Officer Report 12/00816/B

already occurred. Large embedded timbers have undergone decay and steel lintels have corroded to such an extent that they could not be left within the wall. Any attempt to retain the wall while the remainder of the buildings was demolished would generate significant disturbing forces on the wall. The masonry is insufficiently robust to prevent, at the very least, individual elements to become dislodged, potentially leading to wider collapse. There would be a significant risk of uncontrolled collapse should direct disturbance of the wall to create new large openings and lowering adjacent basement levels be attempted. 34. The report concludes that "demolition and reconstruction of the building, with the exception of the party walls to adjoining properties, is the only feasible redevelopment." 35. It is always regrettable to lose historic built fabric which contributes to the character of an area and even more so where the loss relates to a Conservation Area. 36. In this case, it was previously considered that the façade of the building could be successfully retained and incorporated into the redevelopment of the site. Having secured planning approval for this development, the stripping out of the interior of the building allowed much more invasive assessment of the condition of the structure. These investigations have revealed that the front façade of the building is in a very poor structural condition such that there is not a suitable engineering solution which would allow its retention. 37. What has been submitted is considered to be the next best solution to retaining the front façade. The proposal seeks to construct a building which would be very similar to the approved scheme, incorporating the detailing found on the existing façade and reusing where possible features such as the stone columns. Whilst retention will always be favoured over replacement in conservation areas, there will be situations where this is not possible. 38. The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 envisages that such situations may occur at Paragraph 7.32. In considering this application, it is necessary to pay special attention to this section of the Development Plan. 39. It is highly unlikely that the existing building could be used without major restructuring of the internal fabric. The layout is such that it would lend itself to a modern hotel use or any other acceptable form of use such as offices. This has been demonstrated by the long term vacancy of the majority of the building. The recent application proposed to remove the main section of the building and replace it with a new-build structure whilst retaining the front façade. With this option now unavailable, the applicant is proposing a complete new-build which is a close replica of the previous scheme including the existing front façade. 40. This is judged to be the most appropriate path forward for the site. It would reintroduce a hotel use onto the site and would replicate the existing front facade of the building. In doing so the application would bring all of the benefits of the recently approved scheme save for the retention of the front façade. The application proposes a close replica of the existing front façade incorporating the re-use of details such as the granite columns. This approach is judged to be the best compromise given the condition of the current building. Parking and highway safety 41. The site presently provides no off-street parking within its curtilage and there is no parking elsewhere that is reserved to be used by the existing hotel or offices. The hotel, as currently laid out has over 100 bedrooms. The proposal is for a 50 bed hotel with 17 underground spaces. This represents a parking ratio of 0.34 spaces per bedroom. This is a significant improvement over the existing situation. 42. The parking standard for urban hotels is open to relaxation where it can be established that the proposal would find favour with any of parts (a), (b) or (c) of the parking standards whilst also demonstrating that a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality. 43. In this case it is judged that the scheme of benefit to the character of a Conservation Area in that it would find a use for an unused site and would create a building which would closely replicate the existing building. Furthermore, the site is within a reasonable distance of an existing bus route and it can be demonstrated a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality. 44. The application sets out the following with regard to the parking and access proposed for the development: "The solution adopted is to form a new entry from Broadway to provide both entrance and exit via one ramp from the basement area. This can be achieved architecturally with the existing façade in that a double width entry can be sited centrally below bay windows. The width of the pavement allows good visibility for emerging cars, the sight lines shown indicate that some street parking will have to be lost to provide maximum visibility and it is understood a permit will be required. The ramp will be wide enough to provide some stacking and passing internally, and in considering this option the following were taken into account: - Traffic using the new entrance will most likely be non peak time users; - There is only parking for a maximum of 17 cars, the load is therefore light; - Broadway has traffic control at the Promenade and Victoria Road junctions and therefore intermittent stopping is likely and continuous traffic streams unlikely; - Good visibility is possible prior to crossing the footpaths, and proper pedestrian pavement crossing details would be adopted; - The new entrance is a sufficient distance from both traffic light controlled junctions; and - There will be a traffic light system in operation at the top and bottom of the ramp to the basement." 45. In addition to considering parking provision, it is necessary to determine whether the proposal would be acceptable in terms of highway safety. 46. The application has been assessed by officers of the Highways Division who have concluded that the amended basement level parking is acceptable. Impact upon the amenity of neighbouring properties 47. The scale of the building would be very similar to the existing in terms of footprint and massing. It is notable that all of the rear elevation windows of the new structure would be fitted with obscure glazing (the bedrooms on the rear side would be lit from the atrium with an internal outlook). As such the ability to overlook existing properties would be removed by the proposed development. 48. Previous concerns regarding the potential for disturbance to be caused as a result of air conditioning vents and condenser units were not judged to be sufficient to warrant refusal of the last application. The plant for the air conditioning units would be located on the roof of the building and towards the front elevation. The height difference of the building compared with the properties of Castlemona Avenue would further mitigate any adverse impacts. It is judged that the plant involved in servicing the building would not cause unacceptable impacts upon the amenity of the surrounding area so as to warrant refusal of this application. The principle of using the site as proposed 49. The existing building has a lawful use as a hotel providing over 100 rooms. It is judged that the reuse of the site as a hotel, albeit in a less intensive manner, is acceptable. The site is close to the Seafront and is near to some the main attractions of Douglas such as the Villa Marina and the Gaiety Theatre. It is concluded that not only is the principle of developing the site for use as hotel acceptable, the site is in a location that would complement this use. 50. One matter that has been highlighted in the application process is how the building would be occupied. Historically, tourist accommodation on the Island has been a seasonal business with high occupation rates during the spring and summer months, peaking during events such as the TT. The previous application included a condition which limited occupation. The condition states "The building may be used only as tourist accommodation where tourism is defined as set out below in accordance with the provisions of the Strategic Plan and for clarification may not be occupied as a person's main place of residence. No continuous stay shall exceed 4 weeks in duration and there shall be no return within 2 months unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority." 51. The applicant has explained that due to the nature of the Island's tourist season, such a condition would be overly restrictive. Many of their visitors come to the Island on business and require longer term accommodation of up to several months at a time. Many are involved in finance operations such as auditing which can require stays of up to 6 months. Having regard to this, it is judged that a more flexible occupancy condition would allow the hotel to operate successfully without undermining the seasonal demand for bed spaces. A condition is set out at the end of this report. CONSERVATION OFFICER'S SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT: 52. As the application site is located within the Douglas Promenade Conservation Area, designated in 2002, the relevant planning policies from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 are General Policy 2, Environment Policy 35 and Policy CA/2 Special Planning Considerations from Planning Policy Statement 1/01 (Conservation of the Historic Environment) is also considered to be relevant. 53. 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." 54. Policy CA/2 - Special Planning Considerations states; "When considering proposals for the possible development of any land or buildings which fall within the conservation area, the impact of such proposals upon the special character of the area, will be a material consideration when assessing the application. Where a development is proposed for land which, although not within the boundaries of the conservation area, would affect its context or setting, or views into or out of the area; such issues should be given special consideration where the character or appearance of a conservation area may be affected." 55. In considering any application within a conservation area, it is necessary to consider the character of the area. This was covered in the previous applications, but it is clearly applicable to this application. The character of this part of the Conservation Area and the architectural and historic interest of this building lies in the façade onto Broadway and the former use of the property. The façade is a five-storey highly ornate Victorian terrace with three storey canted bays, decorative string courses and the top floors formed in gablet dormers set into the roof, which steps down the incline of the hill toward the Promenade. As is the case with most buildings on the Island, and particularly in Douglas, these buildings are constructed in random rubble stonework with the previously mentioned highly modelled render exterior finish. 56. Following approval of applications 11/01359/B and 12/00004/CON, the applicant contacted the Conservation Officer with concerns as to the structural integrity of the façade of the building. At the time of that contact, a 'soft strip' of the building was in the process of taking place. This is essentially the starting point of the process to demolish the building. It offers the opportunity for more in depth investigations of the construction and structural condition of the building and should have taken place as part of the investigations for the initial applications. That 'soft strip' revealed a series of constructional difficulties which lead to concerns as to whether the approvals in place could be implemented. As a result, a site meeting was arranged to consider these points and try and agree a way forward. 57. At that site meeting, held on the 17th April 2012 attended by Mr Rik Fox of The Morton Partnership, the Department's retained Structural Engineer's, the applicant's newly appointed Structural Engineer, the Architect and the Health and Safety Inspectorate, the applicant was able to indicate the areas of concern in building that essentially related to the construction of the existing Bay Windows to the front façade onto Broadway, and the apparent lack of 'tying-in' with the remainder of the façade. It became very clear, very quickly, that there were serious structural issues with the Bay Windows and their poor construction that had a knock on affect on the ability of the contractor to work safely on the façade of the building, the very issue that the previous application sought to protect. It is clear, that had this information been to hand at the time of the initial applications, then the entire building would have been demolished and replaced with a facsimile. 58. The following is an excerpt from the Structural Engineer's Report dated 19th April 2012: "I believe that I need to "set the scene" for my decisions by firstly describing the construction of the front of the hotel. There appears to be 3 separate periods of construction as outlined by the 3 bays, when viewed from the front, and by the different floor levels. The party wall on the extreme right hand side is built of brickwork, whilst all the other party walls are built of stone. The front wall of the right hand bay is also built of brickwork, whereas the front walls elsewhere are built of stone. All the bay windows are constructed in brickwork with bricks cut to form very small mullions between the window frames. As with nearly all Victorian construction I have inspected, the bay windows have been added as an apparent afterthought, with very little or no bonding between the bay and front wall. There is evidence that the bays have settled and pulled away from the front walls/party walls where these conjoin and I do not see how the bays can be retained and bonded to the front walls unless a concrete head beam can be inserted above the bay which will then tie back into the front wall. This would not be easy to achieve given the existing detailing and dissimilar materials. My opinion, therefore, is that we will not be able to keep the bay windows. With regard to the front walls we have two different situations. One where the return of the bay seems to butt up to the party wall with little or no bonding and one where the return of the bay and the party wall appear to be fully bonded. In the latter case the proposed construction of gripping the pier, inserting a column in place of the party wall and then tying the pier and column together may work, but I have my doubts. In the former case there would be no chance to grip the two separate elements of the pier, insert the column, do the necessary rebuilding of the pier to reinstate its integrity and finally tie the pier to reinstate its integrity. The pier sections of the front wall are supported on composite timber/steel beams which span from party wall to party wall. Whilst these could be supported on needles and props throughout the height of the façade, I do not believe that this will be compatible with the proposed form of temporary works and method of working. My opinion, therefore, is that we will not be able to retain the front wall using the existing method of construction. If temporary support were provided to the front wall from outside the building I believe there could be a chance of retaining the remains of the front elevation, i.e. without the bays. The problem is those parts of the piers which sit either side of the party walls. When the party wall is removed to allow the column to be inserted, there will be a gap between the left and right hand portions of the pier which will need to be filled to reinstate integrity to the pier as a whole." 59. The discussions following the site visit and receipt of this report, lead to acceptance that the retention of the façade was no longer a viable option. The Design Team were informed of this and further discussion took place about a way forward resulting in the site essentially being shut down and made safe pending the outcome of further applications. 60. At a further meeting on the afternoon of the 25th April 2012, the applicant's agent and Architect presented design options for the redevelopment of the site. They were encouraged to replicate as far as possible, the existing building found on the site. There are minor discrepancies in that proposed when compared to the existing building, shown dotted on the Proposed Elevations. These discrepancies relate in the main, to constructional requirements of modern Building Regulations and are unavoidable and acceptable. 61. Similarly with the previous applications, there are some alterations to the front façade, namely the replacement of the all of the windows with PVC sliding sashes, which accords with 1/98, the creation of the vehicular access via the removal of the left-hand bay, the removal of the former entrances to form a large glazed area to afford maximum light into an otherwise deep plan and the removal of the chimneystacks. The vehicular access is remodelled by removing the existing bay and incorporating an arched opening, similar to the pedestrian access adjacent, with its balustrading over. In doing so, this continues the familiar architectural 'language' of the façade. The proposals also seek to reintroduce a portico to the ground/street level, thereby forming the entrance to the building. As with the consideration of the previous applications, the rear of the property is of very poor form and not considered of any particular merit as to warrant retention so its demolition within this and the previous applications is of minor concern. 62. In conclusion, the demolition of any building of this architectural quality within a Conservation Area is regretful. However, the structural condition of the building and the associated difficulties that arise from this structural condition, leave little alternative but to demolish and start again. In this case, the applicant has chosen to pursue the route of replication of the existing building. It is therefore possible to consider that whilst these proposals involve the complete demolition of the existing, there is an argument to say that the character of this part of the Promenade Conservation Area is preserved as the proposals all but replicate that previously approved in applications 11/01359/B and 12/00004/CON. There is also an argument for the enhancement of the Conservation Area as the former Mannin Hotel has not been in use for some time and this application will bring an important part of the Conservation Area back into use. As a result, this application is therefore acceptable. ## Conclusions 63. Whilst the previous scheme to retain the front facade would clearly be a preferable development, the structural condition of the building has been found to be such that this is not an option. The applicant has re-assessed the situation and has brought forward a development which would be very similar to that previously approved. It would not include the retention of the front facade which is unfortunate however the design of the proposed building would create a close replica of the existing building. Given the situation that has arisen, it is judged that this is the most pragmatic approach available. 64. The re-introduction of a hotel in this location would mark a clear benefit to the area. The streetscene would be reinvigorated and a new hotel would be introduced into the capital. Parking would be provided where currently there is none and an acceptable access to the building can be created. 65. Overall, the balance is judged to be in favour of the proposed development. ## Recommendation 66. Permit. ## Party Status 67. The Local Authority is by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5)(d) granted Interested Party Status. The Department of Economic Development Tourism Division meets the criteria of Planning Circular 1/06 and it is therefore recommended that they be granted Interested Party Status. 68. The Highways Division and the Planning Authority are both part of the Department of Infrastructure. As such, the Highways Division cannot be afforded Interested Party Status. ### Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 24.07.2012 ---

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

C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

C 2.

This approval relates to the demolition of existing hotels and the erection of a new hotel, including integral parking and ancillary facilities (In association with 12/00817/CON) Former Mannin and Broadway Hotels, Broadway, Douglas as shown by 1431 12 P 101, 1431 12 P 102, 1431 12 P 103, 1431 12 P 104, 1431 12 P 105, 1431 12 P 106, 1431 12 P 107, 08, 1431 12 P 109, 1431 12 P 110, 1431 12 P 111 and 1431 12 P 112 all received 1st July 2012.

C 3.

The roof(s) must be finished in dark natural slate.

C 4.

The building may be used only as tourist accommodation in accordance with the definition of tourism contained within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 and for clarification may not be occupied as a person’s main place of residence. At any one time a maximum of 24 rooms may be occupied for a continuous period of up to 6 months. The remaining rooms must not be used for continuous stays exceeding 4 weeks in duration and there shall be no return within 2 months unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.

C 5.

The car park must not be used until a traffic light system is installed and in operation at the top and bottom of the ramp to the basement to control vehicles movements.

C 6.

If within 6 months of the demolition of the existing buildings, works have not commenced on the approved development, a scheme for the restoration and landscaping of the land must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The site must be developed in accordance with the approved scheme of restoration and landscaping within 3 months of written approval unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. The site must remain in its restored state until works commence on the approved development.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005

Decision Made: PERMIT Committee Meeting Date: 6.8.2012 Signed: D. Nalley Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate

YES/NO