175001

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      18/00846/B                                     Page  1  of  30

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 18/00846/B Applicant : Lord Street Development SPV Ltd Proposal : Erection of a leisure-led mixed use development including a 7 screen cinema, 80 bedroom hotel, 20 residential apartments (14 two bed and 6 three bed units), 3 restaurant/cafe units (Class 3), 4 retail units (Class 1), information centre, public toilets, a drivers' welfare area, multi storey car park (198 car spaces and 16 motorbike spaces), back of house area, plant facilities, circulation space, 5 bus stances on Lord Street with associated waiting areas, site development and landscaping works within a series of five to seven storey buildings. Site Address : Bus Station Car Park Lord Street Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 2BL

Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken : 29.01.2019 Site Visit : 29.01.2019 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Approve subject to Legal Agreement Date of Recommendation: 04.02.2019 __

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

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. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the means of vehicular access has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans, and shall thereafter be retained for access purposes only.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

C 3. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      18/00846/B                                     Page  2  of  30

C 4. The development shall not be occupied or operated until the secure and covered bicycle store and/or motorcycling parking bays(s) have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. The secure and covered bicycle store and/or motorcycling parking bays shall be retained at all times thereafter.

Reason: To promote sustainable travel in the interests of reducing pollution and congestion.

C 5. No development shall commence until a schedule of materials and finishes and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.

C 6. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, the refuse store(s) shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans and shall be permanently retained thereafter and solely for the purpose of refuse storage.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and of the amenities of the area.

C 7. No development shall commence on site until a programme of archaeological work outlining the process of how archeologically findings will be reported to the Department and Manx National Heritage and how much findings will be recorded. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the programme of archaeological work so approved. The applicants are recommended to discuss this matter with Manx National Heritage before submitting such information.

Reason: To ensure that archaeological remains and features are adequately recorded

C 8. No development shall commence on site until detailing of demountable flood defences or similar have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that there is adequate flood protection of the site.

C 9. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the building/s hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, shall be carried out, without the prior written approval of the Department.

Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.

C 10. No development shall take place until full details of soft and hard landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and these works shall be carried out as approved. Details of the soft landscaping works include details of new planting (including tree planting) showing, type, size and position of each. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the dwelling, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which die or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species. Details of the hard landscaping works include footpaths and hard surfacing materials. The hard landscaping works shall be completed in full accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation/operation of the building/s hereby permitted.

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      18/00846/B                                     Page  3  of  30

C 11. At least one space per apartment shall be allocated to each apartment and shall be retained as such thereafter and used for no other use other than the parking of vehicles associate with that residential apartment.

Reason: Ensure appropriate level of parking is provided for the apartments hereby approved.

C 12. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the bus shelters and bus laybys have been laid out in accordance with details which have first been approved in writing by the Department.

Reason: To ensure that the bus shelters and laybys are provided.

C 13. The car park barrier must not delay vehicle ingress by more than six seconds.

Reason: To ensure that the nuisance caused vehicle queuing onto the highway is minimised.

C 14. No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a construction management plan or construction method statement has been submitted to and been approved in writing by the Planning & Building Control Department. The approved plan/statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The statement shall provide for: parking of vehicle of site operatives and visitors routes for construction traffic; hours of operation method of prevention of mud being carried onto highway; pedestrian and cyclist protection; proposed temporary traffic restrictions and arrangements for turning vehicles.

Reason: In the interests of safe operation of the highway.

N 1. The decision to grant planning approval, subject to a Section 13 agreement, was made by Planning Committee on the 11th February 2019. The issue of the decision notice has been triggered by the Section 13 agreement having been concluded. The 21 days for appeal (for those with Interested Person Status) runs from the date of the decision notice.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings reference numbers:

10th August 2018 Planning Statement prepared by Peterbrett; Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary prepared by Peterbrett; Environmental Statement: Volume 1 - Main Report prepared by Peterbrett; EIA Volume 2: Technical Appendices prepared by Peterbrett Drainage Statement prepared by Ward Cole Transport Assessment prepared by Peterbrett Design and Access Statement prepared by Aros Architects

(20) A 001, (20) A 100, (20) A 101, (20) A 102, (20) A 103, (20) A 104, (20) A 105, (20) A 106, (20) A 300, (20) A 301, (20) A 302, (20) A 303, (20) A 410, (20) A 411, (20) A 420

19th December 2018 Transport Assessment Update November 2018 prepared by Peterbrett SK-010 REV 5, SK-011 REV 4, SK-012 REV 4, SK-013 REV 3, (20) A 000 REV P1, APPENDIX A: Location Plan of Problems and Road Network Plan.

28th January 2019 Transport Assessment Addendum and response to Highways Department Questions January 2019 prepared by Peterbrett 011 P3, 007 P3, 008 P2 and 009 P3.

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      18/00846/B                                     Page  4  of  30

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:

Public Estates and Housing (DOI)

It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status as they are 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):

The owner/occupier of Albert Hotel, 3 Chapel Row, Douglas

It is recommended that the following organisations 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 National Heritage - Do not meet Sections A, B & C of the Operational Policy on Interested Person Status July 2018. Manx Utilities - Do not meet Sections A, B & C of the Operational Policy on Interested Person Status July 2018.

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):

The owner/occupier of 20 Fairway Close, Port Erin The owner/occupier of 30 Stanley Road, Peel The owner/occupier of 8 High Street, Port St Mary The owner/occupier of 60 Patrick Street, Peel The owner/occupier of Alt Na Craig, Bernahara Road, Andreas The owners/occupiers of 6 Taubman Terrace, Head Road, Douglas The Hon Juan Watterson - Speaker of the House of Keys The owner/occupier of 15 Faaie ny Cabbal, Kirk Michael The owner/occupier of 10 Albany Street, Douglas The owners/occupiers of 9 Fort William, Douglas

All do not meet Sections A, B & C of the Operational Policy on Interested Person Status July 2018. __

Officer’s Report

THE APPLICATION IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE BECAUSE:

• THE OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION IS CONTRARY TO 5 OR MORE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC;
• IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT A S.13 LEGAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO;
• IT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AND COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (IN RELATION TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION);
• IT WOULD RESULT IN MORE THAN 8 RESIDENTIAL UNITS; AND
• IT IS ACCOMPANIED BY A FORMAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT.

1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is a parcel of land approximately 0.52 hectares in size, which is located on a corner plot with Lord Street to the north, Parade Street to the east, North Quay to the south and Harris Lane/Chapel Row to the west. The site is currently used in the main as a car park (180 spaces) and along the north edge of the site Lord Street Bus Station.

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                      18/00846/B                                     Page  5  of  30

1.2 Due to the current usage of the majority of the site as a car park the character of the site is a large expanse of hard surfacing, with an approximate 1.8m high timber fence running along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site. The southern and west boundaries of the site are open with no boundary features, the exception being a metal fence running parallel with the gable end of the neighbouring buildings (Nr 1 Lord Street (café) and the public house the Albert) and a public footpath which runs between Lord Street and Chapel Row/Harris Lane.

1.3 The northern section of the site accommodates the existing bus station which is made up of five bus shelters situated at the back of the pavement. A public footpath then fronts these shelters and a large lay-by for buses to park can also be found.

1.4 Access into the car park can be achieved via Harris Lane and Chapel Row. To exit the car park vehicles must exit via Harris Lane and onto North Quay (one way system).

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The planning application seeks approval for the erection of a leisure-led mixed use development as set out in the description.

2.2 The applicant's submission describes the proposed building elements on the site as:

"...a series of 4 interlinked structures that will read as a single urban block. In summary terms the separate building elements will be as follows: o Cinema with 3 commercial units and 1 restaurant below (7 storey element); o Multi Storey Car Park (6 storey element) o Hotel with information centre, drivers welfare area and 1 restaurant below (5 storey element) o Residential apartments with 2 restaurant units below (6 storey element)"

2.3 The application also includes the following elements:

o Bus stances are to be provided onto Lord Street on a similar arrangement as existing, albeit the stances will be reconfigured in a saw tooth kerb arrangement to improve use and safety. A total of five new shelters (as existing) would be installed (final designs not known) but would be sited along the frontage of the public footpath, rather than the current situation where the shelters are located along the back of the footpath. This is to enable better pedestrian traffic walking along the footpath. o Laybys/drop off areas on Parade Street to facilitate hotel drop off and on Chapel Row/Harris Lane to the rear of the cinema to facilitate deliveries and servicing; o Cycle storage for the hotel is provided in a secure room; and o Outdoor seating areas on North Quay associated with the proposed restaurants.

2.4 The proposed multi storey car park would accommodate 198 standard spaces, 12 disabled spaces and 16 motorcycle spaces. Of these spaces the majority (142) of spaces would be for public use, 26 spaces for the residential apartments, 30 for the hotel and 16 motorcycle spaces. The car park would be accesses from street level via a partial reconfiguration of Harris Lane and Chapel Row. The Car Park would be operated on a 24 hr basis and an automatic ticket barrier system would be used.

2.5 It is envisaged that a total of 131 jobs would be created during the construction phase of the development and 110 post through the operation of commercial and leisure uses.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the determination of this application:

o Demolition of bus station and creation of temporary pay and display car park - 01/01763/B - APPROVED

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                      18/00846/B                                     Page  6  of  30

o Approval in principle for redevelopment of site to create residential units, retail units, Police Station/Library unit, car parking - 97/00528/A - APPROVED o Change of use of disused waiting room to youth work project - 95/00183/C - APPROVED o Internal alterations to form Police enquiry counter and offices - 94/00985/B - APPROVED o Alterations to improve premises and toilet facilities - 90/01611/B - APPROVED o Redevelopment to provide mixed residential, offices, retail & parking, site of existing Bus Station & car park - 93/00936/B - APPROVED o Erection of multi-storey car park with office, retail and 14 residential units - 88/01737/B - APPROVED

4.0 KEY DOCUMENTS 4.1 Material Considerations 4.1.1 Section 10(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act states:

"In dealing with an application for planning approval... the Department shall have regard to - (a) The provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, (b) Any relevant statement of planning policy under section 3; (c) Such other considerations as may be specified for the purpose of this subsection in a development order or a development procedure order, so far as material to the application; and (d) All other material considerations."

4.1.2 In light of (a) above, it is considered that two key documents are: o The Douglas Local Plan Order - Maps only (1998); and o The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016).

4.1.3 These documents are considered in more detail in 4.2 and 4.3 below.

4.1.4 In light of (d) above, the following are of particular importance: o The Central Douglas Master Plan (2014); and o The Draft Area Plan for the East (2018);

4.1.5 These documents are considered in more detail in 4.4 and 4.5 below.

4.1.6 the following documents are also considered to be relevant:

o The Draft Planning Policy Statement on the Economy (2012); o The Douglas Local Plan Written statement (1998 - not adopted) o IOM Programme for Government 2016 - 2021; o IOM Hotel Futures Study 2016; and o Manual for Roads - A design and Construction Guide. 4.1.7 All the documents are available on the government website.

4.2 The Douglas Local Plan Order 1998 4.2.1 The site is within an area designated as "MIXED USE - Town Centre" by the Douglas Local Plan. The Site is not within an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance.

4.2.2 The application site is not within a Conservation Area nor within an area designated as Natural Conservation Zones, Nature Reserves & Sites of Ecological Importance for Conservation. However, the site immediate adjoins the North Quay Conservation Area to the west of the site.

4.3 Isle of Man Strategic Plan (adopted 2016) 4.3.1 In light of the above, it is considered the policies from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (adopted 2016) set out below are relevant in the determination of this application.

4.3.2 The Strategic Plan takes its lead from the Government aims which include the pursuit of manageable and sustainable growth based on a diversified economy which is intended to raise the standard of living of the people of the Island and to provide the resources to sustain and develop

==== PAGE 7 ====

                                      18/00846/B                                     Page  7  of  30

public services. It also includes the protection and improvement of the quality of the environment such that it continues to be an asset for future generations.

4.3.3 The Strategic Aim is:

"To plan for the efficient and effective provision of services and infrastructure and to direct and control development and the use of land to meet the community's needs, having particular regard to the principles of sustainability whilst at the same time preserving, protecting, and improving the quality of the environment, having particular regard to our uniquely Manx natural, wildlife, cultural and built heritage."

4.3.4 The Strategic Aim is noted but not considered directly further, as the relevant aspects are unpacked by the relevant detailed policies which are identified below.

4.3.5 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 reusing scarce indigenous building materials; (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services."

4.3.6 Strategic Policy 2 states:

"New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions (2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3."

4.3.7 Strategic Policy 4 states:

"Proposals for development must:

(a) Protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments, Registered Buildings (1), Conservation Areas (2), buildings and structures within National Heritage Areas and sites of archaeological interest;

(b) protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations; and

(c) not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance."

4.3.8 Strategic Policy 5 states:

"New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies."

4.3.9 Strategic Policy 6 states:

"Major employment-generating development should be located in existing centres on land zoned for such purposes and identified as such in existing Local or new Area Plans."

4.3.10 Strategic Policy 7 states:

"Undeveloped land which is zoned in Local or Area Plans for industrial, office, or retail purposes will be retained and protected for such uses, except where those uses would be inappropriate or incompatible with adjoining uses."

==== PAGE 8 ====

                                      18/00846/B                                     Page  8  of  30

4.3.11 Strategic Policy 8 states:

"Tourist development proposals will generally be permitted where they make use of existing built fabric of interest and quality, where they do not affect adversely environmental, agricultural, or highway interests and where they enable enjoyment of our natural and manmade attractions."

4.3.12 Strategic Policy 9 states:

"All new retail development (excepting neighbourhood shops and those instances identified in Business Policy 5) and all new office development (excepting corporate headquarters suitable for a business park(1) location) must be sited within the town and village centres on land zoned for these purposes in Area Plans, whilst taking into consideration Business Policies 7 and 8."

4.3.13 Strategic Policy 10 states:

"New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to:

(a) minimise journeys, especially by private car;

(b) make best use of public transport;

(c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and

(d) encourage pedestrian movement"

4.3.14 Spatial Policy 1 states:

"The Douglas urban area will remain the main employment and services centre for the Island."

4.3.15 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."

4.3.16 General Policy 4 states:

==== PAGE 9 ====

                                      18/00846/B                                     Page  9  of  30

"Where appropriate the Department will enter into Agreements under section 13 of the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act which may: (a) restrict the use of land; (b) require land to be used in a particular way; (c) restrict the operations which may be carried out in, on, under or over land; (d) require operations or activities to be carried out in, on, under or over land or; (e) require payments to be made to the Department either in a single sum or periodically, in particular as commuted sums for open space or parking provision, or other social or cultural provision, including public art, which is necessary and directly associated with the development proposed."

4.3.17 Environment Policy 10 states:

"Where development is proposed on any site where in the opinion of the Department of Local Government and the Environment there is a potential risk of flooding, a flood risk assessment and details of proposed mitigation measures must accompany any application for planning permission. The requirements for a flood risk assessment are set out in Appendix 4."

4.3.18 Environment Policy 13 states:

"Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted."

4.3.19 Environment Policy 22 states:

"Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of:

i) pollution of sea, surface water or groundwater;

ii) emissions of airborne pollutants; and

iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution."

4.3.20 Environment Policy 24 (section 7.18) states:

"Development which is likely to have a significant effect on the environment will be required:

i) to be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment in certain cases; and

ii) to be accompanied by suitable supporting environmental information in all other cases."

4.3.21 Environment Policy 26 states:

"Development will not be permitted on or close to contaminated land unless it can be demonstrated that there is no unacceptable risk to health, property or adjacent watercourses"

4.3.22 Environment Policy 29 states:

"In considering development proposals within Consultation Zones as designated on the Area Plans or published Consultation Zone Maps, the Department will consult with the Health and Safety at Work Inspectorate to determine the appropriateness of the development. In all cases, the health and safety of the public will be the overriding consideration. Developments which would conflict with the requirements of health and safety will not be permitted."

4.3.23 Environment Policy 36 states:

"Where development is proposed outside of, but close to, the boundary of a Conservation Area, this will only be permitted where it will not detrimentally affect important views into and out of the Conservation Area."

4.3.24 Environment Policy 40 states:

==== PAGE 10 ====

                                      18/00846/B                                     Page  10  of  30

"Development will not be permitted which would damage, disturb or detract from an important archaeological site or an Ancient Monument or the setting thereof."

4.3.25 Environment Policy 41 states:

"The Department will require that archaeological evaluations be submitted prior to the determination of proposals affecting sites of known or potential archaeological significance. In cases where remains are affected but preservation in-situ is not merited, the Department will expect to secure excavations and/or recording in advance of construction work either by the imposition of suitable conditions attached to a planning permission or through a formal agreement entered into with the developer."

4.3.26 Environment Policy 42 states:

"New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans."

4.3.27 Environment Policy 43 states:

"The Department will generally support proposals which seek to regenerate run-down urban and rural areas. Such proposals will normally be set in the context of regeneration strategies identified in the associated Area Plans. The Department will encourage the re-use of sound built fabric, rather than its demolition."

4.3.28 Housing Policy 1 states:

"The housing needs of the Island will be met by making provision for sufficient development opportunities to enable 5,100 additional dwellings (net of demolitions), and including those created by conversion, to be built over the Plan period 2011 to 2026."

4.3.29 Housing Policy 4 states:

"New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(1) of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances:

(a) essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10;

(b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and

(c) the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14."

4.3.30 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."

4.3.31 Business Policy 1 states:

"The growth of employment opportunities throughout the Island will be encouraged provided that development proposals accord with the policies of this Plan."

4.3.32 Business Policy 9 states:

==== PAGE 11 ====

                                      18/00846/B                                     Page  11  of  30

"The Department will support new retail provision in existing retail areas at a scale appropriate to the existing area and which will not have an adverse effect on adjacent retail areas. Major retail development proposals will require to be supported by a Retail Impact Assessment(1)."

4.3.33 Business Policy 10 states:

"Retail development will be permitted only in established town and village centres, with the exceptions of neighbourhood shops in large residential areas and those instances identified in Business Policy 5."

4.3.34 Business Policy 11 states:

"Tourism development must be in accordance with the sustainable development objectives of this plan; policies and designations which seek to protect the countryside from development will be applied to tourist development with as much weight as they are to other types of development. Within the rural areas there may be situations where existing rural buildings could be used for tourist use and Environment Policy 16 sets out the circumstances where this may be permitted."

4.3.35 Recreation Policy 3 states:

"Where appropriate, new development should include the provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design. New residential development of ten or more dwellings must make provision for recreational and amenity space in accordance with the standards specified in Appendix 6 to the Plan."

4.3.36 Recreation Policy 4 states:

"Open Space must be provided on site or conveniently close to the development which it is intended to serve, and should be easily accessible by foot and public transport."

4.3.37 Community Policy 7 states:

"The design of new development and the extension and refurbishment of existing buildings and development must, as far as is reasonably practical, pay due regard to existing best practice so as to help prevent criminal and anti-social behaviour."

4.3.38 Community Policy 10 states,

"Proposals for the layout and development of land will be permitted only where there is provided proper access for fire-fighting vehicles and adequate supplies of water for fire-fighting purposes".

4.3.39 Community Policy 11 states,

"The design and use of all new buildings and of extensions to existing buildings must, as far as is reasonable and practicable, pay due regard to best practice such as to prevent the outbreak and spread of fire".

4.3.40 Transport Policy 1 states,

"New development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes".

4.3.41 Transport Policy 2 states:

==== PAGE 12 ====

                                      18/00846/B                                     Page  12  of  30

"The layout of development should, where appropriate, make provision for new bus, pedestrian and cycle routes, including linking into existing systems."

4.3.42 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."

4.3.43 Transport Policy 6 states:

"In the design of new development and transport facilities the needs of pedestrians will be given similar weight to the needs of other road users."

4.3.44 Transport Policy 7 states:

"The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. The current standards are set out in Appendix 7." 4.3.45 Transport Policy 8 states:

"The Department will require all applications for major development to be accompanied by a Transport Assessment."

4.4 The Central Douglas Master Plan (2014) 4.4.1 The Masterplan is not a statutory document in itself, although it was approved by Tynwald. It was intended that it would be a material consideration in the determination of applications and be reviewed for inclusion in the Area Plan for the East. The Masterplan introduced a series of Character Areas that reflected the existing nature and uses of particular areas of Douglas town centre while identifying opportunities for growth and evolution. These Character Areas remain relevant and have been used as a basis for the Area Plan Proposals.

4.4.2 The Site is within an area known as "The Fort" under the plan. Project Proposals for the site include:

"QS1 - Infill at the Lord Street site / North Quay, focusing on leisure development The site will be dealt with in more detail in the following section, but the Lord Street site offers the final vacant site along this frontage. Other premises are currently vacant but are constrained by existing scale so these don't offer the same potential".

"TF4 - Lord Street public realm improvements to create connectivity and safe pedestrian movement Lord Street traffic needs to be considered as part of a strategic highway overview for the centre. The street could become a shared space and with careful treatment would ensure that traffic movements are slowed to enable the safe movement of pedestrians. The bus station for Douglas is also to remain on Lord Street".

"TF5 - Fort Street public realm improvement extending retail circuit from Strand Street Fort Street will be pedestrianised and link into Strand Street by the extension of the public realm improvement scheme already being implemented. The linking of this area into the existing is crucial in implementing the much needed connections across the town centre, to ensure that it works as a whole not just as a series of areas."

4.5 The Draft Area Plan for the East (2018)

==== PAGE 13 ====

                                      18/00846/B                                     Page  13  of  30

4.5.1 The site is within a Distinct Mixed Use area under the draft plan and specifically Mixed Use Area 5 which includes this site and three other sites in the immediate area to the north and east of site.

4.5.2 Mixed Use Area 5 states:

"This area provides the most redevelopment opportunities. The area is well located, near to the Sea Terminal, the Quayside and the retail areas. It is identified in the Central Douglas Masterplan as having potential for a variety of uses appropriate to the Island's capital".

4.5.3 Town Centre - Mixed Use Proposal 5 states:

"There will be a presumption in favour of large or comprehensive development schemes for uses in the following categories:

Tourism/hotel Leisure Entertainment Food and drink

Provision must be made for public transport and a multi-storey car park within the area. Office and Residential uses will be acceptable at first floor level and above, but not at ground floor where an active frontage will be required. Any development must be of the highest design quality and improvements to the public realm. Uses which conflict with those stated in this Proposal will generally not be supported."

4.5.4 Urban Environment Proposal 3 states:

"Development proposals, particularly in respect of Douglas Town Centre, which are contemporary in style and which clearly demonstrate innovative design solutions which enhance local character and distinctiveness will generally be supported."

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Government Departments 5.1.1 DOI Highways Services initially (29.09.2017) sought a deferral of the application for a number of reasons (11.09.2018). After a number of discussions with the applicants/Department and additional information is provided, DOI Highway Services made the following comments (04.02.2019): "Accessibility/Sustainability 1. Highway Services is satisfied that the development is accessible by sustainable modes of transport. Existing Traffic 2. Highway Services is satisfied that the existing traffic flows identified in the applicant's statement are representative of traffic flows on the local road network. Traffic Generation 3. Highway Services is satisfied with the applicant's traffic generation methodology. Traffic Distribution and Assignment 4. Highway Services is satisfied with the applicant's traffic distribution and assignment methodology. Highway Capacity Impact 5. Highway Services consider the impact on journey times on the local road network resulting from new and re-routed development traffic to be acceptable. Road Safety 6. Highway Services is satisfied with the stage 1 & 2 road safety audit. Parking 7. Highway Services consider the provision of vehicular and cycle parking within the development to be acceptable.

==== PAGE 14 ====

                                      18/00846/B                                     Page  14  of  30

Conclusion 8. Highway Services do not oppose the proposed development Proposed Conditions

Should the planning application be permitted, Highway Services would request that following planning conditions be added:

a. No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a construction management plan or construction method statement has been submitted to and been approved in writing by the Planning & Building Control Department. The approved plan/statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The statement shall provide for: parking of vehicle of site operatives and visitors routes for construction traffic; hours of operation method of prevention of mud being carried onto highway; pedestrian and cyclist protection; proposed temporary traffic restrictions and arrangements for turning vehicles. Reason: In the interests of safe operation of the highway.

b. No part of the development hereby approved shall not be brought in to use until the vehicular parking spaces have been provided. The vehicle parking facilities shall thereafter be retained. Reason: To ensure an adequate and satisfactory standard of parking provision, having regard to the IoM Strategic Plan

c. No part of the development hereby approved shall not be brought in to use until the cycle parking spaces have been provided. The cycle parking facilities shall thereafter be retained. Reason: To ensure an adequate and satisfactory standard of parking provision, having regard to the IoM Strategic Plan. d. No part of the development hereby approved shall not be brought in to use until the bus stands become operational. Reason: To ensure an adequate and satisfactory sustainable transport provision, having regard to the IoM Strategic Plan. e. The car park barrier must not delay vehicle ingress by more than six seconds. Reason: To ensure that the nuisance caused vehicle queuing onto the highway is minimised."

5.1.2 Public Estates and Housing (DOI) make the following comments: "We refer to the aforementioned application, and we can confirm that we have looked at the detail of the application and have considered the provision of a 25% affordable housing requirement. The Department believes that in this instance a Commuted Sum in lieu of the provision of affordable housing is the correct option as leasehold apartments are not currently accepted for first-time buyers or public sector tenants due to the additional cost of service charges and ground rents which place additional financial burdens on purchasers or tenants.

In addition to the provision of affordable housing, the Department has also considered what other facilities it sees as essential in connection with this important redevelopment of a town centre site, which is seen as a catalyst for further expansion of facilities for the public in addition to the provision of commercial space.

The site development brief prepared by the Department included the provision of new Bus Shelter canopies and bus docking points. The Department believes that it would be of great benefit to those persons using the bus drop-off and pick-up points on the Lord Street boundary of the site to be provided with modern amenities to supplement the long-established bus stops in the area. Accordingly, it suggested that the applicant gives thought to the possible inclusion of a driver mess- room with full kitchen facilities and day accommodation for 15 staff, high-quality public Male and Female WC facilities with baby-changing units provided in each, staff W.C's and Supervisors' offices. As a result of this suggestion, the applicant has agreed, subject to approval by the Planning Committee, to provide these additional facilities. The Department believes that these enhancements to the public and staff facilities can be provided in lieu of the Commuted Sum referred to above.

The Department ordinarily insists upon the provision of Affordable Housing, or a Commuted Sum in lieu which will be placed in the DOI Housing Reserve Account. However, in this case, the

==== PAGE 15 ====

                                      18/00846/B                                     Page  15  of  30

Department would request that consideration be given by the Planning Committee to include a requirement, in respect of any approval granted for this site, for the applicant to enter into a Section 13 Agreement with the Department to provide Additional Staff Welfare and Public Facilities which will include all the items described in the previous paragraph. This is a difficult decision for the Department but in this case we see the provision of enhanced staff and public facilities on the site as the preferred developer contribution.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment upon this application."

5.2 Other Consultees 5.2.1 Douglas Borough Council initially made the following comments which can be summarised as (27.09.2018): generally supportive of the principle of redevelopment off the site, but seeks the following issue being addresses; the use of Chapel Ro as the access route for both goods vehicles and for cars is a concern; accuracy of the survey to the north side of Chapel Row, and in particular the tracking of larger vehicles; concern about the impact of the development on the neighbouring Conservation Area which include Chapel Row; a waste management strategy is required; concern about Pedestrian routes through and alongside the development and whether or not they comply with the Central Douglas Masterplan and the Draft Area Plan for the East; the application does not indicate whether the 46 bicycle stands would be located; inadequate information regarding shelters for bus passengers; concern of safety for buses moving into and away from the bus stands and the effect on the traffic in the area; concern that if the a new tow square (Knox Place - mention in Douglas Masterplan) then the car park elevation will front it; would like more information about charging points; council is pleased to see toilets but suggest the disabled toilet should allow both left and right hand transfer and should include adult changing facilities; concern of fire doors opening outwards onto the pavement alongside a busy road; and further information is required for the pavement cafés.

5.2.2 Douglas Borough Council following amended/additional plans made the following comments which can be summarised as (27.11.2018): "After consideration the Committee agreed that the proposals amount to the largest redevelopment within the Borough in recent times, and this scheme has the potential to begin the much needed regeneration of this area of lower Douglas. The scheme also has significant social and economic benefits to both the Borough and the Island and there is worthy of the Councils support.

Having stated the above, the Committee also made the following comments:- 1. The Council is very concerned about the use of Chapel Row as the main access route into the development; 2. The Council asks that a full waste management strategy is submitted as part of the Building Regulations application; and 3. The Council expresses it disappointment that no provision has been included for an adult change facility."

5.2.3 Manx Nation Heritage (18.01.2019) makes the following comments: "Douglas only developed as a settlement in the later Medieval period when a small fortification was constructed in the Tudor period at the mouth of the harbour. It underwent a significant expansion in the Georgian period with the development of the riverside quays, several subsequent harbour facilities, and merchant's houses with associated storage catering for the rapidly expanding trade between Britain and the Americas. The Victorian period saw further expansion, the further reclamation of land alongside the river, and the construction of warehouses, housing and many associated industrial trades.

The post-war period and indeed as late as the 1970's and 1980's saw the decline of traditional industries, the condemning of inadequate houses and substantial demolition in the Lord Street area. However, the lack of subsequent major development means that land has not been formally "reclaimed". It is likely therefore that features of the previous occupation will still be present underground to some extent. These features may include previous harbour structures, drainage culverts, wells, cellars, foundations or other voids. There may also be undocumented disposal of

==== PAGE 16 ====

                                      18/00846/B                                     Page  16  of  30

waste but we think the development will avoid the remains of hazardous industrial processes such as metal-working, tanneries, and burial sites.

The developers need to satisfy themselves of the ground conditions to reduce their risk during the construction period. I believe elements of a desk-based assessment have already been done - as well as some site investigations. It might be that Ground Probing Radar would also be a helpful tool. Any development in proximity to a tidal river also needs to consider underground drainage and ground-water conditions - which are no longer "natural" - having been impacted by previous occupation.

MNH would certainly not want to object to this development but a condition for a Desk-based archaeological assessment would probably help the developer target any potential problems"

5.2.4 Further to these initial comments the applicants responded by stating:

"...In this regard I would direct their attention to Chapter 11 of the EIA and the accompanying appendices 11.1 to 11.4, which includes a full archaeological DBA and the results of a Ground Penetrating Radar survey. Presumably given the detail already submitted there is no need for a further condition on this matter?"

5.2.5 Manx National Heritage responded by stating (22.01.19):

"It is useful to see the results of the test pits and GPR. This confirms our suspicion that the demolition layers effectively seal the remains of previous development and there are likely to be archaeological remains of some kind.

However, in view of the depth and nature of overburden it would be unreasonable to expect the developer to pursue further investigations in advance of development.

I do think it would be reasonable to require a condition to maintain communications with MNH during the ground works and have a reporting procedure in place with the contractors so that advice can be sought if necessary. I think also it would be reasonable to seek a basic level of recording of any significant features or structures discovered. The definition of significant can be discussed in due course but would relate to either the date, state of preservation of a structure or the nature of the construction method. "Recording" may include plotting the location of features electronically and/or photography.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment."

5.2.6 Manx Utilities comment that (10.09.2018): "The Flood Risk Department have made comments on the Flood Risk Assessment and Flood Warning Evacuation Plan supplied by the applicant. These comments are documented in the attached pdf (MU comments on FRA and FWEP.pdf).

We would be grateful if your department, as well as the applicant, could review this document and make comment.

In principle, the FR department have no objection to the above application but recommend that the planning department assign relevant conditions to be agreed before construction commences. Following review of the attached document the FR team can discuss their recommendations on appropriate conditions for this development with the planning officer assigned."

5.2.7 Following these comments the applicants have been in discussion with Manx Utilities who comment further (07.12.2018 ); "We have been in contact with the developer and advised that we will work with them to design the property level flood defence."

5.2.8 Register Building Officer makes the following comments (31.01.2019):

==== PAGE 17 ====

                                      18/00846/B                                     Page  17  of  30

"The application site is adjacent to the North Quay conservation area and in close proximity to registered buildings.

The site is currently a cleared site, formally the site of a bus station. The proposals are for a mixed use development including hotel, cinema, residential and retail. The development will be contained within a series of five to seven storey buildings.

The applicant has undertaken a heritage assessment and identified the assets potentially affected by the proposals and assessed the impact of the proposals upon the significance of these assets.

The conclusion of this report states that "there is potential for the proposed development to affect the setting of nearby designated assets, specifically the Market Halls, Douglas Hotel and Harbour ridge Tower, which are registered buildings, and the North Quay Conservation Area". The report goes on to state "the proposed development will result in a sight degree of harm to the significance of the North Quay Conservation Area and the former Douglas Hotel. The degree of harm is considered to be so slight that the character and appearance of the conservation area will be preserved".

It is my view that the extent of harm to the setting of the Douglas Hotel and this part of the conservation has been slightly understated, I consider there will be an impact to setting of Douglas Hotel that will be impacted upon particularly by the proposed cinema element of the development which is the tallest part of the scheme and also the closest to the registered buildings and conservation area.

The scale and massing of the development, as can be seen in the Design and Access Statement's massing studies is greater than the surrounding development. I acknowledge the site sits outside the conservation area and consider that there is opportunity for a greater scale and massing, but I do however consider the massing of the cinema element to dominate over the Douglas Hotel and therefore also this part of the conservation area and would advise that this section of the development be amended to reduce this impact."

5.3 Other Representations - Please note all comments are in relation to initial scheme unless stated otherwise.

5.3.1 The owner/occupier of Albert Hotel, 3 Chapel Row, Douglas objects to the application which can be summarised has (22.08.2018): the height of the proposal would be three stories higher than any other building; our daylight would disappear; concerns of impacts during construction period; on completion of works we shall remain very dark; when the main shopping street has many empty unit is seems totally ludicrous to build more of the same; all traffic is proposed to through Chapel Row which was not built for such a busy thoroughfare and deliveries to each business will prove difficult for that traffic; pedestrian safety concerns; far more sensible to access and depart from North Quay and leave Chapel Row mainly pedestrians, the only access for delivery vehicles; we hear many complaints from people getting wet for buses and we have provided the nearest toilet facilities for many years, the people of the Island deserve better than an outside bus stop with inadequate facilities; and pleased for the general idea in principle, but I think too much is being cramped onto the one site.

5.3.2 The owner/occupier of 20 Fairway Close, Port Erin objects to the application which can be summarised has (29.08.2018): inadequate bus station facilities; it would be a major lost opportunity if this development were to be approved as such, could be easily overcome by relocate toilets and information centre to create a bus passenger waiting room with ticket desk and toilets within the Lord Street frontage; and if developer did not want to lose space for units 1 to 4 they could take out a car deck.

5.3.3 The owner/occupier of 30 Stanley Road, Peel objects to the application which can be summarised has (03.09.2018): we must have a proper bus station in Douglas; consider these plans

==== PAGE 18 ====

                                      18/00846/B                                     Page  18  of  30

to be utterly inadequate, not enough toilets no waiting room and no enclosed shelters and no better than we have now and that is appalling.

5.3.4 The owner/occupier of 8 High Street, Port St Mary - TravelWatch objects to the application which can be summarised has (02.08.2018): the site originally had a bus station which concluded extensive weather protections, toilets waiting rooms, café/kiosk, vending machines and information which was demolishes and in its place a number of bus shelters were provided along Lord Street which provided limited whether protection and information; we consider that providing a modern Bus interchange in Douglas should be a high priority for Government; we sought evidence from the planning application that the advice in the 2011 UK best practice to "Bus and Coach Design and Operation" had been properly considered, we found no one; we consider the application should include details of the proposed new bus stands/shelters on Lord Street as these are an important element of the "bus station"; other facilities should be included; adequate waiting area with adequate heating, seating and ventilation information point; adequate number of toilets; adequacy security (cctv); refreshments; lighting; sufficient canopies/shelters; all facilities must be suitable for passengers with disabilities; and these facilities have been designed accordingly to DoI to "carter for bus passengers for many years to come", contingencies for expanding the facilities should be built into the plans.

5.3.5 The owner/occupier of 60 Patrick Street, Peel objects to the application which can be summarised as (02.08.2018): concerns of lack of provision for bus passengers; the applicant indicates that there will be an improvement of seating and shelters with volume provided meeting, at last that which is current provided; but there is nowhere enough space in the shelters now, especially when it is cold/wet; the plans do not shown any real improvement; more than two public toilets should be provided and there should be heated waiting room with sufficient seating and refreshment facilities as well as a full information and ticketing centre.

5.3.6 The owner/occupier of Alt Na Craig, Bernahara Road, Andreas objects to the application which can be summarised as (07.08.2018): initially very impressed with the overview description pf the plans my enthusiasm was damped when noting no plans for a 21st century bus station; looks like nothing has changes; bus transport is a fundamental social necessity for a modern society; no major plan should be agreed until discussions and comments have been received from all relevant stakeholders; and it appear to me that commercial interest has completely overridden the need to provide a decent transport terminal for IOM residents.

5.3.7 The owners/occupiers of 6 Taubman Terrace, Head Road, Douglas objects to the application which can be summarised as (06.08.2018): proposal appear to be lacking in respect of any high quality design; lack of affordable housing; layout and density of the development is excessive, being significantly higher than any other nearby building; materials appears to be a considerable lack of variation; proposal does not sufficiently respect, protect or enhance the adjacent Conservation Area; and the proposals fails to comply with the following planning policies SP4, EP36 and EP42.

5.3.8 The Hon Juan Watterson - Speaker of the House of Keys (05.09.2018) has concerns to the application which can be summarised as: site once housed significant bus station with passenger facilities and amenities that are not now being replicated; it is disappointing to note that with the exception of the toilet facilities there will not be an indoor, heated waiting areas for people to catch the bus; and would very much appreciate it if the Planning Committee would give greater consideration to the travelling public than has currently been given up to this point and request, either via a Section 13 agreement or otherwise, that an indoor, heated waiting area is provided for bus passengers.

5.3.9 The owner/occupier of 15 Faaie ny Cabbal, Kirk Michael objects to the application which can be summarised as (02.08.2018): the bus station has been totally inadequate since the original building was demolished ; we now have a once in a lifetime opportunity to provide what passengers would reasonable expect in a major transport facility for the 21st century; the proposal for just two toilets and an information room for passengers falls far short of what can usually be found in the UK

==== PAGE 19 ====

                                      18/00846/B                                     Page  19  of  30

should not be aiming for the minimal; and the well-established design guide for bus and coach station is well accepted in the UK in 2011, but proposals fall short of it.

5.3.10 The owner/occupier of 10 Albany Street, Douglas supports the application which can be summarised as (18.08.2018): site has laid vacant for too many years; great to see operators ready and committed to deliver these new and much needed leisure facilities to our capital; encouraged to see the improvements to the public realm around the site; current bus facilities are very tired and not a good impression for tourist; great to see new 'Central Bus Hub' with brand new facilities being provided (toilets, info canteen,& driver welfare); note the applicants proposes a condition for the final shelters; I also support DOI's recommendation that a commuted sum is paid rather than the provision of affordable homes; and I hope to see this application approved and welcome the job creation during construction and operation together with long terms economic benefits this site will deliver for our Island.

5.3.11 The owners/occupiers of 9 Fort William, Douglas supports the application which can be summarised as (10.11.2018): not opposed in principle to the redevelopment of the site, however find the proposal very disappointing; concerns of excessive size and mass of buildings and intensity of land use; proposal fails to respect the design, height, scale and massing of the adjacent North Quay Conservation Area and properties in area; The Douglas Masterplan comments that a Wintergarden could be incorporated into the Lord Street development however this is absent; overshowing/loss of outlook from Albert Hotel; highway concerns with traffic using Market Hill and Chapel Row; the proposal appears to have a extreme mass and overall weak architectural design; materials shown play scant respect to natural Manx materials and local design features; and Douglas deserves and should demand far better especially in such an important, high profile and sensitive location.

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 Key Issues 6.1.1 It is considered that the main issues in the determining of this application are as set out below. The application includes an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and Transport Assessment, which, amongst other things, considers all of these matters in detail. In this regard it is considered to comply with IOMSP policy EP24 (Section 7.18).

6.1.2 Issues relating to the principle of the proposal are as follows:

o Principle of Development (Local Plan land use allocation, StP 1,2,6,7,8 & 9, SP1, GP 2, HP1, HP4, BP1, 9, 10 & 11, TF4 DMP and MUA 5 TAPE); o Potential impact upon the visual amenities of the street scenes (StP5, GP2, EP 42 & 43 & UEP 3); o Impact upon adjacent Conservation Area/neighbouring Registered Building (EP36, StP4(a) and EP42); o Impact on Archaeology (StP4(a) & EP40, EP41 and UEP 8); o Affordable housing provision (GP4, HP5); o Impact on Neighbouring Properties (EP22, GP2(g)); o Traffic Impacts / parking provision (StP10, GP2, TP 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 & 8); o Flood risk (GP2(l) & EP10 &13); o Designing Out Crime (CP7) o Open Space provision (GP4, RP3 & RP4); o Fire Risk (CP10 & 11); o Public Transport Provision (GP4, TP 1 & 2, TF4 DMP and MUA 5 TAPE); o Connectivity through the site (StP10, TP 1, 2 & 4, TF4 DMP & MUA 5 TAPE); and o Contaminated Land (EP26)

6.2 Principle of Development (Local Plan land use allocation, StP 1,2,6,7,8 & 9, SP1, GP 2, HP1, HP4, BP1, 9, 10 & 11, TF4 DMP and MUA 5 TAPE); 6.2.1 The site is within an area designated as "Mixed Use" under the Douglas Local Plan. The proposed scheme is for a 7 screen Cinema, 3 commercial units, restaurants, multi storey car park,

==== PAGE 20 ====

                                      18/00846/B                                     Page  20  of  30

hotel, information centre, drivers' welfare area, bus station/shelters and 20 residential apartments. It is considered the proposal would comply with the land used designation of the adopted and extant Douglas Local Plan.

6.2.2 It is also noted that the proposed mixed uses would meet the current Draft Area Plan for the East land use designation currently proposed on this site. Whilst limited weight can be attached to the draft plan at this stage, it is acknowledged that the "direction of travel" of the draft plan, would be met by the proposal in terms of uses as outline in "Mixed Used Proposal 5". Again the proposal would flow with the guidelines of the Douglas Master Plan, which itself has been incorporated into the Draft Area Plan for the East.

6.2.3 None of the uses proposed would be contrary to the Local Plan, IOMSP, Draft Area Plan for the East and Douglas Master Plan and therefore the proposal in terms of the principle of development is considered acceptable and comply with the relevant IOMSP polices.

6.3 Potential impact upon the visual amenities of the street scenes (StP5, GP2, EP 42 & 43) 6.3.1 Arguably this is one of the main issues with the proposal given its significant overall size and prominent location. In terms of the separate but related issue of the potential impact upon the adjacent Conservation Area/Registered Building this issue will be dealt with in due course within this report. This section therefore focuses on the general appearance of the building within the street scenes.

6.3.2 There are considered to be a number of potential locations where the development would be apparent from public views and these are identified within the submitted Environmental Impact Assessment (par 10.4.18). However, it is considered to be five main public views which are considered key, these being: o Northern; o North-eastern corner views; o Eastern; o South Eastern; and o Southern and South-Western Views.

6.3.3 Each of the above views is considered in more detail below.

Northern Views 6.3.4 The EIA report indicates that views form the north of the site would result in a "Very High" magnitude of change and this is accepted.

6.3.5 The northern elevation is the aspect that will in the main be visible when travelling along Lord Street. Further, this is the section of the proposal which has the greatest mass and scale of the overall building. The Cinema, retail units and multi storey car park sections of the proposal would be most noticeable from Lord Street views. The proposal will significantly alter the character and appearance of Lord Street which currently, given its current appearance is open in character, albeit not beneficial to the overall appearance of the area. Although the proposals will enclose the street scene, this is likely to happen with any development on this site. More distance views of Douglas Head and the built development along Douglas Head would be screened by the development; however, it is not considered this would result in a significant adverse impact.

6.3.6 In terms of the design, scale, mass and finish of the building, this elevation arguable has the most striking and dominating built form of the development. The seven storey cinema (sections of ground floor restaurant/retail uses) building which is accommodated within two large white (seamless white Krion Cladding System) cubic buildings with 'curtain' effect anthracite/black façade will be formed out of pre cast concrete to parts of the front and rear façades. To either side of the large cubic buildings are smaller sections which provide a separation between the two buildings, these finishes with glazing with projected frame systems coloured in a light bronze and also glazed green brickwork. These smaller sections help give a break of the large mass of the two cubic buildings and appear as subordinate features.

==== PAGE 21 ====

                                      18/00846/B                                     Page  21  of  30

6.3.7 This elevation also includes the main view of the multi storey car park, which on the whole is located centrally of the development, with other build development surrounding it and therefore blocking views of it. Car parks are often difficult to design as there are clear requirements in terms of function requirements, ventilation and fire provision - which all results in a difficulty when designing car parks in terms of the external appearance. In this case the car park would appear as a six storey building, rectangular in shape, albeit connected to the cinema building complex. The car park elevation along Lord Street would be finished in the main extruding aluminium vertical fin, again in a light bronze colour to match the projected frame systems. The ground floor (street level) would be finished with a chestnut/black mixed facing brickwork.

6.3.8 The overall design and finished is contemporary in design and certainly different to the other buildings along Lord Street. However, it is noted that there are a variety of design types, styles and finishes currently, which have evolved over a number of decades. In the immediate street scene along Lord Street some of these are 'Art Deco', Victorian of various styles, more modern three storey residential terraced properties and the former four storey police station building. Accordingly, in terms of the overall design approach of the Lord Street elevation of this proposal, it is considered this would successfully be part of continued evolution of design in the area.

6.3.9 The overall design approach will be striking and unique to the area, and the IOM, which in relation to this proposal is considered to be acceptable, as it will result in a new design approach and one for current times. Accordingly, in terms of built form along Lord Street it is considered this would comply with the relevant polices listed.

North-eastern corner views 6.3.10 The second main view of the site would be when travelling towards the site from the Sea Terminal Building along Bath Place and from Parade Street. The elevations most apparent would be the eastern elevation and the north-eastern & south eastern corners of the building.

6.3.11 In terms of the north-eastern corner of the site (views from Bath Place/roundabout) this would be of the corner section of the six storey multi storey car park (stairwell) which would be finished in a mixture of glazed green and chestnut/black mixed facing brickwork. Further, a six storey cylindrical building is proposed, which accommodates the information centre at ground floor level and hotel accommodation at the upper floors. This cylindrical building forms a key feature on this prominent corner site, immediately adjacent to the roundabout. The applicants have indicated that this design was taken from the Tower of Refuge, with it cylindrical nature and staggered window arrangement. This aspect would be finished with large sections of glazing at ground floor level (information centre) and a Mix White/Pastel Coral brickwork to the upper floors which is broken up with staggered vertical windows of various sizes.

6.3.12 The section of buildings views form the north east, would be of a prominent and unique style of building in the area. It is considered the scale and mass of the built development in this area would be appropriate, given this corner position and given it would have similar heights to existing building in the immediate area. Again the finishes of the building is a mixture of types and styles all of which are quality finishes, which add a further design approach to the area.

6.3.13 It should be noted that on this corner section, the built form sits back from the highway, resulting in large open footpath area, where persons could utilise as a focal point, especially given its location outside the information centre. This aspect is welcomed.

Eastern Views 6.3.14 Continuing around from the north-eastern elevation, the eastern view continues the cylindrical building which adjoins to a smaller five storey building, again, differing in finish and design approach. This building would accommodate a hotel with restaurant/bar at ground floor. This building is arguably one of the more simplistic buildings in terms of design, being rectangular in shape with vertical windows, an exception being part of the ground floor window (restaurant section) where there are larger sections of glazing. The vertical windows would include anthracite

==== PAGE 22 ====

                                      18/00846/B                                     Page  22  of  30

black coloured Projecting Feature Window Reveals around each of the windows. This section of building would be finished in the main with white brickwork with white mortar. The overall design approach has been taken from the Imperial Hotel (1870) which stood near the site a number of years ago, specially the window/fenestration arrangement of a classical nature, where the window depths reduces further up the elevation you go and each window had an ornamental degree of detail to their revels. This proposal takes these features, albeit in a contemporary approach.

6.3.15 Again this elevation of the building brings a different design approach, but one which it is considered would fit well within the street scene/area.

South Eastern Views 6.3.16 These views would be mainly from Parade Street and when crossing over the Swing Bridge towards the site. The main views of the building would be of the corner section of the hotel building, which continues from the eastern elevation of the building and wraps around to the southern elevation of the building. This corner section is again five storeys in height and includes the same vertical styles windows at the upper floors and large glazed openings at ground floor (restaurant/bars) with white coloured brickwork and mortar. However, the Projecting Feature Window Reveals around each of the windows to the east elation are not included.

6.3.17 The scale, mass, design and finish of this corner section fits well within the street scene, and essentially helps join the eastern elevation to the southern elevations of the building well, even though these two elevations are very distinct to each other in design, style and finish.

Southern and South-Western Views 6.3.18 The South elevation again would be a prominent feature, in this case when viewed from North and South Quays, the latter being more distant views. The south-western corner would also be apparent from certain locations along the Quaysides and is of a similar design approach as the south elevation. This building would be a six storey building, albeit the upper floor would be setback form the front façade. The section of the building would accommodate the restaurant/bars at ground floor levels and the 20 apartments would be located at the upper floors, including the fifth floor which accommodates a penthouse apartment which as mention is setback from the front facade.

6.3.19 The design and finish approach of this elevation, is the most "busy" having a number of materials and styles used. The applicants have explained that the approach used takes elements of the man-made environment and the costal environment and being adjacent to the harbour, quayside, the boats, the sails and the masts where all in motion due to the natural environment. From this and partially noting the notion of sails moving within the wind has resulted in the proposed southern façade would move in and out like a sail. Further strong vertical sections (brickwork) are included within the facade to represents the appearance of masts. The finishes if these elevations are a mixture of angled Textured Pastel/Light Coral Cladding System, vertical windows and off white brickwork which included details coursing, with a mixture of vertical and horizontal courses. The top floor penthouse would be finishes with large amounts of glazing and an anthracite clack cladding system.

6.3.20 As noted previously, the impact upon the character and appearance upon the adjacent Conservation Area/Registered Building, these will be considered later in this report. However, purely in terms of the appearance in the street scene, it is considered the overall design approach, finishes, scale and massing are all appropriate in this prominent location. It is noted that other developments with contemporary design, scale and mass have been approved on various sites along Sough Quay, albeit these have not been implemented.

6.3.21 Arguably a section of the proposal which could have a dominating appearance in the street scene is the rear upper sections of the cinema building as these would be seen above some of the quayside properties, especially when viewed from South Quay (but would not be apparent from North Quay). In discussions with the applicant, it is understood that they have tried to reduce this impact by finishing the rear elevation of the cinema building in the same 'curtain' effect

==== PAGE 23 ====

                                      18/00846/B                                     Page  23  of  30

anthracite/black façade as found on the front elevation. This dark finish will certainly reduce the impact and the light coloured and more stark south elevation facade of the new quayside building will potentially help draw the eye away from these upper sections.

Conclusion (Views) 6.3.22 It is acknowledged that design can be a very subjective matter and likely that the overall design approach of this development will not be to everyone's taste. However, it is important when dealing planning applications to try to consider design as objectively as possible. In the various differing contexts of each elevation of the buildings, it is considered the proposal presents a well thought-out design approach which would all sit well within the various street scenes mentions and beyond for instance more distant views from Douglas Head.

6.3.23 It is noted that the uses proposed in the building are some of the more difficult uses to accommodate well within a building. For instance a cinema building cannot have large amounts of windows and needs large square/rectangular rooms. These requirements result in difficulties in terms of the external appearance of a building. Further, as mention already multi storey car parks also have curtained requirements and consequent difficult to design in terms of their external appearance in a street scene.

6.3.24 Nevertheless, this application is considered to be successful in design terms as it has four complete different design approaches, which are affected by their immediate context with neighbouring buildings/street scene, yet bring all four elements into a single development. What results is overall interesting and quality development of different design approaches, which provide the accommodation required but also fitting well within the various street scenes.

6.3.25 The EIA concludes that:

"Based on this assessment of likely townscape and visual effects it can be concluded that the site is a logical location for the size and type of development proposed, and the scale and mass of the proposals are considered appropriate for its location. The proposed development would promote urban regeneration and the re-use of a largely redundant site.".

6.3.26 Overall, the Department would agree within the conclusions of the EIA for the reasons indicated within that report and reason stated within this report. Therefore it is considered the proposals would comply with the relevant polices listed in terms of design.

6.4 Impact upon adjacent Conservation Area/neighbouring Registered Building (StP4(a), EP36 and EP42 6.4.1 The site is immediately adjacent to North Quay Conservation Area. EP34 requires that development will only be permitted where it will not detrimentally affect important views into and out of the Conservation Area.

6.4.2 This section of the Conservation Area has a mixture of buildings in terms, of design, finished, scales and mass. For instance there is the four storey traditional Douglas Hotel building, then the single storey Manx Legion and Market Hall (also registered Building), The British pub which has an "Arts and Craft" styled; a four storey Victorian terrace with orate detailing and then the Manx Stone finishes St Mathews Church. What is clear is that all these buildings are different in almost all respects. Accordingly, when the new development is viewed in the context of these properties i.e. the ones closest to the site; it is considered the new development would be read as the continuation of quality built development along this section of the North Quay and would not detrimentally affect important views into and out of the Conservation Area, rather would have the qualities to fit well with the adjacent Conservation Area.

6.4.3 Significant consideration also needs to be had of the current situation. It is considered that the existing site's appearance and use as a car park has a detrimental impact on the important views into and out of the Conservation Area.

==== PAGE 24 ====

                                      18/00846/B                                     Page  24  of  30

6.4.4 Overall, for these reasons it is considered the proposal would comply with EP34.

6.4.5 The site is also near to a Registered Building the Douglas Hotel, which is a traditional four storey building. Attached to the Douglas Hotel building is the now Barbary Coast Restaurant building, which is fairly new traditional four storey building. This replaced the former The Former Farmers Retail Unit & The Clarendon Hotel, neither of which were Registered Buildings. IOMSP StP4(a) protects the settings of Registered Buildings, and EP42 requires proposal to have regard to their wider context.

6.4.6 In relation to the impacts upon the nearby Registered Building the Douglas Hotel, it is acknowledged that the size and scale of the site and how it wraps around the north and east boundaries of the Registered Building site, will result in having an impact, any development would. Furthermore, the consequent scale and mass of the new development, will also have an impact.

6.4.7 The EIA on this issue comments that:

"The proposed development would not affect the fabric of the former Douglas Hotel; its architectural, illustrative, evidential and associative value would be unaffected. The greater scale of the proposed development may result in it distracting from the building in views from along the quay and from the south affecting the appreciation of its aesthetic value. Aesthetic value makes a very limited contribution to the building's significance and consequently this would result in a Slight magnitude of changes that would be permanent and adverse. This would constitute a Negligible effect. It would not be significant."

6.4.8 Manx National Heritage comments on this matter are indicated within representation section of this report and no objections to the impact on the Conservation Area or Registered building have been received.

6.5.1 The applicants detailed Heritage Statement also concludes that:

"The proposed development will result in a slight degree of harm to the significance of the North Quay Conservation Area and the former Douglas Hotel. The degree of harm is considered to be so slight that the character and appearance of the Conservation Area will be preserved."

6.5.2 It is acknowledged comments made by the Registered Building Officer, that the rear of the cinema aspect of the building could result in a dominating feature over the Douglas Hotel. However, it is considered the view is limited to views directly to the south of the site when viewed from South Quay (not within a Conservation Area). Further the aspect which would be noticeable is the upper section of the cinema building is finished in a dark grey colour, compared to the Douglas Hotel which is painted a light colour. Accordingly, while the proposed building would project above the Douglas Hotel, the darker colour would help reduce the impact and the lighter coloured building (i.e. Douglas Hotel) would likely still stand out more. It should be noted that from North Quay (Conservation Area), the proposed cinema building would not be especially noticeable, given existing built development along the quayside which would likely block views of the cinema aspect of the building. There may be some views of this aspect of the cinema building when stood outside Market Hall building; however, such views are not considered to adversely affect the Registered Building to warrant a refusal, with the Douglas Hotel still appearing as the dominate building in this immediate area.

6.5.3 Overall, while it is accepted that there are some impacts upon the Douglas Hotel, such views are limited from South Quay and only from limited places and such views are also not within a Conservation Area. Accordingly, while the comments of the Registered Building Officer are acknowledged and agreed; the concerns are not so adverse to warrant a refusal, especially when taking the overall benefits of the overall scheme into account and as the views of Douglas Hotel in context with the proposed scheme would in the main be unaffected by the development and it is not considered it would have a detrimentally affect its character as a building of special architectural

==== PAGE 25 ====

                                      18/00846/B                                     Page  25  of  30

or historical interest in the main. Albeit it is acknowledged the potential impact from the view directly to the south of the site from South Quay.

6.5 Impact on Archaeology (StP4(a) & EP40, EP41 AND UEP 8) 6.5.4 The applicants' EIA indicates that their assessment is on the basis of archaeological desk- based assessment, the results of archaeological monitoring and a Ground Penetrating Radar Survey. The EIA identifies the site lies within the historical core of Douglas and these studies have established that the remains of Post-Medieval buildings and associated structures survive within the site. In additional, there is potential for remains dating to earlier periods to be present, though such remains are likely to have suffered extensive disturbance as a result of later activity.

6.5.5 The EIA does confirm that these could be partially removed during the construction period, however, as the proposed development will utilise pile foundations and there is the potential for archaeological to be preserved in situ. Where this is not possible, the physical loss of the remains may be completely offset by a programme of archaeological works that would allow their appropriate recording and analysis. The EIA concludes that there would be no residual effect on archaeological on the site.

6.5.6 A condition should be attached to any approval which seeks a programme of archaeological work outlining the process of how archeologically findings will be reported to the Department and Manx National Heritage and how much findings will be recorded.

6.6 Affordable housing provision (GP4, HP 5) 6.6.1 As outlined by Housing Policy 5 there is generally that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing to developments of 8 dwellings or more. In this case there are 20 apartments and therefore 5 of these should be affordable.

6.6.2 However, as seen in DOI Public Estates and Housing Division comments, they have initially considered a commuted sum payment would be acceptable, which the Department would not disagree with. However, Public Estates and Housing Division have made further comments, that perhaps in this case no commuted sum payment in lieu of affordable housing should be sought, given the applicants have agreed to purchase/provide a number of services that have other community gains, for example; o bus shelters staff welfare facilities for 15 staff (bus drivers); o public toilets & baby changing facilities; o Supervisors Office; and o Bus Shelters and drop off and pick off points.

6.6.1 DOI Public Estates and Housing Division comments that they would recommend that a Section 13 Legal Agreement could be undertaken to ensure the applicants provide such facilities which would be of great benefit to the public. The applicant has agreed to this. 6.6.2 This is an unusual request and the Department is not aware of a similar situation. However, it is not considered to be an unreasonable request and arguable the provision of these facilities at the developers' expense (rather than public money) and also the future revenue lost by the floor space occupied by these uses, would be of more benefit to more people given the provision being provided and the overall importance of this site being developed. In particular, it is noted that the provision of these facilities goes further than simply mitigating the impacts of the development or meeting site specific of general policy 'asks' (as such consideration should not be used to reduced affordable housing provision), but are a wider public benefit which the development would bring. Furthermore, it is noted that the proposal will redevelop a prominent site of previously developed land and is in conformity with other relevant policies.

6.6.3 It is considered that the proposal does not comply with HP5 and this, taken in isolation, may be a reason for refusal. However, when this non-compliance is weighed against the other factors as set out above it is not considered to be sufficient justification for refusal, subject to a Legal Agreement being drafted, as suggested by the DOI Public Estates and Housing Division, to ensure its delivery.

==== PAGE 26 ====

                                      18/00846/B                                     Page  26  of  30

6.7 Impact on Neighbouring Properties (EP22, GP2(g)); 6.7.1 The main property likely to be affected by the development would be the Albert Hotel (public house) which is to the west of the site, with its gable end facing directly towards the western edge of the site. Concerns have been raised due to loss of light and concerns of construction. The latter is not normally a material planning consideration and is therefore not considered to be a concern. However, the potential of loss of light is a material consideration. Planning permission was granted for the conversion of second and third floors into two self-contained apartments (10/00424/B). It is unknown whether the works where undertaken. However, the application will be considered on the grounds that these works where undertaken, as the approved application would have a greater level of impact to it.

6.7.2 It is noted that a total of eight windows exists within the gable elevation of the Albert Hotel. The proposal would be between 5.5m and 9.5m from the gable elevation of the Albert Hotel. The window at ground floor serves as a secondary window for the bar and does not serve a habitable room or the primary source of light/outlook. Therefore the impact on this window is not considered sufficient to warrant a refusal. The first, second and third floor windows (as approved) all served bedrooms, which are habitable rooms, but not primary habitable rooms. Accordingly, while there will be an impact upon light and outlook (any development of this site would likely have an impact) it is not considered so significant to warrant a refusal.

6.7.2 Accordingly, it is considered the proposal would comply with General Policy 2 from this respect.

6.8 Traffic Impacts / parking provision (StP10, GP2, TP 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 & 8); 6.8.1 As per the representation of this report, Highway Services have considered the application in greater detail in terms of a number of highway related matters, including traffic generation, parking provision, access to and from the site, highway safety matters, tracking of all vehicles, including buses at the bus stops, car in the multi storey car park and other vehicles manoeuvring in and out of layby around the site. Full details of highway Services comments can be seen online.

6.8.2 However, as confirmed in Highway Services latest comments they have no objection to the proposal subject to a number of conditions.

6.8.3 It should also be noted the 'Reform Of The Planning System' was recently published by the Council of Ministers, which included a policy which stated; "In order to continue to incentivise and support site redevelopment and the associated economic development, Planning Approval should not normally be given for brownfield sites to be used as temporary car parks.". This was to ensure faster brownfield site redevelopment and encourage socio-economic development. This site is an existing temporary car park (approximately 180 spaces - pay and display) and therefore the loss of the existing parking should not be a reason to refuse the application. As it happens the proposal includes a 198 space car park, (incs 12 disabled spaces and 16 motorcycle parking spaces). Of the 198 spaces, 143 will be available to members of the public. The remainder of spaces will be for Travelodge customers and twenty spaces allocated to residents of the apartments.

6.8.4 The applicants consider that the proposed uses within the new building do not generate a significant number of trips during the day, when there is a high demand for commuter parking so this could still be accommodated by the new parking. The cinema and restaurant generally generate parking demand in the evening and weekend when the the car park is currently under used. This is confirmed by the Town Centre Parking Study (prepared by DOI) report which reveals that the Saturday daytime occupants of car parkins in the Centre of Douglas, Loch Promenade and Lower Douglas is around 45% occupancy, with a total of 1,043 space available. It is noted also that the access to and from the site is via North Quay, which is the same as the existing car park of a similar size. Accordingly, it is considered the level of traffic would likely to similar to the existing situation.

==== PAGE 27 ====

                                      18/00846/B                                     Page  27  of  30

6.8.5 A concern of using Chapel Row as the main access route into the development was raised by Highway Services, Douglas Borough Council and the owner/occupier of the Albert Hotel. Accordingly, the applicant is no longer proposing the use of Chapel Row to access the site, rather continue the existing access/egress off North Quay which is currently used for the existing car park. Accordingly, these concerns have been overcome.

6.8.6 Accordingly, given these comments and no objection being received from Highway Services, it is considered the proposal from a parking perspective is acceptable and the traffic generated by the development is also acceptable and therefore all complies with the relevant policies of the IOMSP.

6.9 Flood risk (GP2(l) & EP10 &13); 6.9.1 The south-western corner (approximately 1⁄4 of overall site) of the site is within an area of 'High Flood Risk Zone - Tidal', the remainder of the site is not within a flood risk zone. Accordingly, the applicants have prepared a detailed Flood Risk Assessment.

6.9.2 The applicants have been in discussion with Manx Utilities in relation to flooding and following these, it was agreed that the site has a flood defence levels (5.77m AD02) do not meet this with the finished floor level of the development vary (4.79m AD02 SW corner of site to 5.46m AD02 in eastern and northern site). However, the applicant has proposed de-mountable style flood defences which would be integrated system as part of the building. As the potential flooding events are tidal only, this gives advanced notice to the occupiers of the building and therefore they are able to install the de-mountable style flood defences. This would seem to be acceptable approach and one which Manx Utilities has not objected to. It is also noted that only less vulnerable uses will be situated on the ground floor, i.e. there are no residential properties located at ground floor level. The applicants have indicated that a flood risk plan (similar to fire plans) will be reviewed and updated for each unit and subsequent building manager will put in place a structure for new occupants to undergo training for the installation of the defences. It is also noted that it is in the interest of the owner/occupies of the building to ensure the defences are put in place if and when required, to protect their units from water damage. Overall, with an appropriately worded condition in place, which gives more details of the de-mountable style flood defences being submitted before works commence, this would overcome the potential issue of flooding of the site.

6.10 Designing Out Crime (CP7) 6.10.1 The current use as a surface car park may result in a feeling of isolation for persons using the bus stops late at night/early in the morning. The re-development of the site in a manner which provides overlooking of the bus stops, together with the improvement of the existing route to the West of the site and the potential for increased evening activity on the quay side suggest that the development will contribute to an overall reduction of fear of crime.

6.11 Open Space provision (GP4, RP3 & RP4) 6.11.1 As the development proposes more than 10 residential units (i.e. 20 apartments) an Open Space provision is required. In this case it is accepted that a commuted sum payment via a Section 13 Legal Agreement should be provided. This is accepted given the site is closes to a number of open spaces provision i.e. The Promenade and Quayside and it is not considered reasonable to consider such provision being made on site. The applicants have accepted this and are in discussion with Douglas Borough Council in accordance with the requirements of Appendix 6 of the IOMSP.

6.12 Fire risk (CP10 & 11) 6.12.1 No objections have been received from the Fire Brigade. Furthermore, this application would require a Building Regulations Application to be made and issues relating to fire would be considered at this stage by the relevant Authorities. Due to this and no objections have been received from this respect it is considered the proposal complies with CP10 & 11.

6.13 Public transport provision (GP4, TP 1 & 2, TF4 DMP and MUA 5 TAPE)

==== PAGE 28 ====

                                      18/00846/B                                     Page  28  of  30

6.13.1 It is noted that the majority of objects to this propose relate to the lack of provisions associated with the new bus station. The proposals considered to be an improvement over the existing, with better and safety drop off and pick up points, and new bus shelters, which are also posited better public footpath. Furthermore, an information centre located near to the bus station will provide travel information and public toilet facilities are also next to the bus station.

6.13.2 It needs to be noted that the land use designation for this site is not for an entirely new bus station. The current land-use designation is; "Mixed Use". The Mixed Use Proposal 5 of the Draft Area Plan for the East in fact comments that; "There will be a presumption in favour of large or comprehensive development schemes for uses in the following categories: Tourism/hotel; Leisure; Entertainment; and Food and drink".

6.13.3 The Policy does comment that; "Provision must be made for public transport and a multi-storey car park within the area.". It is considered the proposal meets these requirement, especially it is considered an improvement to the bus services and beneficial to the users of the buses.

6.13.4 The Douglas Master Plan also discusses this topic (Recommendation TF4) by stating: "...The bus station for Douglas is also to remain on Lord Street". Again the proposal would meet this aim.

6.14 Connectivity through the site (StP10, TP 1,2 & 4, TF4 DMP & MUA 5 TAPE); 6.14.1 Part of the Douglas Master Plan TF5, is was recommended that any re development of this site and neighbouring sites to the north should have a pedestrian linkages running through them ,which perhaps could lead to Fort Street potentially becoming pedestrianised and consequent link into Stand Street. This would then extend the retail circuit across the town. Ideally, this current scheme could have had a pedestrian footpath running through the centre of the site. However, while this is not proposed, the existing footpath which runs along the western boundary of the site would be retained and the opportunity still exists for this footpath to be upgraded as well as Harris Lane/Chapel Row. While this is not part of the application, this application does not preclude or prevent such development taking place. Accordingly, this aims of the master plan could still be achieved. It is noted that the Draft Plan appears to be silent on this overall proposal of improving pedestrian connections from the area to Duke Street/Stand Street. It is also acknowledged that planning approval (18/00889/B) was granted recently for "Street paving and associated regeneration works" which included Market Hill, Chapel Row and a section of Lord Street/Duke Street (area where pedestrian crossing is located), which critically would improve the area, improve pedestrian movement and connectively from North Quay to Duke Street. Therefore, while the Douglas Master Plan suggests a possible solution, to improve connectivity; arguably, with this recently approved scheme and with existing footpath retained (between Albert Hotel and site) it is considered the overall aims of the Douglas Master Plan would still be met, albeit it would in a different way. It should be also acknowledged that the Douglas Master Plan was aspiration and gave indicative way of regenerating Douglas in a number of ways, albeit not set in stone or as policies.

6.15 Contaminated Land (EP26) 6.15.1 The redevelopment of Previously Developed Land can raise concerns about how contamination will be addressed, both in terms of the wider environment and for the safety of future users of the site. The identification of risk and identification of suitable mitigation measures has been identified within the EIA and so it is considered that the proposal complies with the policy.

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1.1 Overall, it is considered the development proposed would result represent a significant development of one of the more prominent and sites within Douglas, which has lay underutilised for many decades. The uses proposed would be comply with the Local Plan, IOMSP, Draft Area Plan for the East and Douglas Master Plan and therefore the proposal in terms of the principle of development is considered acceptable.

==== PAGE 29 ====

                                      18/00846/B                                     Page  29  of  30

7.1.2 It is acknowledge that the design may not be to everyone's tastes, albeit not many objections have been received on this basis. Notwithstanding this, it is considered the proposal would represent a contemporary designed development in proportion, form and finishes which would be beneficial to the existing variation of deign styles in the area currently and be the continued evaluation of the street scene. The mass, size and scale of the building is substantial, and there should be no doubt that the building would become a striking feature from a number of locations identified in this report. However, it is considered this site is a size and on a prominent corner plot which can accommodate the size, scale and mass of development and site well within the various street scenes.

7.1.3 The site is not within a Conservation Area, albeit adjoins/close to two Conservation Areas and near to a Registered Building. However, while it is acknowledged that give the new buildings size, mass and scale it is substantial, it is not considered the various Conservation Areas would be adversely affected by the development and there character and quality would remain. It is noted that the North Quay is made up of a variety of building designs (Arts & Craft, Victorian, Gothic Revival, Georgian & 18th- 20th century Industrial), finishes and scales and this would just continue this evolution of development in the area. It is also considered the redevelopment of the site would actually represent a vast improvement to views into and out of the Conservation Area, which currently is a large unattractive car park which has a negative visual impact upon the Conservation Areas and the setting of the Registered Building.

7.1.4 In terms of the impact of the building upon the Registered Building (Douglas Hotel) the comments of the Registered Buildings Officer are acknowledged and to some extent agreed with. The upper section of the cinema building would project above the Douglas Hotel and would form as a backdrop when viewed immediately to the south of the site from South Quay. This matter was discussed during pre-application discussions and the applicants with use of the darker coloured finishes have attempted to lessen the impact of this section of the building upon the Douglas Hotel and quayside. However, it is only this aspect where the impact is considered to be significant. Remaining impacts from South Quay, North Quay and the surroundings are likely to be limited or not at all and not significant. Further, it should be acknowledged that the Registered Buildings Officers comments are solely on the individual issue of the impact of the building to the Registered Building, while the role of the Planning Officer and Planning Committee are to take all matters into account to come to a balance view. With this in mind and given the scale and benefits of the overall development to Douglas and IOM as a whole; it is considered the overall proposal would supersede this concern in this instance, albeit still acknowledging this concern.

7.1.5 All other matters covered within this report are considered acceptable and comply with the relevant policies.

7.1.6 Accordingly, given the reasons stated it is considered the application would be acceptable, complying with Isle of Man Strategic Plan (adopted 2016), The Douglas Local Plan Order 1998, The Central Douglas Master Plan (2014) and The Draft Area Plan for the East (2018) and therefore the application is recommended for an approval.

8.0 SECTION 13 LEGAL AGREEMENTS 8.1 As noted within this report there are two matters which require a Section 13 Legal Assessment. The first relates to Public Open Space in lieu of the shortfall of onsite provision, which a figure of £20,976 which has been agreed with Douglas Borough Council and the applicant. The second aspect is to ensure the Bus Shelter canopies, bus docking points, driver mess-room with full kitchen facilities and day accommodation for 15 staff, high-quality public Male and Female WC facilities with baby-changing units provided in each, staff W.C's and Supervisors' offices are all provided prior to the development becoming into operation or within an agreed timescale.

9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 9.1 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;

==== PAGE 30 ====

                                      18/00846/B                                     Page  30  of  30

(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.

9.2 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.

9.3 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 : Permitted

Committee Meeting Date: 09.07.2019

Signed : C BALMER Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

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.