Plan and it is therefore recommended that the planning application be approved subject to a S.13 Legal Agreement which requires a commuted sum in lieu of 2.25 affordable housing units.

8.0 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.

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.

8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date: 26.11.2018 Signed : C Balmer Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report and reasons were required. YES/NO See below

Planning Committee Decision 26.11.2018

Application No. : 18/00890/B Applicant : Westminster Associates Limited Proposal : Demolition of derelict hotel/guesthouse, construction of new infill

building containing basement offices and 9 residential apartments (in association with registered building application 18/00891/CON) Site Address : Marina Hotel 47 Loch Promenade Douglas Isle of Man IM1 2LZ Principal Planner Mr Chris Balmer Reporting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer’s Report

At the meeting held on the 26th November 2018, the Committee, with the exception of Mr Cubbon, rejected the recommendation of the case officer, and the application was refused. The Chairman proposed that the application be refused under Environmental Policy 35 and Environmental Policy 39. The Registered Buildings Officer mentioned that the proposal was also contrary to Policy RB/6 and CA/6 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man. The motion was seconded, and with the exception of Mr Cubbon the Members voted in favour of the proposed reasons for refusal.

Reason for Refusal

• R 1. Insufficient justification has been provided to determine whether the existing building can be retained and therefore the proposal would be contrary to Environment Policy 39 and Section 7.32 Demolition in Conservation Areas of the Isle of Man Strategic Policy and Policy RB/6 and CA/6 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man.
• R 2. Although the replacement of the existing roof structure with a less harmful design has been noted, this is not considered to outweigh the replacement of a significant amount of the historical fabric of the existing building and therefore would not preserve or enhance the quality of the Conservation Area and would therefore be contrary to Environment Policy 35. 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.