Officer Planning Report

Application No.:	11/00422/CON
Applicant:	Viking Containers Ltd
Proposal:	Registered Building Consent for the demolition of existing buildings
Site Address:	6 To 8 Bridge Road And Warehouse Lake Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 5AG

Officer's Report

The Site

1. The application site represents the curtilage a former warehouse building located on Lake Road and a three storey block of flats within 8 Bridge Road and the residential property of No.6 Bridge Road. To the south of the site, is a residential complex with restaurant to the Quayside elevation. No.8 Bridge Road contains 3 flats. The site is located within an area zoned for mixed use, particularly Town centre, within the Douglas Local Plan. The site is also within a Conservation Area.

Proposed Development

1. The application is seeking registered building consent for the demolition of No’s 6 and 8 Bridge Road and a warehouse building located on Lake Road.

Planning Status And Relevant Policies

1. Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application: General Policy 2, Environment Policies 35 and 39,

1. Environment Policy 35 states that “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 he special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development.”

1. Environment Policy 39 states that “The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.”

1. Section 18 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 states that “Where any area is for the time being a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing it character or appearance in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in the area, of any powers under this Act.”

Planning History

1. The following previous applications are considered relevant in the consideration of this application:

Warehouse site and No.1 Lake Road

08/01852/B – Demolition of existing stone warehouse and erection of a block of four apartments with ground floor parking and amendments to the mansard roof on the adjacent residential/office building – split decision at appeal

Case Officer:	Mr Ian Brooks
Photo Taken:
Site Visit:
Expected Decision Level:	Officer Delegation

a) Erection of 5 storey building containing 4 flats and ground floor parking, plus off site parking – refused b) Retention of building at 1 Lake Road - approved

Warehouse site

04/00956/B - Alterations and conversion of disused warehouse/shop to office accommodation (Resubmission) – granted 16.07.2004 02/02250/B - Alterations and conversion of existing warehouse/shop to office accommodation No.6 Bridge Road 09/00909/F – Demolition of outbuildings to rear elevation – refused on 19th January 2010 09/00911/CON – Registered Building Consent for the demolition of outbuildings to rear elevation – refused on 19th January 2010

Representations

1. Douglas Corporation and the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure have not commented on the application.

1. The occupier of 9 Fort William, Douglas has objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) The destruction of historic buildings is in fact very seldom necessary for reasons of good planning: more often it is the result of neglect, or failure to make imaginative efforts to find new uses or incorporate them into new developments. 2) the demolition argument on economic grounds should be dismissed on the basis of RB/6. 3) the structural condition of No.6 Bridge Road is open to question and believes that it can be addressed by a competent structural engineers, architects and builders. It seem likely therefore that demolition is being sought solely to achieve a more commercial outcome in consolidation and redevelopment of the site. 4) There is no evidence whatsoever in the application that the applicant has made any efforts to continue the present use or to find new uses for the building, and demolition is presented as the only option. No comparative costings are offered to justify why retention would be uneconomic. 5) Even if No 8 Bridge Road and the Warehouse on Lake Road were to be part of an inclusive development, there is no evidence that the applicant has given any consideration to incorporating No.6 Bridge Road or the Old warehouse in its present form in such a plan. The “general presumption in favour of retaining buildings” seems to have been totally ignored. 6) Demolition of No6 Bridge Road would remove a 19th Century building from the Conservation Area. Approval has been given already for the registered 18th Century Douglas Head Hotel and its adjacent buildings at the far end of the inner harbour to be partly or wholly demolished for redevelopment and with each loss of a period building, the value of the Conservation Area is diminished.

1. Community Planning Service of 33 Ballaquark has made the following comments: “In my opinion the demolition of No.8 with its horrible Mansard roof is desirable but the demolition of No.6 (presumably the registered building) should not be acceptable. It is an attractive building which enhances the Harbour area. What is the point in placing a building on the Register for protection if demolition is to be allowed? I fail to see how demolition will protect the appearance and integrity of the building.

Surely at least the facade can be preserved, as has been done elsewhere on North Quay and the old cinema on Central Promenade.

I think the overall scale of the proposed building overwhelms the Railway Hotel and makes the streetscape look completely unbalanced.”

1. The Tenants of Flats 1, 2 and 3 of 8 Bridge Road have objected to the application on the grounds that the building is not structurally unsafe and there is no need for the building to be demolished.

1. Standard Comments have been received from the Manx Electricity Authority.

Assessment

1. Section 19 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 deals with the control of demolition in conservation areas. This imposes a requirement for consent for the demolition of non-registered buildings in conservation areas that is comparable to the control that exists over the demolition of registered buildings. It should be noted that a separate application for planning application (11/00421/B) for the redevelopment of the site has been submitted to the Planning Authority for consideration alongside this application.

1. The assessment of this application can be split into two distinct elements. These are:

a. the acceptability of demolishing a building within a Conservation Area and its impact within the context of the Conservation Area; and

b. the acceptability of the replacement building within the context of the Conservation Area.

1. First, it is important to consider Environment Policy 39 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 which states that "The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area." Policy CA/6 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 (PPS 1/01) provides further guidance in how to assess this application. The policy states "Any building which is located within a conservation area and which is not an exception as provided above may not be demolished without the consent of the Department. In practice, a planning application for consent to demolish must be lodged with the Department. When considering an application for demolition of a building in a conservation area, the general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area. Similar criteria will be applied as those outlined in RB/6 above, when assessing the application to demolish the building, but in less clear cut cases, for example, where a building could be said to detract from the special character of the area, it will be essential for the Department to be able to consider the merits of any proposed development when determining whether consent should be given for the demolition of an unregistered building in a conservation area. Account will be taken of the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the building for which demolition is proposed, in particular of the wider effects of the demolition on the building's surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole."

1. Therefore, the application should be assessed against criteria similar to those as set out in Policy RB/6 of PPS1/01. These are as follows:

i. "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;"

ii. "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."

iii. "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."

1. In respect of the No.1 Lake Road (the warehouse building), the structural condition of the building has previously been assessed in an earlier planning application (08/01852/B). The Department's structural engineer considered the building, at the time, could be saved, repaired and brought back into use but at some great cost; however, having brought them back into use, the structural engineers did not believe the building would be suitable for conversion to apartments and could only be used as a warehouse, storage or as a workshop.

1. It was agreed that its structural condition is now so poor that it would be unduly costly and probably impracticable to retain it.

1. In relationship to the No.8 Bridge Road, this is a modern-looking building of three-storey height including a mansard roof. The building sits uncomfortably alongside two older buildings. The building does not make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. It is considered the demolition of the building would be acceptable as long as there is an acceptable replacement building.

1. In respect of Bridge House, No.6 Bridge Road, the agents have submitted a structural survey of the house and the outbuildings to the rear. The overall conclusions of the report are:

"All of the outhouses are in a general state of disrepair. This report only focuses on the key elements influencing the strategic choice between retention and replacement of the different elements of the property.

What appears to be indisputable about the site is the past and continuing settlement. Whilst underpinning individual elements is theoretically possible, I believe that the whole development, including this site requires an integrated foundation structure. This is likely to be of the form of a stiffened raft or possibly piles. The final decision would be based on a full detailed soil investigation.

The basic Manx stone (and occasionally brick) walls are of poor quality and have little inherent value.

In conclusion, the buildings are severely dilapidated and any attempt to refurbish would require the approach and finance of an historic restoration. This is no structural benefit or value in retaining any portion of the building, and any aesthetic issues would be best met by the designer of the new development and the planning process."

1. The agents have recommended:

"That the existing buildings are demolished and the new development built to comply with modern construction standards.

That any aesthetic issues are incorporated within the new design, this may particularly relevant for the front facade of Bridge House."

1. The Department's retained Structural Engineer concluded:

"Bridge house is in a conservation area and I therefore believe that there is a presumption against demolition unless it can be justified. This site, together with the Corporation flats next door and the warehouse in Lake Road, are intended to form a development for new apartments. There has, apparently, already been acceptance for demolition of the warehouse and talks are on-going about the fate of the Corporation flats.

I am in receipt of a structural survey report from Mr A J Bell which describes the condition of Bridge House and its outbuildings. The conclusions of the report are that the buildings could be retained but at considerable expense for foundation strengthening and repairs. The recommendation of the report is that the buildings should be demolished and rebuilt on a like for like basis, if that was required, which complied with modern construction standards.

I cannot find fault with the factual statements of the report. There is no doubt that the buildings have moved and are probably still moving, probably because the foundations are sitting on the yellow, silty gravels which are subject to tidal movement here.

The main building, Bridge House, could be kept but would need foundation strengthening / underpinning to make it compatible with the newer construction and to isolate it from the effects of tidal groundwater. This would be neither cheap nor easy working in tidal waters but nevertheless there are techniques which could enable it to be done. If Bridge House is kept it will also require extensive tying of walls to walls and floors to walls, as well as stitching of cracks. Again, there are techniques to achieve this but they are not easy to do in Manx Stone.

The outbuildings / additions in the middle of the site do not have any particular merit in my opinion and could easily be replicated if you wished this.

The rear building does not seem to be in too bad a condition. There is evidence of movement which one assumes is still on-going. The same arguments apply here as with Bridge House. It could be kept, repaired and brought back into use but I question its suitability for use as an apartment if the area around it is redeveloped in a multi storey scheme.

To sum up I believe that all the buildings could be saved, repaired and brought back into use but at great cost. In the same vein the façade of Bridge House could be retained, but again there would be great cost in the temporary works, foundation strengthening, repairs and integration of the façade into the main development. I do not consider that the outbuildings / additions in the middle of the site would enhance the development, nor do I consider that the rear building would be in keeping with a high rise development."

1. In summary, the structural engineer considers the building can be saved, repaired and brought back into use but at some great cost; however, based on this information, it is considered the demolition of Bridge House and its outbuildings would be acceptable as long as there is an acceptable replacement development on the site,

1. The applicant has submitted a redevelopment scheme, which is subject to a separate planning application (11/00421/B). The Planning Authority has raised a number of issues with the proposed replacement development which warrants in the application being recommended for refusal. It is considered this application for demolition has to be assessed on the basis of whether the proposed demolition of the buildings is acceptable as a standalone development. The proposed demolition would create a vacant site within a Conservation Area, which will have a site area of approximately 510 square metres. There are no plans within the application indicating how the site will be left following the demolition, apart from indicating that site will be redeveloped. The demolition of the buildings would have a damaging effect, visually, on the streetscene. Based on the fact there isn't an approved redevelopment scheme and the visual impact of the demolition onto the streetscene and the Conservation Area, it is considered the loss of the buildings to be unwarranted and would adversely affect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

RECOMMENDATION

1. It is recommended that the application be refused.

Party Status

1. The local authority [Douglas Corporation] are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.

1. The Highways Division is part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part of. As such, the Highways Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.

1. The comments from the Manx Electricity Authority are not a material consideration and should not be afforded party status in this instance.

1. The occupier of 9 Fort William, Douglas and the Community Planning Service of 33 Ballaquark are a significant distance away from the application site and therefore do not have sufficient interest in the application site, as such they should not be afforded party status.

1. The tenants of flats 1, 2 and 3 of 8 Bridge Road occupy a building which is to be demolished and therefore have sufficient interest in the application, as such they should be afforded party status.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 09.11.2011

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal

• : Notes attached to refusals

R 1.

Based on the fact there isn't an approved redevelopment scheme and the resulting visual impact from the proposed demolition on the streetsce and the Conservation area, it is considered the demolition of the buildings would be contrary to Policy CA/6 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 and Environment Policies 35 and 39 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. The Planning Authority considers the loss of the buildings to be unwarranted and would adversely affect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager.

Decision Made : Refused Signed: Michael Gallagher Date: 11/11/11

OR Signed: Jennifer Chance

9 November 2011

Director of Planning and Building Control Development Control Manager

Director of Planning and Building Control Development Control Manager

9 November 2011

9 November 2011